Republic: between ideal and pragmatism. Two methods and two persons

The book of Plato the Republic is a result very interesting because beyond the ideal considerations, that are utopian; interest is in speculative rationality of Socrates and Platonic ideal; in fact during read of this book we can ascertain that this book is divided between ideal consideration and very speculative analysis, that is alone Socratic, this is from a philosopher that has been logic and rational in every days. He said about custodian that they must be honest and strong, they must exercise with armies and gymnastic, they must bear sorrow and toil and flatters. The utopian think began with follow words: “First nobody can have a good, if it is staple, second nobody can have a house or warehouse to let access to everybody, the staple they have from community, as salary…”; after a description of a strategy to war, and some particular, human typically Plato seems forgives it, a chief said to other chief in the city allied: “We not use gold or silver, because it are forbidden, o contrary you use it. If you want ally to us, you are going to have gold of enemies city”, human character and peculiarity is that mankind has in his wit and in his will owner of gold and silver and others richness, therefore it is almost impossible that a man want die to his city and he refuses gold. I think that size of this book very imaginative is a step that Plato used to build his ideal state, imaginative to his time, this is administration of policy from women, in fact he said, regard commission to exam of sons: “the commissions can be mixt, because responsibility of state are equal to men and women…”, this is a very important step to his emancipation of female sex, but it is alone ideal think. Second step very imaginative is common richness and abolition of possessive adjective mine and your; al is common, he said: “Therefore we must be agree also regard that we have said, this is that they don’t have house or land and richness, but they are going to receive by other staple to compensation their work of defense…”, it is simply absurd; and much centuries after this bull ships, a Italian historical man, Francesco Guicciardini, in his more famous book, History of Italy, mentioned the particular, that is personal interest to his owner, because alone so a city can be defended, and chief can use this suggestion and interest to use defense and conquer other richness.; Guicciardini sees his time and habit of his inhabitant, Plato fly on cloud and very sorrow that this fly to make also Socrates, that while was died, fortunately, because I think that he could fire before Plato and after the Republic. It isn’t political think but alone bull ship necessary to keep this imaginary city-state. We must consider that this book is written by Plato and has two natures, one the rational pragmatism of Socrates, and second is fantasy of Plato; the first sees reality and mankind, and the second has alone fantasy and ideal imagine of Plato, that is imaginative. The last consideration, if this model of city is perfect to defense and life of inhabitant, why nothing cities of ancient Greek has used? It book he has written between 380b.Ch and 370 b.Ch, thereupon Athens could have adopted this model; in fact some step after he has written: “…The our think was not demonstrate that these models are workable, but to consider these models to felicity and his contrary, so to understand the proximity these exemplars…”, therefore this book is a model and criterion to education of man, thereupon it is absolutely abstract.  

Alessandro Lusana 

 

                       

    

 

Socratic Aristoteles

Through read of Repubblic of Platon we can undestood the spring of razionality of Ariastoteles, that is evidently and mecanic in sillogism; some step of Repubblic can gives explication of this concept; “…To whom and what justice must returns to have thi name? We must be coherent to said after, we must give favours to friends and harms to enemies. You say that to Simonides we must give good to friends and harms to enemies?”, this elementar step is normal but it is alsoa teaching about the razionality of Aristoteles; because this logic think is important to understand the philosophy of Aristoteles, sillogism, that is peack of this rationality, because he used the logic and the formal logic, and it is coherent in logical development, abstract it is concept, because in real life it is different certainly, but in logical think is perfect, this method of philosophical teaching is from Platon; other step: “…when we play who is valid aid the right man or expert player?”, answer: “Expert player” and other: “We can set stones to build brick is opportune to have the right man or  mason?”; these answer we would give to somebody that has asked same things; certainly but is is the origin of razionality of Aristoteles, at last to method; and other step, I think, ground of this way, they are saying about the right man and Socrates says about a sentinel that has took secrets of enemies: “The sentinel is very good because he has took secrets?” the answer: “Certainly”; and “Thereupon if one man is very good sentinel he is also very good thief”, therefore the right man is clever to keep money and he is likewise to thief”, answer:” Certainly”, therefore, ends Socrates: “We are standing to evidence the right man is also a thief…”, these steps are very explain of rationality that has origin in Socrates and follows to Platon and come to Aristoteles, thereupon we can think that Aristoteles is socratic thinker, althoug he hasn’t known Socrates; and this sillogism is mechanical think that we can tookm from Socrates but through Platon and after to Aristoteles. Other step: “…So is friend who seems good and he is so. Who seems good but he isn’t so, he is also mislaiding friend and certainly no true, and same criterion is valid to enemy”; other: “From this think we can undestand that friend is right man and enemy evil…”. It is razionality thought but is is also Socratic.

Alessandro Lusana

 

The man of Pietro Aretino

During read of letters of (1492-1556) sometime befalls that some punctual reference to human nature there is, and Aretino very synthetically shows very truth of human kind. The first notation is regard religion; in fact in a letter he has expressed that man doesn’t religion when is predominant private interest; it is very truth, when Charles 5^th, catholic imperator, want alliance with protestant to destroy Francis 1th, king of France; therefore religion, now, is very inopportune and Charles 5^th and he didn’t consider that his allies are protestant because enemy is Francis 1th; in other letter, to Gian Antonio from Foligno(Italian city), and dated 3th April 1537, he said, regard his book: “…of people that has accused I laugh because is costume to reproach laudable thing…”, it is very truth because to envy critic and other offences to something or somebody, above all to a very remarkable thing. Other letter in 5^th 1537he said about Alessandro de Medici:…I give honor and cry him by men that would not honored and cry never, I have took lodes to him from mounts  who, to envy, reproach him”, to blame somebody alone to envy is natural human kind. In the 3th may of 1537 other letter has equal judgement about envy: “The richness brazen audacity of evils is cause of these whisper that other give against your fame”, this is common people sais against you because you are rich and famous; thereupon usually envy. All continues always to same way, because in other letter he says: “I have very cure dearest son, that the melancholic reproach me because if they lode me I therefore seem as them. And envies with offense to me the virtues they think angry, on contrary they I am happy because I begin become glorious because I am envied”, and other letter was right: “…because habit worry in house the perfidy, man is habit to bear offenses and he became king of patience…”, everything is true because with habit every man considers offenses as natural reaction, therefore it is became natural.

Alessandro Lusana

  

 

Pander

Pietro Aretino(1492-1556) a Italian poet that during his life has made the ruffian; I estimated Aretino for his atheism and irony that he has expressed on his epigraph, very amusing, but I don’t abide the ruffian also during past time, the read of his letters is very instructive to this behavior, because he written to imperators, kings and popes and other, and he has written Lustful advisements, a book very sacrilegious and vulgar, but he has written The life of Saint Catherine a ruffian book to attain a wage form a cardinal, but he has not had it, and he ordered that on his epigraph was written: “Here is buried Pietro Aretino, Tuscan poet, that has wrong seek say about everybody, except of Christ and he has excused by words “I don’t know him”, but in letters he has showed his very fear and formal respect to power men, he was son of courtesan, and I think that he has followed job of his mother, because he was ruffian to everybody, and courtesan is ruffian to everybody, until somebody is useful, because after  he has very soon forgotten, whore is even so, he has changed patron and financier very much times even a prostitute changes customer. He has written in 1526 Lustful above mentioned and he has written: “Jesuit sacristan father has had took very much luxury that to withhold it he has putted genital in saint water”, sacrilege verses certainly, and he a years after has written a letters to Clement 7^th pope: “Although the fortune domains, our Lord, states of men, where put hand God…as your lordship ask to Jesus with prayers…”, but is same Pietro Aretino that as written Lustful advisement or homonymous? He is same writer, same writer of epigraph above mentioned. I know that at that time these formulas, very false and hypocrite as is diplomacy, are oblige to a letters above all to power men, but he could not writes these letters, or not send to these power men, but he hasn’t attained something, therefore he is a ruffian. I can accept this behavior when is life in risk or other that we consider very important to our survival but he certainly hasn’t this problem, he wanted money alone, as courtesan want favors and money, in Latin language we can say: “Sicut mater sicut filius”, courtesan his mother it has been him.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Nothing is relative

During the read of Avicenna and his Metaphisical (980 b.Ch.-1037 b.Ch) a step is very interesting, because is expressed relativism; in fact he said: “You have learned on books of Logik the difference between that isn’t to virtus of something and that whose essence they haven’t said alone to rapport to other; this is very easy, although so read it seems very difficult, but if we think that in winter we usually hope that heat, therefore summer, but summer is hot and we will it because winter is cold, and this relation between two seasons and their difference exists, and we prefered summer because is a season very hot on contrary winter is cold; first has direct relation between cold and heat that we connected to two seasons, and this difference is the relation of these seasons, but one is present because other is present. It is simply ridicolous to his facility but we was saiding about natural fenomenal but we can esteem two concettual and abstarct think, this are all and nothing; in fact as summer and winter we can think that one is relative to other, because without all could not be nothing, that in my opinion is conceptual alone, because isn’t in reality, but this holds up the truth because reality nothing isn’t and all is just as much illusion because all what we think and mean? All and nothing are concept abstract and relative one to other, why? Because without one other would not be, nothing is contrary of all and it is contrary of nothing therefore they are relative, one can’t exists without other. Other concept that we can use to explain this connectionand relativism, we can read this step: “…the multiplicity is present with unity alone , and it dessapears with desappears of his unities. The molteplicity doesn’t desappear to itself but accors that first desappear his unities and after desappear the moltiplicity…”; this concept says that relavely to unity, that is composed bysingle unity, this is the number then is composed by then unity of one, that is unity because are then that have composed it; therefore the unity of then is present because are then single unity of then this is one plus one and so until then, thereby the unity of then is connected to one and series of one untile then. It is normal and elementar, certainly, but it is thruly elementary and nobody think it so, I remember words of Robert Musil(1880-1942): “The monument is so great that nobody see it”, this concept is so evident that nobody thinks it; therefore relativism between all and nothing is present because both are present, exist it, otherwise if one lanks other can no be thought. Finally I can mention other step that synthesizes this concept: "...you have learned that the essence of something we can tell through rapport to other..."

Alessandro Lusana 

      

 

 

Damn Tuscans

The title of this essay is original, no certainly, it is an Italian expression that has object the Tuscans, now I not heard it, last time I were old 10 years, and remembered this judgment when I have thought a question, this is localism of Giorgio Vasari(1511-1574) biographer of artists and painter himself; this think is because am reading a book about Giotto, and the steps of Vasari about graphical art, that is characteristic of Tuscan school, it is enough remember Michael Angel and Sistine Chapel(Fig.1), and we can very easily the style of Michelangelo and his culture of drawing, the bodies are limited from lines and it show their presence on figure that are colored but without heavy, as the Venice school where the color is chiefly element to painter; the hard color we can see to Titian Vecellio(1490-1576)(Fig.3) or his master Giorgione(1477-1510), and we can note the heavy color that is peculiarity of Venetian school, on contrary Tuscan school and Vasari above all considers the drawing as chiefly shipped to painting, but drawing that is present in painting and it is observable, I have mentioned Sistine Chapel, but Leonard is same(Fig.2), his painting are Tuscan culture of drawing, this character of Tuscan painting is going to be until Modigliani between 19^th and 20^th century; therefore it is very important to study of art history. Vasari lives of artists says: “…on the places and on earth he(Giotto) drew sheep and other through a sharp stone, without he has knowledge of drawing, and Cimabue very astonished asked to him if he want come with him, and Giotto answered that it is possible in conformity of judgement of his father…and he became so clever that he has outweigh his master and clumsy Greek style(Bizantine), has equalize his master and he became good imitator of nature” we must consider this miracle in art history, because all is born from drawing that Cimabue seen in 1278, when he has been in Rome; thereby renaissance of painting art is occurred by a drawing, but as we have read, this element is typically Tuscan, therefore new history of art in born in Tuscan and through a Tuscan as Giotto; if somebody thinks that it isn’t localism I invite him to read lives of Vasari; certainly Giotto has been genial painter but Vasari didn’t known Roman painting about 13^th century(Figs.4-5), that Cimabue could see and describe to Giotto, and he has took it, but Vasari was very busy exalted Tuscan manner, and I think that he has seen Roman painting he could write same this live so. The last precision, name Giotto is a short form of Ambrose. Anyway the judgement is constant: Damn Tuscans.

Alessandro Lusana   

    

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5