The goodness and badness of philosophy

The thought is human one possibility, I repead one possibility, because kindman has very much possibilities, and then think is principal dinamic of human gender, because before that we make something we must think, also if it is mechanical action, we turn always to actions that we have made; one example I think is sufficient, when we write something, we consider the thought never the letters, in fact we, after written, correct what he have written, but during the write we think alone that we must write and concept we are writing, never we consider letters. Philosophy is different, although it arose from thought; but the principal task is badness and godness; this is it is must be bad, rather very bad, because it makes more problems than solutions; one example, one question: what the absolute spirit of Hegel? Hegel didin’t explain it never, and when we haven’t one explication sufficient we don’t search a solution, then this problemi is unsolved, and when we think about this concept is very difficult to understand, the thought of thought of Aristoteles is origin of this concept that have in itself everything; but it is very difficut to understand because it isn’t pratical action; in fact the speculative philosophy is certainly more accepted because is mechanical observation of reality, then very simple, but specular philosophy is very easy in confront to idealism, then some philosophycal think is gratefull other is very difficult, and major question is that idealism gives much problems and after one solution other problemi is present; for example what is for Hegel Rational, it is that is present, but when we understand what is Absolute spirit we meet adgective rational, or what is virtue in conformiti of think of Machiavelli, or what is Rasor of Occam, problems that we whant ignore, because they are difficult, and we need of practical questions to solve practical questions; these problems are stragers to common life; but if we think about to these problems also these are practical, but with grade certainly superior; then philosophy is good and very bad on background we think it.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

Uccello’s influence

Wev know perfectly that influence among contemperary painters is evident, and we can’t deny it because influence is evident for every painter, it is sufficient looking influence of Michelangelo and his Sixtin chapel to other Michelangelo, this is Merisi, Caravaggio(Figs.1-2), and very much others influence we could look; one of these is, in conformity my opinion, between Paolo Uccello(1397-1475), and Giovanni di Ser Giovanni, called lo Scheggia(1406-1486), brother low famous of Masaccio, whom was influenced by Paolo Uccello, on painting style. The horses of lo Scheggia are resumed from Paolo Uccello(Figs. 3-5); but it is valid also for figures, because some painting of Scheggia is to figures, very much near with some figure of Paolo Uccello(Figs.6-8). Certainly lo Scheggia has took florentine line, this is cukture of drawing that after we refind on Sixtin Chapel of Michelangelo, it is triumph of Tuscany drawing culture; we can then consider that this influence is very felt but it was also common, then we can resume this characteristic also for dresses, same sofness for fields and skirts. Same matter for rocks(Figs.9-10), same innatural line same stiffness, that is very starnge for natural and geological worked, but not certainly for Paolo Uccello and lo Scheggia; then influence from first painter on second is present and very strong, this influence shows also that personality of Scheggia was very weack, differently to brother Masaccio that was very revolutionary painter and has influenced also Michelangelo.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3   

Fig.4

Fig.5 

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11