The idea: limitation of the sensible real

The concept of idea to day is automatically rapport to a find more or less frequent and original, the word idea is from ancient Greek ἱδέα, that is imagine of something; but imagine can be real or abstract, and this last version is the idealism, and it is the abstract imagine usually political, that after in history become the real and changes his nature from the begin idea or image; Platoon(b.Ch 427-347) has his specific function for the ideas, this is the unique idea that has expressed in Parmenides, a dialogues where Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) tells on unite of ever thing and he gather in one unit as somebody sees the things around and the gather in a alone version unique ideas fro everything seen, and the nature of this things is the same nature of ideas that is unique. In fact Parmenides askes to Socrates: “And do you confess that is a species of right to its, of beauty to its, of good to its?” Yes-answers Socrates-And do you confess that it is a species of man separated from us and from other men, a species of man, of fire and of water?” This concept strictly Platonic is developed for the following explication: “three categories of correspondence to ideas, the first category is the mathematic object: equality, one, much; the valor: the right , the beauty, the good; and the third isn’t correspondent to ideas; the natural things as the fire, the water and the man; this last of Parmenides in very important for the develop of the concept that I want express, in fact the last category hasn’t correspondence to ideas because it is invalid things. The concept is expressed also from two other philosophers  in 19^th century, This is Hegel(1770-1831) and Schelling(1775-1854), the second in philosophy of art thinks that the are the particular unities, that he calls also power, and in every particularity are very powers and he says: “In philosophy is alone the absolute always the absolutely one, and alone it in particular forms. The philosophy isn’t inherent the particular fro its nature, but always and only the absolute, and the particular alone fro it is possible takes to its represent the absolute”. It is Platoon in pure translation because this concept is similar to Platonic idea but a difference to Hegel these is, because Hegel has limited the absolutely in real translation; Hegel gives a limitation above all in Aesthetic, between  of idea, because it is the translation to the real of ideal; this concept is expressed from Schelling, that he called, as Hegel, particular; this process determines the lost of ideal nature; an example very daily aids us to understand it: when we are fall in love the ideal predominance is total, but after time we lost the ideal and see alone the real; the ideal is become the real, hence the same thing is in philosophy, the ideal that after become real, and losts the ideal; the sensible real has limited the ideal.

Alessandro Lusana

 The totalitarian State of Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) is the very famous England philosophy and author of Leviathan, that he has shaped in his think but the effort for this think has been certainly minimum, why? Simple because he has seen and he has took that he had around; the monarchy of 17^th century in Europe, were every totalitarian, the right was respected but often the political condition give the motive for not to know the rights, above all of poor, because the political causes were dominant, it is the accuse to Templar knight for Philipp 4^th in France, and Dante Alighieri has said about this episode: “To bring to the temple the avid sails”, this is to steal the money of Templar for the satisfaction above aal for the feed for the Paris people, the decollation of Louis 16^th, king of France, for to avoid a return to monarchy; it was alone a psychological motive, so that whomsoever recognizes that the monarchy was impossible, and other examples. But Hobbes seen about the political way and he has took the necessary to his Leviathan, that is alone a human creation, and in fact it must lead us to consider that my hypothesis is right, because the State is built from the men, and Hobbes in the following words says: “For this way of art is created that Leviathan, called the political power, or State(in Latin civitas), that is alone a artificial man although of major high and force of the natural man, for his protection and defense is destined, and where the sovereignty is a artificial soul and it give the movement: the judges and the other members of the judicial power and executive…”; it is the confirm to my opinion, why? Simple because the State is built from the men, the State is a projection of they will, hence the judicial power must punish the criminals, that is the will of somebody, except the criminals, Hobbes suggest the totalitarian State in these following words: “The reward and the pain through it is tide to chair of sovereignty, every member has the solicitude to make his duty…”; it is the totalitarian State. The are the nerves that have the same duty of natural organism; the good of every element, are the force; la salus populi, this is the good of people, its activity in the commerce…”; this step is very important because it evidences the preoccupation of the king for his people, because the people can become dangerous if it lives poor conditions, hence in the concept of Hobbes every member must be active for the wealth of people, because it is the final consideration, this is the people. And Hobbes follows for the humanity of State: “For a description of this artificial man, I want consider the first the matter and its worker, both built from the man…”; the State inasmuch for the think of Hobbes is a build made from the men and for the men, because the state is composed from the men.

Alessandro Lusana

                                                                                     

     

                 

 

 

 

 

 Homo homini lupus

The phrase of Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) very famous, that given title to this essay: “homo homini lupus”, is translated: “The man to other man is a wolf”, this is a danger and enemy; we can that it is alone an exaggeration, because the mankind, usually we comment, isn’t all so; and the our contradiction is in this, to say: “isn’t all so”, because it means that a part of humankind is so, therefore we are partially in right and in contradiction, but the human nature, that during these comments is never considered, is much different; because although we can hide this inclination the humankind considers other as his enemy, actually a “lupus”, why? Simple it is the animal instinct of mankind, that can vent for the wars, and the hate is after press to through the politic rhetoric, from the religion, that identifies in somebody the enemy, The scarlet letter of Nathaniel Hawthorne(1804-1864), is a representation of a village in New England during the 17^th century, where Esther Prynne, the female protagonist, is emarginated because she has had a daughter but without a husband; the religion, the policy and other motives are useful to creation of an enemy; in mankind is present this instinct, when somebody goes to our propriety, without invite, we have dread that he is somebody that want hurt us; it is normal, and hence we have reactions that are sit to the context, this is defense; when we don’t know somebody, and he want meet us the first reaction is worry because we don’t know him, and not knowledge is motive for the worry, but it is alone the instinctive reaction that we have because it is normal. If we consider attentively this think we can understand other phenomenal, during a war the contradiction and the truth of this essay is evident; because the war is fought by armies, and the armies is a gather of mem, that are tied from an ideal above all, this is a common enemy, hence in this context for the army the “lupus” isn’t because is dominant the hide toward a enemy, but is also present the hide toward an enemy, that is other man, whereby the love to ideal that the soldier expresses has its compensation to hide that he expresses toward enemies, thereupon the hide and love are satisfied, as can occur every day, when we shield our propriety we are shielding our richness, our family, but it is the normal reaction and so we have the contradiction, because we hate something or somebody we are loving and hating in same time, we shield our owns for our family but we are also hating somebody, that we don’t know. The difference is other motive for to consider somebody as an enemy, since you are race, culture, language you are danger. Inasmuch Hobbes was right homo homini lupus. The Latin moto “si pacem vis para bellum”, this is “if you want the peace prepare the war”, is the invite to desistence, why it is necessary? Because the mistrust toward the other is permanent.   

Alessandro Lusana

 The last Romantic: Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900) that where I have called the last romantic, because if we think about the superman, that he has descripted, through the words of Zarathustra in the book Thus spoke Zarathustra; where he has theorized the superman, that isn’t absolutely real but alone a romantic fantasy, for this the “romantic” of title; because Nietzsche has took the wit of romanticism, this is the idealism, and he has translated it to an imaginary figure of man that has overcame the minute and poor human impediments, this is the moral, the myths as the science and the religion; we must also consider that Nietzsche has also written during the second half of 19^th century, this is the Belle Époque, when the morality and the aesthetic were vital for a middle class that was also the entrepreneur class, that has took his industrial origin from the first industrial revolution in England(1760-1850), that after is extended in everywhere in Europe, enclosed the Germany, then he has undergone the wit of his century and the indirectly the Belle Époque, and he moralism very hypocrites and conformist; he wanted alone go out from this insincerity; inasmuch the superman is a reaction to this habit, but it is also a the last result of a romantic wit that is rebel to these formal virtues, and it is also the last but one Hegelian production, because the last is Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944); Nietzsche has idealized the man and has thought a man that overcomes every conformist impediment; it is the idealization of Romanticism, the absolute spirit of Hegel, that certainly has influenced Nietzsche radically, but he has idealized the figure that Hegel has never thought of man; hence the mixed of Romantic and hegelian wit has created the superman, that hasn’t the limits, the moral limits or conformist limits, because through the adjective “moral”, we not must think that Nietzsche has authorized the illegal and criminal acts, not absolutely, he has fought the moralism and the conformism of his time; but I want alone consider that the roots of this think are to the Romantic contrast and in the Hegelian philosophy, the absolute spirit of Hegel is the translation, under other name, of superman, and we must consider that may Nietzsche has very well understood Hegel because, differently from Schopenhauer, he has attributed this power to a ideal man, ideal certainly, hence imaginary, but alone a man, as Hegel has made for his absolute spirit, that he has seen in the man; and Nietzsche has made the same thing, Zarathustra is a man, as has been the authentic Zarathustra, that has been a prophet of Mazdaism during the 9^th and 8^th century before Christ in Iran; therefore Nietzsche has took a man that as a prophet has announced the superman to other men, but everything is absolutely human; inasmuch Nietzsche has translated the human power, that is prophetic, to the man contemporary to him; whereby he has took the human nature and he has idealized the man following the Romantic and absolute spirit.

Alessandro Lusana    

   

                            

 

 The Hegelian improvement

The title announces a specialist essay, and in fact it is so, because the think that accompanies always the lovers of read, has determined today this essay, and this think has given to me also the title, it is usual dynamic, and the idea about an essay about the improvement of speculative philosophy that, I confess, I have kept in my brain, and after much read, I have decided to write, because I want make clear the first to me , what is the improvement of Hegel (1770-1831) about the speculative philosophy, that similarly to Socrate(b.Ch.469-399) Hegel has improved, and he has mixed the idealism of his time, evidently above all in The lessons about the aesthetic, where the artistic idealism has took the Romantic spirit, and the idealization of Neoclassicism, present in art, but he has translated it to philosophy; but he has improved the speculative philosophy, because as Socrates has improved the speculative philosophy trough the speculation from the nature to the man, and he has studied the man and himself the first, Hegel has considered, although not expressed in his lessons and the books, the man, because he has expressed concepts typically human, but the question is how and why he has improved the speculative philosophy? Simple because he has remained  on the earth, without Platonic  flies, and he has considered the objective humanity, how? It is the principal question, this is how? If we consider the absolute spirit we can be confused from some idealizing  and absolutely abstract opinion above all because the century of Hegel, this is the 19^th century, when the wit has had the predominance  on the body, for to paraphrase Kant, thence the idealism can be confused as the idealization absolutely abstract, instead it is absolutely real, because it is human; the concept the absolute wit we can understand it through an easy example, that Hegel not has expressed: a man makes a robbery and the money that he has robbed  leaves  it to a mendicant ; he has used the evil side of absolute spirit, because he has made a robbery, but after he has used also the good side of spirit because he has left the money to the beggar; this example goes back to the human condition, this is the improvement of speculative philosophy, that considers always the man, why and how? Simple because, although not expressed, Hegel considers alone the man, why? Because he hasn’t expressed in nothing book or lessons the metaphysical concept of the absolute spirit, in fact when Schopenhauer (1788-1860) has called the hegelian philosophy as empty, because without the reality, he has wanted mistook ; Schopenhauer has also the personal motives for this expression because, when they have taught together in same university of Berlin(1820-1831), Schopenhauer has had his lessons always empty, because contemporary Hegel made his lessons to same time; hence the personal motive for this judge were alone personal and not philosophical; we must also add that the books that today can read of Hegel, this is the lessons about the Aesthetic, Philosophy of history and Religion and other, Schopenhauer could not read because these aren’t copied and published, hence Schopenhauer has has an idea very much partial of hegelian philosophy.

Alessandro Lusana    

           

 Christian publicity: Constantine the pagan imperator

This essay has took information from a very beautiful biography on Constantine(a.Ch.280-337)(A. Barbero, Constantine the winner), Roman imperator that usually is always identified to the Christian cult; naturally it is alone the Christian publicity, that precisely is from Eusebius of Cesarean(a.Ch.265-339), that has descripted Constantine as a Christian imperator, but the major document of Constantine imperator, this is the triumphal arc, lacking of the Christian symbols, the cross for the first, instead is very much present the symbol of the Sun, that is present also in the coin, that are coined during the empire of Constantine, as Barbero has documented, and the archeology, particularly the numismatic science; hence this adherence to Christian wasn’t never, anyway we can read and laugh about the publicity of Eusebius, that is ridiculous; anyway he said: “(Constantine) Ordered that a build of a church in Jerusalem on the holy town of resurrection of Christ…”; I would know who has indicated to Constantine the town of resurrection, because he not has never believed to Christ, and why he has wanted the building of a Christian church if he wasn’t Christian? Eusebius would answers: “Because it is the publicity alone, but the cockups of Eusebius continue: “(Constantine) wanted also the building of a home of prayer”, usually the home of prayer in the Christian religion and in every religion is the town of cult, the churches, mosque or temples, and where now this home of prayer? At last the archeological ruins would be been found. Eusebius continues: “The holy sepulcher was hide under the waste and the Pagan idols…”; it is more laughable because the holy sepulcher today we haven’t found, but Eusebius known where it was, but he as the town of resurrection didn’t indicate where is; these are alone the legends that the Christian writers has used for to hold the Christianity of Constantine, hence we can laugh about these legends and we can tie it to the historical context. The description of this church, where was the sacrifice of Christ, is so synthetic that we would have problems not alone to find the church but for to find the description, because it isn’t: “It(the church) the first monument that, as the acme of the building the magnificence of imperator he has decorated through the excellent columns and other ornaments, and he has produced very much ornaments…”; the question is always the same: “Where is this church?”, because the precise indication aren’t; but a summary description of this church gives to us a indication very precise, the pagan architecture: “It walked to an area very great, floored with lucid stone and surrounded on the three sides from the long arcades”; it is the description, although summary, of a pagan temple that on the sides has the arcades, and the description of the ingress: “It walked to an area very great…”; is took from the home of some governor of other noble home where was the “vestibulum”, the was the space between the principal door and the home, that usually was broad; this description is summary and fanciful; but the important matter was alone the publicity.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 The truth

The truth is a quality above all when we say it, in fact we are sincere, and it is a quality, the sincerity is quality that often lack to determined categories, but of the truth we not consider never the rationality; this is the logic develop of a context that become true because is rational, hence also the truth is rational, the natural events that must follow the rationality and the mechanic progress, and for to identify this lie is enough the rationality of tell; hence the truth is always  a quality, that we can’t exclude, also because  the continue lie ids the mythomania that, I know it for my experience, become pathetic. But the truth can become also dangerous, because to confess something that is  criminal can determined a condemn; in fact in the court the witness must swear to say the truth, also if it is dislike, it is because the truth is rational evolution of events, that can be like or not but it is always the rational develop; hence the witness must be the truth, that we can identify for its rationality, why? Simple because the truth follows always the human rationality, that can be sometime cold and aseptic, but is always rational, and it becomes reality because it is rational, hence credible, that can be also alone momentary, because after some moment the reality follows other rationality, because the episode is different or has assumed other characteristics, that become automatically a rational truth; but the truth is sometime of always hide? It is elementary because it is always rational whereby it become right, and also if we mix the truth to lie, the truth emerges always, because is rational; the truth can also be dangerous, because for the determined causes it can from the quality can become the harmful, in court a confession can become a motive for a revenge, hence the truth can be dangerous, but for a constraint we can also lie, and the motive can be the life or other that, for the human wit, can be similarity important, the risk of a condemn for the false testimony can became a motive for to say the truth, that I repeat often can be hide, but is after some consideration can become evident, because the rationality has became irrationality, hence false. Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) has used the truth following the rationality, and similarity Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322) has made the same thing, and although some theory of Aristotle today are laughable, he has followed a rationality that to him were absolutely rational, hence real, hence the truth; but he has seen the phenomenal of reality, and he has followed the rationality of events, and he has told it, inasmuch he has kept the right of rationality, that mistake or not is always rational. And the context is fundamental for the identification of the truth, because it can be also momentary, because the reality has followed other rational dynamics, therefore the truth that was valid some minute ago now isn’t, because always considering the philosophy; this is Heraclites(b.Ch.550-480) rescues us; the theory of πάντα ρει is the real and hence rational phenomenal; this is the everything changes is the reality; as the reality is the personal truth, and Socrates is useful, your truth can be also your or also extended to other, but the rationality of this truth is alone your; in fact Aristotle has followed other method from Plato(b.Ch. 427-347), his master, because for Aristotle the rationality was other.   

Alessandro Lusana