The ancestor of Cathars

The first need is identify the Cathars, the heretical movement between 12th and 14th century in Europe, that has distinguished two principles the good and the bad, this is the material and the spiritual, and furthermore they refused the Catholic Church and its Sacraments, and they, the unique Sacrament was the baptism that they called the “consolamentum”, this is the imposition of the hands that was the baptism; they diffused in south France, in north Italy and in Byzantine empire; the refusal of Sacraments and of the Church has, certainly, determined the persecution from the Catholic Church, more than the refusal of richness, because centuries after the Donatist the Franciscan orders refused the richness, and the Franciscan order are again the ecclesiastic order; but the Cathars were the example that not obeyed to the Church, hence they were dangerous; this refusal of money and of the richness is comparable to the Dolcinian, that were above all violent against the rich members of Church, instead the Cathars and Donatist aren’t it; but I want identify the rigor of this sect that during the 4^th century in north Africa has had great success, the Donatist believed that the Sacraments that had from the “lapsi”, from the Latin “lapsus” this is the decayed, this is the religious that has denied the Christian faith for to save their life; and the common interest is present, because during 4^th century was the life, but now was the sacraments, inasmuch the motive for existence of the Church, same thing that centuries after will make Martin Luther(1483-1546), that deleted the sacraments and the miss; and the Donatist held that the Church is composed alone from the saints, this is alone who has given the heroic example of faith can be member of the Church; it is the same rigor and severity of Cathars, and their refusal of money, but they have had also some habit that we can mistake to the original Catholic Church, but it isn’t because the similar way for the baptism, this is the immersion in the water, but it wasn’t a motive for the polemic; in fact the Saint Optatus of Milevi(4^th century a.Ch.), the major adversary to the Donatist was perfectly in agreement to the Donatist, and in fact he was agreement for the maintaining of faith, but the repetition of this Sacrament was the motive for the polemic, and Optatus has mentioned the Paul Apostle that has said: “…there is one alone Lord, one alone faith and one alone baptism…”; hence the secondo baptism is absolutely useless and heretic; but the with or opinion of Donatists was similar to Cathars for their severity, and they were Manichaen, from Mani(a.Ch. 216-277), the dualism that in Donatist was toward the baptism, instead for the Cathars was the material and immaterial, but the difference is alone for this, that is substantial, but in different times, when these are other questions, but the same rigor of Cathars.

Alessandro Lusana

         

                 

 

 Daily semiotic of Peirce: haecceity

 This concept of Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)that is the essence in common words, and that he has took from Duns Scoto(1265-1308), a Scottish philosopher, that has theorized, rightly, thwe essence of everything, and he has called this essence as “haecceity”, form Latin heac, this is this thing; that for Peirce is the nature of everything, single considered, and it is the particular of the thing; one example od Peirce: “A whistling locomotive passes at high speed close beside me. As it passes the note of the whistle is suddenly lowered from a well-understood cause. I perceive the whistle, if you will. I have, at any rate, a sensation of it. But I cannot be said to have a sensation of the change of note. I have a sensation of the lower note. But the cognition of the change is of a more intellectual kind. That I experience rather than perceive. It is [the] special field of experience to acquaint us with

events, with changes of perception. Now that which particularly characterizes sudden changes or perception is a shock. [ . . . ] It is more particularly to changes and contrasts of perception that we apply the word “experience”. The Peirce description is very easy because it is common, and daily; hence the “haecceity”, is very frequent, above all for the human gender; because this “haecceity” considers the characteristic of everything; and we can make it also to the human gender; not alone for the something but for the human being; that it is absolutely true, because we can consider the characteristic of somebody, and to identify him through the his character, that is always his characteristic, as something has its character, therefore the “haecceity” is, for first, human, and our great gift is that we can identify these characteristics, both for the everything and for everybody; for Peirce after it is also the principal motive for the identification of something, and we can use this semiotic for the human gender; the difference is in the differentiation of characters and the men: the whistling that Peirce has mentioned is a character that we can use for the men, because we can identify a locomotive for the whistling, and we can identify a white or black for the color of skin, or better we can identify a German citizen for the language, that is always a sound; whereby we can use this concept of Scoto and after of Peirce for the human being. The human has his character, also national character, both for the language and for the characteristics, that are essential in the man, because the national character emerges also before of personal characteristic, through the language and for the reaction in face of some consideration; from this considerations the reaction, that Peirce consider element fundamental of “haecceity”; it is one of the elements, that distinguishes the thing, and the man is same, but in the human gender it is more evident, because we can offend a wall for years but the reaction isn’t, instead for the men it is, hence the reaction is more evident.

Alessandro Lusana   

 

           

 

 Human semiotic

When we meet somebody, never we think that he can give to us information, but not alone verbal but physical, how? Simple the cloth is  the first  thing and we can consider  t6he social level that he is going from, that is more clear than other by the language, because it is alone the slang he is very low class from; but if we know him from much time we can understand if he has improved  or he is the same; hence if in past used alone  the slang, and now he is same, he not improved never; we can understand  that the environment  that he has attended, if it is low, and also it can give to us the information, why? Simple he hasn’t the will of improvement  therefore his baseness for him is good, because in that level he doesn’t  behave one self, hence he avoid these social levels; if he has told about great successes  but he looks other point and tells something he is lying, or he is a schizophrenic, inasmuch he translated the think in reality; thence we have two hypothesis , the first is that  he lying because he fells the shame for his level or he is a schizophrenic , and other the lie we can also understand that his weakness. Other sign of weakness  is in the cry of somebody: when somebody cloud something he isn’t convinced of something and he is searching the sureness in other persons, when somebody is convinced  of something must not cry because the sureness  of his opinion he can attests ever. Who instead look intently the eyes of somebody he is sure and strong and not always but often says the truth. In history some example  of weakness is evident ; Celestin 5^th pope, a weak that after 5 months dismissal, why a weak so? Simple a weak chief enables of govern from the basin, that nobody look. This exam must lead us to consider that also the body can gives information. Also the reaction to an judge that we have expressed toward some nation gives the information, as the social class, the reaction is motive for to know and consider the character of somebody; it is the human semiotic, that we can and in fact we use always for somebody, the reaction also if it is hide something emerges always, because an offence can be accepted or not, a truth regard a nation can be also accepted because true, but the sequent reaction is manifest sign that of this offence nothing has been accepted, and the reaction, that Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) has called from Duns Scoto “haecceity”, this is the nature and characteristic that makes the nature of somebody or something; and the reaction is the true nature of this character, and the reaction is the clearer manifestation of this “haecceity”.      

Alessandro Lusana    

 The tell of experience: Hobbes

We can also judge that is very easy to be a speculative philosopher because is sufficient take the reality and describe it in some page as Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679), that has took the English society and he has described the citizen through the philosophical ideal? Not certainly but alone for description that I want translated in this step of his book the Cive, this citizen, where more that to describe the citizen he describes the man: “These are the true delight of meeting to we participate for our nature, this is from the feels innate for nature, until we are touched from a damn or advise that solicite our attention…”; and the speculative nature of this book is in the following words: “(and for somebody a similar done can also occurs never)…If occurs in fact of tell, saying, some episode, and somebody teels his memory, everybody speak about themselves, if somebody tell a wonderful made, everybody tells the done more wonderful, and if they haven’t it they invent it…”; it is the description of human gender that Hobbes, evidently has studied very well, and he has seen, also during the meeting. But Hobbes has certainly participated to the philosophical meeting, whose he describes the human typology: “Finally for to speck about who is convinced that he know more than other, if is a philosophical meeting, very much are members, and very much are who want command, and very much who want the title of master, and my hypothesis is right because a word alone of Hobbes in following step is important: “In short, it is clear for experience for who considers deeply the human thing, that every spontaneous association of men is born from the reciprocal need or from the desire of satisfy owner ambition, therefore who participate hope that something can take…”; it is the human analysis of Hobbes above the human gender, but this analysis is determined from the experience, as we have above read. Hobbes continues: “The same conclusion we can reach if we think on the same definition of will, good, honor, useful. In fact every social tie is tied for free will, important is see the sake of this will…Everything after can seems good, determined to us a pleasure, and so it takes or the body or soul. Every pleasure of soul or is the vanity or presumption…”; this synthetic description is necessary to describe the nature of this book that is, as the other political treatise of Hobbes, the Leviathan, is a description of man but in the English context. The pitiless description continues: “Then every social pact is stipulated or for utility of ambition, this is for to owner love, and not certainly for to love of other…”; this is the description of human gender, that is valid for the time of Hobbes as today.

Alessandro Lusana

 The Aristotelian Pierce: the phaneroscopy

Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)was the principal and unique founder of Semiotic, because has explained the valor of semiotic and his method, but the semiotic is a exercise that every day we can make, because a publicity is a the promotion of a product and we habited to it, by now not notice never, but we can recognize it because we have known the code necessary to identify it, hence our attention by now is very scant; but Peirce has deepened more and he has though three categories for to regular interpretation of this discipline, this is the semiotic: the Firstness this is the quality that is independent from everything and considered as the potential, for example: the red color and the sensations that it determined without to consider that this color belong to an object; hence the color for its alone; the Secondness: a reaction, the reality the direct reaction between two elements, this is an action and a reaction, the perception of a rumor that is improvise to the head. The Thirdness, this is the mediation between the Firstness and Secondness, this is the exact meaning that we can give to something, the word wall and the concept of danger for the collision; inasmuch the secondary thinks that are the motive for the identify the everything; after the read it can seems very original and certainly if not be original it is important, because it given to the semiotic other tools for the interpretation of everything, and through the tools also the method, and we must consider it, although obvious, as a tool for the interpretation; but the origin of this method is very ancient, because it is from the Categories of  Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322), because the Aristotle, has, involuntary, descripted the semiotic in the Categories in ancient Greek κατηγορία, for Aristotle the principal genders of reality and language; hence he express also his think, hence it is become the semiotic, this is the Secondness of Peirce. I have already written about the semiotic of Aristotle, precisely the Aristotelian semiotic, and reaffirm this concept, through the new categories of Peirce, that are the speculative and real evolution of the think of Aristotle; but in this think we can also identify a track of Platonism, this is in the Firstness, this is the essence of something, that is in conformity with opinion of Platoon is the essence of horse, this is the essence that is deeply rooted in the nature of thing, animal or man; in the Firstness it is the red color that we have seen, independently from other characteristic, it is the essence, and Peirce, rightly, identify the Firstness to the essence, as Aristotle said about the essence, in ancient Greek ουσια, that is the more important of then categories; certainly Aristotle has took this concept from Platoon, and Peirce has took the categories and the idea of semiotic from the Aristotle, and he has developed through other adds, but the original concept of semiotic is in categories of Aristotle.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

          

 

 The idea: limitation of the sensible real

The concept of idea to day is automatically rapport to a find more or less frequent and original, the word idea is from ancient Greek ἱδέα, that is imagine of something; but imagine can be real or abstract, and this last version is the idealism, and it is the abstract imagine usually political, that after in history become the real and changes his nature from the begin idea or image; Platoon(b.Ch 427-347) has his specific function for the ideas, this is the unique idea that has expressed in Parmenides, a dialogues where Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) tells on unite of ever thing and he gather in one unit as somebody sees the things around and the gather in a alone version unique ideas fro everything seen, and the nature of this things is the same nature of ideas that is unique. In fact Parmenides askes to Socrates: “And do you confess that is a species of right to its, of beauty to its, of good to its?” Yes-answers Socrates-And do you confess that it is a species of man separated from us and from other men, a species of man, of fire and of water?” This concept strictly Platonic is developed for the following explication: “three categories of correspondence to ideas, the first category is the mathematic object: equality, one, much; the valor: the right , the beauty, the good; and the third isn’t correspondent to ideas; the natural things as the fire, the water and the man; this last of Parmenides in very important for the develop of the concept that I want express, in fact the last category hasn’t correspondence to ideas because it is invalid things. The concept is expressed also from two other philosophers  in 19^th century, This is Hegel(1770-1831) and Schelling(1775-1854), the second in philosophy of art thinks that the are the particular unities, that he calls also power, and in every particularity are very powers and he says: “In philosophy is alone the absolute always the absolutely one, and alone it in particular forms. The philosophy isn’t inherent the particular fro its nature, but always and only the absolute, and the particular alone fro it is possible takes to its represent the absolute”. It is Platoon in pure translation because this concept is similar to Platonic idea but a difference to Hegel these is, because Hegel has limited the absolutely in real translation; Hegel gives a limitation above all in Aesthetic, between  of idea, because it is the translation to the real of ideal; this concept is expressed from Schelling, that he called, as Hegel, particular; this process determines the lost of ideal nature; an example very daily aids us to understand it: when we are fall in love the ideal predominance is total, but after time we lost the ideal and see alone the real; the ideal is become the real, hence the same thing is in philosophy, the ideal that after become real, and losts the ideal; the sensible real has limited the ideal.

Alessandro Lusana

 The totalitarian State of Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) is the very famous England philosophy and author of Leviathan, that he has shaped in his think but the effort for this think has been certainly minimum, why? Simple because he has seen and he has took that he had around; the monarchy of 17^th century in Europe, were every totalitarian, the right was respected but often the political condition give the motive for not to know the rights, above all of poor, because the political causes were dominant, it is the accuse to Templar knight for Philipp 4^th in France, and Dante Alighieri has said about this episode: “To bring to the temple the avid sails”, this is to steal the money of Templar for the satisfaction above aal for the feed for the Paris people, the decollation of Louis 16^th, king of France, for to avoid a return to monarchy; it was alone a psychological motive, so that whomsoever recognizes that the monarchy was impossible, and other examples. But Hobbes seen about the political way and he has took the necessary to his Leviathan, that is alone a human creation, and in fact it must lead us to consider that my hypothesis is right, because the State is built from the men, and Hobbes in the following words says: “For this way of art is created that Leviathan, called the political power, or State(in Latin civitas), that is alone a artificial man although of major high and force of the natural man, for his protection and defense is destined, and where the sovereignty is a artificial soul and it give the movement: the judges and the other members of the judicial power and executive…”; it is the confirm to my opinion, why? Simple because the State is built from the men, the State is a projection of they will, hence the judicial power must punish the criminals, that is the will of somebody, except the criminals, Hobbes suggest the totalitarian State in these following words: “The reward and the pain through it is tide to chair of sovereignty, every member has the solicitude to make his duty…”; it is the totalitarian State. The are the nerves that have the same duty of natural organism; the good of every element, are the force; la salus populi, this is the good of people, its activity in the commerce…”; this step is very important because it evidences the preoccupation of the king for his people, because the people can become dangerous if it lives poor conditions, hence in the concept of Hobbes every member must be active for the wealth of people, because it is the final consideration, this is the people. And Hobbes follows for the humanity of State: “For a description of this artificial man, I want consider the first the matter and its worker, both built from the man…”; the State inasmuch for the think of Hobbes is a build made from the men and for the men, because the state is composed from the men.

Alessandro Lusana

                                                                                     

     

                 

 

 

 

 

 Homo homini lupus

The phrase of Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679) very famous, that given title to this essay: “homo homini lupus”, is translated: “The man to other man is a wolf”, this is a danger and enemy; we can that it is alone an exaggeration, because the mankind, usually we comment, isn’t all so; and the our contradiction is in this, to say: “isn’t all so”, because it means that a part of humankind is so, therefore we are partially in right and in contradiction, but the human nature, that during these comments is never considered, is much different; because although we can hide this inclination the humankind considers other as his enemy, actually a “lupus”, why? Simple it is the animal instinct of mankind, that can vent for the wars, and the hate is after press to through the politic rhetoric, from the religion, that identifies in somebody the enemy, The scarlet letter of Nathaniel Hawthorne(1804-1864), is a representation of a village in New England during the 17^th century, where Esther Prynne, the female protagonist, is emarginated because she has had a daughter but without a husband; the religion, the policy and other motives are useful to creation of an enemy; in mankind is present this instinct, when somebody goes to our propriety, without invite, we have dread that he is somebody that want hurt us; it is normal, and hence we have reactions that are sit to the context, this is defense; when we don’t know somebody, and he want meet us the first reaction is worry because we don’t know him, and not knowledge is motive for the worry, but it is alone the instinctive reaction that we have because it is normal. If we consider attentively this think we can understand other phenomenal, during a war the contradiction and the truth of this essay is evident; because the war is fought by armies, and the armies is a gather of mem, that are tied from an ideal above all, this is a common enemy, hence in this context for the army the “lupus” isn’t because is dominant the hide toward a enemy, but is also present the hide toward an enemy, that is other man, whereby the love to ideal that the soldier expresses has its compensation to hide that he expresses toward enemies, thereupon the hide and love are satisfied, as can occur every day, when we shield our propriety we are shielding our richness, our family, but it is the normal reaction and so we have the contradiction, because we hate something or somebody we are loving and hating in same time, we shield our owns for our family but we are also hating somebody, that we don’t know. The difference is other motive for to consider somebody as an enemy, since you are race, culture, language you are danger. Inasmuch Hobbes was right homo homini lupus. The Latin moto “si pacem vis para bellum”, this is “if you want the peace prepare the war”, is the invite to desistence, why it is necessary? Because the mistrust toward the other is permanent.   

Alessandro Lusana

 The last Romantic: Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900) that where I have called the last romantic, because if we think about the superman, that he has descripted, through the words of Zarathustra in the book Thus spoke Zarathustra; where he has theorized the superman, that isn’t absolutely real but alone a romantic fantasy, for this the “romantic” of title; because Nietzsche has took the wit of romanticism, this is the idealism, and he has translated it to an imaginary figure of man that has overcame the minute and poor human impediments, this is the moral, the myths as the science and the religion; we must also consider that Nietzsche has also written during the second half of 19^th century, this is the Belle Époque, when the morality and the aesthetic were vital for a middle class that was also the entrepreneur class, that has took his industrial origin from the first industrial revolution in England(1760-1850), that after is extended in everywhere in Europe, enclosed the Germany, then he has undergone the wit of his century and the indirectly the Belle Époque, and he moralism very hypocrites and conformist; he wanted alone go out from this insincerity; inasmuch the superman is a reaction to this habit, but it is also a the last result of a romantic wit that is rebel to these formal virtues, and it is also the last but one Hegelian production, because the last is Giovanni Gentile(1875-1944); Nietzsche has idealized the man and has thought a man that overcomes every conformist impediment; it is the idealization of Romanticism, the absolute spirit of Hegel, that certainly has influenced Nietzsche radically, but he has idealized the figure that Hegel has never thought of man; hence the mixed of Romantic and hegelian wit has created the superman, that hasn’t the limits, the moral limits or conformist limits, because through the adjective “moral”, we not must think that Nietzsche has authorized the illegal and criminal acts, not absolutely, he has fought the moralism and the conformism of his time; but I want alone consider that the roots of this think are to the Romantic contrast and in the Hegelian philosophy, the absolute spirit of Hegel is the translation, under other name, of superman, and we must consider that may Nietzsche has very well understood Hegel because, differently from Schopenhauer, he has attributed this power to a ideal man, ideal certainly, hence imaginary, but alone a man, as Hegel has made for his absolute spirit, that he has seen in the man; and Nietzsche has made the same thing, Zarathustra is a man, as has been the authentic Zarathustra, that has been a prophet of Mazdaism during the 9^th and 8^th century before Christ in Iran; therefore Nietzsche has took a man that as a prophet has announced the superman to other men, but everything is absolutely human; inasmuch Nietzsche has translated the human power, that is prophetic, to the man contemporary to him; whereby he has took the human nature and he has idealized the man following the Romantic and absolute spirit.

Alessandro Lusana    

   

                            

 

 The Hegelian improvement

The title announces a specialist essay, and in fact it is so, because the think that accompanies always the lovers of read, has determined today this essay, and this think has given to me also the title, it is usual dynamic, and the idea about an essay about the improvement of speculative philosophy that, I confess, I have kept in my brain, and after much read, I have decided to write, because I want make clear the first to me , what is the improvement of Hegel (1770-1831) about the speculative philosophy, that similarly to Socrate(b.Ch.469-399) Hegel has improved, and he has mixed the idealism of his time, evidently above all in The lessons about the aesthetic, where the artistic idealism has took the Romantic spirit, and the idealization of Neoclassicism, present in art, but he has translated it to philosophy; but he has improved the speculative philosophy, because as Socrates has improved the speculative philosophy trough the speculation from the nature to the man, and he has studied the man and himself the first, Hegel has considered, although not expressed in his lessons and the books, the man, because he has expressed concepts typically human, but the question is how and why he has improved the speculative philosophy? Simple because he has remained  on the earth, without Platonic  flies, and he has considered the objective humanity, how? It is the principal question, this is how? If we consider the absolute spirit we can be confused from some idealizing  and absolutely abstract opinion above all because the century of Hegel, this is the 19^th century, when the wit has had the predominance  on the body, for to paraphrase Kant, thence the idealism can be confused as the idealization absolutely abstract, instead it is absolutely real, because it is human; the concept the absolute wit we can understand it through an easy example, that Hegel not has expressed: a man makes a robbery and the money that he has robbed  leaves  it to a mendicant ; he has used the evil side of absolute spirit, because he has made a robbery, but after he has used also the good side of spirit because he has left the money to the beggar; this example goes back to the human condition, this is the improvement of speculative philosophy, that considers always the man, why and how? Simple because, although not expressed, Hegel considers alone the man, why? Because he hasn’t expressed in nothing book or lessons the metaphysical concept of the absolute spirit, in fact when Schopenhauer (1788-1860) has called the hegelian philosophy as empty, because without the reality, he has wanted mistook ; Schopenhauer has also the personal motives for this expression because, when they have taught together in same university of Berlin(1820-1831), Schopenhauer has had his lessons always empty, because contemporary Hegel made his lessons to same time; hence the personal motive for this judge were alone personal and not philosophical; we must also add that the books that today can read of Hegel, this is the lessons about the Aesthetic, Philosophy of history and Religion and other, Schopenhauer could not read because these aren’t copied and published, hence Schopenhauer has has an idea very much partial of hegelian philosophy.

Alessandro Lusana    

           

 Christian publicity: Constantine the pagan imperator

This essay has took information from a very beautiful biography on Constantine(a.Ch.280-337)(A. Barbero, Constantine the winner), Roman imperator that usually is always identified to the Christian cult; naturally it is alone the Christian publicity, that precisely is from Eusebius of Cesarean(a.Ch.265-339), that has descripted Constantine as a Christian imperator, but the major document of Constantine imperator, this is the triumphal arc, lacking of the Christian symbols, the cross for the first, instead is very much present the symbol of the Sun, that is present also in the coin, that are coined during the empire of Constantine, as Barbero has documented, and the archeology, particularly the numismatic science; hence this adherence to Christian wasn’t never, anyway we can read and laugh about the publicity of Eusebius, that is ridiculous; anyway he said: “(Constantine) Ordered that a build of a church in Jerusalem on the holy town of resurrection of Christ…”; I would know who has indicated to Constantine the town of resurrection, because he not has never believed to Christ, and why he has wanted the building of a Christian church if he wasn’t Christian? Eusebius would answers: “Because it is the publicity alone, but the cockups of Eusebius continue: “(Constantine) wanted also the building of a home of prayer”, usually the home of prayer in the Christian religion and in every religion is the town of cult, the churches, mosque or temples, and where now this home of prayer? At last the archeological ruins would be been found. Eusebius continues: “The holy sepulcher was hide under the waste and the Pagan idols…”; it is more laughable because the holy sepulcher today we haven’t found, but Eusebius known where it was, but he as the town of resurrection didn’t indicate where is; these are alone the legends that the Christian writers has used for to hold the Christianity of Constantine, hence we can laugh about these legends and we can tie it to the historical context. The description of this church, where was the sacrifice of Christ, is so synthetic that we would have problems not alone to find the church but for to find the description, because it isn’t: “It(the church) the first monument that, as the acme of the building the magnificence of imperator he has decorated through the excellent columns and other ornaments, and he has produced very much ornaments…”; the question is always the same: “Where is this church?”, because the precise indication aren’t; but a summary description of this church gives to us a indication very precise, the pagan architecture: “It walked to an area very great, floored with lucid stone and surrounded on the three sides from the long arcades”; it is the description, although summary, of a pagan temple that on the sides has the arcades, and the description of the ingress: “It walked to an area very great…”; is took from the home of some governor of other noble home where was the “vestibulum”, the was the space between the principal door and the home, that usually was broad; this description is summary and fanciful; but the important matter was alone the publicity.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

 

 The truth

The truth is a quality above all when we say it, in fact we are sincere, and it is a quality, the sincerity is quality that often lack to determined categories, but of the truth we not consider never the rationality; this is the logic develop of a context that become true because is rational, hence also the truth is rational, the natural events that must follow the rationality and the mechanic progress, and for to identify this lie is enough the rationality of tell; hence the truth is always  a quality, that we can’t exclude, also because  the continue lie ids the mythomania that, I know it for my experience, become pathetic. But the truth can become also dangerous, because to confess something that is  criminal can determined a condemn; in fact in the court the witness must swear to say the truth, also if it is dislike, it is because the truth is rational evolution of events, that can be like or not but it is always the rational develop; hence the witness must be the truth, that we can identify for its rationality, why? Simple because the truth follows always the human rationality, that can be sometime cold and aseptic, but is always rational, and it becomes reality because it is rational, hence credible, that can be also alone momentary, because after some moment the reality follows other rationality, because the episode is different or has assumed other characteristics, that become automatically a rational truth; but the truth is sometime of always hide? It is elementary because it is always rational whereby it become right, and also if we mix the truth to lie, the truth emerges always, because is rational; the truth can also be dangerous, because for the determined causes it can from the quality can become the harmful, in court a confession can become a motive for a revenge, hence the truth can be dangerous, but for a constraint we can also lie, and the motive can be the life or other that, for the human wit, can be similarity important, the risk of a condemn for the false testimony can became a motive for to say the truth, that I repeat often can be hide, but is after some consideration can become evident, because the rationality has became irrationality, hence false. Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) has used the truth following the rationality, and similarity Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322) has made the same thing, and although some theory of Aristotle today are laughable, he has followed a rationality that to him were absolutely rational, hence real, hence the truth; but he has seen the phenomenal of reality, and he has followed the rationality of events, and he has told it, inasmuch he has kept the right of rationality, that mistake or not is always rational. And the context is fundamental for the identification of the truth, because it can be also momentary, because the reality has followed other rational dynamics, therefore the truth that was valid some minute ago now isn’t, because always considering the philosophy; this is Heraclites(b.Ch.550-480) rescues us; the theory of πάντα ρει is the real and hence rational phenomenal; this is the everything changes is the reality; as the reality is the personal truth, and Socrates is useful, your truth can be also your or also extended to other, but the rationality of this truth is alone your; in fact Aristotle has followed other method from Plato(b.Ch. 427-347), his master, because for Aristotle the rationality was other.   

Alessandro Lusana      

 

 The will of power

It is a concept that here is considered alone for the explication to psychology level, that is a motive peer to the original use that Nietzsche(1844-1900) has tough in his  Thus spoke Zarathustra m and in the Beyond good and evil, where the German philosopher has spoken about affirmation of owner personality; in this essay the same think is expressed, hence nothing of new, certainly it isn’t new because this speculative truth is already expressed for the superman, but not certainly for the daily life, this for the daily behavior and of other; in the daily life the will of power is expressed for the demand , every it is, above all when it is useless, it gives the comfort to our wit, because we have ordered, hence the will of power is satisfaction and the man is for some minute major  to his original condition, that usually is nothing, because, we must use these methods for to consider himself important, and it is determined from an inferiority  complex that is radical; because the lack of something is the first motive of inferiority, hence the orders  that we have given  to somebody is the satisfaction that for us can be very important because it is the comfort; that can be alone  momentary, and I take  a concept expressed from Nietzsche, the affirmation of ourselves, inasmuch  for a moment we are important fro some moment; the egocentrism is same; this is the affirmation of owner personality, and the satisfaction of the power, what power? It is the question and the answer is that the power attraction that always a power, because I can orient the attention toward my person and it is the power and the satisfaction, because I can make it , and the make something is the first satisfaction, toward ourselves, because we can say to ourselves, before than other, I could make it, whereby we are expressing our power on something, that isn’t human, but it is low important , because we are expressing toward ourselves this power, and it is will of power, because we are making the power on ourselves, hence on somebody, and the overcoming of a difficult is motive for a revenge on ourselves, that is more satisfaction  because we have overcome ourselves difficult; therefore we have wined  our wit, our problems, our fear, hence we have wined, it is the will of power. This concept is expressed some years before Nietzsche from Arthur Schopenhauer(1788-1860) in his book The world as will and representation, where he called this will alone the will of life, that is same thing, because the will of life, that is determined from the boredom and worry, determines the search of the pleasure that, very soon, become boredom, because the sake for the search is ended, this is the important factor, this is the searching, and other pleasure is necessary because is new challenge, but it is the will of to reach something, that Schopenhauer didn’t call the will of power but he describes the phenomenal that is merely human; and that we can consider as a will of power, because after a pleasure that is satisfied, the searching of other pleasure is other difficult that we want overcome, hence it is the will of power.

Alessandro Lusana  

     

  

 The past of contemporary: old divorce

The divorce can be very worry or comfort, at last for me it has been, but usually, although alone formally, it can worry; but apart from this, the institution of divorce we can think that is recent institution, but it is at last the 7^th century after Christ, because in the Coran Mahometh has written: “In the name of Allah. Prophet when you repudiate your female when the terminal is stablished…and not send way from their homes, if they haven’t made indecent act…When they are arrived to time you must keep them with décor”, and the attention to the female sex, that today we don’t think exist in the Muslim religion, instead it was and it was very exemplar: “You must live where you live, and don’t worry them through the economy.”; it can seem a very exemplar of respect of women, and in fact it is, but the justification is after: “If they are pregnant you must provide to their keep until they have given birth…”; it is the motive of this attention, because they are going to give birth, that is the motive for every religion, otherwise the new faithful aren’t going to be born; it is the normal policy of religion. But the respect of Muslim to women, although it is absurd think is in the verse of divorce: “If the couple is in fair to not respect the divine limits, the woman can ask legitimately the divorce and she must offer a sum, usually she must go back everything of partial the dowry. And this act occurs without guilt. But also the napoleon code, in year 1804 has previewed and the divorce, and the discipline of this step is very exemplar: “About the causes of divorce. The husband is going to divorce for the adultery of his wife. The wife is going to divorce for the adultery of hers husband if he has keep his lovers in the common home. The married are going to ask the divorce for the excesses, violence or serious offenses from one to other…”; it is the attestation of modernity or past? Past certainly, because the same divorce already in 7^th century after Christ was stablished; but the context is important, because the Europe was Catholic and the Church didn’t recognize the divorce, hence it is the new thing; and the rights of women were saved for the Napoleonic code, that recognizes also the rights of women because also they can ask the divorce, and also for the serious offences or violence; it is the true new in this code, because the offence has considered as a violence; inasmuch the formal respect become a essential element, and the reputation of women and men is seen from this code: “The condemn of one of newlyweds is going to be motive for the divorce.”; naturally we must think that this cause has determined alone for the very wicked fame that it would have determined both wife and to husband; hence the divorce would be necessary, but also more human, because in Rome during the pontificate of pope Sixt 5^th, the adultery was condemned to the capital pain; anyway, to semiotic level, we can consider that the sensibility both to the women and to the marry has changed, and the woman now had respected, to law level; thence very much had changed, and the divorce was a comfort for the one or other, but the articles represent one formal and legislative respect for the twice the newlyweds.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Socrate’s the egoism and the coherence

The title can refers to something that who is writing has noted in Socrates’s(b.Ch.469-399)  philosophy, and in fact it is so evident that as said Robert Musil(1880-1942) regard the monument: “The monument is so great that nobody sees it”; and it is the human reality, because the sometime something is more evident but nobody sees it, and what is the anomaly of Socrates? Simple the will of try his method on the other, nothing that could harm or to cause damn, not absolutely, but alone the wish of to ascertain is a philosophical method could be effective; it is easy understandable for his legendary refuse of the payment, when he said: “I can’t teach to somebody, because I know of don’t to know(ἒν οἶδα ὄτι οὑδἐν οἶδα ), he in fact said the truth; because he state experiment his method, but who experiment a method he not know the effectiveness of this, hence he must before experiment, and Socrates has experimented the question and the rationality, his rationality, that was logic, through the others, his “pupils”; hence when he said “Γνωθι σαυτόν”, he wanted try if this method was effective, this is if through the knowledge of himself could be through the logic question; inasmuch that can seem the altruism, for the formal exercise, it was the normal egoism, it is the anomaly of Socrates, this is what is altruist is very egoism, but an egoism very anomalous, because he could gain through the his lessons and stop, but he has always refused the money, because he didn’t know; but it is also coherence, because he not gain for my ignorance, because the first thing that I must know, if imagine him in the confession, is myself, but before I must know if this method is effective, otherwise I will can other method; the ignorance that Socrates said for herself is right and exact, because he not know herself and hence experimented on the other, the effectiveness of his method, that evidently was effective because more philosophers has told about Socrates, the first was Plato; but neither Plato has seen this anomaly; he followed Socrates always, but for the philosophic method he has state very long; and may Socrates when solicited the “pupils” to search the their truth, it is because he state searching his truth, and for the coherence he could not taught something, because he hasn’t again found the his truth, hence he could not tell a truth that he hasn’t, because he was searching it, therefore I can’t want the money for to teach what I am searching, this is : “I haven’t solution to this problem, thereupon I can’t teach to somebody it”, it is the supreme coherence of Socrates, that hasn’t the possibility of solve some problem, actually he was learning from the others through the questions, rational questions, hence Socrates has been the more master and pupil of other that the history can records, because through his tries he learned and after he could taught, therefore it is the egoism and coherence.

Alessandro Lusana

 Republican fairy tales:1798

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

Alessandro Lusana        

    

 

                  

 

 

 

 

 The noble literature: Guy of Warwick

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

Alessandro Lusana        

 

  

 

 

   

 Little nationalism: parochialism

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

Alessandro Lusana                  

 The national egoism and egocentrism

Usually we consider the nationalism for the love of owner nation and for the love for everything is from owner nation: this is the habit, language, characteristic and other; this sentiment can be despised or lauded for the owner ideology, a stateless certainly would despise this feel, instead a nationalist would love it, and who is nationalist; but this feel can  be beloved or not but I want show that it is alone egoism, without judge , but it is egoism; and it is more clear if we think to our proprieties, because if somebody violate our propriety, we not let it if the criminal is of our nation or not, we would have a reaction independently  fore the nation of criminal, why? Because he has violated or propriety, hence this is our reaction because he has violated our owner, and not alone our nation, therefore he is a criminal because he wanted appropriate of something that is our and not of nation; it is true egoism, that is prevalent feel, and the same feel for the foreign, because to be nationalist is a harm to mine wit and not alone to our nation, because in the nation, also owner, we are very much, thence the harm can be to me or others because in the nation are very much citizens; in fact the reaction is when the offence touches the particular, our particular, and it is the egoism, that becomes the nationalism and pride for the official judge, but it is alone the egoism, that determines the reaction; in fact you are not offending something of aleatory, but you are offending me, this is my person through my nation, that is foreign country is mine, my propriety, whereby it is egoism, something that is mine and stop. Same feel for the parochialism that in Italy and above all in Tuscany is very life; the Florentine is a typical example of the pride, or Tuscan pride, because the Florentine is proud of his origin as every citizen of Siena, Pisa and other cities of Tuscany; it is the pure egoism because my city is mine alone, it is a my propriety and you are offending my city, you are violating my propriety; therefore my reaction is mechanical this is the to your offence trough the contrast with pride of to tell  the qualities of my nation as its history, its characteristics that are also our propriety, because we have these characteristics; whereby you are offending me and not my nation, but me alone, and the natural pride is normal. The nationalism is also a motive for the egocentrism; because a national characteristic  is motive for to be different, hence original, , that is egoism always because  the egocentric is prevalently an egoist, because he has necessity, for his weakness, og to be considered, it is a weakness that want the attention because he is fear  of not accepted, hence he searches constantly the praise of other, so that he can temperate  the his inferiority ; the nationalism  is other form , salutary or not, of egoism and egocentrism.

Alessandro Lusana