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 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.

In these talks, given in Europe and India, Krishnamurti goes into the importance of going into problems openly, without conclusions. "..because we approach our problems partially, through all these various forms of conditioning, it seems to me that we are thereby not understanding them. I feel that the approach to any problem is of much more significance than the problem itself, and that if we could approach our many difficulties without any particular form of conditioning or prejudice, then perhaps we would come to a fundamental understanding of them." An extensive compendium of Krishnamurti's talks and discussions in the USA, Europe, India, New Zealand, and South Africa from 1933 to 1967—the Collected Works have been carefully authenticated against existing transcripts and tapes. Each volume includes a frontispiece photograph of Krishnamurti , with question and subject indexes at the end. The content of each volume is not limited to the subject of the title, but rather offers a unique view of Krishnamurti's extraordinary teachings in selected years. The Collected Works offers the reader the opportunity to explore the early writings and dialogues in their most complete and authentic form.

Das Buch besteht aus vier Teilen. Der erste Teil erschien 1883, der zweite und dritte 1884, der vierte 1885 als Privatdruck. 1886 ver?ffentlichte Nietzsche die drei ersten Teile als ?Also sprach Zarathustra. Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen. In drei Teilen.“ Im Gegensatz zu den frühen Werken Nietzsches handelt es sich beim Zarathustra nicht um ein Sachbuch. In hymnischer Prosa berichtet ein personaler Erz?hler vom Wirken eines fiktiven Denkers, der den Namen des Persischen Religionsstifters Zarathustra tr?gt. Nietzsche selbst nennt den Stil, in dem Also sprach Zarathustra geschrieben ist, halkyonisch und wünscht sich Leser, die eines ?gleichen Pathos f?hig und würdig sind“: ?Man muss vor Allem den Ton, der aus diesem Munde kommt, diesen halkyonischen Ton richtig h?ren, um dem Sinn seiner Weisheit nicht erbarmungswürdig Unrecht zu tun“. Dass Nietzsche diese Leserschaft in seiner Gegenwart nicht gesehen hat, legt der Untertitel des Werkes nahe: ?Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen“.

Volumul cuprinde dou? din cele mai reprezentative lucr?ri ?n care filosoful german ??i expune concep?ia moral?: ?ntemeierea metafizicii moravurilor (1785) ?i Critica ra?iunii practice (1788). ?n ?ntemeierea metafizicii moravurilor Immanuel Kant expune principiile moralit??ii, iar ?n Critica ra?iunii practice ??i construie?te propriul s?u sistem etic, ceea ce face ca aceasta s? fie considerat?, dup? Critica ra?iunii pure, a doua sa oper? fundamental?.?ntre cele dou? lucr?ri este o at?t de str?ns? leg?tur?, ?nc?t cunoa?terea numai a uneia din ele ne-ar oferi o imagine incomplet? asupra concep?iei sale morale.Immanuel Kant a avansat idei etice ?i ?n alte opere ulterioare (Religia ?n limitele ra?iunii – 1793 sau Metafizica moravurilor – 1797), dar numai ?n cele reunite ?n acest volum se ocup? de problemele teoretice ale moralit??ii.Traducerea a fost f?cut? dup? edi?ia german? din 1956 (Leipzig, Hrsg. Von Raymund Schimidt).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) este o figur? legendar? a filosofiei germane, opera sa fiind baza ? revolu?iei copernicane“ petrecute ?n istoria g?ndirii ?n plin? er? de av?nt al romantismului. ?n volumul de fa?? sunt cuprinse dou? eseuri foarte pu?in cunoscute publicului amator de filosofie, ?n care vom reg?si g?ndurile filosofului privitoare la ?nceputuri (ale istoriei omenirii) ?i sf?r?ituri (ale lumii ?n general). Scrise dup? celebra triad? a ? Criticilor“, textele poart? amprenta sistemului kantian de g?ndire, dar constituie totodat? ?ncerc?ri remarcabile de abordare a unor subiecte de larg interes, analizate din perspectiva ve?nicei clauze a ? condi?iilor de posibilitate“. Orice minte uman? care va ?ncerca s? cuprind? ?nceputul ?i sf?r?itul se va vedea constr?ns? ?ntr-un fel sau ?n altul de limitele pe care Kant ?ncearc? s? le expun? aici ?n idei c?t mai simple.? Istoria naturii ?ncepe a?adar cu binele, c?ci este lucrarea lui Dumnezeu, iar istoria libert??ii cu r?ul, c?ci este lucrarea oamenilor. Pentru individ, care, ?n exerci?iul libert??ii prive?te doar c?tre sine, o astfel de schimbare a fost o pierdere pentru natur?, ale c?rei scopuri sunt orientate spre oameni ca specie, a fost un c??tig.“

Pamfletul Sim?ul comun (1776) a fost un veritabil best-seller ?n epoc?, succesul de care s-a bucurat reflect?ndu-se ?n numeroasele republic?ri. Lucrarea pledeaz?, cu argumente solide, pentru separarea total? a coloniilor americane de Marea Britanie, invoc?nd drepturile naturale ale oamenilor, egalitatea ?i suveranitatea fiec?rei fiin?e, supunerea doar fa?? de lege ?i caracterul absurd al institu?iei monarhiei. Autorul surprinde cu verv? ?i fine?e toate circumstan?ele favorabile desprinderii de patria-mam?, ?ndemn?ndu-?i concet??enii s?-?i decid? singuri soarta.

Lucrarea aceasta se bazeaz? pe teza de doctorat a autorului, sus?inut? ?n iunie 2008, Problema drept??ii ?i restituirea propriet??ilor ?n Rom?nia post-decembrist?, fiind ?ns? o versiune modificat? a tezei. Dup? cum m?rturise?te autorul, unele pasaje tehnice au fost adaptate, pentru a putea fi u?or inteligibile pentru publicul larg. Cartea de fa?? este rezultatul unor ample cercet?ri, ?ncepute ?n 2002. ?Nu mai cred c? principala datorie a filosofului moral este de a produce ?solu?ii? (sentin?e) la problemele etice percepute ca atare ?ntr-un univers social. […] La fel ca ?ntr-un tribunal, pledoariile sunt utile, ?i e bine s? se foloseasc? de argumente c?t mai puternice ?i mai rafinate. Dar, la fel cum cercetarea ?n materie de drept nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv principal producerea de pledoarii specific avoca?ilor (cu toate c? examinarea fundamentelor legii poate conferi o greutate suplimentar? unei pledoarii particulare sau alteia), tot a?a cercetarea de ordin etic nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv ceva similar pledoariilor.“ Con?inutul este organizat ?n 7 capitole, concluzii ?i o bibliografie, util? f?r? ?ndoial? pentru oricine ar dori s? aprofundeze chestiunile abordate de autor. Introducerea este urmat? de o discu?ie conceptual? ?i metodologic? despre repara?ie (capitolul 2), rectificare, restitu?ie, drepturile de proprietate ?i evaluarea moral? a restitu?iei. Celelalte capitole se ocup? de urm?toarele teme: nedreptatea na?ionaliz?rii (capitolul 3), restitu?ia post-comunist? (capitolul 4), argumentul coasian (capitolul 5), restitu?ia ?i dreptatea transgenera?ional? (capitolul 6), principiul nozickian al rectific?rii nedrept??ilor (capitolul 7). ?Am ?ncercat apoi s? analizez ce anume presupune c?utarea unui r?spuns la o ?ntrebare de tipul ?Este restitu?ia justificat? ?? (?n 2.3.) Rezultatul important, cred, a fost acela c? nu exist? un r?spuns simplu, ?i c? o astfel de ?ntrebare este prost formulat?. Am propus ?n loc alte cinci ?ntreb?ri, mai precise : dac? actul na?ionaliz?rii a fost unul nedrept, dac? o politic? restitutiv? risc? sau nu s? ?ndrepte o nedreptate trecut? ?nf?ptuind o alta, dac? putem identifica cu precizie obiectele restitu?iei ?i dac? orizontul temporal introduce elemente importante ?n cadrul de evaluare moral? (at?t ca atare, c?t ?i ?n dimensiunea sa intergenera?ional?). ?n primul r?nd, putem afirma c? politica aleas? imediat dup? 1989 (cea a men?inerii status-quo-ului, ?n speran?a c? lucrurile se vor rezolva cumva de la sine sau ca o solu?ie ideal? se va prezenta ?n mod miraculos) a fost at?t lipsit? de vreo justificare moral?, c?t ?i neinspirat? din punct de vedere pragmatic.“

Satisfacerea neîngr?dit? a nevoilor instinctuale ale omului este oare compatibil? cu limit?rile impuse de progresul civiliza?iei? Lansat? de Freud în celebrul text Disconfort în cultur? (1930), întrebarea este reluat? peste un sfert de veac de c?tre Herbert Marcuse, eminent filosof din ?coala de la Frankfurt. În vreme ce Freud ofer? un r?spuns pesimist, vorbind despre inevitabila subjugare a instinctelor umane de c?tre societatea represiv?, Marcuse întrevede o cale de îmblânzire a agresivit??ii Civiliza?iei prin for?a unificatoare, vital? ?i ludic? a Erosului. Solu?iile de emancipare sugerate de c?tre Marcuse au influen?at profund mi?c?rile studen?e?ti, ecologice, anticolonialiste sau de eliberare sexual? din ultima jum?tate de secol. De aceea interesul pentru criticile sale trece dincolo de ?tiin?ele socio-umane, înspre to?i cei ce vor s? în?eleag? mecanismele alienante ale „societ??ii abunden?ei“. Acest eseu folose?te categorii psihologice, deoarece ele au devenit categorii politice. Exist? procese psihice, alt?dat? autonome ?i identificabile, care sunt absorbite de func?ia individului în stat - de c?tre existen?a sa public?. Problemele psihologice se transform? a?adar în probleme politice. ?– Herbert Marcuse Pornind de la Freud ?i de la tradi?ia eliberatoare a filosofiei ?i culturii, Marcuse schi?eaz? tabloul unei civiliza?ii în care alienarea ?i reprimarea sunt înlocuite de dimensiunea libidinal? ?i nealienant? a muncii, jocului ?i sexualit??ii libere ?i deschise, toate acestea conducând mai departe c?tre emancipare ?i fericire. – Douglas Kellner, editor al seriei The Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse

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

Critica ra?iunii pure, tradus? de Nicolae Bagdasar ?i Elena Moisuc ?n 1969, a ajuns la cea de-a treia edi?ie. Cu acest prilej, profesorul dr. Ilie P?rvu, de la Facultatea de Filosofie a Universit??ii din Bucure?ti a ?ngrijit noua opera?ie de editare, fiind astfel corectate unele erori de tipar ?i unele inconsecven?e terminologice. Totodat?, exist? un motiv ?n plus pentru ca studen?ii care posed? edi?ia a II-a a traducerii, ap?rut? ?n 1995, s? apeleze ?i la cea de-a treia edi?ie: ?n aceasta din urm? au fost indicate diferen?ele dintre edi?ia I german? (din 1781) ?i edi?ia a II-a (din 1787).

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).

n eseul Despre prostie (ber die Dummheit, 1937) subiectul este tratat, ca de obicei, cu toate resursele familiare autorului: analiza filosofic se combin cu observaiile de tip psihologic i cu constatri din istorie i politologie. Dei proiectul iniiat de acest eseu nu a fost finalizat, se remarc, totui, atenta cartografiere a fenomenelor asociate prostiei, tratate n stilul ironiei constructive“, att de specific lui Musil.

Alchimia fericirii, publicat? ?n persan? (Kimiya?yi sa’adat), spre sf?r?itul vie?ii autorului, urm?re?te atenuarea tensiunilor dintre filosofii ?i misticii Islamului ?i scoate ?n eviden?? importan?a autodisciplinei ?i a ascetismului. Traducerea de fa?? are la baz? traducerea publicat? ?n 1910, ?n englez? de Claud Field (The Alchemy of Happiness) ?i este structurat? ?n opt capitole, aproximativ egale ca ?ntindere. Cartea de fa?? reune?te o serie de interpret?ri ale unor pilde cu con?inut religios evocate ?n Coran ?i ale unor idei exprimate de Mahomed, de al?i profe?i sau ?nv??ati musulmani. Chestiunile abordate de Al-Ghazali aduc ?n prim-plan ideea unei vie?i religioase exemplare. Astfel, el prezint? mai multe sfaturi pentru musulmanii pio?i. Raportul omului cu divinitatea, cu semenii s?i, cu rudele apropiate, dar ?i implica?iile religioase ale institu?iei c?s?toriei sau ale muzicii ?i dansului sunt printre cele mai importante subiecte din lucrarea lui Al-Ghazali. S? ?tii, o, preaiubite, c? omul nu a fost creat ?n glum? sau la ?nt?mplare, ci a fost f?cut ?ntr?un fel minunat ?i pentru un ?el ?nalt. Chiar dac? nu a existat dintotdeauna, el tr?ie?te ve?nic; ?i chiar dac? trupul s?u este slab ?i p?m?ntesc, spiritul ?i este m?re? ?i dumnezeiesc. ?i cu c?t este mai ales subiectul cunoa?terii noastre,cu at?t mai mare va fi ?nc?ntarea sim?it? ?n studierea acestuia; de exemplu, ne?ar face mai mult? placer s? ?tim secretele unui rege dec?t dac? am afla secretele unui ministru. V?z?nd c? Dumnezeu este cel mai ?nalt obiect posibil pentru cunoa?terea noastr?, cunoa?terea Sa trebuie s? ne d?ruiasc? mai mult? desf?tare dec?t oricare alta.

De La Boétie ofer? una dintre primele ?i cele mai clare explica?ii privind servitutea voluntar?, starea care define?te supunerea majorit??ii fa?? de minoritatea care de?ine puterea politic?. Este ?i va r?m?ne acela?i lucru, indiferent de scurgerea timpului: un eseu memorabil despre m?re?ia ?i micimile naturii umane, slujit exemplar de g?ndul ?i de pana unui geniu cu care timpul nu a avut prea mult? r?bdare.,,Dar, Dumnezeule mare, ce ?nseamn? asta? Cum s? numim aceast? nenorocire? Ce viciu ?ngrozitor e ?sta, s? vezi nenum?ra?i oameni, nu doar c? se supun, ci c? slujesc, nu c? sunt guverna?i, ci c? sunt tiraniza?i, neav?nd nici bunuri, nici p?rin?i, nici copii, nici m?car propria lor via???“ ?tienne de LA Boétie

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!

Cartea de fa??, pe care cititorul o ?ine acum ?n m?n?, reprezint? o form? – literar vorbind, foarte complex?, fiindc? ea evolueaz? pe mai multe voci narative, dintre care doar unele ?i apar?in ?n mod direct autoarei – de exorcism. Geniul inimii e r?spunsul unui poet la o experien?? personal? plenitudinar?, ?n care bucuria ?i suferin?a se ?ntrep?trund reciproc pentru a exprima, ?mpreun? ?i tensionat, starea de gra?ie. Exist? o voce a experien?ei biografice ?n aceast? carte scris? febril, o alta de martor sau de participant la istorie, tot a?a cum exist? o voce a puterii ?i una a victimei. Deasupra tuturor st?, ?ns?, nu neap?rat triumf?toare, dar lucid-cerebral?, chemarea celor dou? credin?e pentru care merit? s? tr?ie?ti ?i s?-?i rememorezi via?a atunci c?nd ai ajuns cu ea la r?sp?ntie: credin?a ?n cultura modelelor care te-au precedat ?i credin?a deloc ingenu?, ci ivit? din cunoa?tere, ?n sacralitatea profund? a celor tr?ite ?i ?n transcenden??. (?tefan Borbély) A considera un text drept ?carte a ilumin?rilor mele“ ?i a a?eza ca titlu al primei p?r?i a volumului sintagma Povestea subteranei ne plaseaz? sub semnul aproape imposibil al drumului c?tre Sine, al cuprinderii, al denud?rii ?i al efortului de a ?n?elege un obiect al c?rui adev?r se va afla ?ntotdeauna ?n proximitatea pe?terii lui Platon. E un demers perpetuat, dar niciodat? epuizat ?i aproape exclus din plasma comunic?rii, care – ?n situa?ia ?romanului“ Aurei Christi – nu are coresponden?e, nu se apropie de experien?a budhist?, nici de prerogativele ocultismului de New Age, ci ne aduce ?n vecin?tatea ?ndemnului de pe frontispiciul templului lui Apollo din Delphi, preluat apoi, ca solu?ie ?ntre a fi ?i a p?rea, de c?tre Socrate: ?Cunoa?te-te pe tine ?nsu?i!“. Po?i ?nt?lni, pe acest drum, ?i acel daimonion care a str?juit g?ndirea aceluia?i ?n?elept atenian ca alt? fa?? a ?subteranelor“ fiin?ei, acolo unde lumina se ?ngem?neaz? cu ?ntunericul, stare ?poetizat?“ de Goethe, dar pr?bu?it? ?n tragic de Dostoievski. E o cobor?re spre ?n?elegere prin cuprindere ?i, implicit, prin atingerea nelimitatului. (Mircea Braga) Cartea Aurei Christi Geniul inimii pare o st?nc? masiv?, singuratic?, ?ntr-un peisaj ?mioritic“. Geniul inimii are originalitate ?i for??. Prima parte e liric?, a doua (?ntr-un fel) – o comedie negru-satiric?, a treia – predominant epic-narativ?. Prima parte este excelent?; mi-am ?nsemnat un num?r de poezii memorabile. A doua, ?n centrul ei mai ales, are sec?iuni, pasaje extrem de interesant-pl?cute-amuzante, ?n pofida tonului, uneori, foiletonistic. A treia e impresionant? ?n ansamblu, armonios-coerent?, de o sinceritate sf??ietoare. ?n tot volumul, istoricul, religiosul, subiectivul se leag? foarte frumos ?ntre ele. Nu-mi plac laudele la adresa lui Nietzsche! De fapt, cum se leag? acest autor de Biblie, de Evanghelii?! Aura Christi poate fi m?ndr? de o realizare major?, cu totul original?. Probabil, nu l-a citit pe romanticul britanic Wordsworth; dar el e cel care a scris (sau a ?nceput s? scrie) o memorabil? autobiografie ?n versuri. Pu?ini l-au continuat. Am putea spune c? Aura se num?r? printre cei pu?ini. (Virgil Nemoianu)

The present publication is intended to supply a recognised deficiency in our literature—a library edition of the Essays of Montaigne. This great French writer deserves to be regarded as a classic, not only in the land of his birth, but in all countries and in all literatures. His Essays, which are at once the most celebrated and the most permanent of his productions, form a magazine out of which such minds as those of Bacon and Shakespeare did not disdain to help themselves; and, indeed, as Hallam observes, the Frenchman's literary importance largely results from the share which his mind had in influencing other minds, coeval and subsequent. But, at the same time, estimating the value and rank of the essayist, we are not to leave out of the account the drawbacks and the circumstances of the period: the imperfect state of education, the comparative scarcity of books, and the limited opportunities of intellectual intercourse. Montaigne freely borrowed of others, and he has found men willing to borrow of him as freely. We need not wonder at the reputation which he with seeming facility achieved. He was, without being aware of it, the leader of a new school in letters and morals. His book was different from all others which were at that date in the world. It diverted the ancient currents of thought into new channels. It told its readers, with unexampled frankness, what its writer's opinion was about men and things, and threw what must have been a strange kind of new light on many matters but darkly understood. Above all, the essayist uncased himself, and made his intellectual and physical organism public property. He took the world into his confidence on all subjects. His essays were a sort of literary anatomy, where we get a diagnosis of the writer's mind, made by himself at different levels and under a large variety of operating influences. Of all egotists, Montaigne, if not the greatest, was the most fascinating, because, perhaps, he was the least affected and most truthful. What he did, and what he had professed to do, was to dissect his mind, and show us, as best he could, how it was made, and what relation it bore to external objects. He investigated his mental structure as a schoolboy pulls his watch to pieces, to examine the mechanism of the works; and the result, accompanied by illustrations abounding with originality and force, he delivered to his fellow-men in a book. W. C. H. KENSINGTON, November 1877. THE LIFE OF MONTAIGNE The author of the Essays was born, as he informs us himself, between eleven and twelve o'clock in the day, the last of February 1533, at the chateau of St. Michel de Montaigne. His father, Pierre Eyquem, esquire, was successively first Jurat of the town of Bordeaux (1530), Under-Mayor 1536, Jurat for the second time in 1540, Procureur in 1546, and at length Mayor from 1553 to 1556. He was a man of austere probity, who had "a particular regard for honour and for propriety in his person and attire . . . a mighty good faith in his speech, and a conscience and a religious feeling inclining to superstition, rather than to the other extreme. Between 1556 and 1563 an important incident occurred in the life of Montaigne, in the commencement of his romantic friendship with Etienne de la Boetie, whom he had met, as he tells us, by pure chance at some festive celebration in the town. From their very first interview the two found themselves drawn irresistibly close to one another, and during six years this alliance was foremost in the heart of Montaigne, as it was afterwards in his memory, when death had severed it.

Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic.Time was, when she was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, like Hecuba: At first, her gover Modo maxima rerum, Tot generis, natisque potens... Nunc trahor exul, inops. —Ovid, Metamorphoses. xiii under the administration of the dogmatists, was an absolute despotism. But, as the legislative continued to show traces of the ancient barbaric rule, her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan. In recent times the hope dawned upon us of seeing those disputes settled, and the legitimacy of her claims established by a kind of physiology of the human understanding—that of the celebrated Locke. But it was found that—although it was affirmed that this so-called queen could not refer her descent to any higher source than that of common experience, a circumstance which necessarily brought suspicion on her claims—as this genealogy was incorrect, she persisted in the advancement of her claims to sovereignty. Thus metaphysics necessarily fell back into the antiquated and rotten constitution of dogmatism, and again became obnoxious to the contempt from which efforts had been made to save it. At present, as all methods, according to the general persuasion, have been tried in vain, there reigns nought but weariness and complete indifferentism—the mother of chaos and night in the scientific world, but at the same time the source of, or at least the prelude to, the re-creation and reinstallation of a science, when it has fallen into confusion, obscurity, and disuse from ill directed effort. I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but a critical inquiry into the faculty of reason, with reference to the cognitions to which it strives to attain without the aid of experience; in other words, the solution of the question regarding the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics, and the determination of the origin, as well as of the extent and limits of this science. All this must be done on the basis of principles. ABOUT AUTHOR: That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it. But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to b

DAVID HUME (1711 – 1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He was one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist. Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In stark opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour, saying: "REASON IS, and OUGHT ONLY to BE the SLAVE of the PASSIONS". A prominent figure in the sceptical philosophical tradition and a strong empiricist, he argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding instead that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience.. NOTHING is more usual and more natural for those, who pretend to discover anything new to the world in philosophy and the sciences, than to insinuate the praises of their own systems, by decrying all those, which have been advanced before them. And indeed were they content with lamenting that ignorance, which we still lie under in the most important questions, that can come before the tribunal of human reason, there are few, who have an acquaintance with the sciences, that would not readily agree with them. It is easy for one of judgment and learning, to perceive the weak foundation even of those systems, which have obtained the greatest credit, and have carried their pretensions highest to accurate and profound reasoning. Principles taken upon trust, consequences lamely deduced from them, want of coherence in the parts, and of evidence in the whole, these are every where to be met with in the systems of the most eminent philosophers, and seem to have drawn disgrace upon philosophy itself. Nor is there required such profound knowledge to discover the present imperfect condition of the sciences, but even the rabble without doors may, judge from the noise and clamour, which they hear, that all goes not well within. There is nothing which is not the subject of debate, and in which men of learning are not of contrary opinions. The most trivial question escapes not our controversy, and in the most momentous we are not able to give any certain decision. Disputes are multiplied, as if every thing was uncertain; and these disputes are managed with the greatest warmth, as if every thing was certain. Amidst all this bustle it is not reason, which carries the prize, but eloquence; and no man needs ever despair of gaining proselytes to the most extravagant hypothesis, who has art enough to represent it in any favourable colours. The victory is not gained by the men at arms, who manage the pike and the sword; but by the trumpeters, drummers, and musicians of the army. From hence in my opinion arises that common prejudice against metaphysical reasonings of all kinds, even amongst those, who profess themselves scholars, and have a just value for every other part of literature. By metaphysical reasonings, they do not understand those on any particular branch of science, but every kind of argument, which is any way abstruse, and requires some attention to be comprehended. We have so often lost our labour in such researches, that we commonly reject them without hesitation, and resolve, if we must for ever be a prey to errors and delusions, that they shall at least be natural and entertaining. And indeed nothing but the most determined scepticism, along with a great degree of indolence, can justify this aversion to metaphysics. For if truth be at all within the reach of human capacity, it is certain it must lie very deep and abstruse: and to hope we shall arrive at it without pains, while the greatest geniuses have failed with the utmost pains..

Urm?nd acela?i tipar de p?n? acum (Logica elefan?ilor, Editura All, 2012), Ciprian V?lcan ?i Dana Percec au selectat c?te dou?zeci de eseuri care formuleaz?, ?ntr-o manier? doar aparent lejer?, un r?spuns la tot at?tea pretexte, culese cu ochiul colec?ionarului de caricaturi din presa rom?neasc? ?i interna?ional? sau din tomuri mai mult sau mai pu?in colbuite. Autorii inspecteaz? cu lupa ?i curiozitatea entomologului numeroase ?nt?mpl?ri, mesaje ?i personaje contemporane, ?ndemn?ndu-i pe cititori, prin stilul degajat ?i tonul convivial, s? se amuze pe seama absurdului din via?a de zi cu zi. Fie c? este vorba de politic?, sport, mod?, mass-media sau tribunale, de gastronomie sau vr?jitorie, eseurile demonteaz? adev?ruri mici, truisme, precum ?i pl?smuiri de tot felul. Fiec?rei p??anii evocate ?n pretext – unele ilare, cu miros de b?lci, altele aproape detestabile – autorii Metafizicii bicicli?tilor ?i r?spund ?n manier? diferit?, dar convergent?, contur?nd o nevoie de a r?scoli excesele lumii pentru a o ?ndemna s? se rea?eze.