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      

 

 The will of power

It is a concept that here is considered alone for the explication to psychology level, that is a motive peer to the original use that Nietzsche(1844-1900) has tough in his  Thus spoke Zarathustra m and in the Beyond good and evil, where the German philosopher has spoken about affirmation of owner personality; in this essay the same think is expressed, hence nothing of new, certainly it isn’t new because this speculative truth is already expressed for the superman, but not certainly for the daily life, this for the daily behavior and of other; in the daily life the will of power is expressed for the demand , every it is, above all when it is useless, it gives the comfort to our wit, because we have ordered, hence the will of power is satisfaction and the man is for some minute major  to his original condition, that usually is nothing, because, we must use these methods for to consider himself important, and it is determined from an inferiority  complex that is radical; because the lack of something is the first motive of inferiority, hence the orders  that we have given  to somebody is the satisfaction that for us can be very important because it is the comfort; that can be alone  momentary, and I take  a concept expressed from Nietzsche, the affirmation of ourselves, inasmuch  for a moment we are important fro some moment; the egocentrism is same; this is the affirmation of owner personality, and the satisfaction of the power, what power? It is the question and the answer is that the power attraction that always a power, because I can orient the attention toward my person and it is the power and the satisfaction, because I can make it , and the make something is the first satisfaction, toward ourselves, because we can say to ourselves, before than other, I could make it, whereby we are expressing our power on something, that isn’t human, but it is low important , because we are expressing toward ourselves this power, and it is will of power, because we are making the power on ourselves, hence on somebody, and the overcoming of a difficult is motive for a revenge on ourselves, that is more satisfaction  because we have overcome ourselves difficult; therefore we have wined  our wit, our problems, our fear, hence we have wined, it is the will of power. This concept is expressed some years before Nietzsche from Arthur Schopenhauer(1788-1860) in his book The world as will and representation, where he called this will alone the will of life, that is same thing, because the will of life, that is determined from the boredom and worry, determines the search of the pleasure that, very soon, become boredom, because the sake for the search is ended, this is the important factor, this is the searching, and other pleasure is necessary because is new challenge, but it is the will of to reach something, that Schopenhauer didn’t call the will of power but he describes the phenomenal that is merely human; and that we can consider as a will of power, because after a pleasure that is satisfied, the searching of other pleasure is other difficult that we want overcome, hence it is the will of power.

Alessandro Lusana  

     

  

 The past of contemporary: old divorce

The divorce can be very worry or comfort, at last for me it has been, but usually, although alone formally, it can worry; but apart from this, the institution of divorce we can think that is recent institution, but it is at last the 7^th century after Christ, because in the Coran Mahometh has written: “In the name of Allah. Prophet when you repudiate your female when the terminal is stablished…and not send way from their homes, if they haven’t made indecent act…When they are arrived to time you must keep them with décor”, and the attention to the female sex, that today we don’t think exist in the Muslim religion, instead it was and it was very exemplar: “You must live where you live, and don’t worry them through the economy.”; it can seem a very exemplar of respect of women, and in fact it is, but the justification is after: “If they are pregnant you must provide to their keep until they have given birth…”; it is the motive of this attention, because they are going to give birth, that is the motive for every religion, otherwise the new faithful aren’t going to be born; it is the normal policy of religion. But the respect of Muslim to women, although it is absurd think is in the verse of divorce: “If the couple is in fair to not respect the divine limits, the woman can ask legitimately the divorce and she must offer a sum, usually she must go back everything of partial the dowry. And this act occurs without guilt. But also the napoleon code, in year 1804 has previewed and the divorce, and the discipline of this step is very exemplar: “About the causes of divorce. The husband is going to divorce for the adultery of his wife. The wife is going to divorce for the adultery of hers husband if he has keep his lovers in the common home. The married are going to ask the divorce for the excesses, violence or serious offenses from one to other…”; it is the attestation of modernity or past? Past certainly, because the same divorce already in 7^th century after Christ was stablished; but the context is important, because the Europe was Catholic and the Church didn’t recognize the divorce, hence it is the new thing; and the rights of women were saved for the Napoleonic code, that recognizes also the rights of women because also they can ask the divorce, and also for the serious offences or violence; it is the true new in this code, because the offence has considered as a violence; inasmuch the formal respect become a essential element, and the reputation of women and men is seen from this code: “The condemn of one of newlyweds is going to be motive for the divorce.”; naturally we must think that this cause has determined alone for the very wicked fame that it would have determined both wife and to husband; hence the divorce would be necessary, but also more human, because in Rome during the pontificate of pope Sixt 5^th, the adultery was condemned to the capital pain; anyway, to semiotic level, we can consider that the sensibility both to the women and to the marry has changed, and the woman now had respected, to law level; thence very much had changed, and the divorce was a comfort for the one or other, but the articles represent one formal and legislative respect for the twice the newlyweds.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Socrate’s the egoism and the coherence

The title can refers to something that who is writing has noted in Socrates’s(b.Ch.469-399)  philosophy, and in fact it is so evident that as said Robert Musil(1880-1942) regard the monument: “The monument is so great that nobody sees it”; and it is the human reality, because the sometime something is more evident but nobody sees it, and what is the anomaly of Socrates? Simple the will of try his method on the other, nothing that could harm or to cause damn, not absolutely, but alone the wish of to ascertain is a philosophical method could be effective; it is easy understandable for his legendary refuse of the payment, when he said: “I can’t teach to somebody, because I know of don’t to know(ἒν οἶδα ὄτι οὑδἐν οἶδα ), he in fact said the truth; because he state experiment his method, but who experiment a method he not know the effectiveness of this, hence he must before experiment, and Socrates has experimented the question and the rationality, his rationality, that was logic, through the others, his “pupils”; hence when he said “Γνωθι σαυτόν”, he wanted try if this method was effective, this is if through the knowledge of himself could be through the logic question; inasmuch that can seem the altruism, for the formal exercise, it was the normal egoism, it is the anomaly of Socrates, this is what is altruist is very egoism, but an egoism very anomalous, because he could gain through the his lessons and stop, but he has always refused the money, because he didn’t know; but it is also coherence, because he not gain for my ignorance, because the first thing that I must know, if imagine him in the confession, is myself, but before I must know if this method is effective, otherwise I will can other method; the ignorance that Socrates said for herself is right and exact, because he not know herself and hence experimented on the other, the effectiveness of his method, that evidently was effective because more philosophers has told about Socrates, the first was Plato; but neither Plato has seen this anomaly; he followed Socrates always, but for the philosophic method he has state very long; and may Socrates when solicited the “pupils” to search the their truth, it is because he state searching his truth, and for the coherence he could not taught something, because he hasn’t again found the his truth, hence he could not tell a truth that he hasn’t, because he was searching it, therefore I can’t want the money for to teach what I am searching, this is : “I haven’t solution to this problem, thereupon I can’t teach to somebody it”, it is the supreme coherence of Socrates, that hasn’t the possibility of solve some problem, actually he was learning from the others through the questions, rational questions, hence Socrates has been the more master and pupil of other that the history can records, because through his tries he learned and after he could taught, therefore it is the egoism and coherence.

Alessandro Lusana