The Constitution of the Athenians describes the political system of ancient Athens. The treatise was composed between 330 and 322 BC.

In these talks, given in Europe and India, Krishnamurti goes into the importance of going into problems openly, without conclusions. "..because we approach our problems partially, through all these various forms of conditioning, it seems to me that we are thereby not understanding them. I feel that the approach to any problem is of much more significance than the problem itself, and that if we could approach our many difficulties without any particular form of conditioning or prejudice, then perhaps we would come to a fundamental understanding of them." An extensive compendium of Krishnamurti's talks and discussions in the USA, Europe, India, New Zealand, and South Africa from 1933 to 1967—the Collected Works have been carefully authenticated against existing transcripts and tapes. Each volume includes a frontispiece photograph of Krishnamurti , with question and subject indexes at the end. The content of each volume is not limited to the subject of the title, but rather offers a unique view of Krishnamurti's extraordinary teachings in selected years. The Collected Works offers the reader the opportunity to explore the early writings and dialogues in their most complete and authentic form.

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.

Confucius believed that the welfare of a country depended on the moral cultivation of its people, beginning from the nation's leadership. He believed that individuals could begin to cultivate an all-encompassing sense of virtue through ren, and that the most basic step to cultivating ren was devotion to one's parents and older siblings. He taught that one's individual desires do not need to be suppressed, but that people should be educated to reconcile their desires via rituals and forms of propriety, through which people could demonstrate their respect for others and their responsible roles in society.

On Interpretation is among the earliest surviving philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit, and formal way.

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

The Laws are discussed by three representatives of Athens, Crete, and Sparta. The Athenian, as might be expected, is the protagonist or chief speaker, while the second place is assigned to the Cretan, who, as one of the leaders of a new colony, has a special interest in the conversation. At least four-fifths of the answers are put into his mouth. The Spartan is every inch a soldier, a man of few words himself, better at deeds than words. The Athenian talks to the two others, although they are his equals in age, in the style of a master discoursing to his scholars; he frequently praises himself; he entertains a very poor opinion of the understanding of his companions.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Das Buch besteht aus vier Teilen. Der erste Teil erschien 1883, der zweite und dritte 1884, der vierte 1885 als Privatdruck. 1886 ver?ffentlichte Nietzsche die drei ersten Teile als ?Also sprach Zarathustra. Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen. In drei Teilen.“ Im Gegensatz zu den frühen Werken Nietzsches handelt es sich beim Zarathustra nicht um ein Sachbuch. In hymnischer Prosa berichtet ein personaler Erz?hler vom Wirken eines fiktiven Denkers, der den Namen des Persischen Religionsstifters Zarathustra tr?gt. Nietzsche selbst nennt den Stil, in dem Also sprach Zarathustra geschrieben ist, halkyonisch und wünscht sich Leser, die eines ?gleichen Pathos f?hig und würdig sind“: ?Man muss vor Allem den Ton, der aus diesem Munde kommt, diesen halkyonischen Ton richtig h?ren, um dem Sinn seiner Weisheit nicht erbarmungswürdig Unrecht zu tun“. Dass Nietzsche diese Leserschaft in seiner Gegenwart nicht gesehen hat, legt der Untertitel des Werkes nahe: ?Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen“.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) este o figur? legendar? a filosofiei germane, opera sa fiind baza ? revolu?iei copernicane“ petrecute ?n istoria g?ndirii ?n plin? er? de av?nt al romantismului. ?n volumul de fa?? sunt cuprinse dou? eseuri foarte pu?in cunoscute publicului amator de filosofie, ?n care vom reg?si g?ndurile filosofului privitoare la ?nceputuri (ale istoriei omenirii) ?i sf?r?ituri (ale lumii ?n general). Scrise dup? celebra triad? a ? Criticilor“, textele poart? amprenta sistemului kantian de g?ndire, dar constituie totodat? ?ncerc?ri remarcabile de abordare a unor subiecte de larg interes, analizate din perspectiva ve?nicei clauze a ? condi?iilor de posibilitate“. Orice minte uman? care va ?ncerca s? cuprind? ?nceputul ?i sf?r?itul se va vedea constr?ns? ?ntr-un fel sau ?n altul de limitele pe care Kant ?ncearc? s? le expun? aici ?n idei c?t mai simple.? Istoria naturii ?ncepe a?adar cu binele, c?ci este lucrarea lui Dumnezeu, iar istoria libert??ii cu r?ul, c?ci este lucrarea oamenilor. Pentru individ, care, ?n exerci?iul libert??ii prive?te doar c?tre sine, o astfel de schimbare a fost o pierdere pentru natur?, ale c?rei scopuri sunt orientate spre oameni ca specie, a fost un c??tig.“

Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea (1855-1920), critic literar ?i politician intelectual, s-a num?rat printre primii sociologi ai Rom?niei. Lucrarea de fa??, care ?ncheie celebrul studiu Neoiobagia, constituie prima analiz? bine ?ntemeiat? a vie?ii sociale care a caracterizat Rom?nia ?ntre 1866 ?i Al Doilea R?zboi Mondial, fiind o concluzie ?i totodata o sintez? a acestui studiu.Dincolo de cifre ?i de personajele citate, dincolo de obiectele specifice ale analizei, cititorul r?bd?tor poate descoperi c?, sub forma diferit?, vom g?si de data aceasta un fond: fibra profund? din care se ?mpletesc ve?nicele noastre probleme na?ionale.? ?i doar? din cele spuse se vede clar unde rezid? r?ul ??rii. O organiza?ie social? ?i de stat antagonic? ?i contradictorie, care preface institu?iile ei ?n aparen?e ?i minciun?. O via?? politic? ?i economic? plin? de resturi feudale, care nu vor s? moar?, ?i bazat? pe capitalismul modern,care nu poate ?nc? s? tr?iasc?.“ - Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea

Pamfletul Sim?ul comun (1776) a fost un veritabil best-seller ?n epoc?, succesul de care s-a bucurat reflect?ndu-se ?n numeroasele republic?ri. Lucrarea pledeaz?, cu argumente solide, pentru separarea total? a coloniilor americane de Marea Britanie, invoc?nd drepturile naturale ale oamenilor, egalitatea ?i suveranitatea fiec?rei fiin?e, supunerea doar fa?? de lege ?i caracterul absurd al institu?iei monarhiei. Autorul surprinde cu verv? ?i fine?e toate circumstan?ele favorabile desprinderii de patria-mam?, ?ndemn?ndu-?i concet??enii s?-?i decid? singuri soarta.

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.“

Critica ra?iunii pure, tradus? de Nicolae Bagdasar ?i Elena Moisuc ?n 1969, a ajuns la cea de-a treia edi?ie. Cu acest prilej, profesorul dr. Ilie P?rvu, de la Facultatea de Filosofie a Universit??ii din Bucure?ti a ?ngrijit noua opera?ie de editare, fiind astfel corectate unele erori de tipar ?i unele inconsecven?e terminologice. Totodat?, exist? un motiv ?n plus pentru ca studen?ii care posed? edi?ia a II-a a traducerii, ap?rut? ?n 1995, s? apeleze ?i la cea de-a treia edi?ie: ?n aceasta din urm? au fost indicate diferen?ele dintre edi?ia I german? (din 1781) ?i edi?ia a II-a (din 1787).

Volumul red? circuitului public, pentru prima oar? ?n limba rom?n?, trei din operele g?nditorului atenian. Este vorba de Scrisori (?n num?r de treisprezece, deosebit de importante pentru cunoa?terea g?ndirii platoniciene, dar ?i pentru ?n?elegerea epocii ?i a personalit??ilor cu care a venit ?n contact filosoful), Dialoguri suspecte (Minos, Rivalii, Theages, Hipparhos, Clitofon) ?i Dialoguri apocrife (Axiohos, Despre drept, Despre virtute, Demodocus, Sisyfos, Eryxias).Traducerea apara?ine lui ?tefan Bezdechi, care a realizat ?i aparatul critic al Scrisorilor (introducere ?i note).

F?r? a propune o terminologie aristotelic? bine precizat? pe teritoriul limbii rom?ne, transpunerea de fa?? reprezint? un moment important ?n raportarea rom?neasc? la opera Stagiritului.Traducere de ?tefan Bezdechi efectuat? dup? textul grec publicat de W. Christ ?n colec?ia ?Teubner“, Lipsca, 1906. Pentru realizarea ei au fost utilizate urm?toarele surse:Die Metaphysik des Aristoteles, traducere ?n limba german? de J. R. V. Kirchmann, ap?rut? ?n dou? volume ?i prev?zut? cu note ample ?n colec?ia ?Philosophische Bibliothek“, numerele 38 ?i 39, la Berlin, ?n 1871;Aristoteles, Metaphysik, traducere ?n limba german? de Adolf Lasson, ?n care cele patrusprezece c?r?i ale Metafizicii sunt a?ezate ?ntr-o r?nduial? mai logic? dec?t a?a cum au fost transmise ?n originalul grec, traducere ap?rut? ?n 1924, la Jena;Aristote, Métaphysique, traducere ?n limba francez? de J. Tricot, cu o prefa?? de A. Diés, ap?rut? ?n colec?ia ?Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques“, J. Vrin, la Paris, ?n 1933.La marginea textului a fost trecut? pagina?ia edi?iei Bekker, dup? care se fac ?n mod obi?nuit cita?iile din opera lui Aristotel.Confruntarea traducerii a fost f?cut? de prof. Aram M. Frenkian.