登陆注册
5616400000004

第4章

Its greatest merit was the taking up again of dialectics as the highest form of reasoning.The old Greek philosophers were all born natural dialecticians,and Aristotle,the most encyclopaedic of them,had already analyzed the most essential forms of dialectic thought.The newer philosophy,on the other hand,although in it also dialectics had brilliant exponents (e.g.

Descartes and Spinoza),had,especially through English influence,become more and more rigidly fixed in the so-called metaphysical mode of reasoning,by which also the French of the 18th century were almost wholly dominated,at all events in their special philosophical work.Outside philosophy in the restricted sense,the French nevertheless produced masterpieces of dialectic.We need only call to mind Diderot's Le Neveu de Rameau ,and Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inegalite parmi less hommes.We give here,in brief,the essential character of these two modes of thought.

When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large,or the history of mankind,or our own intellectual activity,at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions,permutations and combinations,in which nothing remains what,where and as it was,but everything moves,changes,comes into being and passes away.We see,therefore,at first the picture as a whole,with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background;we observe the movements,transitions,connections,rather than the things that move,combine,and are connected.This primitive,naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy,and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus:everything is and is not,for everything is fluid,is constantly changing,constantly coming into being and passing away.

But this conception,correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole,does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up,and so long as we do not understand these,we have not a clear idea of the whole picture.In order to understand these details,we must detach them from their natural,special causes,effects,etc.This is,primarily,the task of natural science and historical research:branches of science which the Greek of classical times,on very good grounds,relegated to a subordinate position,because they had first of all to collect materials for these sciences to work upon.A certain amount of natural and historical material must be collected before there can be any critical analysis,comparison,and arrangement in classes,orders,and species.The foundations of the exact natural sciences were,therefore,first worked out by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period 1),and later on,in the Middle Ages,by the Arabs.Real natural science dates from the second half of the 15th century,and thence onward it had advanced with constantly increasing rapidity.The analysis of Nature into its individual parts,the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes,the study of the internal anatomy of organized bodies in their manifold forms ?these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature that have been made during the last 400years.But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation,apart from their connection with the vast whole;of observing them in repose,not in motion;as constraints,not as essentially variables;in their death,not in their life.And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy,it begot the narrow,metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century.

To the metaphysician,things and their mental reflexes,ideas,are isolated,are to be be considered one after the other and apart from each other,are objects of investigation fixed,rigid,given once for all.He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses.His communication is 'yea,yea;nay,nay';for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."For him,a thing either exists or does not exist;a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else.Positive and negative absolutely exclude on another;cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis,one to the other.

At first sight,this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous,because it is that of so-called sound commonsense.Only sound commonsense,respectable fellow that he is,in the homely realm of his own four walls,has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research.

And the metaphysical mode of thought,justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation,sooner or later reaches a limit,beyond which it becomes one-sided,restricted,abstract,lost in insoluble contradictions.

In the contemplation of individual things,it forgets the connection between them;in the contemplation of their existence,it forgets the beginning and end of that existence;of their repose,if forgets their motion.It cannot see the woods for the trees.

For everyday purposes,we know and can say,e.g.,whether an animal is alive or not.But,upon closer inquiry,we find that his is,in many cases,a very complex question,as the jurists know very well.They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder.It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death,for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous,momentary phenomenon,but a very protracted process.

In like manner,every organized being is every moment the same and not the same;every moment,it assimilates matter supplied from without,and gets rid of other matter;every moment,some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew;in a longer or shorter time,the matter of its body is completely renewed,and is replaced by other molecules of matter,so that every organized being is always itself,and yet something other than itself.

Further,we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis,positive and negative,e.g.,are as inseparable as they are opposed,and that despite all their opposition,they mutually interpenetrate.

And we find,in like manner,that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases;but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole,they run into each other,and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places,so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then,and vice versa.

None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning.Dialectics,on the other hand,comprehends things and their representations,ideas,in their essential connection,concatenation,motion,origin and ending.Such processes as those mentioned above are,therefore,so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.

Nature is the proof of dialectics,and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasingly daily,and thus has shown that,in the last resort,Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically;that she does not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle,but goes through a real historical evolution.

In this connection,Darwin must be named before all others.He dealt the metaphysical conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all organic beings,plants,animals,and man himself,are the products of a process of evolution going on through millions of years.But,the naturalists,who have learned to think dialectically,are few and far between,and this conflict of the results of discovery with preconceived modes of thinking,explains the endless confusion now reigning in theoretical natural science,the despair of teachers as well as learners,of authors and readers alike.

An exact representation of the universe,of its evolution,of the development of mankind,and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men,can therefore only be obtained by the methods of dialectics with its constant regard to the innumerable actions and reactions of life and death,of progressive or retrogressive changes.And in this spirit,the new German philosophy has worked.Kant began his career by resolving the stable Solar system of Newton and its eternal duration,after the famous initial impulse had once been given,into the result of a historical process,the formation of the Sun and all the planets out of a rotating,nebulous mass.From this,he at the same time drew the conclusion that,given this origin of the Solar system,its future death followed of necessity.His theory,half a century later,was established mathematically by Laplace,and half a century after that,the spectroscope proved the existence in space of such incandescent masses of gas in various stages of condensation.

This new German philosophy culminated in the Hegelian system.

In this system ?and herein is its great merit ?for the first time the whole world,natural,historical,intellectual,is represented as a process ?i.e.,as in constant motion,change,transformation,development;and the attempt is made to trace out the internal connection that makes a continuous whole of all this movement and development.From this point of view,the history of mankind no longer appeared as a wild whirl of senseless deeds of violence,all equally condemnable at the judgment seat of mature philosophic reason and which are best forgotten as quickly as possible,but as the process of evolution of man himself.It was now the task of the intellect to follow the gradual march of this process through all its devious ways,and to trace out the inner law running through all its apparently accidental phenomena.

That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it propounded is here immaterial.Its epoch-making merit was that it propounded the problem.

This problem is one that no single individual will ever be able to solve.

Although Hegel was ?with Saint-Simon ?the most encyclopaedic mind of his time,yet he was limited,first,by the necessary limited extent of his own knowledge and,second,by the limited extent and depth of the knowledge and conceptions of his age.to these limits,a third must be added.Hegel was an idealist.To him,the thoughts within his brain were not the more or less abstract pictures of actual things and processes,but,conversely,things and their evolution were only the realized pictures of the "Idea",existing somewhere from eternity before the world was.This way of thinking turned everything upside down,and completely reversed the actual connection of things in the world.Correctly and ingeniously as many groups of facts were grasped by Hegel,yet,for the reasons just given,there is much that is botched,artificial,labored,in a word,wrong in point of detail.The Hegelian system,in itself,was a colossal miscarriage ?but it was also the last of its kind.

It was suffering,in fact,from an internal and incurable contradiction.

Upon the one hand,its essential proposition was the conception that human history is a process of evolution,which,by its very nature,cannot find its intellectual final term in the discovery of any so-called absolute truth.But,on the other hand,it laid claim to being the very essence of this absolute truth.A system of natural and historical knowledge,embracing everything,and final for all time,is a contradiction to the fundamental law of dialectic reasoning.

This law,indeed,by no means excludes,but,on the contrary,includes the idea that the systematic knowledge of the external universe can make giant strides from age to age.

The perception of the the fundamental contradiction in German idealism led necessarily back to materialism,but?nota bene ?not to the simply metaphysical,exclusively mechanical materialism of the 18th century.

Old materialism looked upon all previous history as a crude heap of irrationality and violence;modern materialism sees in it the process of evolution of humanity,and aims at discovering the laws thereof.With the French of the 18th century,and even with Hegel,the conception obtained of Nature as a whole ?moving in narrow circles,and forever immutable,with its eternal celestial bodies,as Newton,and unalterable organic species,as Linnaeus,taught.Modern materialism embraces the more recent discoveries of natural science,according to which Nature also has its history in time,the celestial bodies,like the organic species that,under favorable conditions,people them,being born and perishing.And even if Nature,as a whole,must still be said to move in recurrent cycles,these cycles assume infinitely larger dimensions.In both aspects,modern materialism is essentially dialectic,and no longer requires the assistance of that sort of philosophy which,queen-like,pretended to rule the remaining mob of sciences.As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things,a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous or unnecessary.That which still survives of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its law ?formal logic and dialectics.Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of Nature and history.

Whilst,however,the revolution in the conception of Nature could only be made in proportion to the corresponding positive materials furnished by research,already much earlier certain historical facts had occurred which led to a decisive change in the conception of history.In 1831,the first working-class rising took place in Lyons;between 1838and 1842,the first national working-class movement,that of the English Chartists,reached its height.The class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie came to the front in the history of the most advanced countries in Europe,in proportion to the development,upon the one hand,of modern industry,upon the other,of the newly-acquired political supremacy of the bourgeoisie.

facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of the interests of capital and labor,as to the universal harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence of unbridled competition.All these things could no longer be ignored,any more than the French and English Socialism,which was their theoretical,though very imperfect,expression.But the old idealist conception of history,which was not yet dislodged,knew nothing of class struggles based upon economic interests,knew nothing of economic interests;production and all economic relations appeared in it only as incidental,subordinate elements in the "history of civilization".

The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history.

Then it was seen that all past history,with the exception of its primitive stages,was the history of class struggles;that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange ?in a word,of the economic conditions of their time;that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis,starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious,philosophical,and other ideas of a given historical period.Hegel has freed history from metaphysics ?he made it dialectic;but his conception of history was essentially idealistic.But now idealism was driven from its last refuge,the philosophy of history;now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded,and a method found of explaining man's "knowing"by his "being",instead of,as heretofore,his "being"by his "knowing".

From that time forward,Socialism was no longer an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain,but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes ?the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible,but to examine the historico-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung,and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict.But the Socialism of earlier days was as incompatible with this materialist conception as the conception of Nature of the French materialists was with dialectics and modern natural science.The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticized the existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences.But it could not explain them,and,therefore,could not get the mastery of them.It could only simply reject them as bad.The more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitations of the working-class,inevitable under Capitalism,the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it arose.but for this it was necessary?

to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection and its inevitableness during a particular historical period,and therefore,also,to present its inevitable downfall;and to lay bare its essential character,which was still a secret.This was done by the discovery of surplus-value.

It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labor is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it;that even if the capitalist buys the labor power of his laborer at its full value as a commodity on the market,he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for;and that in the ultimate analysis,this surplus-value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of the possessing classes.The genesis of capitalist production and the production of capital were both explained.

These two great discoveries,the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value,we owe to Marx.With these discoveries,Socialism became a science.The next thing was to work out all its details and relations.

Notes (1The Alexandrian period of the development of science comprises the period extending from the 3rd century B.C.to the 17th century A.D.It derives its name from the town of Alexandria in Egypt,which was one of the most important centres of international economic intercourses at that time.

In the Alexandrian period,mathematics (Euclid and Archimedes),geography,astronomy,anatomy,physiology,etc.,attained considerable development.

Socialism:Utopian and Scientific (Chpt.3)Fredrick Engels Socialism:Utopian and Scientific III[Historical Materialism]

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and,next to production,the exchange of things produced,is the basis of all social structure;that in every society that has appeared in history,the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced,how it is produced,and how the products are exchanged.

From this point of view,the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought,not in men's brains,not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice,but in changes in the modes of production and exchange.They are to be sought,not in the philosophy ,but in the economics of each particular epoch.The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust,that reason has become unreason,and right wrong 1),is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order,adapted to earlier economic conditions,is no longer in keeping.From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present,in a more or less developed condition,within the changed modes of production themselves.These means are not to be invented by deduction from fundamental principles,but are to be discovered in the stubborn facts of the existing system of production.

What is,then,the position of modern Socialism in this connection?

The present situation of society ?this is now pretty generally conceded ?is the creation of the ruling class of today,of the bourgeoisie.The mode of production peculiar to the bourgeoisie,known,since Marx,as the capitalist mode of production,was incompatible with the feudal system,with the privileges it conferred upon individuals,entire social ranks and local corporations,as well as with the hereditary ties of subordination which constituted the framework of its social organization.The bourgeoisie broke up the feudal system and built upon its ruins the capitalist order of society,the kingdom of free competition,of personal liberty,of the equality,before the law,of all commodity owners,of all the rest of the capitalist blessings.Thenceforward,the capitalist mode of production could develop in freedom.Since steam,machinery,and the making of machines by machinery transformed the older manufacture into modern industry,the productive forces,evolved under the guidance of the bourgeoisie,developed with a rapidity and in a degree unheard of before.But just as the older manufacture,in its time,and handicraft,becoming more developed under its influence,had come into collision with the feudal trammels of the guilds,so now modern industry,in its complete development,comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined.The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them.And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man,like that between original sin and divine justice.It exists,in fact,objectively,outside us,independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on.Modern Socialism is nothing but the reflex,in thought,of this conflict in fact;its ideal reflection in the minds,first,of the class directly suffering under it,the working class.

Now,in what does this conflict consist?

Before capitalist production ?i.e.,in the Middle Ages ?the system of petty industry obtained generally,based upon the private property of the laborers in their means of production;in the country,the agriculture of the small peasant,freeman,or serf;in the towns,the handicrafts organized in guilds.The instruments of labor ?land,agricultural implements,the workshop,the tool ?were the instruments of labor of single individuals,adapted for the use of one worker,and,therefore,of necessity,small,dwarfish,circumscribed.But,for this very reason,they belonged as a rule to the producer himself.To concentrate these scattered,limited means of production,to enlarge them,to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day ?this was precisely the historic role of capitalist production and of its upholder,the bourgeoisie.In the fourth section of Capital ,Marx has explained in detail how since the 15th century this has been historically worked out through the three phases of simple co-operation,manufacture,and modern industry.But the bourgeoisie,as is shown there,could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them,at the same time,from means of production of the individual into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men.The spinning wheel,the handloom,the blacksmith's hammer,were replaced by the spinning-machine,the power-loom,the steam-hammer;the individual workshop,by the factory implying the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen.In like manner,production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts,and the production from individual to social products.The yarn,the cloth,the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers,through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready.No one person could say of them:"I made that;this is my product."But where,in a given society,the fundamental form of production is that spontaneous division of labor which creeps in gradually and not upon any preconceived plan,there the products take on the form of commodities ,whose mutual exchange,buying and selling,enable the individual producers to satisfy their manifold wants.And this was the case in the Middle Ages.

The peasant,e.g.,sold to the artisan agricultural products and bought from him the products of handicraft.Into this society of individual producers,of commodity producers,the new mode of production thrust itself.In the midst of the old division of labor,grown up spontaneously and upon no definite plan ,which had governed the whole of society,now arose division of labor upon a definite plan ,as organized in the factory;side by side with individual production appeared social production.

The products of both were sold in the same market,and,therefore,at prices at least approximately equal.But organization upon a definite plan was stronger than spontaneous division of labor.The factories working with the combined social forces of a collectivity of individuals produced their commodities far more cheaply than the individual small producers.Individual producers succumbed in one department after another.Socialized production revolutionized all the old methods of production.But its revolutionary character was,at the same time,so little recognized that it was,on the contrary,introduced as a means of increasing and developing the production of commodities.When it arose,it found ready-made,and made liberal use of,certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities:merchants'capital,handicraft,wage-labor.Socialized production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities,it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing,and were applied to its products as well.

In the medieval stage of evolution of the production of commodities,the question as to the owner of the product of labor could not arise.The individual producer,as a rule,had,from raw material belonging to himself,and generally his own handiwork,produced it with his own tools,by the labor of his own hands or of his family.There was no need for him to appropriate the new product.It belonged wholly to him,as a matter of course.His property in the product was,therefore,based upon his own labor.

Even where external help was used,this was,as a rule,of little importance,and very generally was compensated by something other than wages.The apprentices and journeymen of the guilds worked less for board and wages than for education,in order that they might become master craftsmen themselves.

Then came the concentration of the means of production and of the producers in large workshops and manufactories,their transformation into actual socialized means of production and socialized producers.But the socialized producers and means of production and their products were still treated,after this change,just as they had been before ?i.e.,as the means of production and the products of individuals.Hitherto,the owner of the instruments of labor had himself appropriated the product,because,as a rule,it was his own product and the assistance of others was the exception.

Now,the owner of the instruments of labor always appropriated to himself the product,although it was no longer his product but exclusively the product of the labor of others.Thus,the products now produced socially were not appropriated by those who had actually set in motion the means of production and actually produced the commodities,but by the capitalists.The means of production,and production itself,had become in essence socialized.But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals,under which,therefore,every one owns his own product and brings it to market.The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation,although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.[2]

This contradiction,which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character,contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonisms of today.The greater the mastery obtained by the new mode of production over all important fields of production and in all manufacturing countries,the more it reduced individual production to an insignificant residuum,the more clearly was brought out the incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation.

同类推荐
  • 古本难经阐注

    古本难经阐注

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 治意经

    治意经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 全真坐钵捷法

    全真坐钵捷法

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 释迦文尼佛金刚一乘修行仪轨法品

    释迦文尼佛金刚一乘修行仪轨法品

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 惜香乐府

    惜香乐府

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
热门推荐
  • 祈祷文

    祈祷文

    主啊,俺感谢您赞美您,您保佑俺今天平安无事地过了一天。现在俺要睡在您的怀里,依着您温暖的身体。让俺睡一个好觉吧。嗯,俺记起来了,俺今天还没向主祈祷呢。俺的神,请您原谅俺不记事。人老了就这样,说过的事转头就忘。俺现在起来,跪在主面前祈祷。今天祈祷的内容俺的主已经听过了,俺自己都有些烦了。但俺一个农村老太太,除了祈祷这点鸡毛蒜皮的事情,还真没有其他新鲜的事儿。不对,嗯,俺的主,今天俺有新内容向您汇报,虽然人还是那些人,但事儿绝对不一样。亲爱的主,俺的神。俺先给您汇报一下天气。今儿早上起来就刮东北风,一刮就是一天啊。
  • 俄罗斯通史:1917-1991

    俄罗斯通史:1917-1991

    本书以追求历史的原本和真实为职志,以历史发展的重要进程为线索,以各个历史时期的主要人物、重要事件和焦点问题为主题,即从沙皇俄国覆灭、十月革命爆发、苏俄政权建立、战时共产主义、新经济政策、工业化和集体化时期、苏联卫国战争、战后开启冷战、美苏全球争霸到最后的苏联解体,从斯大林、马林科夫、赫鲁晓夫、勃列日涅夫、安德罗波夫、契尔年科到最后的戈尔巴乔夫,条理清晰地叙述了1917年至1991年这段波澜壮阔、惊心动魄的历史,即苏联的历史。
  • 豪门盛宠:首席总裁请自重

    豪门盛宠:首席总裁请自重

    “你说,你想生几个孩子,你想生几个,我们就生几个……”高大的男人把她抵在墙上,极具诱惑性地在她耳边呵气。面前的这个男人,腹黑,俊美,掌控着几乎整个亚洲的经济,很难有女人不对他动心,可是,可是他是她男朋友的小舅啊!连若水:“我是你外甥媳妇!”慕泽熙:“那又如何?我想要的东西,从来就不会得不到!”原以为她是得到了他全部的爱,可是没想到,他竟然是透过她,在看向另一个人…得知真相,她傲然转身离去,四年后,她是国际知名服装设计师,强势归来,却再次被他狠狠地压在身下。她说:“总裁,请自重!”他邪邪一笑:“乖,很快你就知道我重不重了……”你离开我四年,我要你还一辈子!
  • 王爷妾本红妆

    王爷妾本红妆

    她----江南第一古镇凉州的名门淑女,母亲是凉州城第一美人,父亲是一代富商,米铺分号遍及大江南北。你以为她只是一个富庶人家的小姐吗,不不不!她身上的血液注定了她要背上族人的命运。他----有经世之才,平乱之能。身为皇太后最宠爱的小儿子,圣上的同胞母弟,为着辅佐皇兄,安定民心,除西北边患,夷狄再不敢来犯,定东南叛乱,藩镇无不臣服。她,可爱善良,仗义救弱。他,俊朗正直,平定四海。美丽如她,却总爱以男装出行;冷硬若他,却独独对她温柔缠绵。花间相遇,同游凉州城。赏花游湖看美人,品茶泛舟尝小吃。乐哉~~她以为她的男装,伪装很好。却不知他早已洞悉她女儿身份。他恐怕佳人如斯美好,早已许得良配,迟迟不敢开口。狭义郡王拔刀相助,她的父母甚为满意。执意要把她许配给郡王,为此不惜把从来疼如掌中宝的女儿关在家中。皇太后为着皇家利益,执意要将丞相千金指给他,却招他冰冷回拒。右相千金,王孙公子口中的京城第一美人,冷艳绝伦,却独独钟情于他。为着除掉后患,一再对她下手。她的姑姑,族中谷主,也是她的师父,因为二十年前的恩怨,死活不愿意她嫁给他。男女主倾情相爱,自始至终心中只有对方。可阻力重重,父母长辈无一同意,小三小四横加一脚,想尽办法要拆散她们。试看他俩如何突破重围,断小三,服小四,让长辈亲朋全部真心为他们祝福!保证坑品,绝不弃坑。亲妈。男女主身心干净。一对一。喜欢的亲,放心跳坑。三克油啦~~
  • 爱恨流年,最美好的自己给你

    爱恨流年,最美好的自己给你

    周安诺的人生始终磕磕碰碰。她的“闺蜜”郑婉婉对她百般欺骗利用,害她失去扭转人生的机会。她喜欢的男人韩追,喜欢的却是郑婉婉。雷雨交加的夜晚,她在街头痛哭,雨幕里出现一个英俊的男人——上官岭将她带走。他们互相许诺,他助她追回自己的爱情,她为他找从韩追那儿找回一样神秘物品。周安诺脱胎换骨成为绝色美女,高调进入C市三大整形医院之首的月美医院,一步步接近着总经理韩追和韩追的未婚妻郑婉婉,也进入了整形的世界……却又在这个过程里看尽人们对欲望的追求,对容貌的渴盼,对爱情的向往。终于她放下了虚荣、仇恨,找回了曾经因为苦苦追求美貌和爱情而迷失的自己。
  • 末世之魔女横行霸道

    末世之魔女横行霸道

    余青青一觉醒来就到了末世,求生存,自己送上门,金大腿却不要,盖棉被,纯聊天,隔天起床还撩她。送她到家后,以为从此不再相会,想不到成了傻子?看女主怎么变魔女,在末世横行霸道,看男神怎么变傻子,又怎么变丧尸。女主:你是丧尸,我是魔女,总而言之,我们都不是人。男主:!!!怎么一清醒,他们都不是人了?
  • 一起去龙楼看卫星

    一起去龙楼看卫星

    龙楼,一个远在天涯海角、既古朴又现代的小镇,却隐藏着与众不同的壮美。中国唯一的滨海卫星发射场——文昌航天发射中心,就位于龙楼,每次卫星发射,这里都涌入成千上万的人前来一睹龙飞九天的震撼。除去卫星带给人的震撼之外,这里还有铜鼓岭和月亮湾流淌的浪漫,还有旧时光老街记忆中的美好,还有八门湾星空下神秘的探险,更有文昌人尊师重教的传统与承继。“行走美文”女作家曾丹,继博鳌和台儿庄之后,读懂了人生的甘洌清甜,回到了让自己魂牵梦萦的海南,在龙楼书写另一段柔情。她的笔下既展现了龙楼作为航天小镇的恢宏与壮美,又用自己充满爱的眼睛探寻龙楼28公里海岸线的妩媚与别样风情。龙楼镇虽是南海边一座极具代表性的小镇,却又不缺乏久酿芬芳后独有的灵动与色彩。让我们跟随作家曼妙的笔触,用眼睛去漫步,用呼吸去碰触,尽情把自己置于海南小镇天蓝海蓝的景色里,游走在科技的日新月异与传统的古香古色之间。让心灵追随眼睛,一起去龙楼看卫星。
  • 原本大学微言(下)

    原本大学微言(下)

    南先生认为《大学》原文本来就是儒家追求“内圣外王”之道的集中表述,逻辑严密,文气通顺,粲然可观,不必加以篡改。为了向大众揭示原本《大学》短短千余字中所包含的微言大义,先生特依据西汉小戴所传曾子《大学》原经,对其本旨重新加以阐释,内容包括《大学》的价值,七证(知、止、定、静、安、虑、得)的修养工夫,“格物”至“正心”的内圣(明)之学,“修身”至“治国”的外王(用)之学,内外兼修之道,齐家、治国、平天下的历史教训,王朝更替与儒学的演化,中外文化的反思与前景,等等,旁征博引,融会古今,取精用宏,妙语连珠。《大学》原文仅千余字,而此“微言”约有四十万字,讲解之详尽、涵盖有关学养之广阔不言而喻。
  • 异界大陆的救赎

    异界大陆的救赎

    剑还是魔法?金钱、荣誉或美女?幻兽、领主、争霸,神魔?当然不止这些,最重要的还是无敌!新书求支持!
  • 文殊师利所说不思议佛境界经

    文殊师利所说不思议佛境界经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。