Defeatist to living room

In a villa in country, Alfred, a professor of philosophy usually meet his friends, among them nobody has the same ideas, religion or aesthetic preference, in fact the living room of Alfred was the fixed appointment to argued one other and after everybody come away happy because has had the quart of hours of glory. In that meeting was one new professor of philosophy that was called Socrates, because both in examinations in front of student he give the questions very logic, because his sake wasn’t alone teach the philosophy, but indicate the way to think, his name was Ulysses, in fact in University he was loved from students but hated from colleagues because he attracted students and the students of other course didn’t attend their lessons because Ulysses has his lesson, furthermore the requests of thesis were very much. He was judged very bad form other professors, but interesting was that he was exempt from envy or wickedness or equal sentiments. In living room everybody were seated and they spook about polity, economy and other, and Alfred turned to Ulysses, after an hour of these deep discussions, and Ulysses glazed Alfred and answer to demand of Alfred, that invited him to participate, Ulysses thanked Alfred and after commented: “Habitual defeatists to living room”, and he got up and greeted everybody, Alfred stopped him through a cry: “Where do you are going?”, and Ulysses: “Among five minutes you come on me and my opinions, hence I want anticipate the exit”, and Alfred: “Here the discussion is free!”, and Ulysses that doesn’t the hypocrisy turned toward Alfred, and: “Do you attended a special course of fakeness or it is spontaneous?”, Alfred was very amazing because Ulysses has always received the offense or hinds but he has never reacted, Alfred invited him to seat, and very faired for this reaction asked what he wanted say, and Ulysses: “You are usual defeatist to living room, this is usual radical chic, this is nothing absolutely, any is your political think”, and Charlies, one guest: “What do are saying? I want know your think”; and Ulysses: “You are previewing the end of Occident and the end of our civility, but it is fake because the lost or lack of values is simple dynamic of history”, and every guest gazed him, and Anne, a woman professor: “What do you mean?”, and Ulysses: “I will use the same way that I use for my students, this is with questions”, and in fact Elisabeth, other woman professor, commented: “Your nickname is Socrates and it is normal that you give questions”, and Ulysses smiled and give the question: “Do you are believer?”, and Anne: “No!”, and Ulysses: “If we were in Middle age we can justify everything through the will of God”, and Annie: “But the Middle age is finished”, and Ulysses: “Yes, but if a man of Middle age was here he would comment that the war, the poverty, the richness and other are alone the will of God, or no?”, and Anne: “Yes!”, and Ulysses. “Why?”, and Alfred: “Because during Middle age is t is the predominant think”,  and Ulysses: “hence we have lost the values, because we don’t justify everything through the will of God, whereby this loss is will of God or no?” and Elisabeth: “No certainly because God isn’t”, and Ulysses. “But during Middle age it was unique justification”, and Barbara, other woman professor: “During Middle age yes, but today no”, and Ulysses. “Thereupon we aren’t in Middle age”, and George. “No, we are in 2026, and the Middle age is ended”, and Ulysses: “Hence time is past?”, both Anne and Elisabeth looked one other, and gather: “Yes”, and Ulysses: “Time is past therefore also the values of that period or era, or no?”, and everybody: “Yes”,, and Ulysses: “Time is past, and values are past or no?”, and Anne: “No!”, and Ulysses: “I repeat the question: do you are believer?”, and Anne: “I have answered, no absolutely!”, and Ulysses: “Hence you have lost the values because you aren’t believer, hence for you God isn’t”, and Anne: “No, I aren’t believer but I have other values”, and Ulysses: “I am come from Middle age, you don’t believe that God exist, whereby you have lost every values, because I am man of Middle age, and for me alone God is the value, therefore you have lost the unique value”, and Annie: “You think it because you come from Middle age, but now we are in 2026, and your Middle age is finished”, and Ulysses: “Whereby now is allowed lose God?”, and Anne: “Certain!”,  and Ulysses: “Why?”, and Annie: “Because time is different as the context2, and Ulysses: “Whereby time is past”, and Annie: “Yes, it is past and stop, please”, and Ulysses: “The context is different because, I explain it to you and other, because the sciences, technology, and general progress in every field is improve and it progressed, hence the values that I, medieval man have had, now are past, it is right?”, and Annie: “Yes”, and Ulysses: “Among a hundred years our values are going to be  history, and our values are going to be past”, and George that gazed Ulysses: “Certain it is the history”, and Ulysses: “Clever George, it is history, therefore isn’t decadence or loss of values, but is alone a change of values, that we now don’t understand because we are other generation, and for us these new values are strange but it aren’t lost but alone change, among hundred years the values of present generations are going to be old, and in some living room they may are going to be same words that we are saying now, this is that new generations has lost the values; in stead the values are alone changed, because the technology and sciences are progressed; hence the values are a context of time, that is tied to progress; today we can give our friendship to everybody, because it is allowed for Facebook, and we can speck and write to thousands of persons; in 1926 it was impossible, because the computer there isn’t, and the way to know somebody was different; thereupon you are defeatist to living room, because our values are already overcome, as we have lost the values of our grandfathers, because it don’t belong to our generation; this defeatism is alone a posture and stop. The Monday students have to set an exam, and Ulysses seat among students because he has a nephew there, and the woman professor was Anne, that was hearing Laura, nephew of Ulysses, and she spook around the decadence of values, and Anne: “Laura the Middle age is past, for you my values are died, as for your nephews your values are old”, Laura gazed hers and commented: “But during lesson you have said different things”, and Anne: “Yes because I didn’t know a person, but I have known him, the time passes and from Freeday to today time is past.”

Alessandro Lusana  

        

 

 

Speculative physics: the method of Aristotle

How said in this essay is pure obvious, but it is a philosophical method, or better the Aristotle method, the speculative philosophy that now is applied to a science, this is the physic, the philosopher says: “Since in every field of research exist the principles or causes or elements, the acknowledge and the science are from the from acknowledge of these, we in fact think that we know everything alone when we have known understood the first causes and the first principles, and, finally the elements, it is evident that also in science of nature we must research that are principles. It is natural that we begin from the principle that we knowable better from its nature, but it aren’t the same thing, this is the knowable for us and knowable absolutely. For this we must work through this method, from that is less clear for nature but clearer to us…”; it is simply obvious and it isn’t certainly a great discovery; but what I want stress is that Aristotle uses this method, very simple and obvious, this is speculative, also the science, that today is very complicated from new discoveries, it is the history, but Aristotle has given a method, because it is was the first argument of Stagira philosopher; give the way absolutely valid, and simple, necessary to acknowledge. And this hypothesis is clear  for following words, likewise obvious and for this clearer, but Aristotle was teaching a method: “To us are clearer and evident the things gather, and alone to second moment we manage, through the analysis, we can distinguish the elements and principles.”, it is normal criterion of inquiry but Aristotle indicated the method, this is that was very interesting to him, in fact: “For this we must inquiry from universal to particular: in fact to sensation is immediately knowable the whole, and the universal is the whole, because it contained very much things as side. It occurs also for the names in regard to their definition: it indicate something in its whole and through indetermination, as the name “circle”, the definition of it after specify for the single side…”, and the following words are majority clear: “Also the children in first period of life call father every men and mother every women, and in second period they distinguish everything to particular.”, Aristotle want alone give a method, for this he is so simple, because a method must be very simple, and above all it is must teach with clearer examples, so that every men can learn what is the method. I think that this simplicity is from the example of Socrates, that Aristotle known alone indirectly, but he was pupil of Plato, that was pupil of Socrates, hence Plato could have spook about the Socrates during his lessons, the estimate of Plato for Socrates is evident from his dialogues, where Socrates is always, or almost always protagonist; Socrates hence could, indirectly I repeat, taught to Aristotle the logic and easy method,. Other important thing that we must consider that Aristotle in precedent words has explicated one principle very fundamental for his method, this is from universal to particular; it is the specific criterion of this philosopher, and the rightness of my opinion, in regard the teaching of method, is evident in these words: “For this we must inquiry from universal to particular…”, it is the method that Aristotle used every time, and after the students of Aristotle have took to explain, less clearly than Aristotle, a principle of methodological philosophical of Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana          

 

              

 

 

 

 

He was asking

He: philosopher

Common people

A man in a great city given questions and the people avoided the answers because considered him a crazy, he asked

 He :The war is right or failed.

Common people: It is failed certainly.

He: Why?

Common people: Because very much men and women are going to die.

He: But men and women are going to die also during the peace.

Common people: Yes but the war is contrast of nations and enmity

He: But enmity we have also during the peace, when we lament to somebody, and we are in war but our nation is in peace.

Common people: Yes but everybody says that the war is very bad.

He: Thereupon if everybody says that the war is very good, the war would be very good.

Common people: I no idea.

He: Why? Because nobody has said to you what is common opinion?

Common people: No, absolutely!

He: Do you have an opinion?

Common people: Certain!

He: What is?

Common people: In my opinion you have broken the balls.

He: Yes, but you haven’t answered.

Common people: Fuck you (he goes away)

He;(to other person)I give to you same question and I want…

Common people: I know and I can say to you that every would answer so because is common opinion and if you aren’t common people, you never are going to accept, because also the who is uncommon people is following a rule and the role, because it is alone a part of theatre.

He: But the principal motive for my exclusion is that I am common people, and I am bearer of common opinion, and I am despised for my courage and strength, because nobody, in conformity of current morality, nobody says it because it isn’t moral accepted, it is alone necessity of simulation, because the weakness of contemporary man compels to follow the moral dictate, but the morality is alone temporary, because tomorrow is going to be other opinion or morality, certainly hence everybody follows that.

Common people: What can gives strong to human gender?

He: The sureness that we can took from different way, through the read, the gymnastic, the speech to other, and awareness that if other aren’t going to follow us, it is very scant important. And the sureness is alone a dynamic compensation, it is alone the object or everything that can calm our wit, it is the force, the capacity of front difficulties, and the difficulties of common people is overcome the morality.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

Michelangelo’s speculative poetry

The rhymes of Michelangelo are very poor, he is better and universal as artist, but as poet is very scant; anyway, he isn’t born as poet, and he hasn’t the necessary culture, hence we can apologize him because the compensation to this lack is compensated from arts. The poetry although is poor we can identify some character that can gives to us some interest as the speculative poetry, the first question is what is speculative poetry? It is in literary critic isn’t, but it is alone the description of reality through some poetic word, but he has took directly from Dante Alighieri(1265-1321) this is from Divine comedy, because the steps aren’t in Italian of 16^th century, some example, here (I have translated the poetries of Michelangelo and the word is set in Italian and translated in English): “Much years fassi(it makes) much happy in a very short hour it compels and worry herself; and for or famous or ancient offspring other are proud s’inlustra. These Italian words are took directly from Dante the second is from Paradise chant 14^th verse 132, and the first is also from Dante from Hell Chant 23th verse 63; because after proud, he followed: “…in a moment it is obscured this is in Italian is imbruna, other word of Dante that he has used in Purgatory Chant 4^th verse 21, and continuing: “Mobile thing isn’t under the sun it doesn’t death and changes(cangi) the fortune; but the question is normal, where is the speculative character? It is in the whole sense of this sonnet, because these verse say, I have summarized the sense, that is that these are persons that has been happy for years and after these persons compel and worry themselves, and for famous offspring they are proud but after they are obscured; this is the sense of these verse, but the comment is that the poetry are very scant, Michelangelo has took from Dante and in English it isn’t but in Italian the distance from the Michelangelo’s and Dante’s language is very clear; anyway beyond the differences in regard the language, the sense is purely speculative, because it is normal phenomenal of history of humankind. Other sonnet says(it is alone a summarize): as a bird can save himself from net and after die for worse death, so love has saved me for much years and during old age he has wins me, other speculative poetry, because it is occurred to Michelangelo but can occurs to everybody, because the man can ignores the love and after falls in love passionately, but it is normal nature of men, hence it is the speculative poetry.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

Platonic Michelangelo

We can’t think that Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564) known the Platonic philosophy, he was an artist, and he was very distant from this will, also because to read Plato was necessary to know the Latin or ancient Greek language, and he didn’t known neither or other, he written the poetry, or at last tried it and one sonnet expressed a concept that after the critic of art has took and used much times, it says: “The very good artist hasn’t concept that an marble alone surrounded in itself  for its excess, and alone to it come the hand that obey to brain”, these poor verses can seem alone words without a sense, but the experience of sculptor that Michelangelo has made, inducts him to consider that the sculpture was already in marble block, and the matter that surrounds the sculpture is alone more matter that the sculptor must remove, because the work is already in the block; this concept is very fantasy as Platonic, the verses that we have read are a heredity from Neoplatonic academy, that Michelangelo attended and where he, after the store of Ghirlandaio(1448-1494), he learned the sculpture, hence the frequentation of this academy has allowed to him of learned some philosophic concept, that he has used for this sonnet, written on 1538-1544; because it is a translation very synthetic of an ideal word of ideas of Plato, and the sculptor is alone an instrument necessary to pick up the sculpture, fortunately this sculptor was Michelangelo, because we can admire his art, but on philosophic level, the nature of this think is alone the academic think, and it is reproofs also from the following of this sonnet, that is dedicated to Vittoria Colonna(1492-1547), after these words he turned the attention to Vittoria, the woman that he Platonically loved, but after the read of following of sonnet the first question is: “So what?”, because. “The hell that I escape, and the good that I promise to me, in you, beautiful woman, dive and proud, so it is hide…”; the question is same: “What cock so what?”, answer: “Absolutely nothing” would answer Michelangelo, . “but some memories of Platonic philosophy is came and I a wanted send this sonnet to a cultured woman, hence this Platonic think was necessary, also because I am Michelangelo and not certainly Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), whereby I am an sculptor, painter and architect, no a poet”. This valuation of this sonnet learns to us that of Michelangelo is certainly better study the sculpture, the painting and architecture rather that study his poetry. Anyway I wanted alone consider that the concept of matter that surrounded the sculpture is a Platonic concept, and following Charles Baudelaire(1821-1867) “the remain is literature”, and it is alone literature because the critic of art is literature, thereby we can also say: “The remain is alone critic of art”.

Alessandro Lusana     

             

 

Futuristic William Morris

The read of New from nowhere of William Morris(1834-1896), a romance, is a fusion of the present and future, because the protagonist is from other time in a almost contemporary British, a bridge of 2003, in conformity of opinion of a boatman that brought the protagonist, that is called from other personages as guest, certainly a reminiscence of Homer(6^th century b.Ch) from Odyssey, when Nausica met Odysseus and she called him ξένος, this is foreign, because Odysseus doesn’t remember his name, whereby the classic culture of Morris is ascertained; but there is other as the alone hint the polemic against the industrial society, the protagonist, that here I preferred call him so, tells: “The soap factors the chimneys  that vomited the smog, were disappeared; and also the mechanical laboratories, and foundries of plumb…”, it can seems a futuristic representation alone and stop, but we must think to polemic of Morris against the industry that lacked the craftsmanship production of human nature and artistic personality, because the industry was the depersonalized the artistic works; it is certainly true, but “tempora currunt”, this is times are different and the progress is present always, therefore the Morri’s polemic is very childhood, because stopped the progress is stop the history, that is impossible; anyway the future time of Morris is manifest in other step, the protagonist turned toward a direction and he seen the bridge whose above, and the protagonist asked how much years has this bridge and the boatman answers: “ Not much because it was built, or that last opened to traffic, in 2003, before the passage was possible on a wooden bridge.”, we can think that Morris has though a future without industries, that is very utopic think, that is alone a Morri’s dream. The other polemic, very good hide but present, although alone hinted is in step when the protagonist want pay the boatman, and he asked how much is the tariff, and the boatman was amazing and he asked: “How much? I don’t understand what you are asking to me. You are asking about tide?...”, other literature memory, because this lacked tariff is evidently from Voltaire’s Eldorado, when two guests wanted pay the launch with a ingot of gold, that they have picked up on ground, and the host smiled and comment. “it is very strange that you want pay us through an our stone”, because the gold in Eldorado, from title is evident, the gold was very outclassing, but it is also a polemic against the easy gain, and the hint polemic follows for comment of boatman around the money of protagonist, because he said: “Your money is strange, but not certainly ancient…”, and he advised the protagonist to give these moneys to a museum; it is the future of Morris, where the money and industries  aren’t; he has thought as an ideological follower of artisan art, in fact he hasn’t thought that unemployed don’t  live for alone air, but they want eat something sometime. Morris is likely to read but absolutely distant and distinct from reality. The craftsmanship must be protected but it not means that the industry must be destroyed, the progress and hence the history is continue.The polemic around the industrial society continues because Morris’s protagonist bought objects in some store, but he doesn’t pay; it is simply absurd, certainly, but it is alone the continuation of polemic that he has begun with hints, that now become more clear, because he doesn’t pays, and it is a sort of anarchism well hidden, this is the absence of money, I think the practice, likewise utopic of Pierre Joseph Proudhon(1809-1865), that theorized the banks of people, where aren’t money but object that were changed for other object, one object was given and other took, this exchange eliminated the money; in fact our protagonist took a piper and tobacco in a store but he doesn’t pays it and he given nothing; hence it isn’t the exchange of Proudhon, but the protagonist recognized that he hasn’t money in carriage and the driver asked what occurred and he confessed that has forgotten the money, but the driver insured him because it isn’t necessary; thereupon it is  the utopic Proudhon and his bank of people. Other step Morris compelled the indolence of some social class, in fact he hints: “it says that during fist times of our era there are much persons sick of indolence, because they were the direct descents  of the class social the during dark times compelled other to work for them…” it is the polemic for industrial society and for worker’s condition. The utopic Proudhon continues his hidden utopic wit, because the protagonist hint to prisons that in the London of future, that imagined from Morris in this romance hasn’t prisons. The craftsman is some pages after, because during the journey, the protagonist seen some fabric and the driver explained that one fabric works the ceramics and glasses, but the worker work all to their pleasure, it is the polemic to industrial society  

Alessandro Lusana 

    

 The prestige

We usually have got custom that the prestige is determined from the wealth, hence richness and the rich homes, cars and other that can stress our prestige, because we tie it to material life, certainly it is the concept and habit that we consider, but some example of history can think that other typology of prestige, and above all historic prestige is possible; the first example is Socrates (b.Ch.399), Athens philosopher that drunk the hemlock after the condemn of a tribunal, where he defensed herself, but for political questions, that didn’t inherent to him, wanted that he died; Socrates certainly wasn’t rich, actually he was very poor, and in fact Cicero(106-46 b.Ch.), called Socrates as callous feet, because he didn’t wear sandals, because he could not buy it; Socrates are more 2000 years that his think is studied and very much is written about his sacrifice, from ancient Greek. Other example, Diogenes(412-323 b.Ch.) cynical philosopher, that in front of Alexander Magnus(356-323b.Ch.), when the last asked if he needed of something, he answered: “Move from sun because it isn’t your again”; Diogenes is known above for this episode, and some book that now is lost; but he as Socrates was very poor, he in fact lived begging and he lived in a barrel naked. An Italian painter Tommaso di Ser Giovanni di Mone di Andreuccio Cassai(1401-1428) called Masaccio, for his look very poor, is a father of painting Renaissance in Florence, and he is remembered always in art history as the principal painter of glorious season of 15 century in Tuscan, but he was certainly more poor and precarious in his cloths, why he is remembered, from his cloths or for his style? May for his style because we can know him alone for description of Vasari, very summary, but we haven’t known directly Masaccio, and his style didn’t tell to us his clothes. Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890) has sold a painting alone during his life, today one painting has cost of 80 millions of dollars, but from auto portrait we can see that this painter was very poor, but with one painting of van Gogh we could buy a house and other. These personages that I have summary descripted, are died very poor, but today nobody considers that they lacked of prestige, and this motive doesn’t determined the despise to them, but it is alone a characteristic but nothing that is important. Today we can be richer and very prestigious but after our death we are going to be forgotten for ever, and we are rich in confront of mentioned personages; we should think, but the prestige is tied to richness or no? But this think nobody is going to have, because it is an apologize of ourselves, because personages mentioned have made something instead we have made but certainly the daily works, hence nobody is going to remember us.

Alessandro Lusana