The reasons for some animals being long-lived and others short-lived, and, in a word, causes of the length and brevity of life.

Diderot, tanr?sal, dinsel inanc?n yerine akl? ge?iren adamd?r, onun sava??m? buydu ve bütün k?r inan?lar? silip süpüren bu ak?l, g?rünen dünyay?, do?ay?, felsefenin, sanat?n, sa? t?renin temel ilkesi durumuna getirdi. Diderot’un yayg?n ?al??ma alan?n? olu?turan ilkedir bu. Maddeci ve gerekirci bir filozoftu. tanr?ya inanan ki?inin filozof olmayaca??n? s?yledi. 'K?rler üstüne mektup'taki k?r, kendini tanr?ya inand?rmaya ?al??an misyonere "bunun i?in tanr?ya parma??mla dokunmam gerekir" der. Diderot, bu yüzden hapse girdi. 'D'alembert'in dü?ü'nde, madde tanr?n?n yerini alm??t?r art?k. Madde devinim ve duyarl?l?kla donat?lm??t?r. Bilim gerekircili?in kan?t?d?r. Bütün varl?klar ?z?e birdir ve bir ge?i?, de?i?im, olu?um süreci i?inde bulunurlar. ?yle ise sa? t?renin temeli do?a olacakt?r. Do?as? gere?i insan iyidir, hristiyan sagtoresinin sand??? gibi do?u?tan günahkar de?il ve iyilikler de, k?tülükler de, düzenin, ko?ullar?n, e?itimin ürünüdür. ?nsan, bu gerekircilik anlay??? i?inde, ?zgür olamayaca?? i?in, su?lu da bulunamaz. bu üslama sonucu olarak sanat, do?ay? ?rnek almal?d?r. roman, resim, oyun ger?ek?i olmal?d?r. Diderot, bunlar? s?ylemekle kalmam??, romanlar? ve oyunlar? ile ?rneklendirmi?tir de ve ?a??n?n sanat??lar?n? bu a??dan de?erlendirmi?tir. Diderot, büyük sava??m? ve e?siz ?abas? ile insanl???n ba?tac?d?r bugün de ve onu b?ylesine unutulmaz k?lan i?lerinin ba??nda ise elbet 'ansiklopedi' gelir. 'Ansiklopedi', yunanca enkyklios paidela'dan yap?lm??t?r ve bütün bilimleri i?ine alan ??retim anlam?na gelir. s?zcü?ü bulan rabelais'dir (1532). Diderot ile d'alembert'in ansiklopedisine temel olan yap?t, ?ng?l?z chambers’?n cyelopaedia’s? idi; fakat diderot'nun etkisi ile ansiklopedi, bir ?eviri yap?t olmaktan ??k?p, gizemcili?e kar?? bilimin sava? alan? durumunu ald?. Bu yüzden de gerici ?evrelerin kar?? koymas?n? sonu?lad?. diderot, ya?am? boyunca ?al??t? 'ansiklopedi' i?in, bir?ok maddeyi kendisi yazd?. bu u?urda yepyeni ara?t?rmalara giri?ti, teknik de?i?mekte oldu?u i?in ortaya yeni ara?-gere?ler ??kmakta idi, bunlar? tan?d?, adland?rd?, tan?tt? ve fransa'y? ayd?nlanma ?a??'n?n avrupa'da g?zbebe?i durumuna getirdi. Ancak unutmamal? ki, bir ansiklopedi ortaya ??karan her ülkeyi ayd?nlanma ?a??'n? alg?lam?? sayamay?z. ?o?u ülkede bu tür yap?tlar, geni?letilmi? s?zlükler olmaktan ileri gidememi?tir. diderot’nun ansiklopedisi, toplu bilgi vermekten ?ok, dinsel inan?lara kar?? bilimlerin ??retimini üstlenmi?ti, demek yans?z de?ildi, metafizikle ve skolastikle ?arp???yordu..

M. Lévy-Bruhl then explains that, whilst recognising the entire coherence of Comte’s collective labours, he proposes to confine his present study to the earlier and principal work, the Philosophy, which in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion is the dominant and more fruitful composition.??This he regards as the representative work of the nineteenth century, as shown by the intellectual history of the period. He points to its influence on thought in England, in Europe, and in America. It will surprise many persons to learn that in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion two eminent French writers, who assuredly neither were, nor were supposed to be, Positivists, “have done more for the diffusion of the ideas and method of Comte than Littré and all the other Positivists together.” ??These two are Taine and Renan, much as they differed from Comte’s actual scheme and doctrines. Renan indeed spoke of Comte as destined to prove one of the typical names of the century. The present writer remembers Renan saying to him with a most genial welcome, “I too am a believer in the religion of humanity.” ??Professor Lévy-Bruhl followed up his History of Modern Philosophy in France by a substantial work on the philosophy of Auguste Comte. It forms a volume of the Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine, which has already devoted four other works to the Positive Philosophy. It is as well to premise that this treatise dealt solely with the philosophy, not with the polity, or any part of the religious scheme of Comte. Professor Lévy-Bruhl writes as a student, but not as an adherent of Auguste Comte. His entire work is rather an exposition, not a refutation, or a criticism, or an advocacy of Comte’s philosophical system. But it may be said at once that no one abroad or at home, certainly neither Mill, nor Lewes, nor Spencer, nor Caird, has so truly grasped and assimilated Comte’s ideas as M. Lévy-Bruhl has done.??In his Introduction M. Lévy-Bruhl very clearly states the scope of his work, and his own general attitude. He traces the origin of Comte’s philosophy in the mental effervescence of the first generation of the present century towards a reorganisation of society, after the upheaval left by the Revolution and its consequences. He correctly states the relation of St. Simon to Comte as being that of an initial stimulus. ??The cardinal difference between Comte and all the socialists and founders of social and religious Utopias consisted in this, that Comte saw the necessity of a new system of philosophy as the indispensable preliminary to any reorganisation of society.

The Protagoras, like several of the Dialogues of Plato, is put into the mouth of Socrates, who describes a conversation which had taken place between himself and the great Sophist at the house of Callias—'the man who had spent more upon the Sophists than all the rest of the world'—and in which the learned Hippias and the grammarian Prodicus had also shared, as well as Alcibiades and Critias, both of whom said a few words—in the presence of a distinguished company consisting of disciples of Protagoras and of leading Athenians belonging to the Socratic circle.

It is remarkable how closely the history of the Apple-tree is connected with that of man. The geologist tells us that the order of the Rosaceae, which includes the Apple, also the true Grasses, and the Labiatae, or Mints, were introduced only a short time previous to the appearance of man on the globe.

At the time Thoreau made this wilderness canoe trip he was forty years old. The record of the journey is the latter half of his The Maine Woods, which is perhaps the finest idyl of the forest ever written. It is particularly charming in its blending of meditative and poetic fancies with the minute description of the voyager’s experiences.

The first of Immanuel Kant's mature works on moral philosophy and remains one of the most influential in the field. Kant conceives his investigation as a work of foundational ethics, one that clears the ground for future research by explaining the core concepts and principles of moral theory and showing that they are normative for rational agents. Kant aspires to nothing less than this: to lay bare the fundamental principle of morality and show that it applies to us.

The Critique of Practical Reason follows on from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and deals with his moral philosophy. The second Critique exercised a decisive influence over the subsequent development of the field of ethics and moral philosophy, beginning with Johann Gottlieb Fichte's Doctrine of Science and becoming, during the 20th century, the principal reference point for deontological moral philosophy.

《论证是一门学问》是一本清晰、简洁、实用、有趣的论证规则手册。本手册能够使你的文章、谈话、辩论及论文写作更有理有据，更有说服力，更容易被读者、听众和对手欣然接受。 作者运用大量易于理解、趣味性十足、生活化的例证，归纳了 50 条论证规则，涵盖各学科、各种类型的论证。 本书首先告诉你构建简论的通则：如何从可靠的前提出发，如何理顺思路，如何使自己的论证简明、具体；其次，介绍了举例论证、因果论证和演绎论证，讨论了详论、口头陈述以及议论文写作和公共辩论所应遵循的规则；后，作者又揭开了论证过程中常见的谬误及陷阱。 《思维的模式》是20世纪伟大的思想家怀特海的代表著作之一，书中收录了他的九篇演讲，在这些演讲中，他阐述了自己综合性的思维模式。 现代科学给我们建立了一种思维模式，即在有限前提下作出假定。怀特海反对这种固有的思考模式。 他认为，我们不应该将自己的视野局限于此，而不思索世界和生活的整体。他认为哲学产生于好奇，如果缺乏兴趣，我们对任何问题的探讨都会是机械的。 怀特海所说的兴趣不是建立在对一般环境条件反射的基础之上，不是对琐碎细节的兴趣，他认为高级思维应该在世间万物中间建立联系，每一个事实都包含无限的细节，无限的细节会生发无数的结果。 这种综合的思维模式能够带给我们新颖的思考角度，开拓我们的视野，激发我们的创造力和创新性思维。它能够使我们打破固有的思考方式，建立灵活、多变的思维模式，实现学习、职场和生活的进阶。 《我们如何思维》是著名哲学家、教育学家约翰?杜威的代表作之一，详述了思维的过程和本质，并通过大量实例帮助我们提高思维能力。指出思维的本质并非记忆、听来的故事或偏见，而是经过批判、推理、论证结论之后的信念；提出了反省思维的必要性，表明只有正确思维才能提高规划与谋略能力，获取避免不良后果的措施；提供了进行思维训练的一系列步骤，包括加入逻辑推理要素，进行系统性的推论和试证，引入实例验证思维结果的正确性，等等。有助于我们对思维有一个全新而正确的认识，突破本能的禁锢，跳出思维舒适区，掌握科学有效的思维方法，并终提升实践活动中的效能。

Το παρ?ν βιβλ?ο ?55 Χρ?νια Σκ?ψει? & Διαλογισμο?? ε?ναι το απ?σταγμα συνεχο?? προσπ?θεια?, αναζητ?σεων, προβληματισμ?ν, σκ?ψεων και διαλογισμ?ν εν?? ανθρ?που. Με πολυπο?κιλο και ποικιλ?μορφο θεματικ? περιεχ?μενο σε πεζ? κυρ?ω? μα και ποιητικ? λ?γο, τα θ?ματα ε?ναι ?λα απ? την καθημεριν?τητα: Κοινωνικ?, πολιτικ?, φιλοσοφικ?, ερωτικ?, γενικ?τερη? αναζ?τηση? κ.τ.λ.Πολλ? τα ερωτ?ματα που ξεπροβ?λλουν εμπρ?? σε κ?θε σκεπτ?μενο ?νθρωπο που βαδ?ζει το προσωπικ? του μονοπ?τι π?νω στην γη και ο οπο?ο? αναζητε? απαντ?σει? και λ?σει? των προβλημ?των τη? ζω??. Γιατ? αντιμ?χονται οι λαο?; Γιατ? μαλ?νουν οι ?νθρωποι; Τι δυσκολε?ει την ανθρ?πινη επικοινων?α την καθημεριν?; Τι ε?ναι η τ?χνη και η ομορφι?; Τι ε?ναι οι επιστ?με? οι πολλ?? και ποια ε?ναι τα ?ρια του? τα αληθιν?; Πρ?πει να τι? εμπιστευ?μαστε λοιπ?ν; Τι ε?ναι η ?σοφ?α? και η ?ομορφι?? και ποιε? οι γν?σει? που αξ?ζουν τελικ?; Ποια ε?ναι η αλ?θεια η μοναδικ?. Υπ?ρχει γν?ση αντικειμενικ?; Υπ?ρχει το καλ? και το κακ?; Ε?ναι λοιπ?ν τα τρ?α ιδανικ?, η ?Αγ?πη?, η ?Γν?ση? και η ?Αλ?θεια? τελικ?;?τσι λοιπ?ν ξεκ?νησα ?να πρω?, τι? σκ?ρπιε? σκ?ψει? μου αυτ??, το κατακ?θι μια? ολ?κληρη? ζω?? ?λων εκε?νων για τα οπο?α τ?σο πολ? ?χω προβληματιστε? και ?λα τα ερωτ?ματ? μου που ?χουν καταγραφε?, να τα μαζ?ψω ?να πρω?, ?λα αυτ? που ε?χα καταγεγραμμ?να εδ? και εκε?, σε ?να βιβλ?ο προσωπικ? σκ?ψεων και διαλογισμ?ν. Ε?ναι ?να βιβλ?ο τη? ζω?? λοιπ?ν το βιβλ?ο αυτ?, βγαλμ?νο απευθε?α? μ?σα απ? την ζω? που με συγκ?νηση το καταγρ?φω και με περ?σσια περισυλλογ?.Ε?ναι βιβλ?ο τη? ζω?? και απευθ?νεται σε κ?θε σκεπτ?μενο καλοπροα?ρετο και ?ντιμο αναγν?στη αλλ? και σε ηλικ?ε? νεαρ??, που με την καθαρ?τητα που ?χουν στη ψυχ?, πιο ε?κολα κι αντιλαμβ?νονται το ?μορφο, το δ?κιο και το σωστ?. Πεν?ντα π?ντε χρ?νια σκ?ψεων και διαλογισμ?ν ε?ναι το βιβλ?ο αυτ?. Ε?ναι μια αναζ?τηση τη? ?Αγ?πη??, τη? ?Γν?ση?? και τη? ?Αλ?θεια?

In several of the dialogues of Plato, doubts have arisen among his interpreters as to which of the various subjects discussed in them is the main thesis. The speakers have the freedom of conversation; no severe rules of art restrict them, and sometimes we are inclined to think, with one of the dramatis personae in the Theaetetus, that the digressions have the greater interest. Yet in the most irregular of the dialogues there is also a certain natural growth or unity; the beginning is not forgotten at the end, and numerous allusions and references are interspersed, which form the loose connecting links of the whole.

The Phaedrus is closely connected with the Symposium, and may be regarded either as introducing or following it. The two Dialogues together contain the whole philosophy of Plato on the nature of love, which in the Republic and in the later writings of Plato is only introduced playfully or as a figure of speech. But in the Phaedrus and Symposium love and philosophy join hands, and one is an aspect of the other. The spiritual and emotional part is elevated into the ideal, to which in the Symposium mankind are described as looking forward, and which in the Phaedrus, as well as in the Phaedo, they are seeking to recover from a former state of existence.

Our next task is to study coming-to-be and passing-away. We are to distinguish the causes, and to state the definitions, of these processes considered in general-as changes predicable uniformly of all the things that come-to-be and pass-away by nature. Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures.

Imagineaz?-?i c? e?ti într-o ma?in? a timpului care te poart? înainte ?i înapoi prin propria via??. Te duce în trecut, la anii copil?riei, când înv??ai s? mergi pe biciclet?, apoi te face s? revezi primul t?u s?rut, cel dintâi serviciu sau anii mai târzii, când te confrun?i, eventual, cu divor?ul. Înso?it de Platon, afl? ce spun marii gânditori ai lumii despre toate aceste pietre de hotar de pe drumul vie?ii noastre. Aristotel î?i va vorbi despre importan?a începerii ?colii, Freud despre îndr?gostire, Heidegger despre implica?iile psihologice ale mutatului, iar Nietzsche despre criza vârstei de mijloc. La drum cu Platon te ajut? s? în?elegi ?i s? vezi cu al?i ochi evenimentele majore, momentele-cheie ?i fazele de tranzi?ie din via?a ta, f?când filosofia s? par? accesibil? ?i plin? de umor!

Nietzsche este, poate, cea mai ilustr? victim? a aventurii socratice a cunoa?terii de sine. Via?a nu posed? fenomene originale, ci numai unele repetitive, care prin reluarea lor ve?nic identic? ??i tocesc conturul lor original. Cadrul repeti?iei nu este via?a, c?ci via?a ?ns??i este un fenomen de repeti?ie. Omul este condamnat s? tr?iasc? ?ntr-un plictisitor ?ir de repeti?ii ?i relu?ri din care nu poate evada. Nu exist? fenomene absolut unice, care s? nu fie repetitive ?i, probabil, la fel este ?i cu oamenii. To?i au mai fost nu o dat?, ci de nenum?rate ori ?n trecut ?i vor mai fi de nenum?rate ori ?n viitor. Tot ce trebuia ?i putea s? se produc? s-a produs deja. Restul este doar monoton? repeti?ie: ve?nic? revenire a aceluia?i. Eterna ?ntoarcere exprim? nu devenirea heraclitean? f?r? repaos, ci marile linii de stabilitate din cadrul existen?ei. Prin ea, Nietzsche vrea s? eternizeze trec?torul, socotind timpul ca etern, etern? ?ntoarcere, adic? schimbare ?i stabilitate. Ecce homo este ?i exerci?iul acestui impas al g?ndirii lui Nietzsche. Prin aceasta ?ns? Nietzsche ?i-a adus contribu?ia la instaurarea unui nou ?idol“ al lumii moderne dup? ce aceasta a denun?at prezen?a ?idolilor“ de tot felul ?n spa?iul ei de con?tiin??. (Vasile Musc?)??ntruc?t, ?n scurt timp, va trebui s? m? adresez omenirii cu cea mai grea solicitare care i-a fost prezentat? vreodat?, mi se pare imperios necesar s? spun cine sunt. ?n principiu, ar trebui s? se ?tie: c?ci nu m-am l?sat ?neatestat?. Dar discrepan?a dintre m?re?ia misiunii mele ?i micimea contemporanilor mei ?i-a g?sit expresia ?n faptul c? nici nu am fost auzit, nici nu am fost v?zut. Tr?iesc pe propriul meu credit, s? fie poate o simpl? prejudecat? faptul c? tr?iesc?... Este de ajuns s? stau de vorb? cu vreun ?om cultivat?, care vine vara ?n Engadina de Sus, ca s? m? conving c? nu tr?iesc... ?n aceste ?mprejur?ri, este o ?ndatorire ?mpotriva c?reia obi?nuin?a mea ?i, mai mult chiar dec?t aceasta, m?ndria instinctelor mele, se revolt?, anume aceea de a spune: Auzi?i-m?! c?ci eu sunt cutare ?i cutare. ?nainte de toate, nu cumva s? m? confunda?i!“ (Friedrich Nietzsche)

n Filosofia meritului autorul folosete metoda fenomenologic pentru a prezenta evoluia instituiilor socio-morale care reglementeaz meritele; autorul propune n acest scop concepte originale, cum sunt ideonomia (sistemul de idei care fundamenteaz teoretic un sistem de apreciere a meritului); socionomia (sistemul de reguli care legitimeaz social un merit specific unei comuniti) i politonomia (sistemul de norme prin care se instituionalizeaz juridic meritul politic).Tratatul de Filosofie a meritului este structurat n trei pri corespunztor celor trei domenii existeniale n care se manifest fiina uman, spiritual, social, politic. Lucrarea prezint n extenso criteriile, principiile i formele de manifestare a meritului, premisele constituirii sistemelor sociale de apreciere a meritului, natura bio-psihic i socio-moral a meritelor precum i caracterul normativ al meritelor politico-juridice. Prima parte abordeaz sfera meritele cu caracter antropologic, antroponomic i antropocratic. Partea a doua prezint n extenso meritele cu caracter sociologic, socionomic i sociocratic i partea a treia analizeaz formele de manifestare a meritului din perspectiva politologiei, a politonomiei i a politocraiei. n fiecare capitol se regsesc argumente logice, etimologice i sociologice care justific aprecierea unor atribute i caliti umane ca merite individuale. Fiecare din cele douzeciiapte de capitole explic un tip de merit din tripl perspectiv: ideal social i politic.

In The philosophy of mathematics, mathematics employee classification efforts to understand the philosophy is the branch.?The main question is related to the source of the object that is the subject of mathematics and mathematics. In particular examine the characteris-tics of a true proposition:??? What are the sources of mathematical subject matter??? What is about the meaning of a mathematical object??? What is the nature of a mathematical proposition??? What is the relationship between logic and mathematics??? What is the role of mathematics hermeneutic??? Mathematics played a role in the investigation which type?? What is the subject of mathematical investigations??? What is the human traits behind mathematics??? What is mathematical beauty??? What is the nature and source of mathematical truth???What is the relationship between mathematics and abstract material universe with the world???Another important issue is the reality of a mathematical the-ory. Mathematics (from the Natural Sciences as different) experimentally is sought reasons to find real specific mathematical theory can not be tested (see. Epistemology). Luitz that Brouwer 's laid the foundation for intuitionist mathematics of the representatives knew of this view. The logical mathematics is the approach of Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege was defended by David Hilbert, formalism is considered the repre-sentative of the current. Traditionalism logician the empiricist's (Rudolf Carnap, A. J. Ayer, Carl Hempel) were represented by one of the key issues in the philosophy of mathematics is also important to regard the certainty problem. Austrian logician Kurt G?del's also work Mathema-tics and mathematics.

Alchimia fericirii, publicat? ?n persan? (Kimiya?yi sa’adat), spre sf?r?itul vie?ii autorului, urm?re?te atenuarea tensiunilor dintre filosofii ?i misticii Islamului ?i scoate ?n eviden?? importan?a autodisciplinei ?i a ascetismului. Traducerea de fa?? are la baz? traducerea publicat? ?n 1910, ?n englez? de Claud Field (The Alchemy of Happiness) ?i este structurat? ?n opt capitole, aproximativ egale ca ?ntindere. Cartea de fa?? reune?te o serie de interpret?ri ale unor pilde cu con?inut religios evocate ?n Coran ?i ale unor idei exprimate de Mahomed, de al?i profe?i sau ?nv??ati musulmani. Chestiunile abordate de Al-Ghazali aduc ?n prim-plan ideea unei vie?i religioase exemplare. Astfel, el prezint? mai multe sfaturi pentru musulmanii pio?i. Raportul omului cu divinitatea, cu semenii s?i, cu rudele apropiate, dar ?i implica?iile religioase ale institu?iei c?s?toriei sau ale muzicii ?i dansului sunt printre cele mai importante subiecte din lucrarea lui Al-Ghazali. S? ?tii, o, preaiubite, c? omul nu a fost creat ?n glum? sau la ?nt?mplare, ci a fost f?cut ?ntr?un fel minunat ?i pentru un ?el ?nalt. Chiar dac? nu a existat dintotdeauna, el tr?ie?te ve?nic; ?i chiar dac? trupul s?u este slab ?i p?m?ntesc, spiritul ?i este m?re? ?i dumnezeiesc. ?i cu c?t este mai ales subiectul cunoa?terii noastre,cu at?t mai mare va fi ?nc?ntarea sim?it? ?n studierea acestuia; de exemplu, ne?ar face mai mult? placer s? ?tim secretele unui rege dec?t dac? am afla secretele unui ministru. V?z?nd c? Dumnezeu este cel mai ?nalt obiect posibil pentru cunoa?terea noastr?, cunoa?terea Sa trebuie s? ne d?ruiasc? mai mult? desf?tare dec?t oricare alta.

Iako je napisao veoma zna?ajne radove iz drugih podru?ja filozofije?(npr. Sistem logike, gde izla?e na?ela induktivnog zaklju?ivanja, ili Utilitarizam, gde izla?e shvatanje da svako treba da dela tako da proizvede najve?u sre?u za najve?i broj ljudi), Mil je najtrajniji utjecaj ostavio svojim radovima iz politi?ke filozofije i etike. Njegovo delo O slobodi smatra se jednim od temeljnih tekstova savremenog liberalizma. U njemu Mil zagovara na?elo da je ljudsku slobodu dozvoljeno ograni?avati samo ukoliko ?teti drugima. Na?elo ?tete, kako se to na?elo ?esto naziva, u svojoj primeni na ure?enje dru?tvenih odnosa isklju?uje sve despotske i autoritarne oblike vlasti koji gu?e slobodu pojedinaca i njihovu individualnost. Od posebne va?nosti za sre?u pojedinca i dru?tva u celini jeste sloboda govora, koja ni?im ne sme biti ograni?ena. Na Milovoj raspravi O slobodi njen prevodilac, kralj Petar I Kara?or?evi?, tvorac dr?ave Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, zasnovao je svoj politi?ki program.

Lucrarea aceasta se bazeaz? pe teza de doctorat a autorului, sus?inut? ?n iunie 2008, Problema drept??ii ?i restituirea propriet??ilor ?n Rom?nia post-decembrist?, fiind ?ns? o versiune modificat? a tezei. Dup? cum m?rturise?te autorul, unele pasaje tehnice au fost adaptate, pentru a putea fi u?or inteligibile pentru publicul larg. Cartea de fa?? este rezultatul unor ample cercet?ri, ?ncepute ?n 2002. ?Nu mai cred c? principala datorie a filosofului moral este de a produce ?solu?ii? (sentin?e) la problemele etice percepute ca atare ?ntr-un univers social. […] La fel ca ?ntr-un tribunal, pledoariile sunt utile, ?i e bine s? se foloseasc? de argumente c?t mai puternice ?i mai rafinate. Dar, la fel cum cercetarea ?n materie de drept nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv principal producerea de pledoarii specific avoca?ilor (cu toate c? examinarea fundamentelor legii poate conferi o greutate suplimentar? unei pledoarii particulare sau alteia), tot a?a cercetarea de ordin etic nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv ceva similar pledoariilor.“ Con?inutul este organizat ?n 7 capitole, concluzii ?i o bibliografie, util? f?r? ?ndoial? pentru oricine ar dori s? aprofundeze chestiunile abordate de autor. Introducerea este urmat? de o discu?ie conceptual? ?i metodologic? despre repara?ie (capitolul 2), rectificare, restitu?ie, drepturile de proprietate ?i evaluarea moral? a restitu?iei. Celelalte capitole se ocup? de urm?toarele teme: nedreptatea na?ionaliz?rii (capitolul 3), restitu?ia post-comunist? (capitolul 4), argumentul coasian (capitolul 5), restitu?ia ?i dreptatea transgenera?ional? (capitolul 6), principiul nozickian al rectific?rii nedrept??ilor (capitolul 7). ?Am ?ncercat apoi s? analizez ce anume presupune c?utarea unui r?spuns la o ?ntrebare de tipul ?Este restitu?ia justificat? ?? (?n 2.3.) Rezultatul important, cred, a fost acela c? nu exist? un r?spuns simplu, ?i c? o astfel de ?ntrebare este prost formulat?. Am propus ?n loc alte cinci ?ntreb?ri, mai precise : dac? actul na?ionaliz?rii a fost unul nedrept, dac? o politic? restitutiv? risc? sau nu s? ?ndrepte o nedreptate trecut? ?nf?ptuind o alta, dac? putem identifica cu precizie obiectele restitu?iei ?i dac? orizontul temporal introduce elemente importante ?n cadrul de evaluare moral? (at?t ca atare, c?t ?i ?n dimensiunea sa intergenera?ional?). ?n primul r?nd, putem afirma c? politica aleas? imediat dup? 1989 (cea a men?inerii status-quo-ului, ?n speran?a c? lucrurile se vor rezolva cumva de la sine sau ca o solu?ie ideal? se va prezenta ?n mod miraculos) a fost at?t lipsit? de vreo justificare moral?, c?t ?i neinspirat? din punct de vedere pragmatic.“

O analiz? aplicat? a operei unuia dintre cei mai controversa?i g?nditori germani, supranumit monahul de la Sils-Maria; o lectur? ?n filigran a modului nietzschean de abordare a c?torva concepte dificile, interpretate la modul catastrofic: supraomul, ve?nica ?ntoarcere a aceluia?i, anti-Christul. Lucrarea se situeaz? ?n buna ?i prestigioas? tradi?ie a marilor creatori care comenteaz? textele fundamentale ale omenirii dintr-un unghi specific.