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