The goodness and badness of philosophy

The thought is human one possibility, I repead one possibility, because kindman has very much possibilities, and then think is principal dinamic of human gender, because before that we make something we must think, also if it is mechanical action, we turn always to actions that we have made; one example I think is sufficient, when we write something, we consider the thought never the letters, in fact we, after written, correct what he have written, but during the write we think alone that we must write and concept we are writing, never we consider letters. Philosophy is different, although it arose from thought; but the principal task is badness and godness; this is it is must be bad, rather very bad, because it makes more problems than solutions; one example, one question: what the absolute spirit of Hegel? Hegel didin’t explain it never, and when we haven’t one explication sufficient we don’t search a solution, then this problemi is unsolved, and when we think about this concept is very difficult to understand, the thought of thought of Aristoteles is origin of this concept that have in itself everything; but it is very difficut to understand because it isn’t pratical action; in fact the speculative philosophy is certainly more accepted because is mechanical observation of reality, then very simple, but specular philosophy is very easy in confront to idealism, then some philosophycal think is gratefull other is very difficult, and major question is that idealism gives much problems and after one solution other problemi is present; for example what is for Hegel Rational, it is that is present, but when we understand what is Absolute spirit we meet adgective rational, or what is virtue in conformiti of think of Machiavelli, or what is Rasor of Occam, problems that we whant ignore, because they are difficult, and we need of practical questions to solve practical questions; these problems are stragers to common life; but if we think about to these problems also these are practical, but with grade certainly superior; then philosophy is good and very bad on background we think it.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

Uccello’s influence

Wev know perfectly that influence among contemperary painters is evident, and we can’t deny it because influence is evident for every painter, it is sufficient looking influence of Michelangelo and his Sixtin chapel to other Michelangelo, this is Merisi, Caravaggio(Figs.1-2), and very much others influence we could look; one of these is, in conformity my opinion, between Paolo Uccello(1397-1475), and Giovanni di Ser Giovanni, called lo Scheggia(1406-1486), brother low famous of Masaccio, whom was influenced by Paolo Uccello, on painting style. The horses of lo Scheggia are resumed from Paolo Uccello(Figs. 3-5); but it is valid also for figures, because some painting of Scheggia is to figures, very much near with some figure of Paolo Uccello(Figs.6-8). Certainly lo Scheggia has took florentine line, this is cukture of drawing that after we refind on Sixtin Chapel of Michelangelo, it is triumph of Tuscany drawing culture; we can then consider that this influence is very felt but it was also common, then we can resume this characteristic also for dresses, same sofness for fields and skirts. Same matter for rocks(Figs.9-10), same innatural line same stiffness, that is very starnge for natural and geological worked, but not certainly for Paolo Uccello and lo Scheggia; then influence from first painter on second is present and very strong, this influence shows also that personality of Scheggia was very weack, differently to brother Masaccio that was very revolutionary painter and has influenced also Michelangelo.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3   

Fig.4

Fig.5 

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

     

                                             

  

 

 

Mill: a describer

John Stuart Mill(1806-1873) an English philosopher and economist man written an essay On liberty to 1859, and  until now nothing that is new; but Milli for this essay is an speculative philosopher, and he known very well ancient philosophy because he, for his father studied ancient greek from third age old, then he could read ancient philosophy and Aristoteles, in conformity with opinion of Hegel he was first speculative phylosopher on history, and we can agree to this opinion. Anyway this essay has some step very important for show a theory, this is that Mill told about that was the English society, on e step says: “There can be no fair discussion of the question of usefulness, when an argument so vital may be employed on one side, but not on the other. And in point of fact, when law or public feeling do not permit the truth of an opinion to be disputed, they are just as little tolerant of a denial of its usefulness. The utmost they allow is an extenuation of its absolute necessity, or of the positive guilt of rejecting it”, to this step he described a reaction, this is: “…when law or public feeling do not permit the truth of an opinion to be disputed, they are just as little tolerant…”, this is society, this is English society, could  react to very little tolerance, and this concept is remarked by words: “or public feeling”, then he has seen the society and liberal, at least for Europen societies, this is freedom for opiions, that nobody has never denied , also during France revolution, when in Assemblée nationale costituante on 9 july 1789, are present also clerical men and aristocratic, set on right side of assembly. But this condition is certainly liberal in confront to absolutism, that never there was in Europe, because both clerical and aristocratic men known that middle class worked richness; then in Great Bretain this middle class was unique that garanted richness, this motive is necessary to justify economical liberalism which Great Britain has had always, and after come to USA, but this essay on the liberty is a portrait of English society, that has some impediment for common opinion, and some act for intolerance, buti t is normal in liberal societies. Then Mill sees his society and his nation, and uses speculative philosophy. Finally On the liberty is English society around the year 1859.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Mill, a social liberal adecquate to our time

For reading of Wealth of nations is very difficult find some liberal theory regard economy, Ithink that we can read and reread Wealth of nations, buti ti is going to find some tenet of liberalism, rather we can find and esteem or scorn mer liberalism as social fact although theorycal alone On the liberty of John Stuart Mill; a book very interest because shows think not certainly of author but, I think, of a nation, this is Great Britain, hence this is speculative philosophy, a questioniis is spontaneous, this is, Why? Because we must cionsider that Mill certainly, seen about his country, and in fact he often said about morality that is a factor for opinion, but he considers morality non certainly power, witch he describes, for speculative filosofy, an influencing motive for an opinion, and he said also that this power can’t be silent every opinions, otherwise is would be tyranny, but this think is own of Great Britain; certainly we can find same tolerance also in other nations, for example, also during monarchy in France, the Revolution was possible because the ideas of revolutionaries could turned, in fact some revolution during 20th century was possible because the army wanted these revolutions. Anyway Mill is very liberal and he could take about English costume, that was very liberal, in fact he said on one step: “Their power was but the nation's own power, concentrated, and in a form convenient for exercise This mode of thought, or rather perhaps of feeling, was common among the last generation of European liberalism”, on this mention we can findmsome word, or verb, which is very interesting, this is “feeling”, this verb shows what we has red before, this is costume, or feeling, necessary to a State. For others step of this book we find similar concepts, as: “A similar tone of sentiment might by this time have been prevalent in our own country, if the circumstances which for a time encouraged it, had continued unaltered.”, and I repeate that is rational and irrational concept, this is feel or “sentiment”, this is will of to follow what is predominant like an opinion or a think, dynamic which Mill didin’ condamns but considers an idea. I repeat that this liberty was present among States of Europe, because every govern knows stops his power and when it must use for a nation.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Botero: Machiavelli poor version

Giovanni Boteron (1544-1617) has been a Italian writer and he writeen The raeason of state,(1589), it is a exlication of cases for survive and existence for states, and explication for enrichment of it; but above all, he consoiders strategy necessary for states, and his building nd after his maintenance, then all strategy both to people and other nations. This is very imortatnt contribuite to olical science, but it is resumed from Machiavelli, that has written De principibus, this is On prince, a treaty about policy science, very imortatnt and very deep for political science, that olitical correct on their time has deprecated, on contrary Machiavelli has descripted all behaviour of politic both on 16th century and now; Botero has resumed same strategy of Machiavelli and he has enrichment this polical teels that he has considered through history; but he is poor version of Machiavelli, in fact that has explained about policy is obviuous and he, above all, catchs historical examples that regard its time were perfect but during 16th and 17th centurys it were past and useless because context has changed and by now history has advanced and these criterions were overcome. This is treaty this is The State rasoni s a very good investigation about history, but without historical references, because he describes case of political and after he gives some example, but it is very moderate attempt to follow Machiavelli, although Botero didn’t say never it.

Alessandro Lusana 

       

                               
         

 

Two Michelangelo and one subject

The two Michelangelo that I consider for this essay are Michelangelo Buonarroti and Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio; two very important artist consequent over time, but twice busied for one subject, a pictorial subject, this is Crucifixion of Saint Peter. I consider these pictures no certainly for subject bus because one, this is the first, this is Crucifixion of Buonarroti(Fig.1) was model for second painting in Cerasi chapel(Fig.2). we must consider very attentive influences and model; the first over time 1546-1550 and second between 1600 and 1601, then Caravaggio seen certainly two frescos of Michelangelo Buonarroti and he took some valid advisement, such he has took figure of torturer that is bent under cross, Caravaggio has took this figure from figure that digs field for cross of saint Peter on the fresco of Pauline chapel(Fig.3), Caravaggio has seen this figure and he has modified posture and he has worked more realism(Fig.4), and regard postures he has took posture of Saint Peter of Michelangelo, very similar, head is bent forward and cross is on diagonal position furthermore; the figure of Michelangelo that has grasped a cross arm(Fig.5) on fresco of Michelangelo is same figure of Caravaggio this is figure that  pulls the rope over shoulders(Fig.6). Then Caravaggio has took Michelangelo and he has rendered more realistic a model that has had some notes of realism.

Alessandro Lusana  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

         

 

Truth and religion

The personal letters often have some question personal and universal, but almost never are sincere; everybody has written a letter to wife, girlfriend, or boyfriend, we are always very kindle and lovers until three years of marriage; after that we have satisfied our needs, sons and pleasure, every feeling is further memory. But we can find also some exception during time, Medieval age, when sentiment was not present, it was an tool necessary to justify marriage, or matters to poetries, Dante Alighieri is example; then we can consider sentiment and passion alone literary tools. We can read the letters of Heloise to Pieter Abelard(1079-1142), two religious, very cultured, twice known Latin and Greek and they had a son, Astrolabio, and written at 11^th century these letters; these letters have much sentiment and truth regard religion: in 4^th letter Heloise says: “I have lied to you furthers both you and other. You as other seen to me a religion devotion sentiment that was hypocrisy”, truth sentiment that we can find on this letter when Heloise says: “Don’t believe that I not need you and you cures”, this confession is important because shows that feeling of woman and man, to this case, was sincere. Besides he confesses one nature of love which is human both male and female, he says on fifth letter: “The my love, the love which aims to sin is was physical attraction no love. To you I have satisfied  my desires, and I loved about you”.

Alessandro Lusana