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.

O parte dintre noi au tr?it vremuri grele pe care uneori le mai vis?m, le povestim sau despre care scriem ?nc?, f?r? patima cumplit? care i-a cuprins pe profitorii de atunci, care ?i ast?zi ne fac r?u, ?i chiar mai r?u dec?t ?pe vremea aceea“, cum se zice. E drept c? noi am prev?zut-o ?ntr-un fel sau altul, spun?nd-o celor care se-ncumetau s? ne asculte, f?r? preten?ia, Doamne, fere?te!, de a ne considera ?i disiden?i, cum o f?cur? cei men?iona?i mai sus. Previziunile noastre s-au bazat pe o anume cunoa?tere a mersului istoriei, care, cum se ?tie, se tot repet?, cu mici deosebiri, fire?te. Oricum, ceva cuno?tin?e de economie politic? nu ne stric? nici ?n zilele noastre, pentru a ne da seama de jocul frecvent al trecerii de la economia politic? la politica economic? ?i, mai ales, al trecerilor de la un sistem sau or?nduire economic? la alta ?i invers, cum le-am tr?it noi: de la capitalism la socialism ?i viceversa. Ca un fel de ciud??enie, au r?mas considera?iunile despre noul eon sau noua er? (New Age) ale filosofului din Lancr?m, mai ales c? acestea s-au realizat abia dup? c?derea comunismului, pe care n-o mai prev?zuse Blaga. (Alexandru Surdu) Eseuri filosofice de acela?i autor 1. Voca?ii filosofice rom?ne?ti, Editura Aca?de?miei Rom?ne, Bucure?ti, 1995, 216 p.; edi??ia a II-a, Editura Ardealul, T?rgu-Mure?, 2003, 206 p. 2. Confluen?e cultural-filosofice, Editura Pai?de?ia, Bucure?ti, 2002, 219 p. 3. M?rturiile anamnezei, Editura Paideia, Bu?cu?re?ti, 2004, 193 p. 4. Comentarii la rostirea filosofic?, Editura Kron-Art, Bra?ov, 2009, 186 p. 5. Izvoare de filosofie rom?neasc?, Editura Biblioteca Bucure?tilor, Bucure?ti, 2010, 171 p.; edi?ia a II-a, Editura Renaissance, Bucu?re?ti, 2011, 161 p. 6. A sufletului rom?nesc cinstire, Editura Re?naissance, Bucure?ti, 2011, 197 p. 7. Pietre de poticnire, Editura Ardealul, T?r?gu-Mure?, 2014, 179 p.

One of the greatest works of philosophy, political theory, and literature ever produced, Plato’s Republic has shaped Western thought for thousands of years, and remains as relevant today as when it was written during the fourth century B.C.Republic begins by posing a central question: "What is justice, and why should we be just, especially when the wicked often seem happier and more successful?" For Plato, the answer lies with the ways people, groups, and institutions organize and behave. A brilliant inquiry into the problems of constructing the perfect state, and the roles education, the arts, family, and religion should play in our lives, Republic employs picturesque settings, sharply outlined characters, and conversational dialogue to drive home the philosopher’s often provocative arguments.Highly regarded as one of the most accurate renderings of Plato's Republic that has yet been published, this widely acclaimed work is the first strictly literal translation of a timeless classic. This Special Collector's Edition includes a new introduction by Prof. Colin Kant, PH.D, a noted Platonian and Socratic scholar.

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.

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.

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?!

n concepia religioas a lui Gogol, diavolul este esena mistic i fiina real n care sa concentrat negarea lui Dumnezeu, rul etern. Gogol, ca artist, la lumina rsului, studiaz natura acestei esene mistice; ca om, cu arma rsului, lupt mpotriva acestei fiine reale: rsul lui Gogol este lupta omului cu diavolul. Dumnezeu este infinitul, sfritul i nceputul existenei; diavolul este negarea lui Dumnezeu i, prin urmare, negarea oricrui nceput i a oricrui sfrit; diavolul este nceputul i neterminatul care se d drept nenceput i infinit; diavolul este mijlocul numenal al existenei, negarea tuturor profunzimilor i culmilor, este platitudinea etern, venica trivialitate. Unicul obiect al creaiei gogoliene este diavolul chiar n acest sens, adic drept manifestare a nemuritoarei trivialiti omeneti”, observat dincolo de toate condiiile de timp i de spaiu – de istorie, popor, stat, societate –, manifestarea rului indiscutabil, etern i universal; – trivialitatea sub speciae aeterni, sub nfiarea eternitii”. (Dmitri Merejkovski)

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.

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.

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.

The Republic (Greek: Politeia) is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning the definition of (justice), the order and character of the just city-state and the just man, reason by which ancient readers used the name On Justice as an alternative title (not to be confused with the spurious dialogue also titled On Justice). The dramatic date of the dialogue has been much debated and though it must take place some time during the Peloponnesian War, "there would be jarring anachronisms if any of the candidate specific dates between 432 and 404 were assigned". It is Plato's best-known work and has proven to be one of the most intellectually and historically influential works of philosophy and political theory. In it, Socrates along with various Athenians and foreigners discuss the meaning of justice and examine whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man by considering a series of different cities coming into existence "in speech", culminating in a city (Kallipolis) ruled by philosopher-kings; and by examining the nature of existing regimes. The participants also discuss the theory of forms, the immortality of the soul, and the roles of the philosopher and of poetry in society. Short Summary (Epilogue):X.1—X.8. 595a—608b. Rejection of Mimetic ArtX.9—X.11. 608c—612a. Immortality of the SoulX.12. 612a—613e. Rewards of Justice in LifeX.13—X.16. 613e—621d. Judgment of the Dead The paradigm of the city — the idea of the Good, the Agathon — has manifold historical embodiments, undertaken by those who have seen the Agathon, and are ordered via the vision. The centre piece of the Republic, Part II, nos. 2–3, discusses the rule of the philosopher, and the vision of the Agathon with the allegory of the cave, which is clarified in the theory of forms. The centre piece is preceded and followed by the discussion of the means that will secure a well-ordered polis (City). Part II, no. 1, concerns marriage, the community of people and goods for the Guardians, and the restraints on warfare among the Hellenes. It describes a partially communistic polis. Part II, no. 4, deals with the philosophical education of the rulers who will preserve the order and character of the city-state.In Part II, the Embodiment of the Idea, is preceded by the establishment of the economic and social orders of a polis (Part I), followed by an analysis (Part III) of the decline the order must traverse. The three parts compose the main body of the dialogues, with their discussions of the “paradigm”, its embodiment, its genesis, and its decline.The Introduction and the Conclusion are the frame for the body of the Republic. The discussion of right order is occasioned by the questions: “Is Justice better than Injustice?” and “Will an Unjust man fare better than a Just man?” The introductory question is balanced by the concluding answer: “Justice is preferable to Injustice”. In turn, the foregoing are framed with the Prologue (Book I) and the Epilogue (Book X). The prologue is a short dialogue about the common public doxai (opinions) about “Justice”. Based upon faith, and not reason, the Epilogue describes the new arts and the immortality of the soul. ? About Author: Plato (Greek: Platon, " 428/427 or 424/423 BC – 348/347 BC) was a philosopher in Classical Greece. He was also a mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his most-famous student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Alfred North Whitehead once noted: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him, although 15–18 of them have been contested. Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts. Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy, logic, ethics, rhetoric, religion and mathematics. Plato is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. His writings related to the Theory of Forms, or Platonic ideals, are basis for Platonism. ? Early lifeThe exact time and place of Plato's birth are not known, but it is certain that he belonged to an aristocratic and influential family. Based on ancient sources, most modern scholars believe that he was born in Athens or Aegina between 429 and 423 BC. His father was Ariston. According to a disputed tradition, reported by Diogenes Laertius, Ariston traced his descent from the king of Athens, Codrus, and the king of Messenia, Melanthus. Plato's mother was Perictione, whose family boasted of a relationship with the famous Athenian lawmaker an

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.).

《哲学是很好玩儿的》(套装共15册)包括生命哲学、心灵哲学等多种哲学思想结晶，读者可以从入门开始，通过通俗易懂的方式学会如何用哲学思维思考，感受哲学里的自我和世界，帮读者重新审视自我和我们栖居的世界，以及和这个世界的关系，捕捉心中迸发的迷惑与感悟，进而把它们锤炼为人生的智慧。

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

本书围绕哲学学科本质和学科基本问题，梳理具体学科的学术史，以便完整清晰的梳理学科发展的脉络，呈现学科发展过程中不同学派和流派的产生、发展变化及其影响。

本书蕴含丰富的哲学思想内涵，对藏传佛教影响深远。本书通过阐释各种法门，演绎了如何抉择、如何获得智慧并成为智者，其阐述的结论体现了藏族极具特色的传统思想内容、观点，而论述的过程则体现了藏传佛教独特的传统思辨方式、方法。这些思想内容和思考方式，细微至藏族人民的日常生活中都有体现，对藏族人民有极深、极大的影响。

我们用甲骨文字义解读《郭店楚简·老子甲》，发现了老子在函谷关写下的《老子真经》的内容。文字义解读《郭店楚简·老子甲》，发现了老子在函谷关写下的《老子真经》的内容。 为了帮助大家一起认识《老子真经》，我们通过前面八篇文章，为大家用甲骨文字义解读了《道德经》中的「弗」、「不」、「亡」、「为」、「又」、「天」、「大」、「地」、「万」、「物」、「自」、「道」字。大家一定看到了，在《道德经》中，这些主要的字几乎都是对《老子真经》的误读。 在这篇中，我们将为大家揭示蕴含在这些误读字背后真正《老子真经》的内涵。 《老子真经》是人类的智慧、超越了人类已知的宗教、科学，是一种超越现代科学对「完整世界」的透彻认识，是一种让宗教变成明明白白的「心智系统」训练。

汇集了南怀瑾先生讲述道家经典的著述。主要包含了对《老子》《庄子》《参同契》《列子》等道家经典的讲解及对中国道教发展史的讲述。南怀瑾先生的学问打通了儒佛道三学，除了阐明道家经典的经义，更以佛入道，以儒论道，重重类比；并在讲解的过程中切入历史和现实，层层例证，使经义不离生活，不离当下，妙不可言。

本套装是南怀瑾先生漫谈金融、历史、国学、教育、文化等内容的讲录，内容精蕴，包含广泛，凡各家学说、中西文化、人生学问，皆有所发挥阐发。先生讲述时，往往援古证今、切于时用，每每表现出中国传统文化的包罗万象和玄深妙用，以及他痴心、醉心于中华文明的缘由和立场。

明中期以降，传统社会抽绎近代化转型，社会经济商业化萌动，社会失范现象频发，传统农业危机与传统社会危机耦合变异，一并加重明朝统治危机，“成化症候”形成。救时成为时代主题。丘濬作为明代广东籍（今属海南省）中央高官、儒臣，向以经世救时为己任，以“三不可及”为时人称道。“养民”是丘濬经世之根本方略，“为民理财”是其经世主要途径，同时，他还从政治、经济、教育、文化等方面论述了他的其他经世救时主张。总之，丘濬站在时代潮头，重视工商业，重视海外贸易，重视民生，为商品经济与社会商品化鼓与呼。丘濬得经世思想是时代产物，具有时代性与步性。

科学社会主义与中国特色社会主义理论体系的关系问题，是中国特色社会主义理论体系研究的首要的基本理论问题。《源远流长——科学社会主义与中国特色社会主义理论体系源流关系研究》以经典文本解读为基础，从社会主义论、执政党学说和发展理论三个维度展，对科学社会主义与中国特色社会主义理论体系的源流关系做出学理研究，指出二者之间有源有流、流自源出、源远流长的关系。卷而知源流，本书对于读者深理解中国特色社会主义理论体系是根植中国大地、反映人民意愿、适应时代发展的当代科学社会主义，析疑解惑，坚定“四个自信”，都有助益。