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.

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.).

Such is the system which underlies the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Some knowledge of it is necessary to the right understanding of the book, but for us the chief interest lies elsewhere. We do not come to Marcus Aurelius for a treatise on Stoicism. He is no head of a school to lay down a body of doctrine for students; he does not even contemplate that others should read what he writes. His philosophy is not an eager intellectual inquiry, but more what we should call religious feeling. The uncompromising stiffness of Zeno or Chrysippus is softened and transformed by passing through a nature reverent and tolerant, gentle and free from guile; the grim resignation which made life possible to the Stoic sage becomes in him almost a mood of aspiration. His book records the innermost thoughts of his heart, set down to ease it, with such moral maxims and reflections as may help him to bear the burden of duty and the countless annoyances of a busy life. It is instructive to compare the Meditations with another famous book, the Imitation of Christ. There is the same ideal of self-control in both. It should be a man's task, says the Imitation, 'to overcome himself, and every day to be stronger than himself.' 'In withstanding of the passions standeth very peace of heart.' 'Let us set the axe to the root, that we being purged of our passions may have a peaceable mind.' To this end there must be continual self-examination. 'If thou may not continually gather thyself together, namely sometimes do it, at least once a day, the morning or the evening. In the morning purpose, in the evening discuss the manner, what thou hast been this day, in word, work, and thought.' But while the Roman's temper is a modest self-reliance, the Christian aims at a more passive mood, humbleness and meekness, and reliance on the presence and personal friendship of God. The Roman scrutinises his faults with severity, but without the self-contempt which makes the Christian 'vile in his own sight.' The Christian, like the Roman, bids 'study to withdraw thine heart from the love of things visible'; but it is not the busy life of duty he has in mind so much as the contempt of all worldly things, and the 'cutting away of all lower delectations.' Both rate men's praise or blame at their real worthlessness; 'Let not thy peace,' says the Christian, 'be in the mouths of men.' But it is to God's censure the Christian appeals, the Roman to his own soul. The petty annoyances of injustice or unkindness are looked on by each with the same magnanimity. 'Why doth a little thing said or done against thee make thee sorry? It is no new thing; it is not the first, nor shall it be the last, if thou live long. At best suffer patiently, if thou canst not suffer joyously.' The Christian should sorrow more for other men's malice than for our own wrongs; but the Roman is inclined to wash his hands of the offender. 'Study to be patient in suffering and bearing other men's defaults and all manner infirmities,' says the Christian; but the Roman would never have thought to add, 'If all men were perfect, what had we then to suffer of other men for God?' The virtue of suffering in itself is an idea which does not meet us in the Meditations. Both alike realise that man is one of a great community. 'No man is sufficient to himself,' says the Christian; 'we must bear together, help together, comfort together.' But while he sees a chief importance in zeal, in exalted emotion that is, and avoidance of lukewarmness, the Roman thought mainly of the duty to be done as well as might be, and less of the feeling which should go with the doing of it. To the saint as to the emperor, the world is a poor thing at best. 'Verily it is a misery to live upon the earth,' says the Christian; few and evil are the days of man's life, which passeth away suddenly as a shadow. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*** ? "MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS" was born on April 26, A.D. 121. His real name was M. Annius Verus, and he was sprung of a noble family which claimed descent from Numa, second King of Rome. Thus the most religious of emperors came of the blood of the most pious of early kings. His father, Annius Verus, had held high office in Rome, and his grandfather, of the same name, had been thrice Consul. Both his parents died young, but Marcus held them in loving remembrance. On his father's death Marcus was adopted by his grandfather, the consular Annius Verus, and there was deep love between these two. On the very first page of his book Marcus gratefully declares how of his grandfather he had learned to be gentle and meek, and to refrain from all anger and passion. The Emperor Hadrian divined the fine character of the lad, whom he used to call not Verus but Verissimus, more Truthful than his own name. He advanced Marcus to equestrian rank when six years of age, and at the age of eight made him a member of the ancient Salian priesthood. The boy's aunt, A

以人工智能、基因编辑、大数据与量子计算为核心的前沿科技时代呼啸而至。其中，人工智能的发展备受关注。尽管我们认为人类距离强人工智能时代还很遥远，但是其广泛的应用场景已经始深刻影响我们的生活方式、理念，甚至人之所以为人的思考。 过去几年全球提出了诸多伦理与治理原则，以应对前沿科技发展带来的挑战。这些原则大都建立在工业文明时代的人类中心主义、人的能动性和主体性等哲学思考上。但是这些理念和原则足以构建前沿科技时代人类和其他物种共同命运的基础价值观吗？科技不仅仅推动了技术应用的迭代，也促使我们反思被奉为圭臬的哲学理念和框架，推动人类深刻地自省、自觉。如果从“道”与“术”的角度来看，当下的讨论更多地关注“术”。本书希望在“道”的层面，引发哲学家和科学家的思考。 鉴于此，博古睿研究院中国中心自2017年11月至今，聚集了哲学界和思想界的专家，以“人工智能遇见中国哲学家”为主题，组织了数次工作坊和研讨会，推科学家与哲学家的交流、沟通。本书就是这些观讨论与思想激荡的初步成果。 这是崭新的尝试和探索。从人工智能这一世界性热话题切，书中的视域触及了人类在当下高科技时代面临的全面困境，以及人类自省、自觉的重要性。学者们的讨论也覆盖了新科技时代的问题意识、前沿科技的思维方式，以及中国传统思想在新时代对全人类的贡献。

《西方政治哲学史》（*卷）由八位杰出学者撰写，内容涵盖了从古希腊到宗教改革的政治思想和政治哲学。*章提供了西方政治思想端处的宏大背景，讨论了希腊城邦与民主思想，以及诗人、剧作家、智者和史学家的政治洞见；第二章到第六章分别聚焦于柏拉图的统一城邦、亚里士多德的*政体、西塞罗的法权国家、奥古斯丁的上帝之城与尘世之城、阿奎那的自然法与政体理论；第七章既从宏观上考察了文艺复兴时期政治思想的巨大变革，又特别讨论了马基雅维利在其中的突出地位；第八章以路德和加尔文的政治思想为主体，同时考察了宗教改革时代的神学—政治问题。全书既关注政治思想的历史语境，又凸显重要思想家的特殊贡献，体现了汉语学界在西方政治哲学史领域的*研究成果。

该著作在深研究的基础上，就列宁关于俄国革命的战略策略思想、巩固苏维埃政权的思想、建设共产国际以及推国际共产主义运动的思想、关于新经济政策的思想，阐述了新的学术观；深地研究、阐述和评价了斯大林的建设社会主义理论以及“社会主义民族”理论；研究和阐述了20世纪20—50年代初苏联理论界对马克思主义理论的研究以及取得的成果，如布哈林关于“过渡经济”的理论、普列奥布拉任斯基的“新经济学”、瓦尔加关于“资本主义经济危机”的理论以及沃兹涅辛斯基对确立社会主义政治经济学的贡献；研究和阐述了联共（布）和一些国家共产党在领导反法西斯战争中形成的思想理论，研究和阐述了联共（布）和其他一些执政的共产党在领导恢复国民经济的实践中实现的理论发展。

　　《从孔子到谢灵运：唐前士人精神史探索/陕西师范大学中国语言文学“世界**学科建设”成果》为作者关于唐前士人精神史探索的文章的合集，共分三部分：一、论先秦圣贤、诗哲的理思与痛苦；二、论汉兴百年儒士、赋家的经国品质；三、论晋宋名士的飘逸与痛苦。作者深掘孔子、屈原、贾谊、陶渊明、谢灵运等人的精神历程，探讨中国人世代相续的民族精神。

本书为中央民族大学教授、“孔子文化奖”获得者牟钟鉴先生根据四十多年来学习中华经典积累的经验，结合古代贤哲的论述及今日道德教育建设的现实和需要，详细阐述君子人格养成路径，系统提出“君子六有”说，有仁义，立人之基；有涵养，美人之性；有操守，挺人之脊；有容量，扩人之胸；有坦诚，存人之真；有担当，尽人之责。作者用较多篇幅细讲古今中外的君子在六个方面的人格特质，列举生动的案例，解说蕴藏的内涵，使君子人格培养在现实土壤上具有落地生长的可能性，用真人真事推动道德教化，从不同侧面提炼中华精神，重塑君子人格榜样，推动人文化成，培养时代真君子。

本书是一部逐段考释《精神现象学》的评注性著作，是作者多年潜心研究黑格尔哲学与德国古典哲学，吸收国内外学者《精神现象学》研究的前沿成果，并经过多轮课堂教学、同行讨论的锤炼后写作而成的。本书不满足于对国内外某家某派观的单纯介绍，而是基于自身的判断，对这些观有取有舍，并重新界定辩证法、规律、理性、精神等关键概念，对黑格尔与现代性的关系、德国古典哲学的特质与思想史地位等问题提出作者独立的见解，堪与西方学者行对话。因此，本书对于推我国黑格尔研究和德国古典哲学研究大有裨益。

　　王阳明在黔时期（1508-1510）是明代思想史、哲学史，甚至中国思想史、哲学史上一个非常值得关注的历史性时段。他不仅在此创和初步构建了心学思想体系，扭转了中晚明的学术方向，而且奠定的深厚心学基础，使贵州阳明文化得以发端。阳明离黔后直至明亡的一百多年时间，阳明的亲炙弟子、再传弟子，乃至私淑弟子们，他们继承与发展阳明学说，使贵州的学术发展形成了一个没从有的高潮，形成了“黔中王门”这一重要的地域性阳明后学派别，王阳明也被公认为“黔学之祖”。《黔中王学研究：以孙应鳌、李渭为中心/阳明学研究丛书》旨在研究王阳明龙场悟道、贵州传道讲学后所形成的“黔中王学”，把它放在中晚明哲学史大背景中，紧扣宋明理学、阳明心学的发展脉络展考察。

《简单的哲学》从论证的工具到评价的工具，教你如何运用哲学行有效又健全的思考……它用凝炼概括的术语，辅以生动有趣的插画，结合生活中富有趣味性的辩论话题，为你一一解析论证推理的秘诀，可谓哲学门工具书的不二选择！ 在《简单的哲学》和《好用的哲学》里，我们将高深莫测的哲学知识简单化，把触不可及的哲学工具变得好用，不管你是刚刚拜在哲学门下的菜鸟，还是哲学大师的骨灰级粉丝，都会让你爱不释手！

范仲淹主持的庆历新政，是以整饬吏治为首要，以改革科举、兴办学校、砥砺士风、培养人才为本源，兼及经济和军事等领域。虽然其整饬吏治仅及一年就夭折了，但其改革科举、兴办学校、砥砺士风、培养人才则对以后宋学的发展产生了深远的影响。 范仲淹门下多延贤士，如胡瑗、孙复、石介、李觏等皆与之从游。庆历之际，学统四起。三苏的蜀学、王安石的新学、周敦颐的濂学、张载的关学和二程的洛学等，都与范仲淹及庆历新政有着密切的关系。宋儒的“内圣”与“外王”是相贯通的。南宋理学时代，与其称为“后王安石时代”，不如称为“后范仲淹时代”。

本书的主要内容在于矫正后人对荀子天论和性论之误解。荀子言天道，分本体与现象两部分。本体不见其事而见其功，皆知其所以成而莫知其无形，这属于天职的部分。现象即能生之本体所产生的自然现象，有其运行的规律，所谓“天行有常”，故人若应之以治则吉，应之以乱则凶，这属于人职的部分。荀子讲明于天人之分，其目的即强调人伪比天性更重要。荀子论性，认为人既有好利疾恶之性，亦有好义欲善之性。但好利疾恶不等于恶，人一味放纵好利疾恶之性，以至争夺生而辞让亡、残贼生而忠信亡，才是恶。同理，好义欲善不等于善，只有学至全尽、知类明统、深思熟虑，实际上建构出礼仪法度来，才是善。荀子批评孟子的性善说是“幽隐而无说，闭约而无解”，是因为孟子不重视后天人为之伪。因此荀子言性，只是本始材朴，无所谓善恶。故与其说荀子是性恶论者，不如说是善伪论者。

《谈美》是美学家朱光潜先生以书信形式为青年所写的一本美学门书，顺着美从哪里来、美是什么以及美的特等问题层层展，提出了美学研究的理想目标——“人生的艺术化”。朱先生以一种对老朋友的语气娓娓而谈，将他对艺术与人生关系的深刻体悟渗透在质朴清新的文字中，“引读者由艺术走人生，又将人生纳艺术之中”（朱自清语）。全书*后呼吁人们“慢慢走，欣赏啊”，认为“欣赏之中都寓有创造，创造之中也都寓有欣赏”。 　　书后收录朱先生的《近代实验美学》一文，供读者朋友参考。 名家荐评 作家、学者朱自清：作者是你的熟人，他曾写给你《十二封信》；他态度的亲切和谈话的风趣，你是不会忘记的……孟实先生引读者由艺术走人生，又将人生纳艺术之中。这种“宏远的眼界和豁达的胸襟”，值得学者深思。 当代学者钱念孙：朱先生美学的一个突出特，是中西融会、古今沟通……他灵心慧眼，博采西方美学之花；妙手剪裁，嫁中国传统之木。国人之有详赡系统美学专著，朱先生《文艺心理学》和《谈美》，风气之先。 语文教师陈小爽：他的《谈美》一书，如行云流水一般，时而诙谐，时而正经，有时比喻，有时引用，有时就像说故事一样，深浅出地一层层引领读者走高深和复杂里去。全书充满精妙之言，字字珠玑，可圈可，读来如品一杯清茶，所获匪浅。

《周易译注（z新增订版）》将《周易》全文翻译为现代汉语。其主要内容包括《周易》经传的原文、现代汉语译文、疑难字词的注释及注音、以“说明”的形式行深浅出的讲解以及各卦之后的“总论”对该卦卦旨的系统分析、说解。 此外，“前言”对围绕《周易》一书的各种问题行了细致说明；“读易要例”对易学的关键词做了浅显扼要的解释；“易图述略”展示了历史上与《周易》有关的各种图示并梳理了其来由、内容、特等。书后所附“主要引用书目”将古今中外有价值的易学文献汇总起来。 《周易译注》将古往今来的易学成果汇为一书，是学易者的经典图书。

　　子书是我国古籍的重要组成部分。早的一批子书产生在春秋末到战国时期的百家争鸣中，其中不少是我国古代思想文化的珍贵结晶。秦汉以后，还有不少思想家和学者写过类似的著作，其中也不乏优秀的作品。二十世纪五十年代，中华书局修订重印了由原世界书局出版的诸子集成。这套从书汇集了清代学者校勘、注释子书的成果，较为适合学术研究的需要。但其中未能包括近几十年特别是一九四九年后一些学者整理子书的新成果，所收的子书种类不够多，断句、排印尚有不少错误，为此我们从一九八二年始编辑出版新编诸子集成，至今已出满四十种。新编诸子集成所收子书与旧本褚子集成略同，是一般研究者经常要阅读或查考的书。每一种都选择到目前为止较好的注释本，有的书兼收数种各具优长的注本。出版以来，深受读者欢迎，还有不少读者提出意见建议，帮助我们修订完善这套书。

本书是国内*本从哲学文本学的视角出发，系统解读法国精神分析学与思想大师拉康哲学思想的学术专著。作者以拉康著名的《文选》（Écrits）中蕞重要的文本为基本解读对象，深解析了拉康哲学复杂的学术背景，并以他独有的颠覆式的历时性关联，分别说明了拉康与超现实主义、新黑格尔主义和语言学结构主义等学术思潮之间潜在的承袭关系，尤其是他对弗洛伊德精神分析学的深刻背叛与激情高扬。在作者笔下，拉康哲学中的伪个人主体理论被曝光于西方现代思想史广阔的逻辑平台上：在镜像映射中，人类个人自我的本质不过是小他者影像构成的想象性操作而已；在象征性逻辑中，传统哲学的主体被指证为大写他者的无意识自居，个人主体因而沦为一具腹内空空的语言稻草人；所以，个人存在之真永远都只能是一种现实中的不可能性。

本书邀请读者加阿伦特及其同伴的旅行之中，一起在时空间穿梭。这场旅行始于古雅典，阿伦特与苏格拉底、柏拉图的思想对话。苏格拉底喜欢追究种种意见和相对真理，他把城邦居民的固有信念碎，却不给他们新的真理。结果，雅典以他无休止的追问会妨碍城邦居民获取财富为由判处他死刑。柏拉图为此构建了理念的王国，在那里善好的理念是统治者，且无须说服城邦居民。柏拉图将统治权的概念引政治领域，从此启了西方政治思想传统。在数世纪之后，孟德斯鸠认为正是众多不同的男人和女人构成了人类社会，平等和差异构成了共和政体以及君主政体的行动原则。在马克思看来，包括政府和法律在内的统治权，源于人类的不平等，同时也确立了人类的不平等。阿伦特认为，马克思的这一洞见将促使悠久而强大的传统终结。在阿伦特看来，热核战争将有可能彻底摧毁人类，因此我们比以往任何时候都更加需要合理的政治判断力。这种政治判断力只有在众多不同的男人和女人的自由交谈中才可能诞生。因为“只有在我们彼此自由的交谈中，我们所谈论的世界才会从所有侧面总呈现出来，具备客观性和可见性”。一旦从传统的禁锢和偏见中解放出来，我们将有理由对政治重新抱有审慎的乐观与期待：政治不是对人类自由的威胁，而恰恰是人类自由的应许之地。

本书立足于1800年前后的德意志思想史，围绕着青年黑格尔和浪漫派（以谢林为核心）对“有机体”（Organismus/organism）概念的理解，剖析其作为一种审美现代性话语的思想实质，并认为这一概念对于德意志民族的自我理解、也同时对于审美现代性话语具有构成性意义。

本书集中了维特根斯坦从1930年重回剑桥从事哲学工作到1946年这段时间的主要思想精华，包含了他所处理的大部分哲学话题。 《哲学研究》主要是从语言角度手处理哲学问题的，这些杂驳的哲学问题包括：词语和命题的意义是什么？什么是理解和意谓？逻辑和语言的关系是什么？数学到底有没有基础？人的意识状态该如何得到表达？是否存在一种私人语言？意向性的本质是什么？…… 维特根斯坦以一种崭新的方式为这些古老的哲学问题给出了自己的解答，其紧张的思想分析和逼问创了一种名为“日常语言分析”的哲学派别。

本书集中了维特根斯坦从1930年重回剑桥从事哲学工作到1946年这段时间的主要思想精华，包含了他所处理的大部分哲学话题。 《哲学研究》主要是从语言角度手处理哲学问题的，这些杂驳的哲学问题包括：词语和命题的意义是什么？什么是理解和意谓？逻辑和语言的关系是什么？数学到底有没有基础？人的意识状态该如何得到表达？是否存在一种私人语言？意向性的本质是什么？…… 维特根斯坦以一种崭新的方式为这些古老的哲学问题给出了自己的解答，其紧张的思想分析和逼问创了一种名为“日常语言分析”的哲学派别。