Mediocritas

The first opinion that I have around the mediocre is opinion of Aristotle, that has expressed in the Ethic Nicomacheus , this is the μέσος, this the middle measure this is the balance, interior balance that Aristotle sees as the better wit; in Latin language it is the “mediocritas”, this is something that is in half, for example in a Ode of Horace(b.Ch 65-8), a Latin poet that in a his Ode(10) has he says: “Auream quisquis mediocritatem diligit”, this is: “Everybody loves the mediocrity; it is because  the possibility of solve the problems or other, trough  the right measure; the principal philosophical  note that we must read to understand the concept of mediocritas  in ancient age, is a letter of Seneca(b.Ch 50-40 a.Ch.) to Lucius , his friend, he says: “Who is wise is also moderate; who is moderate is also constant , who is constant is imperturbable ; who is imperturbable  is without sadness ; who is without sadness  is happy; inasmuch the wise is happy”, the last step is an exercise of syllogisms  from Aristotle, mechanical certainly but then enough; in the same letter Seneca, about the peripatetic  school  says: “…they respond in this way, this is of interpreter who is imperturbable, and constant and without sadness so if we call him imperturbable, who is upset rarely and moderately, not isn’t upset ever.” This is the explicit manifest of mediocritas, because Seneca understand that the wit is mobile and hence the man, also wise man has the mobility of wit, whereby the imperturbability is impossible, in fact: “…the human nature denies it, this is that  5the wit of somebody is immune by the sadness; the wise isn’t overcame from the dolor, but he is touched”; it is the directly take again the speculative address of Aristotle but also it anable the identification to the middle; because Seneca sees the speculative description of peripatetic, and describes the moderate reaction of man, that is the medioctitas, in fact in other step: “Trough  we don’t eliminate the passions but we moderate it. During the Middle age the mediocrity has the same meaning; the medieval culture is stemmed directly from the classical culture, in fact Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), the mediocrity has same valor  of Seneca, the middle way, this the equilibrium that Seneca has expressed because he has took again from peripatetic school; in fact the temperance is the first quality for Saint Thomas. During the Renaissance we can read the Rime of Michelangelo Buonarroti(1475-1564), he used these words for a comparison between the pen and the sculpture: “So as both in pen and ink is the high and the low and the mediocre style, we can think that  during the Renaissance this word has had negative meaning, but it has kept the same valor of ancient meaning, in fact Michelangelo says: “…high and the low and the mediocre” this the third way, neither high nor low, but the middle; hence the same meaning of ancient time.

Alessandro Lusana   

 Impressionist impressions: Renoir

Pierre Auguste Renoir(1841-1919), has been one of major impressionist painter of France, and from his writers some note emerges: the first think is against the classicism: “The past is again interesting. The forming of architects, of painters, of sculptors in the École des Beaux Arts is based on it totally. The architects have sent to Rome for to rebuild the Greek and Roman monuments, the painter to copy Raphael. Also the sculptors have sent to Rome for to take the inspiration from the Greek sculpture. After some years of permanence in the eternal city(Rome), these sculptors, painters and architects go back to Paris full of antiquity, again impressed from ancient masters, can they work without influence and adhere to the modern”; the answer is not certainly but a digression  is due; although a famous painter was not to Rome, same influence is present: Delacroix(1798-1843, a French painter fro his painting to the Saint Sulpice has took inspiration fro the Expulsion of Heliodorus from the temple(Figs.1-2); inasmuch Renoir was right; the influence of classic is deep, even the classic formation of body in the painting of Delacroix is evident; and the following words are true: “The painters want imitate Raphael”, certainly we must consider the words, but we should say to Renoir that Delacroix, that he has considered fro his painting in the Saint Sulpice has an interpretation  of Raphael; following he says: “The sculptor are satisfied fro the low movement  to their sculptures and every thing is limited… they live in eternal self admiration that prevent to them of follow the modern movement”; these last two words are indicative, because it is the involuntary confession of impressionist against classicism; because the modern movement is, in opinion of Renoir, the impressionism. Other contradiction speaking around the  architects, Renoir says: “(the architect) beyond building he should to be painter and sculptor, as the great architects of Renaissance”; he reproached the young artists because they are too much near to classic ancient and he take example from the Renaissance, whose architect has took from ancient and have followed the classicism. A foreword a treatise on painting of Cennino Cennini(14^th century), Renoir doesn’t give contradiction: “In fact if we not must be too much near to ancient, we must not, for love of progress detach completely from past centuries…”; in the first written, in year 1877, he has said the contrary. A truth is expressed about this book of art,  this is: “Unique sake of Cennini was make  good artisans…”, in fact it was the purpose of Cennini, to teach the art to the young, an art that then was less despised. The letters area human document and Renoir isn’t an exception; a letter  in year 1865, he invited a friend and he reports his passion, this is the painting: “I am going bring a box of colors to make some sketch of towns that like to me”; the passion of painting is natural. During the read some good idea that today would be useless,, we can read it, in a letter to Margaret  Charpentier, dated 1879-1880, Renoir says: “Dear lady. I want give to you of idea of lady Berard that it isn’t crazy. It is to dedicate the last page of the review Modern life, to actual fashion. I would make the drawings, very cured. You can attract the female public that not considers the painting”; today it would useless but for idea is very good.

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

 The internal autobiography of an author: Proust

Marcel Proust(1871-1922) author of the Recherché, seven books where he describes, without confess it, the society of Paris during his time. Of belle Epoque; he anyway tells also although summarily about himself , he remember some episode of his childhood and t6he memories and the impression are more stressed than in other writers, it means that he tells himself. Proust anyway is a very expert of his psychology, pity that hasn’t never explained because he has written to his mother that was in stair down; he hasn’t said but we can understand it, because his mother was the disaffective reference. The first romance To the side of Swann is a begin consideration, almost an autobiography, of his dynamic of wit: “The author has lost every orientation, he is doubting even of his identity…After he takes again some notions, he meet it, he compare it. He recognize the town where he is, but the memory is moving and it brings to other rooms, other towns, to other times. He is is child in Combray when his room was the fix point and sorrowful of his attentions”. This long first exam is necessary to stress the personal description of Proust; he describes his personal memories, his impressions, and he translated it to literature; hence we can know Proust to his interior side. The autobiography is by begin: “For much time I have laid early. Sometime turned off the candle, the eyes are closed…” the comment to these words is: “I don’t give cure”, certainly but I want  stress the autobiography  of Marcel that describes it; this is the egocentric personality that shows lacks of affect very deep; the egocentrism is usually, be4cause determined from  the lack of affect, the compensation of affect is unconsciously searched out  of family; it is explain the rapport to his mother. The description of every singular particular is typical of a confession absolutely useless; I have remembered the description of Francois de la Rochefocauld(1613-1680), that has said: “When we are engaged we live a ideal condition because we speak about of ourselves alone”; we can think that Proust was engaged to himself, but effectively in his romances he speaks, because it is the unique reference possible for to have affect, it is alone a compensation to the public. But Proust is a men and he has had then will  of a man: “Sometime, as Eve is born  from a rib of Adam, in the sleep, from a false position of my thigh, was born a woman”; it is a common think for the men, he continues: “She is shaped from the pleasure that I will taste, I imagined that herself to offer it”; it one elegant form to confess his will of fuck he continues: “The  my body, that felt in her body the my heat…the other being seem very distant, to confront to this woman  that I have left from some moment; and the following effect is very real…The hers memory disappeared, I have forgotten the creature of my dream”, it is some step autobiographic of Proust, that  wanted show himself to the reader, he has searched the affect in the public.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

 The semiotic of dark: Saint Thomas

Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), author of Summa teologica, is protagonist of this essay because he has mentioned and explained, although alone through the mention, the meaning of dark, when he speaks about the knowledge : “It seems to me excluded from the words of Saint Paul about not forgot of knowledge, because they have known God they haven’t worshipped  as God, neither they have tank him, but they were fall in love of their thinks, and their heart was involved in dark”; we must consider that Saint Thomas was a man of Middle age, and he could think alone in his time; but must also consider contradiction, because among the knowledge  is also Aristotle that Saint Thomas often mentioned in his Summa theological, actually he is  one primary reference for the Saint; today we can laugh on this affirmation, because we have a clean subdivision of time of Aristotle and of Saint Thomas, in fact we can  beat time both one and other; furthermore the step of Holy Bible, as the Exodus(10,22) the step says that God ordered to Moses: “Extend your hand toward to sky, end up Egypt a5re the dark so intense that it is going  to be touch; but the knowledge that the Egyptian are subordinate to the dark that is the sin of unreligious; hence the sin above mentioned in normal, I repeat for us it is laughable but during the middle age it was more than sure, because time was divided between religious, this is Christian and Pagan. Other mention of the Saint: “God takes from herself the vision of dark, not take it otherwise from the light”; God can take alone herself a concept because is the universal knowledge; after: “There is who that is eliminated from the evil; and it is the good directly against to that evil; as the light is totally eliminated from the darks”; this is the concept of sin, that overcome the goodness, thence the sin has outstripped the goodness. There is finally a good that is partially modified from the evil, but not certainly eliminated; and it is the good is the habit of a man toward determined acts”; the acts here not described are, we can imagine, the acts of the prayer and religious life. The almighty of God is in this step: “I am the God and other aren’t. I create the light and the darks…”; therefore we can think that God is the creator of sin, and he knows perfectly the good and the evil, that he has given to kinsmen, from Adam and Eve. But the step very meaningful is the following: “So the life of faithful and right men, compared to the life of sinner, is called the light: Saint Paul says: Then you were darks, but now you are light in the God”; the light is the grace of God against to darks that was the sin. And the omniscience of God is in the following step: “In the distinction  between the light and darks, these last we can think the sins of diamonds, whereby this distinction regard the Divine prescience…hence Saint Augustine says that: “Could distinguish the light from the darks alone who could preview, before than failed”. We must consider whereby that the sin is the darks, and the light the goodness and religious life.

Alessandro Lusana      

                   

 

 The semiotic of light

The light is natural phenomenal that every day we can ascertain and that allow to us of to see, to distinguish and to recognize everything in fact when it isn’t we can’t make the actions above mentioned; but the light has also  a semiotic nature beyond the appearance; the light is  in the Holy Bible has the semiotic valor because in Isaiah(9-2) the text says: “The people that is walking in the dark, seen a great light…”naturally the explication is alone semiotic  or better it is theological, the light is salvation in the Christian semiotic, it is the Christ that is salvation of mankind that before his birth was saved from its sins, and saved from the dark. Always Isaiah(42-6) says: “ I the lord have called you in the justice, I have hold you by the hand and I have protected you. And I have wanted that you become make of peace of people, and the light of nations”, and same(49-6)I have made you light of people”, and: “You not is going to have the sun for the light of day…but God is going to be light eternal”. John evangelist(1-5) says: “And the light shines among the dark”, and the same(8-12): “Christ said to them, I am the light of word”, and the semiotic in this step is dominant: “Christ said them: the light is in you again for short time. Walk until you are going to have the light, so that the dark not catch you. The light is the faith and the salvation of word, why this assimilation? Simple because the enables of to have certain, inasmuch also to be secure by dangers or evil other.  In painting the light has other valor and it depends by the style of painter and the costumer, fro example:  in Venetian school the historical art men known that the color  is the first element, this is the intense colors that that Titian Vecellio(1488-1576) has used for his painting, as his master Giorgione(1477-1510), and thank to these two painter the Venetian school is identified through the color, but also the light the intense light that both Titian, Giorgione, Giovanni Bellini (1430-1516), Giovanni Antonio Canal(1697-1768), called Canaletto; and always for the painting the intense meaning has given from Caravaggio, this is Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio(1571-1610) that has showed the reality but with theology in, for example: the first version of saint Matthew(Fig.1) that everybody think is destroyed during the second world war(Fig.2) instead  it is in basin  of a museum of Moscow, because it was steeled from a soldier of red army during the year 1945; anyway  the light is very theology because the angel that leads  the hand and the same  saint are illuminated from God, the light is God; the light that illumines  saint Matthew in the call(Fig.2) and the sinner besides is other theological meaning, What is? Simple  that Christ is salvation for the saint and sinner that ignores Christ because he is counting the money. The light hence has much meaning and various representation to you the choice.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Fig.1

Fig.2

        

 Hide Caravaggio

This essay begin for a specification this is that stems from a conference that Maurizio Marini(1942-2011), the major  student in Europe of Caravaggio, this is Michelangelo Merisi(1571-1610), called Caravaggio, very famous painter in Rome and in Italy, that has influenced much painters during the first years of 17^th century; anyway among  the painting of Caravaggio one seemed lost during 1945, in Flakturm Friedrichshain in Berlin, but already it has seated to the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum; this painting not has destroyed during the second world war, but has stolen  from a soldier of red army and Martini informed us that this painting is the original first version of saint Matthew and an angel. The controversy about the refusal of this painting has involved very much historical art men, for the nude foots, but also in the second version the foots are nude; Marini has explained this refusal for the figure of angel why? Because the young angel is truly the nephew of cardinal Contrail, that was costumer of this painting, and Caravaggio portrayed the nephew of cardinal, this is Francis, then very young, dressed very short, it is has determined the refusal; the presence of nephew have determined the scandal, because this painting is in year 1602 two years after the jubilee, and the costumer was a cardinal, the scandal would be very great. The theft  there was in 1945 a soldier brought  this painting to Moscow, where today is hide, why the Russian not goes back this painting? Simple because the Germany could ask the compensation because this painting was stolen and not given, hence among the damages would cost very much, and the Russian hasn’t the sufficient money; anyway the image of this painting on internet said that this painting was destroyed, but truly it is the original. Giovanni Baglione(1573-1644) painter and enemy of Caravaggio said that the painting was refused  and removed from the altar of chapel  because vulgar and nobody has liked it; naturally the Baglione the author of the book The life of painters, sculptors and architects, published 1642, has had motives very personal  to give this judge, since Caravaggio during a witness in court said: “I don’t know nobody painter that judge Baglione a painter”; after Giovanni Bellori(1613-1696), a Italian writer, repeated same question and he said also that  the figure of saint was indecorous, because it seems a common people; this opinion was used from very much historical art men, because other weren’t , but thank to Marini we know where is the original and because was refused.

Alessandro Lusana    

 The Christian syllogism

I won’t tell around  of Aristotle(b.Ch.384-322) and his syllogism but consider alone  the mechanicalness of a basis that after goes until to the Christian troth , this is God; the mechanicalness has took from the  syllogism of Aristotle; Saint Thomas(1224-1274) that mentioned very much Aristotle, and he called him the philosopher, and that he has known through the translation of the Analytics of Boethius (480-526), and his translation of syllogism, that Saint Thomas could read because the Latin language was explained on the major authors, both Christin and pagan; anyway mechanical dynamic of think that for Saint Thomas is natural to God., in fact in the book De magistro the saint says that the description is useless if it isn’t accomplished from an explication about the substance, this God, that is the true motive for the everything; it is the mechanical dynamic  of syllogism, in fact Aristotle, that begin from objective reality although logic, and I use the conjunction although because the rational logic that  is fundament  fro the think, but we must also consider that every matter has its logic, enclosed the syllogism, that is mechanical always, and Saint Thomas has took this dynamic , and he used in his major books this is the Summa theological: “If other philosophical matters is necessary admit other science. It seems that isn’t necessary other matters, in fact: “The man inform us the Holy Bible not goes toward that is superior of his brain, not search the things that are too much difficult to you”, it is an example that shows the reference to Holy Bible, because that the voice of God, the mention continues: “Now that is rational is given from philosophical matters. Consequently other isn’t necessary”; it is the dynamic of Aristotle. Other step says: “The science isn’t that not consider the God, in fact we know alone the true, that coincides to the God. The philosophy treats every being and also about God, in fact a part of philosophy is called also theology, this is the divine science, in opinion of Aristotle”, and: “The holy doctrine is a science. We must know that is present a double gender of sciences.. Some in fact come from principles known alone through the natural light of intellect ,as the arithmetic and the geometry, other instead come from principles known for the light of superior science…For this way the holy doctrine  is a science  because it is lays on the known principles for the light of a superior science this is for the science of God.”. This mechanical dynamic of think is a result from Aristotle, for Saint Thomas the unique truth was the Holy Bible, and in fact he took alone from there for his explications, other isn’t, but he used the same method of Aristotle, hence he has founded the Christian syllogism.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

 The theatre out the theatre: Edmond Rostand

Edmond Rostand(1868-1918) is an French author, more famous for his comedy Cyrano of Bergerac, and this comedy is very important, because represents the theatre out the theatre, where the public instead of to be a element absolutely marginal and external become the coprotagonist, the personages of the comedy speak among them of the verses or other that is inherent to theatre, for example a personage, a marquis  says: “And we enter in theatre so as the little bourgeois! Without disturb nobody and without to tread on someone toes?”, it is an example of soliloquy that now has became theatre, actually dialog to the public and one present personage, Ragueneau is confectioner of actors; hence Rostand  gone out from the theatre, and he take the life , the true life, because in the dialogue between the confectioner and an other personage, called Lionerie the confectioner look around and he says: “I don’t see the mister Cyrano it is very strange that he isn’t”, and Lionerie asks why, and Ragueneau answers: “Because to night recites Montfleury”; it is can seem a cue alone but a personage of this comedy that mentions other personage of same comedy; it is the theatre out the theatre , and the cue after is more meaningful for this motive, the first the marquis asks: “Who is Cyrano?” and the confectioner answers that the absence of Cyrano is very anomalous, because he hates Montfleury, that prohibited to Cyrano of recite for a month; it is the tell that involves also the theatre, but the confectioner tells something that is external to theatre; the acme is in the cues that shows a spectator  says: “They have confirmed it, and a murmur of public: “Shut up! He seems, no, yes, the cardinal?”, these are alone cues and stop, but the public says it, therefore the public is participating of the comedy, and Cyrano take part to comedy through and ask: “Rogue, I have prohibited  to you to recite from a month” but it is said from the stalls, that has protested for the disturb of Cyrano, and he has reacted defying the public to duel; it is alone comic, but it has a meaning very deep, because the public now participant to comedy, and the comment of Cyrano to some verse of Balthasar Bato(1596-1650), a French poet, determined the reaction of some women from the gallery, that protest for this judge, and Cyrano that answers to a spectator: “Old mule the verse of Bato are nothing”; it is the real conversation in theatre  among the friends on the a question that involves the style and the recitation, but Cyrano while says it, he is in public, this is in the stalls. Rostand has brought the theatre out the theatre.

Alessandro Lusana

 

             

 Caesar and Napoleon, common destiny; the unit

The se historic figures are unified from a common destiny, the salvation of an empire and the second of a nation, why? Simple because Caesar saves the empire because Rome was busied in the civil war and it have determined the end of empire, because weaken the center of power was the end of empire; Caesar hence unified the opposite classes this the aristocracy, this is the high class and the popular class, because he needed of unity because through this is motive to compact the power and enforce it; in fact after the civil war Caesar took the power and for to unify the opposite classes he imposed his personal dictatorship, although didn’t declare, the Rome and the empire has had need of unity; in fact he succeed in this duty, because after his domain in Rome other civil wars weren’t, and who followed Caesar, Octavian(b.Ch.63-14) realized the power affective of Caesar, and he took every power, and he has continued through the policy of Caesar, because he has increased the job through the public commission, has lowed the price of wheat, and as Caesar he has given the fields to veteran, the wheat was other strategy for calm the popular classes that were the major part, and a prefect for the wheat so that he avoids the famine and riots of people, evidently the memory of civil was still present; anyway he tendered to the unity of empire and he enforced the power of Caesar and he took his reforms and he continued on this deal. Napoleon(1769-1821) followed the Revolution, but also he has had need of unity of nation, this is the France, he followed the reform of Revolution, in the schools for example he took from the Revolution, the laic school, that today is normal but then the religious has the monopoly of instruction, the schools have opened to everybody, the equality in front of the law and abolition of feudalism; these are some of reform that the Revolution has given to France, Napoleon ahs continued this deal, that was ploughed from the Revolution; hence he has took the power and he has continued through the reforms until the Civil code of 1804, that has took the laws of Revolution and has ascertained the fundamental principles of Revolution, but he has thrown some law that was inopportune for his power, as the local autonomies, that the Revolution has ascertained, local autonomies are the single city of today, the peer importance of couple, this is the wife and husband, that the Revolution has issued was deleted, and above all the freedom of print; these reform that are very limitation to liberty, were necessary to keep the power, because he, differently from Caesar was elected in 1804 imperator, and his empire was limited in confront to Rome, but was equally stabilizer.

Alessandro Lusana      

 A merchant of 15^th century: Benedict Cotrugli Raguseo

I don’t think that the name of Benedetto Cotrugli Raugeo(1416-1469)can solicit some memory, because he is more known, if somebody knows him, for his book about the merchant where he explains this job, and he begun through the definition of merchant and merchandizes, he explain this distinction: “…we say that the difference between these words, this merchant and merchandise. But under this word of merchandise, we must include everything that we sale, or we bay. And the name of merchandise we must understand the art, or the discipline, or ordination, precept, or constitution, and through these orders the job of merchant must be made or contracted…”; he explains what is the job of merchant, and he must explain it very easy, because the colleagues of Benedict were very ignorant, also because, actually above all, because the knowledge or culture has had a valor very limited in the business. But benedict found also the far origin of merchant he gives this opinion that today is logic but in  during the 15^th century certainly it was very less or nothing: “…(the merchandise)that was ordinated above all, from the nature, for the supplement of human needs…”, in fact Benedict has spoken about the cloths, that after are improved also in aesthetic and from this improvement is born the merchant. He continues: “After the much centuries id past for the much utility of merchants, that for this motive, this is the utility, they have made very much and wonderful inventions…”; it is the explication more clear of merchant job and origin; but we must also consider that this explication are determined from experience, that must be before leaded from the culture, but after the translation to reality must be considered on ground of the case, for this Benedict is so obvious, because the single case makes the experience, now of merchant. But the our Benedict is also attentive to ancient authors, in fact he said about an opinion of Seneca(50b.Ch.-40a.Ch.): “Although Seneca has said that “the town doesn’t the man, although the town doesn’t man the merchant stems for ability of town and for consequence the merchant must choose the town opportune to merchant”; it is the truth, but may Seneca thought to his life, his father was a writer and orator, but not philosopher, and his mother Elvia, has the strong interest for the philosophy but she didn’t write something. Benedict after considers also the aesthetic of the town, usually the dwell of merchant, and he says: “because the town where the merchant dwells, give much of inclination, for the increment or not of merchant…”; it is the daily rule that we use when a stranger or friend come to our home, the first think is the aesthetic of home; but these thinks are from experience that Benedict has had, in fact he continues and advises a salutary town, and long from the war. For to explain the exchange benedict used an example that is too much known for to be alone a hypothesize, I think that is true experience: “The Florentines merchants, more times bring the cloths, to Sicily to sale it for fixed prices: and because the liquid isn’t always available, they that were in Sicily, and willing they that their merchandise ends, they think to the exchange…”; this strategy is certainly took from real example; the clue of this suspect is confirmed from the nationality that Benedict mentioned, this is the Florentine merchant, he could mention the Venetian, Pisan, Genoese merchants instead not, alone the Florentine, why? Simple because he has heard a tale of some Florentine merchant and he has translated here.       

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

 Political revolution: the revolutionary French constitution

The revolution was that political, and through this word I mean the Greek exception of this word, is the administration and manage of a State; before more revolutionary was the American constitution, that was already present in the daily actions, the independence of colonies was alone an ascertainment of the ideal and natural presence, that not was political because that the American constitution said was already present; and here the geography is relevant, because the colonies were afield from the English power, in fact they were already independent, but the political concepts that are expressed in the French constitution, are radical, the automatic question is, why? Today for us this political document is alone a constitution without importance, why? Simple because in Europe, these constitutions are very common, daily, hence, the second question is “Why we should have more interest for this?”, because it is a revolutionary constitution, that in Europe, and the geography is more important than before, these constitutions, or constitutions aren’t; the will of the king was the law; instead the will of people is the law, naturally this constitution was written from jurist men, that gone out from a monarchic State, the last French king Louis 16^th, decapitated in January of 1793, hence the difference the differences have to very much relevant, in fact: “Article 1. The rights of the men are the freedom, equality, the sureness and the propriety”; the laic nature of this constitution is evident because the first article doesn’t mention God, and the differences are soon present in second article: “The equality is in that the law is equal to each, that it shield or punish. The equality doesn’t admits differences for the birth, neither heritage neither power”; today it is absolutely normal, but in French or better in Europe of 1793, when this constitution was enacted, it was the true revolution, and I repeat, this constitution was enacted from a European country. The principles that are expressed in same article are very relevant for a constitution, because it wanted, although not written, the unity of a State around the State, the new State, that now was become the republic, hence the unity of citizens was fundamental, in fact: “The sureness is the participation of everybody for to insure the right of each citizen. The propriety is the right of joy and manage of owns, of his incomes, and of the fruit of his work. The difference is more stressed in 6^th article: “The law is the general will that expresses  through the majority or of the citizens or their represents”; it is a revolutionary document because in Europe these equality in front of the law impossible; and it is important not certainly because it is a constitution, because the American constitution was already present and perfect, for its rights, hence the amazing is very limited, because here is repeated that in American constitution was present, and the American constitution was enacted when the burst of the French revolution, we can’t think that has been direct or indirect influence because in French as in Europe, except the English monarchy, known that was burst a independence war in the American continent, because the people, in Europe, didn’t know neither that a American continent existed; the juridical brain that has thought this constitution wanted stressed the independence, but not from other State but from other model, that monarchic, therefore the differences are radical. The awareness of new time and new institutions is in this article, this is the 14^th, that today is the absolutely common, but have past also 234 years from this constitution: “Nothing law, neither criminal nor civil can’t have the retroactive effect”; I repeat it is normal today, but when the constitution wasn’t and the law was the king, everything was subject to him, also the law. The 16^th article ids the celebration of this new spirit: “Every contribution is issued for the general utility; and it must be distributed among the taxpayers, for their possibility”; today it is normal, but I remember to the commentators that the General States were met because the economic crisis was very radical, and the bourgeois and the people have to keep the clergy and aristocracy, that have not to pay the taxes, but also the poverty of the aristocracy is, although shrouded, in the words: “must be distributed among the taxpayers”, because the revolutionaries known perfectly that the aristocracy by now was very impoverished, hence every taxpayer could have given how much was possible. And the article 17^th The sovereignty is essentially in the universality of citizens”; it is the fundamental document of historical progress of revolution, the change very radical of concept of power, now the citizens are the represent of the French, that have delegated liable for their representation in national assembly. And the article following issues better this concept: “Nobody, nor meeting of citizens can attribute the sovereignty”, it is the supreme spirit of revolution, so that nobody except the national assembly has the power. The true revolution, political revolution, is in this article that want guarantees to everybody, in sense purely theoretic, the possibility of represent but with much limits, this is never think to absolute power. The article 19^th confirms this article: “Nobody can, without legal delegation has authority, or to be employer in some public function”; this law wants hinder that died a king other can come. The 21th article confirms this spirit: “The public functions can become the owner of who works it”; this is nobody can become king, since that monarchy had granted some public work and through. In Latin language it sounds as “Quandoque bonus Homerus dormitat”, some time also Homer sleeps; this is the meaning also the better men can mistake; and the revolutionary constitution uses the gospel and not alone for a mention, but in constitution, in article 2th regard the duties of citizens this paper says: “Not make to other that you don’t want somebody makes to you. You must make to other the good action that you would”; we can, rightly, laugh of this step, because it is very useless and absolutely abstract, yes, its right! But we must also consider that the French was again Catholic and the revolutionary spirit in common people wasn’t, actually the traditionalism was very strong, for this Napoleon could issue his govern, that formally isn’t but in reality it was absolutely monarchic. Naturally can’t lack the nature of a State antimonarchic that must suggest the desistence toward every form of monarchy: “The duties of every citizens toward the society is to defend, to server, to live under the laws and to respect who are their institutions”; it is a motive valid to think that the Jacobinism has taught that somebody could also think of to take the power, and it in fact occurred, Napoleon, but same Napoleon was under the laws. The Christian morality was truly deep in the French people, because the article 4^th is a true representation of Christin doctrine: “Nobody is a good citizen if he isn’t also good son, good father, good brother, goof friend, good husband”, to this article lacks something very important, it is: “He must goes to Jerusalem with pilgrims, and every day must pray, in church, our God; if the constitution was also of this article the revolution would be submerged from the fairs; further the accuse of atheism that the factions bourgeois could use against the Jacobin was reals, and a country again Catholic as the French has had react very evil.     

 Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

.

 

 The Medieval Roman hero: Cola di Rienzo

The life of Cola di Renzo, but the original name is Nicole of Lorenz(1313-1354 is told from an anonymous writer may from Bologna, Cola was a popular man that the Roman people identified  to his nature and in fact the writer said: Cola of Renzo was popular man, his father was host and his mother washerwoman  of this origin he confessed his shame: “I have begun from  a moment of my life I felt the shame for my popular life and I begun acculturate reading the classics books…” this confession is meaningful  because shows the real motive for the necessity of culture. Other certainty  is the narration of the meeting to the pope Clemens 6^th (1291-1352) that reproached the senators of Rome because they don’t  think to Rome and other step, following  the precedent, where the  anonymous mentions the name  of an important employed of Senate of Rome Thomas from Fortiocca, unknown absolutely but useful here for to ascertain that Cola has told this episode, because he reports the words, and the name, hence he was present to this discussion to pope, because he is s direct witness. Naturally Medieval narration also took legendary steps from Isidore from Seville, and the author manifests his egocentrism very great because he compares herself  to the ancient histories men as Herodotus, and Livius, and he said about herself that he stem from a noble family, but a noble during the Middle age would have written in Latin, and not certainly in Italian of 14^th century. But some information regard to Rome is interesting because in front of the church of Saint Spirit  the church of Saxon people was a ditch. The boredom  of Middle age is in the tales that regard other cities, as Ferrara and Bologna , because in Rome evidently nothing occurred. A monk came to Rome for pilgrim and our author is very precise for description of cloths, hence he has seen him. And some other note can be interesting for the builds of two churches, this is Saint John of Lateran and Saint Peter, because pope Benedict 12^th made completely the roofs, it is a poor note that is useful fro the history of these churches , the architect was Jehan Poisson, the architect of pope, in years 1341, and a worker  that the documents mention as master Ballus that it isn’t the name of worker but certainly a fake name. This history is certainly true because the author was witness for the major part of events; and the pragmatic wit emerges from a information, during the female in Rome, in year 1338, the women  became prostitute for the necessity, certainly unhappy but shows the practical wit of being man.  

Alessandro Lusana   

 Platonic and pragmatic sensism: George Berkeley

George Berkeley(1685-1753) is an Irelands philosopher, that has took the sensism very diffused in England then, and he has took from Plato(b.Ch. 427-347) the concept of ideas but with acceptation real, this is that we can see is real, the question inasmuch is: “Where is the Platonism?”; simple in the concept of ideas, that the Athens philosopher has taught in the word of ideas, Berkeley has took the concept but with acceptation real, this pragmatic remark is a change important regard to Platonism, the origin is the Greek philosopher but Berkeley ties it to context, very pragmatic of reality, following also the practical wit that during those centuries in England was principal, and the concept of vision of daily things is absolutely Platonic, because for the Athens philosopher the reality is a translation of the word of ideas, therefore although Berkeley didn’t mention it Plato, he is present although shrouded: “Hence as it is impossible for me  to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thought any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it [In truth, the object and the sensation are the same thing, and cannot therefore be abstracted for each other]”; it is the pragmatic Platonism, that follows the reality, because a reality took entirely from the old concept of word of ideas, it would have denied the Christian religion, because everything is created from the God and no certainly from the word of ideas. The Platonism and the pragmatism return to after some steps: “Some truth and are so near and obvious to the mind that a man need only open  his eyes to see them. Such I take this important one to be, viz that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in the word all those bodies which compose the mighty  frame of the word, have not subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived by me , or do not exist or that of any other created spirit, they must  either have not existence at all or else subsist in the mind of some eternal spirit…”; it is the real sensism, because the mind has the imagines or sensations that after it translated in his intelligence, the pragmatic sensism is clear, now the rationality is dominant because Plato was again present, but in hide form, and now emerges the rationality that moderates the idealism, because the rationality is dominating. A Platonic note the words: “some eternal spirit” is the up dated version of Plato, it is the modern version of the word of ideas. The Platonism continues and now is more evident: “From what has been said it is evident there not any other substance than spirit, or that which perceives. But, for the fuller demonstration of this point, let it be considered the sensible qualities are color, figure, motion, smell, taste, and other, for example the ideas perceived by sense…”; it is the pure Platonism, the translation of ideas, that we have seen above, is in updated version; and the final words are very eulogy of Platonism: “…that therefore wherein color, figure, and other exist must perceive them: hence it is clear there can be no unthinking substance or substratum of those ideas”; the pragmatic Platonism.

Alessandro Lusana

    

 

      

   

 

 Ille dixit: Cicero

I want read the first oration of Cicero(b.Ch.106-43) against Catiline, in year 63 b. Ch., in Rome in the temple of Jupiter, but I have read it much years ago but now I want evince the character of Cicero from his behavior; the greatest name in Roman literature, was born near Arpinum(near to Frosinone), a town of Latium, January 3rd, B.C. 106. His father, a man of large views and liberal culture, belonged to the equites, and possessed an hereditary estate in the neighborhood of the town. L. Sergius Catilina was a Roman patrician, born about I08 B.C. From his father he inherited nothing but a noble name. In the turbulent scenes of the Sullan rule, Catiline played a conspicuous part, to which his undoubted ability, his undaunted courage, his iron constitution, his depraved morals, and excessive cruelty notoriously fitted him. For the duty that I want reached, I must consider that a aid has given from John Henderson that in his edition, in year 1886, of The first oration against Catiline he said: “In the introduction Cicero in impassioned language expresses astonishment that Catiline…”; this step of Henderson is very explicative regard to not understandable of Cicero, because he, we can imagine, in front of Catiline hasn’t dread, and his character evidently, for how much we can evince, was very stable and he, in fact, wanted cure the form above all, the form of oration, that begins so: “When , o Catiline do you mean to cease abusing our patience?...”, This introduction of Cicero is very important for to know his character because, he is a quiet man that in temple is the protagonist of this oration, thence he is also the principal orator, and the error, although the orator is Cicero, abusing, translated in English, but the original text is “abutere”, it is the second person singular of future of verb “abutor”, that is in its correct form “abuteris”, and not “abutere”, because the form is important, actually it is fundamental, although the oration is an accuse that Cicero given to Catiline; but Cicero is secure of his qualities od orator therefore also an error is enabled; it is the open form of future, that in Latin language isn’t, because the two final syllables “ere” is a form with sound open, and we can call it the future opened. He continues: “When is there to be end of that unbridled audacity…”, it is other notation of Cicero’s character, because the audacity is a qualities in much context, but for other it can be dangerous, and this substantive audacity, that is almost reproach to Catiline, shows the equilibrium of Cicero, that is evident from the use of this substantive. After the four orations against Catiline, he was condemned to capital pain, but Cicero reached this condemn without the proves, and he involuntary given the aid valid to Caesar for the exile to Cilicia, a Roman province, where Cicero written De amicitia, About the friendship, where he brought examples of true friendship, and he considered also, a human truth; when you are useful to other they are very friendship, but when you don’t be useful, everybody leave you. We can understand from this oration the character of Cicero, that was very egocentric and superb, but also ingenuous, because he didn’t know the human gender, the Amicitia is manifestation of ingenuity and also superficiality, because the mankind is always near or distant for your useful.

Alessandro Lusana      

   

      

 

 The true Scepticism

Common opinion around the scepticism is that the sceptic philosophers didn’t believe nothing, naturally we are in front usual exemplification that is absolutely false and erred because the scepticism is other, usual exaggeration want an ancient sceptic philosopher didn’t that in front of him was a wall and he attacked it with the head and he broken it; naturally it is alone an example that the legendary episodes, that has its nature in Greek mythology, and in fact from it stems the method of exemplification through the false episodes that certainly simplified the understanding but are also deviant from the reality of philosophy, and for the scepticism the cockup are very much; the truth of scepticism is other, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) explained, in his Lesson about the history of philosophy the concept of sceptic philosophy: “Precisely, between scepticism and philosophy is this rapport, that the first is the dialectic of every determined”; so it seems an war declaration, and the comment are, beyond the fuck you, that are turned both to whom is writing and to Hegel, but this concept is absolutely daily, and very easy or essential and objective, with the word or better the past (for to take also the fuck you of grammars); it is alone the common objects, that are a beginning and a ended: a house, can be beauty or ugly, great or little, decorated or not, but it is has a beginning and an end; because it has a roof and fundaments, hence the material and dimensions are ended, it is the “determined” in the sceptic philosophy; it is values both the concrete reality as the abstract concept, and Hegel continues: “On contrary the logic concept is the same this dialectic of scepticism: in fact this negativity, in the scepticism, is necessary to knowledge of ideas. The difference is alone in it, that the sceptic philosopher are stopped from the result as the negative: this  or other brings a contradiction…hence this result , because purely negative, is also a unilateral determination against the positive. The scepticism didn’t recognizes that for its nature this negativity is an affirmative contented; in fact as the negation of negation , the negativity that turns alone to itself, is infinitive affirmation”; why? Simple because is for to simplify: it is as a rogue that is in isolation, he can speaks alone to herself, and alone his think is valid because the confront isn’t, better example: when we are in front to the mirror, we can recognize alone ourselves, because we alone; therefore the negativity, although it is abstract, can recognizes alone itself, as the rogue and the man or woman in front to mirror. Other concept that I recognize as very important because it gives the concept of dynamic of Hegel, he continuing his explication: “The idea as the abstract idea, is the quiet, the inactivity; it become true idea alone when it is life, hence we can understand it. It is occurs alone because it is dialectic, so that it can overcome the inactivity and to meet the change…”; it is my personal satisfaction because I have confirm, forgive the step autobiographical, but I have always imagined the dialectic as very dynamic, and from Hegel, during the read of Aesthetic I have understood it, now I can confirm that the dynamic is the true nature of dialectic; the comments are: “I don’t give cure!!!”, certainly and rightly; but this declaration of war has been necessary to explain first the scepticism and after the step of George Berkeley(1685-1753), a philosopher that in year 1713 has published The three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous a step said: “Hold Philonous, I have been a little out in my definition; but every false step a man makes in discourse is not  to be insisted on.. I said indeed that a sceptic was one who doubted of everything; but I should have added, or who denies the reality and truth of things”, the my comment is: “Or Berkeley didn’t understand the sceptic philosophy or he has took the current opinion about the scepticism.”, and the last is the truth. The error, or better, the common error, continues: “What think you of distrusting the senses, of denying the real existence of sensible things, or pretending to know of them. Is not this sufficient to denominate a man a sceptic?”. In this dialogues the way used from Berkeley is very automatic, because it is the negation or affirmation of objective things, that nobody can denies, and the conclusion are automatic, this is the failure of skepticism, Philonous askes: “Do the reality of sensible things consist in being perceived? Or, is it something distinct from their being perceived, and that bears no relation to mind?”; these aren’t neither askes, are alone cucks up! Necessary so that the dialogue end through a affirmation or negation, that is evident; but the skepticism, as Hegel has explained is very different; it doesn’t deny the reality, but denied the infinite reality, thence that something can be so or not, from it is born the common opinion that the sceptic doubts always, I explain it; everything can be so or not, because can be to other way, an example somebody can goes to New York through the fly, or ship or other if it is possible; the not concrete of skepticism is born from the doubts that they expressed about something, because for the difference from the philosophical schools to them contemporary, they not given the certainties but unique way for the inquiry not was the doubt but that something can be or not so, that the infinite things aren’t, and that everything has a beginning and an end, that aren’t the sureness but it is necessary to solicit the inquiry.      

 Alessandro Lusana     

 Eulogy of egoism

Erasmus from Rotterdam(1469-1536) written the Eulogy of craziness, I want be more sacrilege and I writing the eulogy of egoism; we are usual think that the egoism is evil, and for determined circumstances it is it is very right, also because we can’t think never that this sentiment can be also positive and necessary, why? Simple in economic context the egoism is necessary, so that an enterprise can lives, and the egoism is fundamental for the survive and to give the jobs to other, hence in egoism is altruism, because the chief takes from the money, but he gives or has given, in economy is frequent a judge: “For to gain the money they must invest, thence give the money, and for the enterprises is same they must give the money so that they can gain, but this solution must be think alone for the gain, otherwise this think there not is; usual we think the richness of somebody, but never we think the sacrifices and the job necessary to this richness, that is determined both the job and also from the fortune, that is element that can aid; I repeat, it is stemmed from the job, and certainly from the egoism of somebody, that after he gives the money and the job, but being he a private can think alone for his interest, that gives also the possibilities of job, certainly he select who can be useful, because it is enterprise not certainly charity; this act of egoism is normal in history, a sacrifice, in ancient time, was determined from a will of gain something from the gods, after the rest of animal sacrificed were given to the poor, hence a gesture of altruism, that has had a egoistic beginning, this is to gain something from the gods, that is pure egoism, for this the Christian religion has refused the egoism, that instead is, although secretly, is stressed from the Protestantism, because the names of saved are present alone in God, hence the faith is necessary for to save herself, that is egoism, but the Catholicism sins of egoism because, although otherwise secretly, when the faithful prays he make it alone for his salvation, that is egoism, in fact alone the saints have prayed for the mankind. The policy makes the same thing; when an strategy is used it is because the national interest that can brings a gain to the nation, when it is possible, but the policy must harms something, internal or external to the nation, that is egoism and altruism in same time; because the political man makes something for his nation, but it is composed from millions of citizens, therefore it is also altruism. The good education that our parents has given to us is altruism and egoism in same time, why? Simple because the good education is necessary to our parents to boast of our education, inasmuch pure egoism, but it is also altruism, because the good education is going to necessary for other lively circumstances, may in the job; so also is egoism and altruism, why? Simple because the job enable to us for keep our family, but ii is also egoism, because we demand the dependence from our gain, that is a psychological gratification, that is pure egoism. These examples are necessary to explain something that is normal and we don’t consider never, above all that to every altruism is secretly a will of egoism.

Alessandro Lusana    

 Pragmatic State: Keynes

We are usual think about the economist as the being that live in a theory that has something of very near to real life, and alone the theory is valid because other is very distant and distinct from the reality, instead we have an exception for John Maynard Keynes(1883-1946) that was an economist, but a valid very much exception, why? Because he is in middle economy, this is he took from the ideological parties; during the thirty years in Europe, above all, Keynes was England, hence European after the Bolshevik, in 1917, the Europe was divided between the right and left, also today but the wit is very moderate or disinterest, fortunately! I am speak as Italian and in Italy attempts, flights, political homicide was very frequent. But anyway Keynes wasn’t neither right nor left, he is very genial, for his economic opinion, because he took from the two parties but he critic twice and he finds the merit in twice; it is the sign of pragmatism; Keynes was lived in Liberal country as the England, and the pragmatism in Liberal economic is fundamental, because everyman is potential costumer, and the economy has the first principle it. Hence Keynes has took from his country, Liberal, and through the pragmatic wit he has took from the totalitarian State as the Russian, Italy and Germany, from it the idea or better the strategy of State, that must works when the economic condition has made worse; he is very pragmatic and he stay in middle parties, because he took the theory of Liberalism, because it is the theory that certainly can guarantees richness but it makes also the weak States, it is sufficient a economic crisis to the extreme Orient and the country more liberal in the word, as the USA fails; to this point is important the date of death of Keynes, 1946, when the second world war was ended instead the Great Depression in year 1929, in USA, the effects were present; hence the major book of Keynes The general theory of employment, interest and money, published in 1936, inasmuch after the Great Depression, therefore Keynes could ascertain that the presence of a State, although not totalitarian, but it was important, and it was the last resource for the economy of a country, because the State can manage very much money, necessary to economy and for the social necessities. Keynes thence accepts the Liberal economy but he, through the pragmatic wit, looked also the State that isn’t a concept very distant from the Liberal ideology, but he is first a pragmatic economist that takes every principle necessary to the theory, and the difference is here, this is he is pragmatic, not certainly abstract, he took from two political principles, the totalitarian States and from the Liberal State; these principles are contrasting between them but if in the economy are necessary we must consider also the contrast, but above all, to consider that the sake is the economy, and the economy hasn’t ideology, every country can trade to every country apart from this its ideology, The Europe and USA trade to the China that is communist and totalitarian country; thereby when the economy needs the country uses its pragmatism  because the more important question is the trade, gain and wealth. Keynes accordingly uses every ideology for his theory; it is the pragmatism, but as the political he used two theory that can give something to his theory; whereby it is the pragmatic state, or better, the pragmatic State.

Alessandro Lusana