HUMILITY AS THE PRINCIPLE OF REALISM epistemological

.

Humility is radically intelligence virtues, with which it, recognizing employees from being, tidy to being and below being, It opens at the Royal, It is subject to the real and to listen to his impulses, It leaves form from the real and adapts to the real: the conformity of intellect and thing. This equating It is act of the intellect, but the will wills the intellect to adapt. The first, Humility is essential to obey the reality, that the truth.

.

.

PDF essay print format
.

.

.

Author
Giovanni Cavalcoli, o.p.

It is curious that in the centuries-old confrontation between realism and idealism There has always stopped by both contenders, on considerations and confutations order of mere theoretical, moreover, often interesting and deep; but there has never worried by both sides to clarify the relationship between realism and idealism on the one hand and, correspondingly, on the other, the relationship between humility and pride, deepening and motivating the fact that while the humility gives rise to realism, l'idealism, especially in its pantheistic outlet, It is the result of pride. To tell the truth, dialectics humility – Pride is the traditional Christian ethics; but not so idealistic ethics, who prefers to oppose slavery to freedom. It is clear that what realism is pride, for the idealist is the boldness of thought, that stands beyond all limits and its irrepressible force rises to the infinite horizon of the Absolute, rather, which reveals their absolute hidden under the appearance of the empirical.

.

So for the idealist, the realist is naive, a slave to prejudice the existence of an external world, Natural laws coercing the freedom of the spirit and of a transcendent God, ultra-worldly, rewarder and punisher of a pipeline meanly interested and servile. Admitting being a transcendence towards thought, for the idealist would be to make slaves of this being; while he must be freely placed by the thought and regulated by the thought.

.

As there is no middle ground or mediation between humility and pride, so there is an intermediate position or mediator between realism and idealism, as there is no mediation between the yes and no, between being and not – to be. Some, come Leibnitz, Wolff, Schelling, Husserl and Bontadini, they thought that they are two opposite extremes, for which they are believed to be compelled to establish a median position; but to no avail, than to juxtapose theses contradict each other.

.

In tal modo, in the history of epistemology, or Knowledge of doctrines, there are essentially two choices or basic orientations: or realism or idealism. And that's because? Because knowing involves the relationship between the idea and reality. The alternative arises when we ask what is the object of knowledge. The object is either the idea or reality. If we place the object is the idea, We idealism. If we ask what is the reality, We realism. What is the right conception? You realism, because the idea is a means and not an end or object of knowledge. Indeed, we use the ideas to reach or grasp reality, which therefore it is the object of knowledge. The idea can be object of knowledge, but in the second bar, subsequently, after we know the real or the thing or body, reflecting on the inner half, which we used or we know the object size.

.

The path to the truth of knowledge is humility, which consists in subdue the intellect to things, to being, to the real. And this is precisely the realism. But humility leads to obedience, because humility is the virtue that makes us aware of being dependent on a higher. The soul - says Saint Catherine of Siena - "is so obedient, how humble and as humble as obedient" [1] [(c). 154]. We are at the bottom [humus] and he is at the top. But it is at the top not to oppress us, unlike ma, because you want to do good, It wants to raise him, give us what he. The humble is so open and willing to receive, to welcome the good that the top does give him, to comply with its directives, attentive to his commands or his incitements.

.

The humble, that recognizes that his subjection, He is ready to obey, that is, to do what the superior commands him. The humility leads to greatness, ie to participate thereof at which the upper is higher, accepting the good that is proper to the top and now, obeying, become his. Thus St. Paul says to "make every thought captive to obey Christ" [II Cor 10,5].

.

Humility is radically intelligence virtues, with which it, recognizing employees from being, being ordered and below being, It opens at the Royal, It is subject to the real and to listen to his impulses, It leaves form from the real and adapts to the real: the conformity of intellect and thing. This equating It is act of the intellect, but the will wills the intellect to adapt. The first, Humility is essential to obey the reality, that the truth. Humility, then, Consequently, It will be the act of the will with which it puts into practice the good known by the intellect. Humility leads to love. Vice versa, the Cartesian refusal to base knowledge and certainty on equating to external things, is a form of disobedience to the real, which it is a sign of arrogance. It is also a self-contradictory position, because his acclaimed desire to find the truth obliges him to practice the equating; but when he practices the equating to deny the equating, It demonstrates that the will is insincere.

.

Idealism thus introduces in thought, with denial of the principle of non-contradiction, beyond the Hegelian rhetoric of "reconciliation", un'intima, desired and incurable inner laceration, and then it introduces a principle of dishonesty and duplicity in thinking and talking. The rest, Descartes mocked the principle of identity, considering what empty and useless. Idealism, under the guise of "science" and even pretending to be the "absolute knowledge", which is nothing but the gnosis, It is so open to all the tricks of sophistry and more refined art of deception.

.

The humble and sincere desire, instead, obeys the real through the intellect. So says the love of truth. It involves humility and obedience. The will let the real act on intellect, that you implement it, that the fruitful, that determines. So the intellect rises, if it raises: vacuum becomes full, full object known.

ATTITUDE idealist

.

Idealism intellect does not submit, I order. It is not considered below being, but above. Being dependent on him because the being is being thought of him. This is the attitude of pride, which involves the motion exactly opposite to that of humility: while humility intellect submits to being, pride in the intellect wants to subject himself being. The lower wants to take the place of the upper.

.

Like Adam, does he decide, instead of God, what is good and what is bad [cf. Gen 3,5]. No longer, then the adjustment to the divine command, but the disobedience, which precisely, as taught by St. Catherine, "It comes from pride, that comes from love their own self, depriving oneself of humility" [2] [(c). 154]. We should also distinguish, Saint Catherine, a dual ego turn on itself: what she calls "self-knowledge", and from this comes the humility: "Humility comes from self-knowledge" [3]; "In the knowledge you will humble yourself, seeing you for you and not your being you will know from me" [(c). 4]. In this self-consciousness, my thoughts turn to my subordinates to be, which is proof of God. The knowledge self based realistic self-awareness, because I appear as a real, Act independently to think and not as a simple thought. Santa Caterina also speaks of another self-consciousness, which is "self-love", that gives rise to pride [(c). 38]. And pride, for its part, He takes off "knowledge of himself ", which it is the self-consciousness of healthy realism, based on knowledge of things, and guided by humility. Indeed, The place itself from self-self is not objective, Act independently to think, but it is the self-made absolute idealist.

.

Instead healthy realistic self-awareness leads to the discovery of God [(c). 128]. realism, which involves the adherence, l ’equating, obedience to the things, It gives the initial certainty of knowledge, ed opens, in humility, the eye of the truth on the ego, about the world and about God. Vice versa, "Love just blurs the eye of" [(c). 136], because I, considering themselves self-sufficient and first principle of knowledge of certainty, become self, It is not open to objective reality, but it closes superbly in himself and in his own ideas. Instead ontology born ideology. But by the same token, If the idealist thinks he sees, but it really is blind. It lacks what Santa Caterina calls the "holy discretion ', you can even call "discernment", namely intellectual virtue, possibly enriched with the spiritual gifts of intellect and wisdom, for which the intellect or reason, fed experience, and prudent in reflection, on the basis of objective values, distinguished, in concrete situations, right from wrong and good from bad. Conversely, l '' indiscretion 'of the love is its effect [cf. (c). 121].

.

With just attack me to my love as I was God. I do not recognize as a creature, but I absolutize my ego as if it were up to nothing. I do not know the truth, but "I am" the truth. My self, my thoughts are unfounded, but founding. My thinking does not require more of my being, but founds, because I identify my being with my being thought by me.

.

For the idealist the reality is the idea I have of reality. They are infallible, because my thinking coincides with being. Being, indeed, And It is thought by me, It is my idea, is the thinking being that I am. I'm not one that I can think of, but a thinking self. As the thinking being identical, because the idea is to be, It is thought to be, I become subsistent thought and by that subsistent being who thinks himself. absolute Self-Awareness. For the idealist I exist by myself, not another. Do not depend on anyone, but only from myself. I think of myself, not because I have drawn an external reality. The idealist does not take into account the fact that, if in the act of thinking about myself, I catch myself thinking, I think it is because an external reality. It - one that St. Thomas calls the essence of the material - it is the initial object of knowledge. So in knowing childbirth from it and not from myself thinking. It and not myself is the first certainty.

.

Doubt Thomist CARTESIAN DOUBT

.

It is true that spiritual certainty is stronger than that sensible things out of me. However, This noblest sure we get it starting from the humble but conclusive sensitive certainties, which are invalidated only by mental illness, so there's absolutely no reason to put them in doubt. Because of this, Cartesian doubt is unreasonable doubt, absurd and hypocritical, since it is not realistic humility to accept things as they are and the value of the ideas that represent them, but by pride of not wanting to lower to accept those humble although extremely solid certainties. Yet it is God Who gives us the wonderful show of nature and all sentient creatures, from which only [cf. RM 1, 20] we can get, by analogy, to spiritual discovery, ego thinking and God himself. So the deliberate undermining and discard those certainties, exchange them for illusions or false starting points, Descartes was an act of foolish pride and foolishness, masked by the pretext of founding and start knowing the certainty of the spirit and not from that of the senses. But so Descartes threw himself into the abyss - what Kant will call the "abyss of reason" [4] - then pretending to be rescued by God.

.

This is demonstrated by the history of thought that comes from him, Thin Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche and Heidegger. The rejection of the initial certainty of sense, perhaps presumptuously claiming to be self-assured, instead of humbly receive from the creatures and then by God, It is paid at the end of the high price of total skepticism and nihilism of modernity. Even St. Thomas argues the legitimacy and indeed the need for universal doubt about the truth [5] to give beginning to philosophy; but advances like simple hypothesis, completely absurd, not to be taken seriously and not exercise as it did Descartes. Because of this, for Aquinas there is certainty that they exist because you think, not because of doubts; and such certainty, however, is based on the original certainty of common sense. Instead, Also the Augustinian solution to the skeptical doubt Academic, similarly to the Cartesian solution, It is not exempt from a basic flaw. Sant’Augustine, indeed, how will Descartes, founds the principle of certainty in consciousness that, I doubt, I exist [«if I am not mistaken, sum»] [6], regardless of the fact that the question is not really thinking, but a simple swing thought jammed, so the inferred its existence from this doubt foolish, It can not be a truly founding act of certainty. St. Augustine also saves the certainty with the a posteriori argument, since it admits the veracity of the senses, while Descartes, that does not admit the, wrong even more seriously, remaining in its closed cogito.

.

We also observe that, also admitted and not granted that doubt is a thought, it is true that when I reflect on my thinking, I take myself as a thinking; but this does not entitle me to say that I think in essence. My being is not well founded or place by my thinking; ma, on the contrary, my being is the foundation and premise of my thinking. No, or I exist because I think, but I think they are. My thinking depends on me, but my being. It is true that if I, I'm; but even if I do not think. Only God is subsistent Thought, because it is subsisting Being. Only He can say absolutely: "I am". So, as taught by St. Catherine, self-love of self is an inordinate self-love, which deprives the love of God:

.

"He who loves Me is love private self messy love" [c.128]. Such love creates pride, which in turn generates the disobedience: "Disobedience is the pride, that comes from love their own self, depriving themselves of 'humility'[(c). 154].

.

REALISM AND Idealism

.

We realize that we know things. When we know, we intentionally identify with them. They come into us, in our spirit or in our mind clearly not in their being or in their materiality, but dematerialized, by means of an image or an idea or a concept. As we grasp the truth or reality in a judgment or intuition. But how is it that the same thing or reality, a spiritual materials, which it is outside of us, independent of us, becomes at once present to our mind, intimate thereto? Precisely through the idea or representation, that we form the essence of that thing, starting from sense experience, if it is material, or by analogy with material things, it is spiritual.

.

Instead, the wrong conception of knowledge is idealism, for which the object would be the idea, ie it is thought. So either you start from the idea and you reach the external things [7]; or else the thing itself or the reality or the entity is resolved in the idea or in the thought or in the thought or in the thinker [8]. Being is being thought. Being identifies himself with the thought. It is identified with the consciousness of thinking oneself. The inner being is the thought, not out of thought. But why this view is wrong? For two reasons. First, because if we have in us the ideas of things and of ourselves, it is not because our knowing departs from ideas of things or of our ego that thinks, but why, having previously contacted with the senses things, we formed the ideas of things we contacted. And reflecting on these ideas we produced, we become aware of ourselves, producing ideas and thinks things. So, our knowing does not start with ideas of things or from the consciousness of our self, but proceeds from the things. In second place, Being is thought once it is thought, but not before being thought. Being, so, It is distinct from my thinking. It is true that, thinking being, being intentionally gets me thinking, be thought. But at the same it remains distinct from my thinking; It is in front of my thought [obstructing finds], outside and independent of my thought. Being is the rule of truth of my thinking, which it will be true if it is appropriate or subject to being, to reality, things, if faithfully it represents them as they are in themselves.

.

The truth is in the realism of the subject Compliance the object; while the opposite occurs idealism: is the object that conforms to the subject, It is derived from the subject and depends on the subject. Because of this, the Church qualifies it as "subjectivism" [9]. But subjectivism is also gnosticism, which it is nothing but the theory of knowledge of idealism. Indeed, Gnosticism, as idealism, gnoseology is that according to which the human mind, divine by nature, He stands for itself the divine science. He says therefore, the Letter Rejoice and rejoice:

.

"Gnosticism supposed" faith in a locked subjectivism, which affects only a particular experience or a series of arguments and knowledge that you think will comfort and enlighten, but where ultimately subject is closed immanence of his own reason and his feelings " [n. 36, text WHO].

.

And what about the fact that we saw that the object of thought, for idealism, it is the same thought, It is the idea, which it is the coincidence of being and thought, ideal and real. Being is being thought. Being is thinking. E, consequently, thinking the same as being. But this is the same divine being and the object of divine knowledge. And then, in the idealistic Gnosticism human knowledge he elevates himself to the divine knowledge.

.

The idealism IS ONE GNOSTICISM

.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell, if thou hast understanding!

Gb 38,4

.

Maritain rightly spoke of «Hegelian gnosis» [10]. And it has detected as

.

"Rationalism inaugurated by Descartes came with Hegel at the end of his conquests. Everything is subjected to the empire of Reason which is, in the sense most definitely unique, Essence [beings] the divine Spirit, as the human spirit '.

.

Hegel expressed in triumph, in Conclusion of his Lectures on the history of philosophy [11], This final outcome firm Cartesian, outcome that he himself had brought about with his philosophical work. He is like the "discovery of God, He knows what ' [p. 412]. In this final synthesis, Hegel sums up the path of philosophy made by Descartes in his time, namely the elaboration of his system. philosophy Subject, Hegel, It is "the totality of thought, the intelligible world, It is the concrete Idea » [p. 413], "The ideals of all reality"[ibid.]. With Descartes, Hegel continues, "Penetrated in it" [ideality] "The principle of subjectivity, individuality and God as Spirit became real to Himself in the self ' [ibid.]. Because of this

.

"The modern age work is to understand this idea as the Spirit" [ibid.]. But "to proceed from the Idea that knows how to precisely know the Idea, the opposition must be infinite " [ibid.]. "In this way, the Spirit produced this spiritual world, as a nature, the first creation of the Spirit. The work of the Spirit is now to bring that 'beyond' in reality and in the self; which is done as self-consciousness thinks itself and knows the absolute essence that thinks itself. The mere thought surged in Descartes on this doubling " [p. 414]. Thus, "the idea is in its quiet restlessness" [pp. 415— 416]; "Opposites are identical in itself, because eternal life consists in eternally produce the opposition and the eternally resolve. Knowing the opposition and unity in the opposition unity. Here is the absolute knowledge " [ibid.]. "The finite self-consciousness" [Umana] "It ceased to be over; and in such a way on the other hand, the absolute self-consciousness " [Divina] "He holds that reality, that before she missed. The whole world history in general and in particular the history of philosophy, represent only this struggle », ie the person who denies himself and is reconciled with itself, "And they appear to have received them off at the point where the absolute Self-awareness, of which they have the representation, He has ceased to be something foreign, in which therefore the Spirit is as real as Spirit. Indeed, this is because it knows itself as absolute Spirit, and this I know in Science » [p. 416]. That's exactly Gnosis.

.

Hegel means that with idealism man infinity and God yes finish, so that you have what Hegel called "the identity of human nature and the divine nature ", ossia il pantheism. No longer the thing itself external to the subject, no longer a transcendent God and Abstract, but the God concrete and historical, which it is the same self-consciousness of the human subject. Indeed, Cartesian logic, which is expressed in cogito, It is not entitled to a subject, in addition to the subject, attuandone capabilities or forces; but it is the same subject, understood as originally [«a priori"] and essentially thinking and reasoning. In practice, as subsisting reason. But this is already the divine reason.

.

We find in the Cartesian concept of reasone, of knowledge and thought footprint obviously Gnostic. For he, In the Discourse on Method [12], It expresses a desire to "fix all its opinions to the level of reason '; He plans to establish a "universal science, that can elevate our nature to the maximum of its perfection" [13]; a thought, that does not take anything from the outside, but everything, even the sensations, from himself [14].

.

Descartes is certainly realistic in considering the corporeal world as external to the human spirit, objectively knowable and exists in himself as created by God, although knowledge is not based on the senses, but it's guaranteed by the veracity of God known a-priori as underwear to mind. In Descartes, so, the distinction between the human self and the divine self starts to become fuzzy and fogs, because the human ego, the cogito, no longer experiences a divine You ahead, come on-iecto, objective, discovered as a cause of the ego and creator of the world contacted by the senses, but as found by the idea of ​​God cogito horizon of consciousness. So Descartes is not that I have the idea of ​​God because He exists, but God exists because I have the idea. It is already the God of idealism, which will come up to Hegel. By contrast, in Descartes, why not accept as true anything but what it conceives clearly and distinctly. The interest of reason moves by the attention to the real to his way of conceiving the real. It is real only what is on the size, only what is rational, clearly and distinctly conceivable. What appears to obscure and indistinct is then rejected as non-existent.

.

We have here another blow against the theology, in which reason is in front of the darkness and in-distinction of the divine nature, although it is clear and distinct in itself. Again God is identical to the concept of God. But if the concept as I produce, as I'll end up identifying with my God I? This is the path that leads to Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. So, Descartes already in human reason implicitly considered divine or at least able to deify. No wonder, At that time, if the reason, conceived, It is capable of rising or transcend itself, so as to reach the level of "gnosis", ie the divine knowledge or divine thought subsisting and creator of man, for which man, in the words Dear, It has the power to create himself [«autoctisis»].

.

THE RISE of Gnosticism

.

So the subject no longer invokes the salvation from God, and it is no longer a gift of his grace, but it is saved by himself, because for itself possesses a divine power. The God decided thus reveals in Gnosticism the «inconsistency of claims to self-salvation, who rely on human strength " [n. 13 text WHO]. The man has no need of grace, because even the human ego, founded on cogito, He has in itself the principle of their car elevation Absolute. Nothing comes from man to lift; but he rises to God by the power of thought and will. It is also a theme Pelagian.

.

In Kant remains a residue of reality in the thing self external intellect. But here idealism goes a step further than Descartes. indeed, while, compared to Descartes, the thing itself loses value, but it continues to exist, in Kant becomes unknowable in itself and the intellect acquires too much power, because Kant even gives the power to shape the object of experimental knowledge, that, as is known, It is no longer the thing itself, but the phenomenon. There remain, however, moral knowledge, the critique of reason and the idea of ​​God.

.

But with Fichte, here it is that idealism takes another step, the resolution being in thought. Descartes had deducted sum from the cogito. But it was the simple act of thought, a logical deduction, for which I know to exist. But that my existence is created by God, It is independent from me. Instead the me fichtiano "places" [sets] the non-ego not only logically, but also ontologically, then it produces himself. So we no longer have that I am created by God. From here it understands how Fichte was accused of atheism. He defended himself by citing God as absolute I, but I do not see how this, which it is the ego empirical foundation, may be its creator. That I am a deep or shallow, It is still the same I. So, the empirical I, how to teach Fichte, It has only to become aware of being a contingent manifestation of his absolute I and carry out the divine potential inherent in it. In this sense the Letter of the CDF God has pleased notes that "individualist reductionism of a neo-Gnostic tendency promises a merely inner liberation" [n. 11 text WHO]. But the ego of Fichte, as is known, I think adds to the ego Kant [I think at all] the dialectical factor of self-denial, as affirmation and position of not-I, opposite to the ego. Fichte express the 'existing self-contradiction, as we have seen, In the cogito Cartesian and in theological dialectic Kant:

.

"If the ego has set itself the absolute totality of reality, That must necessarily be placed in the non-ego the absolute totality of negation; and the very negation it must be placed as absolute totality. One and the other, the absolute totality of reality in the ego and of the absolute negation of totality in the non-ego, They must be unified by determining. Therefore the I partly determines and partly is determined" [15].

.

Schelling raises even more the ego of Fichte adding the denial of the non-ego by the ego identity of being and thinking, of being and becoming, of subject and object, the ideal and the real, Spirit and Nature, Theory and practice. However, as reported by Hegel, "Schelling concept called the common intellect category, whereas concept is concrete thought, in himself infinite ". He cites the same Schelling: "There remains, therefore more, if you do not represent " [the Absolute] «in an immediate intuition» [16]. But Hegel doubted the objectivity and universality of such insight. For this he is taking a decisive and final step of the ascent to the Absolute Promethean, started, without full knowledge by Descartes, instead persuaded to give the best evidence of what God had done St. Thomas. And this step is to argue that the essence of God can not grasp in a vague and indeterminate intuition, where everything is indifferent to everything and merges with everything, but only in logical and rational concept as self-consciousness of the Idea.

.

Hegel surpassing the previous step established by Schelling compared to Fichte. These had added Kant than the elimination of the thing itself, henceforth produced by the ego in the ego. With Hegel so we come to the end of Cartesian parable: that cogito who arrogantly outset surpasses the just and natural limits of the ego and humiliates the reality of things created by God, lowering and raising God himself, continue its transfer work to man the divine attributes, so that in the end the man has become God and God is gone. Hegel is the one that leads the Cartesian principle of cogito to the extreme; He has the audacity to explain clearly and consciously the culmination of the climb to the sky taken by the cogito Cartesian, with the famous principle of the "identity of human nature and divine nature" [17] sn the basis of the development of God, which is opposed to the front ''dare"Dogma of Chalcedon.

.

Inalready, the Pleased Deo warns us that the way to salvation which offers us Christ, "It is not a purely inner journey, on the edge of our relationships with others and with the created world " [n. 11, text WHO]. This is not from ego and close all the ego. "The grace that Christ gives us is not, as claimed by the vision of neo-Gnostic, a merely inner salvation, but that introduces us in the concrete relationships that he himself lived. The Church is a visible community " [n. 12]. It is open to reality, in the world, to the others, to God, to society. The Gnostic instead, closed in his ego, and build social un'area, a slap on their own, separating itself from the effective ecclesial communion, that only the realist can perceive and live, creates a cult for his service to a mass of gullible brainwashed, myopic zealots or clever flatterers. Gnosticism is an exaltation exaggerated ego, of knowledge and of human thought, as saying the Rejoice and rejoice:

.

"Gnosticism is one of the worst ideologies, so long as, while unduly exalts the knowledge or a particular experience, It considers that their view of reality is perfection. In tal modo, perhaps without realizing it, This ideology feeds on itself and becomes even more blind " [n. 40].

The Gnostic falls into this deception it speculates on thinking abstractly taken, in its absoluteness, without considering the conditions and the limits, in which it is exercised by man. Moreover, the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith God has pleased ago still note the characteristic of Gnosticism: his Interior absolute, which it resolves itself into an absolute individualism, so everything is ego, the ego and the ego:

.

"the reductionism individualist neo-gnostic tendency promises a purely inner freedom " [n. 11]. Freedom does not involve any link with an objective moral law, but it is resolved in a pure act of his own will. Because of this, Letter warns that the way of salvation that Christ offers us, "It is not a purely inner journey, on the edge of our relationships with others and with the created world " [n. 11]. "The grace that Christ gives us is not, as claimed by the neo-gnostic vision, a merely inner salvation, but that introduces us in the concrete relationships that he himself lived. The Church is a visible community " [n. 12].

.

Moreover, the Rejoice and rejoice notes that Gnosticism

.

"Sometimes it becomes particularly tricky, when you masquerade as disembodied spirituality. Indeed, Gnosticism 'by its very nature wants to domesticate the mystery', is the mystery of God and his grace, is the mystery of the life of others " [n. 40]. "They conceive a mind without incarnation, unable to touch the suffering flesh of Christ in others, plaster in an encyclopedia of abstractions. Eventually, disincarnando mystery, They prefer a God without Christ, a Christ without the Church, a Church without people " [n. 37].

.

Gnosticism is a disembodied spirituality because it solves being in thought and matter in the spirit. The same Cartesian method, with its distrust of sensuous experience and therefore of intelligibility of material substance, It shows its ancestry, perhaps unconscious, by Gnostic Manichean dualism of matter good- spirit bad, quoted from both the Pleased Deo that from Gaudete. But this ultra spiritualism turns into its opposite, as it appears from the materialism of Marx, who he says he converted from Hegel simply "putting a head that head that was instead of feet and putting in place the feet, that were previously in place of the head ', that is to say that, If Hegel derives matter from spirit, Marx derives the spirit from matter. They are not the ideas that guide the material world – economic, but this is to drive ideas.

.

Moreover, as notes the Rejoice and rejoice, I gnostico you ritesene in possession of absolute science, ie as encompassing the Science of. The Gnostic is omniscient, certainly not in the sense of knowing the details of all things - you realize that in fact he thought it would be madness - , and yet in a sense, that does not mean that does not denote an inordinate pride. The Gnostic believed omniscient in the sense that it is believed to possess the Science of Totality. If nothing is out of the being and the being it is being thought of him, it follows that there is nothing that is not the subject of the Gnostic thought. Being coincides with being thought of him; then there can not be a being that he ignores or transcending his thinking, including God. In this sense, the Said ed leap he says that

.

"The" Gnostics "judge others on the basis of verification of their ability to understand the depth of certain doctrines" [n. 37]. "Typical of the Gnostics is to believe that with their explanations can make perfectly understandable all faith and all the Gospel" [n. 39]. "The Gnostic balance is assumed to be formal and aseptic, and it can take on the appearance of a certain harmony or an order that encompasses all » [n. 38].

.

An example of this ideal is found in Gnostic Schelling, it states:

.

"My point of view is generally Christianity in the totality of its historical development, my goal is to only truly universal Church [if 'Church' may be the right word here], that only in the spirit must be built, and which may consist only in the perfect understanding of Christianity, of its effective fusion with science and knowledge in general» [18].

.

Hegel praises him Gnosticism, although subject, with these words:

.

"All these forms end up in troubled waters, but on the whole they have the same determinations as their principle and arise from the general and profound need of reason to determine and understand as concrete what is in and for itself» [19].

.

However, the final outcome of rationalism nefarious Descartes was not immediately felt by the Descartes and his contemporaries, which vice versa there remained admired, as they had been in front of a philosophical genius of unprecedented magnitude, and so happily she drank the poison without realizing.

.

Far-sighted, like always, It was the Church, than in 1663 Index put the works of Descartes. But unfortunately, such was the success of the messianic philosopher, that revolutionized all philosophical thought developed in the preceding millennia, hardly anyone, even among theologians, He heeded the wise warning of the Church, except Thomist, that, for their critical prudence, it is very difficult to deceive, even by the most cunning impostors. Those who remained faithful to the truth was considered an outdated, a barren school, a conservative stubborn and so it goes.

For the idealist, ie for the gnostic, also what appears under external, It is internal to the ego, consciousness and thought, as thought. In fact, the idealist does not realize or does not recognize that the thing itself, Although the act of knowing enters, as represented, horizon of consciousness, in itself, in its reality, It is out of our thought or our mind; And extramentally, as St. Thomas says. "It is the stone that is in the soul - Aristotle - , but the image of the stone ". It 'clear that our ideas are not external to our mind; but this does not authorize us to believe, with the idealists, that the reality matches our ideas, if not intentionally and accidentally in the act of knowing the true.

.

CHARACTERS DELL'IDEALISMO

.

It is idealistic axiom that is not given to be out of pensiero, but that being is always in thought. The being is always thought. Do not you think being, but it is thought, because being and be thought coincide. It is thought the thought, because being is thought [20]. Everything is at once being and thought. Now, But, only in God being coincides with the thought, because God is subsisting Being and Thinking Subsistent. Says St. Thomas:

.

"In God [21] on is knowing its substance '. In God, "the intellect, the object of thought [that which is understood], l'Idea [an intelligible species] and thinking are the same thing" [22].

.

But man is no distinction between his being and his thinking. The man is not, as he believed Descartes, a thinking subject - only God, in which being and thinking are identified, It may be this - , but it is a subject that can think. And if you think, He not for this is not a man, be able to think. God is essentially thought, It is essentially thinking. Instead humans thinking is merely an option, as essential, but that may be the simple faculty was, without passing upon. For the human intellect being or entity, created by God, it is independent of thought, It transcends thought and rule of the truth of thought. To be in the true, the human mind must adapt to being humbly, must obey the laws of being. It gave, instead, creator and the Creator of, not being as an object before Him and independent self. So He knows Himself and the world as a separate being from his thinking, but how to be immanent to his ego. Clearly for us the thought as thought is within our thoughts. But before they thought it can only be out, in external reality: what St. Thomas calls things outside. It is spiritually enters or intentionally, as a concept or idea or representation, in our thinking, once you think or know.

.

If everything is to be and thought, everything is idea, as they believe the idealists, and there is to be distinguished from thought; if the institution as such, including the divine, It is immanent to our thinking; if it is true what he says Rahner, that "the nature of being is to know and be known" [23]; sand being is "conscious being" [24]; if being "is always also known" [25]; if being "is the knowing subject itself" [26], It is as such and not just the divine being is identified with the thought, then we have pantheism. According to the idealist, we, thinking being, think God, because being is God. But on the other hand, since being identified with being thought, and our being is being thought, our being is identical with the divine being, which is precisely the be thought.

.

For the idealist, also not be thought, however, it is thought. And then there is not thought to be. It is clear, moreover, that if I think being, This is thought to be. But before you think or do not think so, I ignore it and it is not thought by me. Instead idealism, as the starting point and the object of knowledge is the idea and the consciousness that I have of themselves as thinking, the truth of knowledge is the conformity of the real being or idea, or self-consciousness. But now the identity of thought with being is the absolute knowledge, because it is a knowledge that has nothing that is outside or beyond this knowledge. It is the divine knowledge. And so by contrast with the identity of being thought is the absolute being, because this being is in place everything that thought can think. So is the divine being. And therefore the idealistic gnoseology involves pantheism, ie the identification of human thought with the divine thought, which is what the Rejoice and rejoice It is defined as "Gnosticism", the deification of human knowledge, of which we have the most conspicuous example of what Hegel, called "absolute science" or "Absolute Idea".

.

We have to say, instead, that the object of metaphysics is not the 'I', is not the thinking subject or self-conscious, but it is the body, that is before [obstructing finds] to me. The initial founding certainty from which the metaphysical and on the basis of which the reason constructs all his knowledge, is not that of their own thinking or doubting, as he believed Descartes; nor is God, as Hegel believed; but it is the certainty and the ability to know the external sensible things, as agreed upon by Aristotle. Certainly the spiritual knowledge that comes from the discovery of ourselves thinking, It will prove to be more robust than that sensitive, given the most ontological value of spiritual things than material. And even greater confidence of faith. But the supreme certainty of faith would be nothing, if it were the ultimate maturation of a certainty, although humble, which already begins with the perception of sensible things. The certainty of the self follows the certainty and knowledge of things, because it's just reflecting on our ability to achieve this original certainty, that we discover our self, as a subject with a mind that has known. We do not derive or deduce the knowledge of things from that of our self, as he believed Descartes, unlike ma, as agreed upon by Aristotle, we realize that we have a faculty of knowledge that draws on things, After that we reached; and the conscience of our know how we come to know the affirmation of our self as knower.

.

REALISM Lutheran

.

The Lutheran is a realist epistemology, because Luther to that there is a world outside, There is the self and God exists, He revealed in Scripture and object of knowledge of faith. This, for Luther, It is reality, for which he acknowledges that to be the truth, that the mind must be adapted to that reality. Yet Luther despised metaphysics. Come May? Because his realism is defective and eventually turns into subjectivism. Because? What do you mean? Why Luther is convinced that the certainty and truth are not given by reason, but by faith. He believes in the reality itself, created by God, independent of him; It does not reduce the real to his idea, how will Hegel; it is believed each creature of God and not absolute subject, how will Fichte and Schelling; for him there is a God in himself, incarnated in Christ, Judge and Lord of the world, and not as a simple idea, come in Kant.

.

Only Luther intends its realism as an immediate jump Heart from sense experience emotional or internal intuition of God's Word and of the mystery of Christ - what Kierkegaard called "the leap of faith" - without going through the mediation of reason and thus of metaphysics. So without going to the social mediation of the Church, that can only be accepted on the basis of a rational realism, for which the Catholic, He illuminated by faith and believe dall'apologetica, he recognizes the divinity of the Church from signs of credibility [27]. Indeed, metaphysics gives anthropology foundation and morals. And this in turn leads to recognize the Church as a human community, which gives evidence of historically enjoy infallible divine assistance in the preservation of the Gospel. Instead, the entity as such is not interesting to Luther, because his mind does not care to apply the principle of causality to the level of reality and of entities, in order to pass, as Saint Paul teaches [RM 1, 19 – 20], from the consideration of created effects [visible] that the Creator [invisible], supreme being. Not that he does not believe in the universality of thought. It perceives perfectly the universality of God's Word and the Gospel message and could grasp the universal human needs. Otherwise his message would not have been so successful. At the same time he felt a great need for concrete.

.

Luther believes in God the Creator and Savior. Slices hear his Word and want to preach. However, he believes in God because he knows demonstratively, with reason, that God exists, but because he feels in his heart, with that feeling that the Germans call "mood» [28], an original dark certainty, which we are not known to account and you do not give account. This irrational feeling will still be present in 'Feeling"Di Schleiermacher. Luther, the term "faith", so, not mean the acceptance of God's Word, on the assumption that one knows the reason that God exists, but it directed precisely to this "feeling". This is connected with the fact that, Although Luther feels God as something else and transcendent to itself, and thus he is staying in realism and avoid pantheism, in which instead will fall Hegel, It feels so intimately and habitually in him, that not even suggests the possibility of losing such a union because of sin, and precisely because of his belief, which he considers "faith", which always he has God in him and with him.

.

It is what the Church has long called "immanence", that is not - mind you - the pure presence of God in the depths of the soul; of that fact also speaks Sant'Agostino, which does not make it an immanent. But it's what speaks Feeding of the flock [NN. 10, 33, 35, 39, 62, 65,73, 80 text WHO]. It is therefore necessary to distinguish accurately immanentism and pantheism, although they may look alike. The immanence does not deny divine transcendence. It is the error of Luther. Instead pantheism there is the identification of human nature with the divine and the human knowledge with the divine, ie Gnosticism, the identification assumption of thought with being, of which we have already spoken. This is the error of German idealism [29]. It is clear then that with Luther realism is less to be replaced by a vague non-conceptual subjective emotion, strongly reminiscent of the '' transcendental experience 'Rahner. He also recalls that "experience" [n. 21, 22, 25, 39, 78, 79 text WHO] or that "feeling" no objective foundation, which are contradicted by PI went up of St. Pius X [NN. 10 – 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 38, text WHO]. Here realism is replaced by subjectivism.

.

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GOD OF SAINT THOMAS AND THE GOD OF HEGEL

humble Esaltavit

.

The highest result of humility in exercising intellect is since the conception that the mind becomes God, Why, the more the mind It is willing to accept the reality, the more the power of intellect, fertilized by real, suitable for a real and reaching out to the real, which it is the end and the good of the intellect, It has the possibility to be implemented and realize the maximum of its possibilities, supported also by the grace, to grasp the sublime truth and achieve higher learning, concerning the essence and attributes of God. The humility, as awe or equating of mind to the real, obedience to the royal reception and the real, It leads the mind to know that it by itself is not anything and that all that is and has, beginning with his own existence, him by God, who created it. It realizes that it has Being, but not And Being. It is not by itself, but on the other, that is from God. Without the Other, it would be nothing. Instead pride, impact and legacy of original sin, pushes the ego to consider itself self-founded and self-sufficient in being. On the contrary, Fichte come to interpret sum Cartesian as "I am being" and "I place my being '. The ego does not ask: why does it exist? There are just. Or it gives the totally insufficient responses, like that of Darwinism.

.

The humility, which it is expressed in realism, quenches fever and cancer of pride and leads the subject to reality and to the real dimensions of the sua existence, limited, weak and sinful. thus cleansed, the subject is in the best position to operate the best and to be raised by grace, who reveals the mysteries of the Godhead. Instead Cartesian ego can not think of having been created by God, but like an absolute I, the origin of reality and of thought, It purports to prove the existence of God by deducing it from a supposedly non-existent innate idea of ​​God, forgetting that, if I can produce the idea of ​​God, I can not for this cause God.

.

It is interesting to compare then what idea of ​​God comes by two opposing methods of realism and idealism, choosing two emblematic cases, like that of St. Thomas and Hegel and considering the concept of God from three angles: God as Being and Spirit; God as Absolute Idea; and God as Sdefend assoluto. For both St. Thomas and for Hegel God is put on the plane of. Whether for one than the other God is the ego or absolute Subject. Whether for one than the other is absolute Idea, Absolute science, absolute Spirit. Except though, while St. Thomas being is distinct from becoming, for Hegel it coincides with becoming [30], which already implies an identification of God with the world and therefore the human ego with the Divine Self. For St. Thomas, It gave, absolute Being, identical to Himself, creates the world from nothing. For Hegel, It gave, synthesis of being and nothing, He becomes world by denying himself and determines how the world, who, denying himself, becomes God.

.

While St. Thomas, then the human ego is distinct from the ego divine, that God is a You respect human ego, Hegel God is the ultimate essence and substance of the human self, which is just a "moment" in the passenger and absolute ego contingent. The self I'm the cogito Thomistic leads to the discovery of the ego are divine as the absolute Thou who created me. L 'I I'm the cogito Cartesian Hegel leads me to realize that I am absolutely divine sense and that you who I have before me, I ask them myself with my thoughts and my interests. While for Thomas God is the purest Spirit [31], simple [32], identical to itself, infinite goodness, unchangeable [33], immortal, transcendent, independent of the world, Hegel God is essentially mutable, becoming, contradictory, dialectical, mundane, material, mixed with evil and deadly.

.

He says Hegel:

.

"The "if" [the cogito Cartesian] "Implements the absolute Spirit lives. This figure is that simple concept, which, however, abandons its eternal essence " [God is alien] "And there" [in the concreteness] «Or acts. It has in the purity of the concept split or the rise, because the purity is absolute abstraction or negativity " [becoming]; "Similarly it has an element of its actuality" [the world] "Or being in him in the same pure knowledge, because the pure knowledge is the simple directness, which it is so that there be ' [the concrete], as essence; each moment is negative thinking, the other is the same positive thinking. That there is finally, and just as the being of him - both as be it as a duty " [the good] "Reflection in itself, i.e. being— bad» [34].

..

In either case, God is the absolute Idea.

.

"The absolute Idea," says Hegel[35], and in this Thomas could agree - it is being, life that does not pass, Truth self conscious, and it is the whole truth ". In tal modo, both Thomas and for Hegel God, Truth is absolute, in that, come dice l’Aquinate, "The Divine Being not only complies with his intellect, but his own to understand»[36], identity of being and thinking.

.

Whether for St. Thomas to Hegel Idea God is the '' logical idea ' [p.936], the concept that God has of Himself and of things. It is the idea that God has of Himself and of things. It is the rational Idea of ​​divine Reason [37].

.

"L'Idea divina - says Hegel [38] - it is the only object and content of philosophy. Containing itself any determination, and being its essence to return to itself through its determined or particolarizzarsi, it has different configurations, and the task of philosophy is to know in these ".

.

In Hegel the human mind is a moment the divine Idea; God thinks Himself in man as man; St. Thomas in the human mind is an analog participation Idea divine and man thinks himself in God as God. The divine Idea Hegelian, But, unlike that thomist, distinguishes in God the only idea - that is, the idea that God has of himself or Logos [The word] [39] - from the many ideas, corresponding to created things, It does not transcend the ideas of things as the uncreated transcends creation, but as the universal is realized in particular, or as the indeterminate is determined as determined, or as the substance is determined in the way of being. Because of this, Hegel in the divine Idea is syllogistic and dialectical, It is the method of knowledge [cf. p. 937], and the

.

'Concept of movement "[p. 937]; 'It is grasped in the concept " [p. 936], who "has everything and its movement is the universal absolute activity, ... is absolutely infinite force, when no object, as it is present as outer, away from reason and from her independent, could resist, It is compared to it of a particular nature and refuse to be penetrated by her " [pp. 937— 938].

.

Here one sees how Hegel gives to human reason a power which in reality is totally beyond its real possibilities and functions, it was also perfectly healthy as it was before the fall. Imagine in their present state, afflicted, weakened and blurred as it is by so many evils, defects and bad inclinations, which it is necessary to remedy the, in addition to a strict discipline of reason, an intense life of grace. Let's see how Hegel Pelagianism is joined to Gnosticism.

.

Vice versa, St. Thomas in the divine idea is the idea that God It has things that creates. This does not mean that in the divine mind there is a plurality of ideas, as it happens in the human mind. With one Idea, that is God thought to Himself, God sees all things [«God knows many ways:» [40]]. There are many ideas, as things you think of God as first thought to exist in external reality to God. And in this sense there are more ideas in the divine mind [41]; and it is the idea that God the Father to Himself, ie the Logos or divine Word, the person of the ChildrenO [42]. In both cases, God is absolute Science. For St. Thomas, "Given that the divine essence is its own Idea» [species intellegiblis], "Necessarily follow that his knowledge" [to understand] «both its essence and its being» [43]. For Hegel's absolute knowledge is the philosophy. It is the knowledge that God has of Himself as a man. What philosophy knows of God it is what God knows Himself. So human reason knows what Self knows the divine Reason, because basically, as Hegel says, the reason is only one: it is divine. Therefore man, as reasons, and me, He knows what God knows. The Cartesian logic was at its peak of his aspirations. From here Gnosticism Hegel. He says that philosophy Hegel

.

"It is the idea that thinks itself, who knows the truth " [ie the truth subsisting, personified, l '' I'm a I thinking "of Descartes], "The logic to mean that it is the universality validated the concrete content as by its reality. Science is, for this manner, back » [dialectically] "At its beginning" [pure being]; "And the logic is its result as spirituality: Assuming the judgment, in which the concept was only in itself ' [being abstract] "And the beginning, anything immediate, and then by the appearance, that there had ", [the empirical data] "Spirituality" [namely the Cartesian ego] "It has risen to its own principle" [ie absolute ego] "As its element '[44].

.

CONCLUSION

.

The man has an innate need to greatness. However this needs to be channeled and moderated, not to become excessive and source of tragic illusions. reasonable Aspiration, It is not to be infinite, dictated by pride, but to contemplate the Infinite, dictated by humility. Indeed, between human finitude and divine infinity exists an insurmountable climb. To try to overcome it is insane arrogance, It is what the Greeks call hubris.

.

As taught by the Fourth Lateran Council, "Between the creator and the creature you may not notice a similarity that, that no greater dissimilarity should be noted" [45]. The man, Although it created in the image and likeness of God, through faith and grace, but it can overcome the forces of reason and be allowed to participate in the divine life, but only up to a certain extent granted to him by God and no later than.

.

If enough reason to fully understand the concept the divine essence, no divine revelation and faith would be needed for add content to reason that it itself can not grasp. And even with all that the human mind, Also in heavenly glory, It remains fundamentally under the understanding that God has of Himself. The reason by itself can certainly know God by analogy and through the creatures. But one can not know the divine essence or essence quidditatively, in the words of Thomas de Vio said Cardinal Caetano. You can know the Infinite only finitely, not infinitely, as only he can know Himself.

.

Exists, it is true, irrational exaltation of faith and fideistic, that claims to build on the ruins of reason, as if it were the reason against faith and this would replace the reason the knowledge of God. What happens in these cases, At that time, It is that the mind is not actually illuminated by the Word of God, but it is deluded by human found vainly passed off as "absolute knowledge". S. Paul warns us against this scam: "Take heed that no man deceive you through philosophy and vain fallacy, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ " [With the 2,8].

.

Varazze, 24 July 2018.

.

_____________________

NOTE

[1] Dialogue, (c). 154.

[2] Ibid., (c). 154.

[3] Ibid., (c). 9.

[4] Critique of pure reason, Laterza editions, Bari 1965, p. 491.

[5] The exposition of Aristotle's Metaphysics 12, edited by R. Spiazzi, 1. III, lect.I, n. 343, Marietti editions, Torino 1964, p. 97.

[6] cf. E. Gilson, Introduction to the Study of St. Augustine, Vrin, Paris 1969, p. 55.

[7] This is the Cartesian form.

[8] This is the form Hegelian.

[9] cf. the recent Letter Apostlica Rejoice and rejoice, of Pope Francis, n. 36.

[10] Moral philosophy. historical and critical examination of the major systems, Morcelliana, Brescia 1971, pp. 215— 220.

[11] III, 1, The Nuova Italy Editrice, Florence 1981, pp. 410— 418.

[12] Part II, n. 2.

[13] cf. J.Maritain, The dream of Descartes, Buchet Chastel,Paris 1932, p. 17.

[14] cf. E. Gilson, Introduction to the Study of St. Augustine, op.cit., p. 321. Gilson wrong, however, in attributing the same to St. Augustine, on the contrary, it admits that the external thing affects the senses and then in the soul: «Every thing, whatsoever that we know, engenders in our knowledge of its» [Trin., IX, 12, 18]. «None of that body, whether it is possible to understand, if not sense anything about that to be announced» [Trin., XI, 5, 9].

[15] The doctrine of science, Laterza Publishers, Bari 1971, p. 104.

[16] Lectures on the Philosophy of History, III,1, Editrice La Nuova Italy, Florence 1981, p. 387.

[17] Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Zanichelli Publisher, Bologna 1974, volume II, p. 366. G. Horses, THE DIALECTIC IN HEGEL'S CHRISTOLOGY, sacred Doctrine, 6, 1997, pp. 87— 140.

[18] Philosophy of Revelation, Bompani Publishing, Milan 2002, p. 1413.

[19] Lectures on the history of philosophy, 3,I, The Nuova Italy Editrice, Florence 1985, p. 27.

[20] cf. my two studies: THINK THE THOUGHT. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DIGNITY, THE FUNCTIONS AND THE LIMITS OF THOUGHT, I, divinitas, 2001, 3, pp. 279— 300 THINK THE THOUGHT. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DIGNITY, THE FUNCTIONS AND THE LIMITS OF THOUGHT, (II), divinitas, 1, 2001, pp. 43— 72.

[21] QUESTION, I, q 14, a. 4.

[22] Ibid. This thesis Aquinas was dogmatizzta from the Council of Florence 1442: «All are one in God?» [Denz. 1330].

[23] Listeners of the word, Borla Editions, Rome 1977, p. 66.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., p. 67.

[26] Ibid., p. 68.

[27] J.V. the Great, o.p, The sum of the Catholic apologetics to mind St. Thomas, Ratisbon 1906; R.— M. Schultes, o.p, Of the Catholic Church. lectures apologetic, Lethielleux, Paris 1931; R. Garrigou—Lagrange, ON, The revelation by Catholic Church, with goals, Ferrari Editions, Rome 1932; A. Benin - S. Cipriani, The true Church. The font of Revelation, Florentine publishing bookshop, Florence 1953.

[28] cf. G. Fagg's, Meister Eckhart and the German mystic preprotestante, Brothers Publishers Mouth, Milan 1946, pp. 192— 194; 201; 296; 298 ss.

[29] N. Hartmann, The philosophy of German Idealism, Mursia Publisher, Milan 1983.

[30] Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Laterza editions, Bari 1963, p. 93; Science of logic, Laterza editions, Bari 1984, p.71.

[31] QUESTION, I, q. 36, a. 1, to 1m.

[32] Ibid., I, q. III.

[33] Ibid., q.IX.

[34] Phenomenology of the Spirit, New Editions Italy, Florence 1988, vol. (II), pp. 293— 294.

[35] Science of Logic, Op. Cit., p.935.

[36] QUESTION, I, q.16, a. 5.

[37] Ibid., I- II, q. 93, a. 1.

[38] Science of logic, on. cit., p. 935.

[39] QUESTION, I, q.34.

[40] Ibid., q.15, a.3, ad2m.

[41] Ibid., I, q.15, a.2.

[42] Ibid., q.34, aa.1— 2.

[43] Ibid., q.14, a. 4.

[44] Encyclopedia, op.cit., pagg.527- 528.

[45] Denz. 806.

.

.

.

«You will know the truth and the truth will set you free» [GV 8,32],
but bring, spread and defend the truth not only of
risks but also the costs. Help us supporting this Island
with your offers through the secure Paypal system:

or you can use the bank account:
They were IT 08 (J) 02008 32974 001436620930
in this case, send us an email warning, because the bank
It does not provide your email and we could not send you a
thanks [ isoladipatmos@gmail.com ]

.

.

.

.

.