胡适、陈寅恪、沈从文、周作人、老舍、冯友兰……生命轨迹几乎与20世纪同步的季羡林，与众多标志性人物有着非同一般的交集，而他也在以文会友、师友辅仁的道路上成长为一代大师。本书收录作者怀念一生重要师友的文章，勾绘出一幅20世纪中国知识分子的群像，而贯穿其间的则是时代变迁和个人命运的轨迹。

《牛棚杂忆》是季羡林对文革时期经历的一本回忆录，他以幽默甚至是调侃的笔调讲述自己在“文革”中的不幸遭遇。这一本小书是用血换来的，是和泪写成的。作者希望本书带去的不是仇恨和报复，而是一面镜子，从中可以照见恶和善，丑和美，照见绝望和希望。

本书集中收录了季羡林的系列游记，三四十年代的欧洲、六十年代的非洲、八十年代的日本、九十年代的泰国，每个系列都由一组文章构成，旅行在时间和空间两个维度上进行，于是游记也成为作者生命本身的一种记录。

　　《叔本华静心课》是准确、迅速了解叔本华思想，轻松读懂叔本华思想的*权威读本，曾获得李敖的强烈推荐。本书从叔本华的不同著作中选摘了两百余条格言式语句，用来阐述十个不同的主题：认识自己、清醒、冷静力、生死、读书与思考、出世与入世、修炼心灵、孤独、理智与情感、悲悯等。叔本华超越了哲学家、文学家、语言学家等种种界限，总能将自己清醒的思考以*美的方式呈现，一针见血、入木三分地点出事物的本质，一语道破这个世界的秘密。本书的译者是享誉两岸三地的叔本华翻译和研究专家。

现存二十八篇《今文尚书》传说是秦、汉之际的博士伏生传下来的，用当时的文字写成，所以叫做《今文尚书》（《古文尚》用古代文字写成）。其中《虞夏书》四篇，《商书》五篇，《周书》十九篇。我们选录的是《今文尚书》，不包括书《古文尚书》。原文主要依据清代阮元校订的《十三经注疏》注释和译文广泛参考了研究《尚书》的各种专著。

中信国学大典（50册）是中信出版社引进自香港中华书局的一套深具国际视野、贴近当代社会的中华传统文化经典藏书。中信国学大典延聘国学泰斗饶宗颐为名誉主编，邀请海内外知名国学家担任经典的选编、导读及译注。中信国学大典既收录了《论语》、《老子》、《孙子兵法》、《孟子》、《庄子》等不可不读、不可不知的中华经典名著，也囊括了《诗经》《楚辞》《唐诗三百首》《宋词三百首》《元曲三百首》等耳熟能详的经典作品。 《楚辞》和唐诗、宋词一样，具有高度的文学性，能使当代读者滋生永恒不变的审美愉悦。 　　《大学》讲大学之道，虽远在先秦时代，但它的道理却有永恒而普遍的价值，值得现代人好好学习。它的教训可以用以下的话概括：“万丈高楼从地起，为学做人同一理。”《中庸》说的便是中国人教人立志发心，教人做君子、做圣人的教育。《中庸》说尽性立诚，就是要去除人心中夹杂的羡慕和卑屈，然后做一个堂堂正正的君子，成就自己，成就别人，成就世界。《中庸》对今天的中国人是别具意义的。

“魔鬼的牧师”一词，首先由达尔文于1856年提出，指的是“为进化和自然选择辩护，反对上帝创世论，坚决主张无神论的人”。道金斯以此自居，高举科学大旗，倡导无神论，堪称坚定的进化论者。 《魔鬼的牧师》是超级畅销书作家理查德?道金斯科学创作25年来自选集。25年卓越的科学思考，遴选出32篇精彩的科学美文，涉及基因、宗教、道德、教育、公平、正义等重大公共话题，科学与理性兼具，犀利与温情并存，风格亲切幽默，通俗易懂，是一本绝佳的科普经典读物。理查德?道金斯以超凡的科学学识与独特的人生经验，坚决主张从真凭实据中追求科学真理，唤起人们对物理世界永恒的好奇心。

《菜根谭的智慧》一书在参照各种权威版本的基础上，精心筛选出**可靠性、时代性、契合度的经典原文。为便于阅读，我们将全书分为处世篇、修持篇、养身篇、闲适篇，并编制了主题目录。书中准确流畅的“释义”和详尽的“注释”，更便于您去阅读和理解。独特的“新解”，意在扬弃封建糟粕，赋予时代新义，为您处理社会问题提供有益的借鉴。

元年春王正月，公即位。叔孙豹会晋赵武、楚公子围、齐国弱、宋向戌、卫齐恶、陈公子招、蔡公孙归生、郑罕虎、许人、曹人于虢。三月，取郓。夏，秦伯之弟鍼出奔晋。六月丁巳，邾子华卒。晋荀吴帅师败狄于大卤。秋，莒去疾自齐入于莒。莒展舆出奔吴。叔弓帅师疆郓田。葬邾悼公。冬十有一月己酉，楚子麇卒。公子比出奔晋。

春王正月，元年者何？君之始年也。春者何？岁之始也。王者孰谓？谓文王也。曷为先言王而后言正月？王正月也。何言乎王正月？大一统也。公何以不言即位？成公意也。何成乎公之意？公将平国而反之桓。曷为反之桓？桓幼而贵，隐长而卑，其为尊卑出微，国人莫知。隐长又贤，诸大夫扳隐而立之。隐于是焉而辞立，则未知桓之将必得立也。且如桓立，则恐诸大夫之不能相幼君也，故凡隐之立为桓立也。隐长又贤，何以不宜立？立适以长不以贤，立子以贵不以长。桓何以贵？母贵也。母贵则子何以贵？子以母贵，母以子贵。

The present publication is intended to supply a recognised deficiency in our literature—a library edition of the Essays of Montaigne. This great French writer deserves to be regarded as a classic, not only in the land of his birth, but in all countries and in all literatures. His Essays, which are at once the most celebrated and the most permanent of his productions, form a magazine out of which such minds as those of Bacon and Shakespeare did not disdain to help themselves; and, indeed, as Hallam observes, the Frenchman's literary importance largely results from the share which his mind had in influencing other minds, coeval and subsequent. But, at the same time, estimating the value and rank of the essayist, we are not to leave out of the account the drawbacks and the circumstances of the period: the imperfect state of education, the comparative scarcity of books, and the limited opportunities of intellectual intercourse. Montaigne freely borrowed of others, and he has found men willing to borrow of him as freely. We need not wonder at the reputation which he with seeming facility achieved. He was, without being aware of it, the leader of a new school in letters and morals. His book was different from all others which were at that date in the world. It diverted the ancient currents of thought into new channels. It told its readers, with unexampled frankness, what its writer's opinion was about men and things, and threw what must have been a strange kind of new light on many matters but darkly understood. Above all, the essayist uncased himself, and made his intellectual and physical organism public property. He took the world into his confidence on all subjects. His essays were a sort of literary anatomy, where we get a diagnosis of the writer's mind, made by himself at different levels and under a large variety of operating influences. Of all egotists, Montaigne, if not the greatest, was the most fascinating, because, perhaps, he was the least affected and most truthful. What he did, and what he had professed to do, was to dissect his mind, and show us, as best he could, how it was made, and what relation it bore to external objects. He investigated his mental structure as a schoolboy pulls his watch to pieces, to examine the mechanism of the works; and the result, accompanied by illustrations abounding with originality and force, he delivered to his fellow-men in a book. W. C. H. KENSINGTON, November 1877. THE LIFE OF MONTAIGNE The author of the Essays was born, as he informs us himself, between eleven and twelve o'clock in the day, the last of February 1533, at the chateau of St. Michel de Montaigne. His father, Pierre Eyquem, esquire, was successively first Jurat of the town of Bordeaux (1530), Under-Mayor 1536, Jurat for the second time in 1540, Procureur in 1546, and at length Mayor from 1553 to 1556. He was a man of austere probity, who had "a particular regard for honour and for propriety in his person and attire . . . a mighty good faith in his speech, and a conscience and a religious feeling inclining to superstition, rather than to the other extreme. Between 1556 and 1563 an important incident occurred in the life of Montaigne, in the commencement of his romantic friendship with Etienne de la Boetie, whom he had met, as he tells us, by pure chance at some festive celebration in the town. From their very first interview the two found themselves drawn irresistibly close to one another, and during six years this alliance was foremost in the heart of Montaigne, as it was afterwards in his memory, when death had severed it.

Cartea de fa??, pe care cititorul o ?ine acum ?n m?n?, reprezint? o form? – literar vorbind, foarte complex?, fiindc? ea evolueaz? pe mai multe voci narative, dintre care doar unele ?i apar?in ?n mod direct autoarei – de exorcism. Geniul inimii e r?spunsul unui poet la o experien?? personal? plenitudinar?, ?n care bucuria ?i suferin?a se ?ntrep?trund reciproc pentru a exprima, ?mpreun? ?i tensionat, starea de gra?ie. Exist? o voce a experien?ei biografice ?n aceast? carte scris? febril, o alta de martor sau de participant la istorie, tot a?a cum exist? o voce a puterii ?i una a victimei. Deasupra tuturor st?, ?ns?, nu neap?rat triumf?toare, dar lucid-cerebral?, chemarea celor dou? credin?e pentru care merit? s? tr?ie?ti ?i s?-?i rememorezi via?a atunci c?nd ai ajuns cu ea la r?sp?ntie: credin?a ?n cultura modelelor care te-au precedat ?i credin?a deloc ingenu?, ci ivit? din cunoa?tere, ?n sacralitatea profund? a celor tr?ite ?i ?n transcenden??. (?tefan Borbély) A considera un text drept ?carte a ilumin?rilor mele“ ?i a a?eza ca titlu al primei p?r?i a volumului sintagma Povestea subteranei ne plaseaz? sub semnul aproape imposibil al drumului c?tre Sine, al cuprinderii, al denud?rii ?i al efortului de a ?n?elege un obiect al c?rui adev?r se va afla ?ntotdeauna ?n proximitatea pe?terii lui Platon. E un demers perpetuat, dar niciodat? epuizat ?i aproape exclus din plasma comunic?rii, care – ?n situa?ia ?romanului“ Aurei Christi – nu are coresponden?e, nu se apropie de experien?a budhist?, nici de prerogativele ocultismului de New Age, ci ne aduce ?n vecin?tatea ?ndemnului de pe frontispiciul templului lui Apollo din Delphi, preluat apoi, ca solu?ie ?ntre a fi ?i a p?rea, de c?tre Socrate: ?Cunoa?te-te pe tine ?nsu?i!“. Po?i ?nt?lni, pe acest drum, ?i acel daimonion care a str?juit g?ndirea aceluia?i ?n?elept atenian ca alt? fa?? a ?subteranelor“ fiin?ei, acolo unde lumina se ?ngem?neaz? cu ?ntunericul, stare ?poetizat?“ de Goethe, dar pr?bu?it? ?n tragic de Dostoievski. E o cobor?re spre ?n?elegere prin cuprindere ?i, implicit, prin atingerea nelimitatului. (Mircea Braga) Cartea Aurei Christi Geniul inimii pare o st?nc? masiv?, singuratic?, ?ntr-un peisaj ?mioritic“. Geniul inimii are originalitate ?i for??. Prima parte e liric?, a doua (?ntr-un fel) – o comedie negru-satiric?, a treia – predominant epic-narativ?. Prima parte este excelent?; mi-am ?nsemnat un num?r de poezii memorabile. A doua, ?n centrul ei mai ales, are sec?iuni, pasaje extrem de interesant-pl?cute-amuzante, ?n pofida tonului, uneori, foiletonistic. A treia e impresionant? ?n ansamblu, armonios-coerent?, de o sinceritate sf??ietoare. ?n tot volumul, istoricul, religiosul, subiectivul se leag? foarte frumos ?ntre ele. Nu-mi plac laudele la adresa lui Nietzsche! De fapt, cum se leag? acest autor de Biblie, de Evanghelii?! Aura Christi poate fi m?ndr? de o realizare major?, cu totul original?. Probabil, nu l-a citit pe romanticul britanic Wordsworth; dar el e cel care a scris (sau a ?nceput s? scrie) o memorabil? autobiografie ?n versuri. Pu?ini l-au continuat. Am putea spune c? Aura se num?r? printre cei pu?ini. (Virgil Nemoianu)

"A megsemmisülés rejtélyes sz?vege egyszerre filozófiai traktátus, misztikus beavatás és poszthumán próza. A kortárs irodalomban egyre inkább feler?s?dik ez a nem-antropocentrikus hang, mely nem emberi sorsokat akar elbeszélni, hanem a nyelv és az ember k?z?s hiányt?rténetére mutat rá. ?Mennyien kapaszkodtak a létbe, mint egy végtelen fa t?rzsébe” - írja Horváth Márk és Lovász ?dám, hiszen az emberi állapot csak a társadalmi, nyelvi és metafizikai katasztrófa terében értelmezhet?. Apokaliptikus (neo)romantika és abszurd k?ltészet. Az utolsó ember kézik?nyve a túlélés lehetetlenségér?l."Nemes Z. Márió Az Idegenre hárult a sors ajándéka, hogy els?ként az utolsó emberek k?zu?l végignézze minden ku?ls?dleges k?telék pusztulását, és bizalmát lelkébe, s?t a lelkén is túlra helyezze, minden emberit maga m?g?tt hagyva. Minden ház gerendái k?z?tt barátságok és szerelmek jól táplált holttestei indultak oszlásnak, míg csak a csont fehérlett ki a vízb?l. Mint rég elhagyott kik?t?k tornyai, olyan hívogatóak voltak ezek a csontok az új kor embere számára.

●从未有哪个时代像今天一样，科学让人类社会以肉眼可见的速度向前演化。这场两千多年的长程奔跑似乎来到了冲刺阶段，不断有人做出世界末日的预言，那么，科学*终带给我们的究竟是生存还是毁灭？科学研究的目的究竟是什么？科学能告诉我们*真理吗？ 带着这样的终极关怀，《人人都该懂的科学哲学》首先讲述了科学脱离哲学、独立成长的过程，然后以智慧设计论、弦理论、占星术、有神论、社会建构主义、女性主义等充满争议的问题为例，辨析了科学的定义、方法和目的，科学和社会的关系。伟大的科学哲学家亚里士多德、笛卡儿、休谟、培根、波普尔、库恩等纷纷出场，上演了一场绵亘数千年的*辩论。 面对未来的挑战，无论人类能否破解“公地悲剧”、实现星际殖民、活到长生不老，杰弗里·戈勒姆以科学哲学的视角安慰我们：“当生命终结，人类文化仍然存在，只不过是存在于过去。希望它永远存在就太过分了，无异于希望巴黎时时处处是春天。” ●《人人都该懂的科学哲学》属于湛庐文化重磅推出的“新核心素养”系列图书之一。本系列图书致力于推广通识阅读，扩展读者的阅读面，培养批判性思考的能力。其中涵盖了哲学、心理学、法律、艺术、物理学、生物科技等诸多人文科学和自然科学的知识，其中《人人都该懂的科学哲学》的内容涵盖了科学哲学的核心思想，让你一本书了解科学哲学的核心智慧。

Ralph Waldo Emerson, was born at Boston in 1803 into a distinguished family of New England Unitarian ministers. His was the eighth generation to enter the ministry in a dynasty that reached back to the earliest days of Puritan America. Despite the death of his father when Emerson was only eleven, he was able to be educated at Boston Latin School and then Harvard, from which he graduated in 1821. After several years of reluctant school teaching, he returned to the Harvard Divinity School, entering the Unitarian ministry during a period of robust ecclesiastic debate. By 1829 Emerson was married and well on his way to a promising career in the church through his appointment to an important congregation in Boston. However, his career in the ministry did not last long. Following the death of his first wife, Ellen, his private religious doubts led him to announce his resignation to his congregation, claiming he was unable to preach a doctrine he no longer believed and that "to be a good minister it was necessary to leave the ministry."With the modest legacy left him from his first wife, Emerson was able to devote himself to study and travel. In Europe he met many of the important Romantic writers whose ideas on art, philosophy, and literature were transforming the writing of the Nineteenth Century. He also continued to explore his own ideas in a series of voluminous journals which he had kept from his earliest youth and from which virtually all of his literary creation would be generated. Taking up residence in Concord, Massachusetts, Emerson devoted himself to study, writing and a series of public lectures in the growing lyceum movement. From these lyceum addresses Emerson developed and then in 1836 published his most important work, Nature. Its publication also coincided with his organizing role in the Transcendental Club, a group of leading New England educators, clergy, and intellectuals interested in idealistic religion, philosophy, and literature.

Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic.Time was, when she was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, like Hecuba: At first, her gover Modo maxima rerum, Tot generis, natisque potens... Nunc trahor exul, inops. —Ovid, Metamorphoses. xiii under the administration of the dogmatists, was an absolute despotism. But, as the legislative continued to show traces of the ancient barbaric rule, her empire gradually broke up, and intestine wars introduced the reign of anarchy; while the sceptics, like nomadic tribes, who hate a permanent habitation and settled mode of living, attacked from time to time those who had organized themselves into civil communities. But their number was, very happily, small; and thus they could not entirely put a stop to the exertions of those who persisted in raising new edifices, although on no settled or uniform plan. In recent times the hope dawned upon us of seeing those disputes settled, and the legitimacy of her claims established by a kind of physiology of the human understanding—that of the celebrated Locke. But it was found that—although it was affirmed that this so-called queen could not refer her descent to any higher source than that of common experience, a circumstance which necessarily brought suspicion on her claims—as this genealogy was incorrect, she persisted in the advancement of her claims to sovereignty. Thus metaphysics necessarily fell back into the antiquated and rotten constitution of dogmatism, and again became obnoxious to the contempt from which efforts had been made to save it. At present, as all methods, according to the general persuasion, have been tried in vain, there reigns nought but weariness and complete indifferentism—the mother of chaos and night in the scientific world, but at the same time the source of, or at least the prelude to, the re-creation and reinstallation of a science, when it has fallen into confusion, obscurity, and disuse from ill directed effort. I do not mean by this a criticism of books and systems, but a critical inquiry into the faculty of reason, with reference to the cognitions to which it strives to attain without the aid of experience; in other words, the solution of the question regarding the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics, and the determination of the origin, as well as of the extent and limits of this science. All this must be done on the basis of principles. ABOUT AUTHOR: That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, and partly of themselves produce representations, partly rouse our powers of understanding into activity, to compare to connect, or to separate these, and so to convert the raw material of our sensuous impressions into a knowledge of objects, which is called experience? In respect of time, therefore, no knowledge of ours is antecedent to experience, but begins with it. But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to b

DAVID HUME (1711 – 1776) was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He was one of the most important figures in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist. Beginning with his A Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume strove to create a total naturalistic "science of man" that examined the psychological basis of human nature. In stark opposition to the rationalists who preceded him, most notably Descartes, he concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behaviour, saying: "REASON IS, and OUGHT ONLY to BE the SLAVE of the PASSIONS". A prominent figure in the sceptical philosophical tradition and a strong empiricist, he argued against the existence of innate ideas, concluding instead that humans have knowledge only of things they directly experience.. NOTHING is more usual and more natural for those, who pretend to discover anything new to the world in philosophy and the sciences, than to insinuate the praises of their own systems, by decrying all those, which have been advanced before them. And indeed were they content with lamenting that ignorance, which we still lie under in the most important questions, that can come before the tribunal of human reason, there are few, who have an acquaintance with the sciences, that would not readily agree with them. It is easy for one of judgment and learning, to perceive the weak foundation even of those systems, which have obtained the greatest credit, and have carried their pretensions highest to accurate and profound reasoning. Principles taken upon trust, consequences lamely deduced from them, want of coherence in the parts, and of evidence in the whole, these are every where to be met with in the systems of the most eminent philosophers, and seem to have drawn disgrace upon philosophy itself. Nor is there required such profound knowledge to discover the present imperfect condition of the sciences, but even the rabble without doors may, judge from the noise and clamour, which they hear, that all goes not well within. There is nothing which is not the subject of debate, and in which men of learning are not of contrary opinions. The most trivial question escapes not our controversy, and in the most momentous we are not able to give any certain decision. Disputes are multiplied, as if every thing was uncertain; and these disputes are managed with the greatest warmth, as if every thing was certain. Amidst all this bustle it is not reason, which carries the prize, but eloquence; and no man needs ever despair of gaining proselytes to the most extravagant hypothesis, who has art enough to represent it in any favourable colours. The victory is not gained by the men at arms, who manage the pike and the sword; but by the trumpeters, drummers, and musicians of the army. From hence in my opinion arises that common prejudice against metaphysical reasonings of all kinds, even amongst those, who profess themselves scholars, and have a just value for every other part of literature. By metaphysical reasonings, they do not understand those on any particular branch of science, but every kind of argument, which is any way abstruse, and requires some attention to be comprehended. We have so often lost our labour in such researches, that we commonly reject them without hesitation, and resolve, if we must for ever be a prey to errors and delusions, that they shall at least be natural and entertaining. And indeed nothing but the most determined scepticism, along with a great degree of indolence, can justify this aversion to metaphysics. For if truth be at all within the reach of human capacity, it is certain it must lie very deep and abstruse: and to hope we shall arrive at it without pains, while the greatest geniuses have failed with the utmost pains..

当今社会，到处洋溢着“透明”的热情，而人们的当务之急是培养一下对距离的热情。 距离和羞耻心无法被纳资本、信息及交际的高速循环。因此，人们便以“透明”的名义消除了所有谨慎的回旋余地。它们被照得通亮，被剥夺殆尽。世界也因此变得更加无耻、更加赤裸。 恰恰于信任不在时，人们对“透明”的呼求声才愈发响亮。在以信任为基础的社会中，人们是不会执意要求透明的。透明社会是一个不信任的、怀疑的社会，由于信任日渐消失，社会便始依赖监控。对透明的大声呼求恰恰表明，社会的道德基础已然脆弱不堪，真诚、正直等道德价值越来越失去意义。 作为一项新的社会命令，透明正在取代日渐式微的道德审查机构。 ------------- 韩炳哲作品系列（见识城邦出品）（已出齐） 《精神政治学》（2019年3月） Psychopolitik 《爱欲之死》（2019年3月） Agonie des Eros 《在群中》（2019年3月） Im Schwarm 《他者的消失》（2019年6月） Die Austreibung des Anderen 《倦怠社会》（2019年6月） Müdigkeitsgesellschaft 《娱乐何为》（2019年6月） Gute Unterhaltung 《暴力拓扑学》（2019年10月） Topologie der Gewalt 《透明社会》（2019年10月） Transparenzgesellschaft 《美的救赎》（2019年10月） Die Errettung des Sch?nen

《参同契》又名《周易参同契》，为东汉魏伯阳著。其学说汇融周易、黄老、丹火之功于一体，用《易》的阴阳变化之理，阐述炼丹、内养之道，证明人与天地、宇宙有同体、同功而异用的法则。??《我说<参同契>》是南怀瑾先生继《论语别裁》后用力*深、*有分量的作品之一，共八十余万言，分上、中、下三册。内容涉及广泛，旁征博引，举证极多，更有南师本人所经历的诸多奇特的人和事，是国人了解、解读《参同契》这部“天书”的选择。

《列子》为道家重要典籍之一，与老庄并列。它高深莫测，易读而难懂，以故事、神话的形态，阐释道家的学术及观念。 《列子臆说》是南怀瑾先生关于《列子》的讲记，共分上中下三册。南怀瑾先生讲述列子，深浅出、生动自在，以《列子》的内容为研究重，带领读者广阔的视野、深难测的奇妙境界，并破了意识的种种局限。列子，这个御风而行的人，要我们从一切自设的框架中突围，成就天地间的自在逍遥。

本书首先依据西方马克思主义探讨了马克思主义的“真精神”，特别是探讨了马克思主义与哲学，以及马克思主义哲学与本体论之关系，然后着重从马克思主义的思考角度和范式来审视和反思当今的世界，特别是当今的中国。本书通过对马克思走向政治经济学批判的三次飞跃的分析，发出了“回归政治经济学批判”的呼唤；用马克思两大发现的整体视角剖析了资本主义的“经济人”，并基于此对当今学术界的一些人无原则地宣扬“经济人”展了批判；揭示了改革放以来我国学术界理解马克思主义哲学的三种路向，特别是批判了对马克思主义做启蒙主义和后现代主义解释的缺陷；归纳了马克思主义哲学与中国道路的双向促；用马克思主义公平观审视了社会的不平等，用马克思主义生态观审视了生态危机；描述了“马中西”三大资源在中国道路中的交互汇通。