Fabrizio Ulivieri - TrendSetter

  Kai vertini istoriškai, tu reliatyvizuoji. Tuo pačiu metu, kai įtrauki į kontekstą esminius filosofinius klausimus, atimi iš jų filosofinę vertę ir reliatyvizuoji jų reikšmę. Tas pats ir su tiesa: jos negalima reliatyvizuoti. Tiesa yra viena. Lygiai taip pat ir esminiai filosofiniai klausimai — jie nepriklauso nei nuo laiko, nei nuo vietos.[1] Tokiu principiniu klausimu prasideda ir Mundaka Upanišada . कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति kasmin nu bhagavo vijñāte sarvam idaṃ vijñātaṃ bhavatīti „O Garbingasis Viešpatie, ar pažinus tai (hic et nunc), tampa pažinta visa tai, kas yra (idam)?“ Kitaip tariant, jei žinau tai (hic et nunc), žinosiu ir visa kita. Jei atsiras tai (hic et nunc), atsiras ir visa kita. Antano Maceinos mintyje ši esminė pažinimo klausimo struktūra buvo susieta su skausmu. Maceina atrado skausmą kaip pagrindinę žmogaus egzistencijos varomąją jėgą. Maceina labai anksti susidūrė su pasaulyje šėlstančiu blogiu: „Man pačiam blogis įvairiu savo pavidal...

  When you evaluate something historically, you relativize it. At the very moment you place fundamental philosophical questions within a historical context, you deprive them of their philosophical value and relativize their significance. The same applies to truth: it cannot be relativized. Truth is one. Likewise, fundamental philosophical questions belong neither to a particular time nor to a particular place.[1] It is with such a principled question that the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad begins. कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति kasmin nu bhagavo vijñāte sarvam idaṃ vijñātaṃ bhavatīti O Blessed One Sir, by knowing this [locally] does the [idam] All become known? In other words, if I know this (hic et nunc), I will know everything else. If this (hic et nunc) comes into being, everything else will come into being as well. In Antanas Maceina's thought, this fundamental structure of the question of knowledge was linked to suffering. Maceina discovered suffering as the primary drivi...

In one of my previous posts I talked about the Human Factor as crucial in every historical event [ HERE ] Now I am trying to justify my position by finding in the history of political thought the reason for my point of view. Even Machiavelli acknowledges that the human factor is what works in determining the historical occurrences ...to make my meaning plain, and not to part company with the men of whom I have been speaking, I say, that as, on the one hand, we see Scipio enter Spain, and by his humane and generous conduct at once secure the good-will of the province, and the admiration and reverence of its inhabitants, so on the other hand, we see Hannibal enter Italy, and by methods wholly opposite, to wit, by violence and rapine, by cruelty and treachery of every kind, effect in that country the very same results. For all the States of Italy revolted in his favour, and all the Italian nations ranged themselves on his side. When we seek to know why this was, several reasons present t...

Nel porsi il problema del carattere degli italiani credo che il primo e fondamentale quesito sia: in quale mondo vivono? La storia dell’Italia moderna si caratterizza per la mancanza di un  “hic” , su cui si focalizzano le categorie del pensiero. Esistono invece tanti  “hic”  nei quali le categorie di un pensiero si focalizzano. Queste categorie o partono dall’interiorità o si costruiscono dall’esteriorità. Noi propenderemmo per la seconda prospettiva. La categoria non è all’interiorità dell’uomo italiano ma gli appartiene in quanto la individua all’esterno di uno dei tanti  “hic” L’uomo italico non è certamente un uomo kantiano e nemmeno cartesiano. E’ piuttosto un uomo fenomenologico. L’uomo italiano vive progettato verso l’esterno ed composto dagli strati dei  “hic” . Individuiamo due  “hic”  di partenza, uno dell’Italia pre-unitaria e uno dell’Italia quasi-unitaria. Machiavelli e Guicciardini – “i proto-hic” Da una parte abbiam...