e pluribus unum: common fate

A common fate is rational if two elements have same fate, hence who are two entities, simple the Roma empire and USA, that to common have alone some characteristic, but that is important to understand the same human and politic behavior, the motto “e pluribus unum”, this is from much one alone, that is written on the American dollars is three Latin words that have a mean very important, and it is the first important motive of this assay; because the Roman empire, with distinctions both historic and economic tie these two historical phenomenon, the first, the Roman empire wasn’t a country, but during its beginning it was a village, that after is become Rome, but the extension of Rome in the Latium, involves other villages, no certainly peoples, that then are distinct for name and race, but race then was a concept very different by today, with race meant the belong to other village, other family, because the racial differences then wasn’t known, because the village were crowd by white people. Anyway some common habit unify these two geographical and human entities; it is can seems very strange, since the differences for the language, and for time, but if we think around some point, we find affinities; the extension of Roman empire, certainly was the duple of actual USA, but although the USA is more small than Roman empire, it has common things, the question is, what? Simple the first is the tolerance toward the religion, that Rome respected always, because remove a religion is worse that impose a new law, and Rome it known perfectly, therefore every people can kept its religion, inclusive the Christian, the persecution is alone a exaggerated historical tell; the Christin then were so scant that they not represented a danger. A document on 17 June 1774 form House of Represent of USA asks: “Rights and Liberties, civil and religious”, because the being born country has had same awareness that the religion was an identity for the human gender, hence this point nobody could not deny; in fact today in  USA the religions are different and tolerated all; second the political opinions that are different today, both between the principal parties and other, in ancient Rome same behavior, the civil war during the first century b.Ch. is example, but this war occurred alone in Rome, because the whole empire was absolutely pacific; also because the news around this war has had alone in Rome, because out nobody known something; in fact the source principal for this war is Caesar and his De bello civili, this is Around the civil war, I think that whole generations of resident in Roman empire both before and after this war have lived without know something.  It isn’t equality element, because the civil wars are frequent in much countries, whereby we can’t consider it, but we can, or better, we must consider the racial difference that Rome known after the conquest of North Africa, that Rome enclosed without racism, because Rome considered alone the personal qualities and no the racial belong; today the same behavior is used in USA, the personal qualities are valued, without racial belong or religion, and Rome made the same; hence the common destiny that has unified two entities.

Alessandro Lusana         

        

 

The wit of a revolution

I want alone consider that the wit of presume American revolution, that isn’t was, certainly, and I can proof it through the words of Congress, that then was alone an poor assembly, but an organ necessary to decision, where the English hasn’t had represents; anyway the words used in the House of Representatives are very meaningful: “Province Massachusetts-Bay. The House of Representatives, June 17, 1774.This House having duly considered and being deeply affected with the unhappy differences, which have long subsisted and are increasing, between Great-Britain and the American Colonies, do resolve: That a Meeting of Committees from the several Colonies on this Continent, is highly expedient and necessary, to consult upon the present State of the Colonies, and the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of certain Acts of Parliament respecting America, and to deliberate and determine upon wife and proper Measures to be by them recommended to all the Colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just Rights and Liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of Union and Harmony between Great-Britain and the Colonies, most ardently desired by all good men.”; this long step of The House of Representatives, in date 1774, because the year is very important, why? Simple, because it is anticipates the American revolution, hence the revolution was already ready, but not certainly armed, but a lone civil and religious, as is underlined; but in wit the revolution was occurred, because the feel of independence was already present, and the distance from England was very too for to impose a dictatorial govern in Colonies; substantive that is used also in step mentioned; it is ulterior proof that the young nation hasn’t shame to called them so, why? Simple because they were already independent in policy and economy, therefore the decision of king George 3th were may assumed for a decision that were followed if it was opportune to the being born country; and that the independence was a date already present in USA is confirmed form the motives that in 1774 are evidenced: “Rights and Liberties, civil and religious”, but the colonies can’t have the rights, they must obey to mother country and stop, the request of freedom both civil and religious is a request very strange, because the colonies must be depending by other nation that decides also to them; but this question was already overcame from the American citizens, because they were already free, hence we can also think that this demand was an false motive to reach the independence, and it was so, why? Simple because for England was impossible checked is somebody was Catholic or Protestant, and I think that to England didn’t to cure of religion, because important for England were the harbors, and no certainly the civil rights, the market leaves something from the religion, Vespasian Roman imperator(9-79 b.Ch), has asked rhetorical to his son if the money stunk,  after that he has taxed the bathrooms, the provenience of money isn’t important, because important is the arrive; hence the England was already to the independence, because it was present; otherwise if the colonies were very rich the England have used other politic system.

Alessandro Lusana         

 

 

A philosophic lesson

Richard, an estimated professor of philosophy entered to class and much students were seated and they spoke one other; he tried attracted their attention, but they were busied in fond discussions, and sometime somebody got up and: “Fuck you and your Academia”, and Richard called him to order and good politeness, but he: “Who are you?”, and Richard: “I am the professor, and I want began the lesson, hence you must seat or off with you”, and he, a man bearded and old, gazed Richard and: “Are you the professor?”, and Richard: “Yes, I am here, why do you…”, but the man cut off: “If you are the professor, what is the syllogism?”, and Richard: “it is the clarification…”, and the man cutoff again, but now Richard: “Shut up, and stop, you are the pain in the neck; therefore you must be shut”; the man gazed him and he hinted a smile, and Richard: “The syllogism is a clarification, very simple, that Aristotle used to exemplify the scientific search”, and the man: “Very good”, and other student: “The search more human rather than scientific was begun Socrates”, and Richard: “Yes, Socrates, you have rightly judged, begun that human search no that scientific, because Socrates wasn’t a scientific man, or…”, the student cut off him: “The man is science or no?”, and Richard, that didn’t endure that somebody cut off somebody: “Can I speak?”, and the student: “You must alone tell if the man is scientific argument or no”, and Richard gazing the student: “It is motive for your capital condemn in Athens in 399 b.Ch., the hemlock was good or no?”, and student: “You haven’t answered to me, regard to hemlock, I asked also if I could drink other, but the judges denied it”, Richard hinted a smile and with tears on the eyes spoke: “Excuse me, dear Socrates, I don’t bear when somebody cut off me hence my answer is so sharp and wicked because…”, Richard cut off herself, and Socrates asked again: “The man is scientific argument or no?”, and Richard: “I don’t think”, and Socrates: “Use the logic, my logic, that I have used and I have created difficulties to my interlocutors”, and Richard an example, please, and Socrates: “The man isn’t science, it’s right?”, and Richard: “Yes”, and Socrates: “Why in ancient Egypt the surgery was so advanced?”, and Richard: “Because the religious motive ordered that the embalmment”, and Socrates: “The pharaoh were human of gods?”, and Richard: “They were human certainly, considered divinity but they were human”, and Socrates: “Thereupon the surgeries embalmed men and no gods”, and Richard: “It is certain”, and Socrates: “Whereby the man is science, anatomic science, medical science, or not?” and Richard: “Yes, but you have detected the man in deep, in logic, in rationality, and it isn’t science, but alone the correction of mistakes, as you are making now to me”, and Socrates: “It’s right, but you have said that I have detected the man in deep, or I have mistaken?”, and Richard: “No absolutely, it is the mean”, and Socrates: “therefore I am more scientific than surgical”, and Richard laughed and: “Why?”, and Socrates while he is smiling: “The logic dear Richard, the logic”, and Richard: “Yes but I don’t find the logic that you has used, excuse me but it is very difficult, anyway explain to me it, please”, and Socrates: “What cures the surgery?”, and Richard: “The harms of war or hunt”, and Socrates: “How much time is necessary to recover for a hurt”, and Richard: “Sometime or never if the hurt is very serious, but if it is light alone sometime”, and Socrates: “How much time is necessary to man to recover by the stupidity?”, and Richard gazed Socrates: “A stupid is always so, he doesn’t recovers”; and Socrates: “Why?”, and Richard: “Because he is stupid, naive or other”, and Socrates: “If  to him somebody tells the new method for doesn’t stupid? What do you think, he is going to recover or no?”, and Richard: “Certainly he is going not to be stupid”, and Socrates: “The surgery is stupid?”, and Richard: “No, because he recovers and he knows perfectly what he must make”, and Socrates: “may has taught somebody to him what he must make?”, and Richard: “Yes!”, and Socrates: “Hence he has learned through the experience and through the study”, and Richard: “Certainly”, and Socrates: “He has learned to use of instruments for to rescue a life”, and Richard: “Yes! It is so”, and Socrates. “therefore I am more scientific than a surgeon”, and Richard: “Why? It is the second time that you say it but the demonstration where is?”, and Socrates: “Simple, I cure the deepest of man, this is the stupidity, because I teach the logic, that is the better cure against the stupidity”, and Richard: “I doing not understand”, and Socrates: “I explain: I am more scientific because I cure the side deepest of man, this is the brain, that surgeon can’t cure, some time ago you have said that the man isn’t scientific matter, and I have asked how the ancient Egyptian used the embalmment, and you have answered for religious motives, yes, certainly, but if the man isn’t matter of science, why they were attentive to conservation of corps and how they made? You rightly have answered for religious motive; certainly but they, as the surgeon, have to know the corps and the cures; hence the man is a matter of science”, and Richard. “Yes, it is, why are you more scientific than surgeon”, and Socrates: “Simple because don’t cut the corps but I enter in the brain without hurt, or better, I hurt very deeply because after the cure the man is changed and he has made violence to herself, but he is recovered; thereby I hurt more deep that surgeon, because the man is matter of science, therefore you must think in conformity of logic what you are saying, and preview probable objections, these you must preview, and after when your think is logic, you are going to can speak”, other student: “Richard leave it, I can advise you, because I have been his pupil”, and Richard: “What your name?”, and the student. “Plato”, and Richard again to other student: “What is your name?”, and the student: “Xenophon and he”, indicating other student: “Is Aristotle, and he Epicurus and…”, suddenly a voice: “Stop, it is perfect”, and Richard: “I think that Aristotle must say more something than that he said”, and the director: “You think truly that you are a professor?”, and Richard: “No! I am alone an actor” and the director: “Why are you here?”, and Richard: “Because my talent agent has called me to an interpretation, and the public there is hence we have interpreted very goodly our roles”, and the director: “They are the readers; you and other are necessary; anyway you must continue”, and in fact the lesson continued.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

The indirect psychological speculation of Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne(1533-1592), was an French intellectual that has had an importance very relevant during his time, I must confess that the read of a his book, The title has adjective “indirect” because Montaigne has read what is written; hence the analysis of French intellectual is indirect.Travel in Italy is very boring, because he has described, very summarily, the cities both Italian, German and French; anyway for the firsts pages of The essays some interesting notes is, for example for description of human nature he has used two episodes of fight of Edward 1th prince of Galls and Scanderbeg 3th prince of Epirus, and he describes, trough the Aristotelian method, this speculative, the human nature: “The common method for to soften the heart of who we have offended, when they can revenge of us is move them to compassion and pity through the submission Edward 1th prince of Galls…was seriously offended by Limosini, and he have took their city, and he didn’t stop by cried of people of massacres, but the prayers of women, that asked the pity, but three men that very courageously gone face him. The respect to so valor mitigated the angry of prince. He begun by these three to given grace to all the resident. Scanderbeg third, this George Castriota(1403-1468), prince of Albany, pursued a soldier to kill him and when he seen him that has the sword, and he was ready to face him, but after that the soldier tried mitigated him uselessly the same took the sword; this courage broken the angry of Scanderbeg and he given the grace…” Montaigne brought other examples that here we can’t read, because the explication of these behaviors is important; the pity shown for these princes is typical behavior of human nature, or better, the weakness of human gender, because these reaction is truly the submission that the hostile want, Priam, king of Try, kissed the hand of Achilles for reached the corpse of Hector, the submission gives the illusion of victory, and of strong for whom has the homage. And the analysis of Montaigne that sometime can seems superficial instead reached the peak for description of an episode of Alexander the Great that ordered the torture of a prison, Betis took in Gaza, that he made to torture and to kill, but this choice of Alexander, as hinted by Montaigne, was determined by envy: “Or Alexander estimated Beti so much in so greatness that for his presence he didn’t endured that other has had so quality, without dislike of feel of envy”; it is the speculative method of Montaigne, that as the cities that he has visited, he describes now the human behavior and feel that are organic to human gender. This episode tells also a strategic and cruel choice of Alexander in the same city of Thebes, because Alexander killed sex thousand enemies soldiers; it is the useless cruel, we can judge so this episode, but we must also consider that Alexander was the conqueror of Thebes, and conceded the life to so bold soldiers was very danger, hence the massacre was necessary, above all the soldiers didn’t scared by the death, therefore they would have be enemies very danger. Interesting for the conjunction to Socrates is the words of Plato, that Montaigne translated: “Make the your cures and know yourself”, it is Socrates. Anyway Montagne among episodes of classical fights and modern history describes the human gender. The psychological argument is for description of psychological reaction of man, that Montaigne took from ancient literature, in fact he mentioned Plutarch: “Plutarch says by the way about who loves the monks or small dogs, that the lover side that is in us, when an these objects lack rather than to be inactive it creates something ephemeral and false”; it is natural reaction of human gender, that we can know as fetishism, it is alone an process of assimilation.      

 

 

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

Original lesson: Socrates

In central place of Athens a man dirty and with long beard gone around, and a guy called him: “Socrates, Socrates, do you are going?”, and he answered, after some moment that he stopped him to look a sculpture, he anyway answered: “I am here, and I am looking this sculpture of Phidias, and it is very beautiful”, and the guy, whose name was Xenophon, called again him: “Socrates come here”, and Socrates gone to him, and he seen that the persons were much, gathered, and was astonished, and he asked: “Why how much persons, Xenophon?”, and he answered: “Because we want give to you some question”, and Socrates smiled and asked: “do you want ask me something’”, and a guy: “Yes! We want know why you have written nothing?”, and Socrates. “Because every philosopher has written something, but I could not nothing to teach, hence I haven’t written”, and other hearer: “You could teach something!”, and Socrates, seen to earth and he asked: “What?”, and the hearer: “I don’t know”, and Socrates: “I neither, but you are here and you can say to us something, that we can teach”, and the hearer: “I don’t know it, therefore I can’t  say it”, and Socrates: “Do you have some matter, argument, idea or…”, and hearer interfered: “No Socrates I haven’t it, I and we are waiting that you give it to us”, and Socrates: “What do you think around  that you haven’t matters or arguments?” and the hearer: “I think that I am again young to have some argument, I haven’t studied enough”, and Socrates: “Who said it? Who has judged it? How much we must study to speak around something?”, and hearer: “I don’t know”, and Socrates: “You can ask to yourself, and after you can believe it, this is to your thesis, but you must believe to it always”, and the hearer: “Can I change opinion?”, and Socrates: “Certainly, you must change ideas, but you must decide it no other that you have attended, do you have attended?” and the hearer: “Gorgias the sophist”, and Socrates: “His think is simple: you pay and I teach nothing”, and hearer: “He has taught the rhetorical science”, and Socrates: “Very good, and?”, and hearer: “Nothing alone the rhetoric”, and Socrates: “Hence you haven’t matters or arguments because Gorgias hasn’t given it”, and the hearer: “Yes, for this I am here, because I want that you to me something”, and Socrates: “Yourself”, and hearer: “What?”, and Socrates: “Yourself”, and hearer gazed around and other and asked: “I didn’t understand it”, and Socrates: “On doors of Apollos temple is written: γνϖθι σεαυτόν, that it is an advisement to whom want make sacrifice”, and the hearer: “What is mean?”, and Socrates: “It is if you want make sacrifice to Apollos or other gods”, and hearer: “But why do you uses this motto?”, and Socrates: “Because I want compel you, now, to search a truth that it is your truth and no of others, your truth”, and hearer: “But I must read and after I am going to have a ideas”, and Socrates: “It is the begin of a think, hence you can read much and after you can tell to us your think”, and hearer: “Think that you will denied!”, and Socrates: “No, the logic is going to deny it”, and hearer: “The logic?”, and Socrates: “Yes the logic, I am alone the bringer of logic, and I give questions, but I am not a master but alone the bringer of logic”, and the hearer: “You are hence the represent of logic”, and Socrates: “No I am a represent of ignorance that searched of know, and you are going to teach me something”.

Alessandro Lusana            

                                                                   

 

 

Third way

Third was a student of art history in prestigious university, he was a clever student, very much student and for his experience he has had given very attributions, discussed conference and written books; a perfect student that has employed in same university that has given to him the master; he was again an assistant, but his professor that was always engaged among conferences, lesson, books and other, often given to him the possibility of give the lessons, also because the professor after asked to students what was the quality, and the student were very satisfied; during a lesson he explained a painting of Annabelle Carracci, this is Hercules to crossroads, an allegory between vicious and virtue; after the lesson, he gone to bar of university and he drunk a tea, after the payment he gone out and in front of principal door of university, immediately the dark failed and he could not see something; for a moment he was scared, but after two female figures shown to him, and they gazed him and invited to approach, he made it and after asked. “Who are you?”, and the females answered: “We are the virtue and the vicious, you must choose what is you preferred”; and Third gazed twice the females and after: “I want know twice, and I want begin for vicious”, and the female of vicious: “Follow me please”, and Third made it, hence he seen every vicious, a catalog very spread of the perversion, crimes and other, and he seen for a time of a day, and the female of vicious: “Now you can close the eyes”, he made it and after he opened and he was in same point of crossroads, where the female of virtue ordered same things, and for a day Third seen the virtues and nobility, and same ordered given the female of virtue, and he was in same place from begin, hence Third: “I am very happy and satisfied for these visits, but I want given a question”, and twice females gazed one other and simultaneously they say: “Say, we are available for your questions”, and Third: “I want ask it is the third way?”, and the females gazed him intensely, and while they gazed he added: “A third way”, and the female of vicious: “What is the third way?”, and Third: “It is the virtue and vicious mixed”, and the female of virtue: “We don’t know it, way do you asked it?”, and Third: “Because the life asked also the compromises, this is the renounce of some virtue, for to take some vicious and the contrary”, and the female of virtue: “You are asking to me that are the virtue of renounce to my integrity, for to take the vicious, absolutely no!”, and same answer given the female of vicious, and therefore Third: “ Aristoteles, a Greek philosopher, has explained that the perfect virtue is in mesos μεσος, this is the right measure, no extreme for nothing, but capacity of choice for the context, and the female of vicious: “An example?”, and Third: “You must imagine a policeman under cover, he must simulate the criminal behaviors, but he is always a policeman, hence honest and he respects the laws, but in that context he must be criminal, it is the mesos of Aristotle, for a half he is criminal and half he is honest”, and the two females turned toward the space that was between them and improvise a third way it opened in the center, where a man with beard arisen: “Welcome Third”, and Third: “Who are you?” and the man: “I am the third way, follow me”.

Alessandro Lusana         

  

               

 

Explicative title: Hegel’s The phenomenology of spirit

During the read of interpretation of Martin Heidegger(1889-1976) of Phenomenology of spirit of Hegel(1770-1831), the philosophical explication of this book is immediate, above all for the complete extension of title, the explains whole the significate of this book, because who has read this book can know that the title is entirely explicative, in book of Heidegger the explication is very exemplar: “The title of this book for its integrity is. “System of science. First part. Science of experience of conscience”, that after become: “«Science of phenomenology of spirit”; certainly to unwise reader this title is nothing; because is necessary read the book of Hegel, but who has read it is most explication, why? Simple because Hegel, to philosophical level, explains how the brain, this is the spirit, knows something, the explication of Heidegger is whole: “If the knowledge is whole itself , knows that it knows, and if it become so for how it come to itself, but it come to itself alone for how is become other by itself, is necessary that it doesn’t is near to itself…”, this explication hasn’t absolutely sense, useless deny it, because it is alone and philosophical explication, but after Heidegger follows: “The absolute knowledge must be other by inception of experience that conscience makes to itself, experience  that is alone the movement, the history when occurs to come to itself becoming other by itself”; this explication would to merit the capital pain and stop, to the first to whom has mentioned and after to whom want repeat it! What is the meaningful of this mention? Simple the process is philosophically much complicate but if we translate in pragmatic reality this concept, it is very elementary, it is alone an explication that we make everyday, this is: the knowledge is directly inherent to dynamic of experience, we known the fire, and we know that the fire can be useful or harmful, but we have known it during the childhood, because the parents has forgotten to us of set the hand on fire, but in that simple practical knowledge, we didn’t know because the hand on the fire we can’t set, hence the knowledge was again other, the other of Hegel, this is something that again was uncertain, therefore the knowledge was again incomplete, whereby it is other, as we have read already; it become specular to itself, and it is unified to conscience when the experience is complete, this is when we set the hand on the fire, thereupon we fell the harm and dolor, whereby the conscience is become part of itself, this is the conscience recognizes itself, this is the knowledge; until the knowledge is uncertain to us it is the other of Hegel, something that not is in conscience, because is again other, but when the experience is made, whereby the knowledge is become part of conscience, this is we have made the experience, practical experience; thereby the knowledge is part of conscience. Heidegger explained again: “The absolutely knowledge is also the relative knowledge is already,. The relative knowledge is the conscience that again is reveled as spirit.” What is the meaningful? Simple the hand of the fire, that we haven’t set again, therefore the spirit can’t know what is the knowledge, because the experience isn’t.

Alessandro Lusana