A romance: Byron has said

Jordan was a writer, historical writer, and he wanted write a romance, but as historic man he had difficult, because he could tell the history but the romance was other matter, he has thought of write a romance on the Charles 5^th, and after the Charles the Great, and Louis 14^th, but he thought them as historical man, hence he have to pass from the historical truth to imaginary, and this passage was very difficult; he was very acute for the hypothesize the true motive for a war and the political motives for an accord or pact; naturally he supposed but these think or hypothesizes were very charming, because much read were charmed from his read of history; but now the romance, was different because everything he have to imagine; he thought immediately to a historical romance, and it seems the right choose, in fact he begun to write something, but almost at once he reconsidered his choose, and he decided, that before of all a tea, to drink in the bar under his apartment; he gone out and in the bar, where he was usual, he greeted the bar man, and he seated on the chair and he asked a tea; he stared at the bar man and he was amazed because he recognize Charles 5^th, and not George, the bar man, he thought that it was alone a illusion, hence he turned over and he seen some famous writer, Poe and Byron and Mary Shelley, Byron was reading a book; inasmuch Jordan approached to him and asked: “What is the deal for to write a romance?”, and Byron stared at him and : “A romance is as a build, every part is indispensable, it is a history and you must describe every personage, also summary, but some indication to reader you must give because otherwise the reader doesn’t understand, he is going to ask who is and why is present a personage, he is going to ask it alone indirectly , but the reader isn’t a foolish and he has read the history whereby he want know who and why; hence the question is “Who is this personage and because he has disappeared so suddenly, because you have given the life to this personage and now isn’t?”; because every personage that is in the romance, the first must be much present, this is to some episode, also low relevant but he must participate, so that the reader can understand the motive of this personage, and the episode, also irrelevant, becomes here important, but he can’t appear now and after two lines he disappears, because otherwise his presence would be useless, instead he must be in the romance, also in other episode distant form the begin; but the reader know him because he can take again, in his memory, that personage is tied to that episode”, and Jordan asked: “Yes, but the particulars are important or not?”, and Byron: “Certainly they are important, but as a build, the cement is important if it is going to use, otherwise not; the history demands particulars that must be important, otherwise they are alone useless episode, instead to this episode must be tie a personage and other episode that shows the qualities of personage, after the description, the human and other qualities”, and Jordan: “Why?”, and Byron, that meanwhile has asked two tea: “Because the romance needs of a motive, and the personages must have a motive for to be in the romance; otherwise they are useless, and in the romance nothing can ne useless”; Jordan got up and he gone to the bathroom, and when he gone out, he looked around and recognized his apartment, and he smiled and seated on the chair, and he, while remembered the words of Byron, begun to write and the romance again isn’t ended, but may in the next tale its possible that he tell to us the novel plot.

Alessandro Lusana          

                

 The Hegelian concept of art: Emerson

Ralph Emerson(1803-1882) has took again Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)fore his conception of morality that was determined from a morality that has involved also Nietzsche in his German society, the years of Belle Epoque, when the middle class was very principal factor of economy in Europe, and in nascent country, after the “revolution”, as the United States the same phenomenal was by now normal and determined; hence the two philosophers have had same reaction, Emerson was more precise in confront to Nietzsche because he explain, in his book The character and the human life, explication more precise and very much attentive, evidently he used the speculative method and he has not officially imposed, but in conformity to moral customs it was present; we must also consider that the reaction was the same because the middle class, very active in the merchant and business also in USA, has followed determined customs that were peer to the middle class of Europe, but behind this hypocrites moralism and respectability, was the growth of a country that hasn’t the owner models hence followed other models, as Emerson has followed both Nietzsche and for his think about the art has followed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) of Aesthetic, a step of the book of Emerson is indicative of this concept: “The with being progressive it never repeats itself, but to every act it tries the creation of a all new or beauty. It is manifest both for the works of beauty art, and in the useful art, for to use the popular distinction among the arts, that classified it on base to sake. In the beautiful art isn’t the imitation but the creation that is the sake”; it is the absolute wit of Hegel that in the Aesthetic is dominant, Hegel was also involved from the idealist wit and Emerson has followed the same conception, because he has expressed through other words the same concept; for Hegel the useful of art isn’t, instead for Emerson that has took the common scansion among the arts, this is useful and beauty, he has took Hegel and he has limited the presence of German philosopher to the beauty arts, and he continued with his hide Hegelianism: “In the landscape the painter must suggest to us the idea of a creation more beauty…”; it is the pure idealism of Hegel that in the Romantic art, this is the painter of 19^th century, he says that the image is the tool for the absolute spirit, this the knowledge of absolute spirit, that alone in the Romantic art can recognizes itself; inasmuch of Emerson is: “in the landscape the painter must suggest to us the creation more beauty…”; it is the Hegelian idealism in the Aesthetic, the spirit that can recognizes itself in the Romantic art; we must also consider that although the two philosophers not were contemporary but they lived the same romantic moment and they has took the same spirit, this is the opinion, the in 19^th century was dominant; thereby Emerson has followed the German culture, for a side he has took Nietzsche and for other side he has took Hegel.

Alessandro Lusana                

 

        

 

Historical superficiality: Burckhardt

Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) a Swiss historical man, famous for his book The civility of Renaissance in Italy, has given an interpretation of Renaissance in Italy, that very much generations have read much times, and it is certainly right, but also superficial; the first is that he spoke  and named the lords of city as tyrant, that in Greek meaning is a correspondent of manager of public things, hence the city or feud; I don’t think that Burckhardt has used this name for this sense, he wanted meant the more common meaning, so that he could stress the Renaissance change. The “tyrant” have to contrast the attacks from every side, because then Italian cities that have had fought sometime one against other, they become friends very soon and allies in conformity of political strategy, both then as today; in fact the taxes that Burckhardt  has written, were necessary to weapon and soldiers, that could betray to every moment  for a better offer; the shame of betray then there wasn’t; also because the major part of soldiers were mercenary ; inasmuch it isn’t tyranny but simple survival. The taxes were, in opinion of Burckhardt  established on the a land register, that in Middle age there wasn’t , and the major incomes was for the proprieties of lords, that were necessary to given the food to citizens that were in war, but in the city, the families of soldiers busied have to be feed, this are childes and women, that the lords have to rescue to his castle, hence the food was necessary to this duty that was alone of lord; there the taxes not paid alone the soldiers but also the common people. Other note of Burckhardt regard the office of passport, this is the pass, that today is same, this is the passport is controlled , but the difference from the Middle age today the nations are united, instead the Italy then was a gather of small states without strong; Burckhardt uses this confront for stress that then the control on the citizen was very close, but also today every state want know who is received, and the motive is same : the security of the State; it is normal management of policy. The legends are took by Burckhardt , the legendries that he has took from historical men, and they has took it from other sources that often were enemy to lords; as Bernabò Visconti(1323-1385); that was a lover of hunting and he has had  5.000 dogs, it is absolutely false, because 5.000 dogs would be impossible to keep and they would been useless, because the hunting would be in Italy and not in Africa. The celebration of Renaissance begins in chapter about the tyranny in 15th century; when the tyranny has had a human  character; a power that has consolidated on the tyranny it continues so fro keep the power; but if Burckhardt has said the celebration of Renaissance so would be failed everything.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

         

 Aristotelian Catholic: Gioberti

Vincenzo Gioberti(1801-1852)a Catholic intellectual and political man that has tied his name to the principal literary work, The moral and civil primate of Italian, that is a catalog of virtue that he has seen during the history of Italy, that certainly were but that haven’t guaranteed nothing to unification of Italy, in 1861. He spoke as Catholic and in fact he sees to God the principal motive of this primate; We must also consider that he was a monk, and he has followed the religious schools, hence the philosophy in his Primate can’t lacks; in fact he spoke about the autonomy of creatures: “Although the creatures can joy of relative autonomy, as the second cause is image of the first cause…”; and he following: “Everything id a strength, and every force enclose potentially every way of to be and every perfecting that to it are going to be present, through the duration of time, and the external condition for their improvement. The potency is given from the first cause and that has created…”; this discourse has the Aristotelian rationality, and Gioberti used this comparison for stress that God has given to Italian qualities that during the centuries have developed; certainly, and it isn’t nationalism, the Italy has had great geniuses during his history, but because the Italy is born before, except the Greek, of other European nations, inasmuch we has had very much time, and other historical factors, as the Catholic center, as Rome, that has guaranteed to much intellectuals a constant possibility of live; beyond the lords that has got profit of intellectuals in every side of Italy. Anyway it is I repeat a logic step of Aristotle(b.Ch.384-322) , that has useful for demonstrate the Primate of Italian, laughable Primate, because the our history is very full also of treason, that Gioberti hasn’t considered; it is the opportunism or intellectual dishonesty? For me dishonesty and stop, for a historical man can be alone opportunism. The Aristotelian influence is fro the adjective that Gioberti used in this step and for other before: “…and as the first cause are also the second cause and so we must admit a secondary creation that express the action of factors finished…”; this last adjective is took directly from the τέλειος, this the ended act of Aristotle. The Aristotelian logic is present also in this step, and this step attests the employ of Gioberti of natural logic of Aristotle: “…because the production without the conservation would be useless. And the conservation uses the restoration, when it is necessary; that is a second creation, as the conservative action is a continued creation…”; it is the philosophical think that has unified the Aristotelian and Socratic logic and has used for explication. The Catholic nature or think of Gioberti is in the following step: “Only God, as the first cause and essentially creator, he is the perfect conservator and restorer of his factures. He has given a part of this qualities to the creatures…”. Hence Gioberti has took from Aristotelian and Socratic logic, and he hasn’t forgotten Saint Thomas from Acquino(1225-1274), although the logic is alone Pagan, this from two Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) and Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 Other Socrates but same way

The other Socrates is a philosopher with same name of more famous philosopher, may the first master of Aristotle, he is inserted from Plato(b.Ch.427-347) in dialogue of Sophist, it is the dialogue that encloses this other Socrates that certainly Plato has used for the name, since Plato has inserted in every his dialogue his master, Socrates(b.Ch.469-399); and Socrates gives to a member of dialogue a question, this member is a foreign, Socrates asked regard to way for to search the knowledge: “When do you explain  that you want demonstrate, are you usual speak you alone…or do you prefer give the precise question?”, and the foreign answers: “If is an interlocutor that is able of follow the dialogue is better, it is certain; but the contrary case I speak alone”; it is the philosophical habit of Socrates, that the foreign continues: “Dear Socrates it is the first time that I meet you and I don’t want leave occasion for a close confront, word to word…”; it is the method of Socrates that Plato, a his pupil, has known very well; in fact in this dialogue the foreign says to Theaetetus, a member of dialogue regard to method  necessary to inquiry the greater things is necessary begin from the small things, he asks to Theaetetus: “Do you want that we search an easy argument…and equally it needs of a right think, we consider the fisherman with fisher line…”; it is the Socratic simplicity, that from very easy matter he came to complicate matter; it is the diaretic way; it is a method that certainly Socrates has used, what is? Simple a subdivision of a elementary concept, that is divided  among the species his gender, this is the division of common gender, for example the humanity, that we find also in women, because also they are human gender; hence the human gender is divided between two species, and the relation between these two gender are evident; if we think the human nature that is common twice, men and women. The dialogue through the diaretical method follows his course, and Socrates uses the logic think, and he divided the fisherman from the other hunter, this is the Sophistic hunter, this is the hunter of men, it is the difference from the fisherman and the sophistic philosopher, that hunts the domestic animals this is the men; it is one reflex of the despise of Socrates to the Sophistic school, that in Apologize, this is the discourse of Socrates in court fro his defense, he hinted to philosophers that are paid  fro to sale the knowledge , this is the sophistic, in fact the foreign says that the technique of persuasion that was the way used form the Sophistic school. This dialogue is, in short,  the following  of Socrates’s accuse to Sophistic school. And the confirm of this thesis is in following words: “These is also the other side, that making profession of a determined competence it stablishes rapports that are for the teaching of virtue , but alone for to gain money. Also this side we must distinguish through a name.”, and Theaetetus answer: “Yes certain”, and the Foreign. “What name? you say it”, and the Theaetetus: “it is clear. I think that we are managed to find the sophist, and I am saying so I think that I name tit through the fit name.”; hence the polemical matter is right.    

 Alessandro Lusana    

                                     American Nietzsche: Emerson

Ralph Emerson(1803-1882)certainly isn’t a reference for the night reading, because is low known and his think, above all today, can be very noise, because he as Nietzsche(1844-1900), he says the truth, he describes the our behaviors and he shows our hypocrisies, and he opposed to this hypocrisy the truth of speculation, speculative examination of our conduct, he says: “Instead, I don’t desire expire but to life. The my life isn’t an apologize; it is my life. I live for myself, and no for to give the show of my existence, I prefer that it is a tenor more modest so that it is homogeneous and natural. I would it sorrowful and sweet, of dolor and joy of wealth low curing; for it would be equilibrated, and everything enclosed: charity, conquer, hygiene…”; it is the new vision of the life that evidently Emerson have to live, the imposition of rules of society that he refused. The explication to these words is in the following step: “The virtue in the popular opinion  are the exception rather than the rule…The men make the good actions for to give a proof of their courage and their charity; and it is often, as they were condemned to pay a penitence, for to expire the not daily appearance to some function…”; it is the description of hypocrisy in the society that today is valid; but it is also the concept that Nietzsche has expressed; he in the his book, So said Zarathustra, he has explained, although through the allusions the concept of superman, this is the man that is came out from the common hypocrisy and has said the truth. Other step is very indicative: “The my duty and not the common opinion of men: it is regard me…”; it is the truth that Emerson has said about the society that he has lived. The proof of this think and opinion is in the following step: “To be conform to customs that for you there aren’t, it is the motive for the dispersion of your force; you waste so your time and delete you character…”, he describes the customs that in his society were normal, and: “The man should know how the uselessness this play of conformity”. The pitiless description continues: “After this servile conformity, other motive that remove us from the faith to ourselves  ids the persistence , it is the respect for our actions and for the past our words: other men haven’t other motive, beyond the our actions, we would go desolate and disabused. But why do you bring on the shoulders a head again thinking? And why do you bring this heap of your memory, for the fair of contradict some opinion that you have said in this or other town?”; we can consider that it isn’t virtue but alone coherence, but that Emerson sees alone as a custom of his society, where the morality and the image were everything. Regard not understanding, he says: “It is so very bad not be understanding? Pythagoras not was understanding, neither Socrates, neither Jesus, neither Luther…”; may this reference to so great personages we can think that Emerson wanted refer also to herself, because this think about the morality was very strange for the 19^th century; hence an auto reference is certainly.

Alessandro Lusana  

 The speculative Emerson

The Character and the human life of Ralph Emerson(1803-1882) is a speculative examination of the human life and description of behaviour that we have, fro example: “The indifference of childs, that, sure of launch, resufe as the king say of make something for the consens of somebody; this is the healty attitude of human nature. The child is the patron of society; indipendent, irresponsable, he looks about him the men and mades of society, he judges them…he calls them good, wicked, interesting, loquace, useless, nuisance…”; it is the description of childhood that veverybody has past. Other description regard the humankind is the following: “The man is prisoner of his conscience that he has of herself. If he has made or spooken cloud, he is a compromissed person, supervised from the sympathy and for hate of a thousand of persons that he hasn’t considered. There isn’t Letes fro him!”; the Letes is the river of forgetfulness, and it is the speculative way that decsribes the habit of high society but also of down society; he certainly describes the society the he can see, the American society, that was equal to every high societies. But Emerson was contemporary of Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778), that evidently has influenced Emerson, and it is shows from this step: “(human gender)if it again take tha primary indipendence, in the its neutrality! The man that so have lost the ancient calm, and he continues to behave without finctions, without prejudges, without the fair, incorruptible…”; it is the theory of good wild od Rousseau, the has seen to the wild the human genuinity. But after Rousseau also Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) manifests his presence in this essay, the following step is the retake of think of german philosopher: “These are the voices that we hear in the solitude, but they become very weak when we enter to the word. Everywhere the society plots agaionst the virility of everybody. The society is as company of assicuration, whose members agree amongs them so that they have food, but through the cession of owner liberty. The virtus that it requests id conformity…”; it is Nietzsche, certainly that has taught and worked in Germany but the influence has come to Emerson, also because they were almost contemporary; and continuing: “(the society) doesn’t loves the realities and the creators, but alone the usances and the customs.”, and other step: “Who want be a man, he don’t be conformist. Who want conquer the immortal palm he not enables from the name of good, but search where the good is”; it is the Nietzsche, that with superman has thought to a man that is superior to convention, but Nietzsche has took example from Europen society, during his time; same reaction that Emerson has had but in American society.

Alessandro Lusana