Ea petit: interview to Hegel

George Hegel(1770-1831) seat to his desk and he was writing, he raised the eyes and gazed a woman in front of him, he lowered the eyes and spoke: “Usually late, you are a woman and it is enough to justify it”, and woman: “You are always punctually polite, you stress that I am late, but you make it very much politely, compliment. Any way you have failed because I am allegory of Aesthetic, and no a woman”, George raised the eyes and spoke: “I am gather lessons about your nature, this is the aesthetic , and I am correcting some error of Heinrich Gustav Hotho, that has transcript my lessons on aesthetic but sometime he has transcript badly”, and aesthetic: “Yes lord master, you seem the master of elementary level that corrects the assignments of pupils”, George gazed hers and asked: “Beyond a fuck you, what do you want?”, and aesthetic: “I known perfectly that you would be angry, for this I have used this expression”, and George: “I know you very well, and I know what amuses you”, and aesthetic: “I know me perfectly, but anyway I am here for tow causes, the first is break your balls”, and George: “In fact you are managing completely”, and aesthetic: “I know it”, and George: “And second?”, and aesthetic: “I not a clue, but something I am going to have an idea”, hence George: “You are here because…”, while entered in room a waitress of George and asked: “Excuse me, I want ask if do you want something”, and George: “Yes! A sword to decollation, because very soon a will have a execution, capital execution”, the aesthetic smiled and to waitress: “A tea thank you”, and George: “The sword, don’t forgotten and a tea I too”, the waitress turned and gone away, whereby the aesthetic: “What is your think about the aesthetic?”, and George: “Why do you ask it, you know perfectly it”, and aesthetic: “I yes, but the read of this essay may not, thereupon, since somebody, a breaker balls, I know him and he is very boring”, and George: “It seems that you know him very well”, and aesthetic: “Yes, he think always to your Aesthetic and he has three masters and read from 36 years”, and George: “What is his name?” and aesthetic: “Alessandro”, and George: My God! He has written around me and he has written 1008 essay, you are right, he is very boring, anyway, what do you want?”, and aesthetic: “Your explication of lessons about aesthetic”, and George: “Some ask?” and aesthetic: “What do you think to absolute spirit?”, and George that was beginning drink his tea, gazed the aesthetic and: “I think that translation of the human brain in matter; this is, the human intellect that form the shape, or shapes, the absolute spirit is the brain, human brain, that gives the form both in poetry, in painting, in sculpture, in architecture, in art craft and in music and other”, and aesthetic: “it is improbable that is other, you have mentioned every art”, and George: “Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patient nostra…(Until do you will abuse of our patience Catilina)”, and aesthetic: “So what now Cicero?”, and George: “I have forgotten the rhetoric, and Cicero was master”, and aesthetic: “Do you think that Cicero has translated his with in The first catilinaria?” and George: “Certainly, as the sculptor and other artist given the shape, the rhetoric is an art, and the rhetoric is in opinion of Cicero and exercise that must movere, delectare, persuadere”, and aesthetic: “What is”, and George. “I must explain it to you alone or also our readers?”, and the aesthetic. “Both because I haven’t understood nothing”, and George: “Cicero, that was born in 106 b.Ch. and died in 43 b.Ch., and he turned to whom is written it essay, I say it to him doesn’t remember, this is you that are writing”, and the writer answered: “Ok. Can we follow or you must drink other tea?”, and George to aesthetic: “Movere is provoke the emotions in hearer, and Delectare it is to like, give pleasure to hearer and, finally, Persuadere is convince the hearer”, and aesthetic: “I think that with an oration alone it is impossible”, and George: “In your opinion Catilina is guilty?”, and aesthetic: “Certainly, he wanted kill Cicero, hence he guilty, and stop”, and George: “You think it because you have read The first catilinaria, and stop” and aesthetic: “Yes! Fir this I think it”, and George: “But we know it because Cicero in 8^th November of 63 b.Ch. in the temple of Jupiter Stator in Rome”, and aesthetic: “It is motive!”, and George: “hence Cicero has took the three sakes, you believe to Cicero because he has Delectatus, Motus and Persuasum you”, and aesthetic: “Yes!” and George: “Do you know the truth about the accuses of Cicero that he told in the fist catilinaria?”, and aesthetic: “Yes!” and George: “Why?”, and aesthetic: “Because Cicero…”, and George breaking the woman: “Cicero has said it, but we have heard alone Cicero, do you have heard also Catilina?”, and aesthetic. “No, but I think that isn’t…”, and George again breaking: “You don’t think that it is important, but in tribunal the judge must hear the prosecuting attorney and defense lawyer, and you must same thing, as every historic man”, and aesthetic: “If the defense lawyer isn’t?”, and George: “You must doubt of accuse until you have a secure proof; but it is the ascertain that I have right, because Cicero as Michelangelo, Beethoven and other artist, has given to their works the soul, it is the absolute spirit, this is the identification in something  that is owner activity, the possibility to create something; the spirit is the brain that leads the hand of sculptor, the hand of architect, the hand of music the hand of writer and artisan, we become the work that we are forming, but every thing is the first moment the brain“.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

 

                          

 

A confirm of the absolute spirit: Giovanni Gentile

The philosophical think of Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944) is called in history of philosophy as actualism, this word has owner meaning in Aristotelian philosophy, this is from act, that in opinion of Aristotle is the action ended, that is from a will, that the potency, the action ended it the act terminated, this is the pragmatic or intellectual action; it is distinct from possibility of make something, what is? The potency in opinion of Aristotle is a possibility, for example: make something, we can see something but we can close the eyes and don’t see something and nothing, we can make an act or no, it is the potency; it is normal action, thereupon it isn’t philosophy, but simple desire or will; Aristotle distinguished these actions common names, but this possibility and realization are the potency and the act, one is consequence of other, if we can’t something we can realize it; it is normal, but we must consider that before of Aristotle nobody has ennobled these daily action through the philosophy; it is specular philosophy, whose Aristotle is founder; hence in Gentile’s opinion the act is definition of reality, objective reality, that is from human think, this is a humanization of think of Barkeley(1685-1753), whose after. It is this is the conception that thinks the reality exists alone because it is thought,  much Gentile’s pamphlets explains what is actualism; he has took the think of George Berkeley, an Irish philosopher, that has thought the reality alone a translation of God will; it is the Platonism in poor version, in fact Gentile is explaining the think of Berkeley says: “…the reality isn’t the object or content of human think, and neither think of this brain, but alone the whole of representations that are correspondent to objective braine, absolute, presupposition of itself human brain…although the same Berkeley that has thought the reality to perception, he given a distinction between think that thinks now the word, and absolute Think, eternal, transcendent the single brain…This eternal think isn’t out think, that in every moment ascertains owner limits; this think is God. God is wherefore is the condition that through we can think the think of man as it is reality, and reality as think…”, so aid it isn’t a philosophical concept but alone a declaration of war, because it hasn’t meaning, because is very strange from our reality; but the explication is simple, Berkeley is saying that everything that we think is possible think to God; I have called it poor Platonism, because the originality of this philosophical concept is inexistent because he known also the ancient Greek, whereby he has read the books of Plato and has took this concept. Gentile has took from Hegel(1770-1831) and Kant(1724-1804), and has thought the absolute wit, that for Kant was alone metaphysic and Hegel, was never explained what is the absolute spirit, was human, but he, I repeat, never has clarified it, with the actualism of Gentile we have had a explication of this concept, that is speculative philosophy, as Aristotle, and now is, differently from Kant and Berkeley, no certainly metaphysic but alone human; hence it confirms that Hegel has thought the absolute spirit as the human brain, that can think, and through the act, make something, that become the act because is thought, the act is present also before the man thinks it, but when the man see something it is become a concept, philosophical concept, whereby it is present in brain, therefore exists. Other example: “We can distinguish the Divine comedy from Dante that has written and from us that read it; but we can think that this Divine comedy, that is distinguished from us,  is in us, this is in our brain, and thought distinguished from us. It is, this is, in us because we think it, hence it isn’t stranger to us that have thought it. Detach therefore the fact of wit from real life, it is as lost it and don’t see it from the intimate nature for that it are when are realized. Other chapter explains better, at last in two lines, the concept of human wit as the absolutely spirit: “The subject as act. Who says spiritual act, says wit, and to say spirit is to say concrete individually, historical, subject that isn’t thought but relized”, this is he is present because he is thought from himself. Therefore it isn’t spirit and spiritual act that we must know, but alone the wit as subject…and we can know it because its objectivity is manifest in real activity of subject that knows it.”. It is the human nature that through the activity, this is the act, knows his spirit, this is his concrete nature and the external nature; therefore the man.But the explication that is between real and ideal is in Gentile’s actualism in these words, above all because these words deny that the ideal annuls the empiric: “Unity of transcendental I and multiplicity of empiric I. We not believe that the concept of this deeper personality, this is of person that has not plural, excludes and annuls the empiric I. The idealism doesn’t, because this absolute I, that is one and in himself unifies every particular I and empiric, unifies and doesn’t destroys…”; it is the Hegel’s concept that has unifies in himself the particular, this is the empiric, and ideal, in fact after we read: “The reality of transcendental I includes also the reality of empiric I, whose badly they speak when they prescind from his immanent(direct) rapport to transcendental I”, it is the human version of abstract absolute spirit of Hegel, that is human always. The following chapter is more explicit for hegelian and Aristotelian nature of this transcendental spirit: “So that we can understand the nature of this subject…and it is impossible that it stopped him in front of other spiritual being different from it and it hasn’t in front other that himself…”, mentioned so it is a problem because the hegelian and Aristotelian read aren’t certainly frequent, but it is a concept that says that the absolute spirit can see alone himself, because everything is this absolute spirit; for major and practical understanding, it is as we in front of a mirror, we can gaze alone ourselves, because other isn’t, the absolute spirit is same, this is it can gazes alone itself; but it is the think of think of Aristotle and after of Hegel, and this nature is more explicit in these words: “The concept of truth coincides to the made”; the comments are, it is normal, certainly but overcome this obviousness it is meaningful because the human nature expresses itself in the made, thereupon the human nature is also the transcendental concept. Other words very truth: “True is that we make”. The modest connection to Platonism is in following words: “In the nature we see alone dark and mystery. Every that we think our work, its evident that the truth is in ourselves. For example: what is a right line? We can know it because we build it through our fantasy, in our think. The right line isn’t in nature, and we can think it alone through the brain…”. A concept very human is expressed in following words, gentile taking some step of Giambattista Vico(1668-1744), that in his major book, The new science, has expressed a laic think regard to history and his formation, this is the human and not certainly divine built, and Gentile: “So in The new science the same Vico says that the human brain can know the law of eternal historical process(this is the develop of spirit) because in same human brain it is the cause and the first origin of every historical occurs”. It is the laic consideration that Gentile took for explication of human become, and the historical become, because the historical occurs are alone the human built. He translated other mention from William Humbold(1767-1835), a German philosopher, that regard to longue has said: “The langue isn’t work but working, it isn’t the result of linguistic process, but this process self, that is developing in act. Hence the each longue, it we can know in his definitive process (that isn’t) but alone grade after grade during his develop”. It is the real become of history that is alone human, in its develop hence its occur; and: “Destroy the grades of become and you have destroyed the develop, this is the same reality that we must make and know”; the knowledge in opinion of Gentile is the actualism this is, I repeat, the capacity of man of make something, the capacity of man, hence the wit, of make. Other mention: “True is that the made, through the true is converted, because is same spiritual reality that realizes itself, it isn’t a fact but a become, thereupon is right say: “verum et fieri convertentur (true and become are converted)”, this dynamic evaluation of become of human and nature is expressed in other chapter: “Nature and spirit. The stone is, because it is it can be: it has realized its essence. It is also the plant, and the same animal since every their determinations are consequence necessary and ordered of their nature, that is all those can be, and can’t freely determiners itself though new manifestations unforeseeable, this is not determined from their nature, and hence isn’t… In nature, everything is determined by nature; in the spirit nothing is nobody or nothing is by nature; but it is all that becomes by its work ”. It is meaningful and says that what is determined in his nature can become in conformity of his nature, as the plant and stone, but the man can change his nature or character, because the mankind is mutable.    

 

Alessandro Lusana   

 

The science in art: Leonardo da Vinci

Leonard da Vinci gone in Louvre and among hundreds tourist he waited the night after the closure of museum, and after that the last tourist was gone out he turned to Gioconda(Fig.1), and asked: “Can you explain what is the art of Leonard da Vinci?”, and the painting answer: “It is very strange because you are Leonardo da Vinci”, and Leonardo: “Yes but I want know what is your think around my art”, and the Gioconda: “You are a scientist that has worked the painting, in fact in the Virgin of stones(Fig.2), is the representation of your interest in geology, because you have painted those stones with scientific precision(Figs.3-4); and you interest to science is evident above all in human expressions(Fig.5), that you have took to your fresco with The fight of Anghiari(Fig.6); the faces are very interesting for you, and it are…”, Leonardo interrupted and: “It are the true manifestation of wit, of the behavior and reactions in front of different contests, and I can study the human gender both in everybody and in single man; the expression that I have used again, to show the human nature; it is for me important”, and the Gioconda: “Certainly it is motive, but for the merely artistic and stylistic what is your address?”, and Leonardo: “I am one and every address; because I have took the reality and used it but to angel in Virgin of stones(Figs.7-8), isn’t realistic or naturalistic but it is Leonardo alone, in my face when I must imagine it I think and took from every face that I meet, but for angel it is very imagination, that hasn’t character of classic or real, as other my drawing; I have imagined a face and I have drawn it”, and Gioconda: “Your interests are very multiple because you have also designed the armies”, and Leonardo: “Yes, when I was called by Ludovico the Moro to Milan, I have presented also armies, because he was lord of Milan and I was an artist and I have to entice his interest, but I have to consider also what were his needs and preferences; hence the drawings for armies were necessary to defense of Milan. We must consider that also the invention of armies is science, therefore you is right, I am a scientist that uses also the art”, and Gioconda: “In fact to my face you have took from reality; because your widows you have took from reality, actually in your Treatise on painting, you describe the nature of widow and its characteristic”, and Leonardo: “I haven’t never written a treatise on painting; it is a book for collection of my personal notes that Francesco Melzi around 1540 has pooled, and stop”. The Gioconda: “Dear Leonardo you have considered the science and the art; every science because everything has interested you, and you drawings are the evident representation of these interest, but I must interrupt here my discourse because the museum is opening the doors, thereupon we are going to next closure”. The tourists gone in and asked soon to Gioconda: “What has said Leonardo?”, and she hinted a light smile.

Alessandro Lusana  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

Painted sculpture

The custodian gone in the Sistine chapel, and he gazed a weak light on scaffolding, and he very worry, loud asked: “Who is there?”, nothing answer, hence he get up on the staircase and came to the point where the light was strong; he asked newly: “Who are you”, to a man that was from behind, dressed with  white cloth, Michelangelo, that while was arrived to scaffolding with custodian, asked newly: “Who are you? Answer and stop”, and the unknown turned toward Michelangelo and he shown his face, he was the pope Julius 2th(1443-1513), the client of this fresco, when Michelangelo has ascertained that he was the pope, he soon excused and justified his behavior, but the pope: “I was specking to your Adam”, in fact the pope was gazing to high, although  the distance was very minimal, but Julius 2th has laid a pillow under his head, and he is debating to Adam of Creation of man(Fig.1), and Adam answered to a question of Julius, and Michelangelo interrupted and he tried intervene, and Adam sharply stopped him: “You must shut, because now I am speaking!”, and Michelangelo shut immediately, thereupon Adam, continuing the discourse: “You dear pope asked because I am so statuary, because who has painted my figure is a sculptor, and he has a culture that is of sculptor, in fact also other figures, as Prophets(Figs.2-4) are statuary, and we drown so, as you have seen on drawings(Figs.5-6), and the idea of posture of your Moses(Fig.7) is from directly from posture of a prophet(Fig.4).”, and Julius answered: “But the posture of Moses to my funeral monument is different, and…”, Adam hence interrupted: “The idea; because Michelangelo has took the suggestion, he has sculpted Moses, didn’t copied!” and Julius: “I have seen the drawings and the figures are dynamic, what do you think?”, and Adam: “The figures are dynamic certainly and realistic in the nature”, and Julius: “Why”, and Adam “Because my finger and the finger of God are very near one to other, but Michelangelo has took a moment before the touch occurs, it is note of realism”(Fig.8), and Julius: “I haven’t understood it”; and Adam: “When you extend your hand to somebody, you don’t see the gesture because it is natural, and daily, but if a photographer is photographing your gesture, he stopped every moment of your movement, and after he can picks the better photo, but he has stopped every moment, whereby these movement is natural”, and Julius: “can we judge Michelangelo naturalist?”, and Adam: “For something very short is possible, but what is predominant is classicism, this is the ideal form both men and women, but the natural form is in style of every painter or sculptor, also to more classicist artist, because it is the reality from an artist must starts, inevitable, because every artist has copied the true models, and he has drawn the reality, after during his growth he can chooses his style, that to Michelangelo is classic and modestly also natural, but very low”, and Julius: “Are classic or naturalistic?”, and Adam: “I am entirely classic, because my posture is from a figure of classic rivers(Figs.9-10), but he has painted it in conformity of his style, this is classic, but the reaction of Christ in the Universal judge(Fig.11), is natural certainly, a gesture of anger, but mixed to classic body, but the gesture is natural”, and Julius: “I have understood”, and the guardian that was stretched near to Julius: “I also, thank you” and turned to Julius, he asked: “Do you have paid the ticket?”, Julius: “No I have paid the salary to your you forefathers, and stop.”

Alessandro Lusana     

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

       

 

The Baroque mankind

The Borghese gallery in Rome, and very much visitors go and exit and one figure, with papal cloth, walked among the paintings and sculptures; he turned and he looked a man that knelt and kissed the ring, other visitors were indifferent to strange cloth of pope, Urban 8^th (1568-1644), and he asked: “I didn’t understand if you are baroque or naturalist”, and Bernini(1598-1680): “I follow the human nature, sanctity, and the human nature if natural and baroque simultaneously; the pope stepped him in front a painting a Saint Jerome and he asked to the painter: “Who are you”, and he answered: “Michelangelo Merisi from Caravaggio(1571-1610)”, and the pope: “You are very clever and natural, compliment”, and the Caravaggio: “Thank you very much your sanctity”, and the gallery was full of painters that painted their portraits and sculptors; Gian Lorenzo led the pope in front his sculpture and the pope commented: “I didn’t understand if you are baroque or naturalist”, and Bernini: “I follow the human nature, sanctity, and the human nature if natural and baroque simultaneously”, and the pope: “What?”, and Bernini: “You must look the portrait of Scipio Borghese cardinal”(Fig.1), and pope: “Where is it?”, and Gian Lorenzo led him to portrait, that Urban gazed, and Gian Lorenzo: “I have picked a posture, a moment and a reaction of cardinal that is natural, because but today it is called baroque, and the natural reaction is baroque because the human gender is natural during his behavior, but it baroque in art; hence one is from other, this is the baroque is naturalism and the naturalism is baroque”, and the pope it is explication from my monument in Vatican(Fig.2), during baroque era, because we were in 1647, and you wanted a natural posture but also baroque, because after everybody has called so”, and Bernini: “Yes, you have very much confidence with baroque because you have called Pietro Berrettini called Cortona(1596-1669), for frescoed the vault of your family palace(Fig.3), and pope, while he is looking a sculpture: “Yes, in fact the birth of baroque style is from Cortona”, and Gian Lorenzo: “I think that the celebration of your family has been to baroque, but that is alone a celebration, that have to be emphatic and almost hieratic, because the costumer was the papal family”, and the pope: “Yes, but Pietro from Cortona has given title to his book The treat around the painting and sculpture and its use and abuse”, and Bernini: “In that occasion the painter was useful to celebration of Barberini family, and there the abuse was not”, Urban smiled and: “I want that you work for me”, and Gian Lorenzo: “I am waiting your orders sanctity”, and Urban: “You have same politeness of Pietro from Cortona, but of your good behavior you artists didn’t and will not do write around the abuses”, and Gian Lorenzo: “The our life depends from our good education, and the politeness is our false identity, because we have other reaction to our colleagues”. Urban smiled and: “I want that you accomplish me in this gallery, and you must explain every work”, and Gian Lorenzo: “Willingly and…”, Urban interrupted him and: “I have a baldachin in Vatican and I am searching a artist, this is my compensation”, Gian Lorenzo knelt and: “This is a painting of Giovanni Lanfranco(1582-1647)…”.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

    

 

 

The Nordic saga as the identity

The comment is that isn’t clue of Christianism in Nordic saga, that are alone tales, absolutely fantastic, that haven’t nothing that we can think as Christian; but while is reading the saga we can find some connection with Christianism: the tale of Arngrímr and his sons, Arngrímr is a king that has had twelve sons; it can is a casual case but the people of Nord Europe have had accepted and mixed Christian religion with their mythology, hence it is possible that the twelve son were the correspondent of apostles and the final of this tale conform this hypothesis, because: “For this they become everywhere famous and nobody king weren’t that didn’t depended from their desire”; it seems that Gospel and the submission of every king to Christ this is God. Other clue that is hidden is in other tale when in the tale The oath of Hjörvarðr the tale tells: “Happened now that in a night of solstice of winter, during a ceremony the men given the oaths , as it was used…”, normal narration and not other, certainly, but if we think well these last words, we find a notation that is relatable to specific culture of these peoples, because this costume is specific of Nordic people. The oath is to a wedding, the is tale said: “They given the oath the sons of Arngrímr and Hjörvarðr swore that he is going to have the daughter of Ingjaldr, king of Swedish, since the girl was famous because he was beauty and quality and other woman he didn’t want”; it is alone a use of these populations, yes, certainly, in fact it is important, in south Europe the weddings were determined from political interest alone, the matrimonial politic was an important chapter of aristocratic families, and for this marriage were necessary accord between families, but certainly the choice was determined alone form money and power, but a scion of aristocratic family certainly could not swore that he is going to have a girl because beauty or famous; hence it is a typical use of that people, therefore it is a connotation of that population, whereby the anonymous author is telling a costume of his people. The violence was present also in woman in that land because other contender that shown his desire of marry the girl, and she given the choice to his father this is has been more valid in duel, usually the woman avoid the fight but in Nordic culture the use was frequent. Other episode that modified the ancient Greek and also occasionally Christin use, the interpretation of dream, because Angantýr, one of twelve brothers, tells a dream to a Jarl, a noble that we can compare to a count or governor, in Viking time, but the difference is evident if we consider that the interpretation is asked to a laic figure, a manager. The contemporary era, hence more near to us the brothers Jacob(1785-1863) and WilhelmGrimm(1786-1859), they seem didn’t renounce to Gospel, because a fable, The poor and the rich has took directly from the parable of Lazarus and Epulione, because the rich is condemned to worse fate instead the poor enjoys of better sort; in fact the God is hosted from the poor couple and God asked three desires that God fulfills, and same he made also to rich couple but the husband asked three wrong desires that are fulfills; it is manifestation of Christian German Christian, but the Gospel as the twelve sons that we have read above is constant.

Alessandro Lusana              

 

 Ancient words to portrait of contemporary politic

During the read of Plutarch(46°.Ch.-127 a.Ch.), The advises to politic men, is very easy think to daily and contemporary politic men and women, a step of this book says: “…so the politic man , until he hasn’t popularity e trust of people that is fundamental to govern a city, he must be uniform to current think, study it and understand it, where and how he can grant this trust…the soul of Athens people is irascible, but also ready to comprehension, and it is suspicious, and it aides the poor and humbles…Different id s character of people of Carthage, irascible, servile to major and wrong to inferior, unworthy during the fair…”; we must consider that this judge od Plutarch about the Carthage people is alone a heredity of the Punic wars, and it is judge is absolutely false, because when Plutarch written this book, this is the 1th or 2th century after Ch., and the Punic wars occurred at last 4 centuries before, whereby Plutarch didn’t know the people of Carthage. But the read of this book is very important to understand the politic strategy, that, as Plutarch self said regard to times, that already during his life, were different from Athens and Spartan, he describes the better strategy to politic man, hence: “…the politic man doesn’t be equal to people, but when he has understood its wit he must uses the better method to gain the consent, because a politic man that ignores it is destined to the defeat…”; and other politic and human truth: “The people doesn’t allow  easily to manage itself from an unknown and it doesn’t offers nothing motive to managed by somebody…the politic man must consider it and he must be irreproachable also in private life…merited was the fame of tribune of people Livy Drusus, that answering to an artisan, that has proposed to him of hidden the sides of his house to the neighbor, Livy said, that he could pay major sum if the artisan if you become transparent so that every citizen can see what I am making”; the other truth that in confront our days is more true that other: “Two are the way  to access to policy: one is brilliant  and swift, and it is because the future politic man has attracted the fame for other motives, and other way is slow but certainly more secure…”, other human truth regard to people is: “The people, in fact, when is convinced to assume the contrary opinion  to his honest chief , after that it is recognized the error he  regrets it, hence attacks whom is motive of his conviction…”. These politic truths are written centuries ago, but today are valid because both the politic men or politic woman use same way, why? Simple because mankind is same from centuries, and the politics are human, and they make as human, that use the strategies Plutarch has descripted, I don’t think that they has read Plutarch, because we must consider us very fortunate if a politic knows read, but experience and observation of reaction to some word or some strategy or politic action is better school to an aspirant politic, because the politic is same and the people is same always.

Alessandro Lusana