Borromini dixit

The Full relation of Francesco Borromini (1599-1667) Italian architect has worked very much in Rome, during his project and built of Oratorio of Oratoriani(Figs.1-2), Rome, he has written a relation about this build, he described every step and he has given some information about façade, and he has said: “ ...half and to form of this façade I though the human body and he has open arms , as it embrace everyman that goes in…”, this architectonical think is normal, at least to Church, but we must consider that this concept has had Bernini also, and he has expressed to colonnade of pope Alexander VII(Figs.3-4); this relation Bernini could read because patronage of colonnade of Saint Peter was same pope Alexander VII and he has had Secret almoner Virgilio Spada, and Borromini has worked to Spada false prospective(Fig.3) in family’s palace(1652-1653), and Oratorio has had ended to 1667, and in same years was ended the colonnade. I think that Bernini was informed by Alexander VII pope that this think of Borromini was present, and Bernini has took to his colonnade; because Virglio Spada has traded geniality of Borromini, both his false prospective and Oratory, and he was very next to Alexander VII, thereupon the pope may have informed Bernini of this think and he has developed to colonnade of Saint Peter; certainly work of Bernini is very evident and certainly complete in comparison to Borromini Oratorio, but we must consider that Borromini has had very little space and he has suggested alone this motive of embrace. Borromini and his architectonical form suggested to Bernini same dynamicity of perimeter that he has used to Saint Andrew to Quirinale(Figs.6-7), because the church of Saint Charles of Borromini(Fig.8) has been ended about 1644 and saint Andrew to Quirinale 1658; therefore Bernini might have seen the dynamic architecture and he has certainly took this concept and this architectonical wit; therefore he has took also this idea of embrace from Borromini.

Alessandro Lusana    

                                 

                                  

                                                                                     Fig.1

Fig.2

                                                                                  Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

 

American atheism

During a American book, that is written by Thomas Paine(1737-1809), he born in Union kingdom, and died in USA; the book is The age of reason, he said that: “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any other church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christion(this is Christian), or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolies power and profit”; we must consider that it is very exaggeration, because nobody has imposed that everymen must believes; but interesting is history of atheism because he has anticipated Ludwig Feuerbach(1804-1872), that has said same thing regard to religion, and he has more solemnized the man as unique creator of God; until now Feuerbach is though as anthropological atheism, bur Paine has preceded him; certainly in a country that has allowed it and these expressions, because in other country of Europe he would be accused and condemned; but the Illuminist wit is in the followed words: “ I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise ; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine”; thereupon he is very tolerant to believes, and in USA it is normal from that time. Other consideration very right to Paine is following: “Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.”, therefore he confesses his tolerance and his freedom to think, but I repeat where it is tolerated, this is in USA. A consideration, this is analysis of social behavior is more evident and it means that USA are very tolerant to every opinions, in fact he has said: “  It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society”, he has said and has used an expression, this is: “ mental lying “, that is a normal consideration of daily hypocrisy of social contest, in fact he has said; “When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime”, thereupon he judges the society and his respectability, very hypocritical.

Alessandro Lusana  

    

 

Hegelian skepticism

The absolute think of Hegel beyond Aristoteles that is natural spring of this philosophical concept, this is the human brain, that has both negative and positive think and will; we can consider that skepticism is other motive; it is evident when we consider that duality of this think, this is good and evil is took from duality of skepticism; in fact the skeptical philosopher considers that, as Hegel has explained very goodly, follows method very revolutionary, because he has took both philosophical truth but also the negation of this truth, he says: “it could be truth but it not could be truth”, and this duality is reference to Hegel to his duality; it is in brain can be good and evil, that is correspondent of negative and positive of Hegel; two concepts that are contrary to their nature, and the skeptical philosopher has adopted same method; it could be truth and no truth, contrary concepts. During lessons of philosophy Hegel mentioned a skeptical philosopher, Sixth Empirical, a major skeptical philosopher in the history of philosophy, and Hegel took other think: “The point very meaningful is clarification to that nothing is in itself and nothing is equal to itself…”; then we can understand that in absolute spirit is positive and negative, thereupon everything is different to apparence, that is positive and negative. Hegel pursues long his think and explication through examples, he says about skeptical philosophy: “The rapport of skepticism to philosophy, is in explication of everything is particular and universal, infinitive in front of finished, undetermined in front of determined”, therefore it is Hegel and his philosophy; universal we can know through particular, that is certainly Aristoteles, but Hegel has took also skepticism, duality of concepts that are present in reality; if Sixth Empirical read it he would say: “it isn’t now, because it is my think, then you are reading my book, and you are thinking my skepticism, but I lived during second century after Christ, then it is unoriginal. A concept of skepticism is took again by Hegel, he says: “the result is negative and this is negative this is a determination…”, in philosophy of hegel the reality is negative because material thing, and: “the think doesn’t recognize that in negative is positive also…”, but it is a concept of absolute spirit that we have read.

    Alessandro Lusana  

 

The reaction of Niezsche

I don’t think that nobody has though that the superman of Nietzsche(1844-1900) is theory of a man that has hated his society and behavior. We must consider that the idea of superman is a theoretical and utopian think that has his enemy to society very formal and hypocritical that in Europe has had consolidated; aesthetic life that was empty and useless, alone the form and behavior was important; I think that Nietzsche has reacted to this false word. I we think about superman, a philosophical and theoretical man of Nietzsche, that hasn’t human characteristics because he is over daily concepts of morality and other bonds to society, figure, elegance, behavior and other; thereupon other myths, that we attend every day to several motives; then he overwhelming the normal morality and normal respectability, that is fundamental to live in society; and Nietzsche in the Over the good and evil overwhelming these concepts, in fact is Born of tragedy he considers, and it is very important to wiling that I have found here, the spontaneous live , the spontaneous behavior, that prescinds to society; and the religion is enclosed in this matters  because he has considered that religion is motive to hold the wit of human gender; he has consider his society and respectability of his time and hypocrisy of his society; when enemy of Nietzsche is his time, his behavior, his custom, because he has insisted to spontaneity, why? Because he has been witness about his time; he is the prophet of immoral spontaneity, I use this adjective and I want mean that Nietzsche is supporter of human behavior; certainly he has been involved by morality and respectability of Belle epoque, and he certainly would have refused what he has said, because in conformity of opinion of Oscar Wilde we can say that: "Spontaneity is a very difficult behaviour to hold".

Alessandro Lusana   

   

Deo ordini maximo: the council of Trent and Catholic reform(1545-1563)

An essay that maybe can very false and a homage to Catholic Church, but it isn’t, because we must consider that moral condition of Catholic Church was very disastrous, and the motive of Lutheran Reform, helped and supported by economic motives by German principles, has had very much motives to become so great. Then the Church has remedied through a moral and organizational order in his intern questions, and it imposed his discipline also to practical questions, predication, and correction and canonize the Holy Bible, through corrections and interpretations very much strange. Some example is necessary, and I understand that it could interpreter as strong persuasion, but we must consider that the Lutheran Reform was very dangerous and very much persons has took it and has believed it; then was necessary also the childhood was saved by this doctrine, thenin 15^th April was decided about childs: “Bischops aren’t obliged but priest yes, they must current them or priest or other …”, and the Council has forgotten the material churches, in fact: “To edification  every church and to useful of every people, we has ordered that in every cities the word to Presbyterians license has given…” and this wit of order is evident to following words: “if deaconess are worth second Christ is told in gospel…”, this particular attention to moral behavior is necessary to the Church in that time. Moreover to understand the holy words and predications is necessary that the faithful know what holy word said: “In church when results are very poor and where very poor participation, the Presbyterian must teach grammar and theology to poor student, at last the grammar…”, this tradition is present until years 50s of past century in Italy, and this habit is valid to laic but also in the convents: “In the convent where studious is oblige they have simile lessons about the gospel…”; and external to Church: “Healt doctrine to defense and growth of this doctrine. In gymnasiums also public, where isn’t institution of these lessons, principals more religion to pity and charity they must leaded…”. I have given only some point necessary to understand that order in moral behavior and cultural has been very opportune to Council; by now the fail of Catholicism was evident, and it would be happened during other centuries and to other causes, the power has been always valid motive to use both God and men.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Easy science

This assay is about a method that Aristotle has tough to a easy demonstration of logic and science, this book is entitled Analytic first, and describes the method about the logical think and a way very simple to reach it; until begin it starts: “…this research is concentrated about demonstration and it is corresponds to demonstrative science, and after they must explain what is a proposition and word and syllogism, what is perfect and imperfect…”; why this simplicity? It is very easy method and unworthy credibility; but why Aristotle has been so elementary? I think because he has wanted render very simple a concepts, that would be difficult. Demonstration of this think is given by simplicity of description of this concept: “The proposition is a discourse affirmative or negative of something about something, it is universal or particular or indefinite. I claim universal something that is in everything or nothing; particular is in something or not is in everything indefinite…appertain or not without universal…” this easy concept necessary to Aristotle to explain elementary thing, is useful to show simple and obvious think; but why son simple. Aristotle had great merit of simplify explication very difficult, so that everyman could consider and speculatively learn, this is through observation of reality; and this method is a simplification of science, as syllogism, that very easy shows its nature: “Proposition syllogistic will be a affirmation or negation of something about something, on contrary it will be demonstrative if true and learned to that”, I call word where proposition is solved, for example: the predicate is predicated with or not be. Syllogism id a discourse to set something follows other, because to presence of these thing other followed…”, it is normal, certainly but Aristotle has simplified because he wanted give very easy all science; then syllogism is very simple because it is method alone. He simplified more: “ I call perfect syllogism that hasn’t  need of other words or concept…”, then he has made a method to science and he has given it to everyman.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

Carthago delenda est

This vary famous words of Cato, called after the Censor, certainly shows a great fear to Carthage, because then it was very dangerous enemy of Rome; but Rome during his expansion in Italy very rarely destroyed other cities, why Carthage has been destroyed until to disappearance; simple because Carthage has been a concurrent and a very obstacle to extension of Rome to north Africa, it could persuade all cities of on north Africa that Rome could be very dangerous and make accord and pacts very important and unsafe to Rome, because rapport of Carthage to other cities was very weak as compared to rapport of Rome to its allies, evidently competition was very strong; Rome  have had rapport to south Italy, and wheat of Sicily was very precious for Rome, thereupon it is motive Rome could not certainly stipulate to Carthage a pact, because it could be kept for some months, but a trade city as Cartage have deleted it after some fail. It have had just fought to Massalia(today Marseille) and Syracuse, in Italy, therefore Carthage was toward the trade and it was a concurrent fearsome and it has had much colonies in north African coast and south Spain and above all Utica on Tunisia, great trade city, that Rome not destroyed, why? Simple because this city was very useful to roman trade. Furthermore in 279 b.Ch., an accord between Rome and Carthage has stipulated a symmachia , this is an military accord that has obliged these two cities for common aide; therefore the friendship was very strong; but Syracuse in Sicily, in 272 b.Ch. half of people of this city has wanted aide of Rome because Carthage has come to Syracuse before Roman soldiers, and half people has been to Carthage and other half to Roman. We can think that this city could dominated by two powers, Roman and Carthage, they were very friends; but beyond military motive I think that other has been, what? Simple Rome has prewired that power of Carthage has took all Sicily, and Rome could be excluded from market and wealth of Sicily, therefore richness of Carthage would be very important. Ergo Carthago delenda est.An episode is meaningful Cato come to Senate with a basket of figs and modern interpretation is that a ship of Carthage could approach to Rome easily and same thing would to militaries ships, but I think that Cato wanted inform Rome and his Senate that the trade of Carthage was very easy, because a city as Carthage was building a port to 200 ships and this could service both military conquest and to trade, here Cato showed the figs because he has wanted a good from Carthage but certainly very much other could be come. In conformity to peace treaty, 201 b.Ch, Carthage have to be long from port almost 10 milies; it is very strange, and why? Because trade would be very difficult, Carthage was built very near to sea, but then milies was distance very important and graveous to trade, this is confirm economical theory.  

Alessandro Lusana