【抢购包邮】原来这就是二十四节气 全12册 中国传统节日故事绘本24节气科普文化知识百科儿童绘本书读物二十四节气一年级课外书籍6-12岁 原来这就是二十四节气 word 电子书 免费 下载地址

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：【抢购包邮】原来这就是二十四节气 全12册 中国传统节日故事绘本24节气科普文化知识百科儿童绘本书读物二十四节气一年级课外书籍6-12岁 原来这就是二十四节气在线阅读

在线听书地址：【抢购包邮】原来这就是二十四节气 全12册 中国传统节日故事绘本24节气科普文化知识百科儿童绘本书读物二十四节气一年级课外书籍6-12岁 原来这就是二十四节气在线收听

在线购买地址：【抢购包邮】原来这就是二十四节气 全12册 中国传统节日故事绘本24节气科普文化知识百科儿童绘本书读物二十四节气一年级课外书籍6-12岁 原来这就是二十四节气在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者： 似此星辰 发布时间：2017-09-10 21:51:08

  你们教辅为什么要假装自己是小说？看开头还以为男主角会跟电波同级生和可爱学妹搞白学，结果没有，他们全程都在专心研究数学。“沉迷学习无法自拔”，“什么都无法打断我讲解习题”。主角的青春故事毫无进展，我已经学习到了用生成函数和调和数证明巴塞尔问题，讲道理，以教辅而言写得还是很不错的。

• 作者： 浅浅 发布时间：2020-03-22 18:18:04

  超治愈

• 作者： FF0000 发布时间：2022-08-06 16:13:10

  2022.8.4 图书馆 外公给小朋友讲的，小朋友说好看，外公觉得不好看

• 作者： 卡莱 发布时间：2019-08-03 15:28:36

  正好这几天难得夏日的晴空万里，认识了满天的淡积云，辐辏状高积云。直入云霄的浓积云，是夏日里才能见到迷人景象 ，也会让人感到这才是夏天呀。积、层、卷、雨、高，组合成十个云属。既长见识，也愉悦眼睛，不拘时节、不拘地域，随时都可以看，实属居家旅行必备技能。只是云种类太多，瞬息万变，区分难度太大……

• 作者： 双之哀殇 发布时间：2011-11-22 09:59:46

  翻译确实不错~对时间机器的描述有点蒸朋的感觉，看来今后可以考虑主攻古典科幻这方面了XD

• 作者： 奎斯Chris 发布时间：2009-02-10 00:58:09

  第一部最佳，集齐港漫及香港武侠几乎所有人物类型、爱恨情仇、经典冲突。神兵起源相当讲究，画风也细腻华美。第二部开始崩坏，强者太多了，每个都是毁天灭地，从头到尾打作一团，反而实力忽高忽低。

• 《孤独传》：一项给现代人带来深远影响情感的前世今生

  作者：自有我在 发布时间：2021-07-22 13:38:21

  寥落古行宫，宫花寂寞红。

  白头宫女在，闲坐说玄宗。

  元稹的这一首《行宫》，短短的20次写出了中国古代后宫宫女的寂寞人生，在这其中，我们深深地感受到了那种无法排解的孤独感。而孤独理应是人类最早的情绪之一，在人类社会诞生之初，人类就是群居生活。只有在人群中才能保证安全和生存的需要，而落单的个人一定会被各种负面情绪所包围。恐惧如此，而孤独无疑也是这种负面情绪之一。避免孤独这是保证人类可以生活在群体中的最好的办法。

  但随现代化的到来，人类单独生存的机会越来越多，更有着更多人自愿选择独自生活。孤独，就已经成为伴随着现代人最多的负面情绪之一。而更为可怕的是，孤独不仅仅产生在独自一个人的时候，现代人在人群中时，也会有着深深的孤独感。一定有着很多朋友，在极为热闹的场所，突然被那种深入骨髓的孤独感所击倒，“越热闹，越孤单”反而成了现代人的通病。

  孤独，就成了现代人必须面对的话题。英国历史学家费伊·邦德·艾伯蒂的这一本《孤独传：一种现代情感的历史》就是从历史的角度，对现存于人类社会或文艺作品中的各种孤独情感进行了解析和阐诉，让我们认识这一种深深影响了我们人类的情感。

  

  我们在认识孤独前，必须区分孤独和独处的区别。按理说我们最熟悉的小说《鲁滨逊漂流记》应该是最孤独的文学作品，毕竟作品中的主人公在荒岛上独自生存了28年。但在这个文学作品中，并没有感到孤独，可见孤独和独处完全不是一回事。孤独这一个词更多的出现于近现代的文学作品之中。为什么近现代会带给我们深深的孤独感呢？这也是一个值得深思的问题。也许因为在人类的发展过程中，社会关系的连接越来越密集，人类也习惯于生活在各种关系之中，长此以往下去，人类反而忘记了独处时的那种惬意的状态。“采菊东篱下，悠然见南山”，在我们现代的心境之中，这种闲适、这种惬意，再也追寻不到了。人类的情感被物欲填满，被关系填满，慢慢的就失去了自己，当一个人独处时，孤独也就是一种必然。

  

  另外一种孤独感来自于丧失，维多利亚女王就是这其中的典型代表。当她的丈夫阿尔伯特亲王于1840年去世之后，维多利亚女王在今后60年的生命之中，饱受丧失之痛。那种强烈的孤独感，时不时的击入她的生命之中，让她重温这种丧失之痛。这种心理上留下的空洞，任其他任何情感都无法把它填满，唯有等待时间的流逝，让这种痛、这种孤独慢慢缓解。但维多利亚的丧失之痛，孤独感之强，维持时间之久，前所未有，这也为她赢得了“温莎寡妇”的称号。

  而我们的现代社会同样面临着这样的问题，全球都已经渐渐步入老龄化社会。老年人的寿命在延长，但他们的生活环境却没有改变，他们中的大多数不会和子女生活在一起。随着年龄的增大，身体的衰退，他们的生活越来越困难，而当夫妻双方的一人突然去世之后，那种丧失感和孤独感也将伴随着老年人的一生。这也是整个社会在对待老年人，除了身体的照顾之外的另外一项研究课题，他们的心灵也需要关爱。

  孤独还有好多其他的呈现方式，他们就是这个社会中最需要关爱的一群人。除了丧失亲人的人，老年人，还有很多无家可归者、生活贫困着，他们更容易陷入孤独之中，也没有办法派遣他们的孤独。

  但孤独也并不都是坏事，孤独也是一部分人会主动去寻求的一种情感。孤独是各种文艺创作者所必备的素质。那些创作中的作家，那些生活在自己世界中的艺术家，都注定饱受孤独之苦，而孤独常常正是他们创作的源泉。

  

  孤独已经是我们这个社会不得不关注的一种情感，在这本《孤独传》中，作者回顾了各种孤独的历史根源，也寻求到了孤独的具体成因，但他却没有试图寻找解决的办法，这也是其他有志于此的心理学家要探讨的话题。能提出问题，就已经是问题解决的一半了，这本《孤独传》把关于孤独的历史和现状展现给到我们面前，就已经圆满的完成了它的任务。

• 德波顿在TED为新书做的节目Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

  作者：Surreal 发布时间：2012-02-14 21:13:46

  http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html

  One of the most common ways of dividing the world is into those who believe and those who don't -- into the religious and the atheists. And for the last decade or so, it's been quite clear what being an atheist means. There have been some very vocal atheists who've pointed out, not just that religion is wrong, but that it's ridiculous. These people, many of whom have lived in North Oxford, have argued -- they've argued that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and essentially that the whole thing is a childish game.

  Now I think it's too easy. I think it's too easy to dismiss the whole of religion that way. And it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. And what I'd like to inaugurate today is a new way of being an atheist -- if you like, a new version of atheism we could call Atheism 2.0. Now what is Atheism 2.0? Well it starts from a very basic premise: of course, there's no God. Of course, there are no deities or supernatural spirits or angels, etc. Now let's move on; that's not the end of the story, that's the very, very beginning.

  I'm interested in the kind of constituency that thinks something along these lines: that thinks, "I can't believe in any of this stuff. I can't believe in the doctrines. I don't think these doctrines are right. But," a very important but, "I love Christmas carols. I really like the art of Mantegna. I really like looking at old churches. I really like turning the pages of the Old Testament." Whatever it may be, you know the kind of thing I'm talking about -- people who are attracted to the ritualistic side, the moralistic, communal side of religion, but can't bear the doctrine. Until now, these people have faced a rather unpleasant choice. It's almost as though either you accept the doctrine and then you can have all the nice stuff, or you reject the doctrine and you're living in some kind of spiritual wasteland under the guidance of CNN and Walmart.

  So that's a sort of tough choice. I don't think we have to make that choice. I think there is an alternative. I think there are ways -- and I'm being both very respectful and completely impious -- of stealing from religions. If you don't believe in a religion, there's nothing wrong with picking and mixing, with taking out the best sides of religion. And for me, atheism 2.0 is about both, as I say, a respectful and an impious way of going through religions and saying, "What here could we use?" The secular world is full of holes. We have secularized badly, I would argue. And a thorough study of religion could give us all sorts of insights into areas of life that are not going too well. And I'd like to run through a few of these today.

  I'd like to kick off by looking at education. Now education is a field the secular world really believes in. When we think about how we're going to make the world a better place, we think education; that's where we put a lot of money. Education is going to give us, not only commercial skills, industrial skills, it's also going to make us better people. You know the kind of thing a commencement address is, and graduation ceremonies, those lyrical claims that education, the process of education -- particularly higher education -- will make us into nobler and better human beings. That's a lovely idea. Interesting where it came from.

  In the early 19th century, church attendance in Western Europe started sliding down very, very sharply, and people panicked. They asked themselves the following question. They said, where are people going to find the morality, where are they going to find guidance, and where are they going to find sources of consolation? And influential voices came up with one answer. They said culture. It's to culture that we should look for guidance, for consolation, for morality. Let's look to the plays of Shakespeare, the dialogues of Plato, the novels of Jane Austen. In there, we'll find a lot of the truths that we might previously have found in the Gospel of Saint John. Now I think that's a very beautiful idea and a very true idea. They wanted to replace scripture with culture. And that's a very plausible idea. It's also an idea that we have forgotten.

  If you went to a top university -- let's say you went to Harvard or Oxford or Cambridge -- and you said, "I've come here because I'm in search of morality, guidance and consolation; I want to know how to live," they would show you the way to the insane asylum. This is simply not what our grandest and best institutes of higher learning are in the business of. Why? They don't think we need it. They don't think we are in an urgent need of assistance. They see us as adults, rational adults. What we need is information. We need data, we don't need help.

  Now religions start from a very different place indeed. All religions, all major religions, at various points call us children. And like children, they believe that we are in severe need of assistance. We're only just holding it together. Perhaps this is just me, maybe you. But anyway, we're only just holding it together. And we need help. Of course, we need help. And so we need guidance and we need didactic learning.

  You know, in the 18th century in the U.K., the greatest preacher, greatest religious preacher, was a man called John Wesley, who went up and down this country delivering sermons, advising people how they could live. He delivered sermons on the duties of parents to their children and children to their parents, the duties of the rich to the poor and the poor to the rich. He was trying to tell people how they should live through the medium of sermons, the classic medium of delivery of religions.

  Now we've given up with the idea of sermons. If you said to a modern liberal individualist, "Hey, how about a sermon?" they'd go, "No, no. I don't need one of those. I'm an independent, individual person." What's the difference between a sermon and our modern, secular mode of delivery, the lecture? Well a sermon wants to change your life and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information. And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition. The tradition of sermonizing is hugely valuable, because we are in need of guidance, morality and consolation -- and religions know that.

  Another point about education: we tend to believe in the modern secular world that if you tell someone something once, they'll remember it. Sit them in a classroom, tell them about Plato at the age of 20, send them out for a career in management consultancy for 40 years, and that lesson will stick with them. Religions go, "Nonsense. You need to keep repeating the lesson 10 times a day. So get on your knees and repeat it." That's what all religions tell us: "Get on you knees and repeat it 10 or 20 or 15 times a day." Otherwise our minds are like sieves.

  So religions are cultures of repetition. They circle the great truths again and again and again. We associate repetition with boredom. "Give us the new," we're always saying. "The new is better than the old." If I said to you, "Okay, we're not going to have new TED. We're just going to run through all the old ones and watch them five times because they're so true. We're going to watch Elizabeth Gilbert five times because what she says is so clever," you'd feel cheated. Not so if you're adopting a religious mindset.

  The other things that religions do is to arrange time. All the major religions give us calendars. What is a calendar? A calendar is a way of making sure that across the year you will bump into certain very important ideas. In the Catholic chronology, Catholic calendar, at the end of March you will think about St. Jerome and his qualities of humility and goodness and his generosity to the poor. You won't do that by accident; you will do that because you are guided to do that. Now we don't think that way. In the secular world we think, "If an idea is important, I'll bump into it. I'll just come across it." Nonsense, says the religious world view. Religious view says we need calendars, we need to structure time, we need to synchronize encounters. This comes across also in the way in which religions set up rituals around important feelings.

  Take the Moon. It's really important to look at the Moon. You know, when you look at the Moon, you think, "I'm really small. What are my problems?" It sets things into perspective, etc., etc. We should all look at the Moon a bit more often. We don't. Why don't we? Well there's nothing to tell us, "Look at the Moon." But if you're a Zen Buddhist in the middle of September, you will be ordered out of your home, made to stand on a canonical platform and made to celebrate the festival of Tsukimi, where you will be given poems to read in honor of the Moon and the passage of time and the frailty of life that it should remind us of. You'll be handed rice cakes. And the Moon and the reflection on the Moon will have a secure place in your heart. That's very good.

  The other thing that religions are really aware of is: speak well -- I'm not doing a very good job of this here -- but oratory, oratory is absolutely key to religions. In the secular world, you can come through the university system and be a lousy speaker and still have a great career. But the religious world doesn't think that way. What you're saying needs to be backed up by a really convincing way of saying it.

  So if you go to an African American Pentecostalist church in the American South and you listen to how they talk, my goodness, they talk well. After every convincing point, people will go, "Amen, amen, amen." At the end of a really rousing paragraph, they'll all stand up, and they'll go, "Thank you Jesus, thank you Christ, thank you Savior." If we were doing it like they do it -- let's not do it, but if we were to do it -- I would tell you something like, "Culture should replace scripture." And you would go, "Amen, amen, amen." And at the end of my talk, you would all stand up and you would go, "Thank you Plato, thank you Shakespeare, thank you Jane Austen." And we'd know that we had a real rhythm going. All right, all right. We're getting there. We're getting there.

  (Applause)

  The other thing that religions know is we're not just brains, we are also bodies. And when they teach us a lesson, they do it via the body. So for example, take the Jewish idea of forgiveness. Jews are very interested in forgiveness and how we should start anew and start afresh. They don't just deliver us sermons on this. They don't just give us books or words about this. They tell us to have a bath. So in Orthodox Jewish communities, every Friday you go to a Mikveh. You immerse yourself in the water, and a physical action backs up a philosophical idea. We don't tend to do that. Our ideas are in one area and our behavior with our bodies is in another. Religions are fascinating in the way they try and combine the two.

  Let's look at art now. Now art is something that in the secular world, we think very highly of. We think art is really, really important. A lot of our surplus wealth goes to museums, etc. We sometimes hear it said that museums are our new cathedrals, or our new churches. You've heard that saying. Now I think that the potential is there, but we've completely let ourselves down. And the reason we've let ourselves down is that we're not properly studying how religions handle art.

  The two really bad ideas that are hovering in the modern world that inhibit our capacity to draw strength from art: The first idea is that art should be for art's sake -- a ridiculous idea -- an idea that art should live in a hermetic bubble and should not try to do anything with this troubled world. I couldn't disagree more. The other thing that we believe is that art shouldn't explain itself, that artists shouldn't say what they're up to, because if they said it, it might destroy the spell and we might find it too easy. That's why a very common feeling when you're in a museum -- let's admit it -- is, "I don't know what this is about." But if we're serious people, we don't admit to that. But that feeling of puzzlement is structural to contemporary art.

  Now religions have a much saner attitude to art. They have no trouble telling us what art is about. Art is about two things in all the major faiths. Firstly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to love. And secondly, it's trying to remind you of what there is to fear and to hate. And that's what art is. Art is a visceral encounter with the most important ideas of your faith. So as you walk around a church, or a mosque or a cathedral, what you're trying to imbibe, what you're imbibing is, through your eyes, through your senses, truths that have otherwise come to you through your mind.

  Essentially it's propaganda. Rembrandt is a propagandist in the Christian view. Now the word "propaganda" sets off alarm bells. We think of Hitler, we think of Stalin. Don't, necessarily. Propaganda is a manner of being didactic in honor of something. And if that thing is good, there's no problem with it at all.

  My view is that museums should take a leaf out of the book of religions. And they should make sure that when you walk into a museum -- if I was a museum curator, I would make a room for love, a room for generosity. All works of art are talking to us about things. And if we were able to arrange spaces where we could come across works where we would be told, use these works of art to cement these ideas in your mind, we would get a lot more out of art. Art would pick up the duty that it used to have and that we've neglected because of certain mis-founded ideas. Art should be one of the tools by which we improve our society. Art should be didactic.

  Let's think of something else. The people in the modern world, in the secular world, who are interested in matters of the spirit, in matters of the mind, in higher soul-like concerns, tend to be isolated individuals. They're poets, they're philosophers, they're photographers, they're filmmakers. And they tend to be on their own. They're our cottage industries. They are vulnerable, single people. And they get depressed and they get sad on their own. And they don't really change much.

  Now think about religions, think about organized religions. What do organized religions do? They group together, they form institutions. And that has all sorts of advantages. First of all, scale, might. The Catholic Church pulled in 97 billion dollars last year according to the Wall Street Journal. These are massive machines. They're collaborative, they're branded, they're multinational, and they're highly disciplined.

  These are all very good qualities. We recognize them in relation to corporations. And corporations are very like religions in many ways, except they're right down at the bottom of the pyramid of needs. They're selling us shoes and cars. Whereas the people who are selling us the higher stuff -- the therapists, the poets -- are on their own and they have no power, they have no might. So religions are the foremost example of an institution that is fighting for the things of the mind. Now we may not agree with what religions are trying to teach us, but we can admire the institutional way in which they're doing it.

  Books alone, books written by lone individuals, are not going to change anything. We need to group together. If you want to change the world, you have to group together, you have to be collaborative. And that's what religions do. They are multinational, as I say, they are branded, they have a clear identity, so they don't get lost in a busy world. That's something we can learn from.

  I want to conclude. Really what I want to say is for many of you who are operating in a range of different fields, there is something to learn from the example of religion -- even if you don't believe any of it. If you're involved in anything that's communal, that involves lots of people getting together, there are things for you in religion. If you're involved, say, in a travel industry in any way, look at pilgrimage. Look very closely at pilgrimage. We haven't begun to scratch the surface of what travel could be because we haven't looked at what religions do with travel. If you're in the art world, look at the example of what religions are doing with art. And if you're an educator in any way, again, look at how religions are spreading ideas. You may not agree with the ideas, but my goodness, they're highly effective mechanisms for doing so.

  So really my concluding point is you may not agree with religion, but at the end of the day, religions are so subtle, so complicated, so intelligent in many ways that they're not fit to be abandoned to the religious alone; they're for all of us.

  Thank you very much.

  (Applause)

  Chris Anderson: Now this is actually a courageous talk, because you're kind of setting up yourself in some ways to be ridiculed in some quarters.

  AB: You can get shot by both sides. You can get shot by the hard-headed atheists, and you can get shot by those who fully believe.

  CA: Incoming missiles from North Oxford at any moment.

  AB: Indeed.

  CA: But you left out one aspect of religion that a lot of people might say your agenda could borrow from, which is this sense -- that's actually probably the most important thing to anyone who's religious -- of spiritual experience, of some kind of connection with something that's bigger than you are. Is there any room for that experience in Atheism 2.0?

  AB: Absolutely. I, like many of you, meet people who say things like, "But isn't there something bigger than us, something else?" And I say, "Of course." And they say, "So aren't you sort of religious?" And I go, "No." Why does that sense of mystery, that sense of the dizzying scale of the universe, need to be accompanied by a mystical feeling? Science and just observation gives us that feeling without it, so I don't feel the need. The universe is large and we are tiny, without the need for further religious superstructure. So one can have so-called spiritual moments without belief in the spirit.

  CA: Actually, let me just ask a question. How many people here would say that religion is important to them? Is there an equivalent process by which there's a sort of bridge between what you're talking about and what you would say to them?

  AB: I would say that there are many, many gaps in secular life and these can be plugged. It's not as though, as I try to suggest, it's not as though either you have religion and then you have to accept all sorts of things, or you don't have religion and then you're cut off from all these very good things. It's so sad that we constantly say, "I don't believe so I can't have community, so I'm cut off from morality, so I can't go on a pilgrimage." One wants to say, "Nonsense. Why not?" And that's really the spirit of my talk. There's so much we can absorb. Atheism shouldn't cut itself off from the rich sources of religion.

  CA: It seems to me that there's plenty of people in the TED community who are atheists. But probably most people in the community certainly don't think that religion is going away any time soon and want to find the language to have a constructive dialogue and to feel like we can actually talk to each other and at least share some things in common. Are we foolish to be optimistic about the possibility of a world where, instead of religion being the great rallying cry of divide and war, that there could be bridging?

  AB: No, we need to be polite about differences. Politeness is a much-overlooked virtue. It's seen as hypocrisy. But we need to get to a stage when you're an atheist and someone says, "Well you know, I did pray the other day," you politely ignore it. You move on. Because you've agreed on 90 percent of things, because you have a shared view on so many things, and you politely differ. And I think that's what the religious wars of late have ignored. They've ignored the possibility of harmonious disagreement.

  CA: And finally, does this new thing that you're proposing that's not a religion but something else, does it need a leader, and are you volunteering to be the pope?

  (Laughter)

  AB: Well, one thing that we're all very suspicious of is individual leaders. It doesn't need it. What I've tried to lay out is a framework and I'm hoping that people can just fill it in. I've sketched a sort of broad framework. But wherever you are, as I say, if you're in the travel industry, do that travel bit. If you're in the communal industry, look at religion and do the communal bit. So it's a wiki project.

  (Laughter)

  CA: Alain, thank you for sparking many conversations later.

  (Applause)