《弟子规》是清朝以来有广泛影响的蒙学读物，与《三字经》、《千字文》等相配合，在推动民间礼义文明和儿童德育事业中发挥了重要作用。《弟子规》的内容来源于《论语》中的“弟子入则孝，出则弟，谨而信，泛爱众，而亲仁，行有余力，则以学文”，这段话可以视为孔子的教学大纲。《弟子规》包括了孝悌、忠信、仁爱、恭谨等儒家修身功夫，内容具体详尽，紧扣人伦日用，为现今国民教育中*为紧缺的儿童礼仪修养教材。 《〈弟子规〉读本》包括原文、注释、译文、解读等部分，准确阐发了《弟子规》的义理，以及它对于当代青少年教育的现实意义，对儿童修身做人具有重要参考价值。

诸子百家学说，一览无余；华夏史诗绝唱，贯通古今。《春秋策：先秦诸子与史记评述》收藏整理了傅斯年先生关于“战国子家”的珍贵讲义资料，他从新的角度概括了诸子百家的源流和特点，为研究“战国子家”提供了新思路，岁后人研究百家学说有着深远的影响。此部分内容都是傅斯年*时期的精华之作，至今仍为学界所推重。

《春秋策：先秦诸子与史记评述》收藏整理了傅斯年先生关于“战国子家”的珍贵讲义资料，他将中国近代的治学方法和西方的科学方法相结合，概括了诸子百家的源流和特点，并创造了一套具有中国特色又有时代精神的历史研究新方法，为中国传统史学研究开辟了一条新的研究途径。他的新思路备受推崇，在后世有着巨大的影响。

诸子百家学说，一览无余；华夏史诗绝唱，贯通古今。《春秋策：先秦诸子与史记评述》收藏整理了傅斯年先生关于《史记》的珍贵讲义资料，开创了现代《史记》研究的先河，他将中国近代的治学方法和西方的科学方法相结合，创造了一套具有中国特色又有时代精神的历史研究新方法，为中国传统史学研究开辟了一条新的研究途径。本书内容代表了傅斯年*时期的精华，对后世研究史记有着巨大的影响。

人们无法驱逐屋里的黑暗，然而，只要让光亮进来，黑暗便自然消失了。 真正伟大的人往往都能主宰自己的性情，统治自己的心灵。富有化学性心灵的人——也就是善于管理自己情绪的人，能够消灭忧虑，解除烦闷，正如同化学家以碱性来中和酸性一样。

古今中外，无论哪一个成大事者一定都十分勤奋刻苦，因为他们深知，勤奋是成功的惟一捷径。勤能补拙，养成“勤”的习惯，对你的事业有益无裨。勤俭的人，终究会成为成功之人。

既能功成名就，又能远灾避祸是修身处世的秘诀。世间一切事物都在不断变化，时世的盛衰和人生的沉浮也是如此，所以必须待时而动，顺其自然。这就意味着，为人处世要精通时务，懂得“激流勇进”和“激流勇退”的道理。

古时候，有个阿阉贳王，特别喜欢吃大雁肉。他 认为大雁肉是世界上好吃的食物。为了保证他每天都能吃到一只大雁，就派猎手们到处张网，捕猎大雁。 在国下的都城外，有一个很大很大的湖。湖边长满绿树、青草，湖中有很多鱼虾，湖水清澈，水面平静，吸引了很多南来北往的鸟儿，在此休息、捕食。

Diderot, tanr?sal, dinsel inanc?n yerine akl? ge?iren adamd?r, onun sava??m? buydu ve bütün k?r inan?lar? silip süpüren bu ak?l, g?rünen dünyay?, do?ay?, felsefenin, sanat?n, sa? t?renin temel ilkesi durumuna getirdi. Diderot’un yayg?n ?al??ma alan?n? olu?turan ilkedir bu. Maddeci ve gerekirci bir filozoftu. tanr?ya inanan ki?inin filozof olmayaca??n? s?yledi. 'K?rler üstüne mektup'taki k?r, kendini tanr?ya inand?rmaya ?al??an misyonere "bunun i?in tanr?ya parma??mla dokunmam gerekir" der. Diderot, bu yüzden hapse girdi. 'D'alembert'in dü?ü'nde, madde tanr?n?n yerini alm??t?r art?k. Madde devinim ve duyarl?l?kla donat?lm??t?r. Bilim gerekircili?in kan?t?d?r. Bütün varl?klar ?z?e birdir ve bir ge?i?, de?i?im, olu?um süreci i?inde bulunurlar. ?yle ise sa? t?renin temeli do?a olacakt?r. Do?as? gere?i insan iyidir, hristiyan sagtoresinin sand??? gibi do?u?tan günahkar de?il ve iyilikler de, k?tülükler de, düzenin, ko?ullar?n, e?itimin ürünüdür. ?nsan, bu gerekircilik anlay??? i?inde, ?zgür olamayaca?? i?in, su?lu da bulunamaz. bu üslama sonucu olarak sanat, do?ay? ?rnek almal?d?r. roman, resim, oyun ger?ek?i olmal?d?r. Diderot, bunlar? s?ylemekle kalmam??, romanlar? ve oyunlar? ile ?rneklendirmi?tir de ve ?a??n?n sanat??lar?n? bu a??dan de?erlendirmi?tir. Diderot, büyük sava??m? ve e?siz ?abas? ile insanl???n ba?tac?d?r bugün de ve onu b?ylesine unutulmaz k?lan i?lerinin ba??nda ise elbet 'ansiklopedi' gelir. 'Ansiklopedi', yunanca enkyklios paidela'dan yap?lm??t?r ve bütün bilimleri i?ine alan ??retim anlam?na gelir. s?zcü?ü bulan rabelais'dir (1532). Diderot ile d'alembert'in ansiklopedisine temel olan yap?t, ?ng?l?z chambers’?n cyelopaedia’s? idi; fakat diderot'nun etkisi ile ansiklopedi, bir ?eviri yap?t olmaktan ??k?p, gizemcili?e kar?? bilimin sava? alan? durumunu ald?. Bu yüzden de gerici ?evrelerin kar?? koymas?n? sonu?lad?. diderot, ya?am? boyunca ?al??t? 'ansiklopedi' i?in, bir?ok maddeyi kendisi yazd?. bu u?urda yepyeni ara?t?rmalara giri?ti, teknik de?i?mekte oldu?u i?in ortaya yeni ara?-gere?ler ??kmakta idi, bunlar? tan?d?, adland?rd?, tan?tt? ve fransa'y? ayd?nlanma ?a??'n?n avrupa'da g?zbebe?i durumuna getirdi. Ancak unutmamal? ki, bir ansiklopedi ortaya ??karan her ülkeyi ayd?nlanma ?a??'n? alg?lam?? sayamay?z. ?o?u ülkede bu tür yap?tlar, geni?letilmi? s?zlükler olmaktan ileri gidememi?tir. diderot’nun ansiklopedisi, toplu bilgi vermekten ?ok, dinsel inan?lara kar?? bilimlerin ??retimini üstlenmi?ti, demek yans?z de?ildi, metafizikle ve skolastikle ?arp???yordu..

Imagineaz?-?i c? e?ti într-o ma?in? a timpului care te poart? înainte ?i înapoi prin propria via??. Te duce în trecut, la anii copil?riei, când înv??ai s? mergi pe biciclet?, apoi te face s? revezi primul t?u s?rut, cel dintâi serviciu sau anii mai târzii, când te confrun?i, eventual, cu divor?ul. Înso?it de Platon, afl? ce spun marii gânditori ai lumii despre toate aceste pietre de hotar de pe drumul vie?ii noastre. Aristotel î?i va vorbi despre importan?a începerii ?colii, Freud despre îndr?gostire, Heidegger despre implica?iile psihologice ale mutatului, iar Nietzsche despre criza vârstei de mijloc. La drum cu Platon te ajut? s? în?elegi ?i s? vezi cu al?i ochi evenimentele majore, momentele-cheie ?i fazele de tranzi?ie din via?a ta, f?când filosofia s? par? accesibil? ?i plin? de umor!

De numele lui Sigmund Freud (1856-1929) se leag? poate cea mai controversat? teorie din filosofia culturii ultimelor secole: psihanaliza. ?nceput? ca ?ntreprindere psihoterapeutic?, prima cur? – din punct de vedere istoric – ?n care rolul terapeutic revenea exclusiv cuv?ntului, psihanaliza a fost condus? de Freud ?n mod firesc ?i ?n direc?ia descoperirii resorturilor abisale ale culturii.Disconfort ?n cultur? (1930) este o lucrare de maturitate ?n care p?rintele psihanalizei investigheaz? mecanismele care men?in coeziunea social?, respectiv contraponderea lor, manifestat? prin senza?ia de disconfort care ?nso?e?te mai mult sau mai pu?in evident fiin?a social?.?Supraeul unui epoci culturale are o origine asem?n?toare cu a celui individual; se sprijin? pe impresia pe care au l?sat-o mari personalit??i conduc?toare, oameni de o for?? spiritual? cople?itoare sau cei la care una dintre tendin?ele umane a g?sit configura?ia cea mai puternic? ?i mai pur?, de aceea adesea ?i cea mai unilateral?.“ - Sigmund Freud

Nietzsche este, poate, cea mai ilustr? victim? a aventurii socratice a cunoa?terii de sine. Via?a nu posed? fenomene originale, ci numai unele repetitive, care prin reluarea lor ve?nic identic? ??i tocesc conturul lor original. Cadrul repeti?iei nu este via?a, c?ci via?a ?ns??i este un fenomen de repeti?ie. Omul este condamnat s? tr?iasc? ?ntr-un plictisitor ?ir de repeti?ii ?i relu?ri din care nu poate evada. Nu exist? fenomene absolut unice, care s? nu fie repetitive ?i, probabil, la fel este ?i cu oamenii. To?i au mai fost nu o dat?, ci de nenum?rate ori ?n trecut ?i vor mai fi de nenum?rate ori ?n viitor. Tot ce trebuia ?i putea s? se produc? s-a produs deja. Restul este doar monoton? repeti?ie: ve?nic? revenire a aceluia?i. Eterna ?ntoarcere exprim? nu devenirea heraclitean? f?r? repaos, ci marile linii de stabilitate din cadrul existen?ei. Prin ea, Nietzsche vrea s? eternizeze trec?torul, socotind timpul ca etern, etern? ?ntoarcere, adic? schimbare ?i stabilitate. Ecce homo este ?i exerci?iul acestui impas al g?ndirii lui Nietzsche. Prin aceasta ?ns? Nietzsche ?i-a adus contribu?ia la instaurarea unui nou ?idol“ al lumii moderne dup? ce aceasta a denun?at prezen?a ?idolilor“ de tot felul ?n spa?iul ei de con?tiin??. (Vasile Musc?)??ntruc?t, ?n scurt timp, va trebui s? m? adresez omenirii cu cea mai grea solicitare care i-a fost prezentat? vreodat?, mi se pare imperios necesar s? spun cine sunt. ?n principiu, ar trebui s? se ?tie: c?ci nu m-am l?sat ?neatestat?. Dar discrepan?a dintre m?re?ia misiunii mele ?i micimea contemporanilor mei ?i-a g?sit expresia ?n faptul c? nici nu am fost auzit, nici nu am fost v?zut. Tr?iesc pe propriul meu credit, s? fie poate o simpl? prejudecat? faptul c? tr?iesc?... Este de ajuns s? stau de vorb? cu vreun ?om cultivat?, care vine vara ?n Engadina de Sus, ca s? m? conving c? nu tr?iesc... ?n aceste ?mprejur?ri, este o ?ndatorire ?mpotriva c?reia obi?nuin?a mea ?i, mai mult chiar dec?t aceasta, m?ndria instinctelor mele, se revolt?, anume aceea de a spune: Auzi?i-m?! c?ci eu sunt cutare ?i cutare. ?nainte de toate, nu cumva s? m? confunda?i!“ (Friedrich Nietzsche)

A fi rom?n? ?E o ru?ine!“, exclama Cioran. ?n ce m?sur? filosoful de la Paris avea dreptate? Ce ?nseamn? ?a fi rom?n“ ?ntr-o fals? tranzi?ie care aparent nu se mai termin?? La aceste ?i multe alte ?ntreb?ri ?ncearc? s? r?spund? scriitorul Ionel Necula ?n opus-ul de fa??, care ?nsumeaz? analize ale r?sturn?rilor sociale evidente, ?nregistrate ?n ultimii ?aptesprezece ani. Nu ?ntotdeauna comod, spiritul coroziv al autorului ??i spune cuv?ntul, av?nd uneori accente incendiare.

M. Lévy-Bruhl then explains that, whilst recognising the entire coherence of Comte’s collective labours, he proposes to confine his present study to the earlier and principal work, the Philosophy, which in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion is the dominant and more fruitful composition.??This he regards as the representative work of the nineteenth century, as shown by the intellectual history of the period. He points to its influence on thought in England, in Europe, and in America. It will surprise many persons to learn that in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion two eminent French writers, who assuredly neither were, nor were supposed to be, Positivists, “have done more for the diffusion of the ideas and method of Comte than Littré and all the other Positivists together.” ??These two are Taine and Renan, much as they differed from Comte’s actual scheme and doctrines. Renan indeed spoke of Comte as destined to prove one of the typical names of the century. The present writer remembers Renan saying to him with a most genial welcome, “I too am a believer in the religion of humanity.” ??Professor Lévy-Bruhl followed up his History of Modern Philosophy in France by a substantial work on the philosophy of Auguste Comte. It forms a volume of the Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine, which has already devoted four other works to the Positive Philosophy. It is as well to premise that this treatise dealt solely with the philosophy, not with the polity, or any part of the religious scheme of Comte. Professor Lévy-Bruhl writes as a student, but not as an adherent of Auguste Comte. His entire work is rather an exposition, not a refutation, or a criticism, or an advocacy of Comte’s philosophical system. But it may be said at once that no one abroad or at home, certainly neither Mill, nor Lewes, nor Spencer, nor Caird, has so truly grasped and assimilated Comte’s ideas as M. Lévy-Bruhl has done.??In his Introduction M. Lévy-Bruhl very clearly states the scope of his work, and his own general attitude. He traces the origin of Comte’s philosophy in the mental effervescence of the first generation of the present century towards a reorganisation of society, after the upheaval left by the Revolution and its consequences. He correctly states the relation of St. Simon to Comte as being that of an initial stimulus. ??The cardinal difference between Comte and all the socialists and founders of social and religious Utopias consisted in this, that Comte saw the necessity of a new system of philosophy as the indispensable preliminary to any reorganisation of society.

Iako je napisao veoma zna?ajne radove iz drugih podru?ja filozofije?(npr. Sistem logike, gde izla?e na?ela induktivnog zaklju?ivanja, ili Utilitarizam, gde izla?e shvatanje da svako treba da dela tako da proizvede najve?u sre?u za najve?i broj ljudi), Mil je najtrajniji utjecaj ostavio svojim radovima iz politi?ke filozofije i etike. Njegovo delo O slobodi smatra se jednim od temeljnih tekstova savremenog liberalizma. U njemu Mil zagovara na?elo da je ljudsku slobodu dozvoljeno ograni?avati samo ukoliko ?teti drugima. Na?elo ?tete, kako se to na?elo ?esto naziva, u svojoj primeni na ure?enje dru?tvenih odnosa isklju?uje sve despotske i autoritarne oblike vlasti koji gu?e slobodu pojedinaca i njihovu individualnost. Od posebne va?nosti za sre?u pojedinca i dru?tva u celini jeste sloboda govora, koja ni?im ne sme biti ograni?ena. Na Milovoj raspravi O slobodi njen prevodilac, kralj Petar I Kara?or?evi?, tvorac dr?ave Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, zasnovao je svoj politi?ki program.

Coresponden?a lui Descartes dubleaz? opera sa propriu-zis?, fiind uneori mai expresiv? dec?t aceasta ?i cuprinz?nd cutezan?e filozofice pe care c?r?ile sale nu ?i le ?ng?duie. E aici, ?n paginile acestor scrisori, un Descartes mai viu, mai nuan?at ?n exprimare, mai amplu. O mare g?ndire filozofic?, precum aceasta, nu se resemneaz? cu propria realitate, ci se impune printr-o str?danie de a cuceri con?tiin?a public?, despre care dau seama aceste texte. Ele ?nchid ?n cuprinderea lor imaginea eforturilor prin care filozoful ??i creeaz? premisele posterit??ii sale.

Volumul red? circuitului public, pentru prima oar? ?n limba rom?n?, trei din operele g?nditorului atenian. Este vorba de Scrisori (?n num?r de treisprezece, deosebit de importante pentru cunoa?terea g?ndirii platoniciene, dar ?i pentru ?n?elegerea epocii ?i a personalit??ilor cu care a venit ?n contact filosoful), Dialoguri suspecte (Minos, Rivalii, Theages, Hipparhos, Clitofon) ?i Dialoguri apocrife (Axiohos, Despre drept, Despre virtute, Demodocus, Sisyfos, Eryxias).Traducerea apara?ine lui ?tefan Bezdechi, care a realizat ?i aparatul critic al Scrisorilor (introducere ?i note).

In several of the dialogues of Plato, doubts have arisen among his interpreters as to which of the various subjects discussed in them is the main thesis. The speakers have the freedom of conversation; no severe rules of art restrict them, and sometimes we are inclined to think, with one of the dramatis personae in the Theaetetus, that the digressions have the greater interest. Yet in the most irregular of the dialogues there is also a certain natural growth or unity; the beginning is not forgotten at the end, and numerous allusions and references are interspersed, which form the loose connecting links of the whole.

The Phaedrus is closely connected with the Symposium, and may be regarded either as introducing or following it. The two Dialogues together contain the whole philosophy of Plato on the nature of love, which in the Republic and in the later writings of Plato is only introduced playfully or as a figure of speech. But in the Phaedrus and Symposium love and philosophy join hands, and one is an aspect of the other. The spiritual and emotional part is elevated into the ideal, to which in the Symposium mankind are described as looking forward, and which in the Phaedrus, as well as in the Phaedo, they are seeking to recover from a former state of existence.

The Protagoras, like several of the Dialogues of Plato, is put into the mouth of Socrates, who describes a conversation which had taken place between himself and the great Sophist at the house of Callias—'the man who had spent more upon the Sophists than all the rest of the world'—and in which the learned Hippias and the grammarian Prodicus had also shared, as well as Alcibiades and Critias, both of whom said a few words—in the presence of a distinguished company consisting of disciples of Protagoras and of leading Athenians belonging to the Socratic circle.

Our next task is to study coming-to-be and passing-away. We are to distinguish the causes, and to state the definitions, of these processes considered in general-as changes predicable uniformly of all the things that come-to-be and pass-away by nature. Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures.