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

 

 

 

 

 

Paranoic life

Mark was a businessman, very ingenious, and he has employed by very much enterprises, because his fame was very untouchable; a contract with Mark was impossible if the enterprise hasn’t some million for the salary and award. It is the gold side of man but an other side subsist in Mark; when he could he attended a psychiatric, specialist to paranoic case, a psychiatric very important that by now was a rapport to Mark that was fraternal, in fact Mark has advised to him much times investments and gain, and the frequentation, also domestic, was constant, Mark was the godfather of sons of Paul, the psychiatric and the brother of Mark; and this choice has made suspicious Paul, because Mark was for years long from his family and after years he has reappeared; Paul anyway treated this case as other, and during their meeting Paul has understood that Mark was affected from a far form of paranoid; mark has enemies everywhere, in the finance enterprises, enemies are always present, but real enemies and no imaginary, but although Paul understood of finance, he has appraised that Mark was the paranoic; he told about enemies that in hotels, some waiter that waited on during a dinner, alone personal that he imagined as enemies or concurrent, that wanted take some secret. Paul, beyond the consanguinity, was always direct to Mark, and mark has chosen him for this. During a session mark asked: “What have I now?”, and Paul answered: “Can be I direct and sincere to you?”, and Mark: “Certainly, you must be sincere, it is as the investment, when I advise an investment I given the benefits and the risks, because the costumer must know…”, and for an hour he spoke around the technic of investment; and when he has ended, he gazed Paul, much bored and Mark recognized it said: “What have I?”, and Paul answered: “You are a paranoic, but the very paranoic, because you are very much egocentric”, Mark gazed Paul and : “I am or paranoic or egocentric”, and Paul: “No you are paranoic because you are egocentric; you think that the word, the waiters in the first place, wanted by you something, but a question you given not to you”, and Mark: “What question?”, and Paul: “Simple, what can want a waiter by you? I give the answer: nothing! Because he doesn’t know you, you are a costumer as other, and he hasn’t interest for you, because he doesn’t know whom are you, what you make, what are your secrets, and how much your finance, why?”, because you are a common costumer, but you must compensate your egocentrism, and as the every paranoic you must search the consideration of somebody, and when it there isn’t you think or imagine that somebody hates you, it is pure egocentrism”, and after the session the usual dinner. Paul for an appointment made a dinner in restaurant, and he met other psychiatric that spoke around the therapies, and he heard a voice that was very familiar, in fact he turned and he seen Mark with uniform for waiter, he gazed him and asked: “Do you want some useful information?”, and Mark: “Yes, for this I am here, for know if in the word are other paranoic”.

Alessandro Lusana                                         

 Democratic birth: USA

This assay want alone to appraise a historical truth that can deny every affirmation regard the presumable dictatorship of England in USA during the colonial period; the piece of a document in 1620, when the English landed in Virginia, and they founded Plymouth, where the lands were given to citizens, it is because more than an ideal consideration is a sake; this is that if nothing has worked the lands the economy both in Plymouth and other where, the USA be not born; anyway the text of  Filippo Mazzei(1730-1816), Enlightenment historical man that has told the history of USA, he said that stressed the possibility of vote: “The papers of council of Plymouth confirm the right of given the lands, but not govern it. In same years 1628, it obtained  other for this effect, the Company of owners could elect an governor, this was Mathieu Cradock, a vice governor Thomas Goffe…”, this step can seem absolutely petty, because today it is normal, today yes, but in 1628, it was the affirmation of democracy, certainly with limitation, as in ancient Greek, where the votes, ψηφοι, in ancient Greek, this were small stones or small ceramics white or black to approval or for negation; but although it can seems a democratic state, in Athens, where was the Areopagus, alone the males could vote and if they has made the military training; it is meaning that the possibility of vote was very short; in fact this habit is used also in birthing USA, because alone the riches owners could vote; but the step of history that we have read, certainly today unacceptable, because each citizen can vote, through the right that he has, but the selection of voting also today is present, because who hasn’t the right in other country can’t vote, today it is normal, but it is a limitation as those both Greek and English. But I want underline that the principle of democracy was already present in USA, from its birth. Hence the democracy in USA, differently of Europe, the vote was a reality; therefore the democracy was present; we must also consider that that country was very scantly peopled, thereupon the vote was very limited, because extension of vote was impossible, because evidently much citizens didn’t know it, and they would not understand the importance. The historic evolution of USA could be also on the democratic uses and thinks, because it was born so; and other consideration is that USA hasn’t a tradition, that some time can be also a weight, because can determine some choose in politic land, but the people would not approve, because it is contrary to his think and customs, and the customs are the documents of historic past; but in USA every community has brought his traditions, hence the unique tradition isn’t, for example the Italians in private spoke among them alone the dialect, their dialect, also because they didn’t known other language, hence alone that they could speak; but Italians have had their traditions, as the German, and other communities; thereupon it is a limited traditions to a number likewise limited; the Americans can underline that they have had and have a democratic tradition instead in others countries the democracy there wasn’t; they can stress that it is the better tradition, certainly today, but for future we can’t know, because we must consider that in USA it is the politic model but in other countries it isn’t, because they have others tradition. Whereby the USA could be alone democratic country, because its tradition is so out set.The birth of Rhode Island is meaningful of new wit o democracy, Mazzei tells: “These little colonies that today are under name of Rhode Island, were involved in one alone for a document of Charles 2th, in date 8 July 1661, with name of colonies of Rhode Island and Plantations of Providence”, until here nothing that can be interesting except the name and the birth of an State. The first assembly there was in New Port in 1th mars of 1663, and among the things was decided that the Christin, except the Catholic, sward the same advantages for the right of citizen”, it is alone a small note, but the important is that the convocation of assembly, that is a democratic organ to decision; we must also that the exception of Catholic is a protestant revenge that we can understand because the unity of Protestant was possible for their believe, that was opposite to Rome hence the Catholicism; but politically it is easy justifiable because the presence, may small of Catholic, have guaranteed a number very much superior after, therefore the sward of citizen was necessary for Catholic, because they were present, in Rhode Island, otherwise the document haven’t mentioned them; and further we must also consider that the Spanish, hence Catholic, colonies were in south of USA, and the religion war in Europe, between 1618 and 1648, was a reality, the war called War of thirteen years, that opposed the Catholic nations and the Protestant; hence was necessary that the contrasts in Europe, were in Europe alone.                

 Alessandro Lusana