/lit/ - Literature

>>21684955
>It wasn't even "was" because it preceded stillness
Nothing preceded stillness? I don't get it. In order for their to be stillness there must be something that is still. But there is nothing hence there cannot be anything. I just can't follow any logical chain that begins with nothing. There isn't even a starting point to the chain. Further in the tractate On the Kinds of Being Plotinus writes:
>Many as are the objections to this theory, we pass on for fear of the ridicule we might incur by arguing against a position itself so manifestly ridiculous. We may be content with pointing out that it assigns the primacy to the Non-existent and treats it as the very summit of Existence: in short, it places the last thing first. The reason for this procedure lies in the acceptance of sense-perception as a trustworthy guide to first-principles and to all other entities.
(IV.1.28) And after this and also in the 27 section he seems to be dealing with something like what you're suggesting.

>>21342170
>>21342424
>>21343072
>>21343442
>>21344782
>>21345437
Refuted by Gustave Doré.

Does anyone else find Milton a much more difficult read than others from a similar time period like Shakespeare and Spenser? I don't know exactly what it is, but I finished reading book 6 yesterday and I think I'm going to have to put it down for a while because I'm really not understanding much.

In the beginning of the last century we came to the realization that beauty and sincerity are pathetic and that opportunism and might are superior since they are where power lies in. The problem is that the same people didn't realize that decentralized power would make everyone a target and now that they came to the realization that their sins are unforgivable they are just waiting for the fall. There is nothing to write for, nothing is sacred and pure and thus it's time to perish will come sooner or later. It was intended to be this way and there is nothing that could stop it since that's just it's logical conclusion.