Historical fantasy

The rapport of human kind with fantasy is primordial in human being, and the epiphanies are works of this innate, and we can ascertain it in literature of middle age that is stemmed from ancient, a difference is present, stead to be a pagan divine is Cristian, but miracles and other are same. But we must consider that in opinion of George Duby(The thousand year. Religious and common psychology p.85) the monks studied the Latin language on ancient authors; in fact the Latin grammatical was learned on verbal way, but exercitation and translation works were on Latin texts, thereupon the history, this is chronicles are full of references of pagan word and myths, that are Christianized, because the source is pagan. Examples can be the a chronicle(Annals of Saint Benoit sur Loire), that in year 1003 strange and strong inundations, and the birth of a monster that his parents have drowned; I think that it is a history that has took from myth of Narcissus, that tried his image reflected in source of water and he drowned; but the Gospel took some source from ancient myths, because the Apocalypse(Capitol 20)says that an angel has tied the Evil to a thousand years; I think that it has reference to the myth of Kronos, this is time, that Zeus has tied his father Kronos, thereby the gods are immortal: but  it is also Christian source to a dream of Otto III, German imperator, has dreamed the town where is buried Charles Magnus, by now forgotten, and after three days of fast he indicated where is, and after the exhumation  the body was exposed to public, but when Otto dreamed the body he seen Charles Magnus seat on gold throne; the source are to both from Gospel, because the three days of fast are correspondent to three day of resurrection of Christ, and the four evangelist told the resurrection, and the Apocalypse is necessary to the figure of Charles Magnus, because on throne where seat the beheaded, the Apocalypse tells: “And I seen some thrones and they(beheaded) seated on it. Hence the middle age the chronicles has had precise sources, Latin literature and Gospel; often the two source are fused; we must consider also that monopoly of culture was in religious orders, thereupon we can read alone the chronicles that from a side alone, because the common people  was illiterate. Today we should thank the monks and their chronicles because these has told the Middle age and the history of their times.

Alessandro Lusana    

            

 

Two human documents

The judgement of Ludwig von Pastor(1854-1928) about Giovanni Boccaccio(1313-1375) is very ridiculous, in fact he said: “Boccaccio, with special predilection gathers, in his tales, the jockeys and insult to priest, monks and nuns and with sarcasm he propones it  as examples of hypocrisy and immoral behavior”; this judgment in the first book of History of popes from the end of Middle age, is a very headwork of hypocrisy; or von Pastor hasn’t read Decameron, and certainly he has read because he has expressed his evaluation, or, I think, he working to his searches in Vatican City he has adhered to morality of Vatican, hence he has so spoke about a writer that has told the human kind, that in Middle age has had these behavior, and also after, in modern era, to example, pope Paolo 3th(1468-1549) has had four sons, Ugo Boncompagni 13^th(1502-1585) has had one son, because then wasn’t scandal that a pope or priest has had a son; I retake a document that I have found in Archivio Caetani Rome(Misc.441/5), a boll, in 1262, of Urbano 4^th pope, said that Reginaldo from Sermoneta priest in Anagni now with a daughter; the Boccaccio written the Decameron between 1349 and 1353, thereupon 87 years before that the this book was written, and then a priest has had a son; other short notation; until 3th century a.Ch. the religious could marriage. The narration of Boccaccio is a portrait of human gender and his time, he was believer and I consider a painting of his time, because he described, with fantasy certainly, but he portrayed habits of his time, he his documentary of 14^th century in Tuscan; von Pastor is offended as catholic, and his idealism of sacrificed life of priest is idealized, and he took morality of his time; would be to von Pastor think it, that he lives in moral contest and assumes the current opinion as Boccaccio has took examples and episode of his time; thereby we can consider Boccaccio as absolutely true to von Pastor, that has a human document of his time, with reactions and behaviors typical of his time; von Pastor could have justified Boccaccio, that hasn’t need of justifications, if he have considered that the adherence to a conformist respectability in time of Boccaccio wasn’t; and during the last years of his life Boccaccio wanted burn his Decameron, and a priest saved this book; if it was motive to scandal a priest, in conformity to morality of his time, could have burn the book and the author; but evidently then was normal that priest have these behavior that Boccaccio describes, von Pastor is document of his time and Boccaccio of his time.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Occasional coherence

I must consider a script of Paolo Sarpi(1552-1623), because he is, in conformity to his times, a pimp and polemical to somebody, now we can value that this occasion that a book has given to Sarpi to contradict yourself is striking, he said: “The spiritual things are to priest, the laic to princes and both depend from God…In human kind isn’t a power that orders the both powers…”; we can answer to this sentence: “Welcome in human word dear Paolo, but when do you have written Trait of interdict of Paolo 5^th, where you have denied that the pope could process two Venetian priests, and you have denied that Paolo 5^th has had this power, a question, who given to you the salary? Venetian republic? Yes, this is occasional coherence; thereby you aren’t a jurist you are a pimp, that defended the Venetian republic, in that occasion, because you have interest, hence if tomorrow you are going to change the host, you will change judgement; very compliment, you are a true example of coherence”; furthermore this threat says: “Proportion first. The precept of superior(although of pope doesn’t obliges to be followed…”; hence we have now a new consideration, the catholic clerical can’t follow the order of pope, fortunately that Paolo Sarpi has informed us, because in the history of Church the priest were to be faithful to orders of pope, as today; he justified this inobservance through these follow words: “Everybody knows that are very much the percepts and lows of popes that are kept but it haven’t value to some reign, because it isn’t published…”; here we can answer:” If some reign is protestant, hence it don’t recognize the pope and the catholic Church is normal that these reign don’t obey to pope. Proportion second. It is normal because this interdict was applied to two religious men; hence they are inform to they colleagues; and other infant error: “it is didn’t read in churches or in other public site…”, the interdicts are were applied to single person and no certainly to public. Last Sarpi adopt the false written of pope Sylvester(285-335), and he says that this pope has written: “…if obedience to Church determined scandals or other wrong it you don’t follow…”, it is message of pope Sylvester; thereupon the orders of pope in fundamental question because to Catholic church, because the pope is vicar of Saint Peter, the first pope, and he represents that Christ, hence who follows Peter follows Christ. We have understand that Sarpi contract the Church every time, now to pimp and other to posture. We could advisement Sarpi that the next book he should read more and after think that he has writes, by now  he is history alone, and we can take read his book to learn how  a book we must not write. Thank to you Paolo Sarpi.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

 

Courses and recourses in history and daily

We usually called habit that is to us normal because we are habituate of something, certainly we didn’t think never, but this action that is repeated is a course and recourses; I imagine answers of reader: “It is logic, but where is original think? You are a fool and stop! Or philosophically you are Kantian follower!”; thank you but I am not drunk of obviousness, and I don’t consider the objective alone. I don’t follow Kant; the original consideration is that it is course and recourse of daily, that we can synthetize with word “experience”; if we think the experience we can pike some episode that is turned similar or equal is similar or equal condition; it is course the first time and recourse the second time, thereupon: experience. This discourse has a sense, because a Italian philosopher, Giambattista Vico(1668-1744) has said about course and recourse of history, in The new science, this is the history, that is human build and long its run the similar or equal contexts are present, and the man works with same instrument, certainly improved , in opinion of Hegel: “the present is past improved”, thereupon the armies, for example, are improved long time, but men has kept same habit of domain or will of potency in opinion of Schopenhauer; thereby the history is same every moment, but same dynamic we can find in daily with person that we know, the same gestures, same word and same behavior; it is obvious, thereupon? In history is same, because the history is human result; we can consider a moment of France history(Jacque Bainville, Histoire de France, 1volume, pp.21-22), he said: “To occasion of his death, in 767, Pipin has pacified and reunited the Gaul whole and also the indocile Aquitaine…”, this mention is necessary to the successor, no direct but indirect of Pipin(714-768), this is Charles Magnus(748-814), the Bainville comments: “Thereupon Charles Magnus has had the benefit of unit. He has had so that of duration and he could exercise the power to fourth five years”; what is connection to other historical moments? Simple to other Charles, but now no Magnus but fifth, this is Charles 5^th(1500-1558), imperator of Germany, and Spain, and territories in USA and Holland, very famous is one his phase: “On my reign doesn’t set never the sun”, because over Europe also USA was partial Spanish, and he was also king of Spain; but this introduction is necessary to consider that Charles 5^th has had great fortune, because the Europe was generally pacified and he could exercise his potency on his reigns; same context of other Charles, this is Magnus, that after the peace he could reign, but distance between the two Charles is 719 years, and seven centuries are much in history; but the context is similar, same condition, and one that is protagonist because the kingdoms generally were in peace, thereupon he could reign, except some European wars but he was very calm, this condition was occurred also seven centuries before to France; thereby the course and recourse of history is truth.  

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 

Platonism of Kant

Immanuel Kant(1724-1804), in the critics of pure mind, in introduction said: “Though every our knowledge begins through experience, but it isn’t that it derived entirely from experience. It could to occur that our empiric knowledge is a compost of that we receive through the impressions and that our possibility of knowledge add in autonomy(because simply stimulated  by external impressions…”, this mention could be useless if we don’t consider that this step of Kant is specular to dynamic of knowledge of Plato; the myth of cavern is the short explication of Plato regard to knowledge of men; Plato descants that the knowledge of men is alone a window, as a man that sees a wall of cavern and he looks alone widows, thereupon alone partial image that pass, because the truth knowledge is alone the world of ideas, that is eternal and immutable; in fact in Phaedon, a book of  Plato, Socrates explain what is this world of ideas, but before is introduction of argument, and to understand it we are going to read some steps: “Every thing you don’t touch, see or perceive them, and we can understand t it alone through the think? These realities aren’t  may invisible and inaccessible to sight?!” answered Cebetes, other interlocutor: “How do you are saying”, thereby, Socrates adds: “ Do you allow me, that are two kind of existence, one is visible and other invisible?”, Cebetes: “Yes”. In conformity of opinion of Plato our soul, that is preexisting to body, goes to world of ideas and there sees every thing, after in the body we have alone remembers of the first speculation, in Latin acceptetion, thereupon sight of these thinghs, that are equal to world of ideas; and the other concept of “in itself”, very important to Plato and Kant; the world of ideas is to Plato in hyperuranium, bover the space, then known; the rapport between ideas and the real things is the “mimesis”, this is imitation; the thing in the world are alone poor imitation of same things in the hyperuranium, that are perfect; and other concept Plato’s very important to Kant is the “metessis”, ideas is same sustance, the thing partecipe to the ideas, and the concept of “parusia”, this is the ideas is present in the thing and it is essence. We can consider again that mention that we over side read: “It could to occur that our empiric knowledge is a compost of that we receive through the impressions and that our possibility of knowledge add in autonomy(because simply stimulated  by external impressions”; it is the “metessis”, this is same sustance of thing; thereupon Kant is influenced directly from Plato, and he has took directly his ideas. Proof of this judgement is following step Kant's: "It existe a question that needs more exam...if existe an similar knowledge indipendent from experience and from every sensible impression. This king of knowledge are called "a priori", and it are distinct from empiric, that have directly source rear, this is experince"; it seems Plato in modern version, we known every thing alone that the soul has in the body and after that has seenthe wordl of ideas. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

Temporary logic

If we consider some words of our gran fathers or parents or of a guy was older among us, we can understand what is his time and generation, because the habit is different, and above all he has conceptions and behavior different, thereby he his a historical document, as us; but he is also bearer of a different logic, it is tied to his generation and his habit and his logic is derived by his time, this is material conditions that occurred in past times; thereby the logic is temporary but in superficial state, this is when it is tied to external phenomenal, this is sensible dates or material dates, because the logic when is deeper thereupon is same always, but in first state, this is sensible state it is changeable, because it is integrant side of our generation, but is temporary, because after us other logic because other instruments are born, thereby other conceptions and other behavior. One example to understand dynamic flow of time; Aristoteles during 4^th century b.Ch, has adopted and used the syllogisms to find a logic in words, a proposition is truth if it is adherent to syllogism; thereby it is logical instrument of Aristoteles; Socrates, more pragmatic and concrete inquired with questions, often elementary, and he found the contradiction in think that seemed logic; between Socrates and Aristoteles intervene alone 15 years, because Socrates died in 399 b.Ch and Aristoteles is born in 384 b.Ch., in Stagira, Macedonian; although difference is very limited Aristoteles is considered a philosopher of successive generation, because he was pupil of Plato, pupil of Socrates; though time is very scarce but everyone has his logic; Plato has world of ideas, Socrates logic dialectical, and Aristoteles syllogism; three philosophers almost contemporary but they used three different systems; during Middle age William from Occam(1287-1347), uses the Socratic logic and the Aristotelian logic: Hegel used the idealist logic, Feuerbach anthropologic logic regard the religion, between these last two philosopher are flowed alone 10 years, though very scarce the difference is radical; thereupon we are bearer of our history, biographical history and also historical documents also for our logic, that is different form today logic, and this flow is going to change to future generations, that are going to be documents. The last note for this essay is a sentence fo Fichte(1762-1814) that explains this concept of customization of think: "The philosophy that is chosen is what is a single man"

Alessandro Lusana        

    

     

 

The French revolution and origin of hegelian left

The French revolution has taught certainly that the full liberty is possible, because the dictatorship that we can, with very much fantasy, was not existent, and alone moral respect and economic causes has determined this revolution; but the causes isn’t motive to this essay, because I want see the cause of born of hegelian left; this is the contrast to ideological think of Hegel. The origin is the French revolution because the official founder Heinrich Heine(1797-1856) of this polemical philosophical current , the first is a poet, and second he has involved from revolutionary wet of French, and he is very ideological inclined to a revolution like the French, above all because he lived in Prussia, where the State is very strong, thereupon the psychological reaction equated, so the State and son so the essays about Napoleon and revolution; but he is also a pragmatic person because he has used words that are moderate in confront to following: “The reality is today, the word aristocratic, I don’t think to nobility of born, but everybody that live to on back of people…the exploitation of man on man overcome every declamation regard privilege of born.” This discourse is very revolutionary, and in Prussia he has written, but if in Prussia was a dictatorship State, he should have been in jail, but it seems that he was free and he also come to French where written to a journal De l’Allemagne, in 1834. We must also consider that Heine was Lutheran, and doctrine of Luther ordered the free interpretation of Holy Bible, and Heine written this trial: “Luther set that his doctrine must be discussed and confuted through the Holy Bible or rationality, Luther seen to human intelligence the right to explain the Holy Bible, and the mind was appealed as judge…”; Luther given the freedom of interpretation, certainly to political causes, because the Roman Church imposed his interpretation; thereby Heine lived in country of religious liberty, and he fairly wanted this liberty also political; but I repeat he isn’t die in jail to his essays, he is died through to shooting to betrayed. Certainly he has given motive and example to found the hegelian left, but origin of this contrast is alone politic and ideological, and it is born from French revolution, thereupon the philosophical difference isn’t, because Hein was very deeply hegelian culturally.

Alessandro Lusana