Historical law: Montesquieu

Charles de Secondat baron di Montesquieu(1689-1755), was the author of the book The spirit of the laws, and in this book a universal truth is explained: “The law to general is the human rationality, because it commands every people of the word, and the politic and civil laws are alone the particular cases for the use of this human rationality. They must be so adapt to the people that must follow, and they must be so adapt to every single people that is very uncertain think that they can be also adapt to other nation. It is necessary that they are relative(this is tied) to the nature and to the established govern or it want establish, both that the laws shape the govern, as the politic laws, or that this govern is kept for the civil laws, They must be correspondent  to the physical characteristic of the country, to the clime, cold, warm or temperate, to the quality of ground, to its wideness, and to gender if life of people, granger, hunter or shepherd; they must consider the level of freedom that the constitution allows, to the religion of citizens, and to personality of them, to their richness , to the number, to the trade, to the habit and customs…”; today it is simple obvious, but in year 1748, when the political context was very different this theory, that today are reality, then was a anomalous, because the king may depends from the people, instead the real power depends alone from God, hence the king was the supreme will of the nation, and everything that he makes is right because is God that ordered it; in fact the power of king in France has given form the God and stop, fort this the French Revolution was an important and fundamental chapter for the history of Europe, because has shown that the kings could be decapitate and a State could transformed very radically, because the French Revolution has debunked the power of king, hence the same king, and the power didn’t come from God but alone from the people, and stop; this long step of Montesquieu, explains that although the Spirit of laws has written from an aristocratic, he used the mind and the rationality, and repeat the French Revolution has brought every people and every citizens on the ground, because has demonstrated the power that the people has; and an aristocratic as Montesquieu had understood that the people keeps the power, other is alone suggestion, and he has touch the sensible point, this is the efficiency of the laws, that must be adapt to the people and not alone to the aristocratic or religious classes; we must also consider that the political men it known perfectly, but the kings have had the absolute power, at lat in France, and in fact when the counsellors asked to Louis 14^th who he had delegated for the State questions, they were very amazing when he answered: “L’État, c’est moi”, this is The State are I alone; finally also the France has a political in the govern; but Louis 14^th was alone an exception, because after to govern were alone stupid and nonentity, both in France and in other country of Europe. But anyway Montesquieu was right the law must be adapt also to the economy, for this he consider also the ground, as well as the customs and habit, but the Roman people said: “primum vivere deinde filosofare”; this is the first we must eat and after also think to useless things.

Alessandro Lusana      

               

 Two fundamental factors of history: the objective and subjective spirit

An English historical man Daniel Lord Smail(1961), has written a book about the principal factor of the history, this is the man, but considering the psychology of man that has determined the history, that this book is very important because the psychology has influenced certainly the become of time and his change; but before of Smail in a book of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831) has anticipated this concept in the Encyclopedia of philosophical sciences(1817), because in the third part of this book he has explained the Objective Spirit, but what is it? Simple it is the real manifestation of the human psychology, that he has called Spirit, and that is the principal factor for the history, and that, naturally, he has produced through the philosophical sense, through the names and philosophical concepts, as the Objective Spirit, that are daily for us, if we walk in a city or a small town or a civilized country, we can see the architectures, the progress, heard the citizens, it is the Objective Spirit, but we must leave to word to Hegel: “The objective spirit is the absolute idea, but alone for itself. Because the objective spirit is through on the ground of finiteness, its true rationality keeps in itself the form of external phenomenal…”; so it is a kick to the balls, and in fact it is so, but some explication can aid us; the idea, this is the concept is alone limited to whom thinks it and the finiteness is the external realization of this concept, when the concept become real, from the personal, hence from the Subjective Spirit, hence an personal ideal, that is the personal ideation, limited alone to whom thinks it, and the second part of this think is likewise clear, because: “…its true rationality keeps in itself the form of external phenomenal…”, why the external form if it is alone an idea? Simple because the Objective Spirit that, after the idea, is going to realize to external and through materially, therefore also the idea is a internal through the Subjective Spirit but after it becomes real through the Objective Spirit, that realize it in ground and through the material, but the principal factors that have determined these realizations are the Subjective and the Objective Spirit. These factors are in Hegel the philosophical concepts that are real, and for Smail it is the psychology, and Hegel continuing says: “This objectivity is divided for the anthropologic element of the particular needs, to the external particular…and for the rapport among the single will, that are awareness of themselves because different and particular. This cause is the material external for the existence for the will.”; this is the external reality determined the needs or desire and the different will or desire, above for the needs is the principal cause for the realization of an idea; if we think it we can see the factor of the history, the idea, hence the Subjective Spirit and the Objective Spirit, that are one following other, because Hegel in way less psychologic and more philosophic has explained what is the history and he has explained, I don’t know how much consciously, the principal factors of history, the idea that become reality, this is the Subjective and objective Spirit.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

            

 

 

 The Hegelian description: the Phenomenology of the spirit

During the read of foreword of the Phenomenology of the Spirit, of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), emerges a consideration that for the read of Hegel is normal or so should be, the spirit that Hegel consider is the brain, and the phenomenology is alone the evolution of the brain, in fact, we must take the words of Hegel; this book is a description certainly difficult of the dynamic od knowledge of man; the passages are very much, and Hegel has produced it for to explain the movement of think for the knowledge, I must add that the passages that Hegel explained he alone has seen them because in reality these not aren’t, anyway he has described his Phenomenology so: “The phenomenology of the Spirit is the is the exposition of this of this become of the science to general side, this of knowledge . The first manifestation of knowledge, the immediate Spirit is the sensible conscience, this that lacks of spirituality…”; without explication these are alone a together of words but without sense; it is alone is the practical and daily of our life; in fact the exercise of knowledge is the sensible, this is the external vision and the Spirit, this is the brain ascertains that something is present, and Hegel rescues us through the following word that is the become, it is the word principal, because Hegel in this become sees the evolution of the science, that we not must consider the official science, but alone for the acceptation of the Latin sense of this substantive, this is the knowledge, because this word can induce to error; we can think that the science is the official science, that is diversification for the matters, medical, mathematic, physical and other, not is so, but the very less common the Latin meaning of the knowledge, and reading again Hegel we read: “The first manifest of the knowledge, the immediate Spirit, is the sensible conscience, this is that lacks of  spirituality: “; we can think that these words are likewise abstract and incomprehensible, but we can translated this concept, Hegel self was criticized because he used words very difficult, in fact this book is very difficult, but alone for the words rather than for the concept, for example that lacks of spirituality is the external object, and the evolution Hegel describes: “For become the authentic knowledge, for the produce the element of the science, that is the pure concept od the science, the immediate know must come a long path.”; it is the definition that Hegel given to the knowledge; the evolution for the different grade of the knowledge of everything is necessary time and analysis; so said is seems that foe the knowledge something must last a century, not absolutely, the grades that Hegel has seen for this evolution has described through the following words: “This become that is going to present  in its content and for the figures that are on the path, it is going to reveal other from a simple start of prescientific conscience to the science…”; it is simply the process that we can ascertain very much times, what is? Simple the summary knowledge of something, that is alone the prescience that is going to bring to the science, and Hegel continues: “…neither it is going to be that enthusiasm that,  as the shoot, start immediately through the absolute knowledge…”; this other capital condemn, verbal condemn, is likewise simple: it is the description of a process that hasn’t a knowledge immediately, but demand time and other inquiry; when we see a painting immediately we can attractive from the beauty but after we want also understand what is painted, and for this is necessary time, and ulterior inquiry; then Hegel, directly 9influenced from the speculative philosophy of Emmanuel Kant(1724-1804), he describes the simple process of the knowledge.

Alessandro Lusana      

 The other absolute spirit

I want write this essay because I want explain my personal concept of the absolute spirit, that in the Phenomenology of Spirit of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831) is specular to the religion, this is when the spirit is peer to the religion and hence it can look itself, it has reached the absolute knowledge, naturally for Hegel this path for this evolution want passages, or better philosophical passages necessary to reach the conscience of itself, that is for the last passage, as the specular religion spirit, as he has said it to the Phenomenology. I want tell about my conception of absolute spirit, that is merely human and much laic, because for me alone the human has this spirit, and the human kind can manifest this spirit, but how? Simple through the history; for Saint Agustin the history is alone the manifestation of God, although I am Catholic, I am more laic than Saint Agustin, because the man kind works the history, and every consequence of this absolute spirit of man is also the principal factor necessary to every event and every change in the history as for everything; the man works the history as he work the build, that he has made, and that he can destroy; the absolute spirit is manifest to every historical event; but the spirit can change radically from a country to other, because the habit and customs are different, certainly, and it is other clear sign of the work of man, because the different morality is result of different conditions: economic, cultural, moral, and social, that the man has found and that he has adapted to his spirit, through the works and transformations of an environment, that he has produced for him, but the decision and the spirit have determined the changes, hence the history is merely built of man; the transformations of the new country, as actual  USA is the determination of a man that following his spirit has started the radical modifications of that country but, although Cristoforo Colombo(1451-1506), has had other think in confront to followed discovery, he has started from Palos, Spain, because he has had the spirit of sea man, as Giovanni Caboto (1445/1450-1498-1501), that moored for first to Canada, and after other Italian, Amerigo Vespucci(1454-1512), that involuntary given the name to new continent, America from Amerigo. The spirit was the principal determination for these changes that are started from the absolute spirit of man, that can change something in conformity of the spirit both his and of time; he can create or destroyed, but it can occurs on the ground of the time, of habit, of morality, that are other builds of the spirit, that is different because the spirit that is built during the centuries, that we call traditions, is the constant determination of manifestation of our spirit, that is manifest for every day and in every environment, because also for the daily occasions we manifest our spirit, today we are angry and after we are calm, but our spirit is judge of every occasion, and the reaction is determined from the spirit.

Alessandro Lusana   

  

 The Hegelian catalog

I must admit that the Science of logic of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), is a interesting catalog of information regard the philosophical evolution of the think of author, because if we consider that the Phenomenology of the spirit is edited in 1807 and the Science of logic in 1812-1816, we can, or better, we must think that one of fundamental character of Hegelian philosophy isn’t, this the idealism, that through The science of logic among 1812 and 1816, hence the this book is written after, and it is evident but less evident is the absolute absence of idealism, because in the following step: “The logic can be divided among the general logic, of to be and the logic of to think, in the logic objective and subjective”, so explained it is a capital condemn, because it is incomprehensible, but Hegel aids us and he explains: “In conformity of content the objective logic is correspondent for something to that for Emmanuel Kant(1724-1804) is the transcendental logic(this is the metaphysical logic). He differentiates it from that he calls general logic, that he calls logic without a doubt, because he considers the concepts that consider to objects, hence he not abstract from the content of the objective knowledge, because it contents the rules of the pure think of a object and together is the origin of our knowledge because it not to be attributed to the objects. The principal think of Kant is the to demand the categories to the auto conscience as subjective I.”; it is a very, hence we can understand that the kicks are two and not alone one, because it is more incomprehensible than the concept above, but it is very simple, actually elementary; he has simple says, after that he has took the concepts of Kant, and for it he explains what is his concept, the question is, what is this concept? Simple the first step that Hegel used the subjective and the objective logic, is simply the owner think and the evident reality, for example: I can look a painting and I can say and cry that here is a painting, other visitor can look me and confirm it, after that he has called the police, and it is the objective logic, because what is visible for everybody is the objective logic, but the subjective logic instead is the contrary; because I can judge this painting as a painting of a painter very well, instead the second visitor can judge it as a painting of other painter, it is the subjective logic. The text became more clear for the following words: “The principal think of Kant is the to demand the categories to the auto conscience as subjective I”; it is the important step that deny, although partially, the Kant’s idealism and the idealism whole, because the judge of Hegel that want that Kant demands the categories of the auto conscience is the confutation of idealism, it is valid both for Hegel and for Kant; the concept is very simple; it is the normal process of knowledge that every day we have, this is the know or recognize something, and that we add to our knowledge but in conformity of categories that we have, every object we can recognize because we has a category that can recognize it, but what is the category? Simple if somebody must read a text written for the ancient Greek, but he doesn’t know the ancient Greek he can’t read it he hasn’t the category of ancient Greek, this is he hasn’t the right and sufficient information about the ancient Greek, it is the category; and the auto conscience that Kant demanded is the category, this is the information, necessary to recognize something, that is real, hence objective, therefore very long from the idealism.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 

 The Hegelian Science of logic: some note

The Science of logic is a difficult book of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), that is avoid as the plague, because objectively it must be trained to the think of Hegel, but the introduction at last is very much clear, because some step explains what is the rational, or logic, argument of this book: “If we take the logic as the science of think generally, then we can think that this think is the nude form  of a knowledge, that the logic is abstract from every essence, and the second element of every knowledge, this is the matter, that must be given…”; but we must disaccord to Hegel because he continued: “…we can suppose that the logic from it this matter would be totally independent, it can indicate alone the rules of knowledge, because it is the essential of truth, the content would be out…”; these words are very difficult because haven’t sense, but in conformity to the Hegelian think, we can discord from the master, that is Hegel, at last for me, because the logic in this consideration is alone the tool necessary to understand something, but the matter is the object of study ,a the logic is alone the instrument necessary to inquiry the truth, in fact I have stressed the conditional mood, would be, because this common matter that Hegel melts to logic, is a consideration that for to him is necessary to explain, is following pages the logic, or the science of logic, because he has unified the logic think to the matter, alone so is possible reached the true knowledge, and the affirmation: “…because it is the essential of truth, the content would be out”; Hegel has took the logic as the consubstantial to the matter; but I repeat it is necessary for the justify the inherence of the logic to matter so that he can explain that the knowledge is directly tied to the matter, in fact he following said: “The first is already is wrong to say that the logic  abstract from the content and that it learn alone the rules for of think, without go to the thought…”; these words merit the capital pain because who read it the first ask is: “What cuck is the meaning?”, this question is logic and rational, in fact these are alone useless words and stop; but among a blasphemy and other, we can also think that what I have said above, this is the matter tied to the matter, is the essential reference for to understand the Science of logic, the logic hence is melted to the matter, and alone so we can knowledge the matter and other. Naturally we can laugh about this fusion between the matter and think, because it is the abstraction absolutely; but repeat we must also consider that the think of Hegel is in the time of absolutely idealism, inasmuch every matter, also the common matter was worth of ideal; but who is condemned from some professor of philosophy or for homicide, to read the Aesthetic of Hegel(I have read it three times, and for me it is very fashioning, and nothing court had condemned me) who has read this book knows that that Hegel consider the matter, therefore earth, as the negative in confront to the ideal, when the art is thought and worked from the artist, the ideal is disappeared because it is common and not ideal; but the πάντα ρει od Heraclitus(b.Ch. 550-480) is present, and evidently he has changed idea. Anyway we can think that the idealism of 19^th century may was passing, and we must also consider that, evidently, the wit, or emphasis, of Romanticism has left the space to the pragmatic reality, that Hegel has left and has retook, because in this book is the predominance of think, hence of the Romantic and ideal wit, but melted also the very much thick presence of matter, whereby of the reality, that apart from the idealism; then it is a book where Hegel is in half between idealism and the matter.

Alessandro Lusana 

    

 

 

 First the peace in empire and after other: Constantine and the Arianism

The Christianity has had very controversies, the last through Martin Luther(1483-1546), for mere politic motives, as the Catholic Church has defended its position for likewise politic interest, also because the north Europe was by now Protestant, the England was Protestant, and the ecclesiastic power was halved, hence the power that again hold have to jealously kept; these are alone controversies and in modern age, this is during the 16^th century and in Europe, but also in ancient time, in fact the first, or alleged so, Christian imperator proved his political nature, because he was a politic for the controversy between the Arian(a. Ch.256-336), a theologian man that thought that Christ was alone a subaltern to God and not certainly consubstantial to God; hence Christ has a human nature and a human biography; this polemic discussion between the bishop Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and his presbyter Arian, in the 4^th century a.Ch., that to start was a lone a theological controversy and a simple discussion between two theological men, but after it became a problem, that it was condemned in the Nicaea council(a.Ch.325); but why this importance so great that Constantine have to intervened? Simple because he wanted that this controversy not compromised the peace in empire, and some step of his letters, regard this controversy, are very important because proof the political sensibility of Constantine for a question that was alone theological but it could determine the political confusion, and riots in Empire; the letters are copy from Eusebius from Cesarea(a.Ch.265-339), the first letter says: “I call for witness, how I can, God that is aid for my efforts and the conservator of everymen…My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.”, and the following step of this letter is more important, above all for the last lines: “I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, 1 or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on 2 what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, 3 and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, 4 and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the general ear. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers' understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy. Let therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. 1 For the cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are in truth of one and the same judgment: 2 you may therefore well join in communion and followship.”; this controversy certainly interested very slow Constantine that was pagan and so he has died, but for to him the importance was for the peace in empire, and the example, that can show to us what would be the effects for a religious controversy, is the European war of thirteen years that seen the war of Catholic States against the Protestant States, that lasted 30 years; hence Constantine known perfectly that a very irrelevant discussion could determine very division in empire, and for to him the peace was the principal matter.

Alessandro Lusana