巴黎，1933年。三位朋友正坐在蒙帕纳斯大道上的煤气灯酒吧里喝杏子鸡尾酒。其中一个叫雷蒙·阿隆的年轻哲学家，正在向同为哲学家的让-保罗·萨特和西蒙娜·德·波伏娃盛赞一种他在德国发现的新鲜哲学——现象学。“你看，”他说，“如果你是一个现象学家，你可以谈论这杯鸡尾酒，然后从中研究出哲学来！”就这样，20世纪影响*广泛也*深远的哲学运动发端了。受到启发的萨特，将现象学与他那种法式的人文主义情感结合在一起，创立了一门全新的哲学思想——现代存在主义。在本书中，英国著名作家莎拉·贝克韦尔将历史、传记与哲学结合在一起，以史诗般恢弘的视角，激情地讲述了一个充满了斗争、爱情、反抗与背叛的存在主义故事，深探讨了在今天这个纷争不断、技术驱动的世界里，当我们每个人再次面对有关*自由、全球责任与人类真实性的问题时，曾经也受过它们困扰的存在主义者能告诉我们什么。

故谓思想文化实乃一个民族步的关键所在，只要有思想文化的活跃滋长，民族精神可以起衰继绝，民族血脉可以雄劲康健。而文化的发达，首在继承。唯有继承，始有创造。而继承的关键在乎吸收精华，剔除糟粕。

迷茫痛苦时，您一定想过生命的本质到底是什么？为什么生活中有这么多的纠结与不如意？为什么我们苦苦追寻，但zui终总会发现，时间消耗殆尽，而我们仍一无所获？不是这个世界有问题，也不是我们的努力注定付诸东流，而是我们看待问题的方式方法出了问题。让我们看到不到真实的快乐；对回报的执着，影响了我们的初心，让我们无法竭力做好该做的事；对物质无止境的追求，让我们急切地想要更多，幸福感反而越来越低，身体也越来越吃不消……凡此种种，我们都可以从《道德经说什么》里找到解决之道。 　　知名中医专家、中医诊断学博士罗大伦从中医修养身心的角度，为您逐句逐字解读《道德经》，把其中的智慧总结提炼成通俗易懂的语言，带您读懂、读透《道德经》，结合其中流传千年的智慧，助您解决生活中的常见的各种实际问题。教您把自己的位置放低，把心放空，把名利看轻，把事做成，把身体照顾好。这是一本人人看得懂、用得上的《道德经》经典解读本。

本书论述先秦诸子学说，以司马谈所论儒家、道家、阴阳家、名家、法家、墨家六家为限。整理各家流派之起源、基本观念，详述各家代表人物的学说内容，并分析其在政治、教育等方面的实际应用价值。

作为儒家“五经”之首、道家“三玄”之一的《易经》，自成书以来，注释解说者层出不穷，但想要学习《易经》的普通读者，却依然茫然不得头绪。针对这种情况，南怀瑾先生开讲《易经》。《易经杂说》《易经系传别讲》二书，既不把《易经》看作高深莫测、隐藏玄奥的天书，又否定了近代不少学者“迷信、混乱”的断语，不轻易引申，不牵强附会，以还原《易经》的本初意义为主旨，以树立端正的人生态度、传授博大的人生智慧为目的，非学究或术士者可拟。

《老子》《庄子》是道家学术思想的源头和代表作，二者对普通读者来说，也常有一种难以言说的神秘和难解之感。南怀瑾先生讲《老》《庄》，不斤斤于个别语译，游乎经史子集之中，不论出世入世，评比精义，更以禅宗的方式，随说随破，提示其出入禅道的旨意，可以说是与《老》《庄》气质接近的讲解。

南怀瑾先生一生极为重视教育，尤其重视青少年教育问题。这两本书主要谈的就是教育以及教育与文化的问题。他考察了中国两千多年教育概况，并着重讲述了20世纪以来东西文化的交流、新旧教育制度及思想的改革演变，指出，这一切乃是历史趋势中自然的现象，是文化思想在变动时代必起的波澜，也是人类历史分段生命中当然的病态。并呼吁应正本清源地反思家庭教育、社会教育和学校教育，修正学风，建立一番复兴文化的新气象。分析如抽丝剥茧层层深入，论述精辟句句发人深省。

忍是一种能力，一种修养，一种韬略“凡事忍耐，多想自己缺，增益其所不能；照顾大局，只要不妨大的原则，多多原谅人家。忍耐*难，但作为一个政治家，必须练习忍耐。”——*在1944年时对“忍耐”所做的一段精辟的剖析。君子忍人之所不能忍，容人之所不能容，处人之所不能处。——马南邨

智慧中的智慧  预测学中的行为学《周易》是群经之首，是经典中之经典，哲学中之哲学，谋略中之谋略。从《周易》中，哲学家看到辩证思维，史学家看到历史兴衰，政治家看到治世方略，军事家可参悟兵法，企业家亦可从中找到经营的方法，同样，芸芸众生也可将其视为为人处世、提高修养的不二法宝。 本书将《周易》的六十四卦分别予以详细解读，每卦独立自成一体，各节皆有原文、译文、启示，每卦之后附有中外著名事例，以期抛砖引玉之效。 《周易》一书作为中国早熟的思想文化体系，它在中国传统思想文化中的重要地位，已为世所公认。《周易》被称为六经之首，就是一种证明。

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

n eseul Despre prostie (ber die Dummheit, 1937) subiectul este tratat, ca de obicei, cu toate resursele familiare autorului: analiza filosofic se combin cu observaiile de tip psihologic i cu constatri din istorie i politologie. Dei proiectul iniiat de acest eseu nu a fost finalizat, se remarc, totui, atenta cartografiere a fenomenelor asociate prostiei, tratate n stilul ironiei constructive“, att de specific lui Musil.

Urm?nd acela?i tipar de p?n? acum (Logica elefan?ilor, Editura All, 2012), Ciprian V?lcan ?i Dana Percec au selectat c?te dou?zeci de eseuri care formuleaz?, ?ntr-o manier? doar aparent lejer?, un r?spuns la tot at?tea pretexte, culese cu ochiul colec?ionarului de caricaturi din presa rom?neasc? ?i interna?ional? sau din tomuri mai mult sau mai pu?in colbuite. Autorii inspecteaz? cu lupa ?i curiozitatea entomologului numeroase ?nt?mpl?ri, mesaje ?i personaje contemporane, ?ndemn?ndu-i pe cititori, prin stilul degajat ?i tonul convivial, s? se amuze pe seama absurdului din via?a de zi cu zi. Fie c? este vorba de politic?, sport, mod?, mass-media sau tribunale, de gastronomie sau vr?jitorie, eseurile demonteaz? adev?ruri mici, truisme, precum ?i pl?smuiri de tot felul. Fiec?rei p??anii evocate ?n pretext – unele ilare, cu miros de b?lci, altele aproape detestabile – autorii Metafizicii bicicli?tilor ?i r?spund ?n manier? diferit?, dar convergent?, contur?nd o nevoie de a r?scoli excesele lumii pentru a o ?ndemna s? se rea?eze.

Alchimia fericirii, publicat? ?n persan? (Kimiya?yi sa’adat), spre sf?r?itul vie?ii autorului, urm?re?te atenuarea tensiunilor dintre filosofii ?i misticii Islamului ?i scoate ?n eviden?? importan?a autodisciplinei ?i a ascetismului. Traducerea de fa?? are la baz? traducerea publicat? ?n 1910, ?n englez? de Claud Field (The Alchemy of Happiness) ?i este structurat? ?n opt capitole, aproximativ egale ca ?ntindere. Cartea de fa?? reune?te o serie de interpret?ri ale unor pilde cu con?inut religios evocate ?n Coran ?i ale unor idei exprimate de Mahomed, de al?i profe?i sau ?nv??ati musulmani. Chestiunile abordate de Al-Ghazali aduc ?n prim-plan ideea unei vie?i religioase exemplare. Astfel, el prezint? mai multe sfaturi pentru musulmanii pio?i. Raportul omului cu divinitatea, cu semenii s?i, cu rudele apropiate, dar ?i implica?iile religioase ale institu?iei c?s?toriei sau ale muzicii ?i dansului sunt printre cele mai importante subiecte din lucrarea lui Al-Ghazali. S? ?tii, o, preaiubite, c? omul nu a fost creat ?n glum? sau la ?nt?mplare, ci a fost f?cut ?ntr?un fel minunat ?i pentru un ?el ?nalt. Chiar dac? nu a existat dintotdeauna, el tr?ie?te ve?nic; ?i chiar dac? trupul s?u este slab ?i p?m?ntesc, spiritul ?i este m?re? ?i dumnezeiesc. ?i cu c?t este mai ales subiectul cunoa?terii noastre,cu at?t mai mare va fi ?nc?ntarea sim?it? ?n studierea acestuia; de exemplu, ne?ar face mai mult? placer s? ?tim secretele unui rege dec?t dac? am afla secretele unui ministru. V?z?nd c? Dumnezeu este cel mai ?nalt obiect posibil pentru cunoa?terea noastr?, cunoa?terea Sa trebuie s? ne d?ruiasc? mai mult? desf?tare dec?t oricare alta.

Satisfacerea neîngr?dit? a nevoilor instinctuale ale omului este oare compatibil? cu limit?rile impuse de progresul civiliza?iei? Lansat? de Freud în celebrul text Disconfort în cultur? (1930), întrebarea este reluat? peste un sfert de veac de c?tre Herbert Marcuse, eminent filosof din ?coala de la Frankfurt. În vreme ce Freud ofer? un r?spuns pesimist, vorbind despre inevitabila subjugare a instinctelor umane de c?tre societatea represiv?, Marcuse întrevede o cale de îmblânzire a agresivit??ii Civiliza?iei prin for?a unificatoare, vital? ?i ludic? a Erosului. Solu?iile de emancipare sugerate de c?tre Marcuse au influen?at profund mi?c?rile studen?e?ti, ecologice, anticolonialiste sau de eliberare sexual? din ultima jum?tate de secol. De aceea interesul pentru criticile sale trece dincolo de ?tiin?ele socio-umane, înspre to?i cei ce vor s? în?eleag? mecanismele alienante ale „societ??ii abunden?ei“. Acest eseu folose?te categorii psihologice, deoarece ele au devenit categorii politice. Exist? procese psihice, alt?dat? autonome ?i identificabile, care sunt absorbite de func?ia individului în stat - de c?tre existen?a sa public?. Problemele psihologice se transform? a?adar în probleme politice. ?– Herbert Marcuse Pornind de la Freud ?i de la tradi?ia eliberatoare a filosofiei ?i culturii, Marcuse schi?eaz? tabloul unei civiliza?ii în care alienarea ?i reprimarea sunt înlocuite de dimensiunea libidinal? ?i nealienant? a muncii, jocului ?i sexualit??ii libere ?i deschise, toate acestea conducând mai departe c?tre emancipare ?i fericire. – Douglas Kellner, editor al seriei The Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse

De numele lui Sigmund Freud (1856-1929) se leag? poate cea mai controversat? teorie din filosofia culturii ultimelor secole: psihanaliza. ?nceput? ca ?ntreprindere psihoterapeutic?, prima cur? – din punct de vedere istoric – ?n care rolul terapeutic revenea exclusiv cuv?ntului, psihanaliza a fost condus? de Freud ?n mod firesc ?i ?n direc?ia descoperirii resorturilor abisale ale culturii.Disconfort ?n cultur? (1930) este o lucrare de maturitate ?n care p?rintele psihanalizei investigheaz? mecanismele care men?in coeziunea social?, respectiv contraponderea lor, manifestat? prin senza?ia de disconfort care ?nso?e?te mai mult sau mai pu?in evident fiin?a social?.?Supraeul unui epoci culturale are o origine asem?n?toare cu a celui individual; se sprijin? pe impresia pe care au l?sat-o mari personalit??i conduc?toare, oameni de o for?? spiritual? cople?itoare sau cei la care una dintre tendin?ele umane a g?sit configura?ia cea mai puternic? ?i mai pur?, de aceea adesea ?i cea mai unilateral?.“ - Sigmund Freud

Coresponden?a lui Descartes dubleaz? opera sa propriu-zis?, fiind uneori mai expresiv? dec?t aceasta ?i cuprinz?nd cutezan?e filozofice pe care c?r?ile sale nu ?i le ?ng?duie. E aici, ?n paginile acestor scrisori, un Descartes mai viu, mai nuan?at ?n exprimare, mai amplu. O mare g?ndire filozofic?, precum aceasta, nu se resemneaz? cu propria realitate, ci se impune printr-o str?danie de a cuceri con?tiin?a public?, despre care dau seama aceste texte. Ele ?nchid ?n cuprinderea lor imaginea eforturilor prin care filozoful ??i creeaz? premisele posterit??ii sale.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) este o figur? legendar? a filosofiei germane, opera sa fiind baza ? revolu?iei copernicane“ petrecute ?n istoria g?ndirii ?n plin? er? de av?nt al romantismului. ?n volumul de fa?? sunt cuprinse dou? eseuri foarte pu?in cunoscute publicului amator de filosofie, ?n care vom reg?si g?ndurile filosofului privitoare la ?nceputuri (ale istoriei omenirii) ?i sf?r?ituri (ale lumii ?n general). Scrise dup? celebra triad? a ? Criticilor“, textele poart? amprenta sistemului kantian de g?ndire, dar constituie totodat? ?ncerc?ri remarcabile de abordare a unor subiecte de larg interes, analizate din perspectiva ve?nicei clauze a ? condi?iilor de posibilitate“. Orice minte uman? care va ?ncerca s? cuprind? ?nceputul ?i sf?r?itul se va vedea constr?ns? ?ntr-un fel sau ?n altul de limitele pe care Kant ?ncearc? s? le expun? aici ?n idei c?t mai simple.? Istoria naturii ?ncepe a?adar cu binele, c?ci este lucrarea lui Dumnezeu, iar istoria libert??ii cu r?ul, c?ci este lucrarea oamenilor. Pentru individ, care, ?n exerci?iul libert??ii prive?te doar c?tre sine, o astfel de schimbare a fost o pierdere pentru natur?, ale c?rei scopuri sunt orientate spre oameni ca specie, a fost un c??tig.“

Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea (1855-1920), critic literar ?i politician intelectual, s-a num?rat printre primii sociologi ai Rom?niei. Lucrarea de fa??, care ?ncheie celebrul studiu Neoiobagia, constituie prima analiz? bine ?ntemeiat? a vie?ii sociale care a caracterizat Rom?nia ?ntre 1866 ?i Al Doilea R?zboi Mondial, fiind o concluzie ?i totodata o sintez? a acestui studiu.Dincolo de cifre ?i de personajele citate, dincolo de obiectele specifice ale analizei, cititorul r?bd?tor poate descoperi c?, sub forma diferit?, vom g?si de data aceasta un fond: fibra profund? din care se ?mpletesc ve?nicele noastre probleme na?ionale.? ?i doar? din cele spuse se vede clar unde rezid? r?ul ??rii. O organiza?ie social? ?i de stat antagonic? ?i contradictorie, care preface institu?iile ei ?n aparen?e ?i minciun?. O via?? politic? ?i economic? plin? de resturi feudale, care nu vor s? moar?, ?i bazat? pe capitalismul modern,care nu poate ?nc? s? tr?iasc?.“ - Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea

Pamfletul Sim?ul comun (1776) a fost un veritabil best-seller ?n epoc?, succesul de care s-a bucurat reflect?ndu-se ?n numeroasele republic?ri. Lucrarea pledeaz?, cu argumente solide, pentru separarea total? a coloniilor americane de Marea Britanie, invoc?nd drepturile naturale ale oamenilor, egalitatea ?i suveranitatea fiec?rei fiin?e, supunerea doar fa?? de lege ?i caracterul absurd al institu?iei monarhiei. Autorul surprinde cu verv? ?i fine?e toate circumstan?ele favorabile desprinderii de patria-mam?, ?ndemn?ndu-?i concet??enii s?-?i decid? singuri soarta.

M. Lévy-Bruhl then explains that, whilst recognising the entire coherence of Comte’s collective labours, he proposes to confine his present study to the earlier and principal work, the Philosophy, which in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion is the dominant and more fruitful composition.??This he regards as the representative work of the nineteenth century, as shown by the intellectual history of the period. He points to its influence on thought in England, in Europe, and in America. It will surprise many persons to learn that in M. Lévy-Bruhl’s opinion two eminent French writers, who assuredly neither were, nor were supposed to be, Positivists, “have done more for the diffusion of the ideas and method of Comte than Littré and all the other Positivists together.” ??These two are Taine and Renan, much as they differed from Comte’s actual scheme and doctrines. Renan indeed spoke of Comte as destined to prove one of the typical names of the century. The present writer remembers Renan saying to him with a most genial welcome, “I too am a believer in the religion of humanity.” ??Professor Lévy-Bruhl followed up his History of Modern Philosophy in France by a substantial work on the philosophy of Auguste Comte. It forms a volume of the Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine, which has already devoted four other works to the Positive Philosophy. It is as well to premise that this treatise dealt solely with the philosophy, not with the polity, or any part of the religious scheme of Comte. Professor Lévy-Bruhl writes as a student, but not as an adherent of Auguste Comte. His entire work is rather an exposition, not a refutation, or a criticism, or an advocacy of Comte’s philosophical system. But it may be said at once that no one abroad or at home, certainly neither Mill, nor Lewes, nor Spencer, nor Caird, has so truly grasped and assimilated Comte’s ideas as M. Lévy-Bruhl has done.??In his Introduction M. Lévy-Bruhl very clearly states the scope of his work, and his own general attitude. He traces the origin of Comte’s philosophy in the mental effervescence of the first generation of the present century towards a reorganisation of society, after the upheaval left by the Revolution and its consequences. He correctly states the relation of St. Simon to Comte as being that of an initial stimulus. ??The cardinal difference between Comte and all the socialists and founders of social and religious Utopias consisted in this, that Comte saw the necessity of a new system of philosophy as the indispensable preliminary to any reorganisation of society.

Imagineaz?-?i c? e?ti într-o ma?in? a timpului care te poart? înainte ?i înapoi prin propria via??. Te duce în trecut, la anii copil?riei, când înv??ai s? mergi pe biciclet?, apoi te face s? revezi primul t?u s?rut, cel dintâi serviciu sau anii mai târzii, când te confrun?i, eventual, cu divor?ul. Înso?it de Platon, afl? ce spun marii gânditori ai lumii despre toate aceste pietre de hotar de pe drumul vie?ii noastre. Aristotel î?i va vorbi despre importan?a începerii ?colii, Freud despre îndr?gostire, Heidegger despre implica?iile psihologice ale mutatului, iar Nietzsche despre criza vârstei de mijloc. La drum cu Platon te ajut? s? în?elegi ?i s? vezi cu al?i ochi evenimentele majore, momentele-cheie ?i fazele de tranzi?ie din via?a ta, f?când filosofia s? par? accesibil? ?i plin? de umor!