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

 Republican fairy tales:1798

The material for essays in the Roman republic is more than we can think, because ended a essay the cucks up solicit other essay, and the Rome republic certainly doesn’t lack of this; a discourse of Niccola Corona(1750-?), a Jacobin and layer that in Rome, during the Roman republic has uttered this discourse that is laughable and absurd, typical of political publicity: “It is the Roman this moment that is the more beauty of your history. Those heroes that have taught to every nation of word of set back to slavish they have became slave of the priests with crow, that undress the State for to enrich their families…”; these families certainly were rich but they guaranteed also the job and slavish donation to the people, and the second if these families could enriched them evidently somebody has let it, also because the proprieties then were above all the lands and fields, but somebody have to cultivate these fields, and the grangers were of people, the last class of society, that evidently was satisfied so, and this condition was present from the ancient Rome, hence a people to whom is told the liberty, and this people not knows minimal concept of liberty, these are alone empty words, and also erred, and above all the Roman people was habit to this social classism, hence these are alone words without following. Corona continued for his cucks up: “Awaked the wit of liberty and independence, that has made the history of your forefather, and the felicity and richness of free nations.”; it is umpteenth lie; because the unique revolution, in Europe, was that French, and after the Revolution the economic income was the same of the before the Revolution or even worse; hence it is alone the publicity, that certainly somebody has heard but whose has understood nothing, because to a people that was habit to this misery and presumed slavery, a discourse so propagandistic not could have effect, and in fact it hasn’t had effects; also because the people to whom this discourse was destined was illiterate and the ancient Rome did know something; and Corona continues: “Delete from your heads and in the your heart every memories of oppression, that degrade you, and more rises sublime this tree of liberty more you can destroy these signs of cruel tyranny…”; but if was has been a tyranny the people would has already rioted but it isn’t occurred in Rome, the following is ridiculous: “The Roman people bored from much time of monstrous despotism, that has oppressed it, has tried more times of free oneself of this oppression…An secret magic of opinions and of politic interest and a overcoming military strong, has invalided until now the good result…”; somebody should ask to Corona when occurred these tries, in what time, century and is these has occurred on the earth planet or in his fantasy. We can laugh of these very dingy publicity; but the exercise is to the confront to actual political discourses, that are very ridiculous, and as Corona says one truth and a thousand of lies; inasmuch or the political discourses has written Corona or the politic man uses the same method.

Alessandro Lusana        

    

 

                  

 

 

 

 

 The noble literature: Guy of Warwick

Guy of Warwick a British poem between 13th and 15th century, is a typical work of literature of his time, because the protagonist, Guy that after become the knight and faced much adventures for the love Phaelice, daughter of ear of Warwick; it is the typical tale of Medieval age, where the knight must be a superman, and naturally this superman must be also noble, it is important for the literary canon that in the Middle age was asked, hence: “I shall not trouble the reader with a long genealogy of the descent of our famous Guy of Warwick; it shall therefore suffice to tell the reader, that in the sixth year of the reign of king Edgard the Great, this our famous Guy, was born in the city of Warwick. His father was a gentleman of Northumberland, in which country he had been the possessor of a fair estate…”; the canon of noble literature is respected, because Guy is now a noble, that is going to marry a noble. But after this step is necessary that Guy falls in love of Phaelice, always through a fair behavior, inasmuch: “But by being at the earl’s house, he came to have a sight of fair Phaelice, his beautiful daughter, with whom he was so extremely taken, that nothing but she could satisfy him…”; and after the potential husband also the potential wife the qualities must be considered: “She was indeed so fair, that she could not be seen, without being loved.”, and a summary description of Phaelice and hers beautiful was necessary, thence: “She was so fair, Venus herself could never boast more beauty…”; thereby also a very synthetic description, but necessary to let to reader a general and ideal image of Phaelice, that beyond noble and fair must be also beauty. And other note, about the anonymous author, that certainly was a cultured man, and we can think also a religious or a poet of court, because during the Middle age these two personages has had the sufficient culture for these comparison: “…and had she but been present at the famous contest between Juno, Pallas, and Venus, about the golden apple…”; other proof of this culture is given from the following step: “…beauty could no where but in Phaelice’s face be found in its perfection; but these perfections were so many daggers, sticking poor Guy to the heart…”; it the god of love Eros, that shot the arrows directly to the heart of lovers; and the competition among the three goddess, Juno, Pallas and Venus, that were concurrent in the beautiful and Paris chosen Venus, and the more famous was the narration, that was from the ancient Greek, of Ovid(43 b.Ch-18 a.Ch.), that during the Middle age was more diffused also in the convent and in the courts; therefore the author was may a court poet; but the pilgrimage of Guy, in Holy land, was a motive merely religious and tied to penitence, and it let to us also to hypothesize also a century for the written, because the pilgrims were very frequent also before of the first crusade, in the 1096-1099, wanted from the pope Urban 2th, that has proclaimed it in the city of Clermont, France. These are alone the hypothesis that the writer want alone set for a think of reader, since the date and the author aren’t known; anyway the material from this poem is present, and we can again think about these hypothesis and deny them or confirmed.

Alessandro Lusana        

 

  

 

 

   

 Little nationalism: parochialism

The love for our nation is certainly noble and laudable , and the internationalism is a pure utopian as the anarchy because we should renounce to our habit, our language and our wit, that is impossible, hence it is mere utopian, the man can’t becomes the unhuman; everybody has in own wit the pride of owner birth, because it’s the natural human spirit; but this love  can also be given to owner city, that is more great love given to our proprieties because all the city isn’t our, but in the with can becomes our; we are proud of our birth and of our city, and it is always a motive officially the nationalism or parochialism, that is a little form of nationalism; we exalt, above in Italy and France our cities, and in fact our love for our cities almost excludes the love for the nation, because our love it to the our city, that can be beauty or ugly, but it is always the our city, and we consider it as our propriety, that we defend always because it is our, and we know its history and its wit, this is the wit of the city, this the wit of citizens, its language that can assume meaning different from other, idiomatic expressions that has a meaning in a city and other is other cities; also it is the wit of a city; I remember an judge of Stendhal(1783-1842), that has judged the city of Rome as a reign of passion, of liberty, of customs and of a vital energy, that is unique in Europe; Stendhal certainly could not be parochial because he was Frence, but evidently that was involved from the popular nature that Rome had then,  afield from the formality and customs of France, that can be also a motive of pride for every nation; for example the England citizens are very proud of their customs, because it is a motive for to be different, because the nationalism  and the parochialism  are two sides of a different wit, that is different from other nations and form other cities, hence it becomes motive of pride for to be different, because the own characteristics are fit for the comparison; usually it also used for an exaltation  of our nation or city, but this wit is determined  from the distinction from the difference, this is the possibility of can say: “I am other person, other custom, other nation, other culture and other city, that is the character of a person: the French are polite, the British are formal, the Italian are passionate and the German are disciplined; it is the distinction of a people that is also a character, that can be found also in a city. The parochialism is other side of nationalism an nationalism more little, that has the same characteristic, this is the owner and the same wit, this the possess of something that we have in our spirit, in our childhood, soothing that by now is our, and we want defender it always, also if it isn’t our propriety because a city can’t be whole our, but in our wit it is our, because it is our spirit that has determined our habits, our language and our culture, hence it is ourselves, this our wit because the characteristics are a side that cannot be set aside of our wit; hence our life, that is our propriety.

Alessandro Lusana