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

Paradise Lost is an epic poem in blank verse by the 17th-century English poet John Milton (1608–1674). The first version, published in 1667, consisted of ten books with over ten thousand lines of verse. A second edition followed in 1674, arranged into twelve books (in the manner of Virgil's Aeneid) with minor revisions throughout and a note on the versification. It is considered by critics to be Milton's "major work", and helped solidify his reputation as one of the greatest English poets of his time. The poem concerns the Biblical story of the Fall of Man: the temptation of Adam and Eve by the fallen angel Satan and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Milton's purpose, stated in Book I, is to "justify the ways of God to men" Short Summary:The poem is separated into twelve "books" or sections, the lengths of which vary greatly (the longest is Book IX, with 1,189 lines, and the shortest Book VII, with 640). The Arguments at the head of each book were added in subsequent imprints of the first edition. Originally published in ten books, a fully "Revised and Augmented" edition reorganized into twelve books was issued in 1674, and this is the edition generally used today. The poem follows the epic tradition of starting in medias res (Latin for in the midst of things), the background story being recounted later.Milton's story has two narrative arcs, one about Satan (Lucifer) and the other following Adam and Eve. It begins after Satan and the other rebel angels have been defeated and banished to Hell, or, as it is also called in the poem, Tartarus. In Pand?monium, Satan employs his rhetorical skill to organise his followers; he is aided by Mammon and Beelzebub. Belial and Moloch are also present. At the end of the debate, Satan volunteers to poison the newly created Earth and God's new and most favoured creation, Mankind. He braves the dangers of the Abyss alone in a manner reminiscent of Odysseus or Aeneas. After an arduous traversal of the Chaos outside Hell, he enters God's new material World, and later the Garden of Eden. At several points in the poem, an Angelic War over Heaven is recounted from different perspectives. Satan's rebellion follows the epic convention of large-scale warfare. The battles between the faithful angels and Satan's forces take place over three days. At the final battle, the Son of God single-handedly defeats the entire legion of angelic rebels and banishes them from Heaven. Following this purge, God creates the World, culminating in his creation of Adam and Eve. While God gave Adam and Eve total freedom and power to rule over all creation, He gave them one explicit command: not to eat from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil on penalty of death.

Potere, cortigianeria, dispotismo, libertà, uguaglianza... attuali o inattuali la satira d'Holbach e La Boétie? Cambiano i tempi e i nomi, ma la natura umana nel suo fondo negli ultimi secoli non è mutata. Com'è virtù di tutti i classici, le loro voci continuano a farci sorridere, indignare e riflettere non solo sul passato ma ugualmente sul presente e sul futuro, su quanto in esso ci possa essere di desiderabile o indesiderabile. In Appendice, i testi si possono leggere anche nella loro originaria edizione in francese. SOMMARIO?- Fabrizio Pinna, Una introduzione (in due tempi) e qualche digressione: I. Barone d'Holbach, "Quest'arte sublime dello strisciare"...; II. ?tienne de La Boétie, "Siate determinati di non voler più servire ed eccovi liberi"... . LIBERT? & POTERE: Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach, Saggio sull'arte di strisciare ad uso dei cortigiani; Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach, I Cortigiani; Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Cortigiano; ?tienne de La Boétie, La servitù volontaria. APPENDICE I: Libertà Uguaglianza (1799)- Il Cittadino Editore. APPENDICE II: Essai sur l’art de ramper, à l’usage des courtisans (1764) - Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach; Des Courtisans (1773) - Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach; Courtisan (1752) / Courtisane (1754) - Jean le Rond d'Alembert; Discours de la servitude volontaire o Contr'un (1549) - ?tienne de La Boétie.?LE COLLANE IN/DEFINIZIONI & CON(TRO)TESTI

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.

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.).

Within our Society (the International Society for Krishna Consciousness), guru has been taken to be synonymous with diksa-guru, but what about those great souls who have introduced us to Krsna consciousness? What relationship do we have with these Vaisnavas, and what are our obligations toward them, as well as toward parents, teachers, sannyasis, and other superiors who help guide us back to Godhead? Not much has been said by the Society on these topics, and hardly any appreciation is shown for those souls who labor to elevate us day by day.The scriptures, however, glorify as guru all Vaisnavas who guide a conditioned soul back to Godhead — be they instructors or initiators — advocating a culture of honor and respect. ISKCON needs to reflect upon these principles further, and the purpose of this book is to act as a catalyst toward such an end.

     理学兴于北宋，盛行于南宋与元明清时代，影响一直延续到近代，可以说是唐代以来儒学思想的主流，其影响覆盖整个东亚。理学与国人之思想关系甚深，然而其书率多零碎乏条理，读者难于了解，因而作者吕思勉在其上海沪江大学《中国哲学史》课程讲义的基础上，综合著名理学家重要学说，兼及其对社会风俗之影响，写作了《理学纲要》。迄今为止，中外学界关于理学的简史似乎还没有超过本书者。《理学纲要》作为剪裁得宜的门书，是广大国学爱好者了解理学思想的极佳读本。

本书集中在一个问题上：廊下派与苏格拉底。要理解这个问题，就必须把它放到政治哲学的语境去考察，因为苏格拉底据说是政治哲学的创始人。廊下派间地来自苏格拉底，并且在德性问题等方面也受苏格拉底的观，这是否就意味着廊下派忠实地继承了苏格拉底的思想呢？该问题本身就是现代学术界争论不休的话题。不管廊下派如何对待苏格拉底，他们的结论对我们理解苏格拉底乃至整个西方思想来说，肯定都不只有滴的借鉴意义。  

新中国成立70年以来，马克思主义经典著作在中国的编译与传播，既是马克思主义中国化的首要前提，又是实现马克思主义中国化的基本途径。自新中国成立以来到1978年改革放时期，是中国历史发展的一个十分重要的特殊阶段，也构成了马克思主义经典著作编译传播史上的一个十分重要的特殊阶段。本书对这一时期马克思主义经典著作编译与传播的社会历史条件、编译与出版机构的建立与完善，以及编译与传播的重要阶段、主要类别、基本特征、传播途径及对马克思主义中国化的历史影响与现实启示等方面行深研究，梳理马克思主义经典著作版本演化的历史轨迹，总结经典文本编译与传播的经验教训，揭示其在推动马克思主义中国化过程中的历史作用和当代价值。

本书是尼采晚年代表作之一。由两个篇幅较小的部分组成。《瓦格纳事件：尼采反瓦格纳》一书对瓦格纳的批判，标志着尼采与德国著名作曲家的决裂。在哲学家看来，瓦格纳过多地参与了“民意”运动和反犹太主义运动。尼采指责瓦格纳只是影响欧洲的一种“疾病”——虚无主义的症状。尼采在《瓦格纳事件：尼采反瓦格纳》中预见到了他对艺术本质的一些思考。 

本书是尼采的重要作品之一。《朝霞》1881年问世，1887年新版并附有一篇前言，它在著作史上位于《人性的，太人性的》第二部分（1880）与《快乐的科学》（1882）之间。《朝霞》分为五卷，每卷分为长短不同的节，少只有一两行，多则一两页，甚至偶尔长达三页以上。该书比较详细的部分，特别是前三卷，有像随笔式的短文，其思想素描与其说是巨细无遗的不如说是钩玄提要的。在下来的讨论中，特别是在第四卷中，每段要更短一些，带有圣经经文的思想风格。寥寥几个句子甚至单独一个句子构成浓缩的和凝练的格言，好像压缩甚至过度压缩的短文。

本选题是复旦大学“当代中国马克思主义研究工程”丛书之一。主要对马克思主义美学的原理、思潮、学派和学科史展研究，密切联系当代美学实践，既关注马克思主义美学与中国传统美学思想的结合、创新，重视马克思主义美学的经典性与时代性、本土性、民族性的结合，也重视对非马克思主义美学思潮的研究，回答它们对马克思主义美学的质疑和挑战。

本卷包括：《曙光》、《墨西拿的田园诗》、《快乐的知识》。《快乐的知识》是尼采后期的重要作品，创作于大病初愈之后。《快乐的知识》浓缩了尼采思想的精髓，对诸如生命、个体与群体能、爱情、文艺、哲学、科学、道德、法律、宗教、社会发展等问题都行了简明而深刻的论述，语言凝练而隽永，思想鲜明而锐利，行文多为警句或短诗，思想火花处处闪现，令人读后有痛快淋漓之感。

本书是汉语学界*部专论施泰因特别是施泰因对于交互主体性现象学的研究的专著。自胡塞尔的现象学发生所谓的“超越论的转向”以后，对其现象学是一种“唯我论”的批评就不绝于耳。本书尝试表明，施泰因（以及其他早期现象学家）恰恰是借“同感”来讨论对他人的通达，以避免“唯我论”的困扰，并借此发展交互主体性现象学的。 在此问题脉络中，施泰因有关同感和交互主体性现象学研究的特殊意义与价值主要体现在：（1）她将同感问题置自赫尔德以来的整个思想史传统之中来考察；（2）她在精神科学的总体视域下对同感行现象学的研究；（3）她将同感现象学运用到具体的精神科学领域（比如伦理学、美学和社会政治哲学等）中，并*终成为勾连现象学和中世纪经院哲学的核心基础之一。

　　本书是在当代新的境遇下对马克思所著的思想复杂、影响深远而又毁誉不一的“巴黎手稿”的深度解读和分析。“巴黎手稿”指的是马克思旅居“巴黎时期”（从1843年10月到1845年1月）创作的、与单纯摘录和抄写同时代人以及前人著作的“巴黎笔记”相区别的、大量正面阐述和论证其思想的著述，它包括通常被称为《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的“三个笔记本”和《詹姆斯·穆勒〈政治经济学原理〉一书摘要》。过去由于过于功利的“现实”考量，再加上原始文献资料的欠缺，影响了对这一手稿复杂思想理解的全面性与客观性。为此，本书根据历史考证版（MEGA）及大量权威资料，将“巴黎手稿”作为一个文本个案行了深度研究，从文献疏证、内容解读、思想阐释、逻辑论证多个方面一一给予悉心的探讨，再现了这一著述的原始面貌、深邃意蕴和思想史价值。

本书采用一种互文式的解读方案和放性的研究策略，将研究的理论目光投射在德里达的早期（从1953年至1967年）思想上并重解读了德里达的三本著作：《胡塞尔哲学中的生成问题》《胡塞尔<几何学的起源>引论》以及《声音与现象》。本书的主线试图详尽、客观、不带目的论色彩地重构德里达解构思想从胡塞尔现象学中潜滋暗长、走向成熟的历史轨迹，尤其是德里达解构思想的三个核心原理——差异原理、延迟原理和“充替”原理——的生发过程；本书的副线从胡塞尔和德里达的原始文本出发，对两个不同视域的并置、启发和融合行了细致微的考察，同时尖锐地批评了德里达对胡塞尔现象学的误解、挪用和阉割并由此挑明胡塞尔思想的博大精深和顽强的生命力。

《自然的观念》是英国著名哲学家柯林武德在科学哲学领域的代表著述。作者在书中深探讨了自然观念的历史变迁，提出了自然科学的价值。书中深剖析了自然观念在希腊时期、文艺复兴时期及现代这三个历史发展阶段的不同样貌，强调了作为科学的哲学基础，自然观的不同与科学步之间有着密不可分的关系。

礼仪，是人类精神文明长期发展与演变的产物。它既是人们日常交流不可缺少的工具，也是村落、族群、团体、国家之间往来的规则与约定。佛教与儒家在我国长期的历史发展中，积累了丰富的礼仪规范，产生了广泛而深远的影响。本书收录的论文，既有对某种佛教礼仪的特别解读，也有对儒家礼乐的深探讨；既有推陈出新、关注现实之作，也有重在礼仪传承意义的论述。资料翔实，论证有据，适合对佛教、儒家及中国传统文化感兴趣的读者阅读。

1930年春，罗振玉应日本学者松崎鹤雄之邀，讲清朝学术源流概略。该书的主体内容即为罗振玉讲述、松崎鹤雄日文译注、大连耆宿穆传金中译的《清朝学术源流概略》。书中先从追溯清之前的历代学术变迁手，对先秦至明代的历朝学术予以简单评述，以此作为讨论清代学术的前提和基础。着对有清一代的整体学术面貌，从学术渊源、学术流派、研究方法、学术得失等四个方面行叙述和评价。在编校过程中，以罗氏文集中的《本朝学术源流概略》作为参照。为了使读者和研究者尽可能较为全面地知晓罗氏的学术史论，并了解这些史论所由发生之语境，本书还收了罗氏《古今学术之递变》、《扶桑两月记》、《五十日梦痕录》、《集蓼编》、《海宁王忠悫公传》、《狩野君山博士六十寿序》、《与柯凤荪学士书》等文，并将柯昌泗的《吊上虞罗先生》、董作宾的《罗雪堂先生传略》作为附录。

本书比较整全地呈现出船山体用思想结构及其相较于道学传统的差异性。船山体用之基本义是气作为宇宙全体的变合流行，其无方所无定体，无法被抽象为不变本体，人只能在聚散变化之用中见体。此义在性论层面即性日生日成，性体不是初生之际受命于天的某种不变本体，而是来自天之生生之德。继善成性，以后天之习使其不断充实生成，近精纯整全之天德，此为由用生体。民族文化历史可视为民族之性的生成丰富，其中*重要的资源，一则为先圣经典的传承与诠释，一则为国史对丰富境遇的描述与持守。通过经学去理解经典，通过读史来磨练扩充其伦理政治德性，这个过程既是其个体习与性成的体用相生，也是整个民族历史不断生成并持守自身一以贯之的过程。

关学为宋明理学思潮中由北宋哲学家张载创立的一个重要的独立学派,是宋元明清时代的关中理学。本书是作者对自己研究关学三十余年来积年之思的一次系统总结。作者梳理了20世纪80年代以来的有关张载和关学的论争及研究状况，以及自己的反思与展望。又上溯至明清两代的关学继承与研究，论衡各家得失，明确了关学在明清乃至宋元不同时代的学术定位，从而重构了张载关学传承的历史脉络、道统地位、学统框架及其精神命脉。