Political revolution: the revolutionary French constitution

The revolution was that political, and through this word I mean the Greek exception of this word, is the administration and manage of a State; before more revolutionary was the American constitution, that was already present in the daily actions, the independence of colonies was alone an ascertainment of the ideal and natural presence, that not was political because that the American constitution said was already present; and here the geography is relevant, because the colonies were afield from the English power, in fact they were already independent, but the political concepts that are expressed in the French constitution, are radical, the automatic question is, why? Today for us this political document is alone a constitution without importance, why? Simple because in Europe, these constitutions are very common, daily, hence, the second question is “Why we should have more interest for this?”, because it is a revolutionary constitution, that in Europe, and the geography is more important than before, these constitutions, or constitutions aren’t; the will of the king was the law; instead the will of people is the law, naturally this constitution was written from jurist men, that gone out from a monarchic State, the last French king Louis 16^th, decapitated in January of 1793, hence the difference the differences have to very much relevant, in fact: “Article 1. The rights of the men are the freedom, equality, the sureness and the propriety”; the laic nature of this constitution is evident because the first article doesn’t mention God, and the differences are soon present in second article: “The equality is in that the law is equal to each, that it shield or punish. The equality doesn’t admits differences for the birth, neither heritage neither power”; today it is absolutely normal, but in French or better in Europe of 1793, when this constitution was enacted, it was the true revolution, and I repeat, this constitution was enacted from a European country. The principles that are expressed in same article are very relevant for a constitution, because it wanted, although not written, the unity of a State around the State, the new State, that now was become the republic, hence the unity of citizens was fundamental, in fact: “The sureness is the participation of everybody for to insure the right of each citizen. The propriety is the right of joy and manage of owns, of his incomes, and of the fruit of his work. The difference is more stressed in 6^th article: “The law is the general will that expresses  through the majority or of the citizens or their represents”; it is a revolutionary document because in Europe these equality in front of the law impossible; and it is important not certainly because it is a constitution, because the American constitution was already present and perfect, for its rights, hence the amazing is very limited, because here is repeated that in American constitution was present, and the American constitution was enacted when the burst of the French revolution, we can’t think that has been direct or indirect influence because in French as in Europe, except the English monarchy, known that was burst a independence war in the American continent, because the people, in Europe, didn’t know neither that a American continent existed; the juridical brain that has thought this constitution wanted stressed the independence, but not from other State but from other model, that monarchic, therefore the differences are radical. The awareness of new time and new institutions is in this article, this is the 14^th, that today is the absolutely common, but have past also 234 years from this constitution: “Nothing law, neither criminal nor civil can’t have the retroactive effect”; I repeat it is normal today, but when the constitution wasn’t and the law was the king, everything was subject to him, also the law. The 16^th article ids the celebration of this new spirit: “Every contribution is issued for the general utility; and it must be distributed among the taxpayers, for their possibility”; today it is normal, but I remember to the commentators that the General States were met because the economic crisis was very radical, and the bourgeois and the people have to keep the clergy and aristocracy, that have not to pay the taxes, but also the poverty of the aristocracy is, although shrouded, in the words: “must be distributed among the taxpayers”, because the revolutionaries known perfectly that the aristocracy by now was very impoverished, hence every taxpayer could have given how much was possible. And the article 17^th The sovereignty is essentially in the universality of citizens”; it is the fundamental document of historical progress of revolution, the change very radical of concept of power, now the citizens are the represent of the French, that have delegated liable for their representation in national assembly. And the article following issues better this concept: “Nobody, nor meeting of citizens can attribute the sovereignty”, it is the supreme spirit of revolution, so that nobody except the national assembly has the power. The true revolution, political revolution, is in this article that want guarantees to everybody, in sense purely theoretic, the possibility of represent but with much limits, this is never think to absolute power. The article 19^th confirms this article: “Nobody can, without legal delegation has authority, or to be employer in some public function”; this law wants hinder that died a king other can come. The 21th article confirms this spirit: “The public functions can become the owner of who works it”; this is nobody can become king, since that monarchy had granted some public work and through. In Latin language it sounds as “Quandoque bonus Homerus dormitat”, some time also Homer sleeps; this is the meaning also the better men can mistake; and the revolutionary constitution uses the gospel and not alone for a mention, but in constitution, in article 2th regard the duties of citizens this paper says: “Not make to other that you don’t want somebody makes to you. You must make to other the good action that you would”; we can, rightly, laugh of this step, because it is very useless and absolutely abstract, yes, its right! But we must also consider that the French was again Catholic and the revolutionary spirit in common people wasn’t, actually the traditionalism was very strong, for this Napoleon could issue his govern, that formally isn’t but in reality it was absolutely monarchic. Naturally can’t lack the nature of a State antimonarchic that must suggest the desistence toward every form of monarchy: “The duties of every citizens toward the society is to defend, to server, to live under the laws and to respect who are their institutions”; it is a motive valid to think that the Jacobinism has taught that somebody could also think of to take the power, and it in fact occurred, Napoleon, but same Napoleon was under the laws. The Christian morality was truly deep in the French people, because the article 4^th is a true representation of Christin doctrine: “Nobody is a good citizen if he isn’t also good son, good father, good brother, goof friend, good husband”, to this article lacks something very important, it is: “He must goes to Jerusalem with pilgrims, and every day must pray, in church, our God; if the constitution was also of this article the revolution would be submerged from the fairs; further the accuse of atheism that the factions bourgeois could use against the Jacobin was reals, and a country again Catholic as the French has had react very evil.     

 Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

.

 

 The Medieval Roman hero: Cola di Rienzo

The life of Cola di Renzo, but the original name is Nicole of Lorenz(1313-1354 is told from an anonymous writer may from Bologna, Cola was a popular man that the Roman people identified  to his nature and in fact the writer said: Cola of Renzo was popular man, his father was host and his mother washerwoman  of this origin he confessed his shame: “I have begun from  a moment of my life I felt the shame for my popular life and I begun acculturate reading the classics books…” this confession is meaningful  because shows the real motive for the necessity of culture. Other certainty  is the narration of the meeting to the pope Clemens 6^th (1291-1352) that reproached the senators of Rome because they don’t  think to Rome and other step, following  the precedent, where the  anonymous mentions the name  of an important employed of Senate of Rome Thomas from Fortiocca, unknown absolutely but useful here for to ascertain that Cola has told this episode, because he reports the words, and the name, hence he was present to this discussion to pope, because he is s direct witness. Naturally Medieval narration also took legendary steps from Isidore from Seville, and the author manifests his egocentrism very great because he compares herself  to the ancient histories men as Herodotus, and Livius, and he said about herself that he stem from a noble family, but a noble during the Middle age would have written in Latin, and not certainly in Italian of 14^th century. But some information regard to Rome is interesting because in front of the church of Saint Spirit  the church of Saxon people was a ditch. The boredom  of Middle age is in the tales that regard other cities, as Ferrara and Bologna , because in Rome evidently nothing occurred. A monk came to Rome for pilgrim and our author is very precise for description of cloths, hence he has seen him. And some other note can be interesting for the builds of two churches, this is Saint John of Lateran and Saint Peter, because pope Benedict 12^th made completely the roofs, it is a poor note that is useful fro the history of these churches , the architect was Jehan Poisson, the architect of pope, in years 1341, and a worker  that the documents mention as master Ballus that it isn’t the name of worker but certainly a fake name. This history is certainly true because the author was witness for the major part of events; and the pragmatic wit emerges from a information, during the female in Rome, in year 1338, the women  became prostitute for the necessity, certainly unhappy but shows the practical wit of being man.  

Alessandro Lusana   

 Platonic and pragmatic sensism: George Berkeley

George Berkeley(1685-1753) is an Irelands philosopher, that has took the sensism very diffused in England then, and he has took from Plato(b.Ch. 427-347) the concept of ideas but with acceptation real, this is that we can see is real, the question inasmuch is: “Where is the Platonism?”; simple in the concept of ideas, that the Athens philosopher has taught in the word of ideas, Berkeley has took the concept but with acceptation real, this pragmatic remark is a change important regard to Platonism, the origin is the Greek philosopher but Berkeley ties it to context, very pragmatic of reality, following also the practical wit that during those centuries in England was principal, and the concept of vision of daily things is absolutely Platonic, because for the Athens philosopher the reality is a translation of the word of ideas, therefore although Berkeley didn’t mention it Plato, he is present although shrouded: “Hence as it is impossible for me  to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thought any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it [In truth, the object and the sensation are the same thing, and cannot therefore be abstracted for each other]”; it is the pragmatic Platonism, that follows the reality, because a reality took entirely from the old concept of word of ideas, it would have denied the Christian religion, because everything is created from the God and no certainly from the word of ideas. The Platonism and the pragmatism return to after some steps: “Some truth and are so near and obvious to the mind that a man need only open  his eyes to see them. Such I take this important one to be, viz that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in the word all those bodies which compose the mighty  frame of the word, have not subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived by me , or do not exist or that of any other created spirit, they must  either have not existence at all or else subsist in the mind of some eternal spirit…”; it is the real sensism, because the mind has the imagines or sensations that after it translated in his intelligence, the pragmatic sensism is clear, now the rationality is dominant because Plato was again present, but in hide form, and now emerges the rationality that moderates the idealism, because the rationality is dominating. A Platonic note the words: “some eternal spirit” is the up dated version of Plato, it is the modern version of the word of ideas. The Platonism continues and now is more evident: “From what has been said it is evident there not any other substance than spirit, or that which perceives. But, for the fuller demonstration of this point, let it be considered the sensible qualities are color, figure, motion, smell, taste, and other, for example the ideas perceived by sense…”; it is the pure Platonism, the translation of ideas, that we have seen above, is in updated version; and the final words are very eulogy of Platonism: “…that therefore wherein color, figure, and other exist must perceive them: hence it is clear there can be no unthinking substance or substratum of those ideas”; the pragmatic Platonism.

Alessandro Lusana

    

 

      

   

 

 Ille dixit: Cicero

I want read the first oration of Cicero(b.Ch.106-43) against Catiline, in year 63 b. Ch., in Rome in the temple of Jupiter, but I have read it much years ago but now I want evince the character of Cicero from his behavior; the greatest name in Roman literature, was born near Arpinum(near to Frosinone), a town of Latium, January 3rd, B.C. 106. His father, a man of large views and liberal culture, belonged to the equites, and possessed an hereditary estate in the neighborhood of the town. L. Sergius Catilina was a Roman patrician, born about I08 B.C. From his father he inherited nothing but a noble name. In the turbulent scenes of the Sullan rule, Catiline played a conspicuous part, to which his undoubted ability, his undaunted courage, his iron constitution, his depraved morals, and excessive cruelty notoriously fitted him. For the duty that I want reached, I must consider that a aid has given from John Henderson that in his edition, in year 1886, of The first oration against Catiline he said: “In the introduction Cicero in impassioned language expresses astonishment that Catiline…”; this step of Henderson is very explicative regard to not understandable of Cicero, because he, we can imagine, in front of Catiline hasn’t dread, and his character evidently, for how much we can evince, was very stable and he, in fact, wanted cure the form above all, the form of oration, that begins so: “When , o Catiline do you mean to cease abusing our patience?...”, This introduction of Cicero is very important for to know his character because, he is a quiet man that in temple is the protagonist of this oration, thence he is also the principal orator, and the error, although the orator is Cicero, abusing, translated in English, but the original text is “abutere”, it is the second person singular of future of verb “abutor”, that is in its correct form “abuteris”, and not “abutere”, because the form is important, actually it is fundamental, although the oration is an accuse that Cicero given to Catiline; but Cicero is secure of his qualities od orator therefore also an error is enabled; it is the open form of future, that in Latin language isn’t, because the two final syllables “ere” is a form with sound open, and we can call it the future opened. He continues: “When is there to be end of that unbridled audacity…”, it is other notation of Cicero’s character, because the audacity is a qualities in much context, but for other it can be dangerous, and this substantive audacity, that is almost reproach to Catiline, shows the equilibrium of Cicero, that is evident from the use of this substantive. After the four orations against Catiline, he was condemned to capital pain, but Cicero reached this condemn without the proves, and he involuntary given the aid valid to Caesar for the exile to Cilicia, a Roman province, where Cicero written De amicitia, About the friendship, where he brought examples of true friendship, and he considered also, a human truth; when you are useful to other they are very friendship, but when you don’t be useful, everybody leave you. We can understand from this oration the character of Cicero, that was very egocentric and superb, but also ingenuous, because he didn’t know the human gender, the Amicitia is manifestation of ingenuity and also superficiality, because the mankind is always near or distant for your useful.

Alessandro Lusana      

   

      

 

 The true Scepticism

Common opinion around the scepticism is that the sceptic philosophers didn’t believe nothing, naturally we are in front usual exemplification that is absolutely false and erred because the scepticism is other, usual exaggeration want an ancient sceptic philosopher didn’t that in front of him was a wall and he attacked it with the head and he broken it; naturally it is alone an example that the legendary episodes, that has its nature in Greek mythology, and in fact from it stems the method of exemplification through the false episodes that certainly simplified the understanding but are also deviant from the reality of philosophy, and for the scepticism the cockup are very much; the truth of scepticism is other, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) explained, in his Lesson about the history of philosophy the concept of sceptic philosophy: “Precisely, between scepticism and philosophy is this rapport, that the first is the dialectic of every determined”; so it seems an war declaration, and the comment are, beyond the fuck you, that are turned both to whom is writing and to Hegel, but this concept is absolutely daily, and very easy or essential and objective, with the word or better the past (for to take also the fuck you of grammars); it is alone the common objects, that are a beginning and a ended: a house, can be beauty or ugly, great or little, decorated or not, but it is has a beginning and an end; because it has a roof and fundaments, hence the material and dimensions are ended, it is the “determined” in the sceptic philosophy; it is values both the concrete reality as the abstract concept, and Hegel continues: “On contrary the logic concept is the same this dialectic of scepticism: in fact this negativity, in the scepticism, is necessary to knowledge of ideas. The difference is alone in it, that the sceptic philosopher are stopped from the result as the negative: this  or other brings a contradiction…hence this result , because purely negative, is also a unilateral determination against the positive. The scepticism didn’t recognizes that for its nature this negativity is an affirmative contented; in fact as the negation of negation , the negativity that turns alone to itself, is infinitive affirmation”; why? Simple because is for to simplify: it is as a rogue that is in isolation, he can speaks alone to herself, and alone his think is valid because the confront isn’t, better example: when we are in front to the mirror, we can recognize alone ourselves, because we alone; therefore the negativity, although it is abstract, can recognizes alone itself, as the rogue and the man or woman in front to mirror. Other concept that I recognize as very important because it gives the concept of dynamic of Hegel, he continuing his explication: “The idea as the abstract idea, is the quiet, the inactivity; it become true idea alone when it is life, hence we can understand it. It is occurs alone because it is dialectic, so that it can overcome the inactivity and to meet the change…”; it is my personal satisfaction because I have confirm, forgive the step autobiographical, but I have always imagined the dialectic as very dynamic, and from Hegel, during the read of Aesthetic I have understood it, now I can confirm that the dynamic is the true nature of dialectic; the comments are: “I don’t give cure!!!”, certainly and rightly; but this declaration of war has been necessary to explain first the scepticism and after the step of George Berkeley(1685-1753), a philosopher that in year 1713 has published The three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous a step said: “Hold Philonous, I have been a little out in my definition; but every false step a man makes in discourse is not  to be insisted on.. I said indeed that a sceptic was one who doubted of everything; but I should have added, or who denies the reality and truth of things”, the my comment is: “Or Berkeley didn’t understand the sceptic philosophy or he has took the current opinion about the scepticism.”, and the last is the truth. The error, or better, the common error, continues: “What think you of distrusting the senses, of denying the real existence of sensible things, or pretending to know of them. Is not this sufficient to denominate a man a sceptic?”. In this dialogues the way used from Berkeley is very automatic, because it is the negation or affirmation of objective things, that nobody can denies, and the conclusion are automatic, this is the failure of skepticism, Philonous askes: “Do the reality of sensible things consist in being perceived? Or, is it something distinct from their being perceived, and that bears no relation to mind?”; these aren’t neither askes, are alone cucks up! Necessary so that the dialogue end through a affirmation or negation, that is evident; but the skepticism, as Hegel has explained is very different; it doesn’t deny the reality, but denied the infinite reality, thence that something can be so or not, from it is born the common opinion that the sceptic doubts always, I explain it; everything can be so or not, because can be to other way, an example somebody can goes to New York through the fly, or ship or other if it is possible; the not concrete of skepticism is born from the doubts that they expressed about something, because for the difference from the philosophical schools to them contemporary, they not given the certainties but unique way for the inquiry not was the doubt but that something can be or not so, that the infinite things aren’t, and that everything has a beginning and an end, that aren’t the sureness but it is necessary to solicit the inquiry.      

 Alessandro Lusana     

 Eulogy of egoism

Erasmus from Rotterdam(1469-1536) written the Eulogy of craziness, I want be more sacrilege and I writing the eulogy of egoism; we are usual think that the egoism is evil, and for determined circumstances it is it is very right, also because we can’t think never that this sentiment can be also positive and necessary, why? Simple in economic context the egoism is necessary, so that an enterprise can lives, and the egoism is fundamental for the survive and to give the jobs to other, hence in egoism is altruism, because the chief takes from the money, but he gives or has given, in economy is frequent a judge: “For to gain the money they must invest, thence give the money, and for the enterprises is same they must give the money so that they can gain, but this solution must be think alone for the gain, otherwise this think there not is; usual we think the richness of somebody, but never we think the sacrifices and the job necessary to this richness, that is determined both the job and also from the fortune, that is element that can aid; I repeat, it is stemmed from the job, and certainly from the egoism of somebody, that after he gives the money and the job, but being he a private can think alone for his interest, that gives also the possibilities of job, certainly he select who can be useful, because it is enterprise not certainly charity; this act of egoism is normal in history, a sacrifice, in ancient time, was determined from a will of gain something from the gods, after the rest of animal sacrificed were given to the poor, hence a gesture of altruism, that has had a egoistic beginning, this is to gain something from the gods, that is pure egoism, for this the Christian religion has refused the egoism, that instead is, although secretly, is stressed from the Protestantism, because the names of saved are present alone in God, hence the faith is necessary for to save herself, that is egoism, but the Catholicism sins of egoism because, although otherwise secretly, when the faithful prays he make it alone for his salvation, that is egoism, in fact alone the saints have prayed for the mankind. The policy makes the same thing; when an strategy is used it is because the national interest that can brings a gain to the nation, when it is possible, but the policy must harms something, internal or external to the nation, that is egoism and altruism in same time; because the political man makes something for his nation, but it is composed from millions of citizens, therefore it is also altruism. The good education that our parents has given to us is altruism and egoism in same time, why? Simple because the good education is necessary to our parents to boast of our education, inasmuch pure egoism, but it is also altruism, because the good education is going to necessary for other lively circumstances, may in the job; so also is egoism and altruism, why? Simple because the job enable to us for keep our family, but ii is also egoism, because we demand the dependence from our gain, that is a psychological gratification, that is pure egoism. These examples are necessary to explain something that is normal and we don’t consider never, above all that to every altruism is secretly a will of egoism.

Alessandro Lusana    

 Pragmatic State: Keynes

We are usual think about the economist as the being that live in a theory that has something of very near to real life, and alone the theory is valid because other is very distant and distinct from the reality, instead we have an exception for John Maynard Keynes(1883-1946) that was an economist, but a valid very much exception, why? Because he is in middle economy, this is he took from the ideological parties; during the thirty years in Europe, above all, Keynes was England, hence European after the Bolshevik, in 1917, the Europe was divided between the right and left, also today but the wit is very moderate or disinterest, fortunately! I am speak as Italian and in Italy attempts, flights, political homicide was very frequent. But anyway Keynes wasn’t neither right nor left, he is very genial, for his economic opinion, because he took from the two parties but he critic twice and he finds the merit in twice; it is the sign of pragmatism; Keynes was lived in Liberal country as the England, and the pragmatism in Liberal economic is fundamental, because everyman is potential costumer, and the economy has the first principle it. Hence Keynes has took from his country, Liberal, and through the pragmatic wit he has took from the totalitarian State as the Russian, Italy and Germany, from it the idea or better the strategy of State, that must works when the economic condition has made worse; he is very pragmatic and he stay in middle parties, because he took the theory of Liberalism, because it is the theory that certainly can guarantees richness but it makes also the weak States, it is sufficient a economic crisis to the extreme Orient and the country more liberal in the word, as the USA fails; to this point is important the date of death of Keynes, 1946, when the second world war was ended instead the Great Depression in year 1929, in USA, the effects were present; hence the major book of Keynes The general theory of employment, interest and money, published in 1936, inasmuch after the Great Depression, therefore Keynes could ascertain that the presence of a State, although not totalitarian, but it was important, and it was the last resource for the economy of a country, because the State can manage very much money, necessary to economy and for the social necessities. Keynes thence accepts the Liberal economy but he, through the pragmatic wit, looked also the State that isn’t a concept very distant from the Liberal ideology, but he is first a pragmatic economist that takes every principle necessary to the theory, and the difference is here, this is he is pragmatic, not certainly abstract, he took from two political principles, the totalitarian States and from the Liberal State; these principles are contrasting between them but if in the economy are necessary we must consider also the contrast, but above all, to consider that the sake is the economy, and the economy hasn’t ideology, every country can trade to every country apart from this its ideology, The Europe and USA trade to the China that is communist and totalitarian country; thereby when the economy needs the country uses its pragmatism  because the more important question is the trade, gain and wealth. Keynes accordingly uses every ideology for his theory; it is the pragmatism, but as the political he used two theory that can give something to his theory; whereby it is the pragmatic state, or better, the pragmatic State.

Alessandro Lusana