Background The perception of cardiovascular (CV) risk is essential for adoption of healthy behaviors. However, subjects underestimate their own risk. Hypothesis Clinical characteristics might be associated with self‐underestimation of CV risk. Methods This is a retrospective, cross‐sectional study of individuals submitted to routine health evaluation between 2006 and 2012, with calculated lifetime risk score (LRS) indicating intermediate or high risk for CV disease (CVD). Self‐perception of risk was compared with LRS. Logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between clinical characteristics and subjective underestimation of CV risk. Results Data from 5863 subjects (age 49.4 ± 7.1 years; 19.9% female) were collected for analysis. The LRS indicated an intermediate risk for CVD in 45.7% and a high risk in 54.3% of individuals. The self‐perception of CV risk was underestimated compared with the LRS in 4918 (83.9%) subjects. In the adjusted logistic regression model, age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10‐1.47 per 10 years, P = 0.001), smoking (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.40‐2.83, P < 0.001), dyslipidemia (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01‐1.46, P = 0.045), physical activity (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.36‐2.02, P < 0.001), and use of antihypertensive (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.15‐1.92, P = 0.002) and lipid‐lowering medications (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.56‐2.91, P < 0.001) were associated with higher chance of risk underestimation, whereas higher body mass index (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90‐0.94, P < 0.001), depressive symptoms (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37‐0.57, P < 0.001), and stress (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.33‐0.50, P < 0.001) decreased the chance. Conclusions Among individuals submitted to routine medical evaluation, aging, smoking, dyslipidemia, physical activity, and use of antihypertensive and lipid‐lowering medications were associated with higher chance of CV risk underestimation. Subjects with these characteristics may benefit from a more careful risk orientation.

«Die Art, wie er den Mechanismus der Natur mit ihrer Zweckmäßigkeit vereiniget, scheint mir eigentlich den ganzen Geist seines Systems zu enthalten»; This quotation, which originated the present essay, is solely extracted from a letter sent by Hölderlin to Hegel, and yet, it condensates three different approaches from the three Tübingen friends to the problem of Kant’s philosophy of religion and to its possible resolution between 1795 and 1796. From this epistolary dialogue emerges a simultaneous study of Kant, originated by the growing dissension towards the orthodox thought of the Stift. The tuming point - or the maximum cumulative point - of this discordance happens precisely with the discovery of the «spirit of Kant’s System», as a combined explanation of the religious and philosophical phenomena [«Die Art, wie er den Mechanismus der Natur mit ihrer Zweckmässigkeit vereiniget»]. This, I think, is something which the three friends discover gradually and not independently from the concept of «providence», which Kant himself, according to Hölderlin, had used to «attenuate his antinomies», which Hegel uses in his first religious writings and the initial formation of his own philosophy and which Schelling will later explore in his System of Transcendental Idealism. In a word, providence is consensually the comprehension axis between man, God and nature and, thus, the explanatory link between the antinomical poles which regulate human existence. On the other hand, however - this being the aspect I would like to stress - , this decisive moment for a whole generation, for the history of philosophy itself, means the consummation of a new revolutionary perspective born in Kant, a new vision of the absolute and the divine and, therefore, a new way to write philosophy about philosophy, less philosophical than before, to the extent that the new situation of man and his reflection within the problem ultimately destined them - as is the case in the three young philosophers - to silence and death. The final aim of this essay is, therefore, to know what this «last step of philosophy» is and what dies along with it, what such a step may have meant and what it already foretold in terms of the development of philosophy.

The question of human consciousness is a crucial part of Novalis’ aim of construing a self-critique of the I, or critique of human identity, as it is proposed in his “Fichte-Studien” (1795-1796). Namely, this question is an intermediary stage in said critique, serving as proof for Novalis’ theory of the opposites, the fundamental stage, and his position on philosophizing, the final stage of this endeavor, which will be at the basis of his whole philosophical system; and as such, it is a topic of great importance, as it is not only a link in a chain of thought which aims at proving the organicity or living heterogeneity - and not Fichte’s machine-like homogeneity - of the human but is also a key topic towards the resolution of Novalis’problem of philosophy as an existential problem. Given this, the present article intends to situate the question of human consciousness in the framework of Novalis’greater scope of a critique of the I; and from then, to comment on Novalis’own position on the problem of human consciousness, as it is stated in the formula “Consciousness is the Being outside of Being, within Being”; a position which further separates the young poet from Fichte, as it renders him closer and closer to other young idealists, such as Hölderlin or Schelling.

No abstract