Dialecticts
A man was set on the
chair at middle room, he turns around and looked some book on the table, he got
up and red titles: Change, then he
took this book and opened it, and he was very interested; a woman set on other
chair in front of man, and she asked: “What do you are reading?”, and he
without astonishment for this new presence, answered: “Do you know how much I was
waiting you?” and woman: “No and I don’t give damn”, and man with a smile: “In
conformity with rules of politeness a
man must wait woman! I made it”, a woman: “In fact I am here now, but what do you
are reading?”, and man showed title on the spine and woman: “Well but lacks my
name”, and man: “What’s your name?” and woman: “Dialectics”, and man: “What is
inherence between you and change?”, and woman: “Change is possible with
dialectics alone!”, and man: “Why?”, and woman: “Because the dialectics is
fight and contrast and in conformity with opinion of Hegel, the war is between
two principles, and fight and contrast are two essential motives for change!”,
and man, much interested to this philosophical argument, asked: “Some examples,
please”, and woman: “Two political revolutions, the first French and second
American; with first in France has born democracy with people decides trough
election day” and man: “Yes but was took power Napoleon he become like king,
and…”, and woman: “Well, you said, like; therefore Napoleone not was king
never, and in Italy he leaded democracy”, and man: “He conquered alone Italy,
although he created republics, that formally were republics, but alone formally”,
and woman: “Yes certainly, but this change was present, and popes and kings
were dethroned”, and man: ”Yes but nobility class rested”, and woman: “Yes,
because it was present centuries before Napoleon, and it changed very much
during Napoleon time; in fact much nobilities men were with Napoleon, and this
is change”, and man: “Yes, but they become Napoleonic for interest and no
certainly because they convinced by Napoleon ideals”, and woman: “Certainly,
but I want consider that change was, and this change was motive after in Europe
for other changes”, and man: “The king in France turned with name of Louis 18th,
therefore where is this change?”, and woman: “Time after when Louis 19th
was king of France for twenty minutes, and he was son of Charles X last king,
and he abdicated during revolution at 1830 in France, and after Henry 5th,
that not was king never”, and man: “Yes, but Louis Philipp I was king!”, and
woman: “Yes but with other principles, in fact he was called by people as
Philippe Equality, or Égalités fils; in fact he given constitution to France
people that was approved by two chambers; in fact in conformity with opinion of
Adolphe Thiers: “He reigns but doesn’t governs”; he was very much democratic
because also Parliament could to decreed laws; therefore was present very much
change, and these are possible alone for dialectics fight and revolution,
therefore where is dialectics are changes, also radical changes”. And man: “Yes
and in USA what were changes?”, and woman: “In USA very little, because revolution
USA was independence war, and monarchies or king or political systems with
centuries historical not were, therefore revolution was and very little change;
we can certainly to say that dialectics was to changes by original model, this
is from European monarchy, that in USA never was present, and therefore USA didn’t
fight against somebody for take liberty, because rights were present always;
but change was through difference from European political, then changes were,
but dramatic less than France, because dialectics is also change without blood,
but change is always present”.
Alessandro Lusana
