The Hegelian catalog

I must admit that the Science of logic of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831), is a interesting catalog of information regard the philosophical evolution of the think of author, because if we consider that the Phenomenology of the spirit is edited in 1807 and the Science of logic in 1812-1816, we can, or better, we must think that one of fundamental character of Hegelian philosophy isn’t, this the idealism, that through The science of logic among 1812 and 1816, hence the this book is written after, and it is evident but less evident is the absolute absence of idealism, because in the following step: “The logic can be divided among the general logic, of to be and the logic of to think, in the logic objective and subjective”, so explained it is a capital condemn, because it is incomprehensible, but Hegel aids us and he explains: “In conformity of content the objective logic is correspondent for something to that for Emmanuel Kant(1724-1804) is the transcendental logic(this is the metaphysical logic). He differentiates it from that he calls general logic, that he calls logic without a doubt, because he considers the concepts that consider to objects, hence he not abstract from the content of the objective knowledge, because it contents the rules of the pure think of a object and together is the origin of our knowledge because it not to be attributed to the objects. The principal think of Kant is the to demand the categories to the auto conscience as subjective I.”; it is a very, hence we can understand that the kicks are two and not alone one, because it is more incomprehensible than the concept above, but it is very simple, actually elementary; he has simple says, after that he has took the concepts of Kant, and for it he explains what is his concept, the question is, what is this concept? Simple the first step that Hegel used the subjective and the objective logic, is simply the owner think and the evident reality, for example: I can look a painting and I can say and cry that here is a painting, other visitor can look me and confirm it, after that he has called the police, and it is the objective logic, because what is visible for everybody is the objective logic, but the subjective logic instead is the contrary; because I can judge this painting as a painting of a painter very well, instead the second visitor can judge it as a painting of other painter, it is the subjective logic. The text became more clear for the following words: “The principal think of Kant is the to demand the categories to the auto conscience as subjective I”; it is the important step that deny, although partially, the Kant’s idealism and the idealism whole, because the judge of Hegel that want that Kant demands the categories of the auto conscience is the confutation of idealism, it is valid both for Hegel and for Kant; the concept is very simple; it is the normal process of knowledge that every day we have, this is the know or recognize something, and that we add to our knowledge but in conformity of categories that we have, every object we can recognize because we has a category that can recognize it, but what is the category? Simple if somebody must read a text written for the ancient Greek, but he doesn’t know the ancient Greek he can’t read it he hasn’t the category of ancient Greek, this is he hasn’t the right and sufficient information about the ancient Greek, it is the category; and the auto conscience that Kant demanded is the category, this is the information, necessary to recognize something, that is real, hence objective, therefore very long from the idealism.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 

 The Hegelian Science of logic: some note

The Science of logic is a difficult book of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), that is avoid as the plague, because objectively it must be trained to the think of Hegel, but the introduction at last is very much clear, because some step explains what is the rational, or logic, argument of this book: “If we take the logic as the science of think generally, then we can think that this think is the nude form  of a knowledge, that the logic is abstract from every essence, and the second element of every knowledge, this is the matter, that must be given…”; but we must disaccord to Hegel because he continued: “…we can suppose that the logic from it this matter would be totally independent, it can indicate alone the rules of knowledge, because it is the essential of truth, the content would be out…”; these words are very difficult because haven’t sense, but in conformity to the Hegelian think, we can discord from the master, that is Hegel, at last for me, because the logic in this consideration is alone the tool necessary to understand something, but the matter is the object of study ,a the logic is alone the instrument necessary to inquiry the truth, in fact I have stressed the conditional mood, would be, because this common matter that Hegel melts to logic, is a consideration that for to him is necessary to explain, is following pages the logic, or the science of logic, because he has unified the logic think to the matter, alone so is possible reached the true knowledge, and the affirmation: “…because it is the essential of truth, the content would be out”; Hegel has took the logic as the consubstantial to the matter; but I repeat it is necessary for the justify the inherence of the logic to matter so that he can explain that the knowledge is directly tied to the matter, in fact he following said: “The first is already is wrong to say that the logic  abstract from the content and that it learn alone the rules for of think, without go to the thought…”; these words merit the capital pain because who read it the first ask is: “What cuck is the meaning?”, this question is logic and rational, in fact these are alone useless words and stop; but among a blasphemy and other, we can also think that what I have said above, this is the matter tied to the matter, is the essential reference for to understand the Science of logic, the logic hence is melted to the matter, and alone so we can knowledge the matter and other. Naturally we can laugh about this fusion between the matter and think, because it is the abstraction absolutely; but repeat we must also consider that the think of Hegel is in the time of absolutely idealism, inasmuch every matter, also the common matter was worth of ideal; but who is condemned from some professor of philosophy or for homicide, to read the Aesthetic of Hegel(I have read it three times, and for me it is very fashioning, and nothing court had condemned me) who has read this book knows that that Hegel consider the matter, therefore earth, as the negative in confront to the ideal, when the art is thought and worked from the artist, the ideal is disappeared because it is common and not ideal; but the πάντα ρει od Heraclitus(b.Ch. 550-480) is present, and evidently he has changed idea. Anyway we can think that the idealism of 19^th century may was passing, and we must also consider that, evidently, the wit, or emphasis, of Romanticism has left the space to the pragmatic reality, that Hegel has left and has retook, because in this book is the predominance of think, hence of the Romantic and ideal wit, but melted also the very much thick presence of matter, whereby of the reality, that apart from the idealism; then it is a book where Hegel is in half between idealism and the matter.

Alessandro Lusana 

    

 

 

 First the peace in empire and after other: Constantine and the Arianism

The Christianity has had very controversies, the last through Martin Luther(1483-1546), for mere politic motives, as the Catholic Church has defended its position for likewise politic interest, also because the north Europe was by now Protestant, the England was Protestant, and the ecclesiastic power was halved, hence the power that again hold have to jealously kept; these are alone controversies and in modern age, this is during the 16^th century and in Europe, but also in ancient time, in fact the first, or alleged so, Christian imperator proved his political nature, because he was a politic for the controversy between the Arian(a. Ch.256-336), a theologian man that thought that Christ was alone a subaltern to God and not certainly consubstantial to God; hence Christ has a human nature and a human biography; this polemic discussion between the bishop Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, and his presbyter Arian, in the 4^th century a.Ch., that to start was a lone a theological controversy and a simple discussion between two theological men, but after it became a problem, that it was condemned in the Nicaea council(a.Ch.325); but why this importance so great that Constantine have to intervened? Simple because he wanted that this controversy not compromised the peace in empire, and some step of his letters, regard this controversy, are very important because proof the political sensibility of Constantine for a question that was alone theological but it could determine the political confusion, and riots in Empire; the letters are copy from Eusebius from Cesarea(a.Ch.265-339), the first letter says: “I call for witness, how I can, God that is aid for my efforts and the conservator of everymen…My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the system of the world, then suffering under the malignant power of a grievous distemper. Keeping these objects in view, I sought to accomplish the one by the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.”, and the following step of this letter is more important, above all for the last lines: “I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, 1 or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on 2 what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, 3 and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, 4 and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the general ear. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers' understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy. Let therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. 1 For the cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are in truth of one and the same judgment: 2 you may therefore well join in communion and followship.”; this controversy certainly interested very slow Constantine that was pagan and so he has died, but for to him the importance was for the peace in empire, and the example, that can show to us what would be the effects for a religious controversy, is the European war of thirteen years that seen the war of Catholic States against the Protestant States, that lasted 30 years; hence Constantine known perfectly that a very irrelevant discussion could determine very division in empire, and for to him the peace was the principal matter.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Ephemeral republics: Cispadane and Roman Republic 1797-1799-1849

It is strange but for the dogged reader as me, in fact for me it is normal, but a rational think should consider what are the causes that have determined the failure, but the historical men hide their ignorance, or lacking of passion, behind the lacking of documents, it is absolutely false because the documents are but they are of different nature, from the archives, from the letters, form the discourses that are copied and other; the last source is the hypothesis, that can be used. Anyway for this other sources, certainly short, but important that has said that the Italian economy through these republics, at last in north Italy this is the Cispadane republic, where the economy was developed but not certainly in Rome, the economy known the liberal trade, that there was already, but alone underground; and the reforms that the Napoleonic French has brought were important for an economy: the abolition of guilds, the rights of fiefs and other specific reforms that has given possibility to economy for to develop; the question from a reader is: “Why the economy? What it so what?”, the interest for the revolution in history apart from the economy, that is instead the principal factor, as has occurred for the French Revolution, because although after the publicity has hold some theory that was absolutely false, as the search of political freedom and other cuck up of this gender, but we can understand it because it is alone the publicity, the true motives for the Revolution were alone economic, in fact some historical man has described it so: “During the end of 18^th century, the French crown after the defeat in the war of seven years, and for years of misrule, was in very economic difficult…Anne Robert Jacques Turgot(1727-1781) minister of finance in France, has ordered that every expense was warrant for the minister, and he has abolished the much useless offices, and he asked to the king the abolition of much pensions…”; these words are necessaries for to understand the economy of France in the end of 18^th century, and why the reforms in Italian economy, for the republics were necessary; the reforms occurred alone because the France was again in serious economic conditions, hence was necessary that Napoleon could take from everywhere the money, and the economic reforms guaranteed the gain through the taxes, that in fact were very great; same motive that occurred for the Roman republic the expropriation of proprieties od the religious institutions and the abolition 0f feudal rights, and the taxation was finally proportionated to the capital of everybody, but also here the taxation was enormous; and the taxes are the sign for to understand that the freedom of Napoleonic army was alone an ideal motive for to improve the French wealth; hence when the Napoleon was defeated, also the republics are disappeared.

Alessandro Lusana  

         

 

 

 Repetita juvant: the economic causes of French Revolution

In this essay nothing of new, because these motives or causes are known certainly, but the Latin words of title are the conform that of these thesis are known, but very much times are ignored; hence I want alone confirm how much is said, but the repeated things aid, in conformity to translation from the Latin language, this is the “repetita juvant”; the causes was prevalently economic, some historical man has written: “During the end of 18th century, the French crown after the defeat in the war of seven years, and for years of misrule, was in very economic difficult…Anne Robert Jacques Turgot(1727-1781) minister of finance in France, has ordered that every spending was warrant for the minister, and he has abolished the much useless offices, and he asked to the king the abolition of much pensions…”; in fact every expense have to approved from the minister; Turgot has also reformed the Ferme Générale, and private society founded in 1687, and it has had the duty of to collect the taxes, but the major important  reform was the liberalization of internal trade of wheat, and he managed reduced the deficit of the French State. But the dullness of nobles classes and the deficit very great didn’t allowed to application of the major reform that Turgot had thought, this is a unique tax on the immobile; for this tax naturally the nobles class refused immediately, and a crisis of agricultural nature in year 1774 and 1775 burst riot in Dijon, called after the revolts of meals; but Turgot abolished also the guilt and of the corvées, this is the free work of the granger for his lord, but in years 1776 the opposition of nobility won on the reforms, and Turgot have to resigned, and worse thing, his reforms were withdrawn. Same political address has had Jacques Necker(1732-1804), that has reduced the expense of the pensions and of same court. Naturally the noble class was hostile to these reforms and tried of remove it, and he published a count that he had given to the king, in year 1781, and he stressed the very serious condition of French economy and the liable Charles-Alexandre de Calonne(1704-1802), he proposed a subvention on the lands without distinction of class and for the gain; for the discussion about these reforms in22th February 1787, the king has met the Assembly of Notables, composed from the nobles, prelates, dukes and other nobles; but these reforms every reforms were refused, and the third state, this is the middle class, protested very much, but they were excluded from this assembly. These are alone some causes of the Revolution, but these are the important note necessary to understand that a nation or State are very complex and the competence must be awarded and not excluded; but today we think it because we know and recognize better the qualities of somebody, but Jean Paul Marat(1743-1793), the chief of Jacobins from 1793, would say: “It is very easy to say these concepts 237 years after the Revolution, but when these reforms had presented to an idiotic that was also king, the nobles class could make everything, because he was an idiot, and so he is was until the decollation”. And we could alone gove to him right, now and always.

Alessandro Lusana        

 

 

 

 

 

 A handbook of semiotic: Aristotle’s Hermeneutics

The works of Aristotle(b.Ch. 384-322) are very loved or hated, but for the Ερμηνευτικη I think that is an exception, because it is a examination of linguistic nature, that is very easy and also scant, he says: “The first we must consider what is the name  and what is the verb, hence what is the negation, what is the affirmation, and the enunciation and the discourse”; it is very elementary description that we can understand very easily, because in conformity to the Aristotelian code, he has always write and expressed easy concepts that are daily, and this book isn’t an exception, in fact he follows: “The sounds of voice  are symbols of affirmations that are in soul, and the written signs are of the sounds that are in the voice”; and he continues through some example that are very easy and elementary: “The false and the true regard the junction and the separation. The names and the verbs resemble to a think but without junction and separation, for example the words “man” and “white”, when isn’t added something. In facts it isn’t neither false or other…”; certainly Aristotle didn’t want offense the intelligence of his readers, although we can ask to us: “Why this book he has written?”; we must also consider that the readers in today aren’t the readers of the 4^th century before Christ; hence he has simplified very much, because then these concepts can be also difficult. But if we think well about this book, Aristotle has anticipated Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914), that is the founder of semiotic; because Aristotle has given a code necessary to the interpretation, that is the first exercise of semiotic, because if somebody read, following of Aristotle, the word man and white, the interpretation of these words is nothing, because for the meaning is necessary some other word that aren’t in Aristotelian example, inasmuch they haven’t meaning; therefore the interpretation there isn’t, in conformity of the example; in fact here the interpretation is impossible, because the words are very alone two, and the semiotic instead can give an interpretation, alone when the words are much and there is a discourse. Aristotle uses a word that isn’t in common languages, because the word “capricervo” is an imaginary animal, that is a mixed between a goat and deer, and he said: “…in fact the capricervo means something, but it isn’t the false or true, if not they add something”. I have already written about the Aristotelian semiotic(Aristotelian semiotic and the Origin of semiotics) and now a confirm it, form the book about the Categories to it, is a semiotic example; and he continues: “The name is a voice that can means in conformity to use, and independently from the time, and of this word nothing is able to means if it is take alone. In fact in Callippo horse hasn’t meaning if we take it alone, instead the words beauty horse has meaning”; it is the easy example of Aristotelian semiotic, that is a handbook for the understanding the semiotic. Aristotle has given to us a code that after is became the semiotic matter, and he has given very easy examples, so that it was understanding to everybody. Anyway the principal concept that I want give to this book is the genesis of semiotic, that during the centuries nobody has considered for this new consideration of language. May then very scant has understood the valor of this book, and today the semiotic valor is certainly unknown, but it is a handbook of semiotic, if somebody want know the semiotic must read this book, because it is the fundamental method for to know the method of linguistic semiotic, because for the semiotic  more bread in meaning is Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914)-       

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

 

   

    

 

 

 

 The constitutional theatre 1797

I want stress the importance alone formal of an episode that in occurred in Italy during the year 1797, the Cispadane Republic, this is an absolutely false Republic, that has followed during that year in north Italy, that enclosed the region of Emilia Romagna and some cities of this region, and two cities of Tuscany; this essay want consider alone the constitution that has ascertained the constitution, and above all consider the fiction of the policy, that has, through Napoleon(1769-1821), has given the image of liberty when the power was always in his hands. The first sign of this lacking of liberty is in the write of this constitution, why? Simple because the Cispadane Republic has had a constitution that has equal to the French constitution. The first article of this constitution is very meaningful for this opinion, in fact the French constitution of 1791, says: “The sake of every politic association is the khe conservation of natural right. These rights are the liberty, the propriety, the sureness and the resistance to oppression”; certainly important declaration but that is almost specular to the first article of Cispadane republic that says: “The rights of man, that lives in the society, are the liberty, the equality, the sureness, the propriety”. A copy of the French constitution, as above said, but we must also consider that in Italy, the word constitution of rights were concept absolutely strange to the common people, and after this constitution lasted strange; but the stratagem is to give the image of the respect of rights and of the freedoms; but the copy continues: “The French constitution says: “The liberty is in the to make everything that isn’t harmful to other…”; the constitution of Cispadane republic says: “The liberty is in the free action that isn’t harmful to other rights…”; regard to the freedom about the think and expression is in this step of French republic: “The free communication of the thinks and of the opinions is one of man more important; every citizen can hence specks, write, print freely…”; very modern principle, that is specular almost to the Cispadane republic: “Nobody can’t be for his freedom about the think, write, and publish also through the print his thinks, except the cases forgotten from the laws…”; the article 12^th has modified but is the same concept  of French constitution: “The equality is in this, that the law is same for everybody both when it protects and punish…”; the difference is in the 17^th article that is alone a formal distinction, because the concept is equal: “The propriety is a holy and inviolable right, nobody can be deprived, except when the public necessity demands it…”, and the Cispadane constitution says: “The propriety is the right of to joy, and to manage owner goods…”. I wanted represent that these concept are absolutely new for that time, but it were already both in France and in Italy, but the innovative change is that they aren’t alone in the customs, but also in the supreme law, this is the constitution, that the Cispadane republic has borrow from the French constitution, I repeat, it was also necessary because the rights in Italy didn’t know, because the rights were alone tied to the habits. We must also consider that the power was always French, and form their hands never was given to the Italian. A historical gift of this republic has been the Italian flag, that is created on the French model, alone the firts color, red instead blue.  

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 The other conformity

Usually we are habit to think to conformity as a rule not official as the laws that regulate the external life of us, motives are different, the job above all, the savage of our own, the dread of not gain and therefore lost something. But we never think that this conformity is very much, and we can know alone our daily and sure; because other forms of conformity are in the word and in the our vital space; in a city, for example, as New York the communities are very much, and every community has its conformity, this is the morality, that stemmed from its culture, its habit, its economy, but it is other conformity; a conformity that for us is natural, because the habit, daily habit, is for us normal; therefore we not want remove it because for us it is normal, and it is the conformity and sureness, hence we need of this conformity, as we need of logic that is other conformity, because think that 2 and 2 is the sum of five it is absolutely absurd, and doubt of an precise entity as the mathematic is crazy, instead it is perfectly logic; because the sum is demonstrated alone from our calculus, but in reality nothing can demonstrated it, inasmuch this sum is conformity, because the sum must be precise in conformity to the calculus, but why it must be so? Simple because if this sum was 5 or 7 or 9, the economic system of the word would be harmed from this opinion, and our sureness would be removed, hence our conformity, that for this is the sureness, there isn’t, and the economy as the other calculus would be harmed, the economy above all, hence 2 more 2 must be 4 and stop. But although we can’t think it, it is the conformity, a conformity that we have in the brain, that is also our sureness, for this we have get used to have fictions sureness, theoretical sureness, but our weakness is so radical whereby we have need of these sureness, always and everywhere; it is sufficient also think or remember a difficult context, this is an episode that has given to us awe, the awe is disappeared, when we have seen something that was familiar to us, hence our soul is calmed; it is the conformity because we have calmed our soul when we have seen something that was consistent to our habits, for this we have projected to these object the our rescue, and we have assimilated the thing to the our salvation, also if these object can’t save us but the presence is important, because it can calms our wit; it is the conformity, because that object is conformity to our life, hence it is nearest to us, and it is also consistent to our wit, and to be consistent is the first rule for our sureness and for conformity; hence I repeat 2 more 2 must be 4, because it is the sureness that the rationality gives to us.

Alessandro Lusana                    

 The conformity of the logic

When we think logically, we have sureness that this think is perfect, because everything has followed the rationality, therefore it is, for us, a sureness, but although we never think, it is also conformity, because the logic is conformity, why? Simple because something must be so, otherwise it isn’t illogic, hence mistake; but we not think that this rationality is right for us in our country, but for citizen of other country, it could be very odd; for example, for a Afghan the freedom that in our country have the women is anomalous, because for our logic it is normal but for the Afghan it isn’t, because we have a habit and we have developed a logic, that is consistent in the freedom for the women, but he has get used to other conformity, and the women hasn’t the freedom, but that is for us underdeveloped for them it is normal, because we have other logic and other conformity. But our think about the perfection of our think is conformity, because we have got custom to think in this way and we not work to other way, because the logic, this is our logic, hence our conformity, want it, this is the logic behavior, that is conformity; because we are following the method of our logic that is inherent to our customs , inasmuch to our conformity, or rather to the rules that our society has ordered, and that we follow mechanically; it is the same phenomenal of religion; because the religion is conformity to a belief and the faithful for to be faithful must follow these rules, that give also the identity, a religious identity, that is always an identity, and that must follow a logic that is inherent to the religion, or rather to that religion, for this it is the conformity because believe must follow determined rules, that are inherent to the belief, that gives the identity and the determined logic, that is conformity, because otherwise the faithful would be heretic or member of other religion, so a Protestant can’t follow the mess because his belief hasn’t the mess; the confession is merely Catholic but also Anglican, but not Lutheran; it is allows an identity and also a conformity, but they can also confess their sins directly to God, as the Protestant, or also to a priest; and it is the paradigm of necessity of a religion of faithful, because the Anglican has determined the three different ways, therefore the Anglican are “polyconformity”, because it enables different method of a sacrament; thence the different ways the first want meet the exigence of faithful, and hence enables the different conformity, that are necessary for the meet the favor of God; we can also consider that the Anglican is the less conformist, because it allows a choose for this sacrament of confession, but we must also consider, that the Anglican confession is similarly conformist although enables different ways for the confession, because the rules for the this sacrament are three but every rule are ascertained, for this the faithful must follow one of these rules, and it is the conformity, for to be Anglican as he not follow the mess for to be Protestant, as the orthodoxy has similar but also different way for the celebration of the mess; it give the identity and different conformity, inherent to their logic.

Alessandro Lusana

       

 I am it: the need of identification

This essay is very wicked because it describes the wit or will of identification of somebody, that during the childhood is normal, but worrying is when it is in adult age; because it is the sign of low personality subject to various influences, that can be positive or negative, and can undermine the develop of personality; in fact during the childhood we are subject to veracious influence above all from our family we can take different influences, both positive and negative, but we have influenced because we haven’t a personality, because our personality is absent, hence we are as air that takes every form of container, or water that has the form of container, we are as the clay, that can be formed from the sculptor how he want, and he can it because the clay is very soft, and our personality is similar the softness is equal, and the influence is the sculptor that shapes us. Who needs of this influence? Simple who hasn’t a personality or has a weak personality, hence he searches sureness for some influence; but it is sign of insurance, because the absence of personality is evident for the direct or indirect influence of somebody or something, and the influence is the involvement can works alone on the weak personality, that are searching a personality, because the to shape their personality is tardy, but although tardy it is going to form it, fortunately because who hasn’t personality never is involved for every influence, positive or negative, I want consider a sentence of a scientist woman Margherita Hack(1922-2013) that said: “That for identification of good and wicked not must be a religion, because if you not know twice you lack of personality”; and it is the dynamic of who hasn’t a personality, because he is subject to every influence, certainly he identify the good and the wicked, but the dominance of his absence of personality overcomes everything, because he want alone a personality this is he want say: “I am it!”, and for him it is the important to be something, not for to be different but alone for to be something, also equal to other; for example: a soldier is equal to other, but his personality is different, he obey as others and he makes that other makes but he is different, very different from others, because his personality is different, but the personality isn’t importance for the army, I have explain this example for to say that also the developed personality can be subject to a major influence, same the priests and the popes, that can have their personality, but they must obey to superior orders, hence they are equal to others but their personality is very different. The need of identification is necessary to the weak personalities, because they need of something that can identify them, but not for to be different but alone for can say to themselves I am it, it is important, to be something.

Alessandro Lusana             

 Auditory semiotic

We never has taught a question the is absolutely marginal, but that can assume some importance in the studio of semiotic; a category of semiotic that is auditory, that isn’t never considered but that is the integral part of semiotic; when we hearing a CD, musical CD, we can author , classic  or not because we have read on the packet, but if we are in competition and the question is : “Who is the author of this music?”, we can manage of choose the author for the style of the music; and it is the auditory semiotic, as a discourse or a voice that we are hearing, we can choose who is the author that has pronounced the discourse from the style and the voice, and it is the auditory semiotic, because we can recognize the author from the words that are expressed, hence from the sound of voice, ton and the words, but above for the sound; hence it is the auditory semiotic. The written we can  identify the author through the style, but the written is mute, same difficult for the auditory semiotic, that using  the categories of Peirce, this is the Firstness , this is the essence, or better the style, that is a peculiarity of human gender, of artists particularly; inasmuch the auditory semiotic, is a category that can be considered, because it is brings directly to the author, that we haven’t know before. A language is other motive for to identify somebody if don’t know somebody, hence if he is Dutch we may identify him for the language, or netter some compatriot we can identify his origin for the language, or better his town from determined expression or inflexion, that he is from the north, south or other; it is the auditory semiotic; a discourse is the auditory semiotic because the Firstness is the meaning of this discourse, therefore from the decode the sound, we can consider the essence, hence we can think that the object of our interest is changed, because from the sound we now consider the essence, but the essence of sound is the style, because the composer lavish his style in the music, and in his composition; but the change is present because from the sound we now consider now the meaning, thence the style for this  we can we can consider the author of discourse, also without know who pronounce it; in this case the different object of interest is evident, but the method is similar, because we are hearing always and the object is same , the discourse, therefore the auditory semiotic, that consider the meaning of a discourse that is the style; in classical concert the words aren’t , but the style is evident  for the ears, in fact we must hear alone , it is the style of somebody, in this case alone auditory but the style is always present, whereby the auditory semiotic is our.

Alessandro Lusana   

      

 Infantile conformity

The conformity is the true infantile form of expression of human gender, why? Simple, because if we remind when the elementary schools, the masters usually during the visits in some town, were usual order to us the order and the keep the line, because the responsibility was their; but this think is similar to the conformity, because the people that follows the fashion or habit, because everybody makes it, is infantilism; the will of emulation of the men is infantilism, the child will be equal to other always, hence to be equal is the infantilism of man, that until the infantile age is natural, but after it is the sign of infantilism and lack of personality; it is the principal problem, the lack of personality, that is comparable to the water, every form of container is the form of water, a bottle gives the form to water, and the mode or custom gives the form to men, why? Simple because the following are lacking of personality, therefore they haven’t a capacity of imposition to themselves, and it is the lacking of think and interior strong; we can consider that also the soldiers are always equal, whereby also they are lacking of personality, instead not, why? Simple: because they are dress equal and they make the same thing, but the difference is in the duty that they have; because the obey and the make the same things is their duty; they have a precise duty, and from it they can’t leave something, because they are soldiers, and the monks or religious that can’t leave something from his believe, and the soldier has the same interior rigor, or at last they should have it. The conformity is also infantilism because after that the man has followed a custom, and the people follows other for to be fashionable everybody follows that custom, because everybody makes it;  this is lacking of personality, that gives the sureness because it is equal to other, hence it is following the people, that is an element of sureness; the genius is born when he makes something that is different; Galileo Galilei(1564-1642) has used the magnifying lens in other way and he has found the satellites of Jove, and the surface of moon isn’t smooth and other; he has followed his method; and it is the problem, this is to find a method that is our, because we can find it, why? Because everyman has his personality, and we can tie our method to it, because we must find a method that is fit to our personality, and this search, allows the our growth, because we can know better ourselves, because we refuse and accept something, therefore we must analyze ourselves, and so we can know ourselves, through this chooses, and we can begin to build our personality, through the knowledge of ourselves, and we can begin to remove the idea that is dominant, this is the following other; but we must also consider that it isn’t sufficient, because we must refuse the mute orders, this is the conformity, and search our taste and our preference, our way.

Alessandro Lusana               

 

 The ancestor of Cathars

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

Alessandro Lusana

         

                 

 

 Daily semiotic of Peirce: haecceity

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

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

Alessandro Lusana   

 

           

 

 Human semiotic

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

Alessandro Lusana    

 The tell of experience: Hobbes

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

Alessandro Lusana

 The Aristotelian Pierce: the phaneroscopy

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

Alessandro Lusana 

 

          

 

 The idea: limitation of the sensible real

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

Alessandro Lusana

 The totalitarian State of Hobbes

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

Alessandro Lusana