...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

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.

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.

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

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.

19世纪末20世纪初，是人类社会发生深刻变化的关键时期，也是马克思主义发展的重要时期。如何认识资本主义新变化的本质？马克思主义在时代新变化面前还有没有生命力？在新的历史条件下无产阶级面临的*紧迫任务及其实现路径是什么？以列宁为代表的马克思主义者，科学地回答了时代提出的重大问题，与各种错误思潮展了坚决斗争，有力地推了马克思主义的重大发展，为马克思主义在20世纪波澜壮阔的历史揭了精彩的序幕。 在《20世纪马克思主义发展史》（九卷本）的体系结构中，本卷具有反映历史承、时代转换和内容综合的特殊性质，总体遵循逻辑与历史相统一的思路，采用史论结合的叙述方法，着力考察19世纪末至十月革命前马克思主义发展史上的重大事件、重要人物、重著作，力图全面、准确地反映这一时期马克思主义发展的历史风貌。

本书坚持马克思主义社会历史观的基本观和基本原理，在存在论的高度上阐释了马克思的生产、劳动、资本、现代和历史等概念。主要内容包括：历史唯物主义是科学的历史观、人类社会和自然界、生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑、社会意识、科学及其在社会历史中的地位和作用等。

1917年7月，胡适受蔡元培之邀就任国立北京大学文科教授，讲授中国古代哲学史、中国名学、英文高等修辞学。胡适一边教学，一边编写教材。顾颉刚曾对同窗傅斯年推荐：“胡先生讲的的确不差，他有眼光、有胆量、有断制，确是一个有能力的哲学史家。” 　　自1919年至1937年间。胡适多次在北京大学讲授中国哲学史，而且主要是讲中古哲学史和近世哲学史，其中1919年2月出版的《中国哲学史大纲》（卷上）就是在讲义的内容基础上修定而成。胡适是首位采用了西方近代哲学的体系和方法研究中国哲学的人，由于他的出现，中国的思想史才初具规模。他在中国哲学史，甚至在各种专史和通史的研究方面，都是创性的，他觉得是中国哲学思想史的山鼻祖。 　　《胡适的北大哲学课》以胡适在北京大学的所有哲学讲义为母本，再综合胡适关于中国哲学的其他著作整理而成，力求为读者构建一个*全的胡适哲学体系，让读者*直的感受哲学大师的风采。

《厚黑学》一书的内容涉及到文学、哲学、政治、经济学、心理学、社会学等诸多研究领域，在文学界和思想界产生过轰动效应和重大影响，而且他的著作历七八十年之久，至今仍畅销不衰。 《厚黑学》内容宏博，见解深邃，启迪心智，文笔流畅轻松，语言幽默隽永，既让人增长见识，深受教益，又让人从中获得一种非常特殊的阅读快感与审美享受。

本书是美国比较文学学会前会长、著名汉学家苏源熙教授关于比较文学的名著。作者通过讨论中国的《诗经》注释史，从而广泛地探讨了存在于其中的比较诗学的课题。本书采用解构主义的修辞阅读方法，重构了中国儒家对于《诗经》诗歌的注释方式，将其视为一种“讽寓性”的古典美学模式；又以同样的修辞阅读法，重新解读了17—18世纪欧洲传教士关于中国哲学问题的争论和黑格尔对中国历史的哲学论述，并将这两者与儒家注经者并置，把他们的工作视为可资比较的、以美学模式建构中国历史的创造。另一方面，此书在《诗经》研究上也颇多新见，具体分析了《诗经》从“诗言志”到“诗以言志”中得到“讽寓性”意义的过程，指出《国风》讽寓意义的获得与汉儒将注释《雅》《颂》的传统施加到《国风》上有关，又分析了《诗大序》及其理论来源《礼记·乐记》两者差异中表现出的意义，而在对《诗经》具体文本的细读中也能发现重大的理论问题。

12次遛狗，12个哲思时刻。一个喋喋不休的主人，一个听到哲学术语就头疼的狗狗，一场有趣的哲学脱口秀。学哲学就像遛狗，可以选择不同的路线——朝哪边走，走多远，甚至目的都可以不同。 这是一本狗狗也能“听”懂的哲学导读，当然，这本书是写给人的，而不是写给狗的，解决的是人的问题。比如什么是做“对”的事？什么是美好生活？真的有自由存在吗？生命的意义究竟是什么？作者用*生活化的例子讲述身边的哲学，用哲学来理解当下生活。 现在，让我们从“犬儒”始，走哲学的世界吧！读完后，你会发现哲学很简单，生活也是。

《尼采四书》套装包含德国哲学家尼采*重要的四部作品：一是《悲剧的诞生》，二是《快乐的科学》，三是《查拉图斯特拉如是说》，四是《权力意志》。 一、《悲剧的诞生》是青年尼采在巴塞尔大学当教授时的作品，讨论主题是作为*文艺种类的希腊悲剧。 二、《快乐的科学》是尼采中期的代表作，科利版编者甚至认为它在尼采哲学中具有“中心地位”，主要是因为它有承上启下的意义。该书主体部分由五部箴言/格言组成，共有383节；头部分是德语韵律短诗，标题取自诗人歌德的同名小歌剧《戏谑、诡计与复仇》；结尾部分（附录）则是尼采作于西西里岛的一组诗，立题为“自由鸟王子之歌”。从这本书始，尼采作为哲学家越来越走向孤独，越来越偏离严格学术的方法理想。尼采此时已经形成了成熟的箴言体哲学写作风格，它超越科学和艺术，又将两者合一，构成一种“快乐的科学”。 三、《查拉图斯特拉如是说》可能是尼采著作中*有名的一本，更可以说是尼采著作中*可读、也*不好懂的一本。此书一头就提出了骇人听闻的判词“上帝死了”，尼采成熟时期关于“超人”、“权力意志”和“永恒轮回”的核心思想，均在其中得到了传达。 四、《权力意志》是尼采晚期笔记，是一本未竟之作，这些笔记是为他所谓的“哲学主楼”准备的。尼采雄心勃勃的大书计划（形而上学计划）虽未既，但已有相当成熟的构思。

《四书章句集注》是南宋著名思想家、哲学家朱熹重要的代表作品，其主要内容是对儒家典籍《大学》《中庸》《论语》《孟子》所做的注释。该书自元末至清末，一直作为科举考试的标准教材，被历代学子视为求学入仕的书，在历史上曾产生了非常深远的影响。时至今日，其政治色彩虽然已经退去，但由于朱熹所注简明扼要，准确易懂，且多引用二程、张载等前贤时彦相关论述，故仍是研读“四书”的书。此次推出的《四书章句集注今译》，是对朱熹所做注释的白话翻译，并对朱注中一些不太容易理解的地方，在不增加阅读负担基础上，酌情予以注释。

如果要问，读者（包括一般读者以及对尼采有特殊兴趣的读者）在阅读尼采发表的本著作时，能够得到什么益处，简短的答案将是：这是一本非常吸引人的书，它简明扼要地将19世纪思想的方方面面呈现在读者面前。此书不仅为尼采其他的作品做了铺垫，也为19世纪后发生的文化及思想运动奠定了基础。因此，在第1章和第2章，我们将论述对尼采影响*的几个事件，其他的影响会在本书主体章节（第3章）陆续提到。在第4章，我们会介绍《悲剧的诞生》一书发表后的反响，被读者受的情况，以及它的长远影响。

在人类的思想长河中，历史唯物主义已经走过了100多年的历程。100多年来，历史唯物主义是如何走上历史舞台的，具体是如何影响人类历史程的？今天的我们，为什么仍然需要历史唯物主义的指导？本书用深浅出的语言，对历史唯物主义产生的历史背景、所发挥的历史作用及其精髓做了介绍，对其本身的发展历程及趋势做了梳理展望，并对其与当今社会的联系行了广泛而系统的分析。作者指出，历史唯物主义为中国道路奠定理论基础，中国道路将彰显历史唯物主义的理论风采。历史唯物主义正在当代中国书写着新的篇章。

      本书包括由四篇文章组成：       一、《中国历史讲话》，原系作者于1938年春为学生授课时的讲稿，当年夏天整理成书，由中央陆军军官学校石印行世。此文宣扬汉、满、蒙、回、藏五族同源，主要意在为各民族团结抗战提供历史依据。       二、《中国历史纲要》，据作者未刊手稿整理，写作时间约在《中国历史讲话》前后。此文重在强调作史应注意之，并兼述作者对宋明理学的看法，由此可见作者的民族观、历史观和学术史观。       三、《中国哲学与西洋科学》，系作者发表在黄海化学工业研究社附设哲学研究部《特辑》上的一篇讲词，1946年作者在四川乐山五通桥编定印行。       四、《论六经》，由作者于1951年春在北京写给董必武、林伯渠、郭沫若的一封长信扩充而成，当年夏天由大众书店印行。此文分论儒家六经，尤其重论述了《礼经》中的《周官》一篇，并对新中国文化教育方针提出了许多建设性的意见。

为什么你掌握的信息越多，反而越难看到事物本质？ 《看到并看见：如何成为一个犀利的人》一书通过对于洞见能力的阐述、提升方法和应用策略，帮助我们穿过纷繁与复杂的表象，看到事物的本质与趋势，做出精确与高效的判断，帮助读者撕开事物的伪装，在似是而非的选择题中发现正确的答案。

《辜鸿铭讲论语》是近代国学大儒辜鸿铭以浅显又精炼的英文向西方读者翻译、讲解论语的著作。全书内容贯通中西，不仅将中国人物、中国朝代与西方历史上具有相似特点的人物与时间段作了比较，还不时引用莎士比亚等西方著名学者的话来注释某些经文，使得普通的英语读者都能看懂这本代表着中国人智力和道德风貌的中文小册子。 辜鸿铭《论语》译本是一个世纪以来风靡欧美、通行世界的《论语》读本。它易于理解，深入浅出，语言活泼生动，不止适合国外的读者，更适合当今传统文化复兴的浪潮下渴望进一步理解传统文化的现代中国读者。

本书是费尔巴哈的早期著作，是作者在广泛深入地研究了莱布尼茨著作的基础上写成的，书中含有丰富的资料，提出了许多重要的论点。

作者以其在本书中提出“财产就是盗窃”的论点而蜚声于世。该书从小资产阶级立场出发批判资本主义大私有制，认为可以通过保护小私有制摆脱资本主义的各种弊端。