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?!

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.

Nietzsche despre filologia clasic? – iat? un subiect cu adev?rat pasionant, prilej de satisfac?ii unice pentru amatorul de a urm?ri fascinantul spectacol al form?rii ?i al cunoa?terii de sine. C?ci acest subiect ?nseamn?, de fapt, Nietzsche despre el ?nsu?i ?i ?n acest sens pledeaz? chiar propria sa m?rturie – ?Filologii sunt asemenea oameni care folosesc sentimentul ap?s?tor pe care ?l provoac? infirmitatea proprie omului modern pentru a c??tiga cu el bani ?i p?ine. ?i cunosc, eu ?nsumi sunt unul dintre ei“ (Noi, filologii, fr. 170). Mai precis, este vorba despre o ipostaz? a personalit??ii spirituale nietzscheene considerat? din unghiul evolu?iei sale interioare; dar, nu o ipostaz? oarecare, ci una esen?ial?. ?i aceasta nu pentru simplul motiv c? este cea dint?i, ci pentru c? este cea mai profund?, cea care i-a marcat definitiv orizontul de cultur? ?i de g?ndire ?i a l?sat o amprent? durabil? ?n desf??urarea destinului personal al omului. (Vasile Musc?)

...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

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.

...a knyvet ne tekintsük úgy, mint amelynek a fejldése már befejezdtt, és amin már nincs is mit tkéletesíteni... azzal mintha nem foglalkozna senki, hogy a knyvet miként lehetne az olvasó számára használhatóbbá tenni... nagyon is el tudnék képzelni ergonomikusabban megtervezett és knnyebben kézben tartható knyvet is (amelyet nem ejtek el, ha a mobilom után kezdek kotorászni a 6-os villamoson. Ha egyszer vehetünk jobban kézbe ill tollat, akkor talán ez sem képtelenség).”

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.

Via?a marelui g?nditor german, supranumit sihastrul de la Sils Maria a fost plin? de str?lucire dar ?i de aspecte mai pu?in cunoscute publicului larg. ?ntre ace?tia se num?r? patima fa?? de muzic? a autorului ?tiin?ei vesele ?i A?a gr?ita Zarathustra dar ?i rela?ia de formare ?i de profund? iubire avut? cu Richard Wagner ?i so?ia sa, minunata Cosima – prezen?e vii ?n aceast? monografie eseistic?, ce con?ine fragmente din coresponden?a acestor mon?tri sacri ai culturii universale, coresponden?? ?n urma lecturii c?reia te alegi cu o imagine calda, expresiv?.

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.

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

本书是“经典与解释”第44期，以“博丹论主权”为论题，围绕博丹的主权理论收集了多篇很有参考价值的论文。 博丹（Jean Bodin，1530-1596）是法国法学家和政治哲学家，生活在新教改革的余波之后以及宗教冲突的背景之下，以其主权理论闻名。 博丹的政治哲学同时催生和倡导了（现代）国家学说和主权学说，产生这个错误解读的原因在于将博丹的思想抽离他的语境。到目前为止，被忽视的重要的语境是博丹本人的整体思想。现代学术无情的、简化的研究习惯，不会用博丹自己的术语去表达他的思想，而是用那些所谓有益的步论的术语强行勾勒。这种片面化的做法来自思考现代程的理论家的直兴趣，他们将博丹定义为国家理论和学说的发展过程中的一位“早期”人物，尤其视他为“*王权论”的构想者。学界对他的《政治六书》一直极受忽视，或者说是非常具有选择性的阅读。 本辑论题部分集选的各篇文章都在博丹整体思想的框架内，分别涉及博丹思想的几个重要方面。另外，“古典作品研究”栏目论尤利安皇帝的写作一文，“旧文新刊”收王船山的历史哲学一文，评论中一篇论布里茨《新天新地》，皆是本期亮。

当今世界已逐渐走向精神政治时代。 数字技术正从单纯的监控向主动的操控过渡，人们凭感觉做出的所谓“自由决定”将很快被操控。 无所不在的大数据和新自由主义伦理观造成了资本主义权力的转移和扩张，破坏了个体自由，压制了个体的空间和自主性。 本书扣人心弦地描绘了新自由主义精神政治导致的种种危机。 --------------- 韩炳哲作品系列（见识城邦出品） 《精神政治学》 Psychopolitik 《爱欲之死》 Agonie des Eros 《在群中》 Im Schwarm 《他者的消失》 Die Austreibung des Anderen 《疲怠社会》 Müdigkeitsgesellschaft 《娱乐何为》 Gute Unterhaltung 《暴力拓扑学》 Topologie der Gewalt 《透明社会》 Transparenzgesellschaft 《美的救赎》 Die Errettung des Sch?nen

如何在人生的被动与偶然之中追求意义，收获幸福？ 除了天赋与勤奋，成功的第三要素是什么？ 我们一生必须处理的三种关系是什么？ 人生在世，福祸莫测，如何做到宠辱不惊？ 在耄耋之年，季羡林先生写了一系列关于人生感悟的散文，几乎囊括了人生所有的基本课题，包括人生的意义、命运的偶然、时光的流逝、成功的要素、处世的态度等等。作者不空谈概念，而是根据亲身经历，从小事出发，以朴素的文字道出一个平凡老人的所思所感，引领我们人生课堂，学习自我成长之道。

涵盖了从古代到近现代时期的百家哲学思想，以老子、庄子、孔子、孟子、朱子等圣哲为主线，在立足各哲学家经典著作的基础上，总结概括了其哲学思想的精髓。通过本书，读者不仅可以系统地了解中国经典哲学，也能清晰地感受胡适严谨的治学态度。

本书是南怀瑾先生在太湖大学堂*次讲座的辑录，是关于如何实证佛法的基本阐述。在此次讲述中，南先生结合现代生命科学，现身说法，揭示了安那般那、六妙门、十六特胜、白骨观、禅净双修等佛教诸多修行法门的奥秘，并现场解答了一些听众修证过程中的疑惑。 因南先生一生勤于实证，这次讲座更多的是亲述自己在修证之路上所经历的传奇，以及实证过程中的百转千回和柳暗花明，是“过来人”的“苦心”之作，弥足珍 贵。在探寻禅与生命的真相的道路上，孰可为，孰不可为？如何取舍？如何少走弯路，识破虚妄的假象并避免风险？相信有缘、有心的读者在南师的启发下自会意会。

二十一世纪初有感于文化教育之重要，南怀瑾先生亲自撰成《中国文化教育的自诉》一文，讲述从远古夏商周至清代一脉相承的中华民族文化、历史、教育、生活以及与政治、经济交互影响所产生的演变，叙述清晰扼要，内容发人深省。其后，南怀瑾先生随缘讲课，内容广泛，但终不离文化之根本——或讲述二十世纪以来教育的发展历程，或从人生目标、家教、师道等方面漫谈教育，或简论儒家的发展历程，提出本质上影响中国民间社会的并非儒家或孔孟之教，而是杂家、阴阳家和道家之学，或谈中学与西学的体用问题，等等。《廿一世纪初的前言后语》将此类话题的讲述行整理，与前文合为一体，南怀瑾先生亲自定名为《廿一世纪初的前言后语》以突显众所关心之话题。

马克思主义传中国并成为中国革命指导思想的理论基础，是近代以来中国历史和人民的选择。中国共产党人在领导中国革命的实践中，把马克思主义基本原理和中国革命具体实际相结合，使马克思主义中国化，在新民主主义革命时期实现了马克思主义中国化的*次历史性飞跃。*是马克思主义中国化的伟大拓者，*思想以独创性理论丰富和发展了马克思列宁主义，是马克思主义中国化*次历史性飞跃的理论成果。本卷对1919年至1949年间马克思主义在中国运用和发展的历史程及理论创新、实践创新行了系统研究，系统展示了以*为代表的中国共产党人探索新民主主义革命道路、实现马克思主义与中国实际“*次结合“的理论成果。

　　《孟子》今存七篇，记载了孟子及其弟子的言行，是儒家的重要典籍，也是研究孟子与思孟学派的主要材料。从《离娄》始，属于《孟子》的下半部分。南怀瑾先生从孟子的哲学精神以及维持传统文化的精神方面手行解读，认为《离娄》继承了孔子著《春秋》的精神，具体而微、深又广阔地阐释了中华悠久的文化传统。 　　南先生指出，《离娄》重论述了君臣之道、父子家人相处之道，说明了为君王者治国施政的修养境界—--至诚，为人臣者。高官厚禄者的责任—--能格君心之非，为人师者的文化修养和教育的职责—---促成完整的人格，为人子女者事亲尽孝之道—--守身，即坚持一种人格、行为的标准。此外，还讨论了君子修养的目标，即“自得”以恢复“赤子之心”。南先生特别指出，后世学者对《孟子》多有误读，如“不孝有三，无后为大”。其他两不孝是什么，朱熹认为是“贫不仕”，“陷父母于不义”，他则反对此说，认为应依《孟子》本文，理解为不能事亲、不能从兄。再如“不得罪于臣室”，并非向土豪劣绅恶霸低头，而应理解为民主政治的运作要注重沟通意见，不可得罪政党和大众民意，等等。 　　《孟子》一书的整个精神，都以《春秋》责备贤者的立场为出发。尤其在《离娄》这一章中，大部分讲的是“君道”，就是一个领导人的基本道德修养；以及“臣道”，负有行政责任的高官厚禄者做人处事的道理；乃至“师道”，学术文化的修养以及如何担负社会人类所赋予的责任。

《印度近代瑜伽之光——辨喜的生平、思想与影响》是国内少数研究辨喜生平、思想与影响的专著。作者从三个维度即宇宙、神和人，介绍辨喜的哲学思想及其立论的根本依据，以及所做的瑜伽实践。是一本了解近代印度哲学思想与瑜伽文化的读物。