Berkeley: I confine ray thoughts to my own ideas

During the read of Of human knwoledge of Berkeley(1685-1753), it is a trait about speculative philosophy, and words on title of this trait are significant of this suggest, Berkeley describes phenomenal of knoweldge, and he said that every figure or object are a first presented in mind and after it is knwoledge, but it isn’t idealism or directly ispiration from God, but alone speculative philosophy, because experience is necessary to knoweledge, and threfore every figure or imaginary object is directly from experience; moreover same concept that he tells, this is about idea and knwoledge, is directly speculative, because he has seen first himself and his works on knwoledge and after he has described it, but after a speculative examination on himself, differently from Aristoteles he has, now at least, himself rather other.  Moreover proof of this consideration is a step, he said: “From what has been said, it follows, there is not any other substance than spirit, or that which perceives. But for the fuller proof of this point, let it be considered, the sensible qualities are colour, figure, motion, smell, taste, and such like, that is, the ideas perceived by sense.” Therefore every things is perceived by sense, and I repeat this is speculative philosophy, and: “Now for an idea to exist in an unperceiving thing, is a manifest contradiction: for to have an idea is all one as to perceive; that therefore wherein colour, figure, and the like qualities exist, must perceive them”, therefore we must see something and after we can knowledge, this is pure reality and no certainly divine will, but, according to a title of Nietzsche Human much human, knowledge. Moreover we can see also a directly influence of Plato:“ …hence it is clear there can be no unthinking substance or substratum of those ideas”, but it is very minority compared to speculative philosophy.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Nonconformist: therefore guilty

I am sure that the four rider, mentioning a Italian writer, they are going to be very boring to insistence of my thesis regard condamn of Socrates, at 399 b.Ch., but I ask indulgence because I have proof of this my opinion. I have translated, very much years ago, Apologize of Socrates from ancient Greek and may I have seen this step, but then I didn’t considered. Today I am reading the same Apologize and I have reached two certitudes, the first is that Socrates was very egocentric, he was perfectly aware of his role in Athenes society, in fact he says during Apologize, about himself and he praises himself, because he wasn’t paied to his learning, he was perfeclty aware that he was very stranger, and a step of Apologize confirms this opinion, in fact he says: “Here(this step of tell) somebody can says “Socrates what do are doing? Where born these lies about you? If you haven’t this obstacole that other haven’t, if you don’t make nothing very strange from common people  these lies about you  not would reise”, this step indicates and shown thruth condamn of Socrates, I repeat “…if you don’t make nothing very strange from common people…”, you Socrates are different, you are guilty because you are strange, thereforeyou are guilty, in fact the trial and capital sentence has had alone some votes more than trial innocence, because Socrates was innocent, and he wanted his philosophical life through a sacrifice, but he has wanted until the end as nonconformistly, Criton his pupil proposed to him a saving corruption of sentinels, and he would go away from Athens, but he refused it, he wanted die as nonconformist, therefore in conformity of moral behaviour of Athens he was very strange, but strange because intelligent, because he despised democratic party, because Socrates  can show very democratic but he was proudly no democratic, this is political nature of this condamn, and we can suspect that political power has had fair of this figure, because he could reached power with revolution, although Socrates was very distant by this opinion, but power fairs everybody can, also hypotetically minace his place, therefore Socrates become a enemy. Regard egocentism of Socrates is manifest to a judice that he as expressed about himself, and he repeated above all in Apologize: “I know that I don’t know”, this is an evident esibition, because he has understood after of everybody that original behaviour is motive to attact attention, jhe has mentioned in Apologize the book of Iliad, alone one step, but a man that doesn’t know can’t mention Iliad, he certainly has heard it by a teller of this history, after during Middle age they are going to be very inspirer of De laus novae militiae, but during ancient Greek they sung adventures of Iliad, therefore Socrates could heard these histories, anyway same searching the truth and contraddiction that he find to everybody is motive very wise, and he has used this behaviour because around he has seen very much presumed philosophers, he was the original through difference, because he wanted be example and therefore satisfy his egocentrism, and further proof of this affermation ther is in other consideration, Socrates said: "...I am by god even sent to this city..." he seems Christ. He added other, while he speaks about his condamn he said: "What is worthy to a man poor and well-deserving, and he lives tied from busies alone to exhort you to good? Nothing there is that is convenient, except the daily food in the Prytaneus for pubblic expenses...If I can adjudicate to me that I merit I want the food in the Prytaneus." The Prytaneus was a build where were accomodated guests very important as ambassadors and others and citizens deserving, therefore Socrates has considered himself particularly deserving, he certainly it was, but to say so publicly is very egocentrism. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only by chaos does order arise

This think isn’t certainly philosophical concept, but a simple consideration about some dynamic historical phenomenal, that has needed of some orderer in time very much different, and this consideration grants a consideration about a think of Thucydides(460b.Ch-after 404 b.Ch), this is that mankind is always equal to himself, every time of history it made some thing, and historical questions show it; if we consider the chaos that by civil war in Rome, between Caesar and Pompey, and following get the power and he took order to Rome and empire, because civil war was very radical fight between two parties, popular and senatorial, and “alea iacta est” the die is cast, is words of Caesar to fight Rome and get the power, when Senate denied to him the power, He took order to Rome, as Napoleon took order during French Revolution, he ended the confusion and disorder of extremist Revolution spirit has gave to French he, in fact, take order and imposed it to French country, and he walked away the extremist concepts. After the defeat of Athens by Sparta, thirty tyrants after condemn of Socrates, very homicide, but to political motive, because people of Athens identified to Socrates a strange man that had behavior very strange, and philosophical method very anomalous, then he was responsible of every evil, then Socrates has been sacrificed to order of Athens, but after war of Peloponnese every men was enemy, because Athens has defeat, and very further was time of Marathon. Then this think that affirms an chaos movement has end to order that somebody got, their names can be Caesar, Napoleon and involuntary Socrates. It is possible because people got to a man a symbol, a leader and this is grant to somebody to get power and take order because a government can’t make political job without order. Then sometime disorder is necessary to impose order. I want conclude to other historical example, and I need of go back to Caesar, because I have though after these examples and after wrote last word of this essay, I confess that it is possible, because we keep in mind a think and after we want add somethink; August, first imperator of Rome, take order to Rome after civil war, during his empire Rome became a city of marble by city of bricks, then he impose the peace in empire and after war he imposed peace, then order.  

Alessandro Lusana

                                                                          

            

 

Error of Schopenauer

Arthur Schopenhauer(1788-1860) was a German philosopher that hated Hegel and he expressed very much judgement about philosophy of Hegel, and he though that the think of Hegel was alone abstract and empty idealism, because he, on contrary, has had alone real determined factors, rightly evident and real, he has called idealism alone an empty shell. But we must consider that Hegel was a believer and he didn’t think never that God could inspire the evil, then when he has expressed doubts about conception that from high it has gone, I want believe that he used this judgement alone to attack to Hegel, that he called “the first charlatan”, but I want very much consider that he has understood philosophy of Hegel, otherwise he was foolish, because it is very easy; it is sufficient consider that in absolute spirit of Hegel it is alone brain, because , I repeat, God doesn’t give to mankind the evil, but in conformity of opinion Hegel’s in this spirit is evil and well, all content in absolute spirit, that is the brain, in fact every brain can think the well or evil because experience of twice is present in brain, he said: “the think doesn’t works serves; the think expresses that is man; it expresses essence of man”, but the think is in brain, and alone in brain, then the absolute spirit is brain, that characterized mankind during every manifestations. Then Schopenhauer has wanted alone offended Hegel to personal motives, in fact he has worked his lessons on same hours of Hegel and he has found classrooms empty.   

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

 

Platonic monads of Leibniz

The read of Monadology of Leibniz(1646-1716), a British philosopher, we can understand that the Monads are alone the essence of Platon(428-348 b.Ch.) in this book titled Monadology, he has explained that: “The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance, which enters into compounds. By ‘simple’ is meant ‘without parts”; but it is alone the essence of Platon, in every object is present the peculiar quality that let nature of that object, and every things in nature has his essence, but Leibniz had added that: “This particular series of changes should involve a multiplicity in the unit or in that which is simple. For, as every natural change takes place gradually, something changes and something remains unchanged; and consequently a simple substance must be affected and related in many ways, although it has no parts…The passing condition, which involves and represents a multiplicity in the unit or in the simple substance”, it is alone description of essence and nature of every living being, this is essence and nature of being. It is invisible and inextensible, and it change nature to all things. But it is alone speculative philosophy, because every things or being has his nature and essence; during past philosophy also Platon has spoken about essence and after Aristoteles has enlarged this concept, but Platon has certainly suggested to Leibniz, and Aristoteles has explained very well this concept, the essence of things and being; then nothing new, the essence is explained from 5^th century before Christ, Leibniz arrives late, very compliment.

Alessandro Lusana

                                                        

 

Confutation of nihilism

The nihilism is a philosophical address that thinks that everything is end to end, all is nothing, this think is become from Nietzsche that has told about values, involved religion, and man can raises very much than he can overcome everything and he can become God, this is every important reference that human has had and now has he can overcome. But Nietzsche didn’t said that is the moral and conformism typical of his time has radically influenced his opinion about superman, then he has been victim of this morality. Nietzsche says about man that he can become superman, this is move away false myths as science, religion and other. But he not given a solution or other, he is a Zaratustra of at his time, but as Zaratustra he didn’t give other. We can refute this consideration because we know very well the value of history, and history is human build and at this we can find all is human build, as morality, costume, conformism, opinion that after we and new generations leave, because other morality and values become very basic. But humankind have to substituted other imagines and concepts because it is necessary, and it is poor parent of law, everyone follows it until other opinion is raised; then morality, and other are necessary to man to run his path, during every time, then these superstructures, in conformity of name Marx has given, are necessary to humankind, then everything is necessary so that humankind continues to build that is history, this is time, science, values, religion, discoveries and other, then everything is necessary, and false is everything is nothing or become nothing, because also after centuries the history is repeated herself, in conformity of opinion of Hegel: “The present is past improved”, and we can understand the present with past, nobody, I think, does it, but we can do it, then history and superstructures are necessary also now, then nihilism is nothing, and it is going to become nothing to everytime.

Alessandro Lusana     

                                             

 

 

Impersonal Camus

Albert Camus(1913-1960), a French writer born in Drean Algery, has been very prolific writer and his characteristic is impersonal narration of events and, in fact he tells that happen but through very little references to protagonist, he describes nature, land and very much condition, but never personal, never to his protagonist, also title of his stories is impersonal, we are going to know very little or nothing  of these men and women, he has describes through reference the bodily and expressions, he is very synthetic on contrary about nature and lands he describes through major particulars, although synthetic, tree and other, regard a chosen of a tomb so he describes it: “In the cemetery of hers city has expired a license, on this land proprietaries has erected a tomb very sumptuous, of black marble a very much well…”, he has terminated this argument through very concise description, and after nothing. Other digressions during telling are present and it are very useless to tell: “The courage is to keep eyes to light and on death…”, these are very deviations very frequent and I think that these are useless, because nothing to tell. It is more evident than other during read of The wedding where author is more impersonal and now he uses alone imagines and references very negligible, a history isn’t, personages aren’t and everything is kept on a tell very boring.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

Momentary truth

Every time has a truth, during Renaissance this is 16th century, the true religion was alone Catholic religion but, after, for political motives is Protestantism, although in German land, and with very much difficult; and after Anglicanism in Great Britain, motives has been political, we must consider that Cicero has said “Religio instrumentum regni”, this is the religion is necessary to govern. Every man thinks that has the truth, and we human consider that the truth is traceable in books, through think or tribunal, we have our truth. We must consider condemnation of Giordano Bruno, an heretical man, that has been burnt because heretical, and this is truth and tribunal has made condemnation because he didn’t abjured his theories, today it is depreciable, because every man has right believes to everything, but then it was impossible because one was the truth, this is Catholic truth and never other; in Great Britain the Jesuits were condemned and killed because Catholic. Every examples that we can tell are alone momentary, because we can consider that now it is true and tomorrow, this is then years, it will be absolutely distant from this way think, therefore it is always true but at other moral context, when if it is true or no, it is very important little, because other truth is emerging, a truth that is very distant and further the precedent true, because it is lie to other contest, and that was true then now is laughable, therefore every time has its truth to believe that is truth, because further it will be alone a truth right to that time and context, but after it will be nothing or object to studies, in conformity to that morality and time; every time has its truth, and this will be very momentary.

Alessandro Lusana    

           

 

         

 

Continuos Renaissance

I know perfectly that Renaissance is about art history from 15^th century to second half of 16^th century, and after the style of three principal arts has changed; but I want remark that the Renaissance, that is when man found herself is a very easy interpretation, this is trivial, because we can speak about the social class that has become important, differently from Middle age men were set to classes and Renaissance set men through method but now man is considered to his possibility and capacities, now this spirit of age is evident, now is manifest, and we can understand this opinion from threats that are written by artists. These social class is very humble and poor, Giotto and Arnolfo di Cambio and Nicola Pisano, painter and sculptors didn’t write a threat during Middle age, because certainly economic support wasn’t sufficient for this experience, but Cennino Cennini, Florentine painter at 14^th and 15^th wrote about 1390 and 1437 his threat about painting art. This is possible because painting has took importance, because economic support was very relevant because markets were very rich, and much families wanted their chapels, then painters were important, and now painter is relevant; but it is alone start this is the painter is important from glamour of families, but his social class is inferior and very modest; but during 16^th century, through Lives of Giorgio Vasari, we can understand how much artist has become important; in fact during a dinner in residence of cardinal Alessandro Farnese(1520-1589), Paolo Giovio(1483-1552) an Italian monsignor proposed idea for the Lives because, written Vasari: “While we speak about a thing and other, as we make thinking monsignor Giovio said that he wanted set among his Elogia, this is Virorum bellica virtute illustrium and Virorum literis illustrium… a threat that has told about artist men for drawing art from Cimabue until to our day…”. It is  very important step, because it is manifest interest to a social class become very important, because next to men of arms and men of literature, now artist are considered regardless of class, but alone for their capacities in art, and this is possible both because art is important and man is important, we must consider that no every men are now important because they are artist, but this desire of Paolo Giovio is indicative for a spirit and opinion that now rewards other qualities. If we consider that opinion we can think that who not were considered because member of social class very low, as artists, now is important; Raphael Sanzio(1483-1520) was buried in Pantheon and Michelangelo(1475-1564) now buried in Santa Croce, but he was buried in roman church of Saint Apostles in Rome, his body was kidnapped by Florentine team and it was brought to Florence to prestige of his importance would give to city, but Michelangelo was a people man, but his qualities were admired everywhere, then his importance was very important for glamour of city, but he was always an artist; then we can remark that individual qualities, as Roman empire, were important. A digression after hint to Roman empire; in ancient Rome neither race, origin or class, but everybody can become important because he has qualities, and during Roman empire this is important no certainly class. Now we consider personal qualities and no certainly class, but Renaissance is ended, certainly but humankind is present.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

Platonic Calvinism

I think that we must consider that ancient philosophy, above all Greek philosophy, is very decisive to modern theological think, and this sentence is alone limited some step, but we must consider that origin of this interpretation is very Platonic. It is enough that we consider a step of a book of Jean Calvin and we can look that this step is directly from Plato(428/427-348/347 b.Ch.); from Institutions of Christian religion we can read: “…it is evident that the man could not know himself if he don’t raise to God, and after he will go downing after to see himself”; this step is very important to heathen origin, and specify from Plato, because we must consider that Plato tells about soul of men that has had knowledge of word to Word of Ideas, where soul has a speculative vision of knowledge and after this soul will goes down to body; then God is Christian translation of Platonic Word of Ideas, then we must see always to God to know our self. Calvin continuing with other reference likewise Platonic, in fact he sais: “The man is habited to see black and darkness thing, and when he find new objects and turns his eyes other where he thinks that these are white and clear, but after he consider that these objects are mixed to blackness and darkness”; other think of Plato, because when man has seen reality and he remember that is Word of Ideas he find defects and impurities, typical  of earthy word, because it is ideal vision of a divine word that is purely health. Then Plato has inspired indirectly Calvin, because it is evident also to other step: “Knowledge of God is act inherent to human soul”, then: “…God has given a knowledge about him and he revives memory through sparks that are present sometime…” this is memory of Plato of Word of Ideas, when man remembers something and he has took it from ideal word.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

                                                 

   
 

 

Magnificence and secularism of architecture: Borromini and Guarini

Two architects that has remarked the form and no certainly the principal function of build, in fact Francesco Borromini(1599-1667) and Camillo Guarino Guarini(1624-1683) are two architects that has used and abused the geometry, they have built alone to the architecture, expressed forms that were secular because every costumer was an through to expression and built of form, that has nature and method very different from Renaissance; it isn’t rational and aseptic but life and irregular, uses the geometry and it gives life to other forms, architecture is necessary to forms that can express, every object of architecture can become other. The drawings of Guarini are a clear examples of these play of geometry(Figs.1-2) Drawings of architecture civil and ecclesiastical, is a collection and it has gathered drawings and one is very adherent to particular that I have now expressed, use of geometry that can modify same form; a tympanum can become right (Fig.1) or strange(Fig.2), because a column can be very right(Fig.1) or become very irregular(Fig.2), naturally this second form is from Bernini(Figs.3-6). An use very irregular of geometry is took from Guarini by Borromini and saint Ivo to Sapienza(Figs.7-13a), where Borromini used geometry with a freedom very marked; he conceives the freedom of forms and used same geometry of renaissance with other method; same think of Guarini(Figs.14-17). Two architects that have used forms and drama of forms with same spirit and have used architecture to forms, then different forms, then Guarini said: “The symmetries of architecture can between them be different forms".

Alessandro Lusana     

Fig.1

 

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Fig.12

Fig.13

13a

Fig.14

Fig.15

Fig.16

Fig.17

 

The late Mattia Pascal and fame of history: fakes and fame that become historical reality

This assay is a complaint about a use and abuse that we have usually believed and this phenomenological custom is connatural to humankind, and it had used and described, with irony from Luigi Pirandello at his The late Mattia Pascal; protagonist of this romance is Mattia Pascal a guy that is disappeared from a city and everybody think that he is died, and he said to end of this romance: “It is very beautiful bring flowers on my tomb”; this is romance is a masterwork, because it tells truly custom that alone very few follow; this is the historical fakes and common morality, this last is principal motive to follow and they followed these historical fakes. Mattia, protagonist is life and when he is exiting from cemetery somebody asks to him: “Are Mattia Pascal?” and he answered: “The late Mattia Pascal”, because I am died in conformity of common opinion, then I am life it is very low indifferent, because important is alone common judgement, then is more common opinion is valid no, certainly, other. This phenomenon, that has showed the idiocy and opportunism of very much fake historical men, has tells fakes and untrue historical truth. Everybody has believed to these fakes more to disinterest than other. After these fake historical men other has caught these fakes and have followed it, because to begin a examination of these presumed truth is very difficult and tiring, it is more best follow the fakes than search the truth. Everybody follow this criterion is unworthy to write the history or philosophy or other. Then when you must read history you must always consider that these presumed truth is alone opinion of historical man then it isn’t you must consider that it is opinion, no certainly the truth; as common opinion has said that Mattia Pascal has died. And I want end this assay through a sentence of Pirandello: “Keep in your mind that during your life you will meet very much mask and few face”, this is you will meet very much fake men and very few sincere persons.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Tempora currunt sed modus restat: identity of one costumer

Architecture and his costumer is always very much characteristic of one architect, and style is evident to many works, we can identify Borromini, Bernini, Michael Angel and other. We should consider that it is very rare identify a costumer through style of a built; it is very anomalous to identity of art history, because one costumer we can identify to documents or literature, this is ancient guide and other; but identify a costumer without documents and alone to style is complex; but in Sermoneta it is possible because the style is same for many centuries: we must consider that first caetanea church this is Saint Joseph(Figs.1-2) with lozenges on sides and tympanum on center, we can consider that it is style of 16^th century, this is 1525, when this church was erected from Caetani family; and opinion and judgement about style is very right because this rational stile is connate to century, but to use, after centuries, same style is very anomalous; in fact other two churches of family of Caetani were erected during 1685 or restored during  of 18^th century, these are Saint Annunciata(Figs.7-10) and Saint Mary of Fossato on year 1685(Figs.3-6). We can see same style of Saint Joseph, same lozenges and same tympanum, that isn’t to Saint Mary of Fossato, but it is on high side of façade, and intern is same unique ship(Figs.2,5-6), as Saint Joseph and Saint Annunciata. This is very meaningfull because through this style we can identify costumer and repetition of these style of costumer. It isn’t determined from preference of costumer, because style has changed, Borromini and Baroque and other styles have rose and architecture used and mixed it to façade; then it is an reference to Caetani, this style is Caetani style.  

Alessandro Lusana  

    

 Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

Μέσoς: this is to tell history

In conformity to opinion of Aristotle, the μέσoς this is middle measure is perfect; certainly for a judgment, above all historical judgment; when historical man has told about pope Alexander 6^th Borgia, a pope that rose the Church And has followed habit and sin of 15^th century, with nepotism and try to rich Church, certainly a costume that today we refuse and condemn, but then very normal. Historical men, Guicciardini is a preclear example about to tell with hearsay that he has confirmed with his narration and he has condemned Alexander 6^th pope to eternal fire of hell. We can read fortunately three books about Alexander 6^th of Andrea Leonetti, that has told about this pope with a soul and spirit very defensive, and he has told the truth about very much episodes with documents and letters and other, and he has corrected very much opinions about this pontificate. This is a work very bold because author has corrected judgment and fatherhood very false, in fact Lucretia was his nephew, on a document, we can read neptis eius this is his nephew, and no certainly daughter. The simony  election is other lie because Alexander 6^th has had a uncle Cellists 3th that was pope and, evidently, conclave has wanted followed policy of this pope but through Alexander 6^th . Oreste Ferrara other Italian historical and attorney has explained other questions; the legendary simony of Alexander 6^th is suggested by gifts of his personal cloth to cardinal has voted him in conclave and other. These historical men are very important because we must consider that also Pastor, historical man of popes, has followed common opinion and he did not see documents. Then although I admire these books, I must see that to an episode Leonetti hasn’t consider documents; it is subtraction of Sermoneta and after donation to his nephew Cesare Borgia, because Leonetti has said: all lands were subtracted through armies to failed vassals, or if that are subtracted through sentence of pope, as to Sermoneta, these were granted for own of Church to equivalent price…This is false because Alexander 6^th has excommunicated Caetani family and has granted Sermoneta. Then this narration is false, and we must consider that the history we must tell with documents or hypothesis but we must keep the μέσoς, this is the truth and balance to tell; then wrong historical men that has told about Alexander 6^th we must condemn, we must  lies of defense, and we must, no should, stand on right measure and consider historical contest and documents, then truth, without emotional involved, and always consider that we are witness of past but without condition moral, economic, social that has determined these judgement, then we are witness after centuries, and we must be μέσoς, balanced to tell history.

Alessandro Lusana