本书收入康德历史哲学全部相关著述，含《关于一种世界公民观点的普遍历史理念》、《人类历史揣测的开端》、《关于在地上逐步建立善的原则的统治的历史观念》等十篇文章，书中所收入的文章均由译者增译了《科学院版编者导言》和科学院版编者注，并在必要的地方加了少量的译者注。

大英帝国雄踞19世纪，其属地与殖民地遍布全球，号称日不落帝国。而新生的美国则称霸20世纪，其政治、经济、文化、军事全方位地影响着20世纪历史进程。 自工业革命以来，两个英语国家相续雄霸世界达200余年，这绝不是偶然。温斯顿·丘吉尔以其如椽大笔，深刻而生动地为我们揭示了其中奥秘，这就是其历史名著《英语民族史》，再加上其回忆巨著《*次世界大战回忆录》和《第二次世界大战回忆录》，几乎完整地描述了英语民族从蛮荒走到世界超强的历史轨迹。 地球上一个由讲英语的人口构成的宠大帝国——包括了不列颠、美国、加拿大和澳大利亚等西方*强国——历经了漫长曲折的历程而渐渐形成；它们的存在，深刻改变了世界的文明版图，强有力地左右着人类命运和历史的走向……在这部创作时间长达 30年的伟大作品中，诺贝尔文学奖获得者、英国历*负盛名的人物丘吉尔以深邃的洞察力和史诗般的笔触，为读者描绘了一幅全景式的“帝国画卷”。 本卷为《英语民族史》系列的第三部“革命时代”，在本卷所描绘的1688 年到1815 年这段时期，三场革命深刻地影响了人类的命运。这三场革命均发生在百年之内，并且它们都导致了英法两国之间的战争。

大英帝国雄踞19世纪，其属地与殖民地遍布全球，号称日不落帝国。而新生的美国则称霸20世纪，其政治、经济、文化、军事全方位地影响着20世纪历史进程。 自工业革命以来，两个英语国家相续雄霸世界达200余年，这绝不是偶然。温斯顿·丘吉尔以其如椽大笔，深刻而生动地为我们揭示了其中奥秘，这就是其历史名著《英语民族史》，再加上其回忆巨著《*次世界大战回忆录》和《第二次世界大战回忆录》，几乎完整地描述了英语民族从蛮荒走到世界超强的历史轨迹。 地球上一个由讲英语的人口构成的宠大帝国——包括了不列颠、美国、加拿大和澳大利亚等西方*强国——历经了漫长曲折的历程而渐渐形成；它们的存在，深刻改变了世界的文明版图，强有力地左右着人类命运和历史的走向……在这部创作时间长达 30年的伟大作品中，诺贝尔文学奖获得者、英国历*负盛名的人物丘吉尔以深邃的洞察力和史诗般的笔触，为读者描绘了一幅全景式的“帝国画卷”。 本卷为《英语民族史》系列的第二部“新世界”，1485 年至1688 年间，英语民族开始向全世界扩张，击败了西班牙帝国。在打通了海上通道后，美洲殖民地相继建立起来。大西洋西岸出现了许多充满生机并且富有独立精神的小社会，它们后来组成了美利坚合众国。

在当前经济全球化、信息网络化、思想多元化的形势下，大学生思想政治教育面临着新的挑战，学校思想政治教育与专业教育分离，理论教育与实践践行脱节，大学生思想政治教育方法单一，感召力弱，实效性差等是我国高校面临的较为普遍的共性问题。本书的内容主要包括我国大学生思想政治教育模式的演进、高校思想政治教育的内容及理论、“三全六结合”思想政治教育模式的开展、当代高校思想政治教育的现状、改革及实践等方面。着重对思想政治教育模式的理论与实践方面进行了研究和分析。书中探讨的大学生思想政治教育模式，既是大胆积极的理论探索，又是切实可行的实践方案，对我国高校大学生思想政治教育具有较为普遍的借鉴意义。

知道谜底，才能真正读懂《周易》 市面上常见的白话《周易》版本，似乎都能看懂。但一合上书，思考一下，就不知所云了。这些书中的绝大部分，不能说它们有问题，但可以说它们不适合普通读者自学。因为《周易》犹如一本谜语，其卦辞、爻辞犹如谜面。大多数的书只教你读懂谜面的文字，让你只知其然而不知其所以然。读者的智力是不能低估的！读者总是在读了白话解释后，还要在心里多问一些为什么。这一问，常常会把自己问糊涂，学不下去了！ 《周易》这本“天书”的逻辑结构很复杂，解读的书汗牛充栋，各执一词又互相攻讦，欲言又止又遮遮掩掩，让人如入云里雾里。本书作者从30岁左右研究易学，至今已有20年。在本书中，他站在教师的角度，将自己在四川大学开授《周易》课程的讲记整理成书，十分适合年轻人自学。打开本书，你可以绕开陷阱，直抵《周易》的“正门”。

有人说，离理性越近，离灵魂越远；也有人说，人生就是一刻也不停地变化着。就是肉体生命的衰弱和灵魂生命的强大、扩大。我们可以灵魂向左，理智向右，定位人生的每个点牵扯出人生曲线之美。这是一个纷繁的世界，有人历经苍桑回去了不再出来，有人蠢蠢欲动地想要换个地方寻找精彩，有的人在原地拼命地寻找安全感……人生太匆匆，面对或转身请记得勇敢，微笑，让灵魂向左，理智向右！

Ce este dragostea? Cum poate fi explicat ceva at?t de intim, de misterios, de minunat? Autorul nu ??i propune s? ne dezv?luie vreun mare adev?r filosofic, nici s? ne ofere sfaturi practice. Nu ne ?nva?? cum s? avem orgasm sau cum s? sc?p?m de gelozie. Nu ne spune c? femeile g?ndesc cu o alt? parte a creierului dec?t b?rba?ii, nici nu ne arat? cum s? ne salv?m rela?ia. ?n schimb, ne ajut? s? ?n?elegem comportamentul sexual ?i social, dar ?i mecanismele din spatele unor reac?ii pe care le consider?m normale ?i fire?ti.?n c?utarea r?spunsului la ?ntrebarea Ce este dragostea?, Richard David Precht exploreaz? discipline dintre cele mai diverse: biologia, psihologia, sociologia, filosofia, chiar ?i chimia. De la fiecare vom afla c?te ceva despre dragoste: c?t de egoiste sunt genele noastre ?i c?t de mult ne influen?eaz?; ce este tipic comportamentului sexual feminin ?i celui masculin; c?t de mare este aportul culturii la capacitatea noastr? de a ne ?n?elege pe noi ?n?ine ?i de a ?n?elege lumea, ca femeie sau ca b?rbat; ce se ?nt?mpl?, de fapt, ?n creierul nostru c?nd iubim; care este diferen?a dintre dragoste ?i sex; de ce a devenit at?t de important? pentru noi dragostea romantic?.?n final, afl?m c? dragostea nu are explica?ie. Ea nu poate fi dec?t tr?it?!

Pornind de la leg?tura natural? care se creeaz? ?ntre mam? ?i copil, D.W. Winnicott exploreaz? o serie de probleme cotidiene din via?a unui bebelu? ?i a mamei lui, cum ar fi hr?nirea, pl?nsul ?i joaca, grijile, primele mi?c?ri spre independen??, precum ?i, mai t?rziu, probleme serioase, cum sunt furtul ?i minciuna. Importan?a mamei la ?nceputul vie?ii, timiditatea, educa?ia sexual? ?n ?coal? ?i r?d?cinile agresivit??ii sunt expuse ?ntr-o manier? direct?, accesibil? ?i prietenoas?. Pe parcursul fiec?rui capitol, Winnicott scoate ?n eviden?? abilit??ile ?nn?scute ale mamei ?i ale p?rin?ilor ?n general ?i face diferen?a ?ntre acestea ?i deprinderile care trebuie achizi?ionate de-a lungul timpului de c?tre cei care cresc ?i educ? un copil. Capacitatea voastr? de a ?ti ceea ce este real ?i ceea ce nu este real ?i este de mare ajutor copilului din toate punctele de vedere, pentru c? el nu reu?e?te s? ?n?eleag? dec?t treptat c? lumea nu este a?a cum ne o imagin?m ?i c? imagina?ia nu este chiar ca lumea real?. Dar fiecare are nevoie de cealalt?. ?ti?i prea bine c? primul obiect pe care ?l iube?te bebelu?ul – o buc??ic? de p?tur? sau o juc?rie moale –?nseamn? pentru el o parte din propria persoan? ?i, dac? i o lua?i sau o da?i la sp?lat, este o tragedie. C?nd bebelu?ul ?ncepe s? arunce obiectul iubit ?i alte obiecte (a?tept?ndu-se, desigur, s? le ridice cineva ?i s? i le dea ?napoi), atunci ?ti?i c? a venit momentul ?n care ave?i ?i voi permisiunea de a pleca ?i a v? ?ntoarce. Unele persoane cred c? un copil este ca lutul ?n m?inile unui olar. Ele ?ncep s? ?l modeleze ?i se simt responsabile de ceea ce vor ob?ine. Total gre?it. Dac? asta este ceea ce sim?i?i, ve?i fi cople?i?i de o responsabilitate pe care nu trebuie s? v-o asuma?i. Dac? accepta?i ideea c? bebelu?ul con?ine ?n el tot ce ?i trebuie pentru a tr?i, atunci ve?i putea acorda mai mult? aten?ie procesului de dezvoltare ?i ve?i fi ferici?i s? r?spunde?i nevoilor lui.

Volumul cuprinde o culegere de eseuri scrise de un filosof despre c?teva teme fierbin?i ale actualit??ii. Este un exerci?iu de ?angajare“ ?n cotidian, explor?nd statutul ?i ?utilitatea“ abord?rii filosofice ?ntr-o lume care pare s? -?i fi pierdut direc?ia. Valentin Mure?an scrie despre criza filosofiei, despre felul ?n care ar trebui reformat sistemul de ?nv???m?nt, despre anomaliile culturale ale dragostei ori despre secretul construirii unor institu?ii morale. Reflec?iile, amare ?n constat?ri, dar entuziaste ?n construirea solu?iilor, sunt completate de c?teva portrete sentimentale ale unor colegi.

Un mare vinovat f?r? vin?, sihastrul de la Sils-Maria a dinamitat g?ndirea secolului al XIX-lea, figur?nd – al?turi de Dostoievski – printre uria?ii profe?i ai omenirii, care au proorocit nenorocirile ce-au urmat, crimele ?n numele unei idei, rasismul, precum ?i devastatorul totalitarism ro?u. Dincolo de bine ?i de r?u e una dintre capodoperele g?nditorului de la na?terea c?ruia se va s?rb?tori ?n toamna anului 2014 (15 octombrie) 170 de ani.

Critic erudit ?i pamfletar de for??, Paul Zarifopol (1874-1934) a fost un fin observator al omului ?i al fibrei care alc?tuie?te ?es?turile sociale profunde. Volumul de fa?? cuprinde eseuri care au r?mas de o actualitate acut?, chiar ?i la aproape un secol dup? ce au fost scrise.Coroziv ?i doct, discursul aduce ?n fa?a cititorului concepte esen?iale pentru morala ?i politica mai mult sau mai pu?in balcanice ale Rom?niei interbelice. Lumina ?n care ne sunt prezentate tipul politic ?i geniul organizator, de pild?, ne ofer? at?t senza?ia unei glacia?iuni temporale, c?t ?i pe aceea a unei familiarit??i inefabile.

A bírósági végrehajtási eljárás foganatosítása során gyakran el?fordulnak problémák és félreértések a gyakorlati életben. Jelen monográfia ezek magyarázatára t?rekszik azzal, hogy azon élet- és jogi helyzetekre ?sszpontosít, amelyekben a bírósági végrehajtó és a végrehajtási eljárás foganatosítása által érintett személyek interakciója magában hordozza a konfliktus lehet?ségét. Vizsgálat tárgya továbbá az eljárás társadalomra és gazdaságra gyakorolt hatása, a bírósági végrehajtási eljárás elhelyezkedése a jogon mint társadalmi alrendszeren belül.A végrehajtási ügyek manapság magas száma igényel egy ilyen jelleg? jogi szakmai és szociológiai ?sszefoglaló munkát, amely iránymutatás keretében igyekszik válaszokat adni minden érdekl?d? és érintett fél számára. A k?nyv nem csak a jogásztársadalomnak szól, hanem minden, a témában érintett vagy érdekelt résztvev?nek is.A k?tet a legfrissebb információkat tartalmazza, a 2012-ben jelent?sen módosult irányadó jogszabályi hátteret is k?veti.A k?nyvet Dr. Krejniker Miklós a Magyar Bírósági Végrehajtói Kamara eln?ke lektorálta, az el?szót Dr. Schadl Gy?rgy PhD f?iskolai docens írta.

Among the notable books of later times-we may say, without exaggeration, of all time--must be reckoned The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. It deals with leading personages and transactions of a momentous epoch, when absolutism and feudalism were rallying for their last struggle against the modern spirit, chiefly represented by Voltaire, the Encyclopedists, and Rousseau himself--a struggle to which, after many fierce intestine quarrels and sanguinary wars throughout Europe and America, has succeeded the prevalence of those more tolerant and rational principles by which the statesmen of our own day are actuated. On these matters, however, it is not our province to enlarge; nor is it necessary to furnish any detailed account of our author's political, religious, and philosophic axioms and systems, his paradoxes and his errors in logic: these have been so long and so exhaustively disputed over by contending factions that little is left for even the most assiduous gleaner in the field. The inquirer will find, in Mr. John Money's excellent work, the opinions of Rousseau reviewed succinctly and impartially. The 'Contrat Social', the 'Lattres Ecrites de la Montagne', and other treatises that once aroused fierce controversy, may therefore be left in the repose to which they have long been consigned, so far as the mass of mankind is concerned, though they must always form part of the library of the politician and the historian. One prefers to turn to the man Rousseau as he paints himself in the remarkable work before us. That the task which he undertook in offering to show himself--as Persius puts it--'Intus et in cute', to posterity, exceeded his powers, is a trite criticism; like all human enterprises, his purpose was only imperfectly fulfilled; but this circumstance in no way lessens the attractive qualities of his book, not only for the student of history or psychology, but for the intelligent man of the world. Its startling frankness gives it a peculiar interest wanting in most other autobiographies. Many censors have elected to sit in judgment on the failings of this strangely constituted being, and some have pronounced upon him very severe sentences. Let it be said once for all that his faults and mistakes were generally due to causes over which he had but little control, such as a defective education, a too acute sensitiveness, which engendered suspicion of his fellows, irresolution, an overstrained sense of honour and independence, and an obstinate refusal to take advice from those who really wished to befriend him; nor should it be forgotten that he was afflicted during the greater part of his life with an incurable disease. Lord Byron had a soul near akin to Rousseau's, whose writings naturally made a deep impression on the poet's mind, and probably had an influence on his conduct and modes of thought: In some stanzas of 'Childe Harold' this sympathy is expressed with truth and power; especially is the weakness of the Swiss philosopher's character summed up in the following admirable lines: "Here the self-torturing sophist, wild Rousseau, The apostle of affliction, he who threw Enchantment over passion, and from woe Wrung overwhelming eloquence, first drew The breath which made him wretched; yet he knew How to make madness beautiful, and cast O'er erring deeds and thoughts a heavenly hue Of words, like sunbeams, dazzling as they passed The eyes, which o'er them shed tears feelingly and fast. "His life was one long war with self-sought foes, Or friends by him self-banished; for his mind Had grown Suspicion's sanctuary, and chose, For its own cruel sacrifice, the kind, 'Gainst whom he raged with fury strange and blind. But he was frenzied,-wherefore, who may know? Since cause might be which skill could never find; But he was frenzied by disease or woe To that worst pitch of all, which wears a reasoning show."

Mülkiyet kar??t? ya?l? anar?ist, hayat?n?n son y?llar?nda ironik bir durumda kald?. ?svi?re vatanda?l???na girmenin yollar?n? arayan Bakunin'e sunulan se?enek, orada bir ev sahibi olmas?yd? ve belki de en hazini, sahip olaca?? bu ev nedeniyle, polisin, resm? tutanaklara “Michael Bakunin, rantiye” notunu dü?mesiydi. 18 May?s 1814'te Rusya'da do?an Michael Aleksandrovich Bakunin, 1 Temmuz 1876'da ?ldü?ünde ülkesinden ?ok uzaklardayd? ve cenazesinde yaln?zca 30–40 ki?i vard?. Gen? Bakunin i?in, “A?k, insan?n yeryüzündeki en üst misyonuydu. Bir insan?n kendini a?ks?z vermesi, Kutsal Ruh’a kar?? i?lenmi? bir günaht?”.. ?Kad?nlar taraf?ndan olduk?a ?ekici bulunan Mihail'in ise kad?nlarla ili?kisi hep ruhsal bir a?k olarak kald?.??svi?re'nin muhte?em manzaras? e?li?inde George Sand romanlar? okuyan Bakunin, Frans?z dü?üncesinin Alman dü?üncesinden üstün oldu?u inanc?n? sa?lamla?t?r?yordu. ? Bakunin, Marx i?in, “O, beni duygusal idealist olarak adland?r?yordu; hakl?yd?. Ben de onu, hoyrat, kendini be?enmi? ve ac?mas?z olarak de?erlendiriyordum; ben de hakl?yd?m” diyordu.. ? Kendisine ili?kin konularda kindar olmayan Bakunin, Herzen'in kar?s?na g?sterdi?i so?uklu?u hayat?n?n sonuna kadar unutamad?.?“Art?k reaksiyonun muzaffer gü?lerine kar?? Sisifos'un ta??n? yuvarlamak i?in ne gerekli güce ne de güvene sahibim. Bu yüzden, mücadeleden ?ekiliyor ve arkada?lar?mdan tek bir iyilik bekliyorum: "Unutulmak”,?Orta ve ge? on dokuzuncu yüzy?lda, radikal sol –yani, a?g?zlü kapitalizm ele?tirmenleri ve sanayi i??ilerinin ?zgürlü?ünün savunucular?– iki temel franksiyona ayr?l?yordu: Marksistler ve anar?istler. Kabaca s?ylemek gerekirse (ki bu son derece kar???k bir hik?yedir), kazanan Marksistler oldu ve yirminci yüzy?l?n tüm ba?ar?l? sol devrimleri –Rus, ?in ve Küba, ?rne?in– Marksist ilkelere ba?l?l?klar?n? ilan ettiler. ? Marksistler ile anar?istler aras?ndaki sava? bu noktada tarihsel bir meraktan ?te devam eden bir meseledir. Pi?man olmayan ya da ele?tirilmeyen tek ger?ek Marksist sol Kim Jong Il ve taraf etraftaki birka? entelektüel ve profes?rdür. Anar?izm ise uygulanabilir bir toplumsal hareket olarak ?kinci Dünya Sava??yla yava? yava? tükenmeye yüz tutmu?ken küreselle?me kar??t? hareket ve d?nemimizin di?er radikalizmleri i?inde yeniden dirilmeye ba?lam??t?r. ? Ne var ki, d?neminde –Marx’?n di?erleriyle aras?ndaki– bu sava? bir ?lüm kal?m meselesiydi ve Marksizm muhtemel kapitalizm kar??t? olarak ve yan? s?ra anar?izm kar??t? olarak tan?mlan?yordu. Asl?nda, Marx’?n yazarl??? anar?izme y?nelik sald?r?lar? a??s?ndan handiyse gülün? bir geni?li?e ula?m??t?r. Marx’?n Alman ?deolojisi kitab?n?n büyük b?lümü –yüzlerce sayfas?– bireyci/anar?ist Max Stirner’e y?nelik bir sald?r?dan ibarettir. Felsefenin Sefaleti Proudhon’a kar?? büyük?e bir fikir sava??d?r. Marx onca zaman ve enerjisini Bakunin’e sald?rmaya harcam??t?r: ?“dangalak!”?“canavar, et ve ya? y???n?,” “sap?k” vesaire: ?bu tabirler, has?mlar? s?z konusu oldu?unda Marx’?n bildik üslubudur: yazarl??? yar? bilimsel inceleme, yar? s?zlü tacizdir. Marx’?n, gerek kendi a?z?ndan gerekse de kimi s?zcülerini kullanarak ony?llar boyunca y?neltti?i ve muhtemelen di?erleri denli e?lenceli olmayan var olan su?lamas?, Bakunin’in bir muhbir oldu?u y?nündeydi ve Marx’?n bu ba?ar?l? sald?r?lar? nihayetinde Bakunin’in Enternasyonal ???i Z?mb?rt?s?ndan tasfiyesine yol a?t?.. ?

More’s “Utopia” was written in Latin, and is in two parts, of which the second, describing the place ([Greek text]—or Nusquama, as he called it sometimes in his letters—“Nowhere”), was probably written towards the close of 1515; the first part, introductory, early in 1516. The book was first printed at Louvain, late in 1516, under the editorship of Erasmus, Peter Giles, and other of More’s friends in Flanders. It was then revised by More, and printed by Frobenius at Basle in November, 1518. It was reprinted at Paris and Vienna, but was not printed in England during More’s lifetime. Its first publication in this country was in the English translation, made in Edward’s VI.’s reign (1551) by Ralph Robinson. It was translated with more literary skill by Gilbert Burnet, in 1684, soon after he had conducted the defence of his friend Lord William Russell, attended his execution, vindicated his memory, and been spitefully deprived by James II. of his lectureship at St. Clement’s. Burnet was drawn to the translation of “Utopia” by the same sense of unreason in high places that caused More to write the book. Burnet’s is the translation given in this volume. The name of the book has given an adjective to our language—we call an impracticable scheme Utopian. Yet, under the veil of a playful fiction, the talk is intensely earnest, and abounds in practical suggestion. It is the work of a scholarly and witty Englishman, who attacks in his own way the chief political and social evils of his time. Beginning with fact, More tells how he was sent into Flanders with Cuthbert Tunstal, “whom the king’s majesty of late, to the great rejoicing of all men, did prefer to the office of Master of the Rolls;” how the commissioners of Charles met them at Bruges, and presently returned to Brussels for instructions; and how More then went to Antwerp, where he found a pleasure in the society of Peter Giles which soothed his desire to see again his wife and children, from whom he had been four months away. Then fact slides into fiction with the finding of Raphael Hythloday (whose name, made of two Greek words [Greek text] and [Greek text], means “knowing in trifles”), a man who had been with Amerigo Vespucci in the three last of the voyages to the new world lately discovered, of which the account had been first printed in 1507, only nine years before Utopia was written. Designedly fantastic in suggestion of details, “Utopia” is the work of a scholar who had read Plato’s “Republic,” and had his fancy quickened after reading Plutarch’s account of Spartan life under Lycurgus. Beneath the veil of an ideal communism, into which there has been worked some witty extravagance, there lies a noble English argument. Sometimes More puts the case as of France when he means England. Sometimes there is ironical praise of the good faith of Christian kings, saving the book from censure as a political attack on the policy of Henry VIII. Erasmus wrote to a friend in 1517 that he should send for More’s “Utopia,” if he had not read it, and “wished to see the true source of all political evils.” And to More Erasmus wrote of his book, “A burgomaster of Antwerp is so pleased with it that he knows it all by heart.” Sir Thomas More, son of Sir John More, a justice of the King’s Bench, was born in 1478, in Milk Street, in the city of London. After his earlier education at St. Anthony’s School, in Threadneedle Street, he was placed, as a boy, in the household of Cardinal John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor. It was not unusual for persons of wealth or influence and sons of good families to be so established together in a relation of patron and client. The youth wore his patron’s livery, and added to his state. The patron used, afterwards, his wealth or influence in helping his young client forward in the world.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) este o figur? important? a filosofiei secolului XIX ?i unul dintre prefa?atorii principalelor curente de g?ndire din secolul XX, fiind considerat fondatorul pragmatismului american. Cele dou? eseuri prezentate aici, primele din seria cunoscut? sub numele Ilustr?ri ale logicii ?tiin?ei, sunt reprezentative pentru opera sa, caracterizat? de profunzimi ?i subtilit??i specifice unui g?nditor care beneficiaz? ?i de preg?tirea unui om de ?tiin?a.Cu toate c? sunt uneori pur abstracte, observa?iile privitoare la convingeri ?i idei r?m?n, indiferent de sistem, puncte principale de sprijin pentru distinc?ia ?ntre g?ndirea s?n?toas? ?i cea viciat?.“ Este groaznic s? vezi cum o singur? idee neclar?, o singur? formul? f?r? ?n?eles, care se furi?eaz? ?n capul unui t?n?r, va ac?iona uneori ca un obstacol de materie inert? ?ntr-o arter?, ?mpiedic?nd circula?ia ?n creier ?i condamn?ndu-?i victima spre ofilire ?n plenitudinea vigorii intelectuale ?i ?n mijlocul abunden?ei intelectuale.“ - Charles Sanders Peirce

Are femeia vreun rol ?n evolu?ia spiritual? a b?rbatului? Ce anume, ?n iubire ?i ?n erotism, declan?eaz? intui?ii ?i tr?iri care dep??esc datul, ordinarul, norma? Otto Weininger, un g?nditor catalogat drept misogin ?i antisemit, repune ?n discu?ie opera Peer Gynt al lui Ibsen, st?ruind asupra temelor sale favorite: superioritatea masculinului, asociat spiritului, fa?? cu femininul, asociat instinctualit??ii oarbe, lipsite de spirit, de perspectiv?, deci ?i de valoare. Aforistica acestui autor, deopotriv? prezent? ?n volumul de fa??, abordeaz? problematica sadismului ?i a masochismului, imoralitatea dus? p?n? la ilegalitate ?i crim?, culmin?nd cu – sau decurg?nd din – p?catul originar.

Dialoguri cu Vasile Dem. Zamfirescu consemnate de Leonid DragomirLa Facultatea de Filosofie din Bucure?ti unde eram studen?i exista pe atunci mult? libertate ?n alegerea cursurilor pe care doream s? le urm?m. Se afi?a la ?nceputul anului universitar o list? a cursurilor obligatorii ?i op?ionale, acestea din urm? fiind majoritare. A?a am descoperit cursul de Psihanaliz? filosofic? al profesorului Vasile Dem. Zamfirescu, despre care ?tiam vag c? fusese unul dintre discipolii lui Constantin Noica. Atmosfera de libertate ?n care ne mi?cam se reg?sea ?n totalitate aici. Cursul ne interesa at?t prin con?inutul lui — care adolescent n-a fost fascinat de psihanaliz?! — c?t ?i prin rigoarea ?i claritatea expunerii. De?i nu mai predase p?n? atunci, Vasile Dem. Zamfirescu era cu adev?rat profesor. Seminariile erau ?ns? ale noastre. Aici se iscau polemici, se propuneau interpret?ri insolite, se scriau ?i se citeau eseuri inspirate de noile probleme ?i lecturi. De obicei dep??eam limitele temei propuse, astfel ?nc?t totul ar fi putut degenera ?ntr-un dialog al surzilor sau ?n divaga?ii sterile dac? n-ar fi existat polul magnetic: profesorul. Nu numai c? el aducea, cu mult tact, discu?ia pe f?ga?ul normal, la obiect, dar opiniile noastre, oric?t de ?ndr?zne?e, vizau direct sau indirect aprobarea lui. Aceasta uneori venea, alteori nu, dar ceea ce conta pentru noi era faptul de a ne ?ti asculta?i. Sim?eam c? el poate s? vad? ?n spusele noastre sau dincolo de ele personalitatea noastr? ?ntreag?. De aceea voiam s? d?m totul ?n acele seminarii care treceau at?t de repede, de?i discu?iile se prelungeau ?n pauze ?i dup? ?ncheierea lor.

Via?a fiec?ruia dintre noi se desf??oar? pe fundalul unor nara?iuni?sau teorii filosofice discrete ?i insesizabile, care ne ofer? sens ?i ne ?ndrum? ?n momentele de cump?n?.Au o istorie fascinant? ?i uneori extrem de agitat?, care st? m?rturie?pentru str?daniile noastre de a ?n?elege lumea ?i de a o transforma ?ntr-un mediu familiar.Cartea de fa?? ne prezint? istoriile a trei dintre aceste nara?iuni,?cunoscute mai mult filosofilor, cu toate c? ele ?ncearc? s? ofere r?spuns?la ?ntreb?ri tulbur?toare ?i de?o importan?? cov?r?itoare pentru?noi to?i: de ce exist? lumea, ?n ce const? identitatea persoanei, ce?este realitatea.

...a knyvet ne tekintsük úgy, mint amelynek a fejldése már befejezdtt, és amin már nincs is mit tkéletesíteni... azzal mintha nem foglalkozna senki, hogy a knyvet miként lehetne az olvasó számára használhatóbbá tenni... nagyon is el tudnék képzelni ergonomikusabban megtervezett és knnyebben kézben tartható knyvet is (amelyet nem ejtek el, ha a mobilom után kezdek kotorászni a 6-os villamoson. Ha egyszer vehetünk jobban kézbe ill tollat, akkor talán ez sem képtelenség).”

When, in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville came to study Democracy in America, the trial of nearly a half-century of the working of our system had been made, and it had been proved, by many crucial tests, to be a government of "liberty regulated by law," with such results in the development of strength, in population, wealth, and military and commercial power, as no age had ever witnessed. De Tocqueville had a special inquiry to prosecute, in his visit to America, in which his generous and faithful soul and the powers of his great intellect were engaged in the patriotic effort to secure to the people of France the blessings that Democracy in America had ordained and established throughout nearly the entire Western Hemisphere. He had read the story of the French Revolution, much of which had been recently written in the blood of men and women of great distinction who were his progenitors; and had witnessed the agitations and terrors of the Restoration and of the Second Republic, fruitful in crime and sacrifice, and barren of any good to mankind. He had just witnessed the spread of republican government through all the vast continental possessions of Spain in America, and the loss of her great colonies. He had seen that these revolutions were accomplished almost without the shedding of blood, and he was filled with anxiety to learn the causes that had placed republican government, in France, in such contrast with Democracy in America. De Tocqueville was scarcely thirty years old when he began his studies of Democracy in America. It was a bold effort for one who had no special training in government, or in the study of political economy, but he had the example of Lafayette in establishing the military foundation of these liberties, and of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom were young men, in building upon the Independence of the United States that wisest and best plan of general government that was ever devised for a free people.