This is a book about the meeting points between philosophy, as a specialized discipline, and Spiritism. Our main objective is to contribute to the study of philosophically relevant issues within the theological and philosophical model represented by Spiritism. Some topics will receive technical treatment, while others will be covered with essays for the lay reader. Hope you like it. In this good book you are gonna check following headings:1.WHAT IS THE SPIRITIST PHILOSOPHY?2.THE YOUNG NIETZSCHE 3.THE MYSTERIES OF ELEUSIS4.AUGUSTINE AND KARDEC I5.AUGUSTINE AND KARDEC II6.AUGUSTINE AND KARDEC III7.ARISTOTLE'S SPIRITUALISM8.YOGA AND SPIRITISM: THE TECHNOLOGIES OF TRANCE9.GERMAN SPIRITISM AND PHILOSOPHY10.METAPHYSICAL POINTS OF SPIRITISMWHAT IS THE SPIRITIST PHILOSOPHY? From the general understanding that Spiritism is or has a philosophy arises the need to make it explicit. Its adherents accurately reproduce their philosophical aspects, and separate them with skill acquired by Kardequian studies from those other scientific and religious. And also the philosophical character of any doctrine is always more discernible and less controversial than its possible scientific element. These are reasons why one speaks with a certain spiritist philosophy. However, the academy has no less requirements and rules for philosophy than those for the practice of science. After all, then, what is and how does the spiritist philosophy stand? We will try to problematize rather than answer this question. From the point of view of philosophy as a specialty, Spiritism is presented as popular philosophy, which is to say, as argumentative but not grounding reason. This qualification need not be derogatory, and even some of the best philosophies had a markedly popular imprint, as in Voltaire, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. It is also a valid and official philosophical view that reason is always at stake with its specific problems, and cannot or does not require reasoning. Still, most of what was produced under the heading of philosophy in human history was for the foundation of knowledge. Analytical minds interested in the foundation of certainties are that of Plato, Descartes, Locke, and Kant, some of the greatest philosophers. According to them the philosophical activity is not properly done without the exhaustive effort of its own criticism, so that any philosophy worthy of the name either goes to the last consequences or buys a method that has already done so. Good popular philosophers are for their practical interest (moral or political), without dispensing the contest from a good methodological basis. And if Kardec was a good popular philosopher, which we think is reasonable to say, we must find in his practice the principles of some or more analytical, not to say systematic, philosophers (a name that did not sound good at the time).The first indication that Kardec is not a systematic philosopher is that he uses multiple concepts and axioms without justifying them. This attitude can mean, as stated, both a lack of commitment to philosophy and a prior adoption of well-established philosophical methods. And there is no doubt that the concepts and axioms presupposed by Kardec correspond to the eclectic view of early 19th century philosophical knowledge. First, because all these assumptions belong to the orthodox wing of French philosophy, thus requiring little or no systematic exposition; secondly, because these particular achievements were classified as illustration achievements, and all the authors of the time were accustomed to taking the elements of this great eclectic and encyclopedic building as their starting point. Such important thinkers as Benjamin Constant, Madame de Staël, and Tocqueville never bother, like Kardec, to ground the concept of reason or to analyze the metaphysical constitution of freedom.