The true Scepticism

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

 Alessandro Lusana     

 Eulogy of egoism

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

Alessandro Lusana    

 Pragmatic State: Keynes

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

Alessandro Lusana      

 Middle economy: John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes(1883-1946)economist man of past century is also the half man in economy, he is the author of The general theory of employment, interest and money, published in 1936, and the year is important and his nation, this is  the England, hence in Europe; why? Simple because in Europe the presence of the State both in policy and in economy was considered fundamental; in a land as the England where the State was certainly secondary, because the liberalism was dominant, he would have to leave it, but on contrary he suggests that the State must work so that the aggregate demand, in his book he isn’t against one theory or other, but in this context use twice the theories, this is on side he took the liberalism and other the socialism, he has refused both one and other in radical vision and univocal interpretation and the proof is in this step: “The socialism of Marx must be a charming for the historical men of think; how it has been the a theory so illogic and stupid can given an influence so radical…”, it is the consideration certainly against Marx, but also against the liberalism assumed as the supreme law: “It isn’t truth that is ordered a rule fro the natural freedom for the economical activities of men. It isn’t nothing pact or contract that bestows the perpetual rights fro whom own or buy. The world isn’t govern from high so that the private and public interest are coincident… It isn’t right fro the economy principles that the egoistic interest lighted works for the public interest.”. We can consider that fortunately Keynes has left the liberal and socialist theory that has solved everything through their theories; Keynes is in the half he isn’t the right or left of economy, but rationally he sees the effects of these theories and he searches the solution for to redress the harms. Other step confirms the precedent step: “The egoistic interest is generally lighted: often the men that work so that they can cure their interest, they are too much ignorant or too much weak for to reach these sakes.”, and the truth is in a substantive used from Keynes: “The experience doesn’t show that the men when they work social unity, they are less attentive than they work for themselves.”. The right comment is it is evident, but I want stress that Keynes mentioned the experience, that the economist seems have left, because the theory is sufficient, instead Keynes uses the experience. The following step is the enunciation of theory of Keynes: “We can’t solve this matter on the abstract fundament, but we must consider the merits of Edmund Burke(1729-1797) called: “One more beauty in law, this is determined that the State should take for the led better and what it should leaves, and with minimal interference to private activities…”; it is the theory of Keynes this is to stay in half this is to take from the principal theories, the liberalism and socialism and consider, in reality and not alone in theory, the way better. The explication of Keynes of his theory is simple and rational: “I believe that in much cases the ideal dimensions for the unity of control and organization is in an intermediary point between the man and the State.” It is the reality that Keynes has translated, this is for a ideological vision the man must have the freedoms but to other side the State must be present. The direct or indirect influence of policy, during the years thirteen in Europe is evident in summary explication of the organs of State: “I consider that the progress is in the develop and recognize of organs half autonomous in the State: those organs would have alone the way of action, in their field, the public good and for their issues is excluded the private interest…”; Keynes inasmuch thinks to the State as the leader but without dominance…These organs in daily of affairs would be autonomy among their limitations, but they are also subject to sovereignty of democracy that is expressed from the parliament…”; it is the union between the private and public whereby in half.

 

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 

A descriptor of laws: Montesquieu 7 marzo 1749

The spirit of laws of Charles de Secondat baron of Montesquieu(1689-1755) is a description of the deep sense of laws, and a step is very correspondent to this description: “It is better say that the govern more conform to nature is that whose natural disposition is to harmony to disposition of people that has issued this govern”; I have wanted report this step because it is the natural and logic representation of policy, that when has lost this alliance the law is useless, the French revolution is the clear representation, the govern not lost this alliance to people, because the govern of French has never a rapport to the people, hence the revolution has been the final result. Other step: “generally the law id the human intelligence because it govern every people on the earth, and the laws both politic and civil of every nation are alone that particular cases to the human intelligence is applied”; it is a like mirror to title, because Montesquieu is a descriptor of law, because the law is stemmed from the human intelligence and every nation has  owner laws because has other spirit, for example: Sparta was a military republic where the military life was the fundament of the State, Athens was instead a democracy and was composed from soldiers, poets, philosophers, political men and other, and has had other constitution, hence Athens has had other laws and constitution because in Athens was other spirit.

And the concept of spirit is stressed from the author also in following step: “The laws must be very adapted to the people to they are issued, that is a rare case the others laws are fit for the other…”; it is the supreme confession of a human nature of laws, that has been made by human an alone to human they are assigned, but a humankind that is differing in fact Montesquieu adds: “…that is a rare case the others laws are fit for the other”, because every people has own spirit. The same concept is expressed after in the following words: “These laws must be fit to physical character of country, to its clime…to the king of life of people that are resident, that they are grangers, hunts or shepherds, they must be able to council the level of freedom that the constitution is able to bear, to the religion of residents, their character, their richness , their number, their commerce, customs, habit…”; it is simply normal, but alone Montesquieu has said it.

Alessandro Lusana

 Indirect influence: Montesquieu

During the read of the Spirit of laws as well as the descriptions that are very boring, because describes the model of States, some surprise is present and to pick it is important to write the new essay but also to tell an indirect influence of Montesquieu to the republic of USA, the answer is it is impossible, not certainly because the constitution of USA has been written from direct influence of Filippo Mazzei (1730-1816) that was a very famous student of constitutions that was emigrant to USA after the “revolution”, and he bought a ranch next to that of George Washington and when the “revolution”, occurred Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826) that was the author of declaration of Independence in 1776, and for this writing Jefferson asked the collaboration of Filippo Filippo Mazzei, born in Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, that certainly have read Montesquieu, because this book has been written in 1749 and the model of republic USA is indirect translation of Montesquieu, that in a chapter of his book he said: “Hence we can consider that the humankind would be compelled  finally to live always under the govern of one, if they haven’t studied a form of constitution that has every vantage of the republic and the vantage of monarchic state. I want consider the federative republic for whole numerous political institutions are consent become part of a State greater that every wants build. It is a society of societies that built other new, that can grow because other consent to gather…”; we can also consider that Montesquieu, that written his book, I repeat before of 1749, inserted examples from the ancient Greek, he naturally didn’t consider that in ancient Greek very much cities were in constant war among them, but he after considers also examples as the Dutch, Germany and Switzerland. And he continues: “This model of republic, able to resist to the stranger power, can keep in its greatness without corruption in intern. This model of State prevent every problems. Who wants usurp the power don’t could enjoy of same credit to every confederated state. If in fact he become very potent in one state, others states would be alarm; if he submit a part other would resist through the independent forces  that he has usurped, and annihilate him before the he has consolidated his power. If in some state occurs a revolt, other can calm it…This model can die for a part and lives to other, the confederation can free oneself but the other states can continue to be confederated”; if we think to principal model of a federal republic, this is the USA, in theory we have a description of USA may 30 years before the USA was born, because the description, that is absolutely theoretic, because in reality the policy has other tools, but the concept that Montesquieu has expressed in become reality; we must also consider that the political model of Montesquieu were the Germany and Dutch, the confederated models, therefore he has took from these models, but Mazzei has given the real translation of think of Montesquieu. The proof of this influence is also in model of election, because Montesquieu take for example both the ancient the Dutch: “In the Dutch republic a province can’t has an allied without consent of other. This law is good and even necessary in the federative republic…The Licia(2th century b.Ch.) republic was a confederation of 23 cities; the greater have three votes, the middle two and the little one. The Dutch  republic is composed from 7 provinces, great or little they have one vote alone”; here we can see a contradiction of history, because the more modern among the States this is the USA has took a model, or better Mazzei has suggested a politic model that is ancient, this is a model of Licia republic, that is in second century before Christ. The model of election of the president of USA is indirect; this is with the votes of liable, and the same model for the Licia republic and the Dutch republic.

 Alessandro Lusana         

 

 

Γνωθι σαυτόν: the deep inquiry

“Γνωθι σαυτόν”, this is “know yourself” is a imperative that was carved on the doors of temple of Apollo, and after it is took from Socrates, Karl Raimund Popper(1902-1994) described this phrase through a motive that is openable, he said: “This phrase that every mentions but nobody knows the meaning, it is that you must know your limits”, it is alone an opinion of Popper that is easily deniable, why? Because the deep meaning of the phrase on the doors of temple is: you must know if you want sacrifice of prayer Apollo, but it alone you can know, hence you must make one inquiry in yourself before of enter; for Socrates this phrase is similar or mirror like to the mot of Socrates and it is mirror like to meaning, because Socrates press for his “pupils”, although he didn’t considered herself a master, to make same thing, know yourself, but not for the religion but alone to philosophy, he never said it but it is as he have made: “You must know before yourself, in deeply of your wit, know your strong and your weakness, what are the motive that you have for an opinion, and after you are going justify your opinion, that is or personal motive, today we could say psychologic, it is the deep meaning of “Γνωθι σαυτόν”; Socrates could not consider the psychology because then there isn’t, but he said it; if your philosophical opinion is alone a psychological reaction, inasmuch alone momentary or you are convinced of this opinion, because you, that are convinced, can demonstrate the rightness of this opinion, but through the rational arguments, otherwise Socrates, that is a turd and a pain on the neck will ask to you because it is so, and he is going to want because it is so; but he is going to want know yourself in deep, and so he is going to justify your opinion, but he instead of say and tell his theories, he ask; this exercise is contrary to common teaching then was very much common, this is to tell the theories and without the explication, Socrates aske the explication to “pupil” because he wanted know the deep causes for an theory, hit is as he have said to “pupil”, you must know because this theory is valid for you, it is important, not alone the rationality and hence the rightness of your theory, that is going to be after, because the first is to know yourself, this is your think and the causes of every your think. Socrates is the anthropological period of philosophy, he wanted study the man and not the theory, and he turned this solicitation first to his “pupils”, because the object of study of Socrates isn’t the philosophy but the mankind, that after of Socrates it must study herself, and understand if he want become the philosopher or not, if he want know or not, and what he wanted truly; but it is he is going to know alone through an inquiry in herself, it is the meaning of this phrase. It is very easy understand because we must know before the historical context: then every idler or was a hero or philosopher, and the philosophers gained much because they sold his knowledge or presumed so, and they explained theories often purely imaginary, but they spoke about everything except the man, Socrates contrary to this method consider alone the man, and he pressed for to know the matter more difficult, this is herself.   

Alessandro Lusana