Bu alma ilk olarak ekim 2007`de bir internet sitesinde (exlibrary.com) e-kitap formunda yaymland; daha sonra birinci kitabmn ikinci blümünde yer ald. Bu almay tekrar gzden geirip küük baz düzeltmeler yaptm. Bu kitapn ilham kayna Thomas Nagel’in “Her ey Ne Anlama Geliyor” balkl eseridir. 70 sayfalk bu küük ama youn kitab okuduumda hayran olmutum. Nagel almasnn giri blümünde unlar yazm: “Günümüzün ve gemiin büyük filozoflarndan seilmi metinler ieren birok harika giri el kitab vardr. Elinizdeki bu küük kitap onlarn yerine geecek türden bir kitap deildir. Onun, yalnzca, konuya olabildii kadar ak ve dorudan bir ilk deerlendirme sunmasn umuyorum.” Ben de aynsn umarak bu almaya ykündüm ve ortaya bu be deneme kt. Daha nce yaymlanm bu denemelerin yeniden yaymlanmasnn anlam hakl olarak sorulabilir. Ben de derim ki belki yeni baz okurlarn ilgisini ekebilir belki de yeniden okunabilir. Bu sefer de neden yeniden okunsun ki diyenler kabilir; ben de Borges’in bir szünü aktarmakla yetinirim: “Okumak nemli deildir, nemli olan yeniden okumaktr.” Yazar Hakknda Prof. Dr., 1955 doumlu. 1976 da Ankara niversitesi Fen Fakültesi kimya mühendislii blümünden mezun oldu. Eskiehir Anadolu ve Eskiehir Osmangazi niversitesinde retim üyesi olarak alt. 2002 de emekli oldu. Akademik yaynlar haricinde felsefe konusunda sobil yaynclk tarafndan yaymlanm ü kitab vardr: 1.“Düünmek zerine Düünmek” (2009), 2. “Zorunluluk ve Sorumluluk” (2012), 3.“Nietzsche ve Schopenhauer ile küük bir sylei” (2018).

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.

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?!

More’s “Utopia” was written in Latin, and is in two parts, of which the second, describing the place ([Greek text]—or Nusquama, as he called it sometimes in his letters—“Nowhere”), was probably written towards the close of 1515; the first part, introductory, early in 1516. The book was first printed at Louvain, late in 1516, under the editorship of Erasmus, Peter Giles, and other of More’s friends in Flanders. It was then revised by More, and printed by Frobenius at Basle in November, 1518. It was reprinted at Paris and Vienna, but was not printed in England during More’s lifetime. Its first publication in this country was in the English translation, made in Edward’s VI.’s reign (1551) by Ralph Robinson. It was translated with more literary skill by Gilbert Burnet, in 1684, soon after he had conducted the defence of his friend Lord William Russell, attended his execution, vindicated his memory, and been spitefully deprived by James II. of his lectureship at St. Clement’s. Burnet was drawn to the translation of “Utopia” by the same sense of unreason in high places that caused More to write the book. Burnet’s is the translation given in this volume. The name of the book has given an adjective to our language—we call an impracticable scheme Utopian. Yet, under the veil of a playful fiction, the talk is intensely earnest, and abounds in practical suggestion. It is the work of a scholarly and witty Englishman, who attacks in his own way the chief political and social evils of his time. Beginning with fact, More tells how he was sent into Flanders with Cuthbert Tunstal, “whom the king’s majesty of late, to the great rejoicing of all men, did prefer to the office of Master of the Rolls;” how the commissioners of Charles met them at Bruges, and presently returned to Brussels for instructions; and how More then went to Antwerp, where he found a pleasure in the society of Peter Giles which soothed his desire to see again his wife and children, from whom he had been four months away. Then fact slides into fiction with the finding of Raphael Hythloday (whose name, made of two Greek words [Greek text] and [Greek text], means “knowing in trifles”), a man who had been with Amerigo Vespucci in the three last of the voyages to the new world lately discovered, of which the account had been first printed in 1507, only nine years before Utopia was written. Designedly fantastic in suggestion of details, “Utopia” is the work of a scholar who had read Plato’s “Republic,” and had his fancy quickened after reading Plutarch’s account of Spartan life under Lycurgus. Beneath the veil of an ideal communism, into which there has been worked some witty extravagance, there lies a noble English argument. Sometimes More puts the case as of France when he means England. Sometimes there is ironical praise of the good faith of Christian kings, saving the book from censure as a political attack on the policy of Henry VIII. Erasmus wrote to a friend in 1517 that he should send for More’s “Utopia,” if he had not read it, and “wished to see the true source of all political evils.” And to More Erasmus wrote of his book, “A burgomaster of Antwerp is so pleased with it that he knows it all by heart.” Sir Thomas More, son of Sir John More, a justice of the King’s Bench, was born in 1478, in Milk Street, in the city of London. After his earlier education at St. Anthony’s School, in Threadneedle Street, he was placed, as a boy, in the household of Cardinal John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor. It was not unusual for persons of wealth or influence and sons of good families to be so established together in a relation of patron and client. The youth wore his patron’s livery, and added to his state. The patron used, afterwards, his wealth or influence in helping his young client forward in the world.

Among the notable books of later times-we may say, without exaggeration, of all time--must be reckoned The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. It deals with leading personages and transactions of a momentous epoch, when absolutism and feudalism were rallying for their last struggle against the modern spirit, chiefly represented by Voltaire, the Encyclopedists, and Rousseau himself--a struggle to which, after many fierce intestine quarrels and sanguinary wars throughout Europe and America, has succeeded the prevalence of those more tolerant and rational principles by which the statesmen of our own day are actuated. On these matters, however, it is not our province to enlarge; nor is it necessary to furnish any detailed account of our author's political, religious, and philosophic axioms and systems, his paradoxes and his errors in logic: these have been so long and so exhaustively disputed over by contending factions that little is left for even the most assiduous gleaner in the field. The inquirer will find, in Mr. John Money's excellent work, the opinions of Rousseau reviewed succinctly and impartially. The 'Contrat Social', the 'Lattres Ecrites de la Montagne', and other treatises that once aroused fierce controversy, may therefore be left in the repose to which they have long been consigned, so far as the mass of mankind is concerned, though they must always form part of the library of the politician and the historian. One prefers to turn to the man Rousseau as he paints himself in the remarkable work before us. That the task which he undertook in offering to show himself--as Persius puts it--'Intus et in cute', to posterity, exceeded his powers, is a trite criticism; like all human enterprises, his purpose was only imperfectly fulfilled; but this circumstance in no way lessens the attractive qualities of his book, not only for the student of history or psychology, but for the intelligent man of the world. Its startling frankness gives it a peculiar interest wanting in most other autobiographies. Many censors have elected to sit in judgment on the failings of this strangely constituted being, and some have pronounced upon him very severe sentences. Let it be said once for all that his faults and mistakes were generally due to causes over which he had but little control, such as a defective education, a too acute sensitiveness, which engendered suspicion of his fellows, irresolution, an overstrained sense of honour and independence, and an obstinate refusal to take advice from those who really wished to befriend him; nor should it be forgotten that he was afflicted during the greater part of his life with an incurable disease. Lord Byron had a soul near akin to Rousseau's, whose writings naturally made a deep impression on the poet's mind, and probably had an influence on his conduct and modes of thought: In some stanzas of 'Childe Harold' this sympathy is expressed with truth and power; especially is the weakness of the Swiss philosopher's character summed up in the following admirable lines: "Here the self-torturing sophist, wild Rousseau, The apostle of affliction, he who threw Enchantment over passion, and from woe Wrung overwhelming eloquence, first drew The breath which made him wretched; yet he knew How to make madness beautiful, and cast O'er erring deeds and thoughts a heavenly hue Of words, like sunbeams, dazzling as they passed The eyes, which o'er them shed tears feelingly and fast. "His life was one long war with self-sought foes, Or friends by him self-banished; for his mind Had grown Suspicion's sanctuary, and chose, For its own cruel sacrifice, the kind, 'Gainst whom he raged with fury strange and blind. But he was frenzied,-wherefore, who may know? Since cause might be which skill could never find; But he was frenzied by disease or woe To that worst pitch of all, which wears a reasoning show."

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?.. ?

《当代外国伦理思想》对日本、印度、韩国、朝鲜、新加坡、英国、法国、美国、德国，以及从苏联到独联体的当代伦理思想分别作了比较系统的研究和阐述。本书是按东西方顺序分章的，各国按头字笔画排列先后。这样编章，按国家和地区分别阐述当代外国伦理思想，与按思潮和学派阐述外国伦理思想的著作不同，它可以使读者集中、完整地了解和认识有关国家和地区的当代伦理思想，为伦理学研究者进行东西方伦理思想的比较研究，提供难得的现成资料和研究成果。

本书以建构中国道德哲学的“伦理世界”为理论诉求，积极回应西方现代社会伦理发展困境，努力探索中国现代道德建设的实践路径。

拜物教批判理论作为马克思社会批判理论的*，内在地蕴含了马克思的哲学世界观和方法论，贯穿着马克思对资产阶级政治经济学的批判继承和发展。本书从马克思的文本出发，*次比较系统地梳理了马克思拜物教批判理论的历史与逻辑，阐发了马克思对于拜物教世界的超越途径，提炼出马克思拜物教批判的方法论，并且对于西方思想家对马克思拜物教批判理论的解读作出了评析，具有较高的学术价值。

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。

《中华哲学史先秦编》以精炼通俗的文字深浅出地介绍了先秦时期中华先哲思想的大略要义。作者以“理解客观、言辞有据”为原则，以人物及其主要观划分章节，一改当代中国哲学史研究领域以西方哲学思维和术语解读中国哲学的习惯，而是依据中国哲学的自身特确定研究方法，采用传统术语和问题领域对中国哲学的内容行了整理。书中的观都是以古代经典的原文为根本，结合大量相关资料，研究思考后提炼总结出来的，无论是对于从事中国哲学研究的学者提供借鉴拓展思路，还是对于普通大众感受中华文化从中汲取智慧，该书都具有着较大的阅读价值

　　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。

这是一本足以彻底改变你思维世界的小书。正如著名行为学家孙路弘所说，缺乏逻辑已成为社会的一种流行病症：逻辑紊乱症候群。而《简单的逻辑学》就如一场及时雨，一本治愈社会疾病的宝典，的确是应该人手一册。

“心灵/心智（mind）是什么？我是谁？纯粹的物质能思考或感受吗？灵魂（soul）在哪里？面对这些问题时，人人都会陷困惑之中。我们编纂此书，为的是尝试展示这些困惑，让它们变得生动鲜明。我们的目的不是要直回答这些大问题，而是要动摇世人的思维：既包括那些有着严肃坚定的科学世界观的人，也包括那些对人类灵魂怀有宗教或者灵性主义想象的人。我们认为，目前要想回答这些问题并不容易，我们首先要对问题行根本反思，然后才能期望人们在‘我’这个字究竟是什么意思上达成共识。因此，本书旨在刺激、扰乱和迷惑读者，让显而易见的东西变得奇异起来，也许还会让奇异的东西变得显而易见。” 出于上述动机，二位主编为本书选文27篇，包含了从科幻小说、戏剧对话到哲学论文多种文体，除两位编者的作品外，更有图灵、博尔赫斯、道金斯、内格尔等重要人物的代表作。各篇文章围绕自我感、精神是否存在及有否特性、身心关系、自由意志、自我意识和“自我”特性等经典问题分类编排，每篇结尾均附主编者的评论反思。选文、反思及二者间的隔空对话，各有精彩与妙趣，对理解相关哲学认知问题、生物问题、人工智能问题等应大有助益。

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。  

     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。

托尔斯泰50岁时，已创作出《战争与和平》《安娜·卡列尼娜》这样的世界名著，但面对自己的人生，他依旧困惑，甚至感到痛苦。他因痛苦而忏悔，因忏悔而追问，追问生命的本质，追问人生的意义，追问幸福是什么。在忏悔的*后，他终于找到答案……