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