The Crito seems intended to exhibit the character of Socrates in one light only, not as the philosopher, fulfilling a divine mission and trusting in the will of heaven, but simply as the good citizen, who having been unjustly condemned is willing to give up his life in obedience to the laws of the state . . .

Caesar, advancing by moderate journeys, and continuing his march without intermission, arrived at Lilybaeum, on the 14th day before the calends of January. Designing to embark immediately, though he had only one legion of new levies, and not quite six hundred horse, he ordered his tent to be pitched so near the sea-side that the waves lashed the very foot of it. This he did with a view that none should think he had time to delay, and that his men might be kept in readiness at a day or an hour's warning. Though the wind at that time was contrary, he nevertheless detained the soldiers and mariners on board, that he might lose no opportunity of sailing; the rather, because the forces of the enemy were announced by the inhabitants of the province, to consist of innumberable cavalry not to be numbered; four legions headed by Juba, together with a great body of light-armed troops; ten legions under the command of Scipio; a hundred and twenty elephants, and fleets in abundance. Yet he was not alarmed, nor lost his confident hopes and spirits. Meantime the number of galleys and transports increased daily; the new-levied legions flocked in to him from all parts; among the rest the fifth, a veteran legion, and about two thousand horse.

When the war broke out at Alexandria, Caesar sent to Rhodes, Syria, and Cilicia, for all his fleet; and summoned archers from Crete, and cavalry from Malchus, king of the Nabatheans. He likewise ordered military engines to be provided, corn to be brought, and forces dispatched to him. Meanwhile he daily strengthened his fortifications by new works; and such parts of the town as appeared less tenable were strengthened with testudos and mantelets. Openings were made in the walls, through which the battering-rams might play; and the fortifications were extended over whatever space was covered with ruins, or taken by force. For Alexandria is in a manner secure from fire, because the houses are all built without joists or wood, and are all vaulted, and roofed with tile or pavement.

Caesar, although he was not as yet at open enmity with him, determined neither to aid him by his influence nor openly oppose him on this occasion. But the consuls Lentulus and Marcellus, who had previously been on unfriendly terms with Caesar, resolved to use all means in their power to prevent him from gaining his object. Marcellus in particular did not hesitate to offer Caesar other insults. Caesar had lately planned the colony of Novumcomum in Gaul: Marcellus, not content with taking from it the right of citizenship, ordered the principal man of the colony to be arrested and scourged at Rome, and sent him to make his complaints to Caesar: an insult of this description had never before been offered to a Roman citizen.

We have, in the next place, to treat of Memory and Remembering, considering its nature, its cause, and the part of the soul to which this experience, as well as that of Recollecting, belongs. For the persons who possess a retentive memory are not identical with those who excel in power of recollection; indeed, as a rule, slow people have a good memory, whereas those who are quick-witted and clever are better at recollecting.

All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.

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?!

Nietzsche despre filologia clasic? – iat? un subiect cu adev?rat pasionant, prilej de satisfac?ii unice pentru amatorul de a urm?ri fascinantul spectacol al form?rii ?i al cunoa?terii de sine. C?ci acest subiect ?nseamn?, de fapt, Nietzsche despre el ?nsu?i ?i ?n acest sens pledeaz? chiar propria sa m?rturie – ?Filologii sunt asemenea oameni care folosesc sentimentul ap?s?tor pe care ?l provoac? infirmitatea proprie omului modern pentru a c??tiga cu el bani ?i p?ine. ?i cunosc, eu ?nsumi sunt unul dintre ei“ (Noi, filologii, fr. 170). Mai precis, este vorba despre o ipostaz? a personalit??ii spirituale nietzscheene considerat? din unghiul evolu?iei sale interioare; dar, nu o ipostaz? oarecare, ci una esen?ial?. ?i aceasta nu pentru simplul motiv c? este cea dint?i, ci pentru c? este cea mai profund?, cea care i-a marcat definitiv orizontul de cultur? ?i de g?ndire ?i a l?sat o amprent? durabil? ?n desf??urarea destinului personal al omului. (Vasile Musc?)

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.

Via?a marelui g?nditor german, supranumit sihastrul de la Sils Maria a fost plin? de str?lucire dar ?i de aspecte mai pu?in cunoscute publicului larg. ?ntre ace?tia se num?r? patima fa?? de muzic? a autorului ?tiin?ei vesele ?i A?a gr?ita Zarathustra dar ?i rela?ia de formare ?i de profund? iubire avut? cu Richard Wagner ?i so?ia sa, minunata Cosima – prezen?e vii ?n aceast? monografie eseistic?, ce con?ine fragmente din coresponden?a acestor mon?tri sacri ai culturii universale, coresponden?? ?n urma lecturii c?reia te alegi cu o imagine calda, expresiv?.

...amikor apaként elmegyek az óvodába, hogy elhozzam a kisfiamat, akkor milyen alapon választom ki, hogy kit viszek haza Talán megkérdezem az óvóntl, hogy melyik gyerek viselkedett a legjobban Vagy krülnézek, hogy melyik klyk a legszebb s ha az óvón azzal fogad, hogy az én gyerekem elpáholta t csoporttársát, és egy pohár kefirt nttt a takarító néni fejére, akkor ott hagyom, és választok egy normális gyereket Nem. Minden krülmények kzt a sajátomat viszem haza. Azért, mert az enyém! Ez a vele való kapcsolatom alapja. s ha ez az alap megvan, hazaviszem t, és otthon elbeszélgetek vele a pohár kefirrl, az ovistársakról, a takarító nénirl és a verekedésrl. Milyen egyszernek és természetesnek tnik mindez, ha a saját gyermekeinkrl van szó, de ha Jézus mondja ugyanezt az Atyáról, akkor zavarba jvünk, mert a szégyen és a félelem által belénk vésdtt kalmárszellem olyan mélyen járja át a lelkünket, hogy el sem tudjuk képzelni, hogy csak úgy, minden feltétel nélkül szeretni való emberek vagyunk...” BOLYKI LSZL 1973-ban született Budapesten. Zenész (Bolyki Brothers, Budapesti Fesztiválzenekar, Erkel Ferenc Kamarazenekar), spirituális szemlélet lelkigondozó, párkapcsolati és nismereti témákra szakosodott tréner, a Milyen zenét szeret Isten cím ktet szerzje. Bolyki László munkája azt tanítja nekünk, hogy a múlt si kultúrájának szimbolikus értékei a mai ember problémáiban is eleven lélektani, spirituális útmutatást tudnak nyújtani.” dr. SLE FERENC, a volt Országos Pszichiátriai és Neurológiai Intézet Valláslélektani Osztályának forvosa A Kegyelem és kalmárszellem nem csak egy knyv a sok kzül; fontos, hogy minél tbb olvasóhoz eljusson! Mindenkinek ajánlom szeretettel.” SZENCZY SNDOR a Baptista Szeretetszolgálat Alapítvány vezetje

Valamikor a muzsika egyszer volt, szerény és tiszteletreméltó, ma cicomás lett és zrzavaros, méltóságát és értékét veszített, gyalázatos iparrá süllyedt.” Mikor volt a muzsika egyszer, szerény és tiszteletreméltó, és vajon milyen úton-módon veszítette el méltóságát és értékét Meg tudjuk határozni, hogy melyek a zene zrzavaros és cicomás stíluselemei Tudjuk-e, hogy hogyan és miért süllyedt a zene gyalázatos iparrá Végül, de nem utolsósorban fel tudjuk-e mérni annak jelentségét, hogy a fenti idézet a 6. századból származik, a nagy keresztény gondolkodó, Boethiusz tollából E knyv a zene és a kereszténység hagyományosan feszültségektl terhelt kapcsolatát vizsgálja, a valamikor” és a ma” szakrális zenéjének tükrében. A szerz szándéka, hogy a zene a dicséret és magasztalás eszkze, és ne a feszültségek állandó forrása legyen a keresztény egyházak és gyülekezetek életében. BOLYKI LSZL 1994-ben szerezte mvész-tanári diplomáját a budapesti Zeneakadémián. A Bolyki Brothers énekegyüttes, a Budapesti Fesztiválzenekar és az Erkel Ferenc Kamarazenekar tagjaként rendszeresen fllép Európa, Amerika és zsia legjelentsebb zenei kzpontjaiban. Spirituális szemlélet lelkigondozó, párkapcsolati és nismereti témákra szakosodott tréner, a Kegyelem és kalmárszellem cím ktet szerzje.

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.

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.

Euthyphro (Ancient Greek: Euthuphron) is one of Plato's early dialogues, dated to after 399 BC. Taking place during the weeks leading up to Socrates' trial, the dialogue features Socrates and Euthyphro, a religious expert also mentioned at Cratylus 396a and 396d, attempting to define piety or holiness. Background The dialogue is set near the king-archon's court, where the two men encounter each other. They are both there for preliminary hearings before possible trials (2a).Euthyphro has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, as his father had allowed one of his workers to die exposed to the elements without proper care and attention (3e–4d). This worker had killed a slave belonging to the family estate on the island of Naxos; while Euthyphro's father waited to hear from the expounders of religious law (exegetes cf. Laws 759d) about how to proceed, the worker died bound and gagged in a ditch. Socrates expresses his astonishment at the confidence of a man able to take his own father to court on such a serious charge, even when Athenian Law allows only relatives of the deceased to sue for murder. Euthyphro misses the astonishment, and merely confirms his overconfidence in his own judgment of religious/ethical matters. In an example of "Socratic irony," Socrates states that Euthyphro obviously has a clear understanding of what is pious and impious. Since Socrates himself is facing a charge of impiety, he expresses the hope to learn from Euthyphro, all the better to defend himself in his own trial. Euthyphro claims that what lies behind the charge brought against Socrates by Meletus and the other accusers is Socrates' claim that he is subjected to a daimon or divine sign which warns him of various courses of action (3b). Even more suspicious from the viewpoint of many Athenians, Socrates expresses skeptical views on the main stories about the Greek gods, which the two men briefly discuss before plunging into the main argument. Socrates expresses reservations about such accounts which show up the gods' cruelty and inconsistency. He mentions the castration of the early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronus, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept (6a–6c). Euthyphro, after claiming to be able to tell even more amazing such stories, spends little time or effort defending the conventional view of the gods. Instead, he is led straight to the real task at hand, as Socrates forces him to confront his ignorance, ever pressing him for a definition of 'piety'. Yet, with every definition Euthyphro proposes, Socrates very quickly finds a fatal flaw (6d ff.). At the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro is forced to admit that each definition has been a failure, but rather than correct it, he makes the excuse that it is time for him to go, and Socrates ends the dialogue with a classic example of Socratic irony: since Euthyphro has been unable to come up with a definition that will stand on its own two feet, Euthyphro has failed to teach Socrates anything at all about piety, and so he has received no aid for his own defense at his own trial (15c ff.).

Sri Krsna számtalan univerzum vitathatatlan Ura, akit korlátlan er?, gazdagság, hírnév, tudás és lemondás jellemez, ám ezek az ?r?kké diadalmas energiák csupán részben  tárják fel ?t. Végtelen dics?ségét csak az ismerheti meg, aki elb?v?l? szépségénél keres menedéket, ?sszes t?bbi fenséges tulajdonsága forrásánál, melynek páratlan transzcendentális teste ad otthont. Szépségének legf?bb jellemz?je az a mindenek f?l?tt álló édes íz, ami t?mény kivonata mindennek, ami édes. Minden édes dolgot túlszárnyal, és nem más, mint az édes íz megízlelésének képessége. Sri Krsna édes természete finom arany sugárzásként ragyog át transzcendentális testén. Govinda páratlanul gy?ny?r? testének legszebb és legédesebb része ragyogó arca. ?des hold-arcán rejtélyes mosolya a legédesebb, az az arcáról ragyogó ezüst holdsugár, ami nektárral árasztja el a világot. Mosolyának sugárzása nélkül keser? lenne a cukor, savanyú a méz, és a nektárnak sem lenne íze. Amikor mosolyának holdsugara elvegyül teste ragyogásával, a kett? együtt a kámfor aromájára emlékeztet. Ez a kámfor aztán ajkán keresztül a fuvolába kerül, ahonnan megfoghatatlan hangvibrációként t?r el?, és er?nek erejével rabul ejti azoknak az elméjét, akik hallják. Ahogy a szavak gondolatok mondanivalóját hordozzák, ahogy a gondolatok a szemben tükr?z?dnek, ahogy egy mosoly a szív érzelmeir?l árulkodik, úgy a fuvola hangja Sri Krsna szépségét viszi a fül?n keresztül a szív templomának oltárára.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.