Nietzsche despre filologia clasic? – iat? un subiect cu adev?rat pasionant, prilej de satisfac?ii unice pentru amatorul de a urm?ri fascinantul spectacol al form?rii ?i al cunoa?terii de sine. C?ci acest subiect ?nseamn?, de fapt, Nietzsche despre el ?nsu?i ?i ?n acest sens pledeaz? chiar propria sa m?rturie – ?Filologii sunt asemenea oameni care folosesc sentimentul ap?s?tor pe care ?l provoac? infirmitatea proprie omului modern pentru a c??tiga cu el bani ?i p?ine. ?i cunosc, eu ?nsumi sunt unul dintre ei“ (Noi, filologii, fr. 170). Mai precis, este vorba despre o ipostaz? a personalit??ii spirituale nietzscheene considerat? din unghiul evolu?iei sale interioare; dar, nu o ipostaz? oarecare, ci una esen?ial?. ?i aceasta nu pentru simplul motiv c? este cea dint?i, ci pentru c? este cea mai profund?, cea care i-a marcat definitiv orizontul de cultur? ?i de g?ndire ?i a l?sat o amprent? durabil? ?n desf??urarea destinului personal al omului. (Vasile Musc?)

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.

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.

One of the greatest works of philosophy, political theory, and literature ever produced, Plato’s Republic has shaped Western thought for thousands of years, and remains as relevant today as when it was written during the fourth century B.C.Republic begins by posing a central question: "What is justice, and why should we be just, especially when the wicked often seem happier and more successful?" For Plato, the answer lies with the ways people, groups, and institutions organize and behave. A brilliant inquiry into the problems of constructing the perfect state, and the roles education, the arts, family, and religion should play in our lives, Republic employs picturesque settings, sharply outlined characters, and conversational dialogue to drive home the philosopher’s often provocative arguments.Highly regarded as one of the most accurate renderings of Plato's Republic that has yet been published, this widely acclaimed work is the first strictly literal translation of a timeless classic. This Special Collector's Edition includes a new introduction by Prof. Colin Kant, PH.D, a noted Platonian and Socratic scholar.

O parte dintre noi au tr?it vremuri grele pe care uneori le mai vis?m, le povestim sau despre care scriem ?nc?, f?r? patima cumplit? care i-a cuprins pe profitorii de atunci, care ?i ast?zi ne fac r?u, ?i chiar mai r?u dec?t ?pe vremea aceea“, cum se zice. E drept c? noi am prev?zut-o ?ntr-un fel sau altul, spun?nd-o celor care se-ncumetau s? ne asculte, f?r? preten?ia, Doamne, fere?te!, de a ne considera ?i disiden?i, cum o f?cur? cei men?iona?i mai sus. Previziunile noastre s-au bazat pe o anume cunoa?tere a mersului istoriei, care, cum se ?tie, se tot repet?, cu mici deosebiri, fire?te. Oricum, ceva cuno?tin?e de economie politic? nu ne stric? nici ?n zilele noastre, pentru a ne da seama de jocul frecvent al trecerii de la economia politic? la politica economic? ?i, mai ales, al trecerilor de la un sistem sau or?nduire economic? la alta ?i invers, cum le-am tr?it noi: de la capitalism la socialism ?i viceversa. Ca un fel de ciud??enie, au r?mas considera?iunile despre noul eon sau noua er? (New Age) ale filosofului din Lancr?m, mai ales c? acestea s-au realizat abia dup? c?derea comunismului, pe care n-o mai prev?zuse Blaga. (Alexandru Surdu) Eseuri filosofice de acela?i autor 1. Voca?ii filosofice rom?ne?ti, Editura Aca?de?miei Rom?ne, Bucure?ti, 1995, 216 p.; edi??ia a II-a, Editura Ardealul, T?rgu-Mure?, 2003, 206 p. 2. Confluen?e cultural-filosofice, Editura Pai?de?ia, Bucure?ti, 2002, 219 p. 3. M?rturiile anamnezei, Editura Paideia, Bu?cu?re?ti, 2004, 193 p. 4. Comentarii la rostirea filosofic?, Editura Kron-Art, Bra?ov, 2009, 186 p. 5. Izvoare de filosofie rom?neasc?, Editura Biblioteca Bucure?tilor, Bucure?ti, 2010, 171 p.; edi?ia a II-a, Editura Renaissance, Bucu?re?ti, 2011, 161 p. 6. A sufletului rom?nesc cinstire, Editura Re?naissance, Bucure?ti, 2011, 197 p. 7. Pietre de poticnire, Editura Ardealul, T?r?gu-Mure?, 2014, 179 p.

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.

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?.. ?

...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).”

...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.

n concepia religioas a lui Gogol, diavolul este esena mistic i fiina real n care sa concentrat negarea lui Dumnezeu, rul etern. Gogol, ca artist, la lumina rsului, studiaz natura acestei esene mistice; ca om, cu arma rsului, lupt mpotriva acestei fiine reale: rsul lui Gogol este lupta omului cu diavolul. Dumnezeu este infinitul, sfritul i nceputul existenei; diavolul este negarea lui Dumnezeu i, prin urmare, negarea oricrui nceput i a oricrui sfrit; diavolul este nceputul i neterminatul care se d drept nenceput i infinit; diavolul este mijlocul numenal al existenei, negarea tuturor profunzimilor i culmilor, este platitudinea etern, venica trivialitate. Unicul obiect al creaiei gogoliene este diavolul chiar n acest sens, adic drept manifestare a nemuritoarei trivialiti omeneti”, observat dincolo de toate condiiile de timp i de spaiu – de istorie, popor, stat, societate –, manifestarea rului indiscutabil, etern i universal; – trivialitatea sub speciae aeterni, sub nfiarea eternitii”. (Dmitri Merejkovski)

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.

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."

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

中国佛教中的*大宗派净土宗的核心经典！全本无删减，无障碍阅读，原文精校、译文精准，依据古今高僧大德的论述解读经义！附完整译文、《净土法门五百问答》！ 净土宗系中国佛教中的*大宗派，历史悠久，信徒众多。“五经一论”是净土宗的核心经典，也是中国传统文化中的宝贵遗产。自古以来，多有高僧大德予以积极推广和鼎力弘扬，关于这些经典的注疏可谓汗牛充栋，然而遗憾的是由于时代的久远，其文言已难以适应当代人阅读。直到今天，也鲜有综合前人注疏、完整解读“五经一论”且适合当代人阅读的书籍。《净土五经一论要义通解》填补了这个空白。 本书将通过疏理历*高僧大德的精辟注疏，阐述净土法门要义，揭示其简单中见其思想体系之博大精深。提纲挈领，以窥全豹，帮助我们深入领会净土法门之理念、主旨和精髓。

《甘肃文化史》，伏俊琏、周奉真主编，是一部系统简明的甘肃文化史读本，梳理了我国甘肃省有代表性的地方文化史。全书据主题分为十三章：中华始祖文化、以彩陶为代表的史前文化、陇上周秦文化、甘肃古代民族文化、丝绸之路黄金段的文化交流和文明呈现、陇上长城与边塞文化、敦煌文化、甘肃石窟文化、甘肃写本文化、甘肃书法与绘画、甘肃文学简史、陇右思想与学术、甘肃黄河文化。

人应该从事什么事业，才能过好这一生？有人说应当追求智慧；也有人主张追求名利。谁提倡的生活更值得过？又应当以谁为师？要讲清楚其中的道理，恐非易事。 苏格拉底与智术师的思想纠葛，一直是人们津津乐道的思想史公案，苏格拉底本人就曾被误认为是败坏青年的智术师而被判刑。混淆二者给热爱智慧的人造成了不小的困扰——他们不知道谁提倡的生活才是真正值得过的生活。因此，重读柏拉图，对于分辨哲人与智术师极为必要。   柏拉图的《希琵阿斯》围绕哲人苏格拉底与智术师希琵阿斯之间的两场对话，不仅正面回答了上述问题，更邀请我们深思考：什么是“美的事业”；“美的事业”是否允许人说谎话。

《老子》，又名《道德经》或《德道经》等，是先秦时代极为重要的一部典籍，后成为道家学派的经典文献。在流传过程中，从老子其人到《老子》其书都经历了一个漫长的演化过程，对中国哲学的发展具有深刻影响。《老子》五千言，言约旨远，意蕴深刻，想要读懂读通并非易事。 复旦大学中文系郭永秉教授所撰写的《〈老子〉通识》，用浅近的学术语言，充分利用传世文献和出土文献多版本互补互证，在此基础上从老子其人，《老子》其书的性质、要义要语，今天的读者应该如何阅读《老子》，以及《老子》对古代政治文化的影响，面对复杂传本我们应该如何选择等诸多方面，层分缕析，引领大众读者走奇异玄妙的《老子》。

这是“经典与解释”辑刊的第60辑，也是辑刊创办第20个年头的年辑。本辑论题再次围绕斯威夫特采编译文。斯威夫特以《格列佛游记》知名，但他的谜语文学和修辞术是目前西方学界研究的重，这些写作形式和修辞特征反映了他对自己作为知识人的身份，尤其是他对西方现代性的深刻认识。 另外收录的柏拉图研究《<克力同>中的守法与正义》，以及研究莎士比亚研究《<威尼斯商人>中的犹太人问题》，沿袭了“经典与解释”丛书细读经典文本的惯例。“思想史发微”收两篇经学研究文章，一篇讨论康乾时期官方在《春秋》的经史性质及夷夏观念上与胡安国《春秋传》的分歧，认为分歧背后实际上存在着清廷维护政治统治的考虑。另一篇讨论乾隆间所编经学书籍《御纂诗义折中》在立意上与康熙时期不同，其中体现出浓厚的“四书学”特色。  另“旧文新刊”收台湾学者程元敏的旧文《<尚书•周诰•梓材>篇义证》，以飨读者。