A philosophic lesson

Richard, an estimated professor of philosophy entered to class and much students were seated and they spoke one other; he tried attracted their attention, but they were busied in fond discussions, and sometime somebody got up and: “Fuck you and your Academia”, and Richard called him to order and good politeness, but he: “Who are you?”, and Richard: “I am the professor, and I want began the lesson, hence you must seat or off with you”, and he, a man bearded and old, gazed Richard and: “Are you the professor?”, and Richard: “Yes, I am here, why do you…”, but the man cut off: “If you are the professor, what is the syllogism?”, and Richard: “it is the clarification…”, and the man cutoff again, but now Richard: “Shut up, and stop, you are the pain in the neck; therefore you must be shut”; the man gazed him and he hinted a smile, and Richard: “The syllogism is a clarification, very simple, that Aristotle used to exemplify the scientific search”, and the man: “Very good”, and other student: “The search more human rather than scientific was begun Socrates”, and Richard: “Yes, Socrates, you have rightly judged, begun that human search no that scientific, because Socrates wasn’t a scientific man, or…”, the student cut off him: “The man is science or no?”, and Richard, that didn’t endure that somebody cut off somebody: “Can I speak?”, and the student: “You must alone tell if the man is scientific argument or no”, and Richard gazing the student: “It is motive for your capital condemn in Athens in 399 b.Ch., the hemlock was good or no?”, and student: “You haven’t answered to me, regard to hemlock, I asked also if I could drink other, but the judges denied it”, Richard hinted a smile and with tears on the eyes spoke: “Excuse me, dear Socrates, I don’t bear when somebody cut off me hence my answer is so sharp and wicked because…”, Richard cut off herself, and Socrates asked again: “The man is scientific argument or no?”, and Richard: “I don’t think”, and Socrates: “Use the logic, my logic, that I have used and I have created difficulties to my interlocutors”, and Richard an example, please, and Socrates: “The man isn’t science, it’s right?”, and Richard: “Yes”, and Socrates: “Why in ancient Egypt the surgery was so advanced?”, and Richard: “Because the religious motive ordered that the embalmment”, and Socrates: “The pharaoh were human of gods?”, and Richard: “They were human certainly, considered divinity but they were human”, and Socrates: “Thereupon the surgeries embalmed men and no gods”, and Richard: “It is certain”, and Socrates: “Whereby the man is science, anatomic science, medical science, or not?” and Richard: “Yes, but you have detected the man in deep, in logic, in rationality, and it isn’t science, but alone the correction of mistakes, as you are making now to me”, and Socrates: “It’s right, but you have said that I have detected the man in deep, or I have mistaken?”, and Richard: “No absolutely, it is the mean”, and Socrates: “therefore I am more scientific than surgical”, and Richard laughed and: “Why?”, and Socrates while he is smiling: “The logic dear Richard, the logic”, and Richard: “Yes but I don’t find the logic that you has used, excuse me but it is very difficult, anyway explain to me it, please”, and Socrates: “What cures the surgery?”, and Richard: “The harms of war or hunt”, and Socrates: “How much time is necessary to recover for a hurt”, and Richard: “Sometime or never if the hurt is very serious, but if it is light alone sometime”, and Socrates: “How much time is necessary to man to recover by the stupidity?”, and Richard gazed Socrates: “A stupid is always so, he doesn’t recovers”; and Socrates: “Why?”, and Richard: “Because he is stupid, naive or other”, and Socrates: “If  to him somebody tells the new method for doesn’t stupid? What do you think, he is going to recover or no?”, and Richard: “Certainly he is going not to be stupid”, and Socrates: “The surgery is stupid?”, and Richard: “No, because he recovers and he knows perfectly what he must make”, and Socrates: “may has taught somebody to him what he must make?”, and Richard: “Yes!”, and Socrates: “Hence he has learned through the experience and through the study”, and Richard: “Certainly”, and Socrates: “He has learned to use of instruments for to rescue a life”, and Richard: “Yes! It is so”, and Socrates. “therefore I am more scientific than a surgeon”, and Richard: “Why? It is the second time that you say it but the demonstration where is?”, and Socrates: “Simple, I cure the deepest of man, this is the stupidity, because I teach the logic, that is the better cure against the stupidity”, and Richard: “I doing not understand”, and Socrates: “I explain: I am more scientific because I cure the side deepest of man, this is the brain, that surgeon can’t cure, some time ago you have said that the man isn’t scientific matter, and I have asked how the ancient Egyptian used the embalmment, and you have answered for religious motives, yes, certainly, but if the man isn’t matter of science, why they were attentive to conservation of corps and how they made? You rightly have answered for religious motive; certainly but they, as the surgeon, have to know the corps and the cures; hence the man is a matter of science”, and Richard. “Yes, it is, why are you more scientific than surgeon”, and Socrates: “Simple because don’t cut the corps but I enter in the brain without hurt, or better, I hurt very deeply because after the cure the man is changed and he has made violence to herself, but he is recovered; thereby I hurt more deep that surgeon, because the man is matter of science, therefore you must think in conformity of logic what you are saying, and preview probable objections, these you must preview, and after when your think is logic, you are going to can speak”, other student: “Richard leave it, I can advise you, because I have been his pupil”, and Richard: “What your name?”, and the student. “Plato”, and Richard again to other student: “What is your name?”, and the student: “Xenophon and he”, indicating other student: “Is Aristotle, and he Epicurus and…”, suddenly a voice: “Stop, it is perfect”, and Richard: “I think that Aristotle must say more something than that he said”, and the director: “You think truly that you are a professor?”, and Richard: “No! I am alone an actor” and the director: “Why are you here?”, and Richard: “Because my talent agent has called me to an interpretation, and the public there is hence we have interpreted very goodly our roles”, and the director: “They are the readers; you and other are necessary; anyway you must continue”, and in fact the lesson continued.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

The indirect psychological speculation of Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne(1533-1592), was an French intellectual that has had an importance very relevant during his time, I must confess that the read of a his book, The title has adjective “indirect” because Montaigne has read what is written; hence the analysis of French intellectual is indirect.Travel in Italy is very boring, because he has described, very summarily, the cities both Italian, German and French; anyway for the firsts pages of The essays some interesting notes is, for example for description of human nature he has used two episodes of fight of Edward 1th prince of Galls and Scanderbeg 3th prince of Epirus, and he describes, trough the Aristotelian method, this speculative, the human nature: “The common method for to soften the heart of who we have offended, when they can revenge of us is move them to compassion and pity through the submission Edward 1th prince of Galls…was seriously offended by Limosini, and he have took their city, and he didn’t stop by cried of people of massacres, but the prayers of women, that asked the pity, but three men that very courageously gone face him. The respect to so valor mitigated the angry of prince. He begun by these three to given grace to all the resident. Scanderbeg third, this George Castriota(1403-1468), prince of Albany, pursued a soldier to kill him and when he seen him that has the sword, and he was ready to face him, but after that the soldier tried mitigated him uselessly the same took the sword; this courage broken the angry of Scanderbeg and he given the grace…” Montaigne brought other examples that here we can’t read, because the explication of these behaviors is important; the pity shown for these princes is typical behavior of human nature, or better, the weakness of human gender, because these reaction is truly the submission that the hostile want, Priam, king of Try, kissed the hand of Achilles for reached the corpse of Hector, the submission gives the illusion of victory, and of strong for whom has the homage. And the analysis of Montaigne that sometime can seems superficial instead reached the peak for description of an episode of Alexander the Great that ordered the torture of a prison, Betis took in Gaza, that he made to torture and to kill, but this choice of Alexander, as hinted by Montaigne, was determined by envy: “Or Alexander estimated Beti so much in so greatness that for his presence he didn’t endured that other has had so quality, without dislike of feel of envy”; it is the speculative method of Montaigne, that as the cities that he has visited, he describes now the human behavior and feel that are organic to human gender. This episode tells also a strategic and cruel choice of Alexander in the same city of Thebes, because Alexander killed sex thousand enemies soldiers; it is the useless cruel, we can judge so this episode, but we must also consider that Alexander was the conqueror of Thebes, and conceded the life to so bold soldiers was very danger, hence the massacre was necessary, above all the soldiers didn’t scared by the death, therefore they would have be enemies very danger. Interesting for the conjunction to Socrates is the words of Plato, that Montaigne translated: “Make the your cures and know yourself”, it is Socrates. Anyway Montagne among episodes of classical fights and modern history describes the human gender. The psychological argument is for description of psychological reaction of man, that Montaigne took from ancient literature, in fact he mentioned Plutarch: “Plutarch says by the way about who loves the monks or small dogs, that the lover side that is in us, when an these objects lack rather than to be inactive it creates something ephemeral and false”; it is natural reaction of human gender, that we can know as fetishism, it is alone an process of assimilation.      

 

 

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

Original lesson: Socrates

In central place of Athens a man dirty and with long beard gone around, and a guy called him: “Socrates, Socrates, do you are going?”, and he answered, after some moment that he stopped him to look a sculpture, he anyway answered: “I am here, and I am looking this sculpture of Phidias, and it is very beautiful”, and the guy, whose name was Xenophon, called again him: “Socrates come here”, and Socrates gone to him, and he seen that the persons were much, gathered, and was astonished, and he asked: “Why how much persons, Xenophon?”, and he answered: “Because we want give to you some question”, and Socrates smiled and asked: “do you want ask me something’”, and a guy: “Yes! We want know why you have written nothing?”, and Socrates. “Because every philosopher has written something, but I could not nothing to teach, hence I haven’t written”, and other hearer: “You could teach something!”, and Socrates, seen to earth and he asked: “What?”, and the hearer: “I don’t know”, and Socrates: “I neither, but you are here and you can say to us something, that we can teach”, and the hearer: “I don’t know it, therefore I can’t  say it”, and Socrates: “Do you have some matter, argument, idea or…”, and hearer interfered: “No Socrates I haven’t it, I and we are waiting that you give it to us”, and Socrates: “What do you think around  that you haven’t matters or arguments?” and the hearer: “I think that I am again young to have some argument, I haven’t studied enough”, and Socrates: “Who said it? Who has judged it? How much we must study to speak around something?”, and hearer: “I don’t know”, and Socrates: “You can ask to yourself, and after you can believe it, this is to your thesis, but you must believe to it always”, and the hearer: “Can I change opinion?”, and Socrates: “Certainly, you must change ideas, but you must decide it no other that you have attended, do you have attended?” and the hearer: “Gorgias the sophist”, and Socrates: “His think is simple: you pay and I teach nothing”, and hearer: “He has taught the rhetorical science”, and Socrates: “Very good, and?”, and hearer: “Nothing alone the rhetoric”, and Socrates: “Hence you haven’t matters or arguments because Gorgias hasn’t given it”, and the hearer: “Yes, for this I am here, because I want that you to me something”, and Socrates: “Yourself”, and hearer: “What?”, and Socrates: “Yourself”, and hearer gazed around and other and asked: “I didn’t understand it”, and Socrates: “On doors of Apollos temple is written: γνϖθι σεαυτόν, that it is an advisement to whom want make sacrifice”, and the hearer: “What is mean?”, and Socrates: “It is if you want make sacrifice to Apollos or other gods”, and hearer: “But why do you uses this motto?”, and Socrates: “Because I want compel you, now, to search a truth that it is your truth and no of others, your truth”, and hearer: “But I must read and after I am going to have a ideas”, and Socrates: “It is the begin of a think, hence you can read much and after you can tell to us your think”, and hearer: “Think that you will denied!”, and Socrates: “No, the logic is going to deny it”, and hearer: “The logic?”, and Socrates: “Yes the logic, I am alone the bringer of logic, and I give questions, but I am not a master but alone the bringer of logic”, and the hearer: “You are hence the represent of logic”, and Socrates: “No I am a represent of ignorance that searched of know, and you are going to teach me something”.

Alessandro Lusana            

                                                                   

 

 

Third way

Third was a student of art history in prestigious university, he was a clever student, very much student and for his experience he has had given very attributions, discussed conference and written books; a perfect student that has employed in same university that has given to him the master; he was again an assistant, but his professor that was always engaged among conferences, lesson, books and other, often given to him the possibility of give the lessons, also because the professor after asked to students what was the quality, and the student were very satisfied; during a lesson he explained a painting of Annabelle Carracci, this is Hercules to crossroads, an allegory between vicious and virtue; after the lesson, he gone to bar of university and he drunk a tea, after the payment he gone out and in front of principal door of university, immediately the dark failed and he could not see something; for a moment he was scared, but after two female figures shown to him, and they gazed him and invited to approach, he made it and after asked. “Who are you?”, and the females answered: “We are the virtue and the vicious, you must choose what is you preferred”; and Third gazed twice the females and after: “I want know twice, and I want begin for vicious”, and the female of vicious: “Follow me please”, and Third made it, hence he seen every vicious, a catalog very spread of the perversion, crimes and other, and he seen for a time of a day, and the female of vicious: “Now you can close the eyes”, he made it and after he opened and he was in same point of crossroads, where the female of virtue ordered same things, and for a day Third seen the virtues and nobility, and same ordered given the female of virtue, and he was in same place from begin, hence Third: “I am very happy and satisfied for these visits, but I want given a question”, and twice females gazed one other and simultaneously they say: “Say, we are available for your questions”, and Third: “I want ask it is the third way?”, and the females gazed him intensely, and while they gazed he added: “A third way”, and the female of vicious: “What is the third way?”, and Third: “It is the virtue and vicious mixed”, and the female of virtue: “We don’t know it, way do you asked it?”, and Third: “Because the life asked also the compromises, this is the renounce of some virtue, for to take some vicious and the contrary”, and the female of virtue: “You are asking to me that are the virtue of renounce to my integrity, for to take the vicious, absolutely no!”, and same answer given the female of vicious, and therefore Third: “ Aristoteles, a Greek philosopher, has explained that the perfect virtue is in mesos μεσος, this is the right measure, no extreme for nothing, but capacity of choice for the context, and the female of vicious: “An example?”, and Third: “You must imagine a policeman under cover, he must simulate the criminal behaviors, but he is always a policeman, hence honest and he respects the laws, but in that context he must be criminal, it is the mesos of Aristotle, for a half he is criminal and half he is honest”, and the two females turned toward the space that was between them and improvise a third way it opened in the center, where a man with beard arisen: “Welcome Third”, and Third: “Who are you?” and the man: “I am the third way, follow me”.

Alessandro Lusana         

  

               

 

Explicative title: Hegel’s The phenomenology of spirit

During the read of interpretation of Martin Heidegger(1889-1976) of Phenomenology of spirit of Hegel(1770-1831), the philosophical explication of this book is immediate, above all for the complete extension of title, the explains whole the significate of this book, because who has read this book can know that the title is entirely explicative, in book of Heidegger the explication is very exemplar: “The title of this book for its integrity is. “System of science. First part. Science of experience of conscience”, that after become: “«Science of phenomenology of spirit”; certainly to unwise reader this title is nothing; because is necessary read the book of Hegel, but who has read it is most explication, why? Simple because Hegel, to philosophical level, explains how the brain, this is the spirit, knows something, the explication of Heidegger is whole: “If the knowledge is whole itself , knows that it knows, and if it become so for how it come to itself, but it come to itself alone for how is become other by itself, is necessary that it doesn’t is near to itself…”, this explication hasn’t absolutely sense, useless deny it, because it is alone and philosophical explication, but after Heidegger follows: “The absolute knowledge must be other by inception of experience that conscience makes to itself, experience  that is alone the movement, the history when occurs to come to itself becoming other by itself”; this explication would to merit the capital pain and stop, to the first to whom has mentioned and after to whom want repeat it! What is the meaningful of this mention? Simple the process is philosophically much complicate but if we translate in pragmatic reality this concept, it is very elementary, it is alone an explication that we make everyday, this is: the knowledge is directly inherent to dynamic of experience, we known the fire, and we know that the fire can be useful or harmful, but we have known it during the childhood, because the parents has forgotten to us of set the hand on fire, but in that simple practical knowledge, we didn’t know because the hand on the fire we can’t set, hence the knowledge was again other, the other of Hegel, this is something that again was uncertain, therefore the knowledge was again incomplete, whereby it is other, as we have read already; it become specular to itself, and it is unified to conscience when the experience is complete, this is when we set the hand on the fire, thereupon we fell the harm and dolor, whereby the conscience is become part of itself, this is the conscience recognizes itself, this is the knowledge; until the knowledge is uncertain to us it is the other of Hegel, something that not is in conscience, because is again other, but when the experience is made, whereby the knowledge is become part of conscience, this is we have made the experience, practical experience; thereby the knowledge is part of conscience. Heidegger explained again: “The absolutely knowledge is also the relative knowledge is already,. The relative knowledge is the conscience that again is reveled as spirit.” What is the meaningful? Simple the hand of the fire, that we haven’t set again, therefore the spirit can’t know what is the knowledge, because the experience isn’t.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 

 

Paranoic life

Mark was a businessman, very ingenious, and he has employed by very much enterprises, because his fame was very untouchable; a contract with Mark was impossible if the enterprise hasn’t some million for the salary and award. It is the gold side of man but an other side subsist in Mark; when he could he attended a psychiatric, specialist to paranoic case, a psychiatric very important that by now was a rapport to Mark that was fraternal, in fact Mark has advised to him much times investments and gain, and the frequentation, also domestic, was constant, Mark was the godfather of sons of Paul, the psychiatric and the brother of Mark; and this choice has made suspicious Paul, because Mark was for years long from his family and after years he has reappeared; Paul anyway treated this case as other, and during their meeting Paul has understood that Mark was affected from a far form of paranoid; mark has enemies everywhere, in the finance enterprises, enemies are always present, but real enemies and no imaginary, but although Paul understood of finance, he has appraised that Mark was the paranoic; he told about enemies that in hotels, some waiter that waited on during a dinner, alone personal that he imagined as enemies or concurrent, that wanted take some secret. Paul, beyond the consanguinity, was always direct to Mark, and mark has chosen him for this. During a session mark asked: “What have I now?”, and Paul answered: “Can be I direct and sincere to you?”, and Mark: “Certainly, you must be sincere, it is as the investment, when I advise an investment I given the benefits and the risks, because the costumer must know…”, and for an hour he spoke around the technic of investment; and when he has ended, he gazed Paul, much bored and Mark recognized it said: “What have I?”, and Paul answered: “You are a paranoic, but the very paranoic, because you are very much egocentric”, Mark gazed Paul and : “I am or paranoic or egocentric”, and Paul: “No you are paranoic because you are egocentric; you think that the word, the waiters in the first place, wanted by you something, but a question you given not to you”, and Mark: “What question?”, and Paul: “Simple, what can want a waiter by you? I give the answer: nothing! Because he doesn’t know you, you are a costumer as other, and he hasn’t interest for you, because he doesn’t know whom are you, what you make, what are your secrets, and how much your finance, why?”, because you are a common costumer, but you must compensate your egocentrism, and as the every paranoic you must search the consideration of somebody, and when it there isn’t you think or imagine that somebody hates you, it is pure egocentrism”, and after the session the usual dinner. Paul for an appointment made a dinner in restaurant, and he met other psychiatric that spoke around the therapies, and he heard a voice that was very familiar, in fact he turned and he seen Mark with uniform for waiter, he gazed him and asked: “Do you want some useful information?”, and Mark: “Yes, for this I am here, for know if in the word are other paranoic”.

Alessandro Lusana                                         

 Democratic birth: USA

This assay want alone to appraise a historical truth that can deny every affirmation regard the presumable dictatorship of England in USA during the colonial period; the piece of a document in 1620, when the English landed in Virginia, and they founded Plymouth, where the lands were given to citizens, it is because more than an ideal consideration is a sake; this is that if nothing has worked the lands the economy both in Plymouth and other where, the USA be not born; anyway the text of  Filippo Mazzei(1730-1816), Enlightenment historical man that has told the history of USA, he said that stressed the possibility of vote: “The papers of council of Plymouth confirm the right of given the lands, but not govern it. In same years 1628, it obtained  other for this effect, the Company of owners could elect an governor, this was Mathieu Cradock, a vice governor Thomas Goffe…”, this step can seem absolutely petty, because today it is normal, today yes, but in 1628, it was the affirmation of democracy, certainly with limitation, as in ancient Greek, where the votes, ψηφοι, in ancient Greek, this were small stones or small ceramics white or black to approval or for negation; but although it can seems a democratic state, in Athens, where was the Areopagus, alone the males could vote and if they has made the military training; it is meaning that the possibility of vote was very short; in fact this habit is used also in birthing USA, because alone the riches owners could vote; but the step of history that we have read, certainly today unacceptable, because each citizen can vote, through the right that he has, but the selection of voting also today is present, because who hasn’t the right in other country can’t vote, today it is normal, but it is a limitation as those both Greek and English. But I want underline that the principle of democracy was already present in USA, from its birth. Hence the democracy in USA, differently of Europe, the vote was a reality; therefore the democracy was present; we must also consider that that country was very scantly peopled, thereupon the vote was very limited, because extension of vote was impossible, because evidently much citizens didn’t know it, and they would not understand the importance. The historic evolution of USA could be also on the democratic uses and thinks, because it was born so; and other consideration is that USA hasn’t a tradition, that some time can be also a weight, because can determine some choose in politic land, but the people would not approve, because it is contrary to his think and customs, and the customs are the documents of historic past; but in USA every community has brought his traditions, hence the unique tradition isn’t, for example the Italians in private spoke among them alone the dialect, their dialect, also because they didn’t known other language, hence alone that they could speak; but Italians have had their traditions, as the German, and other communities; thereupon it is a limited traditions to a number likewise limited; the Americans can underline that they have had and have a democratic tradition instead in others countries the democracy there wasn’t; they can stress that it is the better tradition, certainly today, but for future we can’t know, because we must consider that in USA it is the politic model but in other countries it isn’t, because they have others tradition. Whereby the USA could be alone democratic country, because its tradition is so out set.The birth of Rhode Island is meaningful of new wit o democracy, Mazzei tells: “These little colonies that today are under name of Rhode Island, were involved in one alone for a document of Charles 2th, in date 8 July 1661, with name of colonies of Rhode Island and Plantations of Providence”, until here nothing that can be interesting except the name and the birth of an State. The first assembly there was in New Port in 1th mars of 1663, and among the things was decided that the Christin, except the Catholic, sward the same advantages for the right of citizen”, it is alone a small note, but the important is that the convocation of assembly, that is a democratic organ to decision; we must also that the exception of Catholic is a protestant revenge that we can understand because the unity of Protestant was possible for their believe, that was opposite to Rome hence the Catholicism; but politically it is easy justifiable because the presence, may small of Catholic, have guaranteed a number very much superior after, therefore the sward of citizen was necessary for Catholic, because they were present, in Rhode Island, otherwise the document haven’t mentioned them; and further we must also consider that the Spanish, hence Catholic, colonies were in south of USA, and the religion war in Europe, between 1618 and 1648, was a reality, the war called War of thirteen years, that opposed the Catholic nations and the Protestant; hence was necessary that the contrasts in Europe, were in Europe alone.                

 Alessandro Lusana 

  

  

 

 

The neoplatonism of Origen

The Origen(185-254 b.Ch), Christian writer, may suffered was influenced from the indirect doctrine of Plato a his book Against Celsius he defends the Christian religion and doctrine, but some step is very translation of Plato: “How more evident, how more beauty these false widow of gods…”; it is can seems a step without importance, but it is a step of Plato, when he speaks about the cave and the widows, in the Republic, he tells that the some imprisoned is tide in a cave and they can look alone a wall where are projected alone widows, hence the imprisons can know alone the widows of knowledge; this myth is more famous of Plato and, evidently, Origen has had this influence, because he speaks about the widows of pagan gods; further Origen continuing his discourse: “…it is take the conviction that the word has an admirable order, and hence to worship, unique creator of a word that is unique that concords and is in harmony to itself in every parts…” it is an effect of the ideas word of Plato. Other step truly Platonic is the following: “The letter kills, and the spirit given the life, where with the letter we must consider the earth subsistence and with spirit those intellectual”. It is the typical reference to Plato because the earth things are alone a poor representation of the word of ideas. Other step: “But f we turn to Lord, where the word of God and where the Saint Spirit manifests spiritual knowledge, hence the vail that hide the eyes we can look the glory of Lord…”, it is a reference to Plato. Other step is more subtle that precedent, but likewise Platonic, regard  to description of Johannes, that has said: “John said in fact that God is light and in him isn’t dark”, and the following words of Origen are meaningful: “if we consider these words through superficially, and consider alone the literal sense…”, it is other influence from Plato, because the literal sense of Origen we can tie directly to the material word of Plato that is alone a poor reflex of the ideas word. Other step instead evidences the affinity of Origen to Empedocles, because the Christian said: “…is a fifth nature of bodies beyond the fourth elements…”, it is Empedocles and his theory about the formation of everything for junction of earth, water, fire and air. Other concept although subtly hided it the following: “God that is principle of everything, we can’t believe composed, otherwise they would be anterior to same principle the elements whose are composted everything…”, it is the Socratic logic, certainly, but Plato is in the think that the common thing that we have every day is projection from the word of ideas, that is vulgar representations of the ideas, that are material on the word; hence believe that the composition of everything is the outcome of these principles, divine principles is erred; it is the Platonic philosophy, that sees alone the material thing but no absolutely the ideal image of the word of ideas. Other step is purely Platonic: “…they(who think that the intellectual nature is accidental) want not understand the intelligence has an affinity to God, whose it is intellectual image; and for this it can know something of divine nature, above all is it is purified and separated from material nature”; it is the representation of Platonic nature of the word of ideas.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Primum sentire, deinde filosofare: Plotinus

The title is Latin and the outrages I can alone imagine, but the translation is simple, it is a small modification of an old Latin motto attributed to Thomas Hobbes, that press for the practical life, and after the intellectual busies; but in ancient times, when the philosophy was a science, Plotinus(a.Ch.204-270) has used the soul and that we, today, identify as sensations, a tool necessary to know; the origin of sensationalism, this is that philosophical address that consider the sensations necessary and uniquely instrument for knowledge; we can consider Plotinus as the first sensationalist in the history of philosophy, in the principal book of Plotinus, that it is a collection of his short texts, this is the Enneads, he gives the principal motive in philosophy of sensationalism: “Who is the owner  the passions, opinions and the thinks?”, it is rhetorical question that Plotinus answered: “Pleasures, pains, dreads, aversions and suffering who is the owner? Or to alone the soul or to soul that uses the body…”, it is the inception of sensationalism; Plotinus uses the soul, or sensation, for the knowledge, that is derived directly from sensations; but Plotinus considered as a dual participation both the mind and the soul: “The first thing, regard to soul, we must detect if other is soul or other to be of soul. If it is so the soul is mixed, and it isn’t absurd that it receives to its, and try, through the agreement of mind, those passions and receives good and wicked custom”; this step is important because allows us to identify and understand that the sensations are alone an instrument necessary to know, but the first analysis is through the mind, because Plotinus, could not consider the sensations alone to detect the goodness or wickedness of an action or think, because the sensations are personal, and various, hence he has enclosed also the mind, that is no alone a emotive analysis, but the true cold rationality, and not certainly the momentary pleasure or dislike of something. In other step repeats this concept: “It needs say that the living or is the living body or the whole of soul and body. To every case or the soul keeps itself because impassive, although it is the cause of passions, or it suffers gather to the body…”, we can consider that Plotinus considers the soul an instrument to receive sensations that after the mind must consider. The same valor to the sensation is given from Etienne Bonnot de Condillac(1714-1780), French philosopher and author of Traité des sensations, that is appraisaled, from the philosophy, as the father of sensationalism, a step is necessary: “Let us consider a man at the first moment of his existence. His soul first has different sensations, such as light, colors, pain, pleasure, motion, rest those are his first thoughts.”, we can consider that it is alone Plotinus translated in French language, that Condillac could translate, very easy, because he known the ancient Greek, hence he has took Plotinus and has reused for to found the Sensationalism; the actual philosophical critic doesn’t consider the contribute of Plotinus to Sensationalism, why? I not clue, may somebody is going to write a book of the lacks of philosophical critic, but I think that duty could ask an army of philosophers, therefore this duty here is begun and here is ended. Anyway more clear is the following words of Condillac: “Let us follow him in the moments when he begins to reflect on what the sensations occasion in him, and we shall end that he forms ideas of the different operations of his soul, such as perceiving and imagining those are his second thoughts. Thus, according to the manner in which external objects affect us, we receive different ideas via the senses, and, further, as we reflect on the operations which the sensations occasion in our soul, we acquire all the ideas which we would not have been able to receive from external objects.”; I want not outrage the French, but it is the Plotinus with French citizen; the concepts are similar or superimposable, The following words are further superimposable to the dynamic process to understand, that Plotinus has unified between mind and soul: “Thus the sensations and operations of the soul are the materials of all our knowledge, materials that are employed by reflection as it explores the relations they contain by making combinations of them.”, It is same process of Plotinus, that we have read above, above all in the words: “…the relations they contain by making combinations of them.”, it is a mention of Plotinus. After these resumptions, some fail is, because the sensation that isn’t rationalizable, because tied to irrationality of feel   : “Let us conclude that there are no ideas that have not been acquired: the first

come directly from the senses, the others from experience and increase in proportion to the capacity for reflection.”, it is fall because the source of knowledge we can recognize perfectly, today as the then, whereby it is a wrong think.

 Alessandro Lusana   

 Speculative tales: Confucius

We have at last heard the name of Confucius(551-479 b. Ch.), that has given teaches in a period of China when the moral decadence was dominant; his teachings are mots that, always, took the elementary logic of speculation, and they are obvious but he wanted given the analysis of reality. Some example: one of primaries maxims: “I don’t dislike because everybody knows me but I worry because I don’t know the men”, in fact it is true because when we think that we know a person, also a friend, during time we recognize that of this friend we known very scant; but because we don’t know the human gender and his behavior in particular context. Other maxim is: “Who governs through the virtues is comparable to the polar star, that is immobile while the others come around”, Confucius known certainly, that the stars are immobile, but with this maxim he has wanted give an example of good govern; but he hasn’t considered that he could have given also a maxim about the pimps that usually are around the power men; a little advisement, type: “It is advisement: the execution immediately for the pimps”. Other maxim that we can apply to speculation of political man: “You must see what a man makes, look the motives that move him and look that he like. What can he hide to you?”; it is the truth because you can know perfectly what he likes, hence he difficulty could hide something. Other: “The acknowledge isn’t a tool that is set for a alone motive”, in fact when Socrates advised his pupils, although he didn’t consider herself a master, of attend the wises because from them was possible know, and it is a duty of wise, to given advisement and teaching. A pupil of Confucius asked about the wise, and Confucius answered: “Before he become his words, and these are consequent to his actions”; it is a lesson that millions of persons should follow, because speak about of something is very easy, but make that is alone verbal concept is very coherent and it is the immense difficult. Always around the wise: “The wise is universal and no particular, the vulgar man is particular  and no universal”; it is true but to be universal is otherwise to be abstract, because nothing teaching is universal, because we live in this word, therefore we must be particular. Other truth: To study without meditation is useless, and meditate without to study is danger”, in fact we risk to infer something that is very mistake. And an motto that seems Socratic: “Yu do you want know what is the knowledge? It is that that you know say that you know, but what you didn’t know you must say that you don’t know, it is the knowledge”, Socrates was usual to say: “I known that I don’t know”. Other note: “Lin Fan asked what is the essence of rites…and Confucius answered: “In the ceremonies of holiday the sobriety is preferable to prodigality, in the funeral ceremonies the heartfelt dolor is preferable than to external acts”, it is the preference of sincerity than hypocrisy.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

The hierarchy of grammar

The semiotic of grammar there isn’t, but it isn’t an essay about the semiotic or grammar, because the pain in the neck would be superhuman instead a charge to Aja court would be sure, and right; hence I want alone consider the semiotic regard the grammar, but not certainly the meaningful of words, that is from centuries, but the semiotic valor, the important in hierarchy; every word in a concept or discourse are necessary, otherwise a discourse without a subject and verb is useless; but we can, I repeat, we can, no must absolutely, we can appraisal the relevance of some form in the discourse, that it is written, oral or though, for example we can consider the Latin language necessary to understand this concept: the verb, every verb in Latin language is fundamental, because it is more important size of discourse, because without the verb, the discourse isn’t, but the verb, at last in Latin and Italian, that is a modern Latin, the verb allows to identify the subject, because the persons of verbal declination are different, instead in English language the subject is necessary, because every, or almost every person of declination is equal; hence in English important  is the verb certainly, but equal importance has also the subject, that in Italian is secondary, because in English to say: “I make” has sense, but: “make” alone the first question is: “who?”, therefore the importance of verb is equal to subject, because both are necessary to understandable of proposition, in French language, the oral communication the pronounce is very similar hence the subject is necessary always, because the subject can be confused; the similarity of pronounce is a affinity to English language, also because the French is a language that has certainly took from Latin but not how the Italian and Spanish, that as Italian can excludes the subject; it is because the Spanish is the second Neo Latin language, in Europe, that is derivation directly from the Latin, in fact the grammar Italian and Spanish and almost every word is equal, for the German the same way for French and English, the subject is fundamental. This essay want represent the hierarchy in the discourse, and the differences present in different languages; the hierarchy is present in human gender and also in what the human gender bring always, this is the word; in fact the rhetoric is important every specific size of discourse, because it must be persuasive, thereupon every word is important, the logic is fundamental but also the adjective or pronoun or the adverb is fundamental , because the sake is persuasion; if a politic man pronounces a discourse without the right emphasis, right verb and right conviction he would to blow a raspberry; in discourse also private these are essential size of discourse, that have a hierarchy, and from it nobody can apart. But also in grammar is importance and less importance.

Alessandro Lusana

                

 

The human evolution of travel: Montaigne and Goethe

The evolution of title is referenced to two travels in Italy of two different persons, this is Michel de Montaigne(1533-1592) and Johan Wolfgang Goethe(1749-1832), that during different centuries visited the Italy, at last to the principal cities, and they registered their description, very boring; the evolution means the capacity of these two writers of to pick the imagines and episodes in every city, and it attests also the evolution of man during centuries and the evolution of sensibility; certainly we must consider that the difference between the writers, but we must also consider that both were wise humanistic, but we must also consider that the cities visited were changed during centuries. Montaigne anyway is the first that we consider, the first stopping place is in Meaux near Paris, on the river Marl, and the description of city is sufficiently long: “The Meaux that is small city on the Marl is formed from three parts, the city and suburb are on the left of river, toward Paris, and beyond the bridges is other suburb called merchant …where is great quantity of residents and houses.”; but the morality of Catholic French emerges from the following words: “Once upon this city was fortified with very strong walls and towers; but during our complots of Huguenot , since that the major part of residents was adherent to this party, the fortifications were destroyed…”; this second plot occurred in year 1567, when during the visit of Charles 9^th , king of French, the Huguenots tried to kidnap the king. Continuing the description, Montaigne says: “This part of the city bore the assault of English, when the city was already failed…”, this assault occurred in 1421 during the war of hundred years, and the siege there was between October 1421 and May 1422. These information are certainly gone to Montaigne from some pride citizen of Meaux, and I can say it and I can infer it from my personal experience, during 17 years of job of guide; every citizen of a small city is always pride of some heroic episode inherent to his city, it is the parochialism and stop, anyway Montaigne continued: “…and for award every resident is free from taxes”, and the my opinion s above mentioned, is supported from the followings words: “In middle of Marl they indicate a long island, that they say it was a knight thrown in the river from the English for destroyed the suburb of Merchant”, this knight was a machine for siege necessary to destroyed the walls of defense; but the popular fantasy, after centuries, has mythicized this episode and transformed it through a mythical version. And this wit continues for two tombs, certainly Medieval, because the Montaigne’s description suggests it: “Among the things there is a ancient tomb and venerable  with image of two knights laid…they think that they are the corps of Danish Ogiery and other knight…”; after this description Montaigne visited a religious Justin Terrelle, and he has believed to everything that this religious has said, because in conformity of narration of Montaigne, he was a very wise in French, and he has been in Egypt and Jerusalem and he has lived for seventh years in Constantinople, and Montaigne indicated also the age of this religious, 60 years old; Montaigne written his travel to Italy during 1580-1581, it is means that this religious lived in Constantinople and he was sent there for to buy Greek books. From Meaux to Charly and after Dormans, and from Espreney the narration is boring because nothing of interesting is. For Goethe that has travelled to Italy for two years, 1786-1788, other impressions and other places, it is normal, but the evolution of title is in the notations that Goethe in other time, in confront of Montaigne, he specified, and it is document of other writer but also of other time, other sensibility, it is the evolution, in Rovereto, Italian city in North Italy, where the first impression of Goethe is for the language: “There I am in Rovereto where the language is changed suddenly, toward North is again between the Dutch and Italian…and the hotelier he doesn’t speak Dutch: and myself must try the my knowledge of language. But I am very happy that this language , that I love, is hereupon the live language used from everybody”; sincerely I didn’t understand because Goethe was so happy, but we must consider that Goethe has been so happy, may for the sincerely and informal character of Italian, may was the human warm that made him happy, very different from the formal context of high classes, and it is confirmed from the words: “…used from everybody…”, because this pronoun, everybody, means that he could have the human contact to other citizens, hence the human contacts could be grown; I think it because the formal context I have known and during time of Goethe it was the rule. Other town is Torbole, a small town but evidently has arouse enthusiasm Goethe, because he says: “I would that my friends were here for a moment with me, for joy of sight that I have in front now! This night I could to be to Verona, but among scant steps there was this majesty lake of Garda, and I wanted not renounce to it”. Evidently this landscape has very liked to Goethe, because he has even drown it, or he has tried it; but we can infer that the education of highest classes ordered that the children learned also the drawing. Other note that today is very strange is that: “…the first is that the doors haven’t locks,…the hotelier assured me that, if I have diamonds”, and regard the Italian nature, Goethe self has stressed it: “The hotelier has announced me through Italian emphasis that he would be happy to server to me a trout…”, certainly low episodes that haven’t nothing that can interest, but we can infer that the Italian character has arouse enthusiasm Goethe. The evolution is both human and cultural; through these episodes we can understand that the reactions of stranger face to some ruins of landscape, and we can find both some behavior very near to us and also customs that are very distant, and that are determined from the different times, form episodes very irrelevant in Montaigne and some episode more amusing in Goethe, the human gender is changed but very short.

Alessandro Lusana           

 

 

Deus vult: religion peace, 14th April in years 1598

The allegory of policy explained the motives of its existent, and it took an religion and political motive : “The policy is so: Henry 4th was a king and he made his conversion to Catholicism because the major part of French was Catholic, and they could have approached to Spain, where king Philip 2th was ready to attack the French, with aid of its citizen”, and Richelieu: “They would have betrayed their country?”, and Policy: “Then the concept of nation or country there isn’t, the identification was to religion, because it was the matter fit to the people, because the religion is destined to everybody, hence the rich and the poor classes, therefore the popular classes can feel near to superior classes”, and Richelieu: “But the Catholic was the major, why king Henry 4th has stipulated a treat of Nantes, and he conceded the freedom of cult also the Protestant?”, and Policy: “because the same, or in Latin language specular, intention, this is the accord to Protestant nations, could made the Protestant, and the German princes and the England queen could have made an action against the French, because the Protestant in French were minor, but they were consistent, and the French would has been pray of German and England, and other Protestant nations, instead through an accord, Henry 4th has hold the power and the internal peace, because the conflicting believe have to a civil war, and the French would has been pray of other nations that with motives of religion they could have took the territories in French”, and Richelieu: “What territories?”, and Policy: “From North the England and Holland, because it had sent soldiers and armies, and England finally would have won the famous was of hundred years, and would have conquered the Normandy, instead the Spain, from South, would have took the meridional French, and this nation would has been half Spanish and half British, and the civil war would be continued between Catholic and Protestant until a treat between these two nations that would have divided the French between them, and the French would be disappeared”. Richelieu hence asked again: “But we have had the armies and strong necessary to face a war”, and the Policy laughing: “Do you think it truly? Certainly you are a very good pupil, because you don’t see the reality, a statesman must see the state of his nation, and several famines have had starved the French, and an army starved didn’t obey, but is easily corruptible, and whereby the French have to face two armies without the armies”, and Richelieu: “And our armies? Would be corrupted!”, and the Policy: “Well you are starting understand the policy, this is me, for this Henry 4^th has allowed that, the Edict empowered Protestants to assemble in provincial or national synods, and for the duration of eight years Henry left some hundred fortified places at their disposal, because the defence of Protestant confession have guaranteed, because the betray would be more difficult, because the Protestant feel protect directly from the king, that have conceded to them the fortified cities, in policy if you want gain a thousand you must give an hundred”, and Richelieu: “In edict of Nantes hence also the Protestant soldiers have been rescued, because they could defender the French because, God has wanted this edict, or no?”, and the Policy: “Clever, very clever, if you want destroyed a state every you must weaken it internally through the civil wars and the religion are valid motive to this contrast; why the peace of Vervins, in 1598 was signed between two kings, this is Philip 2th and Henry 4^th, I ask to you, why?”, and Richelieu: “Because, because somebody has seen the Virgin? Or because…”, the Policy, interfering: “Because the Spain that has had an Empire very extended in Europe and in the American continent, has had very much fronts, and the money were very scant”. Richelieu: “What other dangers there were?”, and the Policy: “The Catholic league!”, and Richelieu: “What is?”, and the Policy: “It is the meeting the Catholic that there was in French, but the donation of fortresses to Protestant was the motive of rebellion against the king was the signal evident of this dislike of people and the governor of Peronne, Jacques d’Humieres, that refuted this gift to Protestant and he called the Catholic princes and prelates so that the king becomes Catholic, and this league was extended to all Picardy, and the Spain aided this riots, and the Netherlands until thr city of Artois, and then the Netherlands was a owner of Spain”, the Catholicism is saved, and through the peace of Bergerac, 14^th September 1577, the peace in French is stable. After seven years for the designation to throne of Protestant Henry from Navarra, in years 1584, Henry 1th of Guise, alone for personal interest, this the throne of French, foundered the new Catholic league, and after the year 1582, Philip 2th of Spain aided this league; hence you can see that the religion is used from mere political aims, the throne, the power, and today, certainly other interest, but these are present; anyway the dominant motive is the policy, same motive that has determined the conversion of Henry 4^th, this is the power”, and Richelieu:      “But today it is very difficult!”, and Policy: “Certainly, but dominant is interest, every interest, everywhere and for every nation; then the people believed that his interest was the eternal salvation, today interest is other, material interest no certainly ideal, but then the kings and the people had not other”, and Richelieu: “Today are other material richness”, and the Policy: “Perfect, the religion was the richness during his time, but today for religion nobody would face a war, and who says it lies”, and Richelieu: “The king Henry 4^th, has guaranteed the equality between Catholic and Protestant because…”, and the Policy, interfering: “He has guaranteed everybody both Catholic and Protestant for every profession, because the brains are everywhere, and to every religion; in fact several courts of justice were set up in which Protestants were to have equal representation, involving the appointment of Protestant as well as Catholic judges”, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: “Because was the State of French that judged the guilty and no certainly God, the judges have to obey to State, that was the principal reference for these courts, and the religion was absolutely secondary”, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: “Because it is laicism, if you are useful for the State  you can be also Satanist, but you now are useful, and the motive, that is material alone, allowed the useful of everybody that has had the necessary qualities”, and Richelieu: “Why the king Henry 4^th has converted herself to Catholic believe, if the laicism was dominant?”, and Policy: “Dominant in high classes, where nobody has believed never, but the people was Catholic, and believed, because hasn’t the richness of high classes; then was the hope of eternal life, today is other ideologies or other sentiments, as the envy and the hide, because hide somebody and find defects to him, it’s the satisfaction”, and Richelieu: “Some example?”, and the Policy: “When a woman looked an other woman, very beautiful, the first identification of the woman is the defect, every defect, because it is in human gender, the searching of a deficiency in other, it is normal”, and Richelieu: “Why do you use these examples as the women behavior?”, and the Policy: “Simple because I want indicate to you the daily behavior that after becomes the consuetude, actually mechanical consuetude, and the kings or Dukes of Counts or Princes are the high classes, hence always object of attention, and the king must held his public image”, and Richelieu, smiling: “But today it is impossible because hide something is impossible, because…”, and the Policy, interfering: “Today, but then it is was simple, because the people unknown something. You have same defect of not historical men, you rapport everything to present time, you must think that then the news there aren’t, the journals there aren’t, and the information was alone verbal, and very scant, but the political strategy was hided between the advisor and the king and stop”, and Richelieu: “And the queen!”, and the Policy: “No absolutely!, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: Because to a woman you can ask everything except that hold a secret, and when a secret is known from two person it isn’t a secret, and the women tell, immediately, to everybody everything”, and Richelieu: “But these are the State secrets!”, and the Policy: “The human gender is so, and it is always so, outset; anyway I think that you have learned something, now through the experience you are going to can the French”. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

…orbem terrarum ... subiecit: Cesar Augustus

Livy Titus historical man

Caius Cesar Augustus emperor

Augustus: Why this very laudatory title? Orbem terrarum, is very exaggerated.

Livy: Because this book, or your memories., are going to read during centuries, hence for history, and the knowledge of your figure is important for future, and how the policy has taught, every imperator have to used the his history as political propaganda, both he was during the live and after the death, it is policy.

Augustus: Do you want teach me the policy?

Livy: No certainly, you have took from example of Cesar, that although he not was your father, you have took his political rule, and also the decision making power capacity, as he beyond the Rubicon he said: “Alea jacta est”, this is the dice is thrown, and he ordered the peace in Rome and Empire.

Augustus: I recognize my decisional make capacity because, in fact, I have took an army through the veterans of Cesar and Anthony, near to Apollony, now Valona, Albany, where I was waiting the call of Cesar for military campaign against the Party people, and when I known the death of Cesar, I organized this army, but it is was illegal, but the political context imposed it, therefore this capacity I have in me.

Livy: Why some body as the consul Anthony wanted deny the heredity of Cesar to you?

Augustus: Simple because he wanted become imperator, but without qualities.

Livy: Qualities that the Senate in Rome has recognized to you because…

Augustus(interfering him): because the Senate has admixed me as a member, and allowed  to me of speak and it given me the military power, and ordered to me to provide so that the Empire hasn’t damns.

Livy: You have gained it, through you courage.

Augustus: The same courage that has leaded Cesar, my stepfather, when he crossed the Rubicon and he imposed the peace in Rome, and unified the social classes.

Livy: In fact I have said that your courage is similar to Cesar, and I see very similarity between you and Cesar.

Augustus: The philosopher Aristotle written in one his book: “The friendship be born alone between equal, η φιλία γεννιέται μεταξύ ίσων”, it is the truth, the human truth, hence Cesar seen to me a future emperor, or a chief very similar to him.

Livy: Why do you have together an army?

Augustus: Because the Empire was oppressed from a tyranny of a faction, this is the enemy of Cesar and friendship of Pompey, but so that it was possible, this is to free Rome and Senate from this oppression was necessary that I used the illegal, as a composition of an army as Cesar, that came to Rome for take the power, I have made the same thing, without importance and army that has had Cesar, but the result is similar; I have imposed the my order.

Livy: But also you have to fight to Anthony in Azo.

Augustus: Certainly and after I have founded the my power on faithful of armies and senators, and I have kept the political republican form, but under my authority. The tyranny was that of Anthony that has removed the power on the province of Gaul, actual French, that Anthony wanted take and above all its armies, necessary to attack Rome, the Senate has given through a law the senatus consultum ultimum, that given the power to consuls during the context very serious, and the Senate has piched me for the free the Empire from tyranny.

Livy: But do you have the power?

Augustus: Yes, I have had it because the Roman people has elected me consul, because during the war were died the two consuls Gaio Pansa and Aulo Irzio, and hence I was alone and took the power on army I came to Rome, where the people welcomed me with acclamations, and there the people elected me consul, so that I could reorder the Empire(he smiled).

Livy: Why do you are smiling?

Augustus: Because I remembered the De amicitia of Cicero, this is the About the friendship; WHEN Cicero said that when you are necessary everybody worships you, but after the danger nobody knows you.

Livy: Why this think?

Augustus: Because after the Senate has avoided the danger of Anthony, everybody senators has left me.

Livy: You have also declared Brutus and Cassius, this is the killers of Cesar, as enemy of Empire.

Augustus: And in that occasion I recognized the importance of Cesar to Rome, because the Senate for the law lex Pedia de interfectoribus Caesaris, that wanted the exile and punishment of killers of Cesar; a law that has had the principal enemy the killers of Cesar, never for a homicide has been made it.

Livy: Where your political nature?

Augustus: I Off with them to exile these killers, and I have punished them through the processes, and I wined them one time in Philippi in b. Ch. 42 year.

Livy: Your politic nature?

Augustus: I have fought much wars and as winning I have saved the life of defeated, when they asked pardon…

 

Livy: Yes but my question was other, what is…

Augustus(interfering): Why is has been so generous?

Livy: No clue.

Augustus: Because after the pardon you can have one or much friendships, because they will be faithful to you, it is policy.