domenica 11 ottobre 2020
Here in the Mediterranean, 25 centuries ago, an unexpected and fragile way of dialogue was born, which is called philosophy.
This philosophy, the classical one from the 6th to the 3rd century BC, has developed an enormous power of conviction and direction, it has founded our way of thinking.
Moreover, he created science, he invented democracy and individual rights.
But from what characteristics does this fragile philosophy derive all this power?
These ancestors of ours, Zeno and Gorgias, and then Chrysippus, move in the footsteps of Parmenides, who had hypothesized three things, then often forgotten:
a) The word is not the thing, the sentence is not the fact, the language is not the world. And not even an image of them.
b) Our thinking is unfounded, because the initial concepts, let's say the axioms from which we start to think, are not based in turn on anything, since they are precisely the first.
c) Thought and language are the same thing, logos, a single word indicates one and the other.
If we read a fragment of the work "On Nature" by Parmenides di Elea (today Ascea), we clearly see the beginning of everything:
"Because there is or will be nothing else outside of what is (...). Therefore they will all be just words, the things that mortals have established, convinced that they were true;
birth and death, being and non-being, the change of place and the change of brilliant color "(Parmenides, fragment B8, 37–41 Diels-Kranz).
Here, from this sentence of Parmenides, the great classical philosophy originates.
The "what is" for Parmenides is the universe. Outside of "what is", outside the universe, there can be nothing.
It is so by definition, because the universe is all that exists.
Parmenides tells us here that to be and not to be are only words established by men, symbolic products of our intellect, created by discourse, by logos.
Representations, only representations. I'm not the truth. Never, according to Parmenides, can human discourse touch the truth. We can talk and reason about the products of discourse, about birth and death, about being and not being, about motion and colors.
“Convinced that they were true” indicates the truth, the Truth, the goddess Alètheia as a reference. What does Parmenides mention here?
The phrase “convinced that they were true”, in the previously cited fragment, indicates the truth, the Truth, the goddess Alètheia as a reference.
The Truth, Alètheia for the Greeks, is not veiled, it is the not hidden, that which is luminous.
So it is in Parmenides, in Empedocles and also in Heraclitus.
What does Parmenides mention here?
To everything. Truth is "what is", the Universe.
The Truth is the Universe.
lunedì 10 agosto 2020
The Truth is the Universe
Parmenides: “Convinced that they were true” indicates the true, the Truth, the goddess Alètheia as a reference. What does Parmenides mention here?
To the whole. Truth is "what is", the Universe.
The Truth is the Universe.
If we meant by Truth other than the universe, for example the appearance in our eyes of the real nature of "what is", we would enter a forest of inextricable contradictions.
lunedì 20 gennaio 2020
My latest philosophy work is called "But is this hen eternal?" Published by PSE of Florence in December 2019.
In this book we find the ancient foundations of our culture, lost by many people, who come to support obvious absurdities, showing them as absolute and modern innovations.
Let us think by finding our roots in classical philosophy from the sixth to the fourth century BC.
domenica 3 novembre 2019
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.
mercoledì 16 maggio 2018
martedì 5 dicembre 2017
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?
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)