More’s “Utopia” was written in Latin, and is in two parts, of which the second, describing the place ([Greek text]—or Nusquama, as he called it sometimes in his letters—“Nowhere”), was probably written towards the close of 1515; the first part, introductory, early in 1516. The book was first printed at Louvain, late in 1516, under the editorship of Erasmus, Peter Giles, and other of More’s friends in Flanders. It was then revised by More, and printed by Frobenius at Basle in November, 1518. It was reprinted at Paris and Vienna, but was not printed in England during More’s lifetime. Its first publication in this country was in the English translation, made in Edward’s VI.’s reign (1551) by Ralph Robinson. It was translated with more literary skill by Gilbert Burnet, in 1684, soon after he had conducted the defence of his friend Lord William Russell, attended his execution, vindicated his memory, and been spitefully deprived by James II. of his lectureship at St. Clement’s. Burnet was drawn to the translation of “Utopia” by the same sense of unreason in high places that caused More to write the book. Burnet’s is the translation given in this volume. The name of the book has given an adjective to our language—we call an impracticable scheme Utopian. Yet, under the veil of a playful fiction, the talk is intensely earnest, and abounds in practical suggestion. It is the work of a scholarly and witty Englishman, who attacks in his own way the chief political and social evils of his time. Beginning with fact, More tells how he was sent into Flanders with Cuthbert Tunstal, “whom the king’s majesty of late, to the great rejoicing of all men, did prefer to the office of Master of the Rolls;” how the commissioners of Charles met them at Bruges, and presently returned to Brussels for instructions; and how More then went to Antwerp, where he found a pleasure in the society of Peter Giles which soothed his desire to see again his wife and children, from whom he had been four months away. Then fact slides into fiction with the finding of Raphael Hythloday (whose name, made of two Greek words [Greek text] and [Greek text], means “knowing in trifles”), a man who had been with Amerigo Vespucci in the three last of the voyages to the new world lately discovered, of which the account had been first printed in 1507, only nine years before Utopia was written. Designedly fantastic in suggestion of details, “Utopia” is the work of a scholar who had read Plato’s “Republic,” and had his fancy quickened after reading Plutarch’s account of Spartan life under Lycurgus. Beneath the veil of an ideal communism, into which there has been worked some witty extravagance, there lies a noble English argument. Sometimes More puts the case as of France when he means England. Sometimes there is ironical praise of the good faith of Christian kings, saving the book from censure as a political attack on the policy of Henry VIII. Erasmus wrote to a friend in 1517 that he should send for More’s “Utopia,” if he had not read it, and “wished to see the true source of all political evils.” And to More Erasmus wrote of his book, “A burgomaster of Antwerp is so pleased with it that he knows it all by heart.” Sir Thomas More, son of Sir John More, a justice of the King’s Bench, was born in 1478, in Milk Street, in the city of London. After his earlier education at St. Anthony’s School, in Threadneedle Street, he was placed, as a boy, in the household of Cardinal John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor. It was not unusual for persons of wealth or influence and sons of good families to be so established together in a relation of patron and client. The youth wore his patron’s livery, and added to his state. The patron used, afterwards, his wealth or influence in helping his young client forward in the world.

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."

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?.. ?

Within our Society (the International Society for Krishna Consciousness), guru has been taken to be synonymous with diksa-guru, but what about those great souls who have introduced us to Krsna consciousness? What relationship do we have with these Vaisnavas, and what are our obligations toward them, as well as toward parents, teachers, sannyasis, and other superiors who help guide us back to Godhead? Not much has been said by the Society on these topics, and hardly any appreciation is shown for those souls who labor to elevate us day by day.The scriptures, however, glorify as guru all Vaisnavas who guide a conditioned soul back to Godhead — be they instructors or initiators — advocating a culture of honor and respect. ISKCON needs to reflect upon these principles further, and the purpose of this book is to act as a catalyst toward such an end.

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.

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

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.

董仲舒上“天人三策”，汉武帝令“独尊六经”，儒家仁义之道成为王朝立国的价值基石。王莽受禅与改制，儒家仁政理想与现实政治效能之间的张力得以检验。记录汉代讨论治国根本思想的《白虎通义》，明晰了关注性情、风俗、礼乐以复三代之治的教化政治学。道教经典《太平经》倡导基于自然政治价值而追求太平理想之治的自然政治哲学。隋末唐初，王通需要面对和思考草原民族主中原引发的华夏正统与王道道统问题。唐代韩愈提出了仁义道统说和文化中国论。北宋时期，王安石推明天道以革新人事，他的新学提供了一套用于变法的政治哲学。同时，司马光以礼治思想重构家国秩序。南宋时期的朱熹，勾绘了一个仁义流布的天理世界。而同一时期的浙东学派，则以经世之学引人注目。明末清初的黄宗羲，是儒学为仁义之道辟道路重构政治制度的代表。本卷所选取的政治哲学主题，是儒家占主导地位局面下中国政治哲学发展演变的重要节。这些节体现了儒家政治哲学所面临和应对的种种具体处境，也展现了儒家政治哲学坚守仁义价值的内在品格和变通应世的理论活力。

1917年7月，胡适受蔡元培之邀就任国立北京大学文科教授，讲授中国古代哲学史、中国名学、英文高等修辞学。胡适一边教学，一边编写教材。顾颉刚曾对同窗傅斯年推荐：“胡先生讲的的确不差，他有眼光、有胆量、有断制，确是一个有能力的哲学史家。” 　　自1919年至1937年间。胡适多次在北京大学讲授中国哲学史，而且主要是讲中古哲学史和近世哲学史，其中1919年2月出版的《中国哲学史大纲》（卷上）就是在讲义的内容基础上修定而成。胡适是首位采用了西方近代哲学的体系和方法研究中国哲学的人，由于他的出现，中国的思想史才初具规模。他在中国哲学史，甚至在各种专史和通史的研究方面，都是创性的，他觉得是中国哲学思想史的山鼻祖。 　　《胡适的北大哲学课》以胡适在北京大学的所有哲学讲义为母本，再综合胡适关于中国哲学的其他著作整理而成，力求为读者构建一个*全的胡适哲学体系，让读者*直的感受哲学大师的风采。

《人生的智慧》是伟大的哲学家叔本华晚年的作品，被世人誉为迷茫者的灯塔之书。 本书从世俗的角度探讨了人生应遵循的原则，从健康、财富、名声、荣誉、养生和待人物等多方面来阐述了生活的本质，并教导人们如何在生活中获得幸福。

本书是对西方近代哲学创始人、理性主义哲学代表人物笛卡尔的哲学进行全面系统研究的一本学术力作。作者对笛卡尔从书的世界到读世界之书的人生经历、对人类知识之树的构想和学术著述活动都做了详尽的介绍，对笛卡尔的普遍怀疑和方法论体系、“我思故我在”和主体哲学的确立、天赋观念论、和理性主义的基本原则、对上帝存在和外物存在的证明、心身二分和心身统一、自然哲学及形而上学和物理学的关系等核心理论问题进行了深入的分析与阐释，并对笛卡尔哲学在西方近现代哲学中的影响力、生命力做出了全面和准确的描述。本书不仅深化和推进了我国对于西方哲学的研究，而且还为广大读者展示了理性主义思维方式的精彩画卷。法国哲学学会前任会长、国际法语国家哲学联合会前任主席雅克·董特生前还专门为本书作序。

本书在朱光潜美学与中国传统文化的关系、朱光潜美学与西方近现代哲学及美学的关系、朱光潜美学与中国马克思主义美学的关系这三大领域行深研究。主要内容有：朱光潜美学与中国儒道传统、与中国晚明文学传统以及与近代王国维美学的关系；朱光潜美学与西方近代审美心理学、与康德哲学美学以及与海德格尔存在主义的关系；朱光潜美学对中国马克思主义美学做出的贡献，包括20世纪50、60年代在“美学大讨论”中提出了“美是主客观统一”和实践论美学观；晚年致力于人道主义、人性论、“共同美”的美学探索，等等。本书在细读朱光潜原著的基础上做系统、详细的实证研究，脉络清晰地展示了朱光潜美学的“多元理论有机融合”的基本特征。而对朱光潜美学的这种“多元理论有机融合”特征追根溯源，又可以概括出：朱光潜美学有“三大思想来源”，即中国古典文化、西方近现代哲学及美学、马克思主义及其美学。朱光潜美学的这种理论来源及其建构特，对新世纪中国美学的发展走向具有重要的启示性意义。

弗兰西斯·培根被马克思称为“英国唯物主义和整个现代实验科学的真正始祖”。他的思想博大精深，是文艺复兴以来欧洲古典人文主义价值观念和政治理想的集中体现，深受各国读者的追捧。 《听培根谈人生哲理》立足于培根的主体思想，精选了《培根随笔》中的经典段落和名言警句，深探讨关于人生真谛、社会发展、自身情感等诸多方面的问题，帮助读者展对人生的思考，帮助人们指引正确的方向，摆脱困难的纠缠，走上美好的人生之路。

馒头大师和馒头说团队通过讲述苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德等15个哲学家的趣味故事，让孩子在不知不觉中学会像哲学家一样思考。 读苏格拉底对路人行连环追问的故事，让孩子像苏格拉底一样会提问; 读“杠精”芝诺用悖论逼疯无数哲学家的烧脑故事，让孩子像芝诺一样会推理； 读德谟克利特神预言“原子论”的故事，让孩子像德谟克利特一样会假设…… 翻本书，走近这群较真又可爱、睿智又恼人的哲学家们，在轻轻松松阅读故事的过程中，让孩子像哲学家一样会思考。

本书叙述的是17世纪至19世纪近代西方政治哲学的发展历程，阐释了具有重要历史地位与思想影响的人物如霍布斯、洛克、斯宾诺莎、卢梭、托克维尔、康德、黑格尔等人，以及政治哲学流派如苏格兰启蒙运动和功利主义等的政治哲学思想，意图勾勒出近代西方政治哲学的主要轮廓，凸显这一时期核心的政治哲学论题，并在此基础上梳理和总结近代西方政治哲学的历史流变、重要思想资源，以及阐明对当代政治哲学思潮的深刻影响。

【内容简介】 本书对20世纪西方传播学的起源、范式和方法等问题进行了回顾和反思,并试图回答处于历史流变中的传播学,其建构背后的学科史前史是什么，这些认识论和观念,又如何在学术的场域中互动建构。

中国历史上取得“立德、立功、立言三不朽”成就者几希，明代大儒王阳明便是其中之一。他少年丧母，青年染疾，中年仕途更是屡屡受挫，但这些困难均未能阻挡他大放异彩，*终跻身圣人之列。这位传奇人物是如何在生活、思考中探索和实践，成就了一番辉煌业绩的？我们或许可以从他知行合一的心学智慧中找到答案。 本书从王阳明的心学典籍中精选了经典语录165条，分为立志、良知、教育、用兵、修行、处友、政治、为学、修心九个部分，用通俗易懂的语言对其行了全面而深的阐述。希望助你从中获得顿悟，不再困惑和纠结，内心平静而强大，人生从此破局，勇猛而精。

本书以《阳明心学与明代内阁政治》为题，主要从历史的角度探讨中晚明阳明心学流行的社会背景，以及学派中人的政治理念和活动。主要采用历史学的实证方法，对前人提出的一些观行了辩驳。如针对王阳明在龙场悟道后转向觉民行道的看法，认为王阳明的弟子群体以地方上的中下层士人，具体来说则是举人、生员为主，因而王阳明的传道路线应当归结为“觉士行道”。而在政治上，王阳明顿悟之后也并未放弃对朝廷局势的关心。“大礼议”之际，王阳明曾向其在朝的弟子表明自己的立场，并试图通过这些弟子来对政局加以引导。其讲学传道之际着眼于中下层士人之培植，也正是出于对这些弟子将来仕之后能够挽救政治之颓势的期待。而心学所针对的，在很大程度上是作为政治主体的士大夫阶层自身之弊病。在当时的政治体制下，此种弊病之明显的归结，便是内阁之专权植党、排斥异己。阳明学派自阳明起便提倡士大夫分权共治的精神，其后学亦承袭了此种理念。自嘉靖以后，学派中人或抵制内阁而屡遭，或主内阁而兴盛一时。万历后，由阁部之争而招致党争大炽，学派中虽有稍向内阁靠拢者，但终亦不能为阁中之党魁所容，余者则渐为反内阁的新生力量东林派所吸收。

你是不是也对种类繁多的国学典籍头疼不已？你是不是想要一套轻松有趣的国学入门书？通过手绘漫画和段子，陈磊（笔名：混子哥）领衔的半小时漫画团队就带读者分清了国学的各大门派，理清了国学的来龙去脉——儒家、道家、法家、墨家、兵家、魏晋玄学、程朱理学、陆王心学： 儒家就像HR，会处理人际关系，把国家秩序安排得明明白白； 道家向往自由，推崇无为而治，offer送到手里都不接； 法家都是职业经理人，他们用开公司的套路，把国家一步步做大做强； 墨家的核心思想“非攻，兼爱”用一句话来概括就是“peace and love”； 玄学就是摸鱼哲学，清谈就像在公司例会上扯淡； 理学是儒学的全新款式，说社会秩序也是自然规律，要追求“天理”； 心学专门跟理学抬杠，说人心就是“天理”，要知行合一，追求“良知”。 本书延续了半小时漫画系列严谨又搞笑的风格，从孔孟老庄，到程朱陆王（程颐、程颢、朱熹、陆九渊、王阳明），各门派宗师爆笑登场。让你在哈哈大笑中秒懂各大门派的思想主张和历史发展，不知不觉就入门国学、爱上国学！ 翻开本书，在笑出腹肌的同时，分清国学各大门派，理清国学来龙去脉！

法兰克福学派学者内部虽然存在着不同的思想趋势，但是他们思考着同一个核心问题：分裂社会中那些孤立的人们如何整合起来？对他们来说，现代资本主义社会的分裂有各种原因：或者是由于人为了征服外在自然而不得不征服内在自然，或者是由于生存斗争永恒化，或者是由于系统侵了生活世界，或者是由于人的非意愿性经验的丧失，等等。他们提出了许多不同的方法来解决这个问题：或者从文化的根子上重新反思，重构形而上学；或者从审美的角度重构人的自然；或者用对话来重建生活世界；或者是在相互斗争中达致相互承认；等等。这些不同的思路为我们批判资本主义，分析现代社会中所出现的类似问题提供了有益的参考。