The valor of context: Gioberti

I have already treated about Vincenzo Gioberti(1801-1852), but now I want alone stress the valor of time and the context, that has given so emphasis to the narration that Gioberti has seen for the literature of Italy that, it isn’t for the nationalism, that I am and pride to be it, but alone for to stress the my essay on the context (The causes of history, this is: what is the context?), and the third book of Gioberti, The primate moral and civil of Italians, is necessary to justify and to show the validity of the knowledge of contest and its causes, that here are alone political; this book Gioberti has written during the 19^th century, when the morality, above all to the high class this is the middle class, has ordered, although silently, the love to nation; naturally very low were who has persecuted for his ideas; naturally our Risorgimento, it the name that the history has given to this period, has emphasized every episode but why? Simple because the Italian hasn’t never had the awareness of a State, differently from the French, because for the French the first is the State and after the France; the history of Italy that was always a nation divided for the small states, the conception of unique State never was present; hence during the Risorgimento, although uselessly because the Italian people was illiterate, the intellectuals tried to give a summary concept of a nation or State, Massimo d’Azelio(1798-1866), an Italian writer, written in a letter: “We have made the Italy, but can’t make the Italians”; this is we can’t give the awareness to them that they are Italian; but during the period of Gioberti this illusion was again possible, in fact somebody to me very dear said: “To govern the Italians isn’t impossible but alone useless”; anyway the context is very celebrative of a nation that then wasn’t: “The beauty being an idea identified from the fantasy, the ideal nation and owner of the first scientific elements must be imaginative…”; we should aske to Gioberti: “The nationalism is justified, but about what nation do you are speaking?”; because now Italy isn’t, hence your book is alone a phantasy, compliment! But every cock up of these words, must be useful for evidence that the writer is Gioberti, but the author is the context, because it has written The primate moral and civil. Gioberti continues: “The aesthetic primate of Italy is hence both chronological and logic in same time; because for a side it proceeded other peoples on occident, for use of letters and of noble arts…”; here Gioberti is very laughable because he aware of say od cuck up, said these lies for alone nationalism; because the ancient Greek has preceded Rome and Italy, and Egypt and Mesopotamia have preceded both Italy and ancient Greek for use of letters and arts; inasmuch Gioberti, that known these ancient civilities ignores it because the primate of Italy would not be, and he lacks of context, although he was right for the modern art: “…the literature is Italian art being among the modern that can equal the ancient…”; hence he known the ancient arts, but the emphasis continues: “…in this competition the Italians have to overcome themselves because the classicist ancient was alone work of their race, and in Italy has had their country…”. It is a judge of a nationalist that wanted alone a celebration od his nation but without consideration of reality.

Alessandro Lusana            

          

 

 

 The causes of history, this is: what is the context?

Usually, above all from who is writing the word “context” is used from the political men, historical men and the economic men to explain a phenomenal, and it is very necessary for to understand a cause and the consequential effects; the word is explicative, at last for its origin or etymology,  because it is from the Latin “contextere”, this is sew together, this the tie more things together, and it is the first motive for follow the root of word and its original meaning, also to semiotic meaning, because the sew together more things is the origin of the practical of the word, that we can understand better by the linguistic matter, because it in linguistic has the total valor, in fact: the context is the together of words and concepts that surround the word in a written or discourse, and that aids to understand the valor and the meaning; every context encloses different motives: economy, culture, moral, social and above all political, that every takes part to the context, for example: the capital condemn of Templar, in year 1314, in Paris, France, the official motive for the heresy, and it is was valid motive? Not certainly because pope Clemens 5^th discharged the order, why the condemn? Because Philip 4^th, king of France, has had very need  of money of Templar, because the France was very poor, and the same Philip and his court have to escaped from an attack of Paris of people that hasn’t the food, in year 1302,, and he was saved from the Templar order in the castle of this order in Paris, where now is the Louvre museum, then this castle was very small, anyway Philip was welcomed, and the treasurer of Templar showed the treasure of order to the king, certainly trough  the pride, and Philip has remembered this treasure when he has condemned the order through the false document, this condemn I have took for example for to show the validity of etymology of the word; because the context, this is the sew together is the truth; in fact for this condemn we not can, but we must tie different facts: the first is the merely economic, this is the France of Philip 4^th lacks of infrastructures as the roads, service and other for the economic develop, but to Philip were necessary the money, and the order of Templar has had it; hence two factors have intervened , the first the economic and the second political, in fact Dante Alighieri(1265-1321), mentioned this robber from Philip through the following words: “To bring the avid sails to the temple”; this is the theft of money of Templar. Other political context, that is very explicative: Francis 1th, king of France, and Catholic, signed an alliance to the Muslims for contrast the power of Charles 5^th in Europe, in year 1536? Simple for the political context, France was been surrounded  from the empire of Charles 5^th : to north the Netherlands, to south the Spain and to east Germany, hence the France was a easy prey; the political context has wonted the alliance between Francis and the Muslims; it is the political context above all. The Reform of Luther has had so great success for the economic cause, the German princes wanted the proprieties of the Roman Church in Germany ; but also the popes has used the political strategy; because pope Clemens 5^th, that has undergone the attack to Rome of Charles 5^th, in year 1527, he has avoid to excommunicate the same Charles, but he has excommunicated Henry 8^th, king of England, , when Henry asked the cancellation of marry  to Catherine of Aragon, because he hasn’t had male sons, and he wanted marry Anne Bolsena; after this refuse and excommunication Henry founded the Anglican believe; two political contexts; because Catherine was aunt of Charles 5^th , protector of the Church in Europe, hence the England could become a possess of Charles 5^th, but the political context didn’t let it; these examples are necessary to understand the complexity of a contest, hence the Latin language was righ, the political and economic motives must be lied together.

Alessandro Lusana      

     

 

 A literatures confront. Poe, Manzoni, Dostoevskij, Byron

Poe

Dostoevskij

Manzoni

Byron

Manzoni: I think that we can begin from a your book, at last I think, but I accept your choose.

Poe: I would begin trough my History of Arthur Gordon Pym, and I would beg…

Dostoevskij: You want begin with nothing and there also finish and stop.

Poe: Why? Do you didn’t like my History?

Dostoevskij: certainly it is very great book, but I have read it two times and I have read about everything but the history I haven’t read; as Picasso that after visited a exposition of Impressionist painters said “I have seen the rain, the clouds and the sun, but the painting lacked”

Poe: Hence Gordon Pym isn’t you preferred.

Dostoevskij: No certainly.

Poe: Why?

Dostoevskij: because it is useless, it doesn’t tells nothing and the plot is very useless.

Poe: Also your Demons is long and boring, or not?

Dostoevskij: Yes, it is very long and boring and much boring.

Poe: But the editor has payed you?

Dostoevskij: Yes, he has payed me because I have written in Dresden, Germany.

Poe: And the editor has payed you.

Dostoevskij: I repeat, yes he has payed me, but why it is interesting for you?

Poe: Because it wasn’t useless, some sake it has had, although boring and long.

Dostoevskij: But the man of literature isn’t for the gain alone…

Poe(shutting up him): We have written for this too, the first was the passion but the passion doesn’t gives the food.

Dostoevskij: Yes but I haven’t begun to write because I have thought of gain, because I am Russian, and in my country very low know read; hence the writer can’t gain trough the romances.

Poe: In fact every man of literature has searched an employ for his matter, and when it wasn’t he has entered to court.

Dostoevskij: You are thinking to Italian Renaissance and we can ask it to Manzoni. Alexander the literature man in Italy have entered to the court?

Manzoni: Certainly, it is enough read the De commodis litterarum atque incommodes, where the author, Leon Battista Alberti, has told about the nobleness of knowledge and the hard life of the man of literature. And he has told about the poverty of men of literature that hasn’t a court.

Poe: Alexander do you like some my book, or do you have same opinion of Fëdor?

Manzoni: My think about your Gordon Pym is same of Fëdor, but the your novel the pendulum is very famous and it merits this success, because it is very involving, it take the interest and it is important for the writer, involve the interest; in fact the long romances are dispersive, and very soon the reader is going to be boring.

Dostoevskij: Do you have written a romance?

Manzoni: Yes, The promise bride and bridegroom.

Poe: And do you have been long?

Manzoni: Sometime yes, but my cultural tradition, and the Italy has very much, has taught to me that the history must be variegated, but a plot must be ever present because the writer, after a digression, he must turn to the principal history, that is fundament of the romance.

Dostoevskij: Inasmuch do you let that are digressions?

Manzoni: Certainly, but these digressions must be after that the writer has told  the principal history, otherwise the reader not understand where is the principal core, that must be explained trough more pages, and after are possible the digressions, but not certainly long, some page is enough. But other hostess is present, George Byron what is your opinion?

Byron: I was thinking to my Childhood memories: “When the slow infirmity with its series of worries freeze the blood in the veins; when the healthy stayed its wings and it escapes for the first breeze of spring, when it occurs not alone the body alone that suffers, but the atrocious tortures oppressive also the soul.

Poe: Very well.

Manzoni: can I ask what is it?

Byron: My Childhood memories!

Manzoni: I believe it but when do you explain it?

Dostoevskij: I have read your Childhood memories; I think that it is alone a poetical try but very modest.

Manzoni: Because that these are the your childhood memories is incomprehensible, may we can intuit, but not from your text.

Byron: It is written to poetical verses.

Manzoni Yes but it lacks the argument, and it is important so that the reader can understand what he is reading. It is important for the reader so that he doesn’t bore.

Poe: But The deformed transformed is rational or not Alexander what do you think?

Manzoni: Yes it is rational.

Byron: Why do you think it?

Manzoni: Because when the ghost appears to the Arnold, that wanted suicide, he says: “If I was the devil, as you believe, one alone moment and the your suicide would have to me soon; but I have stopped you hence I have save you”; it is rational think and I think that it is unique rational tragedy that you have written.

Byron: More than rational it is very sophisticated, because it means, trough the exhibition of souls, of heroes and other, that the man want be somebody that he isn’t; in fact to the following words is the truth: “But you my puppet, you would appear rather than to be a heroes”; it is celebration or appearance. The step when the ghost gone to body of Arnold and he says: “Clay not died, but without soul, although nobody has chosen you, and immortal accepts you…”.

Manzoni: But I don’t see nothing that can be important.

Byron: Instead something of important is present; because it the critic to a English society of 19^th century, the clay is the English man that can be shaped from the society, because his personality isn’t. Other of this tragedy is very low.

Manzoni: I am catholic and I want give to you my compliment for the defense of Catholic elected and your discourse “On the motion of count Donoughmore, and you have defended the Catholic.

Byron: Not precisely I have find the wit of my nation, this is England that is merchant wit hence about religion has disinterest absolute. 

 

Alessandro Lusana

 The political publicity

The memories of a painter, as Francesco Hayez(1791–1882), a Venetian painter that was much famous in Italy has left to us The my memories, that is alone his biography, and some thing can solicit the attention, both for the his art but in this essay for a note that he has told, that shows the validity of same method for two political think, the step of Hayez can help us to understand: “Other impression that has impressed my wit, was in the Maj 1797, this the coming of the soldier of the French Republic, tired dirty and laied in the Saint Mark place. They were alone some thousand. I remember that the presence of those soldiers determined a joy and other were worried…so she wanted stopped in this place for to see the tree of liberty, in the half of place around it the people acclaimed…”; this step is important because shows the acclamation toward a symbol that we has brought the freedom; we think automatically it and we are justified, without a historical reflection that in this case is important or fundamental: the first in Venice never, and stress never, was a dictatorship, Venice was an freedom island that protected the immoral poetry as Pietro Aretino(1492-1556) and Paolo Sarpi(1552-1623), polemical religious that attacked the Church, I mention alone these two cases but Venice was a merchant city, hence very much pragmatic, and for this it was disinterested, in fact after this memory the following step shows the practical wit of Venice: “I remember the departure of French Republican and the arrive of Austrian soldiers”, it is because the Napoleon was given the Venice to Austria through the accord of Campoformio in year 1797; Napoleon was a conquering hence he have to think the first thing to the France, in fact he made it; but important is that the merchant wit of Venice is in this step because that the conquering were French or Austrian it was same thing, because the parochialism emerges from the following words: “I will made the memories of this period through the celebration made in Saint George island, for the election of cardinal Chiaramonti to the papal throne with name of pope Pius 7th(1800-1823); it is can seem a useless step because it is alone a pope, that hasn’t tie to the political publicity, instead it has certainly a tie to political publicity, because the step of Hayez says: “…the celebration made in Saint George island, for the election of cardinal Chiaramonti…”; the celebration are comprehensible because the celebration for the parochialism, Italian typical, we can also consider for the USA citizens for the election of pope Leon 14^th; the parochialism, independent from the believe, is a motive always life; but I want stress other question that here is more important; it is the celebration of a Venetian to papal throne, the comments are: “It is normal”, yes but the same city, this is Venice, had celebrated also the tree of liberty, that excluded the religion in conformity to the ideology of French Revolution; hence the practical wit of Venice has certainly solicited also the presence of citizens that has celebrated the tree of liberty, but I want alone repeat that the method is same for the religion or laicism, both use the same method, hence I think that the celebration could also to be a Satanic holiday the way is same. Important for this essay is the narration of a witness that certainly could see these celebration, but we must also consider that these narrations are also imagined from the Hayez, because during the year 1797, he was 6 year old, hence it is impossible that he in years 1869-1875, years of write of Memories he could remembered the celebration of 72 years before; hence he has asked to somebody about these celebrations or he has imagined all; anyway the method is same and it is important. 

Alessandro Lusana     

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Byron continues

When Jordan had seated and he stared the white fleet, a discouragement involved him, and he raised the eyes and he seen Byron in his room, that looked Jordan, that has said: “I don’t know what write”, and Byron: “Take from your memory, from your reads, from your books and so I am going to correct you”, and Jordan: “Yes, usual you are right, I have thought to the romance Gorky park”, and Byron: “Yes! It is an excellent example, go for it; but you must copy the Gorky park so that I can explain the my the my advisements”, and Jordan took the romance of Smith from his library and he begun the read out loud: “All nights should be so dark, all winters so warm, all headlights so dazzling”, and Jordan: “Until now aren’t errors”, but he stared the eyes of Byron and: “But certainly some error is, hence the humankind is waiting you sentence!”, and Byron after looked around: “Where is the kitchen?” and Jordan pointed at, and Byron got up and he came to kitchen and he gone back with a knife and he asked: “Do you have something for to eat”, and Jordan looked him amazing: “I have…” Byron shut off him and: “A bitch od meat, fro example”, Jordan looked his clock and now, yes but now is the 16 meridian, do you have hangry?”, and Byron: “Yes! Hangry of a writer that is useless”; and Jordan understood the jokey hence: “Why, what I have said so wrong?”, and Byron: “The first where we are now in the romance?”, and Jordan: “In Moscow, it is evident”, and Byron: “Why it is evident?”, and Jordan browsed until the first page: “it is written here”, and Byron: “And the following words in that page what say?”, and Jordan: “Nothing here is alone the name of Moscow”, and Byron: “If a reader not read the name of Moscow on the page that you have read, he doesn’t know where the context, because it could be New York, Rome or Peking, you know it because you have read the name or not?”, and Jordan: “Yes”, and Byron but a reader that hasn’t read this page, doesn’t it; hence the town where the romance carry out is necessary”, and Jordan: “Yes!”, and Byron: After?”, and Jordan: “In this town all the nights should be so dark…”, and Byron: “In every town the nights are dark, otherwise they would not be nights”, and Jordan: “All winters so warm…”, and Byron shut up him: “In Moscow never has been a warm winter”, and Jordan: “All headlights so dazzling.”; and Byron: “Learn! What are the headlights, and what is the source of these?”, Byron stared  Jordan and he was waiting the answer, and Jordan read again the line and: “It isn’t here”, and Byron: “The headlights of cars or other?”, and Jordan: “it isn’t here”, and Byron: “What environment? Apartment or a basin? A palace? A hut?”, and he stared Jordan that answered: “I don’t know because here…”, Byron shut up him: “Here isn’t. These are errors that you are not to make never. The reader must know where is the environment, this city, or nation or continent, second the illogic warm winter, it means that in this town is sirocco, the warm winter is the sirocco, but after he speaks and he said that van Jacked, stalled and quit on a drift; this drift is snow or leafs”, and Jordan: “It is important?” and Byron: “Certainly because with sirocco it’s impossible that snows, and further he in describe of militia man mentioned a greatcoats, hence the temperature is low, but the sirocco with low temperature is impossible. It is the lesson because to particulars that you have mentioned before are important for the reality of history and the logic of history. Inasmuch now I think that you have learned something, continue alone.”, and he got up and disappeared.

Alessandro Lusana  

                    

 A romance: Byron has said

Jordan was a writer, historical writer, and he wanted write a romance, but as historic man he had difficult, because he could tell the history but the romance was other matter, he has thought of write a romance on the Charles 5^th, and after the Charles the Great, and Louis 14^th, but he thought them as historical man, hence he have to pass from the historical truth to imaginary, and this passage was very difficult; he was very acute for the hypothesize the true motive for a war and the political motives for an accord or pact; naturally he supposed but these think or hypothesizes were very charming, because much read were charmed from his read of history; but now the romance, was different because everything he have to imagine; he thought immediately to a historical romance, and it seems the right choose, in fact he begun to write something, but almost at once he reconsidered his choose, and he decided, that before of all a tea, to drink in the bar under his apartment; he gone out and in the bar, where he was usual, he greeted the bar man, and he seated on the chair and he asked a tea; he stared at the bar man and he was amazed because he recognize Charles 5^th, and not George, the bar man, he thought that it was alone a illusion, hence he turned over and he seen some famous writer, Poe and Byron and Mary Shelley, Byron was reading a book; inasmuch Jordan approached to him and asked: “What is the deal for to write a romance?”, and Byron stared at him and : “A romance is as a build, every part is indispensable, it is a history and you must describe every personage, also summary, but some indication to reader you must give because otherwise the reader doesn’t understand, he is going to ask who is and why is present a personage, he is going to ask it alone indirectly , but the reader isn’t a foolish and he has read the history whereby he want know who and why; hence the question is “Who is this personage and because he has disappeared so suddenly, because you have given the life to this personage and now isn’t?”; because every personage that is in the romance, the first must be much present, this is to some episode, also low relevant but he must participate, so that the reader can understand the motive of this personage, and the episode, also irrelevant, becomes here important, but he can’t appear now and after two lines he disappears, because otherwise his presence would be useless, instead he must be in the romance, also in other episode distant form the begin; but the reader know him because he can take again, in his memory, that personage is tied to that episode”, and Jordan asked: “Yes, but the particulars are important or not?”, and Byron: “Certainly they are important, but as a build, the cement is important if it is going to use, otherwise not; the history demands particulars that must be important, otherwise they are alone useless episode, instead to this episode must be tie a personage and other episode that shows the qualities of personage, after the description, the human and other qualities”, and Jordan: “Why?”, and Byron, that meanwhile has asked two tea: “Because the romance needs of a motive, and the personages must have a motive for to be in the romance; otherwise they are useless, and in the romance nothing can ne useless”; Jordan got up and he gone to the bathroom, and when he gone out, he looked around and recognized his apartment, and he smiled and seated on the chair, and he, while remembered the words of Byron, begun to write and the romance again isn’t ended, but may in the next tale its possible that he tell to us the novel plot.

Alessandro Lusana          

                

 The Hegelian concept of art: Emerson

Ralph Emerson(1803-1882) has took again Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)fore his conception of morality that was determined from a morality that has involved also Nietzsche in his German society, the years of Belle Epoque, when the middle class was very principal factor of economy in Europe, and in nascent country, after the “revolution”, as the United States the same phenomenal was by now normal and determined; hence the two philosophers have had same reaction, Emerson was more precise in confront to Nietzsche because he explain, in his book The character and the human life, explication more precise and very much attentive, evidently he used the speculative method and he has not officially imposed, but in conformity to moral customs it was present; we must also consider that the reaction was the same because the middle class, very active in the merchant and business also in USA, has followed determined customs that were peer to the middle class of Europe, but behind this hypocrites moralism and respectability, was the growth of a country that hasn’t the owner models hence followed other models, as Emerson has followed both Nietzsche and for his think about the art has followed Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) of Aesthetic, a step of the book of Emerson is indicative of this concept: “The with being progressive it never repeats itself, but to every act it tries the creation of a all new or beauty. It is manifest both for the works of beauty art, and in the useful art, for to use the popular distinction among the arts, that classified it on base to sake. In the beautiful art isn’t the imitation but the creation that is the sake”; it is the absolute wit of Hegel that in the Aesthetic is dominant, Hegel was also involved from the idealist wit and Emerson has followed the same conception, because he has expressed through other words the same concept; for Hegel the useful of art isn’t, instead for Emerson that has took the common scansion among the arts, this is useful and beauty, he has took Hegel and he has limited the presence of German philosopher to the beauty arts, and he continued with his hide Hegelianism: “In the landscape the painter must suggest to us the idea of a creation more beauty…”; it is the pure idealism of Hegel that in the Romantic art, this is the painter of 19^th century, he says that the image is the tool for the absolute spirit, this the knowledge of absolute spirit, that alone in the Romantic art can recognizes itself; inasmuch of Emerson is: “in the landscape the painter must suggest to us the creation more beauty…”; it is the Hegelian idealism in the Aesthetic, the spirit that can recognizes itself in the Romantic art; we must also consider that although the two philosophers not were contemporary but they lived the same romantic moment and they has took the same spirit, this is the opinion, the in 19^th century was dominant; thereby Emerson has followed the German culture, for a side he has took Nietzsche and for other side he has took Hegel.

Alessandro Lusana                

 

        

 

Historical superficiality: Burckhardt

Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) a Swiss historical man, famous for his book The civility of Renaissance in Italy, has given an interpretation of Renaissance in Italy, that very much generations have read much times, and it is certainly right, but also superficial; the first is that he spoke  and named the lords of city as tyrant, that in Greek meaning is a correspondent of manager of public things, hence the city or feud; I don’t think that Burckhardt has used this name for this sense, he wanted meant the more common meaning, so that he could stress the Renaissance change. The “tyrant” have to contrast the attacks from every side, because then Italian cities that have had fought sometime one against other, they become friends very soon and allies in conformity of political strategy, both then as today; in fact the taxes that Burckhardt  has written, were necessary to weapon and soldiers, that could betray to every moment  for a better offer; the shame of betray then there wasn’t; also because the major part of soldiers were mercenary ; inasmuch it isn’t tyranny but simple survival. The taxes were, in opinion of Burckhardt  established on the a land register, that in Middle age there wasn’t , and the major incomes was for the proprieties of lords, that were necessary to given the food to citizens that were in war, but in the city, the families of soldiers busied have to be feed, this are childes and women, that the lords have to rescue to his castle, hence the food was necessary to this duty that was alone of lord; there the taxes not paid alone the soldiers but also the common people. Other note of Burckhardt regard the office of passport, this is the pass, that today is same, this is the passport is controlled , but the difference from the Middle age today the nations are united, instead the Italy then was a gather of small states without strong; Burckhardt uses this confront for stress that then the control on the citizen was very close, but also today every state want know who is received, and the motive is same : the security of the State; it is normal management of policy. The legends are took by Burckhardt , the legendries that he has took from historical men, and they has took it from other sources that often were enemy to lords; as Bernabò Visconti(1323-1385); that was a lover of hunting and he has had  5.000 dogs, it is absolutely false, because 5.000 dogs would be impossible to keep and they would been useless, because the hunting would be in Italy and not in Africa. The celebration of Renaissance begins in chapter about the tyranny in 15th century; when the tyranny has had a human  character; a power that has consolidated on the tyranny it continues so fro keep the power; but if Burckhardt has said the celebration of Renaissance so would be failed everything.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

         

 Aristotelian Catholic: Gioberti

Vincenzo Gioberti(1801-1852)a Catholic intellectual and political man that has tied his name to the principal literary work, The moral and civil primate of Italian, that is a catalog of virtue that he has seen during the history of Italy, that certainly were but that haven’t guaranteed nothing to unification of Italy, in 1861. He spoke as Catholic and in fact he sees to God the principal motive of this primate; We must also consider that he was a monk, and he has followed the religious schools, hence the philosophy in his Primate can’t lacks; in fact he spoke about the autonomy of creatures: “Although the creatures can joy of relative autonomy, as the second cause is image of the first cause…”; and he following: “Everything id a strength, and every force enclose potentially every way of to be and every perfecting that to it are going to be present, through the duration of time, and the external condition for their improvement. The potency is given from the first cause and that has created…”; this discourse has the Aristotelian rationality, and Gioberti used this comparison for stress that God has given to Italian qualities that during the centuries have developed; certainly, and it isn’t nationalism, the Italy has had great geniuses during his history, but because the Italy is born before, except the Greek, of other European nations, inasmuch we has had very much time, and other historical factors, as the Catholic center, as Rome, that has guaranteed to much intellectuals a constant possibility of live; beyond the lords that has got profit of intellectuals in every side of Italy. Anyway it is I repeat a logic step of Aristotle(b.Ch.384-322) , that has useful for demonstrate the Primate of Italian, laughable Primate, because the our history is very full also of treason, that Gioberti hasn’t considered; it is the opportunism or intellectual dishonesty? For me dishonesty and stop, for a historical man can be alone opportunism. The Aristotelian influence is fro the adjective that Gioberti used in this step and for other before: “…and as the first cause are also the second cause and so we must admit a secondary creation that express the action of factors finished…”; this last adjective is took directly from the τέλειος, this the ended act of Aristotle. The Aristotelian logic is present also in this step, and this step attests the employ of Gioberti of natural logic of Aristotle: “…because the production without the conservation would be useless. And the conservation uses the restoration, when it is necessary; that is a second creation, as the conservative action is a continued creation…”; it is the philosophical think that has unified the Aristotelian and Socratic logic and has used for explication. The Catholic nature or think of Gioberti is in the following step: “Only God, as the first cause and essentially creator, he is the perfect conservator and restorer of his factures. He has given a part of this qualities to the creatures…”. Hence Gioberti has took from Aristotelian and Socratic logic, and he hasn’t forgotten Saint Thomas from Acquino(1225-1274), although the logic is alone Pagan, this from two Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) and Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 Other Socrates but same way

The other Socrates is a philosopher with same name of more famous philosopher, may the first master of Aristotle, he is inserted from Plato(b.Ch.427-347) in dialogue of Sophist, it is the dialogue that encloses this other Socrates that certainly Plato has used for the name, since Plato has inserted in every his dialogue his master, Socrates(b.Ch.469-399); and Socrates gives to a member of dialogue a question, this member is a foreign, Socrates asked regard to way for to search the knowledge: “When do you explain  that you want demonstrate, are you usual speak you alone…or do you prefer give the precise question?”, and the foreign answers: “If is an interlocutor that is able of follow the dialogue is better, it is certain; but the contrary case I speak alone”; it is the philosophical habit of Socrates, that the foreign continues: “Dear Socrates it is the first time that I meet you and I don’t want leave occasion for a close confront, word to word…”; it is the method of Socrates that Plato, a his pupil, has known very well; in fact in this dialogue the foreign says to Theaetetus, a member of dialogue regard to method  necessary to inquiry the greater things is necessary begin from the small things, he asks to Theaetetus: “Do you want that we search an easy argument…and equally it needs of a right think, we consider the fisherman with fisher line…”; it is the Socratic simplicity, that from very easy matter he came to complicate matter; it is the diaretic way; it is a method that certainly Socrates has used, what is? Simple a subdivision of a elementary concept, that is divided  among the species his gender, this is the division of common gender, for example the humanity, that we find also in women, because also they are human gender; hence the human gender is divided between two species, and the relation between these two gender are evident; if we think the human nature that is common twice, men and women. The dialogue through the diaretical method follows his course, and Socrates uses the logic think, and he divided the fisherman from the other hunter, this is the Sophistic hunter, this is the hunter of men, it is the difference from the fisherman and the sophistic philosopher, that hunts the domestic animals this is the men; it is one reflex of the despise of Socrates to the Sophistic school, that in Apologize, this is the discourse of Socrates in court fro his defense, he hinted to philosophers that are paid  fro to sale the knowledge , this is the sophistic, in fact the foreign says that the technique of persuasion that was the way used form the Sophistic school. This dialogue is, in short,  the following  of Socrates’s accuse to Sophistic school. And the confirm of this thesis is in following words: “These is also the other side, that making profession of a determined competence it stablishes rapports that are for the teaching of virtue , but alone for to gain money. Also this side we must distinguish through a name.”, and Theaetetus answer: “Yes certain”, and the Foreign. “What name? you say it”, and the Theaetetus: “it is clear. I think that we are managed to find the sophist, and I am saying so I think that I name tit through the fit name.”; hence the polemical matter is right.    

 Alessandro Lusana    

                                     American Nietzsche: Emerson

Ralph Emerson(1803-1882)certainly isn’t a reference for the night reading, because is low known and his think, above all today, can be very noise, because he as Nietzsche(1844-1900), he says the truth, he describes the our behaviors and he shows our hypocrisies, and he opposed to this hypocrisy the truth of speculation, speculative examination of our conduct, he says: “Instead, I don’t desire expire but to life. The my life isn’t an apologize; it is my life. I live for myself, and no for to give the show of my existence, I prefer that it is a tenor more modest so that it is homogeneous and natural. I would it sorrowful and sweet, of dolor and joy of wealth low curing; for it would be equilibrated, and everything enclosed: charity, conquer, hygiene…”; it is the new vision of the life that evidently Emerson have to live, the imposition of rules of society that he refused. The explication to these words is in the following step: “The virtue in the popular opinion  are the exception rather than the rule…The men make the good actions for to give a proof of their courage and their charity; and it is often, as they were condemned to pay a penitence, for to expire the not daily appearance to some function…”; it is the description of hypocrisy in the society that today is valid; but it is also the concept that Nietzsche has expressed; he in the his book, So said Zarathustra, he has explained, although through the allusions the concept of superman, this is the man that is came out from the common hypocrisy and has said the truth. Other step is very indicative: “The my duty and not the common opinion of men: it is regard me…”; it is the truth that Emerson has said about the society that he has lived. The proof of this think and opinion is in the following step: “To be conform to customs that for you there aren’t, it is the motive for the dispersion of your force; you waste so your time and delete you character…”, he describes the customs that in his society were normal, and: “The man should know how the uselessness this play of conformity”. The pitiless description continues: “After this servile conformity, other motive that remove us from the faith to ourselves  ids the persistence , it is the respect for our actions and for the past our words: other men haven’t other motive, beyond the our actions, we would go desolate and disabused. But why do you bring on the shoulders a head again thinking? And why do you bring this heap of your memory, for the fair of contradict some opinion that you have said in this or other town?”; we can consider that it isn’t virtue but alone coherence, but that Emerson sees alone as a custom of his society, where the morality and the image were everything. Regard not understanding, he says: “It is so very bad not be understanding? Pythagoras not was understanding, neither Socrates, neither Jesus, neither Luther…”; may this reference to so great personages we can think that Emerson wanted refer also to herself, because this think about the morality was very strange for the 19^th century; hence an auto reference is certainly.

Alessandro Lusana  

 The speculative Emerson

The Character and the human life of Ralph Emerson(1803-1882) is a speculative examination of the human life and description of behaviour that we have, fro example: “The indifference of childs, that, sure of launch, resufe as the king say of make something for the consens of somebody; this is the healty attitude of human nature. The child is the patron of society; indipendent, irresponsable, he looks about him the men and mades of society, he judges them…he calls them good, wicked, interesting, loquace, useless, nuisance…”; it is the description of childhood that veverybody has past. Other description regard the humankind is the following: “The man is prisoner of his conscience that he has of herself. If he has made or spooken cloud, he is a compromissed person, supervised from the sympathy and for hate of a thousand of persons that he hasn’t considered. There isn’t Letes fro him!”; the Letes is the river of forgetfulness, and it is the speculative way that decsribes the habit of high society but also of down society; he certainly describes the society the he can see, the American society, that was equal to every high societies. But Emerson was contemporary of Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778), that evidently has influenced Emerson, and it is shows from this step: “(human gender)if it again take tha primary indipendence, in the its neutrality! The man that so have lost the ancient calm, and he continues to behave without finctions, without prejudges, without the fair, incorruptible…”; it is the theory of good wild od Rousseau, the has seen to the wild the human genuinity. But after Rousseau also Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) manifests his presence in this essay, the following step is the retake of think of german philosopher: “These are the voices that we hear in the solitude, but they become very weak when we enter to the word. Everywhere the society plots agaionst the virility of everybody. The society is as company of assicuration, whose members agree amongs them so that they have food, but through the cession of owner liberty. The virtus that it requests id conformity…”; it is Nietzsche, certainly that has taught and worked in Germany but the influence has come to Emerson, also because they were almost contemporary; and continuing: “(the society) doesn’t loves the realities and the creators, but alone the usances and the customs.”, and other step: “Who want be a man, he don’t be conformist. Who want conquer the immortal palm he not enables from the name of good, but search where the good is”; it is the Nietzsche, that with superman has thought to a man that is superior to convention, but Nietzsche has took example from Europen society, during his time; same reaction that Emerson has had but in American society.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

   

 

  

 

     

     

 

 

 The name of author

John was a writer of theatre that have to write a script for a comedy, he has written also tragedies and he has had also success, but now he lacks of ideas or inspiration; he was in his home and he was searching something that was fit for a comedy, it was the usual creative crisis, he was seated on the table, and suddenly he got up and decided of go out, he dressed his jacket and gone out; he entered to a theatre , where were the personages of his comedies and tragedies, he seated on the chair and heard the dialogues of his personages, until one spoken  to him and he presented to John as Jordan.

Jordan: Do you  remember of me?

John: Certainly you are Alfred

Jordan: No! I am Jordan of tragedy Modern Hamlet

John: But in that tragedy isn’t somebody that has name Jordan

Jordan: In fact I am in other comedy

John: The Modern Hamlet was a tragedy, not a comedy. It is may  that the author of this script that somebody has reading now may remember this comedy, but certainly I no.

Jordan: Hamlet, What the name of author of this script?

Hamlet: Alexander, I think, but I am not sure about it, you should  aske it to  Bartholomew , he remember everything, also the clues of this comedy

Jordan(cloud): Bartholomew, where is he?

Bartholomew (from a side of scene): There I am here what is so important? That you call me through this way? If you want rob me you can’t because I haven’t money, but if you want…

Jordan(looking him) Silence , because you are the pain on the neck

Bartholomew: You must say to him, this is John, because he is the author of my comedy or tragedy, I don’t remember, John where am I?

John: In the tragedy Modern Hamlet and in the First Catilinaria

Bartholomew: Yes now I remember there  I was Cicero, and when I begun “Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patient nostra. I has been very realistic.

Jordan: What the name of this script?

Bartholomew: I don’t remember! You can ask to Elisabeth.

Jordan: Elisabeth do you remember the name of author…?

Elisabeth: (blocking him) Albert or Alfred or…Andrew.

Jordan(open a door and askes to the author): What is your name?

Author: I don’t know, you must decide it, thank you. 

Alessandro Lusana  

 Γνωθι σαυτόν trough others

The Socratic words this is the know yourself, is a motto that Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) has took from the temple of Apollo in Delphi, and he has been the first in history of philosophy, that used this advise for a knowledge of owner wit, because  you can educate yourself and know yourself that the first person that you must know, this is yourself because the first and closer person is youself that not know but the importance of Socrates is, above all, in the way that he has used this is the confront, that he has made directly to his “pupils” trough the questions that he given to everybody, because the sake was it, the knowledge of themselves, for this the questions were alone so logic, because the contradiction was the solicitation to auto knowledge, why it is important? Simple because the confront to others is fundamental to know  other and above all herself, because has Socrates the questions are necessary to know owner limit and to get over it for  to grow, it is the growth, but trough the confront is the experience for to know ourselves, why?  Because  our limit we not know, but trough the experience, h3ence the practical and external exercise, is the motive for to know until we can make something that seems difficult; we can try of overcome this difficult and solve the problems, thence we can know ourselves trough the difficult and the method that we are using that can be difficult, and in those occasions that we can know ourselves, because we can know the our reactions in front of difficult, hence we study our soul and our limits but, as Socrates, we must consider the single case that has thought to us something around our wit, and above all if we want overcome these difficult, that is the moment when we can know ourselves and above all the difficult that we must face and solve, in this occasion we can consider our interior strong and our will; thence in this moment we are studying ourselves, although unconsciously, in fact the reflection about the our reactions is always after, reflections about our courage, our intelligence and our capacity to face the difficult, hence also the capacity of our wit for to face the difficult; whereby the object of our study is ourselves, and these are the moments when we know ourselves, directly and practically, because the circumstance is real not alone theoretical and we can know also the reaction of our wit above all, thereupon the reactions that can be fair or courage. Hence Socrates has had right, and he has used other experience, that was dialogue, instead the true knowledge of ourselves occurs alone to direct experience.

Alessandro Lusana