Athens school

A young student entered to a library, very great and provided of very much books that were among diverse matters, literature, history, philosophy and other. He has had lived in a school of philosophies, and he dreamed it always; then he asked to a employee where was philosophy, and librarian indicated direction; in fact between two racks he entered and he seen to back a guy, that called him and invited him to follow. Constantine it was name of student thought that he was an employee, and he followed him that turned among books, and sometime took one and he open it and read some line, then he stopped herself and during a stop, he called Constantine and indicated on a open book a line to ancient Greek language. This man had beard and a longe tunic, ended read he said: “Do you know this book?”, then Robert, lover of philosophy, answered: “Yes, it is Nicomachean etics” and old man asked: “Do you have read it?”, and Constantine answered: “Yes, I have read and I love it”, then old man looked eyes of Constantine and asked: “What says this book?”, and Constantine that in the meantime had riconized this old man, answered: “Do you asking to me what is matter of this book? You have written on 4th century before Ch., the you must say what says this book”, and old man, this is Aristoteles answered: “I have written it but you have read”, Constantine then was getting ready to answer, when a voice to back said: “This is different thing, read and write”, Constantine then turned immediately and he looked a man with average hightness and with white beard, and Constantine riconized Socrates and asked: “Why do you say it?” and Socrates: “When do you write read also?”, Constantine answered: “No certainly”, and Socrates: “Why?”, and Constantine answered: “Because if I read could not give attention to my to write, and concepts that I want say could not be claer”, and Socrates asked: “Who?”, and Constantine: “First to me” and Socrates asked: “Then, you must write and after read, or no?”, Constantine answered: “Certainly”, and Socrates said: “This is natural dinamic and this is actus and potens, or, according to opinion of Aristoteles it is?” he asked to Constantine: “Intention and thing”, and Socrates: “Yes, very well”, Constantine lower his head and when he raised it he looked his dress that was become a tunic and he cry scared and asked to a reader that has took a book: “Where is my dress?” and other voice, of Aristoteles, said: “It is useless, because they can’t hear you”, and he looked around and and asked: “Where are I?”, and Euclid approached to him and said: “Welcome Constantine, we has had waited you for much time, but now you are among us”, and Constantine very scared answered: “Thank you butwho is thet portrait in librray?”, and Epicurus that has heard question answered: “You are, and you must explain now to that student what you has written in your book, then come to library and after we are going discuss about atom and other”, then Constantine set in front of student, very angry and student raised eyes and looked Constantine and student asked: “You are gping explain what is this concept”, and Constantine explained it, and student got up and said: “I want a cola”, and Constantine said: “You know that cola is very strong for you”, and student: “I know perfeclty but cola is minimun for this book, because you have written very difficult concepts, and your wife, this is my mother, was right, you are difficult.

Alessandro Lusana   

                                                                 

  

 

Machiavelli and ideal and daily politic

The portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli, at last in Italy, is a man very sly, and a olitic man very prudent, it is very much true and we certainly can’t desprove this judice, because it is sufficient read of books of Machiavelli and we can consider that he has been very political man, whose methods, today, and I want stress today because it very easy to condemn, during modern times, that was normal during 16th century or afte ras before; we must consider that today happens same everything but with different methods, was is present, homicide is present, and other, because men are always men. Niccolò anyway has very important for explication about polical method in 16th century, but for important questions, is very difficult that we find Niccolò busy for istructions very daily, and we can read this everyday life from letters of Niccolò. Thisnature very daily of Niccoloò is evident  for some steps of some letter, for example: “You see a law acted from our city at august 1492, that want everybody is going to live in Pisa is for 20 years free from tax except for tax for roads and bridges and services…”, and other: “We think that is get out wear from your city, and we can’t hear this worry thing because the harvest this yesr is very poor and we not wnat that to people misses wear, then if somebody bring out of city of Pisa wear he will be fine with seize of animals”. Today this punishments are laughable, but at 1510 it were very serious; and we can read that Niccolò isn’t alone theorical political man but he is very pragmatic and he kown very well needs of people, and probably consequences that would come, then Niccolò was a political man that looked ideal and daily life very attentive.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

 

 

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