Scholastic semiotic: William Ockham

A philosopher of Scholastic is a philosophical address that, during Middle age 13^th and 14^th centuries, was the principal school for philosophers that from convent schools was extended to Universities, as for examples that of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Napoli and other; a exponent of this address was William from Ochkam(1280-1349), British Franciscan that taught in Oxford, and in a his book he explains the nominalism; but we can think this philosopher as semiotic post Aristotle(384-322), because for me Aristotle is the first semiotic in the philosophy; the semiotics, that has had his independence as single matter alone in 19^th century, but that has its origin in Aristotle, that William from Ockham has read through a translated book that he mentions, as the Analytics, this is the syllogism, may from the De interpretatione of Boethius(480-526 b.Ch), that has descripted the Analytics of Aristotle, anyway William gives some relevant motive for this analysis semiotic alone: “All those who treat of logic try to show that arguments are composed of proposition of terms. Thus a term is simply a component part of a proposition. When he defines the notion of a term in the first book of the Prior Analytics, Aristotle says, “I call that a term into which a proposition is resolved(for example the predicate or that of which it is predicated) when it is asserted or denied that something is or is not the case.” Although every term is(or could be) a part of a proposition, not all terms are the same kind. Thus, to gain a full understanding of a nature of terms one must know some of the divisions that are drawn among them. As Boethius points out in Commentary on the book of De Interpretatione, discourse is of three types, the written, the spoken, and the conceptual(this last existing inly in the mind). In the same way there are three sorts of terms, written, spoken, and conceptual”. It is alone a speculative, hence Aristotelian, description of logic organization of concept that after we organize rationally, or at last we try, but it is alone semiotics, in Medieval time, that took from other authors this is Aristotle and Boethius, that are before of Scholastic but Ockham is in the Scholastic and interesting is the follow that indirectly Aristotle has in the Middle age, that is a datum by now certain, because Aristotle is every present until the philosophy of 19^th century; therefore in Middle age, also in Pagan authors as Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), in the Summa theological; whereby Aristotle is a presence always present, at last in intellectual traits, but to semiotic level, except Boethius, he is absent; the merit of Ockham is that he took the basilar concepts od Nominalism, but after he developed this concept through the semiotics, that is the first clear example of semiotics, and I say the first because Aristotle has had the sake of explication of logic search, thereby the syllogism is a tool or method alone, that Aristotle has explained, but his principal duty was the explication of search not certainly the semiotics, Ockham instead uses the semiotics, and for him the valor is alone the words, hence the semiotics.

Alessandro Lusana    

            

 

 

 

    

 Platonic essence

The Platonic essence I mean that the real essence of everything, that Plato(427-347) seen in essence; this is in  the nature of everything, I take typical example that Plato used, this is the essence of a horse is “cavallinite”, the nature of the horse, that for Plato is the correspondent ideas in the word of ideas, he thinks that it is the nature of the horse, and Antisthenes(436-366 b.Ch), cynic philosopher, that answered to Plato: “Dear Plato I see the horse but not essence of horse”, because for Antisthenes alone that is visible exists, other is alone the fantasies. It is certain but we can think that Plato with essence of horse or everything meant the essence but both that of word of ideas and that real, because the translation of in the real word become a concept material; hence the essence is real and no certainly abstract or alone ideal, as the real is everything that is in the word of ideas. I want alone add this my opinion to common concept of Plato as an idealist philosopher, this is that thinks the real word as a translation of ideal word, it is the mean that I think for idealist, and no in Hegelian sense; for me Plato think the translation od ideal word in the real word, but this translation, becoming real, must become also concrete; therefore also the cavallinite is real, and it is the real essence, and we can think it so, the concrete essence, this is the together of characteristic of everything, that in human gender are much, for example a stone is different, from other, for his nature although both were stones, for the man is same but our characteristic is in the character, in our wit, in our brain, that is the source of our wit; the difference is in it, this is in our nature, that is formed from the education, from the social context where we are born, and other; it is our essence, and I think that Plato has considered the nature of man and of everything but thinking to real essence, this is the translation in the concrete word, that is the real representation, although imperfect, but speculative of the ideas word; hence also the essence is an translation and also it becomes real; thereupon when Antisthenes critics Plato, saying that he doesn’t see the essence, for Plato the essence is evident; because in a man or horse the essence is evident in the external characteristic, that is the form animal or human, but after the formal shape the essence is internal, and Plato considers it as the nature of word of ideas, this is the true nature of everything, that is hide until it is expressed evidently, that is the nature of something, whereby neither Antisthenes neither other can see it, because Plato has considered alone the interior part of everything.

Alessandro Lusana       

         

 The nascent States

The birth of States in USA is summary descripted from Philip Mazzei (1730-1816) he begun with the Connecticut, he says, but I want also stress that the merchant of colonies was well present, and it is motive of the end of “revolution”, because the England needed alone the harbors: “A colony of Connecticut have to his origin to Massachusetts for the same motives of Rhode Island and his birth is same of epoch . During the year 1636 a great number of persons, disliked above all for religion, they quit, with their ministers Newtown, Dorchester,Watertown and Rocksbury, and they come and stopped on the bank of river Connecticuct, where they founded the cities of Hartford , Watersfîeld, Windfor, Springfield , and Ceux, and they were met out of borderline of Massachussets and they will meet in Hartford, and they agree about the way for the govern, and they will voted the judges. The year after some emigrant from England made the same thing in New Haven, that they founded on the bank opposite of Long Island. The two small colonies of Hartford de New Heaven continued to be governed separately, until they were reunited with the name of colonies of Connecticut, fo0r the document of Charles 2th in 23th April 1662. Around the foundation of New Hampshire. Among the big names of taxes on the merchant of captain Mason had reached among the different times from the assembly of Plymouth, and that are the source of eternal process, he has reached one in year 1629, and that he given to whole state of New Hampshire, and today is valid, and a part of near colonies near. An other name both his and that of Ferdinand Gorges agreed for a part of country given before. The 19^th August 1635 Charles given a paper to mason for gratification for the same country enclosed of 1627, and more to him he given the right of govern and bestow the honors…”. About de foundation of Maryland. The Lord Baltimore Se Guillaume Penn, founders of colony of Maryland and Pennsylvania were the first that reached the papers that the king of England given. Among who is passed from England to colonies for the religion cause, the knight George Calvert and the secretary of State, after Lord Baltimore. During the end of reign of James 1th he come to Virginia with somebody of different sects, that have had the same motive for exile. They being the zealous Catholic, but they were bad received for the adherence to Anglican religion, hence he turned to England, for asked to Charles 1th a paper through he can extent the Virginia state beyond the Potomac river, borderline that the residents haven’t crossed…this paper is dated 1632…The residents of Virginia protested again the dissolution of their territory, but they could not to avoid it. Lord Baltimore called his country Maryland to honor of Mary, marriage of Charles 1th, and he called to govern Léonard Calvert, his brother, Jeremy  Hawley and Thomas Cornwallis…During the civil war in England(1642-1649), Oliver Cromwell(1599-1658) got away to Lord Baltimore of his jurisdiction, and after Charles 2th given back it…”, and after with successor of Charles 2th got away again this power alone for religious motives, this power he took again during the reign of William 3th d’Orange(1650-1702), but a limit there was, this is that he must be the represent of a Protestant govern”. The important question is that the States by now freely nascent, and the real court of England was very tolerant toward the religion, and with William d’Orange it is more evident, because the politic sake overcomes that religious, and the symbolic act is a side of submission to king of England: “The kings wanted set new clauses on the papers that attests to their favor the right of reign and domain. For the example that to de Baltimore confirmed the oblige that every year have to give two arrows of Indian to the castle of Windsor”, it is could seem a cock up because a country that have had the fire weapons why needs of Indian arrows? Simple, absolutely nothing, but the homage was important because it attested the predominance of royal power also in the new word, it was alone a formal gift, that given to d’Orange the possibility of substitute de Baltimore with other if this homage there wasn’t, but evidently the motives for substitution of de Baltimore would have been other if he has been a very bad governor, but he was a very good governor, hence the formal homage was necessary to ascertain his fidelity to laic crow and no to religion. Mazzei as enlightenment took a principle of solidarity between the States, that then aren’t so, but he has stressed this moment: “The people made quick progresses in Maryland for some good motives. The Virgine given the food to emigrants until they took alone the necessary. The borderline toward the Indians were very narrow, and to residents in Maryland it wasn’t difficult kept the peace to them”. The history of States would be long and boring, also because without interest, but I want evidence that the England was interested alone the power of commerce. And after the “revolution” unique interest of England was alone it.

 Alessandro Lusana

 

 The birth of a nation

The title is equivalent of a movie of 1915, but this essay isn’t a parody or an reclaim to the movie, but a historical truth, because the following document is the birth of a nation, of USA nation, because from the last words of: “…our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.”, these last words, “future generations”, is the more meaningful, because the delegates, this is the names of represents of different states, that we can call provinces because this is the name used, have already decided the revolution, without an official declaration of war, but in the think the revolution and independence was a reality, hence the revolution or independence was present and consolidated, anyway the document says: “The represents were present in session of assembly and their name was Delegates, as says a session of Congress of September 1774, when: “The Delegates from the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, agreeable to a request…WHEREAS the Power but not the justice, the vengeance but not the Wisdom oi. Great- Britain, which of old persecuted, scourged, and exiled our fugitive Parents from their native shores, now pursues us their guiltless children with unrelenting severity: And whereas this, then savage and uncultivated desert, was purchased by the toil and treasure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our venerable Progenitors ; to us they bequeathed the dear bought Inheritance, to our care and protection they consigned it, and the most sacred Obligations are upon| us to transmit the glorious purchase, unsettered by power, undogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved of spring. On the Fortitude, on the wisdom and on the Exertions of this important Day, is suspended the Fate of this new world, and of unborn millions. If boundless extent of Continent, swarming with millions, will tamely submit to live, move and have their being at the arbitrary Will of a licentious Minister, they basely yield to voluntary Slavery, and future Generations shall load their .Memories with incessant Execrations.—On the other Hand, if we arrest the Hand which would ransack our Pockets, if we disarm the parricide which points the dagger to our bosoms, if we nobly defeat that fatal Edict which proclaims a power to frame Laws for us in all Cafes whatsoever, thereby entailing the endless and numberless curses of Slavery upon us, our heirs and their heirs so ever ; if we successfully resist that unparalleled usurpation of unconstitutional power whereby our Capital is robbed of the means of life ; whereby the streets of Boston are thronged with military- executioners ; whereby our coasts are lined and harbors crouded with ships of war; whereby the charter of the colony, that sacred Barrier again the encroachments of tyranny, is mutilated and in effect annihilated ; whereby a murderous Law is framed to shelter villains from the hands of justice; whereby the unalienable and inestimable inheritance, which we derived from Nature, the constitution of Britain, and the privileges warranted to us in the Charter of the Province, is totally wrecked, annulled, and vacated, posterity will acknowledge that Virtue which preserved them free and happy ; and while we enjoy the Rewards and blessings of the faithful, the torrent of panegyrists will roll our reputations to that latest Period, when the streams of time shall be absorbed in the abyss of Eternity. Therefore we have resolved, and do resolve, That whereas his majesty George the Third is the rightful successor to the throne of Great-Britain, and justly entitled to the Allegiance of the British realm, and agreeable to compact, of the English colonies in America—therefore, we the Heirs and successors of the first planters of this colony do cheerfully acknowledge the said George the third to be our rightful Sovereign, and that said covenant is the tenure and claim on which are founded our allegiance and submission. That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to hand them down entire to future generations.”.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Spelunca: the wickedness of Christianism

A step of Eneides a book of Virgil(70-19 b. Ch.), a national, or better an imperial poem written in the Rome for the August celebration, this the imperator August celebration, through the mythical origin of imperial family, directly from Aeneas to Cesar, Virgil tells of a cavern that Aeneas uses for to arrive to Hade, this is the reign of died, and the katabasis of title is, translated from ancient Greek κατάβασις, as the descent to somewhere, Virgil says: “Spelunca alta fuit”, and these words, that translated are “the profound cavern”, and that a anonymous commentator of Divine comedy of Dante Alighieri(1265-1321) took and he explained: “…and for this cavern says Aeneas and the Sybil they are descended to hell”; the origin of descend of Dante, by now is identified as from this poem, this is the Eneides, in fact was Virgil that in Hell and Purgatory accomplishes Dante, but I want identify the different think that characterized the rapport of the death of Pagan and Christian word, because Dante described the punishments that the damned endure for eternity, and the condition of Hade where that was inaccessible to life, and the souls have to pass beyond the rivers Styx and Acheron, the god that governed the Hade was the homonym god, that wasn’t bad, right and stern but not bad, Hade was also brother of Zeus and Poseidon, and after the victory on the titanic fight to him was destined the Hade, the figure of Charon the ferryman of Hade is same in Comedy, as the grassland of Asphodels where was souls that during their life aren’t neither bad and good, that Dante has used for the place in before Hell where are souls that the souls with same characteristic, and the difference is for the Champs Elise, a land where were the right souls of heroes and right men; this difference evidences more than other the difference, because the Christianism has divided three reigns for the grade of sins, instead in Pagan culture the sin wasn’t, in fact the unique sin was the cowardice, that in Hade was punished in a word obscure and dingy, instead the heroes are in the lighted land and in beatitude, but it is other substantial difference between Pagan and Christian believe, because in the Hade weren’t the punishments, because the concept of sin wasn’t, that after the Christianism has took, and condemned, for example the homosexuality, in fact Dante condemns Brunetto Latini(1220-1294) in hell because he is homosexual; as the condemn of Paul and Francesca, two brothers in law that have felt a sentiment that is beyond the simple affect, hence Dante set them among the luxurious sinner. It is a short portrait of the stiffness of Christianism, that Dante has took and translated in Divine comedy, but it is also a mirror of morality and customs that, during the centuries, have solidified, and these literary document are the major proof of think around the moral daily, and some exception is also in Middle age because the usury wasn’t condemned so sternly, because the morality, for the quantity, didn’t condemned it, and neither Dante, whose the father used this technic.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

                   

   

 

 

e pluribus unum: common fate

A common fate is rational if two elements have same fate, hence who are two entities, simple the Roma empire and USA, that to common have alone some characteristic, but that is important to understand the same human and politic behavior, the motto “e pluribus unum”, this is from much one alone, that is written on the American dollars is three Latin words that have a mean very important, and it is the first important motive of this assay; because the Roman empire, with distinctions both historic and economic tie these two historical phenomenon, the first, the Roman empire wasn’t a country, but during its beginning it was a village, that after is become Rome, but the extension of Rome in the Latium, involves other villages, no certainly peoples, that then are distinct for name and race, but race then was a concept very different by today, with race meant the belong to other village, other family, because the racial differences then wasn’t known, because the village were crowd by white people. Anyway some common habit unify these two geographical and human entities; it is can seems very strange, since the differences for the language, and for time, but if we think around some point, we find affinities; the extension of Roman empire, certainly was the duple of actual USA, but although the USA is more small than Roman empire, it has common things, the question is, what? Simple the first is the tolerance toward the religion, that Rome respected always, because remove a religion is worse that impose a new law, and Rome it known perfectly, therefore every people can kept its religion, inclusive the Christian, the persecution is alone a exaggerated historical tell; the Christin then were so scant that they not represented a danger. A document on 17 June 1774 form House of Represent of USA asks: “Rights and Liberties, civil and religious”, because the being born country has had same awareness that the religion was an identity for the human gender, hence this point nobody could not deny; in fact today in  USA the religions are different and tolerated all; second the political opinions that are different today, both between the principal parties and other, in ancient Rome same behavior, the civil war during the first century b.Ch. is example, but this war occurred alone in Rome, because the whole empire was absolutely pacific; also because the news around this war has had alone in Rome, because out nobody known something; in fact the source principal for this war is Caesar and his De bello civili, this is Around the civil war, I think that whole generations of resident in Roman empire both before and after this war have lived without know something.  It isn’t equality element, because the civil wars are frequent in much countries, whereby we can’t consider it, but we can, or better, we must consider the racial difference that Rome known after the conquest of North Africa, that Rome enclosed without racism, because Rome considered alone the personal qualities and no the racial belong; today the same behavior is used in USA, the personal qualities are valued, without racial belong or religion, and Rome made the same; hence the common destiny that has unified two entities.

Alessandro Lusana         

        

 

The wit of a revolution

I want alone consider that the wit of presume American revolution, that isn’t was, certainly, and I can proof it through the words of Congress, that then was alone an poor assembly, but an organ necessary to decision, where the English hasn’t had represents; anyway the words used in the House of Representatives are very meaningful: “Province Massachusetts-Bay. The House of Representatives, June 17, 1774.This House having duly considered and being deeply affected with the unhappy differences, which have long subsisted and are increasing, between Great-Britain and the American Colonies, do resolve: That a Meeting of Committees from the several Colonies on this Continent, is highly expedient and necessary, to consult upon the present State of the Colonies, and the miseries to which they are and must be reduced by the operation of certain Acts of Parliament respecting America, and to deliberate and determine upon wife and proper Measures to be by them recommended to all the Colonies, for the recovery and establishment of their just Rights and Liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of Union and Harmony between Great-Britain and the Colonies, most ardently desired by all good men.”; this long step of The House of Representatives, in date 1774, because the year is very important, why? Simple, because it is anticipates the American revolution, hence the revolution was already ready, but not certainly armed, but a lone civil and religious, as is underlined; but in wit the revolution was occurred, because the feel of independence was already present, and the distance from England was very too for to impose a dictatorial govern in Colonies; substantive that is used also in step mentioned; it is ulterior proof that the young nation hasn’t shame to called them so, why? Simple because they were already independent in policy and economy, therefore the decision of king George 3th were may assumed for a decision that were followed if it was opportune to the being born country; and that the independence was a date already present in USA is confirmed form the motives that in 1774 are evidenced: “Rights and Liberties, civil and religious”, but the colonies can’t have the rights, they must obey to mother country and stop, the request of freedom both civil and religious is a request very strange, because the colonies must be depending by other nation that decides also to them; but this question was already overcame from the American citizens, because they were already free, hence we can also think that this demand was an false motive to reach the independence, and it was so, why? Simple because for England was impossible checked is somebody was Catholic or Protestant, and I think that to England didn’t to cure of religion, because important for England were the harbors, and no certainly the civil rights, the market leaves something from the religion, Vespasian Roman imperator(9-79 b.Ch), has asked rhetorical to his son if the money stunk,  after that he has taxed the bathrooms, the provenience of money isn’t important, because important is the arrive; hence the England was already to the independence, because it was present; otherwise if the colonies were very rich the England have used other politic system.

Alessandro Lusana         

 

 

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