牟宗三是现代新儒家第二代的重镇，著作等身，代表着20世纪后半叶儒学的*水准，在海内外有着重要影响。其思想涉猎广泛、艰深曲折，是一段时间以来儒学研究*困难的题目，没有之一，因而一部分人有将其神化的倾向。 《走下神坛的牟宗三》力图将牟宗三从神坛上请下来，作为一个哲学家，与之展对话。本书分别从坎陷论、三系论、存有论、圆善论、合一论五个方面，扼要介绍牟宗三思想的主旨，汲取精华，指明缺陷，一同在哲学的道路上向前迈。

信息伦理是数字化生存的道德维度，信息伦理学是新兴的应用伦理学的一个重要分支。在所谓“数字化生存”的当代社会，不能没有信息伦理学的引导和规范。本书以信息法律与信息伦理的关系为切背景，在论述信息权利之道德意蕴的基础上，从信息发、信息管理、信息传播、信息消费四大方面展对信息伦理的分类探讨，并就电子商务、虚拟技术、全球化、大数据等特殊问题行具体的伦理分析，从而呈现出信息伦理学大致的整体模样，并彰显其与某些相关的、类似的应用伦理学分支的区别。本书为相关理论研究提供了一种可资参考的反思框架，也可作为各种各样的信息活动中解决实际伦理问题的一种道德指南。

本书是作者多年思考和积累的结果。书中阐述了马克思主义的基本特征和马克思主义在21世纪中国的创新机制；探讨了中国特色社会主义的“三个自信”，特别是文化自信和学术崛起；考察了思想政治教育的机遇与挑战及其应对策略；探寻了思想政治教育研究的新视角，比如思想政治教育的主渠道与微循环、科学研究的育人作用，以及思想政治教育的话语转换等。此外，本书还探讨了信仰的根基、爱国的理由，以及培育和践行社会主义核心价值观的步骤。

In Civil Disobedience Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

This Dialogue begins abruptly with a question of Meno, who asks, 'whether virtue can be taught.' Socrates replies that he does not as yet know what virtue is, and has never known anyone who did. 'Then he cannot have met Gorgias when he was at Athens.' Yes, Socrates had met him, but he has a bad memory, and has forgotten what Gorgias said. Will Meno tell him his own notion, which is probably not very different from that of Gorgias? 'O yes—nothing easier: there is the virtue of a man, of a woman, of an old man, and of a child; there is a virtue of every age and state of life, all of which may be easily described.'

The Crito seems intended to exhibit the character of Socrates in one light only, not as the philosopher, fulfilling a divine mission and trusting in the will of heaven, but simply as the good citizen, who having been unjustly condemned is willing to give up his life in obedience to the laws of the state . . .

Categories is a text from Aristotle's Organon that enumerates all the possible kinds of things that can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition. They are considered the single most heavily discussed of all Aristotelian notions.

One of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. Known as Kant's First Critique, dealing with questions concerning the foundations and extent of human knowledge, Kant builds on the work of empiricist philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume, as well as taking into account the theories of rationalist philosophers such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Christian Wolff.

Caesar, advancing by moderate journeys, and continuing his march without intermission, arrived at Lilybaeum, on the 14th day before the calends of January. Designing to embark immediately, though he had only one legion of new levies, and not quite six hundred horse, he ordered his tent to be pitched so near the sea-side that the waves lashed the very foot of it. This he did with a view that none should think he had time to delay, and that his men might be kept in readiness at a day or an hour's warning. Though the wind at that time was contrary, he nevertheless detained the soldiers and mariners on board, that he might lose no opportunity of sailing; the rather, because the forces of the enemy were announced by the inhabitants of the province, to consist of innumberable cavalry not to be numbered; four legions headed by Juba, together with a great body of light-armed troops; ten legions under the command of Scipio; a hundred and twenty elephants, and fleets in abundance. Yet he was not alarmed, nor lost his confident hopes and spirits. Meantime the number of galleys and transports increased daily; the new-levied legions flocked in to him from all parts; among the rest the fifth, a veteran legion, and about two thousand horse.

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.

Ce este dragostea? Cum poate fi explicat ceva at?t de intim, de misterios, de minunat? Autorul nu ??i propune s? ne dezv?luie vreun mare adev?r filosofic, nici s? ne ofere sfaturi practice. Nu ne ?nva?? cum s? avem orgasm sau cum s? sc?p?m de gelozie. Nu ne spune c? femeile g?ndesc cu o alt? parte a creierului dec?t b?rba?ii, nici nu ne arat? cum s? ne salv?m rela?ia. ?n schimb, ne ajut? s? ?n?elegem comportamentul sexual ?i social, dar ?i mecanismele din spatele unor reac?ii pe care le consider?m normale ?i fire?ti.?n c?utarea r?spunsului la ?ntrebarea Ce este dragostea?, Richard David Precht exploreaz? discipline dintre cele mai diverse: biologia, psihologia, sociologia, filosofia, chiar ?i chimia. De la fiecare vom afla c?te ceva despre dragoste: c?t de egoiste sunt genele noastre ?i c?t de mult ne influen?eaz?; ce este tipic comportamentului sexual feminin ?i celui masculin; c?t de mare este aportul culturii la capacitatea noastr? de a ne ?n?elege pe noi ?n?ine ?i de a ?n?elege lumea, ca femeie sau ca b?rbat; ce se ?nt?mpl?, de fapt, ?n creierul nostru c?nd iubim; care este diferen?a dintre dragoste ?i sex; de ce a devenit at?t de important? pentru noi dragostea romantic?.?n final, afl?m c? dragostea nu are explica?ie. Ea nu poate fi dec?t tr?it?!

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.

Scriitorul francez Xavier de Maistre (1763-1852) este fratele mai mic ?i mai pu?in celebru al g?nditorului Joseph de Maistre. Ironist fin ?i amator de filosofie, el ??i invit? cititorul ?ntr-o c?l?torie prin propria camer?, prilejuit? de cele ?ase s?pt?m?ni de arest cu care a fost pedepsit pentru participarea la un duel. Umorul ?i ingeniozitatea fac din acest text aparent banal o critic? spumoas? ?i fascinant? a viciilor umane ?i sociale bogat ?i expresiv ilustrate de contemporanii autorului ?i ai cititorului deopotriv?. Leprosul din Cetatea Aosta, un text prea pu?in semnificativ ca dimensiuni, constituie ?i el una dintre cele mai mi?c?toare incursiuni ?n arcanele condi?iei umane.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) este unul dintre p?rin?ii liberalismului ?n g?ndirea politic?. Textele de fa?? reprezint? cel mai important segment din Leviathan - cea mai important? lucrare a lui Hobbes, scris? ?n 1651, care poate fi considerat pe bun? dreptate punctul de pornire al trecerii de la sabie la cuv?nt ca principal? arm? ?n politic?. Cititorul poate descoperi ?n aceste pagini un filosof care s-a aplecat asupra temei societ??ii cum pu?ini au f?cut-o ?nainte de secolul XX, ?ntruc?t acesta este ?miezul fierbinte“ al g?ndirii hobbesiene, pe care arhicunoscutele sintagme ?starea de natur?“ ?i bellum omnium contra omnes nu au reu?it niciodat? s?-l scoat? la iveal?.

Numele lui Comenius s-a ?nscris ?n istoria literaturii cehe ?i universale prin cea mai important? lucrare a sa de beletristic?, romanul alegoric Labirintul lumii ?i raiul inimii. Cartea cuprinde dou? p?r?i. ?n prima, Labirintul lumii, este ?nf??i?at? alegoric lumea sub forma unui ora? medieval, amintind de un labirint pe care ?l parcurge c?l?torul-povestitor. ?n cea de-a doua parte, Raiul inimii, c?l?torul se retrage dezam?git ?n l?ca?ul inimii sale, unde ?l ?nt?lne?te pe Dumnezeu, iar credin?a ?i aduce pacea ?i alinarea. C?l?torul este de fapt reprezentarea alegoric? a curiozit??ii omene?ti; el str?bate ora?ul-lume c?ut?ndu-?i o ?ndeletnicire pl?cut? sufletului ?i trupului.Labirintul lumii ?i raiul inimii face parte din a?a-numita serie de scrieri de consolare, prin care Comenius ?ncerca s? arate c? destinul oamenilor este condus prin dreapta decizie a lui Dumnezeu. Romanul este considerat de critica literar? ceh? ca fiind cea mai reu?it? lucrare a literaturii vechi, cel mai frecvent tip?rit? p?n? ?n zilele noastre.

Cartea publicat? ?n 1983 este ?mp?r?it? ?n cinci p?r?i (ce cuprind treisprezece capitole). Fiecare capitol este constituit dintr-un dialog sau dialoguri, povestiri sau ra?ionamente ce abordeaz?, ?n general, paradoxuri, probleme de filosofie, logic? ?i matematic?. Printre temele redate ?n aceast? lucrare se num?r? problema p?catului ?i a virtu?ii (capitolul 4, intitulat ,,O ?ntrebare“), percep?ia ?i reprezentarea realit??ii (capitolul 7 ,,O fantezie minte-corp“), ontologia (capitolul 10 ,,Ce este existen?a?“), solipsismul (capitolul 12 ,,Solipsismul luminat“), problema adev?rului (capitolul 1 ,,De ce spui adev?rul?“ ?i capitolul 2 ,,O problem?“), problema vie?ii ?i a mor?ii (capitolul 9 ,,Zen de via?? ?i de moarte“). Lucrarea se remarc? printr-o formul? dens? ?i, ?n egal? m?sur?, elegant?, care ?i permite autorului s? prezinte chestiuni de altfel complexe ?n c?teva pagini revelatoare, prin povestiri sau dialoguri, f?r? a-?i plictisi cititorii. Ca ?ntr-un num?r de magie, art? de care autorul nu este str?in, publicul este atras ?i captivat de aparenta simplitate ?i ingeniozitate a ra?ionamentelor expuse. Probabil, ceea ce face cartea mai u?or de citit este atitudinea autorului, tonul s?u glume?, ludic ?n cea mai mare parte din cele 200 de pagini. Putem ilustra aceast? idee prin c?teva exemple. ?n cadrul capitolului 3, denumit ,,C?teva fragmente“, Raymond Smullyan poveste?te c? le-ar fi declarat studen?ilor ?n timpul unui examen c? dac? ei ?i-ar da cuv?ntul de onoare c? nu vor copia, atunci el ?i-ar da cuv?ntul c? nu va raporta mai departe dac? ei ar ?ncerca s? copieze. Cineva l-ar fi ?ntrebat la un moment dat dac? crede ?n astrologie. El a r?spuns c? nu crede ?n astrologie deoarece este ?n zodia Gemeni. Lista de propozi?ii care se contrazic singure, a lui Saul Gorn, un specialist ?n informatic?, pe care Smullyan le citeaz?, reprezint? ?i ele o mostr? de umor. Printre acestea se reg?sesc afirma?ii precum: ,,?nainte de a ?ncepe s? vorbesc, a? vrea s? v? spun ceva.“, ,,Jum?tate dintre minciunile pe care ei le spun despre mine sunt adev?rate.“ sau ,,Te ai dep??it pe tine ?nsu?i, ca de obicei.“

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.

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?.. ?