《哲学研究》讲述了：在西方哲学史上，维特根斯坦是唯一创造了两种不同哲学而又各自产生重大影响的哲学家。前期以《逻辑哲学论》为代表，后者则以《哲学研究》为象征。《哲学研究》告别了传统西方哲学以理想语言为基础、试图探索语言本质的静态逻辑构造论，重新将语言哲学捡回到日常语言中，将语言的实际运用、语言的功能作用作为出发点。他所提出的“语言游戏”和“家族类似”对语言哲学的发展贡献基本。《哲学研究》译者陈嘉映为海德格尔《存在与时间》的译者。《哲学研究》直接译自维氏的德文原本，因而是迄今中国最贴切、最准确的这一哲学名著的译本。

《玻璃球游戏》是一部寓言小说，讽刺小说。故事发生在一个虚构的未来世界。克乃西特是一个孤儿，由一宗教团体抚养成人，他天资聪颖，最后成了这个团体象征的最高智慧的玻璃球游戏大师。但随着年龄和地位的增长，他逐渐不满足这这个与世隔绝的精神王国的生活，认为在这样的象牙塔里是不可能为人民作出贡献的。最后他离开这个精神王国，来到现实世界，企图用教育来改善整个世界，然而他的事业未竟，在一次游泳中溺水身亡。

奥斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒（1880-1936年）是德国著名的历史学家和历史哲学家。他出生于德国哈茨山巴的布兰肯堡，曾就读于哈雷大学、慕尼黑大学和柏林大学。青年时代除了研究历史和艺术之外，他还对数学和博物学有浓厚的兴趣，所有这些使他的作品具有一种奇特的风格。1904年，斯宾格勒在哈雷大学获得博士学位，之后成为了一名中学教师。第一次世界大战爆发时，他因健康原因未能被征召入伍。在这期间，他隐居在慕尼黑的一所贫民窟里，在烛光下完成了《西方的没落》一书。此书的出版给斯宾格勒带来了巨大的声誉，许多大学以正式或非正式的方式邀请他执掌教席，可都被他拒绝。此后他一直过着一种近乎于隐居的生活，以历史研究和政论写作自适。1936年5月8日凌晨，斯宾格勒因心脏病突发逝世，他的妹妹们将其埋葬，但未举行任何的吊唁形式。斯宾格勒一生写下大量著作，其中重要的有：《普鲁士人民和社会主义》、《悲观主义》、《德国青年的政治义务》、《德国的重建》、《人和技术》等。《西方的没落》是斯宾格勒最重要的著作，全书分为两卷，第一卷出版于1918年，第二卷出版于1922年。此书，尤其是第二卷在世界范围内受到了普遍欢迎，也引起了读者和学术界的激烈争论。它激烈的言辞、精辟的理论和独特的方法，在一个较长的时期内一直是一般公众或有关学者争论的热点。在《西方的没落》中，斯宾格勒以生物生长过程的观念进行历史研究，把世界历史分成八个完全发展的文化，细致考察其各个时期的不同现象，揭示其共同具有的产生、发展、衰亡及其毁灭的过程。斯宾格勒对文化的研究方法进行了革新，他对每一种文化的现象采取“观相式”的直觉把握，以某些基本象征来揭示这种文化的全貌，他称之为“文化的形态学”。《西方的没落》一书的主要目的不是复述已经过去的历史事件，而是要掌握事实的真相，以便更好地应付将来。斯宾格勒说，大多数文化都经历了一个生命的周期，西方文化也不例外。西方已经走过了文化的创造阶段，正通过反省物质享受而迈向无可挽回的没落。历史学家不仅要重建过去，更重要的是预言，用他自己的话说就是“我们西方历史尚未完结的各阶段的思想方式、时间长短、节奏、意义和结果”。正因为如此，《西方的没落》也被很多人称为一部未来之书，而斯宾格勒也被称为“西方历史的先知”。《西方的没落》具有很大有魅力，这一方面来源于它思想的独特和深刻，另一方面则来源于其行文的丰富多彩。斯宾格勒文笔栩栩如生，他善于取譬设喻，善于描绘历史人物的性格，并以此衬托出某个时代的突出特征。其叙事、议论，都收放自如，缓急适度，而节奏适宜，具有很高的文学性。读《西方的没落》，即使不同意斯宾格勒的思想，也不得不折服于他的文体。
《西方的没落》是一部深刻、丰富的书，它不仅包含着对历史深刻的洞见，而且在社会学、人类学和政治思想上也做出了非常卓越的贡献，在现代西方产生了复杂、广泛的影响。

Are cyborgs our friends or our enemies? Was it morally right for Skynet to nuke us? Is John Connor free to choose to defend humanity, or not? Is Judgment Day inevitable? The Terminator series is one of the most popular sci-fi franchises ever created, captivating millions with its edgy depiction of the struggle of humankind for survival against its own creations. This book draws on some of history's philosophical heavy hitters: Descartes, Kant, Karl Marx, and many more. Nineteen leather-clad chapters target with extreme prejudice the mysteries surrounding intriguing philosophical issues raised by the Terminator series, including the morality of terminating other people for the sake of peace, whether we can really use time travel to protect our future resistance leaders in the past, and if Arnold's famous T-101 is a real person or not. You'll say "Hasta la vista, baby" to philosophical confusion as you develop a new appreciation for the complexities of John and Sarah Connor and the battles between Skynet and the human race.

Most of us believe that there are limits to the sacrifices that morality can demand of us. We also think that certain types of acts are simply forbidden, even when necessary for promoting the overall good. Here Kagan argues that attempts to defend these sorts of moral limit are inadequate. In thus rejecting two of the most fundamental features of commonsense morality, the book offers a sustained attack on our ordinary moral views.

Conjectures and Refutations is a volume of classic essays by Karl Popper in which he expounds his fallibilist theory of knowledge and scientific discovery and applies it to a range of concerns, from political theory to the mind-body problem.

《猜想与反驳》围绕着知识通过猜想与反驳、不断清除错误而增长这一主题展开论述，广泛涉猎知识论、科学论、真理论以及自然科学史和社会科学史等领域。

A Theory of Justice is a widely-read book of political and moral philosophy by John Rawls. It was originally published in 1971 and revised in both 1975 (for the translated editions) and 1999. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract. The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two famous principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle.
[edit] Objective
In A Theory of Justice Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality. Central to this effort is an account of the circumstances of justice (inspired by David Hume), and a fair choice situation (closer in spirit to Kant) for parties facing such circumstances, and seeking principles of justice to guide their conduct. These parties face moderate scarcity, and they are neither naturally altruistic nor purely egoistic: they have ends they seek to advance, but desire to advance them through cooperation with others on mutually acceptable terms. Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation (the original position with its veil of ignorance) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice. Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts.
[edit] The "original position"
Main article: Original position
Like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls' social contract takes a slightly different form from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an entirely and deliberately artificial device he calls the Original position, in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. This "veil" is one that essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what notion of justice is developed.
"no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance."
According to Rawls, ignorance of these details about oneself will lead to principles which are fair to all. If an individual does not know how he will end up in his own conceived society, he is likely not going to privilege any one class of people, but rather develop a scheme of justice that treats all fairly. In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the position of the least well-off.
They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association [Rawls, p 11]
It is important to keep in mind that the agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and nonhistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. In other words, Rawls seeks to persuade us through argument that the principles of justice that he derives are in fact what we would agree upon if we were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is nonhistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever, or indeed could actually be entered into as a matter of fact.
Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society.
[edit] The First Principle of Justice
“ First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.[1] ”
The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office); freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of the person along with the right to hold (personal) property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest. It is a matter of some debate whether freedom of contract can be inferred as being included among these basic liberties.
The first principle is more or less absolute, and may not be violated, even for the sake of the second principle, above an unspecified but low level of economic development (i.e. the first principle is, under most conditions, lexically prior to the second principle). However, because various basic liberties may conflict, it may be necessary to trade them off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights. There is thus some uncertainty as to exactly what is mandated by the principle, and it is possible that a plurality of sets of liberties satisfy its requirements.
[edit] The Second Principle of Justice
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.303):
a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of (fair equality of opportunity)
Rawls' claim in b) is that departures from equality of a list of what he calls primary goods – 'things which a rational man wants whatever else he wants' [Rawls, 1971, pg. 92] – are justified only to the extent that they improve the lot of those who are worst-off under that distribution in comparison with the previous, equal, distribution. His position is at least in some sense egalitarian, with a proviso that equality is not to be achieved by worsening the position of the least advantaged. An important consequence here, however, is that inequalities can actually be just on Rawls's view, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off. His argument for this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family we're born into) shouldn't determine our life chances or opportunities. Rawls is also keying on an intuition that we do not deserve inborn talents, thus we are not entitled to all the benefits we could possibly receive from them, meaning that at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to equality in assessing the justice of distributions is eliminated.
The stipulation in a) is prior to that in b) and requires more than meritocracy. 'Fair equality of opportunity' requires not merely that offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed. It is often thought that this stipulation, and even the first principle of justice, may require greater equality than the difference principle, because large social and economic inequalities, even when they are to the advantage of the worst-off, will tend to seriously undermine the value of the political liberties and any measures towards fair equality of opportunity.
[edit] Relationship to Rawls's later work
Although Rawls never retreated from the core argument of A Theory of Justice, he modified his theory substantially in subsequent works. The discussion in this entry is limited to his views as they stood in A Theory of Justice, which stands on its own as an important (if controversial and much criticized) work of political philosophy.
His subsequent work is discussed in the entry titled John Rawls. Of particular note is his work Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001), in which he clarified and re-organised much of the argument of A Theory of Justice.
[edit] Critics of A Theory of Justice
A Theory of Justice made a significant contribution to re-establishing interest in political philosophy, and so it has served as the basis for much of the debate since, meaning that it has been much criticized.
In particular, Rawls's colleague at Harvard Robert Nozick wrote a defence of libertarian justice in the aftermath of A Theory of Justice, called Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which was critical of Rawls's work. Because it is, in part, a reaction to A Theory of Justice, the two books are now often read together. Another colleague of Rawls's from Harvard, Michael Walzer, wrote a defence of communitarian political philosophy, entitled "Spheres of Justice," as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick.
Robert Paul Wolff wrote Understanding Rawls: A Critique and Reconstruction of A Theory of Justice immediately following the publication of A Theory of Justice, which criticized Rawls from a roughly Marxist perspective. Wolff argues in this work that Rawls's theory is an apology for the status quo insofar as it constructs justice from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market economy.
Feminist critics of Rawls largely focused on the extent to which Rawls's theory could account for, at all, injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Rawls argued that justice ought only to apply to the "basic structure of society" for instance, and feminists rallying around the theme of "the personal is political" took Rawls to task for failing to account for injustices found in patriarchal social relations and the sexual division of labor.
The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized, with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles. However Rawls does not deny this, he uses the original position in conjunction with an intuitive argument to justify his claim of justice as fairness.
Some critics allege that Rawls' argument is weakened in failing to denote healthcare as a primary good. Proponents respond by asserting that affordable and accessible healthcare arises as an inevitable result of the benefits attained by following through with the Original Position.
One of the most influential recent criticisms of Rawls' theory has come from the philosopher G.A. Cohen, in a series of influential papers that culminate in his 2000 book If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? Cohen's criticisms are levelled against Rawls' avowal of inequality under the difference principle, against his application of the principle only to social institutions, and against Rawlsian fetishism with primary goods (the metric which Rawls chooses as his currency of equality).

Harvard government professor Sandel (Public Philosophy) dazzles in this sweeping survey of hot topics—the recent government bailouts, the draft, surrogate pregnancies, same-sex marriage, immigration reform and reparations for slavery—that situates various sides in the debates in the context of timeless philosophical questions and movements. Sandel takes utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative and Rawls's theory of justice out of the classroom, dusts them off and reveals how crucial these theories have been in the construction of Western societies—and how they inform almost every issue at the center of our modern-day polis. The content is dense but elegantly presented, and Sandel has a rare gift for making complex issues comprehensible, even entertaining (see his sections entitled Shakespeare versus the Simpsons and What Ethics Can Learn from Jack Benny and Miss Manners), without compromising their gravity. With exegeses of Winnie the Pooh, transcripts of Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing and the works of almost every major political philosopher, Sandel reveals how even our most knee-jerk responses bespeak our personal conceptions of the rights and obligations of the individual and society at large. Erudite, conversational and deeply humane, this is truly transformative reading.

本论文集收入了三位科学家和一位科学哲学家所写的关于科学和宗教问题的文章。他们提供了一种以对话的方式看待科学与宗教问题的视角，重新审视那些曾被当作科学与宗教相互对立冲突的证据和口实。 本书所讨论的主题是丰富的，同时作者们对科学深有研究。他们还利用了与基督教信仰三个传统——罗马天主教、东正教和新教——相容的丰富的基督教信念，期望读者不仅能够见识作者的学术觅地，同时也注意到他们对《圣经》和科学的严肃态度。

在这本书中，宗萨蒋扬钦哲仁波切的以最简单的语言来说明佛教最核心的四法印见地，文字看似简单，却包含了深入浅出的层层奥义。下笔行云流水，诙谐幽默又字字珠玑。在轻快的字句后面，充满了引导无明众生脱离轮回的佛菩萨大悲大愿。
宗萨蒋扬钦哲仁波切是藏传佛教的老师，也是闻名影坛的导演。在书中，他以电影的虚拟实境，巧妙地比喻我们身处的幻相世界；而证悟的过程就彷佛脱去妄念所带来的层层蔽障，了解因缘的善变与无常；因而放下我执，迈向醒觉之路。
他爽洁而利落地破除常人对佛教徒的误解：佛教徒等于祥和与非暴力；其实，这并非佛法的核心。对于要成为一位佛教徒，你必须接受佛教的四法印见地：一切和合现象都是无常，一切情绪都是痛苦，一切事物无自性，以及证悟超越概念。宗萨蒋扬钦哲仁波切以实证的经验加以分析，体现四见地最精要的部分，对于修行者有甚大的帮助。有缘读此书的人，都能更清楚地见识到法教的神髓，了悟无常，解脱万千烦恼；原来，佛教徒不只是着僧袍、坐禅、戒荤食与禁欲；而是觉知这四种见地，化解对如幻世事的执着。

尼采曾经是个让许多人十分痴迷的人。他精神上的高贵、类似自强不息的品性、看问题的透彻和真诚，使他在人们的心目中远远超越于一般的学者。相对而言，他的明显的偏执、狂妄等病态心理似乎不重要了；而且，好象是这样的个性配合他的灵感和天赋造就了他独特的人生体验。本书为德国著名哲学家，诗人尼采最成熟的作品。尼采假托古波斯琐罗亚德教创始人查拉斯图拉修行多年后下降人世传经布道的传奇故事，阐述了作者激越高迈的哲学思想，用如诗如歌的语言，道出了作者对人生、痛苦、欢乐、期许的深邃体悟。这部著作是给人类以空前伟大的赠礼，这本书的声音将响彻千古。它不仅是世界上最高迈的书，是山顶雄风最真实的书－整个现象以及人类都远在它下面－而且也是最深邃的书。

《悲剧的诞生》的主旨，尼采后来一再点明，是在于为人生创造一种纯粹审美的评价，审美价值是该书承认的唯一价值，“全然非思辩、非道德的艺术家之神”是该书承认的唯一的“神”，他还明确指出，人生的审美评价是与人生的宗教、道德评价以及科学评价根本对立的。《悲剧的诞生》尼采后来提出的“重估一切价值”，其实，“重估”的思想早已蕴含在他早期的美学理论中了。当时他就宣告：“我们今日称作文化、教育、文明的一切，终有一天要带到公正的法官酒神面前。”后来又指出：“我们的宗教、道德和哲学是人的颓废形式。相反的运动：艺术。”可见，“重估”的标准是广义艺术，其实质是以审美的人生态度反对伦理的人生态度和功利的人生态度。

中世纪时期，意大利亚平宁半岛上并存着一百来个各自为政的小城邦，频年相互攻战，企图争雄称霸。城邦权力的建立依靠暴力和阴谋。君主们的生活骄奢淫逸，党同伐异，政权的更迭异常迅速。
公元一二七九年，雷蒙·福斯卡出身于卡尔莫那的一个贵族家庭。后来当上了该邦的君主。他努力振兴城邦，欲与当时强盛的佛罗伦萨、热那亚等并驾齐驱。可是他感到人生须臾，无法在短短几十年的岁月中治理好一个国家。他盼望长生不老。在一次偶然的机会，他从一名老乞丐手里取得来自埃及的不死药，服下后以为从此可以轰轰烈烈地干一番事业。意大利各城邦争权夺利的结果，反而招致法国势力的入侵。
福斯卡看到国家与国家之间的命运是相通的，要励精图治真正有所作为，必须掌握一个统一的宇宙。他不惜把卡尔莫那献给疆域庞大的日耳曼神圣罗马帝国，自己充当皇帝的谋士。帝国皇帝查理五世在位四十年，不但没有如愿地建立依照基督教教义行事的世界帝国，反忙于镇压各地诸侯的兴起与叛乱。兵连祸结，帝国分崩离析，基督教也分裂成新旧两派。在新发现的美洲大陆上，欧洲殖民者推行种族灭绝政策，贪得无厌，强占尽可能多的土地，使原来庞大昌盛的印加帝国、玛雅城镇、阿兹特克民族的家园只剩下一堆废墟。福斯卡看到这种情景心灰意懒，认为统一的宇宙是不存在的，存在的只是分裂的人。一个人形成一个宇宙，他的内心是无法窥透的。一个人妄想为他人建立的幸福秩序，在他人眼里可能是一种灾难。在这些短暂、多若恒沙而又各不相干的心灵中，能不能找到可以共同依据作为真理的东西？他无法肯定。一个人唯一能做的好事，是按照自己的良心行动，其结果则难以预测。除此以外，人不能有其他奢望。
尔后，福斯卡与法国探险家卡利埃勘探加拿大大草原；在法国度过一七八九年革命爆发前的启蒙时期；参加一八三○年推翻波旁王朝的群众起义；目睹一八四八年席卷欧洲、使工人阶级登上国际政治舞台的革命运动。在与普通人的接触中，福斯卡逐渐明白：人生虽然短促，谁都无法避免死亡，但是每个人的心中都潜伏着铄石流金的生命岩浆，在出生与死亡之间的生命过程中，一旦得到诱发和机遇，会做出惊天动地的大事，人还是可以有所作为的。从历史的角度看，一时的胜利会成为日后失败的伏笔，一时的失败也可能是日后胜利的种子。从有限的人生来看，一切成就还是具体而微的，胜利来临而失败未至的时刻人总是征服者，不管未来如何是奈何他不得的。福斯卡又看到，有了这样的信念，值得人去珍惜自己有限的生命；为了实现这样的信念，又值得人去献出自己宝贵的生命。生命一代代往下传，使人始终有爱，有恨，有微笑，有眼泪，充满了理想和希望。

本书是朋霍费尔思考与追求的人生当中留下的最后一部名著。作者不仅面对绞刑架，而且背负十字架；不仅身陷单人囚室，而且置身世俗世界。他对人的生存和本质等问题所作的超乎监狱围墙的思考，决定了这本书不同于其他的“监狱文学”或“死囚文学”，它不仅仅是“监狱文学”，也可以说是“监狱哲学”或“监狱神学 ”。 “这是一位卓越的德国神学家最后的遗著，他正视了在20世纪成为一名基督徒的难题，并且在纳粹手中成了一名烈士。”
在备受折磨和凌辱的牢狱生活中，朋霍费尔早已预料到了自己的死亡，并无比平静地面对死神的到来。他的文字达到了朴实和真实的极致，因为他的心灵也达到了朴实和真实的极致。

这本书不是教科书式的西方建筑史，也不是一本建筑的鉴赏手册或装潢指南。这本德波顿积数年之功著成的最新作品从一个极其独特的角度，审视了一个我们看似熟悉、其实颇为陌生的主题：物质的建筑与我们的幸福之间的关系。人为何需要建筑？为何某种美的建筑会令你愉悦？为何这种对于建筑美的认识又会改变？建筑与人的幸福之间到底有何关联？德波顿从哲学、美学和心理学的角度对这些问题的解答，足以颠覆你日常的那些有关建筑的陈词滥调，会促使你从根本上改变对建筑、进而对人生和幸福的既定态度与追求。

《不能承受的生命之轻》是米兰·昆德拉最负盛名的作品。小说描写了托马斯与特丽莎、萨丽娜之间的感情生活。但它不是一个男人和两个女人的三角性爱故事，它是一部哲理小说，小说从“永恒轮回”的讨论开始，把读者带入了对一系列问题的思考中，比如轻与重、灵与肉。
《不能承受的生命之轻》是一部意象繁复的书，其中装载了多种涵义：被政治化了的社会内涵的揭示、人性考察、个人命运在特定历史与政治语境下的呈现，以及对两性关系本质上的探索等。昆德拉将这些元素糅合在一起，写成一部非同凡响的小说——其中既有隐喻式的哲学思考，也有人的悲欢离合的生命历程的展现。