The religious soldier: Company of Saint Ignatius from Loyola

Ignatius of Loyola(1491-1556), a Catholic Saint, was an aristocratic and soldier that was harmed during the defense of Pamplona, Spain, and he decided of leave the army and dedicate his life to God, and he written also the Spiritual exercises, that has the same rigor of military service, in fact he has though and he has created his Company of Jesus, in the year 1535,  it is sufficient read the rules of this Company that has same rigor of other rules of religious orders, but here this rigor is the principal rule: “Each if he want enter to the Company, he must give the general confession to the priest that the Superior has given to him, and after he is going to receive the Sacrament, and through the same way he is going to confess…And every so the professed and assistant formed must be prepared to the general confession a time during the year…”; this rules seems very weak because one time during the year the confession is very short, certainly today it seems very low, but then it was the habit of Church, one time during the year, in Easter, is the time previewed, hence Saint Ignatius has took the common habit. But the rigor of military emerges immediately: “They must use the usual examination of the conscience; and if they aren’t priest, they must confess, and take the sacrament of the Communion, every eight days; and is one the confessor of every, ordinated from the Superior…”, but the wit of military continued also in the Exercises because Saint Ignatius says, regard the correction of defect: “In the morning, as soon as get up we must have the will avoid that sin that we want correct. Second time. After the lunch we must ask to God that we want, this is the grace of remember to us how much we have made that sin, and the grace of correct it. After we must make the first examination, and we must ask to our conscience about the point that we want correct, and we must analyze the hour after hour from our wake until the moment of the examination. On the line of the day so many point how are the times that we have failed in that sin. Third time. After the dinner we must make the second examination in same way, hour after hour from the first examination until the second, and on the same line we must sign the point of failed.” The wit of the military code is well present and these exercises are the other rule of Company, that not allow exception, in conformity to the military code: “It follow four addictions for to eliminate more easy that sin. The first addiction. Each time that we are going to fall in that sin or defect, the hand must be bring to the heart and worrying for our fall, this gest we can make also in face of other, without they see it. Second addiction. The first line and the second line indicate the first and the second examination, we must see if is a improve between the first and the second examination. Third addiction. We must confront the second day to the first, and we must see if there was an improve. Fourth addiction. We must analyze this week to the precedent and we must consider if there is an improve”; the military discipline is always present, hence we can consider that Saint Ignatius has been a soldier given to loan to the religion.

Alessandro Lusana    

 

 

 The American anarchical: Bakunin

The pragmatism of Michail Bakunin(1814-1876), the anarchical theorethical, give a compliment to the USA, during a his discourse he has said: “It is may evident, lords, that for the save, in Europe, the liberty and the peace, we must oppose to this monstrous and oppressive centralization of the military States, bureaucratic, despotic, constitutional monarchic or republican? We must oppose through the great and benefic principle of the federalism, principle whose the last events in USA, has given to us a demonstration of triumph. From now on must be clear for everybody that really want the emancipation of the Europe that, we holding the our nearness to the ideas of socialism and humanitarian enunciated from the French Revolution, we must repel its politic of State and adopt very strongly  the policy of liberty of USA”; certainly the vision of Bakunin was very ideal, although the model was certainly preferable to the centralism, but the information was certainly very distant from the reality, anyway Bakunin has took a model that during the years 60s and 70s of the century 19^th was very didactic, but we must also consider that this book is a together of essays di Bakunin about the anarchical idea, and he has made a confront to the Europe, and in fact his preference for the USA is specified, because he has said: “…we holding the our nearness to the ideas of socialism…”, he has took that is necessary to the theoretical and anarchical country, and the preference for the federalism is the politic model more near to the anarchical idea for the time of Bakunin; because we must see this indication of federalism, as the hypothesis that in the time of Bakunin was the more revolutionary, in confront to the political models that the Europe followed, because he has specified that he was always socialist, but in this essay the enemy is the State, hence the country that hasn’t the modest presence of the State then was the USA. In fact in discourse successive he has considered and has mentioned the Switzerland: “The same Switzerland, that has this model today, has adhered without restriction…”; this discourse as also the precedent is pronounced in a country that was federalist from centuries; but he has anticipated some name because he wanted that the name of a journal was The States United of Europe, this name and model is very much mentioned during the past years from political scientists in Europe; but from this idea emerges also the superficiality of Bakunin because the State, although in a theoretical federalist continent, as the Europe, the States have always their nature, that can be also monarchic, as the England, or republican as the France, but the State is always present. Other consideration of a drunk, is the following: “For the triumph of the liberty, the justice and the peace among the international rapport of Europe, for avoid the civil war among the different peoples the tool is unique: build the United States of Europe”; this idea is absolutely utopian and logically and linguistically erred, because the civil war is born alone in the same people in one country, but he has, honor for the merit, he has anticipated the actual Europe, that lives from 80 years in peace; at last he has guessed.

Alessandro Lusana 

        

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The skeptical method: Sextus Empiricus and Socrates

The explication of the skeptical doctrine is masterfully explained from Sextus Empiricus(a.Ch. 180-230), that in the Pyrrhonian sketches has explained the method of skeptical philosophy, he says that: “The skeptical philosophy carry out the its valor for the contraposition the phenomena and the intellective perceptions in every manner, hence for the force of the facts and of the opposing reason, we arrive to the suspension of judge…”; this is doctrine of Sextus Empiricus, that is the doctrine may exact of the skeptical, and I have used the word may because now I feel me skeptical, this is I want think that the doctrine of skeptical is so, but the explication has came from a source alone, therefore we can doubt that it is the skeptical doctrine, and following the text of Sextus we can also say that: “We say “valor”, without add to this word nothing meaning. To the word “phenomena” we can say the meaning date of the sense, and we oppose to them the perceptions of the dates of sense, and we oppose to them the perceptions of the intellect. The adjunct “for the every manner” can be refer it to the explication of its valor…For the words “oppose reasons”, we not think, absolutely, the affirmation or negation, but alone the opposite reasons that fight between them. Through the words “equal force”, we think parity in confront to the credibility and to not credibility, so that nothing of these reasons is preferred to other”; the ambivalence of this skeptical text is evident, and Sextus Empiricus explained it clearly; but we can also consider, and here we must, not can but must, use the skeptical doctrine, because the analysis of the words that Sextus has made in this chapter is very important for to hypothesize an Socratic origin of this analysis; because Socrates has considered the meaning of the words that his interlocutors has used, certainly for the education of his interlocutors, this is demonstrate the valor of logic, that for him was a dogma, although he never has expressed this theory, but Sextus Empiricus has made the same thing, he here explains the meaning of the words that he has used and he gives a meaning, for the explication of the skeptical doctrine, and in fact following the read other chapter says: “If the skeptical philosopher has a sect. Similarly we behavior to answer to the question if the skepticism has a sect. In fact if through word the sect we must think an inclination to much dogma…and through dogma we think the assent to obscure thing, we must affirm that a skeptic hasn’t a sect.”; the analysis of the words continues and other two nearness to Socrates are two: the first not dogmatic truth, that in fact Socrates has never used, and the second is the logic and constancy to follow their method, that in fact has brought to the death Socrates;but other motive for the nearness to Socrates is literally the absence of a school, that Socrates didn’t has had; and this motive is equally important for the consideration of this nearness; anyway these are the conjunctions points between Socrates and skeptical philosophers; the logic is dominant because also the skeptical philosopher were doubtful for the theories, and in fact, as Socrates, they took the doubt for the principal motive of inquiry, and also so they has had always suspicion of judge; Socrates exposed the doubts through the logic words, and the skeptical philosophers through the suspicion of judge; two methods but the same result.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

 

        

 The evolution of skepticism: Fichte

Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814) is the author of the Doctrine of the science, that has took certainly from the skepticism, precisely from the Pirronian sketches of Sextus Empiricus, that explained the method of skepticism, and in the first chapter of this book he has written: “The skepticism explains the his valor for to contrast the phenomena and the intellectuals perceptions to every manner, hence, for the equal force of the reality and of the contrast reasons, we come foremost to suspension of the judge…The contrasting reasons we not interpret the contrast reasons, we not think absolutely, the affirmation or negation, but alone the reasons that are fighting one other. Through the equal force, we think the equality regard the credibility and to not credibility, so that nothing has preferred than other. Suspension of the judge is a behavior of the head, and for this we not refuse and accept it”; these considerations that we have read from Sextus Empiricus, and that explain the doctrine of the skepticism, are also necessary for to consider the Fichte’s dialectic, that apparently has nothing tide, but we must consider attentively the Doctrine the science of Fichte, where he explained his theory of his the dialectic, that after is going to be the same of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), but for Fichte the evolution from the skepticism is evident, why? Simple because for Fichte are two the principles, I and not I, that are the direct translation of two principles of Fichte, this is the I and not I, that are contrasting between them, as the contrasting are the theory on Sextus Empiricus suspends the judge, instead Fichte, this is the evolution, theorized the fusion, that is different certainly as every evolution, that modify the shape and theory…The fundamental principle of the skepticism is, above all, this: to every reason is opposite a of same valor. Through it we not set some dogma.”; the evolution of Fichte occurred, above all because the times are changed, also for the certain of the his dialectic, that is explain form him as the certain thing, and also it is an evolution, because Sextus Empiricus regard the skeptical philosopher says: “We can say that the skeptic not dogmatize, not for the sense that somebody has took this word, because for them to assert to something…So for example, if he (the skeptical philosopher) feeling the warm or cold, he not would says: I think not feeling the warm or cold; but we can think that he not dogmatize, for the sense that other give to word, this is dogma, this is to assent for something that are obscure and that are object of search. But neither dogmatize for to say regard the obscure things, the skeptical expressions not at all anymore or I not establish something. Who dogmatize set as true and real the his judge, instead the skepticism set these expressions not as true and real absolutely…”; it is the judge regard the truth that Sextus has heard for his times, and Fichte instead has dogmatize his theory, but I repeat, the time were different, and the philosophical affirmations, during the 19^th century, have to be sustained because the skepticism would has been very harmful for a philosophical theory; anyway Fichte has took from the skepticism something and after he has changed in conformity for his time.

Alessandro Lusana 

   

 The political motive for a transfer: Boniface 8^th and Clemens 5^th

The historical tell didn’t justify the transfer t Avignon of the Church, the official motive is because the elected pope, Clemens 5^th, wont transfer to Rome, and it is certainly the official motive, but why this pope choose the French instead Rome? Other pope, as the German popes Gregory 5^th(996-999), Clemens 2th(1046-1047)Leone 9^th(1049-1054), and every pope is dwelt in Rome, that was and is the capital of Catholicism, it would be as if a country was administrated not from the its capital, but form the capital of other country, it is impossible, instead for the Church it was possible, Arthur Scophenauer(1788-1860), said that: “The policy is the art of possible”; and in fact the transfer to Avignon from the Rome, was possible, but the principal question is, why? Simple for a motive that was essentially politic: the pleasure, today we can call poll, that during the 14^th century there not were, but the people says and protest also, in fact during the year 1302 Philipp 4^th, king of France, have to escape from a riot in Paris because the people had not the bread, hence evidently Philipp was aware that the people could also become violent, when the its need not were satisfy; therefore  the transfer to Rome of the new French pope, for Philipp was an occasion certainly very important for to allow that he was transfer to Rome, a strange country, instead he could reinforce his monarchy and his rule and the monarchy in France, through the presence of a French pope. This hypothesis is alone my personal think, because the study of history allows the political considerations, if the historical man sees the facts through the political look that is the become of history, and not alone a narration of events; and I want see and consider the political side of the questions, and in the transfer to Avignon is a political motive, the pleasure of the king from the French people, through the presence of pope in France would have reinforced the monarchical power, and this hypothesis stems from an elementary consideration, that is likewise historical, this is the French popes that dwelt in Rome, before Clemens 5^th: Sylvester 2th(999-1003), Urban 2th(1088-1099) and Callisto 2th(1119-1124), and every French pope before than Clemens 5^th, is died in Rome, why this last pope is died in France and he refused the transfer? Simple because the king Philipp 4^th, has had need of a religious authority that guaranteed the power of monarchy, inasmuch Clements 5^th was perfect for this duty, and the continuity of the election of French popes, because the major of Conclave was with French cardinals, because Clements and other French popes have elected the French cardinals, therefore the popes could be alone French; but it was necessary to Philipp and other successors for to use the power that the pope has had, this is the excommunication, and the consequently last of the power; who govern the papacy could govern the Europe, for this the papacy has located in Avignon for 72 years, because the power was also in the papacy, in fact after the Avignon nobody French pope has elected from the Conclaves, because the dread of new transfer was very great.

Alessandro Lusana      

            

 The philosophical dialectic of Fichte

The dialectic is a concept that in philosophy is very much frequent, and its nature is vary various, and we must consider also the dialectic of Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814), that has determined the dialectic of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), but the dialectic of Fichte is the following and he tells it: “The I and not I are set in the I, and in the I as mutually limited one other, this is the reality of one limits the reality other. This proportion encloses the two proportions following: “The I set the not I as limited by not I…”, and again: “The I is set the first as absolute reality, and after as limitable reality, and truly limitable by not I. But everything have set by the I; and these thing are therefore, the moments of our proportion.”; but what means it? An example is necessary absolutely: if we set two person in a small room, and their name are I and not I, one of them occupies the space of other, and I is occupying the space of not I, but not I is occupying the space of I, why? Simple because he is in the same room, and physically is there present, inasmuch he is occupying the space that is his, certainly, but that he is occupying is space, for its nature; hence the not I is together to I, it is the concept. The following words are likewise true: “The reflection must begin from the theoretical part, although if we are going to see that the theoretical part, that yield possible the practice, because the theoretical part is possible alone for the practice(the reason for its nature is purely practice, and that it become theoretical  alone extending its laws toward to not I…”, and the explication is more clear for the following words: “The not I determines, actively, the I, that is passive. The I is determined, every activity must begin from the I…I a proposition has affirmed that, in other is denied. Reality and negation hence annul one other, and not annul them, but they must be cancelled and it occurs alone for the limitation or determination…”; taking the example of two men in the room the space of one is occupied from other, inasmuch the space of one, that he is I or not I, is limited, this is determined, therefore cancelled, and in fact Fichte explains masterfully: “The I determines itself, is attributed to I the absolutely reality. The I can determined itself alone as the absolute reality, because it is the absolute reality, and toward its nothing negation is set. Nonetheless it have to determined alone form itself…”; this is the example by now familiar of two men in the room, the space is determined from the I and he can occupy his space and also other, because he is the principal motive for the life of the not I, because if the I not exists neither not I would exist, and the following word is more clear: “…the I determines the reality, and through it, itself…”; this is the man I has his reality and his space and he allows also to other man not I his existence, because, as we have read above, without the I not would exists not I, and in fact he explains: “The not I is opposite to I; and to its there is negation as in the I is reality…”; this is if the man I has all the space of room, the other man, this is not I, hasn’t the space, and he represents the negation of the I, and Fichte explains the synthesis: “One and other this is the absolute, totality in the reality of I and the absolute negation in the not I must be joined for the determination…”; and this point is very important, because the determination is the result of union between the I and not I, that finally give the synthesis, this is the final exit of the conjunction. It is the very charming description of the dialectic of Fichte, whereby for the example of two men, one man is melted to other, and the final result is the room empty, because the men are melted between them.

Alessandro Lusana    

  

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 The origin of Hegelian dialectic

The Hegelian dialectic, this is the union od the opposite conceptual positions, synthetized in thesis antithesis and synthesis, is a concept that we find in the Doctrine of science, in 1794, a book of Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814), where he has explained three concepts that are fundamental for the his dialectic and after that of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), Fichte in this book, the First theorem explain the dynamic of Hegelian dialectic, he says: “We have enunciated three logic and fundamental principles: that of identity, that is the fundament of every other, and following that of opposition, and that of reason, that are melted in the first. The last that yield possible the synthesis process, that enunciate and are ground of its form. We hence not need other for to be sure of the formal validity…”; but important for the ideation of the Hegelian dialectic is important the second step. In same way, in the first synthetic act, in the fundamental synthesis (that of I and not I, is set a content for every possible future synthesis, and, also to this have we not need other. Everything, that must belong to the domain of the science, must develops itself from that fundamental synthesis.”; it is the origin of the Hegelian dialectic, but we must consider that Hegel has never used these words, this is thesis, antithesis and synthesis, that instead used Fichte, but the dialectic is, in opinion of Hegel, the conflagration of two principles and it determines the third principle, this is the synthesis, that has the nature of I and not I, in opinion of Fichte. Every concept is born from the conciliation of opposite, we must should search, to the first, these opposite notes of the enunciated concept(here of I and not I, because they are mutual determined themselves)”; it is the supreme definition of the hegelian dialectic, because the contrast between two principles, in the absolute spirit, coexist, and the melted of these principles yields the synthesis, this is the final being that has the ambivalent nature, this is the nature of I and not I, although Hegel not called them so. Following Fichte is more explicit  for this concept: “Nothing antithetic act , although it is presupposition for the possibility of the general analysis, is possible without its determined synthetic act, and nothing antithetic act determined is possible without its synthetic act.”; after the read of this step the fuck you are innumerable, because it is worse than a kick to balls, because the question, that isn’t properly philosophical: “What cock is the mean, fuck you?”; it is very simple, this concept want say that every condition not can realize itself without another condition, for example: why the screw has this strange form? This is with a cross or a line vertical or horizontal? Simple because we have screwdriver that has a tip with line or cross, and when we use the screwdriver one is joined to other, but before the use they are distinct and separated, after they are joined, and this union allows the unscrew the screw, one needs other, and the synthesis, this is the final result is the unscrew the screw; two antithetic concept that melted them, produce the final product, this is the final synthesis.

Alessandro Lusana