Elveink nem tudnak olyan szilárdak lenni, mint naiv pillanatainkban gondolnánk, mert világunkat az érzelmek, az értelem és a hit folyton változó egyensúlya tartja ?ssze. Az ember hajlamos nagy titkokat sejteni ott, ahol egyszer?en csak nagyobb er?k m?k?dnek, mint amiket uralni tud. Azonnal a nagy titkot keresi, amikor kiemelked? tehetségekkel találkozik, amikor a hit alapvet? kérdéseit firtatja, amikor a saját érzelmeit vizsgálja, és akkor is, amikor a tudomány eszk?zeivel igyekszik mélyebben megérteni a világot. Pedig: ?A nagy titok az, hogy nincs titok”. ?j k?nyvében Mér? László az elvek, az érzelmek, a hit és a tudomány erejét valamint korlátait járja k?rül. A csattanós, “?tperces” esszék felvillantják a témák kül?nféle arcait a mindennapi életben, a hosszabbak pedig bemutatják, mit tett mindehhez a modern pszichológia.

Cartea este o culegere de eseuri pe teme de istorie literar?, istoria ideilor ?i probleme generale de estetica artelor, toate acestea fiind abordate dintr-un accentuat unghi filozofic ?i ?tiin?ific deopotriv?.

Hegel este cel mai sistematic filozof, a c?rui oper? este coerent articulat? ?i sus?inut? de o dens? ?es?tur? conceptual? ?i o teleologie cu un pronun?at caracter axiologic. Hegel a vrut ?i ?n parte a reu?it s? construiasc? o concep?ie articulat? ?i cuprinz?toare despre om, societate, natur? ?i divinitate. Fiecare component? a sistemului s?u filozofic, structurile logice, societatea, arta, politica sau istoria nu pot fi ?n?elese f?r? ?ntregul care le cuprinde, le determin? d?ndu-le transparen?? ?i sens. G?ndirea politic? hegelian? nu e o simpl? medita?ie asupra statului ?i a institu?iilor sale determinat? de conjunctur? sau de vreo implica?ie practic? a filozofului ?n politica din timpul s?u. Medita?ia hegelian? asupra politicului este consecin?a necesar? a g?ndirii speculative cuprins? ?n masiva sa oper? filozofic?. Politicul este o component? important? a structurii ontologice a lumii, un moment esen?ial al realiz?rii ?i func?ion?rii Libert??ii. Ra?iunea ?n act, cristalizat? ?ntr-o diversitate de conduite, structuri ?i institu?ii configureaz? universul practic, concretiz?nd spiritul teoretic ?i organiz?nd a nou? regiune ontic?.

Geli?mi?li?in ??karsamalar?nda ilk akla gelen ?l?üt, meden? olarak ilerleme kaydetti?ini iddi? eden, d??avurumcu insanlar toplulu?unun bencil yap?la?mas?ndan ge?mektedir. Ara?t?rmalar sonucunda elde edilebilen, g?rsel, i?itsel, yaz?l?, ar?iv v.b tüm veriler do?rultusunda ayd?nlat?lm?? ger?ekler düny?si mevcuttur. Asalak olarak hayata tutunmaya ?al??an, ?z bireyci katmanlar?n en alt?na indirgenmi? insan say?lan varl?klar?n, niteliksel ?zelliklerle ?a?a tutunmas? imk?nsizdir. "En ?ok ben kazanay?m." s?yleminden yola ??karak, rahatl?k ve konforun adresinde bulu?an simbiyoz ya?ant?lar?n; ?a?d??? kalm??, kendi dü?üncesi h?ricindekileri yok sayan, ?ok katmanl? yüzeysel düny?s?nda gezinmenin verdi?i ferahl?k, bir?ok insan? cezbederek, ?ekilsiz ya?ant? portrelerini bilfiil olu?turmu?tur. Dü?ünceleri ve mevc?diyeti ?imento ile kaplanan nesillerin, zenginlik saltanat?na ayak ba?? olmas?ndan korkan erkin, katmerli yapt?r?mlar? bulunmaktad?r. D??s?z kalm?? medeniyetin, ??karsamalarla dolu ??karc? düny?s?nda, kendine en ufak bir yer edinimini ba?ar? sayan birey, ya?ant? düny?sinin ger?ek yüzeyine ula?t??? i?in mutlu olmal? m?d?r? G?rülen ve g?sterilen, verilen, yapt?r?lan tüm edimlerin ve edinimlerin, do?rultusunda, bireyin ??karc? sistem adamlar? ile yapt??? yolculu?a dikkat etmesi gerekir. Ritüel h?line gelmi?, paradoksal d?ngüde her d?im ba?lad??? yerden farkl? bir sona ula?mas? gereken yolculu?u yapan bireyin de, beklentisi bu olan macer?s?nda, üzüntü ve yenilgi verici sonucun, ayn? ?ekilde ikinci, ü?üncü defa ger?ekle?mesi ve ?o?u insan?n, bunun fark?ndal???nda olmay???n?n verdi?i bocalamayla ge?en ?mrünün c?resizli?inde ??rp?nmas? ve bo?ulmas? an meselesidir. Yapt?r?mlar yapt?r?mlar?, bilgisizlik ve c?hillik yeni olu?umlar? tetikleyecektir. ?nemli olan her insan?n asl?nda bir paradoks denkleminde, paradoks yolunda oldu?unu bilmesi ve ba?lad??? noktaya geldi?inde, nas?l bir düzenin i?erisinde ritüel yapt???n?n fark?nda olmas? gerekmektedir. Naz?re davran??lar?, sistem i?erisinde en az?ndan denemek, ayn? dü?üncede bulunan insanlar? bir araya getirmek ?artt?r. Ulusal bilincin her d?im uyan?k tutulmas?, paradokslarla sava??n en mükemmel ?rneklerinden birini olu?turacakt?r. ?nsan?n kat etti?i yol da, bu s?yede dünden kopu?un de?il, yar?n?n güvence alt?na al?nmas?n? tetikleyecektir. Yar?n? güvence alt?na al?nan bireyler de; kof, mesnetsiz, yalan ve riy?karl??a dayal? sistemleri ??kertme ve kendi hastal?kl? sistemlerini dayatmaya ?al??an ?o?unlu?un, katmerli ezici üstünlü?ü alt?nda direni? g?stermenin, mutlak gayreti i?erisinde olacakt?r. ?nsan?n yahut insanl???n bu eylemi ger?ekle?tirmeye ?al??mas?n?, en az?ndan denemesini diliyorum. N??M ONUR TEZMEN, 2013 MUSTAFA VE AY?E Mustafa’ya g?re; canl?lar?n, kompleks ya?am süreci i?erisinde, kabullenebilir davran?? grafi?ini topluma uydurmak ve o uyumu devam ettirme g?revi, bireysel sorumluluk gerektirmekteydi. Toplum i?erisindeki statüsünü belirleyen birtak?m rolleri üstlenen bireyin, davran?? biliminde girece?i rollerin karma?as?na kap?lmadan, gerekli ve ?l?ülü davran??, sosyal bilim do?rulu?u vey? bu do?rulu?a en yak?n olmay? gerektiren tüm birle?imler; bireyin ?zünü, karakterini ve bili?sel zek?sini olu?turmaktayd?. En az?ndan Mustafa'n?n dü?ünceleri ?????nda, akl?n? yordu?u; bilgi, kültür, gelenek ve g?renek birikimi ile a??klamas? buydu. Varolu?unun aksine, ayn? y?nde kürek ?ekmesine ba?l? olan ya?amsal uzamda, kendi do?ruluk pay?n? olu?turmas? ve bu pay?, ?evresindeki insanlara sunmas?, ona zevkli bir hus? veriyordu. Mustafa’ya g?re bilgelik, kazan?lan tecrübelerle birlikte, birikimlerin, paralel vey? ayn? düzlem i?erisinde hareket ettirebilmenin yoluydu. Bundan ??karacak ders de, birine bir do?ruyu empoze etmeden, ikn? k?biliyetini, ki?inin benzer birle?imlerinde ivme kazanan ara?lar gibi haz?rlamak ve var??a ondan ?nce vararak, kendi do?rusunun en yak?n bile?enine, kar??s?ndaki insan? ?ekebilmekti.

Antropologie ?i antroposofie ? Max Dessoir despre antroposofie ? Franz BrentanoAlc?tuind cuprinsul acestei lucr?ri, Rudolf Steiner reveleaz? ?c?teva din firele ?tiin?ifice care trebuie trasate pornind de la antropozofie la filozofie, la psihologie ?i la fiziologie“. Cunoa?terea omului va trebui atunci s? fie extins? ?in?nd cont de enigmaticele aspecte ale vie?ii sale interioare, privite din perspective multiple. ?n aceast? carte, Rudolf Steiner prezint? ?n scris aspectele semnificative ale configur?rii ?ntreite a fiin?ei omene?ti: corpul fizic, organismul sufletesc ?i configura?ia spiritual?.

本书是作者关于当代世界马克思主义及左翼激哲学文本研究的多卷本论著《文本的深度耕犁》的第三卷，其内容主要是对西方激哲学思潮中经典文献的文本学研究。在本卷中，作者以构境论的文本解读方式分别批判性地解读了晚期福柯的“生命政治哲学”、朗西埃《歧义》、阿甘本的《奥斯维辛的剩余》、斯洛特戴克的《资本的内部空间》、维利里奥的《解放的速度》、斯蒂格勒《技术与时间》，以及奈格里、哈特的《帝国》等重要论著。

哲学归根到底关注的是人的命运。根据逻辑与历史、时代精神与时代相一致的原则，本书区分出西方哲学发展的前现代（古代）、早期现代、后期现代和后现代（当代）四种形态，并重探讨现代哲学的历程。导论是对主体问题的概述，其余各章围绕主体的确立、主体的危机、主体的解体和主体的终结来揭示意识主体在现代性及其转折程中的命运。本书几乎囊括了自笛卡尔以来的主要西方哲学流派，既具有宏大的理论视野，又具有强烈的问题意识。

《你在忙什么》是由影响力遍及全球的佛教大德索达吉堪布近年来赴哈佛、耶鲁、斯坦福、哥廷根、清华、北大、港大……等全球近百所学府的演讲精粹。 堪布认为，时代在变迁，但佛教的宗旨没有变，人们可以从中找到解决现代问题的真正答案，这是应该去提醒大家的。 本书以幸福、压力、财富、情感、快乐为关键词，关注当下社会现状，针对现代人的思想误区，以浅显易懂的语言，为世人打开一条光明之路。身体的忙碌，根本在心。但愿由此你能得到佛教中的宁静心灵，减少无意义的忙碌，活得更加淡定。

„Greu este s? fii bun“. A?a suna verdictul unui filozof presocratic la care m? încruntam abitir pe la 20 de ani. Acum, la 60, dup? ce am înv??at de la aceia?i în?elep?i c? „to?i oamenii sunt r?i“, dar c? „nu trebuie s?-i judeci“, nu m? mai gr?besc cu încruntarea. Doar zâmbesc pu?in ofilit, în dulce resemnare. Cu un astfel de zâmbet – trist, admirativ, îng?duitor ?i comp?timitor totodat? – trebuie întâmpinat (?i f?r? îndoial? iertat) Tomas H., personajul axial din romanul Cameliei Cavadia. Destinat fericirii, dar e?uat lamentabil. Vinovat inocent ?i egofil culpabil. ?i totu?i înseninat, dureros de triumf?tor în final, dup? ce altruismul învinge mizantropia, iar d?ruirea de sine absolv? vinov??ia. În fond, ce ar fi vina f?r? isp??ire? Un roman despre povara fericirii (chiar a?a!) ?i chinul permanent al demonicului de a surpa – prin patologia patimii oarbe – iubirea curat?, armonia conjugal?, farmecul divin al copil?riei ?i nobila condi?ie de p?rinte. Un debut surprinz?tor prin precizia arhitecturii narative ?i siguran?a rotirii caruselului cu multe ?i subtile rela?ii psihologice. În plus, îmbucur?tor prin op?iunea preponderent moral?, într-o vreme dominat? de anarhie, relativism ?i etic? în r?sp?r. – Dan C. Mih?ilescu ?„De când m? ?tiu am vrut s? devin scriitoare. PR de meserie, am scris pove?tile altora, dar mi-am dat seama c? am în?untrul meu propriile pove?ti care a?teapt? s? le dau via??. Tot ceea ce am f?cut pîn? acum a roit în jurul cuvintelor. Prin prisma meseriei mele, am scris sute de comunicate, am luat zeci de interviuri, m-am trezit cu zeci de fraze construite-n cap ?i am adormit cu altele bâzâindu-mi în ureche. Am hot?rât ca e timpul s?-mi urmez visul ?i s? devin ceea ce m-am sim?it mereu.“ – Camelia Cavadia

Dac? Riscul g?ndirii nu s-a bucurat de aten?ia meritat?, probabil din cauza exploziei nea?teptate de produc?ii culturale – ?i mai ales pseudoculturale – care s-a petrecut dup? decembrie 1989, noua lucrare a celor doi g?nditori, scris? dup? aproape dou? decenii, ar trebui s? aib? toate premisele pentru a fi receptat? cum se cuvine.Sub forma ?n?el?toare a dialogului ?ntre cinci personaje caracterizate – fiecare – de un stil de g?ndire bine determinat cei doi ascund nenum?rate giuvaere ale g?ndirii originale, penetrante ?i vizionare. Cititorul obi?nuit s? caute pe copert? elementele care s?-i permit? m?car printr-un exerci?iu deductiv descifrarea ingredientelor discursului celor doi autori va fi surprins la fiecare pagin?.Dac? ?cele 5 lucruri esen?iale pe care trebuie s? le ?tii despre via??“ reprezint? de cele mai multe ori o simpl? etichet?, sub care compozi?ia eterogen? a con?inutului, superficialitatea ?i caracterul facil al expunerii mul?umesc ?i conving doar pe termen scurt, ?n cazul lucr?rii celor doi filosofi rom?ni lucrurile stau exact pe dos. ?n cele cinci capitole care analizeaz? avatarurile g?ndirii sunt ascunse nenum?rate modele de ?n?elepciune ?i de disciplin? a logosului, f?r? a fi anun?ate, explicate cu toate determina?iile conexe sau accentuate ?n vreun fel. Acesta este probabil cel mai elegant mod de a r?spl?ti cititorii: spun?ndu-le cum f?r? a-i avertiza c?.Pentru cine ??i dore?te totu?i o etichet? care s? u?ureze clasificarea acestui volum, cea mai concis? ?i mai potrivit? este oferit? de un binecunoscut dicton latin: Sapienti sat. ?ntr-un ocean de solu?ii, Sorin Vieru ?i Terente Robert construiesc o insul? de probleme a c?rei tr?inicie este alarmant? ?i, ?n acela?i timp, reconfortant?.

Istoriile excentricit??ii din Logica elefan?ilor adopt? tonul comentariului pe dou? voci, simul?nd (?i stimul?nd) un canon care dubleaz?, prin reluare, recuperarea detaliului ca fiind princip(i)al. Fiziologiile devin ilustre, consecven?a ??i expune abera?ia, apetitul pentru trecut este inevitabil patologic, iar neao?ismele curente rezoneaz?, fire?te, cu globalizarea. ?ntr-o logic? elefantin?, inteligen?a are a se v?di, chiar gigantesc, ?n nimicnicia ?faptului divers“. Supraabunden?a concentr?rii miniaturale exacerbeaz? efectele ?ngurgit?rii unei mu?te ori ale studierii timpului liber al felinelor de cas?. Lenjeria intim? necesit? un tratament aristocratic, iar ?njur?tura ?i b?taia se sacralizeaz? ?ntr-un univers ?n care guvernarea p?r?se?te modelul pastoral pentru recursul la structuri galinacee. Textele lui Ciprian V?lcan ?i ale Danei Percec (sur)prind acest nesa? cu care lumea ?ns??i pare a-?i exprimenta limitele, n?ucit? parc? de proliferarea propriilor excese.

Cum a fost ?nceputul, de unde ?i de ce a venit Universul la fiin??? Cine a creat, de fapt, via?a pe P?m?nt ?i cum va fi Sf?r?itul? Ce se ?nt?mpl? atunci c?nd murim ?i unde ajungem dup? aceea? ?i, la urma urmei, ce contur trebuie s?-i d?m vie?ii noastre dac? Dumnezeu nu exist?? Miturile ?i speran?ele noastre ofer? r?spunsuri convenabile, dar periculoase, la aceste ?ntreb?ri ?ntruc?t ?ntre?in iluzii care ne sporesc, ?n realitate, angoasa ?i la?itatea. Avem, totu?i, o alternativ?: apelul la metodele ?i descoperirile ?tiin?ei pentru a repune lucrurile ?i problemele ?n contextul din care au fost decupate din ignoran?? sau din r?utate. Despre via?? ?i moarte reabiliteaz? acest tip de demers ?ntr-un periplu scris cu umor, dar ?i cu seriozitate, cu elegan??, dar ?i cu duio?ie.

S?rmanul Nietzsche, ?bestia blond?“, a avut ?i el parte de crucificare. Multor profe?i ?i m?ntuitori li se ?nt?mpl? asta: eventual ?i ?n timpul vie?ii, ?i dup? moarte. Nietzsche, r?zvr?titul ?mpotriva legilor celor vechi, ?ntemeietorul orgolios al noii sale ?religii“, a trebuit s? suporte ?i el toate e?ecurile ?i r?st?lm?cirile posibile, ba chiar ?i punerea terifiant? ?n practic? a unora dintre ideile lui, care nici nu mai erau ale lui ?i, ?ndeob?te, nu mai erau idei…?Viclenia ra?iunii“, implicit a istoriei, o descrisese Hegel, unul dintre cei mul?i pe care Nietzsche nu-i agrea. Dincoace de istorie ?i chiar dincolo de ea, r?m?n c?r?ile. Omul n-a fost s? fie m?ntuit de Nietzsche. C?r?ile lui vor d?inui printre oameni: pentru oameni.

Egy kétségtelenül szellemes megjegyzés szerint a cím csak akkor fedheti le pontosan a k?nyv tartalmát, ha bet?r?l bet?re megegyezik vele. Valami hasonló mondható a fülsz?vegekr?l is (biztos Boegesnek is tetszene ez a gondolat), és ennek megfelel?en meg sem kísérlem néhány mondatban ?sszefoglalni, hogy mir?l lesz szó. Ehelyett inkább el?sz?r is azt emelem ki, hogy a címnek megfelel?en mir?l nem: például nem magáról Borgesr?l, a 20. század egyik legjelent?sebb argentin írójáról. Hanem inkább arról, hogy a novelláival kapcsolatban milyen, az irodalomtól olyakor látszólag meglehet?sen távol álló kérdések merülhetnek fel kezdve azon, hogy az általa leírt bábeli k?nyvtár valóban olyan teljes és mindenre kiterjed?-e, miként azt Borges sugallja; folytatva azon, hogy van-e egyáltalán értelme felvetni, hogy milyen lenne, ha valaki t?kéletes emlékezettel rendelkezne (nincs). Meg, hogy elképzelhet?-e, nem pedig, hogy létezik vagy legalább lehetséges-e egy olyan pont vagy térrész: egy olyan Alef, amelyen keresztül egyszerre láthatunk mindent. ?s így tovább egészen addig, hogy mit mondhatunk az irodalomkritikáról, az irodalmi zsánerek létrej?ttér?l meg elt?nésér?l vagy éppen az irodalmi halhatatlanságról – ismét csak mint elméleti problémáról. Azaz végs? soron persze mégiscsak egyfajta bolyongás ez a borgesi k?nyvtában, illetve bizonyos, legalább hipotetikusan lehetséges és az irodalomhoz így vagy úgy kapcsolódó kérdések fázisterében még akkor is, ha a fentebbiekben, miként a figyelmes olvasó már észre vehette, éppen azt tettem, amir?l korábban azt sejttettem, hogy nem fogom: néhány példa említésével próbáltam utalni rá, hogy mir?l szól az egész. De talán ez sincs igazi ellentmondásban azzal a megk?zelítéssel, amit ez a k?nyv sugall. Galántai Zoltán tudományt?rténész és író. Korábbi k?nyvei az eClassicnál: K?nyvkett?. A k?nyv, az írás és az irodalom j?v?jér?l (2013) http://eclassic.xyz/shop/bemutato/konyvketto-a-konyv-az-iras-es-az-irodalom-jovojerol/ Monoverzumok. Kozmosz, t?rvény, tudomány (2016) http://eclassic.xyz/shop/szabadpolc/monoverzumok/

《参同契》又名《周易参同契》，为东汉魏伯阳著。其学说汇融周易、黄老、丹火之功于一体，用《易》的阴阳变化之理，阐述炼丹、内养之道，证明人与天地、宇宙有同体、同功而异用的法则。 《我说<参同契>》是南怀瑾先生继《论语别裁》后用力*深、*有分量的作品之一，共八十余万言，分上、中、下三册。内容涉及广泛，旁征博引，举证极多，更有南师本人所经历的诸多奇特的人和事，是国人了解、解读《参同契》这部“天书”的选择。

La acest ?nceput de secol XXI, ?n ?ntreaga lume se intensific? studierea problemelor fundamentale, eterne, ca via?a ?i moartea, rostul vie?ii, originile ?i destina?iile noastre ultime, c?t ?i ?ntrebarea cu privire la existen?a de dup? moarte. Cartea examineaz? filosofia de via?? a budismului Nichiren ?n lumina ideilor de ultim? or? despre via?? ?i moarte, de?i cuprinderea exhaustiv? ?ntr?un singur volum a unei probleme at?t de vaste este imposibil?. Budismul Nichiren ofer? oamenilor mijloacele de a??i transforma destinele prin ?nf?ptuirea propriei revolu?ii umane individuale ?i dezv?luie calea spre pace ?i fericire.

Such is the system which underlies the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Some knowledge of it is necessary to the right understanding of the book, but for us the chief interest lies elsewhere. We do not come to Marcus Aurelius for a treatise on Stoicism. He is no head of a school to lay down a body of doctrine for students; he does not even contemplate that others should read what he writes. His philosophy is not an eager intellectual inquiry, but more what we should call religious feeling. The uncompromising stiffness of Zeno or Chrysippus is softened and transformed by passing through a nature reverent and tolerant, gentle and free from guile; the grim resignation which made life possible to the Stoic sage becomes in him almost a mood of aspiration. His book records the innermost thoughts of his heart, set down to ease it, with such moral maxims and reflections as may help him to bear the burden of duty and the countless annoyances of a busy life. It is instructive to compare the Meditations with another famous book, the Imitation of Christ. There is the same ideal of self-control in both. It should be a man's task, says the Imitation, 'to overcome himself, and every day to be stronger than himself.' 'In withstanding of the passions standeth very peace of heart.' 'Let us set the axe to the root, that we being purged of our passions may have a peaceable mind.' To this end there must be continual self-examination. 'If thou may not continually gather thyself together, namely sometimes do it, at least once a day, the morning or the evening. In the morning purpose, in the evening discuss the manner, what thou hast been this day, in word, work, and thought.' But while the Roman's temper is a modest self-reliance, the Christian aims at a more passive mood, humbleness and meekness, and reliance on the presence and personal friendship of God. The Roman scrutinises his faults with severity, but without the self-contempt which makes the Christian 'vile in his own sight.' The Christian, like the Roman, bids 'study to withdraw thine heart from the love of things visible'; but it is not the busy life of duty he has in mind so much as the contempt of all worldly things, and the 'cutting away of all lower delectations.' Both rate men's praise or blame at their real worthlessness; 'Let not thy peace,' says the Christian, 'be in the mouths of men.' But it is to God's censure the Christian appeals, the Roman to his own soul. The petty annoyances of injustice or unkindness are looked on by each with the same magnanimity. 'Why doth a little thing said or done against thee make thee sorry? It is no new thing; it is not the first, nor shall it be the last, if thou live long. At best suffer patiently, if thou canst not suffer joyously.' The Christian should sorrow more for other men's malice than for our own wrongs; but the Roman is inclined to wash his hands of the offender. 'Study to be patient in suffering and bearing other men's defaults and all manner infirmities,' says the Christian; but the Roman would never have thought to add, 'If all men were perfect, what had we then to suffer of other men for God?' The virtue of suffering in itself is an idea which does not meet us in the Meditations. Both alike realise that man is one of a great community. 'No man is sufficient to himself,' says the Christian; 'we must bear together, help together, comfort together.' But while he sees a chief importance in zeal, in exalted emotion that is, and avoidance of lukewarmness, the Roman thought mainly of the duty to be done as well as might be, and less of the feeling which should go with the doing of it. To the saint as to the emperor, the world is a poor thing at best. 'Verily it is a misery to live upon the earth,' says the Christian; few and evil are the days of man's life, which passeth away suddenly as a shadow. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*** ? "MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS" was born on April 26, A.D. 121. His real name was M. Annius Verus, and he was sprung of a noble family which claimed descent from Numa, second King of Rome. Thus the most religious of emperors came of the blood of the most pious of early kings. His father, Annius Verus, had held high office in Rome, and his grandfather, of the same name, had been thrice Consul. Both his parents died young, but Marcus held them in loving remembrance. On his father's death Marcus was adopted by his grandfather, the consular Annius Verus, and there was deep love between these two. On the very first page of his book Marcus gratefully declares how of his grandfather he had learned to be gentle and meek, and to refrain from all anger and passion. The Emperor Hadrian divined the fine character of the lad, whom he used to call not Verus but Verissimus, more Truthful than his own name. He advanced Marcus to equestrian rank when six years of age, and at the age of eight made him a member of the ancient Salian priesthood. The boy's aunt, A

Magyarázatok a Srimad-Bhagavatam tizedik éneke harminckettedik fejezetének 16-22. versáhez, az el?z? acaryák írásai alapján. A Na pāraye ’ham három része ?rī K???a, ?rī Caitanya Mahāprabhu és ?rīmatī Rādhārā?ī szeretetét mutatja be. Szeretetük egy-egy hatalmas folyóként h?mp?ly?g a prema óceánja felé. ?cāryáink kegyéb?l a bhakták megérinthetik ennek az óceánnak a partját, s néhány cseppnyi nektárt megízlelhetnek bel?le.

　　《费孝通早期思想探源》的论证有助于理解费孝通的社会改革思想所代表的江南社会精英群体，进一步明晰费孝通“合作主义”和“社会主义”取向的社会来源和思想来源。此外，作者还考证和分析了四十年代中期费孝通对中国文化看法的变化、原因及思想来源，指出费晚年倡导的“文化自觉”思想在1947年初已具雏形。本研究可增进对费孝通整体思想沿革的认识。

A partir de uma sugest?o de Gilles Deleuze e Félix Guattari – a de que todos os filósofos ocidentais terminaram construindo, no interregno do seu pensamento, personagens conceituais, uma espécie de assinatura do filósofo – este livro objetiva identificar esse tra?o a partir da obra de Michel Foucault. A tese em quest?o é que este autor n?o se enquadra em uma imagem única, como a do Juiz em Kant, ou a do sedutor em Kierkegaard, mas em uma imagem híbrida e triádica, fazendo coro com muitos filósofos chamados de transversais e que se instalaram no horizonte de filosofias chamadas de pós-estruturalistas, como Deleuze.

Em Vida sem Princípio , Henry David Thoreau nos apresenta um verdadeiro manual de como viver em sociedade e em contato com a Natureza respeitando a natureza e ao próximo.? puro Transcendentalismo , um apelo para que cada um siga a sua própria luz interior.Este ensaio foi obtido a partir da palestra''What Shall It Profit? ''apresentada ao publico em 06 de dezembro de 1854, no Sal?o Railroad em Providence Rhode Island.Foi publicado pela primeira vez na edi??o de outubro de 1863 The Atlantic Monthly, onde foi dado o título moderno.Vida sem Princípio é um ensaio em que Thoreau coloca o seu programa para viver bem. Incluem-se aqui as suas ideias sobre a forma de abordagem da comunica??o interpessoal, modos de trabalho, sustento financeiro e outros códigos de conduta baseados na filosofia de de vida de Thoreau.'