logos

Logos, for our classical philosophy, is language and thought together. Language and thought are the same thing. If those philosophers were right, when we think, or talk, we always do it with words and propositions and with their rules of use. Now, the basic question sounds like this: Is that word or proposition the thing or the fact to which we refer it? Or not? No, the word is not the thing, the sentence is not the fact, the language is not the world. If we say yes we are taking a wrong path, even if very busy. The eidetic discourse, which identifies the word and essence of the thing, is the most dramatic source of errors. Even if we suspend the judgment, waiting for the "return to the things themselves". It is madness and decadence.

new book: "We are Greeks again" (after Colli and after Wittgenstein,)Edition If-press Roma "Siamo di nuiovo Greci (dopo Colli e dopo Wittgenstein) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10215906082830936&set=a.1291895863468.2044411.1412406727&type=3

Red or not?

Red or not? I tell you: "That table is red". And I point it to you with your finger. I see and I know that the table is red and you see it red too. It therefore seems that you and I do not need anything else to understand each other. Everything runs smoothly. But. But if I am curious and say a first "why?", Then everything starts moving and this, which appeared clear and simple, is no longer. I wonder: "why does that table appear red to me?" And I reply: "I imagine that the light beats on the surface of the table, that the surface absorbs all the colors, less the red, and that the red, rejected and rejected, arrives at my eyes ". That table, therefore, is of every color less than red. Red is not red. But. But if I ask myself a second question, this time about the nature of that light that forms the colors, asking "what is light?", Then I find that there are those who answer that it is electromagnetic waves, who sustains its nature corpuscular, that is, it would be made of small particles. And now it is said that light is waves and particles, depending on what and how I am looking. And, therefore, the true nature of light escapes me, hides behind my eyes, plays hide-and-seek with me, it's like saying, "I'm like you want me, but you'll never know how I really am". In short, two questions are enough and all that was clear, presents itself to us now as a representation for the eyes, something hidden, mysterious. It takes very little to have the perception of the mystery, of the vertiginous chasm that is behind everything that appears. Or not?

If I can not imagine something I describe in words, then it means that here not is the unity between language and thought If I can not imagine something I describe in words, then it means that here not is the unity between language and thought

to write to me

Those who want to write to me, can do so at the address massimopistone@yahoo.it

What I can imagine and what I cannot -- I can imagine something that I have never seen, or even something that does not exist. But I can imagine anything? Maybe not. For example I cannot imagine a stick that does not have a length. I can imagine a stick length which constantly changes, so that it becomes impossible to measure. But a stick without length, no. And that may be because I have a limited imagination or, rather, because that rod length is not really logically impossible? But Euclid, in the parallel world of geometry, was able to think of a point without dimensions, without a thick line, a circle, surrounding a circle, but which adds nothing to the size of that.

The sirens

The sirens undermine the sailors with their song and the listener is bound to crashing against the rocks. But because death strikes the listener? Because it is the terrible punishment of the gods for those who have the presumption, arrogance, the hybris of wanting to hear what is reserved to the deity. Mortals do not have access to the divine knowledge, on pain of death. Even Socrates was put to death, punished for his hybris, revealing publicly in defense oration, which tells of the response of the Pythia of Delphi, "Socrates is the wisest of men." But this response is not enough to Socrates, he attempts to show that God is wrong and that, therefore, he is wiser than God.