黑天鹅是无法预测的意外事件，学名叫“肥尾效应”；灰犀牛是可以预见的潜在风险，就像一头犀牛从远处向你跑来；而看不见的大象就是，问题（危机）已经存在，却没人说出来，就是不作为，学名叫“集体无意识”。看不见的大象指危机存在你身边，但你毫不在意，因为这些问题（危机）离你很遥远，也叫“群体无意识”。 《看不见的大象》是一本关于让我们如何认识复杂及长远事件的认知心理学大众读物。“看不见的大象”在本书中指“全球变暖”等长远事件，也指我们思维中的不理智、冲动的方面。本书将行为科学与经济学、心理学和流行文化相结合，阐述了迫使我们对未来充满不确定性的心理谬误和偏见，帮助我们扭转其影响。本书介绍了认知陷阱、思维捷径、不确定性管理、无用性感知等心理偏见，并提出如何应对长远的重大事件。 当前，世界处于百年未有之大变局，我们既要面对突如其来的“黑天鹅”“灰犀牛”事件，也要面对“看不见的大象”。只有这样，我们才能在应对复杂事件时处乱不惊。

本书是一部关于人性与伦理的跨文化研究原创之作，书中有大量创新的观。全书分三个部分：1.用观念史的叙事方法，构造了西方人性论的发展史。2.用范式转变的方式应对人性的危机，强调达尔文化论对研究人性论、哲学和伦理学的范式作用；3.中西伦理的比较和对话，包括轴心时代的共时性案例分析和儒家与基督教伦理的历时性比较。

《博士论文》是马克思哲学的第一次公出场。他站在黑格尔的肩膀上，向世界宣告了自己的主张，提出了世界哲学化和哲学世界化的重要命题。《博士论文》是如何写出来的？它表达了哪些思想？今天我们应当如何阅读这部著作？本书将带领大家一起走青年马克思的精神世界。

《周易》以伏羲八卦为基础，以乾、坤、震、艮、离、坎、兑、巽分别代表天、地、雷、山、火、水、泽、风，并一步将八卦两两组合，衍生出六十四卦，揭示天地阴阳化生万物的内在规律，并升华为中华文明的思想内核，其内容涉及天文、地理、经济、文化、修身养性、待人物……包罗万象，奥妙无穷。 《周易》包括经和传两个部分，经主要是对每一卦、每一爻所作的解释，为古时占卜之用；传则用于解释经的内容，为占卜之辞赋予哲学式的理解。经和传相辅相成，蕴藏着朴素的宇宙衍化法则和人类社会的发展规律，是中国传统思想文化中自然哲学与伦理实践的根源，被誉为“群经之首，大道之源”。

《黄庭经》以脐后肾前的黄庭为主要修行场所，以存思内神及引气行身来进行修炼。其书汇集了周秦以来的众多修炼法门，犹如宋代《云笈七签》的广包众类，堪称为道教修 炼方面的小道藏。 本书包括“黄庭经阐微”“黄庭内景玉经详解”“黄庭外景玉经详解”三部份，上篇讨论了两部《黄庭经》的撰成年代、相互关系，探讨了它们的修行法门及其对汉代《太上灵宝五符序》《周易参同契》、东晋上清派存思内神守一法、金代全真教以黄庭为主等修行法 门的影响。中篇下篇以全文注、译及校正经文为主。 本书既有助于对中国古代道家，尤其是上清派丹道实修理论的学术研究，又可作为道家丹道养生广大爱好者深入研习参考。 黄庭经详解（下册）.zip

19世纪70年代，欧洲革命形势出现重大变化，国际共产主义运动事业再一次面临严峻考验。为纠正当时的错误思潮，把运动引回正确的道路上来，马克思专门撰写了《哥达纲领批判》这部纲领性文本。他通过批判性阐释，全面驳斥了拉萨尔主义对系列关键问题的误解和歪曲，重申了无产阶级斗争原则，具有深远的革命实践意义和理论创新意义，是理解科学社会主义本质内涵、把握马克思主义要义的重要文本依据。在国际形势风云激荡的今天，《哥达纲领批判》依旧具有强烈的时代价值，值得我们不断发掘和体会。

本书围绕重释马克思哲学这一主题，展示马克思哲学的当代意义这一目标，把马克思哲学置于一个宏大的理论背景中，从理论与文本、理论与历史、理论与现实三个维度展对马克思哲学的研究，并用新的实践、科学和哲学成果重新阐释已经成为“常识”的马克思哲学的基本观，深探讨被忽视、被遗忘的马克思哲学的基本观，系统论证马克思有所论述但又未展、同时又契合着当代重大问题的观，并使之上升为马克思主义哲学的基本观，从而为我们展示了一个新的马克思的“形象”，为我们重新理解马克思哲学提供了一个新的思维空间。

本书内容为如来藏系经典的汉译以及重要的如来藏经典文本所包含的思想之研究。书中重研究分析的如来藏类佛经和论典为《如来藏经》《央掘魔罗经》《不增不减经》《大法鼓经》《胜鬘经》《无上依经》《大云经》《大般涅槃经》《圆觉经》《楞伽经》《楞严经》《究竟一乘宝性论》《佛性论》《大乘起信论》等十一部经和三部论，结论是：上述如来藏经典全部不存在“伪经”或“伪论”的问题。如来藏经典并非大乘佛教独立的派系，而是对于如来法身以及众生成佛的依据等问题所作的新诠释，尤其是，后期如来藏经典已经被瑜伽行派所吸收摄取。后，如来藏说并不存在近代以来学术界所指责的与“大梵”说没有区别等问题；宣称如来藏是“基体”因而如来藏思想不是佛教等说法是没有经典根据的。

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.“

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.

Lucrarea aceasta se bazeaz? pe teza de doctorat a autorului, sus?inut? ?n iunie 2008, Problema drept??ii ?i restituirea propriet??ilor ?n Rom?nia post-decembrist?, fiind ?ns? o versiune modificat? a tezei. Dup? cum m?rturise?te autorul, unele pasaje tehnice au fost adaptate, pentru a putea fi u?or inteligibile pentru publicul larg. Cartea de fa?? este rezultatul unor ample cercet?ri, ?ncepute ?n 2002. ?Nu mai cred c? principala datorie a filosofului moral este de a produce ?solu?ii? (sentin?e) la problemele etice percepute ca atare ?ntr-un univers social. […] La fel ca ?ntr-un tribunal, pledoariile sunt utile, ?i e bine s? se foloseasc? de argumente c?t mai puternice ?i mai rafinate. Dar, la fel cum cercetarea ?n materie de drept nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv principal producerea de pledoarii specific avoca?ilor (cu toate c? examinarea fundamentelor legii poate conferi o greutate suplimentar? unei pledoarii particulare sau alteia), tot a?a cercetarea de ordin etic nu-?i poate propune ca obiectiv ceva similar pledoariilor.“ Con?inutul este organizat ?n 7 capitole, concluzii ?i o bibliografie, util? f?r? ?ndoial? pentru oricine ar dori s? aprofundeze chestiunile abordate de autor. Introducerea este urmat? de o discu?ie conceptual? ?i metodologic? despre repara?ie (capitolul 2), rectificare, restitu?ie, drepturile de proprietate ?i evaluarea moral? a restitu?iei. Celelalte capitole se ocup? de urm?toarele teme: nedreptatea na?ionaliz?rii (capitolul 3), restitu?ia post-comunist? (capitolul 4), argumentul coasian (capitolul 5), restitu?ia ?i dreptatea transgenera?ional? (capitolul 6), principiul nozickian al rectific?rii nedrept??ilor (capitolul 7). ?Am ?ncercat apoi s? analizez ce anume presupune c?utarea unui r?spuns la o ?ntrebare de tipul ?Este restitu?ia justificat? ?? (?n 2.3.) Rezultatul important, cred, a fost acela c? nu exist? un r?spuns simplu, ?i c? o astfel de ?ntrebare este prost formulat?. Am propus ?n loc alte cinci ?ntreb?ri, mai precise : dac? actul na?ionaliz?rii a fost unul nedrept, dac? o politic? restitutiv? risc? sau nu s? ?ndrepte o nedreptate trecut? ?nf?ptuind o alta, dac? putem identifica cu precizie obiectele restitu?iei ?i dac? orizontul temporal introduce elemente importante ?n cadrul de evaluare moral? (at?t ca atare, c?t ?i ?n dimensiunea sa intergenera?ional?). ?n primul r?nd, putem afirma c? politica aleas? imediat dup? 1989 (cea a men?inerii status-quo-ului, ?n speran?a c? lucrurile se vor rezolva cumva de la sine sau ca o solu?ie ideal? se va prezenta ?n mod miraculos) a fost at?t lipsit? de vreo justificare moral?, c?t ?i neinspirat? din punct de vedere pragmatic.“

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

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!

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.

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

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.

Nietzsche este, poate, cea mai ilustr? victim? a aventurii socratice a cunoa?terii de sine. Via?a nu posed? fenomene originale, ci numai unele repetitive, care prin reluarea lor ve?nic identic? ??i tocesc conturul lor original. Cadrul repeti?iei nu este via?a, c?ci via?a ?ns??i este un fenomen de repeti?ie. Omul este condamnat s? tr?iasc? ?ntr-un plictisitor ?ir de repeti?ii ?i relu?ri din care nu poate evada. Nu exist? fenomene absolut unice, care s? nu fie repetitive ?i, probabil, la fel este ?i cu oamenii. To?i au mai fost nu o dat?, ci de nenum?rate ori ?n trecut ?i vor mai fi de nenum?rate ori ?n viitor. Tot ce trebuia ?i putea s? se produc? s-a produs deja. Restul este doar monoton? repeti?ie: ve?nic? revenire a aceluia?i. Eterna ?ntoarcere exprim? nu devenirea heraclitean? f?r? repaos, ci marile linii de stabilitate din cadrul existen?ei. Prin ea, Nietzsche vrea s? eternizeze trec?torul, socotind timpul ca etern, etern? ?ntoarcere, adic? schimbare ?i stabilitate. Ecce homo este ?i exerci?iul acestui impas al g?ndirii lui Nietzsche. Prin aceasta ?ns? Nietzsche ?i-a adus contribu?ia la instaurarea unui nou ?idol“ al lumii moderne dup? ce aceasta a denun?at prezen?a ?idolilor“ de tot felul ?n spa?iul ei de con?tiin??. (Vasile Musc?)??ntruc?t, ?n scurt timp, va trebui s? m? adresez omenirii cu cea mai grea solicitare care i-a fost prezentat? vreodat?, mi se pare imperios necesar s? spun cine sunt. ?n principiu, ar trebui s? se ?tie: c?ci nu m-am l?sat ?neatestat?. Dar discrepan?a dintre m?re?ia misiunii mele ?i micimea contemporanilor mei ?i-a g?sit expresia ?n faptul c? nici nu am fost auzit, nici nu am fost v?zut. Tr?iesc pe propriul meu credit, s? fie poate o simpl? prejudecat? faptul c? tr?iesc?... Este de ajuns s? stau de vorb? cu vreun ?om cultivat?, care vine vara ?n Engadina de Sus, ca s? m? conving c? nu tr?iesc... ?n aceste ?mprejur?ri, este o ?ndatorire ?mpotriva c?reia obi?nuin?a mea ?i, mai mult chiar dec?t aceasta, m?ndria instinctelor mele, se revolt?, anume aceea de a spune: Auzi?i-m?! c?ci eu sunt cutare ?i cutare. ?nainte de toate, nu cumva s? m? confunda?i!“ (Friedrich Nietzsche)

n Filosofia meritului autorul folosete metoda fenomenologic pentru a prezenta evoluia instituiilor socio-morale care reglementeaz meritele; autorul propune n acest scop concepte originale, cum sunt ideonomia (sistemul de idei care fundamenteaz teoretic un sistem de apreciere a meritului); socionomia (sistemul de reguli care legitimeaz social un merit specific unei comuniti) i politonomia (sistemul de norme prin care se instituionalizeaz juridic meritul politic).Tratatul de Filosofie a meritului este structurat n trei pri corespunztor celor trei domenii existeniale n care se manifest fiina uman, spiritual, social, politic. Lucrarea prezint n extenso criteriile, principiile i formele de manifestare a meritului, premisele constituirii sistemelor sociale de apreciere a meritului, natura bio-psihic i socio-moral a meritelor precum i caracterul normativ al meritelor politico-juridice. Prima parte abordeaz sfera meritele cu caracter antropologic, antroponomic i antropocratic. Partea a doua prezint n extenso meritele cu caracter sociologic, socionomic i sociocratic i partea a treia analizeaz formele de manifestare a meritului din perspectiva politologiei, a politonomiei i a politocraiei. n fiecare capitol se regsesc argumente logice, etimologice i sociologice care justific aprecierea unor atribute i caliti umane ca merite individuale. Fiecare din cele douzeciiapte de capitole explic un tip de merit din tripl perspectiv: ideal social i politic.

Diderot, tanr?sal, dinsel inanc?n yerine akl? ge?iren adamd?r, onun sava??m? buydu ve bütün k?r inan?lar? silip süpüren bu ak?l, g?rünen dünyay?, do?ay?, felsefenin, sanat?n, sa? t?renin temel ilkesi durumuna getirdi. Diderot’un yayg?n ?al??ma alan?n? olu?turan ilkedir bu. Maddeci ve gerekirci bir filozoftu. tanr?ya inanan ki?inin filozof olmayaca??n? s?yledi. 'K?rler üstüne mektup'taki k?r, kendini tanr?ya inand?rmaya ?al??an misyonere "bunun i?in tanr?ya parma??mla dokunmam gerekir" der. Diderot, bu yüzden hapse girdi. 'D'alembert'in dü?ü'nde, madde tanr?n?n yerini alm??t?r art?k. Madde devinim ve duyarl?l?kla donat?lm??t?r. Bilim gerekircili?in kan?t?d?r. Bütün varl?klar ?z?e birdir ve bir ge?i?, de?i?im, olu?um süreci i?inde bulunurlar. ?yle ise sa? t?renin temeli do?a olacakt?r. Do?as? gere?i insan iyidir, hristiyan sagtoresinin sand??? gibi do?u?tan günahkar de?il ve iyilikler de, k?tülükler de, düzenin, ko?ullar?n, e?itimin ürünüdür. ?nsan, bu gerekircilik anlay??? i?inde, ?zgür olamayaca?? i?in, su?lu da bulunamaz. bu üslama sonucu olarak sanat, do?ay? ?rnek almal?d?r. roman, resim, oyun ger?ek?i olmal?d?r. Diderot, bunlar? s?ylemekle kalmam??, romanlar? ve oyunlar? ile ?rneklendirmi?tir de ve ?a??n?n sanat??lar?n? bu a??dan de?erlendirmi?tir. Diderot, büyük sava??m? ve e?siz ?abas? ile insanl???n ba?tac?d?r bugün de ve onu b?ylesine unutulmaz k?lan i?lerinin ba??nda ise elbet 'ansiklopedi' gelir. 'Ansiklopedi', yunanca enkyklios paidela'dan yap?lm??t?r ve bütün bilimleri i?ine alan ??retim anlam?na gelir. s?zcü?ü bulan rabelais'dir (1532). Diderot ile d'alembert'in ansiklopedisine temel olan yap?t, ?ng?l?z chambers’?n cyelopaedia’s? idi; fakat diderot'nun etkisi ile ansiklopedi, bir ?eviri yap?t olmaktan ??k?p, gizemcili?e kar?? bilimin sava? alan? durumunu ald?. Bu yüzden de gerici ?evrelerin kar?? koymas?n? sonu?lad?. diderot, ya?am? boyunca ?al??t? 'ansiklopedi' i?in, bir?ok maddeyi kendisi yazd?. bu u?urda yepyeni ara?t?rmalara giri?ti, teknik de?i?mekte oldu?u i?in ortaya yeni ara?-gere?ler ??kmakta idi, bunlar? tan?d?, adland?rd?, tan?tt? ve fransa'y? ayd?nlanma ?a??'n?n avrupa'da g?zbebe?i durumuna getirdi. Ancak unutmamal? ki, bir ansiklopedi ortaya ??karan her ülkeyi ayd?nlanma ?a??'n? alg?lam?? sayamay?z. ?o?u ülkede bu tür yap?tlar, geni?letilmi? s?zlükler olmaktan ileri gidememi?tir. diderot’nun ansiklopedisi, toplu bilgi vermekten ?ok, dinsel inan?lara kar?? bilimlerin ??retimini üstlenmi?ti, demek yans?z de?ildi, metafizikle ve skolastikle ?arp???yordu..

Iako je napisao veoma zna?ajne radove iz drugih podru?ja filozofije?(npr. Sistem logike, gde izla?e na?ela induktivnog zaklju?ivanja, ili Utilitarizam, gde izla?e shvatanje da svako treba da dela tako da proizvede najve?u sre?u za najve?i broj ljudi), Mil je najtrajniji utjecaj ostavio svojim radovima iz politi?ke filozofije i etike. Njegovo delo O slobodi smatra se jednim od temeljnih tekstova savremenog liberalizma. U njemu Mil zagovara na?elo da je ljudsku slobodu dozvoljeno ograni?avati samo ukoliko ?teti drugima. Na?elo ?tete, kako se to na?elo ?esto naziva, u svojoj primeni na ure?enje dru?tvenih odnosa isklju?uje sve despotske i autoritarne oblike vlasti koji gu?e slobodu pojedinaca i njihovu individualnost. Od posebne va?nosti za sre?u pojedinca i dru?tva u celini jeste sloboda govora, koja ni?im ne sme biti ograni?ena. Na Milovoj raspravi O slobodi njen prevodilac, kralj Petar I Kara?or?evi?, tvorac dr?ave Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca, zasnovao je svoj politi?ki program.

Critica ra?iunii pure, tradus? de Nicolae Bagdasar ?i Elena Moisuc ?n 1969, a ajuns la cea de-a treia edi?ie. Cu acest prilej, profesorul dr. Ilie P?rvu, de la Facultatea de Filosofie a Universit??ii din Bucure?ti a ?ngrijit noua opera?ie de editare, fiind astfel corectate unele erori de tipar ?i unele inconsecven?e terminologice. Totodat?, exist? un motiv ?n plus pentru ca studen?ii care posed? edi?ia a II-a a traducerii, ap?rut? ?n 1995, s? apeleze ?i la cea de-a treia edi?ie: ?n aceasta din urm? au fost indicate diferen?ele dintre edi?ia I german? (din 1781) ?i edi?ia a II-a (din 1787).