The other absolute spirit

I want write this essay because I want explain my personal concept of the absolute spirit, that in the Phenomenology of Spirit of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel(1770-1831) is specular to the religion, this is when the spirit is peer to the religion and hence it can look itself, it has reached the absolute knowledge, naturally for Hegel this path for this evolution want passages, or better philosophical passages necessary to reach the conscience of itself, that is for the last passage, as the specular religion spirit, as he has said it to the Phenomenology. I want tell about my conception of absolute spirit, that is merely human and much laic, because for me alone the human has this spirit, and the human kind can manifest this spirit, but how? Simple through the history; for Saint Agustin the history is alone the manifestation of God, although I am Catholic, I am more laic than Saint Agustin, because the man kind works the history, and every consequence of this absolute spirit of man is also the principal factor necessary to every event and every change in the history as for everything; the man works the history as he work the build, that he has made, and that he can destroy; the absolute spirit is manifest to every historical event; but the spirit can change radically from a country to other, because the habit and customs are different, certainly, and it is other clear sign of the work of man, because the different morality is result of different conditions: economic, cultural, moral, and social, that the man has found and that he has adapted to his spirit, through the works and transformations of an environment, that he has produced for him, but the decision and the spirit have determined the changes, hence the history is merely built of man; the transformations of the new country, as actual  USA is the determination of a man that following his spirit has started the radical modifications of that country but, although Cristoforo Colombo(1451-1506), has had other think in confront to followed discovery, he has started from Palos, Spain, because he has had the spirit of sea man, as Giovanni Caboto (1445/1450-1498-1501), that moored for first to Canada, and after other Italian, Amerigo Vespucci(1454-1512), that involuntary given the name to new continent, America from Amerigo. The spirit was the principal determination for these changes that are started from the absolute spirit of man, that can change something in conformity of the spirit both his and of time; he can create or destroyed, but it can occurs on the ground of the time, of habit, of morality, that are other builds of the spirit, that is different because the spirit that is built during the centuries, that we call traditions, is the constant determination of manifestation of our spirit, that is manifest for every day and in every environment, because also for the daily occasions we manifest our spirit, today we are angry and after we are calm, but our spirit is judge of every occasion, and the reaction is determined from the spirit.

Alessandro Lusana   

  

 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