Sri Krsna számtalan univerzum vitathatatlan Ura, akit korlátlan er?, gazdagság, hírnév, tudás és lemondás jellemez, ám ezek az ?r?kké diadalmas energiák csupán részben  tárják fel ?t. Végtelen dics?ségét csak az ismerheti meg, aki elb?v?l? szépségénél keres menedéket, ?sszes t?bbi fenséges tulajdonsága forrásánál, melynek páratlan transzcendentális teste ad otthont. Szépségének legf?bb jellemz?je az a mindenek f?l?tt álló édes íz, ami t?mény kivonata mindennek, ami édes. Minden édes dolgot túlszárnyal, és nem más, mint az édes íz megízlelésének képessége. Sri Krsna édes természete finom arany sugárzásként ragyog át transzcendentális testén. Govinda páratlanul gy?ny?r? testének legszebb és legédesebb része ragyogó arca. ?des hold-arcán rejtélyes mosolya a legédesebb, az az arcáról ragyogó ezüst holdsugár, ami nektárral árasztja el a világot. Mosolyának sugárzása nélkül keser? lenne a cukor, savanyú a méz, és a nektárnak sem lenne íze. Amikor mosolyának holdsugara elvegyül teste ragyogásával, a kett? együtt a kámfor aromájára emlékeztet. Ez a kámfor aztán ajkán keresztül a fuvolába kerül, ahonnan megfoghatatlan hangvibrációként t?r el?, és er?nek erejével rabul ejti azoknak az elméjét, akik hallják. Ahogy a szavak gondolatok mondanivalóját hordozzák, ahogy a gondolatok a szemben tükr?z?dnek, ahogy egy mosoly a szív érzelmeir?l árulkodik, úgy a fuvola hangja Sri Krsna szépségét viszi a fül?n keresztül a szív templomának oltárára.

Euthyphro (Ancient Greek: Euthuphron) is one of Plato's early dialogues, dated to after 399 BC. Taking place during the weeks leading up to Socrates' trial, the dialogue features Socrates and Euthyphro, a religious expert also mentioned at Cratylus 396a and 396d, attempting to define piety or holiness. Background The dialogue is set near the king-archon's court, where the two men encounter each other. They are both there for preliminary hearings before possible trials (2a).Euthyphro has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, as his father had allowed one of his workers to die exposed to the elements without proper care and attention (3e–4d). This worker had killed a slave belonging to the family estate on the island of Naxos; while Euthyphro's father waited to hear from the expounders of religious law (exegetes cf. Laws 759d) about how to proceed, the worker died bound and gagged in a ditch. Socrates expresses his astonishment at the confidence of a man able to take his own father to court on such a serious charge, even when Athenian Law allows only relatives of the deceased to sue for murder. Euthyphro misses the astonishment, and merely confirms his overconfidence in his own judgment of religious/ethical matters. In an example of "Socratic irony," Socrates states that Euthyphro obviously has a clear understanding of what is pious and impious. Since Socrates himself is facing a charge of impiety, he expresses the hope to learn from Euthyphro, all the better to defend himself in his own trial. Euthyphro claims that what lies behind the charge brought against Socrates by Meletus and the other accusers is Socrates' claim that he is subjected to a daimon or divine sign which warns him of various courses of action (3b). Even more suspicious from the viewpoint of many Athenians, Socrates expresses skeptical views on the main stories about the Greek gods, which the two men briefly discuss before plunging into the main argument. Socrates expresses reservations about such accounts which show up the gods' cruelty and inconsistency. He mentions the castration of the early sky god, Uranus, by his son Cronus, saying he finds such stories very difficult to accept (6a–6c). Euthyphro, after claiming to be able to tell even more amazing such stories, spends little time or effort defending the conventional view of the gods. Instead, he is led straight to the real task at hand, as Socrates forces him to confront his ignorance, ever pressing him for a definition of 'piety'. Yet, with every definition Euthyphro proposes, Socrates very quickly finds a fatal flaw (6d ff.). At the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro is forced to admit that each definition has been a failure, but rather than correct it, he makes the excuse that it is time for him to go, and Socrates ends the dialogue with a classic example of Socratic irony: since Euthyphro has been unable to come up with a definition that will stand on its own two feet, Euthyphro has failed to teach Socrates anything at all about piety, and so he has received no aid for his own defense at his own trial (15c ff.).

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?)

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

《哲学是很好玩儿的》(套装共15册)包括生命哲学、心灵哲学等多种哲学思想结晶，读者可以从入门开始，通过通俗易懂的方式学会如何用哲学思维思考，感受哲学里的自我和世界，帮读者重新审视自我和我们栖居的世界，以及和这个世界的关系，捕捉心中迸发的迷惑与感悟，进而把它们锤炼为人生的智慧。

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?.. ?

在人们的思维活动中，有许多种想法，却不知怎样表达。该如何形成自己清晰的观？这种观又是怎样决定人们的习惯从而影响人们的现实生活？什么样的观是有效的观？ 美国实用主义哲学创始人查尔斯·S.皮尔士（Charles Sanders Peirce）在本书中有效地回答了这些问题。他系统阐述了自己对此问题的见解：首先探讨了人们在面对纷繁复杂的世界时，是如何一步一步形成清晰的观；其次对人们在形成具体而清晰的观过程中常用的几种方法行了分析。查尔斯·S.皮尔士认为，在面对具体情形时，人们不仅仅要找到所隐藏的前提条件或原则，更要有意识地把它们表达出来，这样才有利于行分析和表达，而积极、有效地影响或改变生活和工作。 阅读本书，可以培养人们在学习和工作中科学地行深度思考、逻辑推理与准确表达。?

19世纪末20世纪初，是人类社会发生深刻变化的关键时期，也是马克思主义发展的重要时期。如何认识资本主义新变化的本质？马克思主义在时代新变化面前还有没有生命力？在新的历史条件下无产阶级面临的*紧迫任务及其实现路径是什么？以列宁为代表的马克思主义者，科学地回答了时代提出的重大问题，与各种错误思潮展了坚决斗争，有力地推了马克思主义的重大发展，为马克思主义在20世纪波澜壮阔的历史揭了精彩的序幕。 在《20世纪马克思主义发展史》（九卷本）的体系结构中，本卷具有反映历史承、时代转换和内容综合的特殊性质，总体遵循逻辑与历史相统一的思路，采用史论结合的叙述方法，着力考察19世纪末至十月革命前马克思主义发展史上的重大事件、重要人物、重著作，力图全面、准确地反映这一时期马克思主义发展的历史风貌。

本书论述了形而上学的基本含义，比较说明了中西形而上学的差异与会通，探讨了境界形而上学的内涵，主张哲学意义上的实事求是与真善美的自由人格的内在统一。本书通过境界形而上学的视角探索中国哲学中儒释道的本体、工夫、境界三者的统一，揭示了儒释道所说的本体与人的关系，即本体与人的存在内在相连，并由人的道德实践而呈现在精神境界上。

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

南怀瑾先生的著述涉及儒、释、道等中国传统文化经典，他常以经史合参的讲述方式、生动幽默语言，结合古今中外历史人文典故，结合当下的日常生活，引领新世代的人们直入文化的核心智慧，让读者更乐于了解历史人文的博大精深。本套装收录东方出版社已出版的南怀瑾作品。

《列子》为道家重要典籍之一，与老庄并列。它高深莫测，易读而难懂，以故事、神话的形态，阐释道家的学术及观念。 《列子臆说》是南怀瑾先生关于《列子》的讲记，共分上中下三册。南怀瑾先生讲述列子，深浅出、生动自在，以《列子》的内容为研究重，带领读者广阔的视野、深难测的奇妙境界，并破了意识的种种局限。列子，这个御风而行的人，要我们从一切自设的框架中突围，成就天地间的自在逍遥。

《悦心语(南怀瑾先生*述佳句选摘)(精)》是南怀瑾先生语录集，以笔记形式呈现。取材自南先生《论语别裁》、《孟子旁通》、《老子他说》、《禅宗与道家》等*作。编者“断章取义”，稍加整理。本书内容博大精深，文字简短，通俗易懂，便于现代读者阅读。 《悦心语》是南怀瑾先生的语录集，从《论语别裁》《孟子旁通》等南怀瑾先生代表作中精选经典章句而成，浓缩南师智慧精华。 南怀瑾先生是海内外享有盛誉的儒释道大师，将中华文化各种思想融会贯通，带领国人重读中国古代儒、释、道典籍，引导人们关注人的内心，关注人伦世界，关注人文教化。 南师*作不是象牙塔里不食人间烟火的精密考校疏证，处处体现着对现实世界的深切关怀，和芸芸众生的生活与命运紧密相连。南怀瑾先生认为，人生的*高境界是：佛为心，道为骨，儒为表，大度看世界；技在手，能在身，思在脑，从容过生活。这正是夫子自道。 谨以《悦心语》一书，深切缅怀敬爱的南怀瑾先生。  

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?!

Generally seen as a pioneering work of zoology, Aristotle frames his text by explaining that he is investigating the existing facts about animals. History of Animals is one of the major texts on biology.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) este o figur? important? a filosofiei secolului XIX ?i unul dintre prefa?atorii principalelor curente de g?ndire din secolul XX, fiind considerat fondatorul pragmatismului american. Cele dou? eseuri prezentate aici, primele din seria cunoscut? sub numele Ilustr?ri ale logicii ?tiin?ei, sunt reprezentative pentru opera sa, caracterizat? de profunzimi ?i subtilit??i specifice unui g?nditor care beneficiaz? ?i de preg?tirea unui om de ?tiin?a.Cu toate c? sunt uneori pur abstracte, observa?iile privitoare la convingeri ?i idei r?m?n, indiferent de sistem, puncte principale de sprijin pentru distinc?ia ?ntre g?ndirea s?n?toas? ?i cea viciat?.“ Este groaznic s? vezi cum o singur? idee neclar?, o singur? formul? f?r? ?n?eles, care se furi?eaz? ?n capul unui t?n?r, va ac?iona uneori ca un obstacol de materie inert? ?ntr-o arter?, ?mpiedic?nd circula?ia ?n creier ?i condamn?ndu-?i victima spre ofilire ?n plenitudinea vigorii intelectuale ?i ?n mijlocul abunden?ei intelectuale.“ - Charles Sanders Peirce

Critic erudit ?i pamfletar de for??, Paul Zarifopol (1874-1934) a fost un fin observator al omului ?i al fibrei care alc?tuie?te ?es?turile sociale profunde. Volumul de fa?? cuprinde eseuri care au r?mas de o actualitate acut?, chiar ?i la aproape un secol dup? ce au fost scrise.Coroziv ?i doct, discursul aduce ?n fa?a cititorului concepte esen?iale pentru morala ?i politica mai mult sau mai pu?in balcanice ale Rom?niei interbelice. Lumina ?n care ne sunt prezentate tipul politic ?i geniul organizator, de pild?, ne ofer? at?t senza?ia unei glacia?iuni temporale, c?t ?i pe aceea a unei familiarit??i inefabile.

Pornind de la leg?tura natural? care se creeaz? ?ntre mam? ?i copil, D.W. Winnicott exploreaz? o serie de probleme cotidiene din via?a unui bebelu? ?i a mamei lui, cum ar fi hr?nirea, pl?nsul ?i joaca, grijile, primele mi?c?ri spre independen??, precum ?i, mai t?rziu, probleme serioase, cum sunt furtul ?i minciuna. Importan?a mamei la ?nceputul vie?ii, timiditatea, educa?ia sexual? ?n ?coal? ?i r?d?cinile agresivit??ii sunt expuse ?ntr-o manier? direct?, accesibil? ?i prietenoas?. Pe parcursul fiec?rui capitol, Winnicott scoate ?n eviden?? abilit??ile ?nn?scute ale mamei ?i ale p?rin?ilor ?n general ?i face diferen?a ?ntre acestea ?i deprinderile care trebuie achizi?ionate de-a lungul timpului de c?tre cei care cresc ?i educ? un copil. Capacitatea voastr? de a ?ti ceea ce este real ?i ceea ce nu este real ?i este de mare ajutor copilului din toate punctele de vedere, pentru c? el nu reu?e?te s? ?n?eleag? dec?t treptat c? lumea nu este a?a cum ne o imagin?m ?i c? imagina?ia nu este chiar ca lumea real?. Dar fiecare are nevoie de cealalt?. ?ti?i prea bine c? primul obiect pe care ?l iube?te bebelu?ul – o buc??ic? de p?tur? sau o juc?rie moale –?nseamn? pentru el o parte din propria persoan? ?i, dac? i o lua?i sau o da?i la sp?lat, este o tragedie. C?nd bebelu?ul ?ncepe s? arunce obiectul iubit ?i alte obiecte (a?tept?ndu-se, desigur, s? le ridice cineva ?i s? i le dea ?napoi), atunci ?ti?i c? a venit momentul ?n care ave?i ?i voi permisiunea de a pleca ?i a v? ?ntoarce. Unele persoane cred c? un copil este ca lutul ?n m?inile unui olar. Ele ?ncep s? ?l modeleze ?i se simt responsabile de ceea ce vor ob?ine. Total gre?it. Dac? asta este ceea ce sim?i?i, ve?i fi cople?i?i de o responsabilitate pe care nu trebuie s? v-o asuma?i. Dac? accepta?i ideea c? bebelu?ul con?ine ?n el tot ce ?i trebuie pentru a tr?i, atunci ve?i putea acorda mai mult? aten?ie procesului de dezvoltare ?i ve?i fi ferici?i s? r?spunde?i nevoilor lui.