Mythological philosophy

This contradiction is evident and it is very easy laugh, but we can laugh about a philosophy whose name is Empedocles(484 b.Ch-424 b.Ch.)? Answer: “Certainly, why not?”, I think that certainly he can took his theory about birth of mankind through mingling of four elements, fire, water, earth and air, these elements are fundamental to birth of mankind, but the very fragmentary his composition about nature, we can read alone it because we it keep today; milting, as said up the fusion, determines birth of men, but this theory is solely of Empedocles, no! Who else has said this bullshit? The mythology; because the history of Deucalion and Pyrrha, son and daughter of Prometheus and Epimetheus, were married and after that mankind has showed his ingratitude, Zeus, king of goods, has  flooded the word and destroyed mankind, alone survived are Deucalion and Pyrrha that have peopled the word with bones of earth, this is stones; in fact they strike stones to back and born men and woman, to stones stroke by Pyrrha, this mythological history is fantasy but we can think that this myth has suggested the birth of man, we must consider that Empedocles said about four elements that has shipped mankind, and one is earth, and Deucalion and Pyrrha took the bones of earth, this is stones, that isn’t one element of Empedocles but the stones are on and in earth, and it is one of elements of Empedocles, other element is water; because Zeus has flooded the word, and usually it is befalls through water, and Deucalion is son of Prometheus that given to mankind the fire, and Empedocles has thought that nothing birth and nothing die, and the nothing change, but always same, these are some thought about goods, that has born but no die as man; thereby three of four elements of Empedocles are mythological references, it is a translation of mythological knowledge and explication, very ennobled with name of philosophy, but it is always mythology.

Alessandro Lusana  

   

 

Avicenna or Aristotelianism speculative

Avicenna (died 22th June 1037) he has been one of two major philosophy of Islam and very much important studious of Aristoteles and he has took and kept and his think, because during read of Metaphysics we can read and consider that think of Aristoteles has conditioned very deeply the think of Avicenna, because he has adopted same speculative method of Aristoteles, and he has attained that this method was very logical; we can begin with a step of this book, Avicenna said: “The philosophical  sciences are divided between practical sciences and speculative , and difference is that speculative sciences are these through they are searching the improvement of speculative power of soul through of mind in act”. We must consider that this steps have two referents to Aristoteles, first is that speculative name and method that Avicenna has used and second is the name act, because Aristoteles says about act as done matter, this is power and act, power is possibility that something become and act it is done, therefore Aristoteles. Other step very confirming this thesis is: “The subject of mathematic is abstract from matter or something that has quantity, but they study it, which are alone states befall about quantity and no certainly matter…”, this is logical think and speculative exercise, because from study of reality we can take hypothesis and become it logical, therefore think. Other logical step that shows very elementary deduction but is Aristotelian way: “Existent of God we can search to others sciences, otherwaise we can’t search it in others science because is could be that can’t search it in nothing science”, this is very simple step is certainly scant but it is logical think and because it is took from reality, therefore it is true and it has determined think; it is Aristotelian method.Other logical step that shows very elementary deduction but is Aristotelian way: “Existent of God we can search to others sciences, otherwaise we can’t search it in others science because is could be that can’t search it in nothing science”, this is very simple step is certainly scant but it is logical think and because it is took from reality, therefore it is true and it has determined think; it is Aristotelian method. He has adopted way of Aristoteles because he has took syllogism and the Metaphysic is book with major participation to Aristotelian syllogism, because he has took the logical of Aristoteles: “We can think now that each entity, that are two, although identic to other, to intention, it is different to different fundamental intention. Thereby we have two possibilities: so fundamental intention could can be a condition to existent or no. If it is  everything that has this fundamental need to existence  it could identic to this characteristic , but if it no fundamental condition to existence; if on contrary condition to existence, accordingly the need to existence could be alone an accident to need, this is something added and alone when need of existence is reached as need of existence …It is impossible that the two entities are different to intention that is their nature”, I understand that it is very philosophical think, but if we consider two causes to one thing and this causes aren’t different between them they can’t be identical, it is explication of this think; but we must consider that it is syllogisms of Aristoteles.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

                                                

 

Human philosophy

Protagoras of Abdera(490 b.Ch-411b.Ch) has been a Greek philosopher of school of Sophists, and he has considered measure to everything the man, and this is exasperation of Socratic human period, this is research of philosopher now isn’t to nature but man, and Socrates is period of human of philosophy, Protagoras is extreme think of this think, he is contemporary of Socrates, born some years before, and this search about humankind isn’t case is a construction about man that defines human period; certainly Protagoras has very exaggerated, because he think that human is measure, but these exasperations are frequent in Greek philosophy, because the followers of these philosopher has handed down some matters and they have exaggerated some concept, but from fragments of Protagoras has marked this concept, in some steps we can read:  “Of all things the measure is man”, today we can read alone fragments of Protagoras and we can consider his think about other, thereby we can’t consider his think about other. We  must consider that measure is a word that meanings a criterion, a way to judge of man, and it is over more Socratic concept, because Socrates has tried his pupils, although he didn’t so, to search their truth, thereby they become criterion of truth, of their truth, but they are human, and human is measure of all thing; this is he become criterion of truth, no certainly every truth but their truth; so Socrates too. I want point out that this way is Socratic, because during this time interest is man and his truth, Socrates search, with his “pupils”, their truth and Protagoras considers man, a way paroxysmal to consider judge of man a right measure or criterion, but we can think that this method could hasten dialogues about valid criterion or measure, therefore Socrates, we can think, has taught although he born after Protagoras; books of this philosopher are lost and we have fragments alone. I think that it is very little to sift philosophy of Protagoras, and this conception about measure is from fragments that are very poor to tell about think this philosopher, but his importance, for me, is consider human kind to measurer of everything, this is man is principle intellect of word; this is man, now, has importance very relevant despite of nature.  

Alessandro Lusana 

                   

 

 

Criterion of disorder

It is going to seem very strange, because in disorder usually isn’t a criterion, on contrary it there not is otherwise it could not disorder; but if we think  a cute of actor that he must say mistaking, he has prepared this cue and he has repeated until he has kept it in mind, therefore he have to say the order because words have their order during cue, and although untidy this disorder has a criterion, because it follows rule that actor has used to others cues, as right than mistake, because he must follows his criterion, this is keep in mind after very much repeated it, but there is a criterion, because the exercise is same and it is criterion or way that is very known by actor. We go in a room and we are impressed by order, everything is right and everything is clean, and we, although we don’t comment it, because it is very rudeness, but we are gratified by this order and cleanness; on contrary same room is untidy and filthy, we are very impressed from disorder and from filth, our wit is very stroke from this condition and we don’t comment but we are very impressed, but we don’t think never that to this disorder is an criterion that has though from somebody, because in disorder we, with irrational behavior, we set everything on known place; finally and it is very disorder but to others, on contrary to us is perfect; and we can think that it is skepticism; question is, now, one:  “what so philosophy to disorder”, Aristoteles, certainly, is not going to order to this room, it’s right, but daily philosophy is particular exercise to think and know philosophy, question is, how? Simple because this problem, not order and right set to everything, but skepticism is promoter of relativism; therefore what is to you disorder to me it is perfect order, because I can find everything on its place, because I have given this order, that is mine alone, to me, therefore it is order, but to you certainly o, because you could set everything in other set, thereupon you have your order, it is your  alone; thereby you have given your criterion to your disorder or order, that to me it is can disorder or order, this is skepticism, relating to you it is order but to me it isn’t; this is predominance of our personality, in limitated space, expressed through organizzation of our space, it as say: "This is my space and here I am can show my personality"; and it is as semiotic, because we give signals and precise indications about our personality, but our personality, it is mine and not your, thereby we turn to skepticism, to relation my personality it is order or desorder, and I can give signals and suggestions about my wit.  

Alessandro Lusana     

 

Sceptical socratism

The read of Pirrone or his Pirronian sketches  are very interest to some judgement, because from this read emerges the relativism, or better still the socratic relativism; Socrates has always said, I can aid you to find your thruth, but it is possibleif your will is ready, and this is basing to nature of pupil, therefore Socrates has teach, although he has denied it, to find their thruth besing on nature and will of his students, this is moral relativism and he try to condition and preference of student; sceptical explication is very clear and easy, because Pyrron explains that deffirent conditions are present, he said: “Very much men has lovers very ugly, but they think that are very beauty…basing we are hungry or nothe food is very good and very disgasting to sated; this is relativism, but it is present in Socrates, although he hasn’t written it because he hasn’t written a book, but we must consider testified and his teaching that has always try search thruth through wit and intelligence of students, this is relativism, no certainly explicit or said, but very clear by examples. Other motive to this assay is that other socratic consideration; because during read Pyrronian sketches it is possible note that very much controversial examples we can read, examples very daily and therefore we can see it easily, a sound heard in a particular condition, or other object that we seen in particular conditions, therefore it is different or so appear, but it isn’t; this ascertainment leads us to understand that the knowledge is relative, and every one has a knowledge, Socrates has said that he knew that he doesn’t know, but it is regard him, and after questions that he has given other, he noted that other knew nothing, or has had very irrational knowledge, therefore, amid who has knowledge and who hasn’t it we can think that it is relative to every one; and skeptical think says it and it shows through cases that skeptical philosophy says that it is impossible has knowledge. These words are ulterior explaination: "Therefore everything is relative. Some things are similar, others dissimilar. But it is relativity. Threfore everythings is relative", as I have said above, but now is Pyrron that has said it, and other step is important, because Pyrron explained relativity: "So through obiection that this relativity is believed alone by us sceptical they show it, because every thing is relative". The sceptical phylosopher were some and no certainly all, therefore this opinion was relative.
Alessandro Lusana

 

Sceptical Αταραξία

We can consider that the skepticism of Pyrrhon(360 b.Ch.-270 b.Ch) is a Greek philosopher that has had responsibility, we no consider how it is consciously, of foundation of skeptical sept; this philosophical think is influenced from Epicurean think because both address want that every reality and opinion that is denied by reality must no alter soul of man, but he must keep calm and imperturbability, after they explain what are principle of skepticism, but now I want stress, that this calm is ataraxia is epicurean philosophy, because Epicurus has write, in his letters, about ataraxia, that to him was ideal state. This condition is reachable alone without passions; this is if we haven’t passions we can be calm and rational and without angriness and worry, this state is ataraxia, this is from ancient Greek without passions. The main principle of skepticism are very easy, they has said and explain that every reality is questionable, and every reality has two or very much judges to everybody; thereby something can be so or no, it is motive whereby skeptic haven’t dogma, this is opinion no questionable, but this condition can determine worry and angriness, thereby calm or ataraxia are necessary. We can consider the questionable of skepticism, because we can oppose opinion about a tower, because distant it seems circular and when we are very next we can note that it is square, therefore we have had two opinions and we can set these opinions and when we are denied we don’t feel worry, and I repeat that is ataraxia of Epicurus, and two these philosopher have been contemporary, therefore they could influenced one other. This reluctance to every dogma is justified because then every philosopher imposed his opinion and teaching, Pyrrhon has been different and he, after Socrates imposed questionable of truth, and this is teaching and teaching of Socrates, that has taught that every truth is personal, and we can think, logic method, something.

Alessandro Lusana

     

                   

         

 

Medieval Modigliani

It is very strange essay because I have thought very much time ago that a contemporary painter has took suggestions, this is Amedeo Modigliani(1884-1920) has took from ancient and medieval painters and form Byzantine line; he was from Livorno, and Tuscan painters he could see and studied very much time, because he has had it next home, he has certainly took from Cimabue(1240-1320)(Fig.1) Tuscan painter, Sienese particular(Figs.2-3) and it is very understandable if we see some paintings: nose, eyebrows, eyes, and hands, but to neck he has took suggestion from other painter at other time Pontormo from Madonna with long neck(Figs.4,10), same long fingers, same eyebrows and finally same nose; Byzantine line is easily recognizable because it is evident to physiognomies and nose overall; but Modigliani continued to Medieval stile, although updated, and he continued through Byzantine line; in some painting he has suggested body through line(Figs.5-10), and certainly Pontormo above mentioned has suggested neck to a Modigliani’s painting(Fig.11), and lips are very similar. He has took Tuscan and Byzantine line, first to Tuscan education, the line is over all to design from Vasari, biographer of artists at 16^th century, but he attended this academy for one year and after he gone to Venice where he attended Academy of Beauty Arts; but I think that he has took and he has carried always his Tuscan culture, because he has helped this line he gone to Paris at 1906 and his painting are very distant  from vanguards present in Paris then, Cubism and Futurism in Italy, or Impressionism in France, but it is not influenced his style, because he has kept Tuscan and his line.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

 

Out of history

I return to consider other book of Wycliffe and I think about this writer that now he is out of history;  I must consider that he is leaded by personal motives, and he certainly was right, because during Middle age bishops, in Britain, were very execrable, and he was very right, but also popes are very poor; and I certainly doing not justify this behavior, but I insist when somebody lives out of time and he don’t consider that human gender is human and it can be took from passions or other and he don’t evaluated that the Church is human building thereby it is in time and his time, where political dynamics and political alliances and betrayals are to day, and pope and Church live in human time and political time, and military time, and fight time, therefore it is laughable the words: “If pope isn’t superior in secular time and spiritual, but he has alone spiritual service, and not secular it is logic that imperators, kings, barons aren’t members of Church according to rationality isn’t chief…”, it is evident the pope didn’t substitute to lay power”, and other step: “ …it is said that pope to be chief of Church and superior to lay power”, pope has always declare that he superior to imperator alone in spiritual matter, popes known that superiority to imperator on lay power is impossible. He took some steps of Letter to Roman of saint Paul where he said: “…that every person is submitted to authority, because it are ordinated and prepared by God”; therefore religious power is prepared by God, why the pope must inferior to imperator? “Therefore the pope doesn’t judge or dominate on lay time…and he can’t judge about marry”, this wedding is celebrated in the church therefore pope can judge. Other step Wycliffe want that temporal activity and acts can distract to religious and spiritual activity, but Church must consider that the word is political activity, because survive same of Church it is bonds to word. After he thinks that pope and priest can marry, but Christ was not married and apostles neither, other contradiction: “…Oriental Church has approve it” and he added: “Thereby it is prohibition isn’t God order but alone human and canonical”, it is fear but the oriental Church has approved it, and this equal canonical right?I think that he has took arguments that are certainly true but He wanted alone argue, but out of history context.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Ante Lutherhum

When they haven’t clear accuses about contradictions to a matter, thereupon the use ideal matters and theological is perfect to attack and to judge something, but they should give attention to contradictions that are present in ideal question, above all theological; I want consider again John Wyclif(died 1384) and his De religione private, and he said in a step of this book: “It is evident that so for defect about knowledge to pope he(Christ) didn’t give rule of vicar to manage penitences and others sacraments…”, we can agree to this opinion but a contradiction emerges in this speech, what is? Simple that Wyclif after this opinion said, in same book: “…that laymen for his vote given to bishop and God perfect faithful to gospel there is to poverty, chastity and obedience this way to be perfect religious man…this is proof by beatus Augustine in letter to Hipponense citizen…”; perfect think and he was very right but we can think that pope can’t manages penitence who has elected Saint Augustine? We can may the Church, but the Church has chief a pope; but he can’t make it because he isn’t vicar of Christ, and the pope can’t appoint Augustine saint or blissful because he had not have knowledge of God and Christ, and the Church is same, but very strange, Wyclif mentioned a saint that is appointed so by the Church. Wiclif mentioned in other pamphlet, De citatione frivolis, evangelist Matthew and others evangelists, but the Church is founded on Gospel and the Church has a pope because this gospel told about that Saint Peter has been first pope, but may a failed of memory of author but he mentioned a step that isn’t in a letter of Saint Paul, in fact he said: “In letter to Philemon apostle written, without your advisement  nothing I want make…”,  I have read this letter and this step isn’t, and Holy Bible is same fro centuries, I think that Wiclif has used some step to hold up some theories. In same book he has other contradiction because he said: “…here the cury as pope, his chief and saint mother church, it is root of while church…”, but saint mother Church is same that you have attached and you consider devoid of power and certainly devoid of holiness; I think that this pamphlet has been written by two writes, and one has contradicted other, because these contradictions are very childish; and after he is very laughable: “…somehow this triplicity removed God has given to Peter his vicar  to help his church conformity to Christ law", but I think that he didn't remember that successor of Peter are popes, same popes that he has attached, and he considered no certainly seccessors of Peter, and no certainly in conformity to Christ law. he is polemicist? After this very deep concept(laughable) he insisted to contraddiction:"And so it he goes away so chief by false human election  and chief of Church but our chief is Christ...", but pope is under Christ as any faithful, because he is the first faithfull to Catholic believe, but pope fra Gregory 7th pope has called them servus servorum Dei, this is serf of serfs of God, thus he is first serf of God, and election of pope is alone human election, and Christ appointed Saint Peter his successor and pope, but Christ has made it when he was human, thus cardinals are humans as Christ.He is polemicist?“Do we that pope is personaly he serves orders of Christ?”, if we consider what he has said hirtheto we can think that he doesn’t believe it.But he follows through his contradiction, because in other pamphlet he said: “ With hell works a assiduously to division of Church and specially to catholic faithful, thus this fundamental and very strong is the Church”, but the Church is very strong and you want that this strong isn’t because you didn’t recognized authority of pope, and the Church works against hell, but you have identified Church as absolute hell, usually. He after shows that he didn’t believed that Saint Peter has been the first pope, he said: “But it suggests that Peter didn’t chief of Church…”, but when Christ said on this stone I build my Church”, because in Latin language Peter and stone are very similar words, he has said that on Peter he are building his Church, thereby he is pope; in fact he mentioned this sentence: “You are Peter and up this stone I am going to build my Church, and to you I give keys of sky…”, but he has denied that pope is chief of Church, he drunk scotch whisky. No certainly he is drunk, certainly, or in latin language: "certum est"

Alessandro Lusana

                         

 

 

Dolcino we miss you

I have used this title because it is seems think of Wicliff(died 1384) when he spoke about clergy in his pamphlet De duobus generibus hereticorum, where he said:”Two are kind of heretics whose British we must clean. The first are simoniacs, that are the all popes, bishops, priest because they have took richness of Christ…”, these seems the words of Dolcino(1250-1307)  from Novara, a city in Italy, he was a layman has been called Fra Dolcino, and he wanted that the Church was very poor, without richness, without money and other. He was a very medieval utopian because the Church have to money and richness for prestige and power in front of imperators and kings. But idealism of Wyclif continues in the other pamphlet De perfection statu, and he converses about morality and perfect moral and behavior of monks, and he sys that: “…monks especially they must tend to perfect order(interior order) because they have faith, and it let them perfection, in fact they say that their interior order was more than bishop and popes, and it suggests that his order if more perfect, because Christos has ordered, and it is evident that monk must feel, in conformity of act of Saint Hironimus .But Wyclif is also pragmatic man because he is rational and very logic, because he said: “Before go in to his order he has chosen this life, and anyway he has passed four orders, therefore he given responsibility to monk; and we must consider also that Wyclif calls the Church as saint Roman Church; we could ask to him: “Why do you so call the Church? Some pamphlet after you have accused it for corruption and other, why it is Saint Church?”. Answer I think that could be very random and insuffient, and we could consider him alone a professional polemist, but without wit of true religion.

Alessandro Lusana

 

English Latin a relationship with some quarrel

During read of Latin works of John Wyclif(died1384) we can deduce that that some change in Latin of Middle age is present and we can ascertain it to some word of Wyclif as :secunda racio, it is in first sermon of Wyclif because the Latin word ratio is stem to racio and English reason, but yet origin of this word is present because racio is partial Latin, and it is wrong because in some text Latin it is very wrong, in text of a Latin student, teacher should correct immediately this wrong; but during Middle age, to every country, Latin very little known and ancient Greek may four persons, whose an English monk, William of Occam; but I want evidence that this passage from Latin to English is beginning, and we can notice it because in Latin text are present other words: racioni, plural of racio, that is stem to reasons, but now is written as racioni and no rationi, certainly medical change but it is motive to note that also in Latin script, at 1380 this mutation is becoming, because it is, I repeat, a wrong but evidently a wrong that in Latin English was accepted and may it is standard, but it is confess that, also Latin in English tongue is changing, after Germanic, sok stem of 'seek', brengan 'bring', bycgan 'buy' ,therefore influence of more tongues has made English tongue, and Latin is principal because Catholic culture has very deeply influenced both during Roman empire and Catholic monasteries, and examples continue for evidenciam, this is evidentiam, today English evidence, and tercio this Latin tertio, and English third, and preservacio this is Latin preservatio and English preservation, it is seems  that present day English has restored old Latin because –tio is in English tion; of course English tongue has had present but I wanted evident that in some writer we can find some standard error that then was normal.

Alessandro Lusana