Socrate’s the egoism and the coherence

The title can refers to something that who is writing has noted in Socrates’s(b.Ch.469-399)  philosophy, and in fact it is so evident that as said Robert Musil(1880-1942) regard the monument: “The monument is so great that nobody sees it”; and it is the human reality, because the sometime something is more evident but nobody sees it, and what is the anomaly of Socrates? Simple the will of try his method on the other, nothing that could harm or to cause damn, not absolutely, but alone the wish of to ascertain is a philosophical method could be effective; it is easy understandable for his legendary refuse of the payment, when he said: “I can’t teach to somebody, because I know of don’t to know(ἒν οἶδα ὄτι οὑδἐν οἶδα ), he in fact said the truth; because he state experiment his method, but who experiment a method he not know the effectiveness of this, hence he must before experiment, and Socrates has experimented the question and the rationality, his rationality, that was logic, through the others, his “pupils”; hence when he said “Γνωθι σαυτόν”, he wanted try if this method was effective, this is if through the knowledge of himself could be through the logic question; inasmuch that can seem the altruism, for the formal exercise, it was the normal egoism, it is the anomaly of Socrates, this is what is altruist is very egoism, but an egoism very anomalous, because he could gain through the his lessons and stop, but he has always refused the money, because he didn’t know; but it is also coherence, because he not gain for my ignorance, because the first thing that I must know, if imagine him in the confession, is myself, but before I must know if this method is effective, otherwise I will can other method; the ignorance that Socrates said for herself is right and exact, because he not know herself and hence experimented on the other, the effectiveness of his method, that evidently was effective because more philosophers has told about Socrates, the first was Plato; but neither Plato has seen this anomaly; he followed Socrates always, but for the philosophic method he has state very long; and may Socrates when solicited the “pupils” to search the their truth, it is because he state searching his truth, and for the coherence he could not taught something, because he hasn’t again found the his truth, hence he could not tell a truth that he hasn’t, because he was searching it, therefore I can’t want the money for to teach what I am searching, this is : “I haven’t solution to this problem, thereupon I can’t teach to somebody it”, it is the supreme coherence of Socrates, that hasn’t the possibility of solve some problem, actually he was learning from the others through the questions, rational questions, hence Socrates has been the more master and pupil of other that the history can records, because through his tries he learned and after he could taught, therefore it is the egoism and coherence.

Alessandro Lusana

 Republican fairy tales:1798

The material for essays in the Roman republic is more than we can think, because ended a essay the cucks up solicit other essay, and the Rome republic certainly doesn’t lack of this; a discourse of Niccola Corona(1750-?), a Jacobin and layer that in Rome, during the Roman republic has uttered this discourse that is laughable and absurd, typical of political publicity: “It is the Roman this moment that is the more beauty of your history. Those heroes that have taught to every nation of word of set back to slavish they have became slave of the priests with crow, that undress the State for to enrich their families…”; these families certainly were rich but they guaranteed also the job and slavish donation to the people, and the second if these families could enriched them evidently somebody has let it, also because the proprieties then were above all the lands and fields, but somebody have to cultivate these fields, and the grangers were of people, the last class of society, that evidently was satisfied so, and this condition was present from the ancient Rome, hence a people to whom is told the liberty, and this people not knows minimal concept of liberty, these are alone empty words, and also erred, and above all the Roman people was habit to this social classism, hence these are alone words without following. Corona continued for his cucks up: “Awaked the wit of liberty and independence, that has made the history of your forefather, and the felicity and richness of free nations.”; it is umpteenth lie; because the unique revolution, in Europe, was that French, and after the Revolution the economic income was the same of the before the Revolution or even worse; hence it is alone the publicity, that certainly somebody has heard but whose has understood nothing, because to a people that was habit to this misery and presumed slavery, a discourse so propagandistic not could have effect, and in fact it hasn’t had effects; also because the people to whom this discourse was destined was illiterate and the ancient Rome did know something; and Corona continues: “Delete from your heads and in the your heart every memories of oppression, that degrade you, and more rises sublime this tree of liberty more you can destroy these signs of cruel tyranny…”; but if was has been a tyranny the people would has already rioted but it isn’t occurred in Rome, the following is ridiculous: “The Roman people bored from much time of monstrous despotism, that has oppressed it, has tried more times of free oneself of this oppression…An secret magic of opinions and of politic interest and a overcoming military strong, has invalided until now the good result…”; somebody should ask to Corona when occurred these tries, in what time, century and is these has occurred on the earth planet or in his fantasy. We can laugh of these very dingy publicity; but the exercise is to the confront to actual political discourses, that are very ridiculous, and as Corona says one truth and a thousand of lies; inasmuch or the political discourses has written Corona or the politic man uses the same method.

Alessandro Lusana        

    

 

                  

 

 

 

 

 The noble literature: Guy of Warwick

Guy of Warwick a British poem between 13th and 15th century, is a typical work of literature of his time, because the protagonist, Guy that after become the knight and faced much adventures for the love Phaelice, daughter of ear of Warwick; it is the typical tale of Medieval age, where the knight must be a superman, and naturally this superman must be also noble, it is important for the literary canon that in the Middle age was asked, hence: “I shall not trouble the reader with a long genealogy of the descent of our famous Guy of Warwick; it shall therefore suffice to tell the reader, that in the sixth year of the reign of king Edgard the Great, this our famous Guy, was born in the city of Warwick. His father was a gentleman of Northumberland, in which country he had been the possessor of a fair estate…”; the canon of noble literature is respected, because Guy is now a noble, that is going to marry a noble. But after this step is necessary that Guy falls in love of Phaelice, always through a fair behavior, inasmuch: “But by being at the earl’s house, he came to have a sight of fair Phaelice, his beautiful daughter, with whom he was so extremely taken, that nothing but she could satisfy him…”; and after the potential husband also the potential wife the qualities must be considered: “She was indeed so fair, that she could not be seen, without being loved.”, and a summary description of Phaelice and hers beautiful was necessary, thence: “She was so fair, Venus herself could never boast more beauty…”; thereby also a very synthetic description, but necessary to let to reader a general and ideal image of Phaelice, that beyond noble and fair must be also beauty. And other note, about the anonymous author, that certainly was a cultured man, and we can think also a religious or a poet of court, because during the Middle age these two personages has had the sufficient culture for these comparison: “…and had she but been present at the famous contest between Juno, Pallas, and Venus, about the golden apple…”; other proof of this culture is given from the following step: “…beauty could no where but in Phaelice’s face be found in its perfection; but these perfections were so many daggers, sticking poor Guy to the heart…”; it the god of love Eros, that shot the arrows directly to the heart of lovers; and the competition among the three goddess, Juno, Pallas and Venus, that were concurrent in the beautiful and Paris chosen Venus, and the more famous was the narration, that was from the ancient Greek, of Ovid(43 b.Ch-18 a.Ch.), that during the Middle age was more diffused also in the convent and in the courts; therefore the author was may a court poet; but the pilgrimage of Guy, in Holy land, was a motive merely religious and tied to penitence, and it let to us also to hypothesize also a century for the written, because the pilgrims were very frequent also before of the first crusade, in the 1096-1099, wanted from the pope Urban 2th, that has proclaimed it in the city of Clermont, France. These are alone the hypothesis that the writer want alone set for a think of reader, since the date and the author aren’t known; anyway the material from this poem is present, and we can again think about these hypothesis and deny them or confirmed.

Alessandro Lusana        

 

  

 

 

   

 Little nationalism: parochialism

The love for our nation is certainly noble and laudable , and the internationalism is a pure utopian as the anarchy because we should renounce to our habit, our language and our wit, that is impossible, hence it is mere utopian, the man can’t becomes the unhuman; everybody has in own wit the pride of owner birth, because it’s the natural human spirit; but this love  can also be given to owner city, that is more great love given to our proprieties because all the city isn’t our, but in the with can becomes our; we are proud of our birth and of our city, and it is always a motive officially the nationalism or parochialism, that is a little form of nationalism; we exalt, above in Italy and France our cities, and in fact our love for our cities almost excludes the love for the nation, because our love it to the our city, that can be beauty or ugly, but it is always the our city, and we consider it as our propriety, that we defend always because it is our, and we know its history and its wit, this is the wit of the city, this the wit of citizens, its language that can assume meaning different from other, idiomatic expressions that has a meaning in a city and other is other cities; also it is the wit of a city; I remember an judge of Stendhal(1783-1842), that has judged the city of Rome as a reign of passion, of liberty, of customs and of a vital energy, that is unique in Europe; Stendhal certainly could not be parochial because he was Frence, but evidently that was involved from the popular nature that Rome had then,  afield from the formality and customs of France, that can be also a motive of pride for every nation; for example the England citizens are very proud of their customs, because it is a motive for to be different, because the nationalism  and the parochialism  are two sides of a different wit, that is different from other nations and form other cities, hence it becomes motive of pride for to be different, because the own characteristics are fit for the comparison; usually it also used for an exaltation  of our nation or city, but this wit is determined  from the distinction from the difference, this is the possibility of can say: “I am other person, other custom, other nation, other culture and other city, that is the character of a person: the French are polite, the British are formal, the Italian are passionate and the German are disciplined; it is the distinction of a people that is also a character, that can be found also in a city. The parochialism is other side of nationalism an nationalism more little, that has the same characteristic, this is the owner and the same wit, this the possess of something that we have in our spirit, in our childhood, soothing that by now is our, and we want defender it always, also if it isn’t our propriety because a city can’t be whole our, but in our wit it is our, because it is our spirit that has determined our habits, our language and our culture, hence it is ourselves, this our wit because the characteristics are a side that cannot be set aside of our wit; hence our life, that is our propriety.

Alessandro Lusana                  

 The national egoism and egocentrism

Usually we consider the nationalism for the love of owner nation and for the love for everything is from owner nation: this is the habit, language, characteristic and other; this sentiment can be despised or lauded for the owner ideology, a stateless certainly would despise this feel, instead a nationalist would love it, and who is nationalist; but this feel can  be beloved or not but I want show that it is alone egoism, without judge , but it is egoism; and it is more clear if we think to our proprieties, because if somebody violate our propriety, we not let it if the criminal is of our nation or not, we would have a reaction independently  fore the nation of criminal, why? Because he has violated or propriety, hence this is our reaction because he has violated our owner, and not alone our nation, therefore he is a criminal because he wanted appropriate of something that is our and not of nation; it is true egoism, that is prevalent feel, and the same feel for the foreign, because to be nationalist is a harm to mine wit and not alone to our nation, because in the nation, also owner, we are very much, thence the harm can be to me or others because in the nation are very much citizens; in fact the reaction is when the offence touches the particular, our particular, and it is the egoism, that becomes the nationalism and pride for the official judge, but it is alone the egoism, that determines the reaction; in fact you are not offending something of aleatory, but you are offending me, this is my person through my nation, that is foreign country is mine, my propriety, whereby it is egoism, something that is mine and stop. Same feel for the parochialism that in Italy and above all in Tuscany is very life; the Florentine is a typical example of the pride, or Tuscan pride, because the Florentine is proud of his origin as every citizen of Siena, Pisa and other cities of Tuscany; it is the pure egoism because my city is mine alone, it is a my propriety and you are offending my city, you are violating my propriety; therefore my reaction is mechanical this is the to your offence trough the contrast with pride of to tell  the qualities of my nation as its history, its characteristics that are also our propriety, because we have these characteristics; whereby you are offending me and not my nation, but me alone, and the natural pride is normal. The nationalism is also a motive for the egocentrism; because a national characteristic  is motive for to be different, hence original, , that is egoism always because  the egocentric is prevalently an egoist, because he has necessity, for his weakness, og to be considered, it is a weakness that want the attention because he is fear  of not accepted, hence he searches constantly the praise of other, so that he can temperate  the his inferiority ; the nationalism  is other form , salutary or not, of egoism and egocentrism.

Alessandro Lusana         

   

 The formal politic and the social context: Roman Republic 1798-1799

The policy is always tied to the social context for every time, and in the Roman context, during the Roman republic break of the papal regime, that has had a very short time, but the collection of edicts, proclamations and the orders of the Roman Republic, is very explicative for this contextualization of the republican ideals, first the religion: “The cult will be religiously respected, hence every manifestation of the cult must continue without the change”; the French Revolution has respected the religion because the France of 1789 was deeply Catholic, therefore the prohibition of cult would has been very harmful for the Revolution; but a control was necessary also to the revolutionary, because the citizen was free but the control was indispensable, the trust to new man, this is the revolutionary, was an ideal principle but the policy want the control, inasmuch: “The ambassadors, ministers are invited to send to Major State the list of his compatriots that are in Rome now.”; a State must assure itself and its citizen, and in this context it was necessary for avoid the spies that could entered under cover; hence the ideal policy is much relative. Other proclamation is very contradictory, because in 9^th article it said: “It is expressly prohibit and for a pain of a tax, and a corporal pain to every citizens of Rome of diminution of their servant that they have now”, and: “For the citizen, that are emigrated, whosoever manage the owner goods, must pay and feed the same number of servants, that has had their masters, for the punition of confiscation of every goods; it is the supreme contradiction, because the Revolution had abolish the slavery in France, whereby in Rome it have to the same, why not? Simple, because the slavery was necessary to avoid the unemployment, and the future criminals, because then the food in Rome was low, in fact every province that depended from Rome, at last for the policy have to send the supplies to Rome; and the low food would not has been enough also for the unemployed, that without the salary of some lord would feed the criminality; hence the servant were necessary, beyond the ideal policy. The orders 4^th and 5^th for this supplies are very clear: “The orders given to Commands of French army, of to give the protection to the supplies that are sent to Rome, and it isn’t accepted nothing motive for the residents of the State of Church or of whomsoever that has slowed down the supplies”. These are alone some example of the practical policy that for every model, monarchic or republican must be attentive to the needs of the people, because the same people that yesterday has acclaimed today despise you, and the political man it knows perfectly. The last example, the article 10^th: “The home hospice, and the hospitals will be manage as to past…”; it can seems absolutely useless because it hasn’t importance, instead it has importance because during the 17^th century in Rome the hospitals and the home hospices were managed form the clergy; hence the religion was necessary also for the peace of soul and of the body; hence the laic ideal could now cast off, because the cures could be necessary also to the French soldiers, and the surgeries, then, aren’t, may in the clergy; whereby the practical policy was dominant.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The valor of context: Gioberti

I have already treated about Vincenzo Gioberti(1801-1852), but now I want alone stress the valor of time and the context, that has given so emphasis to the narration that Gioberti has seen for the literature of Italy that, it isn’t for the nationalism, that I am and pride to be it, but alone for to stress the my essay on the context (The causes of history, this is: what is the context?), and the third book of Gioberti, The primate moral and civil of Italians, is necessary to justify and to show the validity of the knowledge of contest and its causes, that here are alone political; this book Gioberti has written during the 19^th century, when the morality, above all to the high class this is the middle class, has ordered, although silently, the love to nation; naturally very low were who has persecuted for his ideas; naturally our Risorgimento, it the name that the history has given to this period, has emphasized every episode but why? Simple because the Italian hasn’t never had the awareness of a State, differently from the French, because for the French the first is the State and after the France; the history of Italy that was always a nation divided for the small states, the conception of unique State never was present; hence during the Risorgimento, although uselessly because the Italian people was illiterate, the intellectuals tried to give a summary concept of a nation or State, Massimo d’Azelio(1798-1866), an Italian writer, written in a letter: “We have made the Italy, but can’t make the Italians”; this is we can’t give the awareness to them that they are Italian; but during the period of Gioberti this illusion was again possible, in fact somebody to me very dear said: “To govern the Italians isn’t impossible but alone useless”; anyway the context is very celebrative of a nation that then wasn’t: “The beauty being an idea identified from the fantasy, the ideal nation and owner of the first scientific elements must be imaginative…”; we should aske to Gioberti: “The nationalism is justified, but about what nation do you are speaking?”; because now Italy isn’t, hence your book is alone a phantasy, compliment! But every cock up of these words, must be useful for evidence that the writer is Gioberti, but the author is the context, because it has written The primate moral and civil. Gioberti continues: “The aesthetic primate of Italy is hence both chronological and logic in same time; because for a side it proceeded other peoples on occident, for use of letters and of noble arts…”; here Gioberti is very laughable because he aware of say od cuck up, said these lies for alone nationalism; because the ancient Greek has preceded Rome and Italy, and Egypt and Mesopotamia have preceded both Italy and ancient Greek for use of letters and arts; inasmuch Gioberti, that known these ancient civilities ignores it because the primate of Italy would not be, and he lacks of context, although he was right for the modern art: “…the literature is Italian art being among the modern that can equal the ancient…”; hence he known the ancient arts, but the emphasis continues: “…in this competition the Italians have to overcome themselves because the classicist ancient was alone work of their race, and in Italy has had their country…”. It is a judge of a nationalist that wanted alone a celebration od his nation but without consideration of reality.

Alessandro Lusana