Bu alma ilk olarak ekim 2007`de bir internet sitesinde (exlibrary.com) e-kitap formunda yaymland; daha sonra birinci kitabmn ikinci blümünde yer ald. Bu almay tekrar gzden geirip küük baz düzeltmeler yaptm. Bu kitapn ilham kayna Thomas Nagel’in “Her ey Ne Anlama Geliyor” balkl eseridir. 70 sayfalk bu küük ama youn kitab okuduumda hayran olmutum. Nagel almasnn giri blümünde unlar yazm: “Günümüzün ve gemiin büyük filozoflarndan seilmi metinler ieren birok harika giri el kitab vardr. Elinizdeki bu küük kitap onlarn yerine geecek türden bir kitap deildir. Onun, yalnzca, konuya olabildii kadar ak ve dorudan bir ilk deerlendirme sunmasn umuyorum.” Ben de aynsn umarak bu almaya ykündüm ve ortaya bu be deneme kt. Daha nce yaymlanm bu denemelerin yeniden yaymlanmasnn anlam hakl olarak sorulabilir. Ben de derim ki belki yeni baz okurlarn ilgisini ekebilir belki de yeniden okunabilir. Bu sefer de neden yeniden okunsun ki diyenler kabilir; ben de Borges’in bir szünü aktarmakla yetinirim: “Okumak nemli deildir, nemli olan yeniden okumaktr.” Yazar Hakknda Prof. Dr., 1955 doumlu. 1976 da Ankara niversitesi Fen Fakültesi kimya mühendislii blümünden mezun oldu. Eskiehir Anadolu ve Eskiehir Osmangazi niversitesinde retim üyesi olarak alt. 2002 de emekli oldu. Akademik yaynlar haricinde felsefe konusunda sobil yaynclk tarafndan yaymlanm ü kitab vardr: 1.“Düünmek zerine Düünmek” (2009), 2. “Zorunluluk ve Sorumluluk” (2012), 3.“Nietzsche ve Schopenhauer ile küük bir sylei” (2018).

Via?a fiec?ruia dintre noi se desf??oar? pe fundalul unor nara?iuni?sau teorii filosofice discrete ?i insesizabile, care ne ofer? sens ?i ne ?ndrum? ?n momentele de cump?n?.Au o istorie fascinant? ?i uneori extrem de agitat?, care st? m?rturie?pentru str?daniile noastre de a ?n?elege lumea ?i de a o transforma ?ntr-un mediu familiar.Cartea de fa?? ne prezint? istoriile a trei dintre aceste nara?iuni,?cunoscute mai mult filosofilor, cu toate c? ele ?ncearc? s? ofere r?spuns?la ?ntreb?ri tulbur?toare ?i de?o importan?? cov?r?itoare pentru?noi to?i: de ce exist? lumea, ?n ce const? identitatea persoanei, ce?este realitatea.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) este o figur? important? a filosofiei secolului XIX ?i unul dintre prefa?atorii principalelor curente de g?ndire din secolul XX, fiind considerat fondatorul pragmatismului american. Cele dou? eseuri prezentate aici, primele din seria cunoscut? sub numele Ilustr?ri ale logicii ?tiin?ei, sunt reprezentative pentru opera sa, caracterizat? de profunzimi ?i subtilit??i specifice unui g?nditor care beneficiaz? ?i de preg?tirea unui om de ?tiin?a.Cu toate c? sunt uneori pur abstracte, observa?iile privitoare la convingeri ?i idei r?m?n, indiferent de sistem, puncte principale de sprijin pentru distinc?ia ?ntre g?ndirea s?n?toas? ?i cea viciat?.“ Este groaznic s? vezi cum o singur? idee neclar?, o singur? formul? f?r? ?n?eles, care se furi?eaz? ?n capul unui t?n?r, va ac?iona uneori ca un obstacol de materie inert? ?ntr-o arter?, ?mpiedic?nd circula?ia ?n creier ?i condamn?ndu-?i victima spre ofilire ?n plenitudinea vigorii intelectuale ?i ?n mijlocul abunden?ei intelectuale.“ - Charles Sanders Peirce

Critic erudit ?i pamfletar de for??, Paul Zarifopol (1874-1934) a fost un fin observator al omului ?i al fibrei care alc?tuie?te ?es?turile sociale profunde. Volumul de fa?? cuprinde eseuri care au r?mas de o actualitate acut?, chiar ?i la aproape un secol dup? ce au fost scrise.Coroziv ?i doct, discursul aduce ?n fa?a cititorului concepte esen?iale pentru morala ?i politica mai mult sau mai pu?in balcanice ale Rom?niei interbelice. Lumina ?n care ne sunt prezentate tipul politic ?i geniul organizator, de pild?, ne ofer? at?t senza?ia unei glacia?iuni temporale, c?t ?i pe aceea a unei familiarit??i inefabile.

Scriitorul francez Xavier de Maistre (1763-1852) este fratele mai mic ?i mai pu?in celebru al g?nditorului Joseph de Maistre. Ironist fin ?i amator de filosofie, el ??i invit? cititorul ?ntr-o c?l?torie prin propria camer?, prilejuit? de cele ?ase s?pt?m?ni de arest cu care a fost pedepsit pentru participarea la un duel. Umorul ?i ingeniozitatea fac din acest text aparent banal o critic? spumoas? ?i fascinant? a viciilor umane ?i sociale bogat ?i expresiv ilustrate de contemporanii autorului ?i ai cititorului deopotriv?. Leprosul din Cetatea Aosta, un text prea pu?in semnificativ ca dimensiuni, constituie ?i el una dintre cele mai mi?c?toare incursiuni ?n arcanele condi?iei umane.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) este unul dintre p?rin?ii liberalismului ?n g?ndirea politic?. Textele de fa?? reprezint? cel mai important segment din Leviathan - cea mai important? lucrare a lui Hobbes, scris? ?n 1651, care poate fi considerat pe bun? dreptate punctul de pornire al trecerii de la sabie la cuv?nt ca principal? arm? ?n politic?. Cititorul poate descoperi ?n aceste pagini un filosof care s-a aplecat asupra temei societ??ii cum pu?ini au f?cut-o ?nainte de secolul XX, ?ntruc?t acesta este ?miezul fierbinte“ al g?ndirii hobbesiene, pe care arhicunoscutele sintagme ?starea de natur?“ ?i bellum omnium contra omnes nu au reu?it niciodat? s?-l scoat? la iveal?.

...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).”

Volumul cuprinde o culegere de eseuri scrise de un filosof despre c?teva teme fierbin?i ale actualit??ii. Este un exerci?iu de ?angajare“ ?n cotidian, explor?nd statutul ?i ?utilitatea“ abord?rii filosofice ?ntr-o lume care pare s? -?i fi pierdut direc?ia. Valentin Mure?an scrie despre criza filosofiei, despre felul ?n care ar trebui reformat sistemul de ?nv???m?nt, despre anomaliile culturale ale dragostei ori despre secretul construirii unor institu?ii morale. Reflec?iile, amare ?n constat?ri, dar entuziaste ?n construirea solu?iilor, sunt completate de c?teva portrete sentimentale ale unor colegi.

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.

Caesar, advancing by moderate journeys, and continuing his march without intermission, arrived at Lilybaeum, on the 14th day before the calends of January. Designing to embark immediately, though he had only one legion of new levies, and not quite six hundred horse, he ordered his tent to be pitched so near the sea-side that the waves lashed the very foot of it. This he did with a view that none should think he had time to delay, and that his men might be kept in readiness at a day or an hour's warning. Though the wind at that time was contrary, he nevertheless detained the soldiers and mariners on board, that he might lose no opportunity of sailing; the rather, because the forces of the enemy were announced by the inhabitants of the province, to consist of innumberable cavalry not to be numbered; four legions headed by Juba, together with a great body of light-armed troops; ten legions under the command of Scipio; a hundred and twenty elephants, and fleets in abundance. Yet he was not alarmed, nor lost his confident hopes and spirits. Meantime the number of galleys and transports increased daily; the new-levied legions flocked in to him from all parts; among the rest the fifth, a veteran legion, and about two thousand horse.

When the war broke out at Alexandria, Caesar sent to Rhodes, Syria, and Cilicia, for all his fleet; and summoned archers from Crete, and cavalry from Malchus, king of the Nabatheans. He likewise ordered military engines to be provided, corn to be brought, and forces dispatched to him. Meanwhile he daily strengthened his fortifications by new works; and such parts of the town as appeared less tenable were strengthened with testudos and mantelets. Openings were made in the walls, through which the battering-rams might play; and the fortifications were extended over whatever space was covered with ruins, or taken by force. For Alexandria is in a manner secure from fire, because the houses are all built without joists or wood, and are all vaulted, and roofed with tile or pavement.

Caesar, although he was not as yet at open enmity with him, determined neither to aid him by his influence nor openly oppose him on this occasion. But the consuls Lentulus and Marcellus, who had previously been on unfriendly terms with Caesar, resolved to use all means in their power to prevent him from gaining his object. Marcellus in particular did not hesitate to offer Caesar other insults. Caesar had lately planned the colony of Novumcomum in Gaul: Marcellus, not content with taking from it the right of citizenship, ordered the principal man of the colony to be arrested and scourged at Rome, and sent him to make his complaints to Caesar: an insult of this description had never before been offered to a Roman citizen.

Pornind de la leg?tura natural? care se creeaz? ?ntre mam? ?i copil, D.W. Winnicott exploreaz? o serie de probleme cotidiene din via?a unui bebelu? ?i a mamei lui, cum ar fi hr?nirea, pl?nsul ?i joaca, grijile, primele mi?c?ri spre independen??, precum ?i, mai t?rziu, probleme serioase, cum sunt furtul ?i minciuna. Importan?a mamei la ?nceputul vie?ii, timiditatea, educa?ia sexual? ?n ?coal? ?i r?d?cinile agresivit??ii sunt expuse ?ntr-o manier? direct?, accesibil? ?i prietenoas?. Pe parcursul fiec?rui capitol, Winnicott scoate ?n eviden?? abilit??ile ?nn?scute ale mamei ?i ale p?rin?ilor ?n general ?i face diferen?a ?ntre acestea ?i deprinderile care trebuie achizi?ionate de-a lungul timpului de c?tre cei care cresc ?i educ? un copil. Capacitatea voastr? de a ?ti ceea ce este real ?i ceea ce nu este real ?i este de mare ajutor copilului din toate punctele de vedere, pentru c? el nu reu?e?te s? ?n?eleag? dec?t treptat c? lumea nu este a?a cum ne o imagin?m ?i c? imagina?ia nu este chiar ca lumea real?. Dar fiecare are nevoie de cealalt?. ?ti?i prea bine c? primul obiect pe care ?l iube?te bebelu?ul – o buc??ic? de p?tur? sau o juc?rie moale –?nseamn? pentru el o parte din propria persoan? ?i, dac? i o lua?i sau o da?i la sp?lat, este o tragedie. C?nd bebelu?ul ?ncepe s? arunce obiectul iubit ?i alte obiecte (a?tept?ndu-se, desigur, s? le ridice cineva ?i s? i le dea ?napoi), atunci ?ti?i c? a venit momentul ?n care ave?i ?i voi permisiunea de a pleca ?i a v? ?ntoarce. Unele persoane cred c? un copil este ca lutul ?n m?inile unui olar. Ele ?ncep s? ?l modeleze ?i se simt responsabile de ceea ce vor ob?ine. Total gre?it. Dac? asta este ceea ce sim?i?i, ve?i fi cople?i?i de o responsabilitate pe care nu trebuie s? v-o asuma?i. Dac? accepta?i ideea c? bebelu?ul con?ine ?n el tot ce ?i trebuie pentru a tr?i, atunci ve?i putea acorda mai mult? aten?ie procesului de dezvoltare ?i ve?i fi ferici?i s? r?spunde?i nevoilor lui.

Are femeia vreun rol ?n evolu?ia spiritual? a b?rbatului? Ce anume, ?n iubire ?i ?n erotism, declan?eaz? intui?ii ?i tr?iri care dep??esc datul, ordinarul, norma? Otto Weininger, un g?nditor catalogat drept misogin ?i antisemit, repune ?n discu?ie opera Peer Gynt al lui Ibsen, st?ruind asupra temelor sale favorite: superioritatea masculinului, asociat spiritului, fa?? cu femininul, asociat instinctualit??ii oarbe, lipsite de spirit, de perspectiv?, deci ?i de valoare. Aforistica acestui autor, deopotriv? prezent? ?n volumul de fa??, abordeaz? problematica sadismului ?i a masochismului, imoralitatea dus? p?n? la ilegalitate ?i crim?, culmin?nd cu – sau decurg?nd din – p?catul originar.

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?!

...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.

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.).

Mülkiyet kar??t? ya?l? anar?ist, hayat?n?n son y?llar?nda ironik bir durumda kald?. ?svi?re vatanda?l???na girmenin yollar?n? arayan Bakunin'e sunulan se?enek, orada bir ev sahibi olmas?yd? ve belki de en hazini, sahip olaca?? bu ev nedeniyle, polisin, resm? tutanaklara “Michael Bakunin, rantiye” notunu dü?mesiydi. 18 May?s 1814'te Rusya'da do?an Michael Aleksandrovich Bakunin, 1 Temmuz 1876'da ?ldü?ünde ülkesinden ?ok uzaklardayd? ve cenazesinde yaln?zca 30–40 ki?i vard?. Gen? Bakunin i?in, “A?k, insan?n yeryüzündeki en üst misyonuydu. Bir insan?n kendini a?ks?z vermesi, Kutsal Ruh’a kar?? i?lenmi? bir günaht?”.. ?Kad?nlar taraf?ndan olduk?a ?ekici bulunan Mihail'in ise kad?nlarla ili?kisi hep ruhsal bir a?k olarak kald?.??svi?re'nin muhte?em manzaras? e?li?inde George Sand romanlar? okuyan Bakunin, Frans?z dü?üncesinin Alman dü?üncesinden üstün oldu?u inanc?n? sa?lamla?t?r?yordu. ? Bakunin, Marx i?in, “O, beni duygusal idealist olarak adland?r?yordu; hakl?yd?. Ben de onu, hoyrat, kendini be?enmi? ve ac?mas?z olarak de?erlendiriyordum; ben de hakl?yd?m” diyordu.. ? Kendisine ili?kin konularda kindar olmayan Bakunin, Herzen'in kar?s?na g?sterdi?i so?uklu?u hayat?n?n sonuna kadar unutamad?.?“Art?k reaksiyonun muzaffer gü?lerine kar?? Sisifos'un ta??n? yuvarlamak i?in ne gerekli güce ne de güvene sahibim. Bu yüzden, mücadeleden ?ekiliyor ve arkada?lar?mdan tek bir iyilik bekliyorum: "Unutulmak”,?Orta ve ge? on dokuzuncu yüzy?lda, radikal sol –yani, a?g?zlü kapitalizm ele?tirmenleri ve sanayi i??ilerinin ?zgürlü?ünün savunucular?– iki temel franksiyona ayr?l?yordu: Marksistler ve anar?istler. Kabaca s?ylemek gerekirse (ki bu son derece kar???k bir hik?yedir), kazanan Marksistler oldu ve yirminci yüzy?l?n tüm ba?ar?l? sol devrimleri –Rus, ?in ve Küba, ?rne?in– Marksist ilkelere ba?l?l?klar?n? ilan ettiler. ? Marksistler ile anar?istler aras?ndaki sava? bu noktada tarihsel bir meraktan ?te devam eden bir meseledir. Pi?man olmayan ya da ele?tirilmeyen tek ger?ek Marksist sol Kim Jong Il ve taraf etraftaki birka? entelektüel ve profes?rdür. Anar?izm ise uygulanabilir bir toplumsal hareket olarak ?kinci Dünya Sava??yla yava? yava? tükenmeye yüz tutmu?ken küreselle?me kar??t? hareket ve d?nemimizin di?er radikalizmleri i?inde yeniden dirilmeye ba?lam??t?r. ? Ne var ki, d?neminde –Marx’?n di?erleriyle aras?ndaki– bu sava? bir ?lüm kal?m meselesiydi ve Marksizm muhtemel kapitalizm kar??t? olarak ve yan? s?ra anar?izm kar??t? olarak tan?mlan?yordu. Asl?nda, Marx’?n yazarl??? anar?izme y?nelik sald?r?lar? a??s?ndan handiyse gülün? bir geni?li?e ula?m??t?r. Marx’?n Alman ?deolojisi kitab?n?n büyük b?lümü –yüzlerce sayfas?– bireyci/anar?ist Max Stirner’e y?nelik bir sald?r?dan ibarettir. Felsefenin Sefaleti Proudhon’a kar?? büyük?e bir fikir sava??d?r. Marx onca zaman ve enerjisini Bakunin’e sald?rmaya harcam??t?r: ?“dangalak!”?“canavar, et ve ya? y???n?,” “sap?k” vesaire: ?bu tabirler, has?mlar? s?z konusu oldu?unda Marx’?n bildik üslubudur: yazarl??? yar? bilimsel inceleme, yar? s?zlü tacizdir. Marx’?n, gerek kendi a?z?ndan gerekse de kimi s?zcülerini kullanarak ony?llar boyunca y?neltti?i ve muhtemelen di?erleri denli e?lenceli olmayan var olan su?lamas?, Bakunin’in bir muhbir oldu?u y?nündeydi ve Marx’?n bu ba?ar?l? sald?r?lar? nihayetinde Bakunin’in Enternasyonal ???i Z?mb?rt?s?ndan tasfiyesine yol a?t?.. ?

Among the notable books of later times-we may say, without exaggeration, of all time--must be reckoned The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. It deals with leading personages and transactions of a momentous epoch, when absolutism and feudalism were rallying for their last struggle against the modern spirit, chiefly represented by Voltaire, the Encyclopedists, and Rousseau himself--a struggle to which, after many fierce intestine quarrels and sanguinary wars throughout Europe and America, has succeeded the prevalence of those more tolerant and rational principles by which the statesmen of our own day are actuated. On these matters, however, it is not our province to enlarge; nor is it necessary to furnish any detailed account of our author's political, religious, and philosophic axioms and systems, his paradoxes and his errors in logic: these have been so long and so exhaustively disputed over by contending factions that little is left for even the most assiduous gleaner in the field. The inquirer will find, in Mr. John Money's excellent work, the opinions of Rousseau reviewed succinctly and impartially. The 'Contrat Social', the 'Lattres Ecrites de la Montagne', and other treatises that once aroused fierce controversy, may therefore be left in the repose to which they have long been consigned, so far as the mass of mankind is concerned, though they must always form part of the library of the politician and the historian. One prefers to turn to the man Rousseau as he paints himself in the remarkable work before us. That the task which he undertook in offering to show himself--as Persius puts it--'Intus et in cute', to posterity, exceeded his powers, is a trite criticism; like all human enterprises, his purpose was only imperfectly fulfilled; but this circumstance in no way lessens the attractive qualities of his book, not only for the student of history or psychology, but for the intelligent man of the world. Its startling frankness gives it a peculiar interest wanting in most other autobiographies. Many censors have elected to sit in judgment on the failings of this strangely constituted being, and some have pronounced upon him very severe sentences. Let it be said once for all that his faults and mistakes were generally due to causes over which he had but little control, such as a defective education, a too acute sensitiveness, which engendered suspicion of his fellows, irresolution, an overstrained sense of honour and independence, and an obstinate refusal to take advice from those who really wished to befriend him; nor should it be forgotten that he was afflicted during the greater part of his life with an incurable disease. Lord Byron had a soul near akin to Rousseau's, whose writings naturally made a deep impression on the poet's mind, and probably had an influence on his conduct and modes of thought: In some stanzas of 'Childe Harold' this sympathy is expressed with truth and power; especially is the weakness of the Swiss philosopher's character summed up in the following admirable lines: "Here the self-torturing sophist, wild Rousseau, The apostle of affliction, he who threw Enchantment over passion, and from woe Wrung overwhelming eloquence, first drew The breath which made him wretched; yet he knew How to make madness beautiful, and cast O'er erring deeds and thoughts a heavenly hue Of words, like sunbeams, dazzling as they passed The eyes, which o'er them shed tears feelingly and fast. "His life was one long war with self-sought foes, Or friends by him self-banished; for his mind Had grown Suspicion's sanctuary, and chose, For its own cruel sacrifice, the kind, 'Gainst whom he raged with fury strange and blind. But he was frenzied,-wherefore, who may know? Since cause might be which skill could never find; But he was frenzied by disease or woe To that worst pitch of all, which wears a reasoning show."

老子他说+道家、密宗与东方神秘学+静坐修道与长生不老+中国道教发展史略+禅宗与道家