{"id":27102,"date":"2016-08-27T09:36:18","date_gmt":"2016-08-27T09:36:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/?p=27102"},"modified":"2016-08-27T09:38:20","modified_gmt":"2016-08-27T09:38:20","slug":"din-gandirea-interbelica-romaneasca-traduceri-de-george-anca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/2016\/08\/27\/din-gandirea-interbelica-romaneasca-traduceri-de-george-anca\/","title":{"rendered":"Din g\u00e2ndirea interbelic\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 – Traduceri de George Anca"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Din g\u00e2ndirea interbelic\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lucian Blaga: Arhetipuri, din cele mai diverse, putem \u00eentrez\u0103ri ca nuclee efective \u00een jurul c\u0103rora se \u00eencheg\u0103 at\u00eetea din pl\u0103smuirile de cultur\u0103, dar \u00een aceste procese de crea\u0163ie, arhetipurile apar \u201etotdeauna\u201d modelate \u201e\u00een tipare stilistice\u201d, fiind dominate de acestea, c\u00eet\u0103 vreme \u00een fanteziile psihopa\u0163ilor arhetipurile \u00ee\u015fi fac sim\u0163it\u0103 prezen\u0163a ca ni\u015fte \u201ecomplexe autonome\u201d… \u00cen marginea unor asemenea considera\u0163ii se poate emite ipoteza c\u0103 \u00een via\u0163a psihic\u0103-spiritual\u0103 a fiec\u0103rui individ uman arhetipurile \u015fi factorii stilistici sunt efectiv prezen\u0163i ca ni\u015fte \u201eputeri\u201d. C\u00eend \u00eentre aceste puteri se declar\u0103 un dezechilibru, \u00een sensul c\u0103, prin energia inerent\u0103 lor, factorii stilistici nu mai s\u00eent \u00een stare s\u0103 domine arhetipurile, este dat\u0103 posibilitatea e\u015fu\u0103rii individului \u00een psihopatie.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lucian Blaga: Archetypes, out of most different ones, we can envision as effective nuclei around which so many creations of culture coagulate, but in these processes of creation, the archetypes appear \u201ealways\u201d modelled \u201ein stylistic patterns\u201d, being dominated by these, as long as in fantesies of psychopats some \u201eautonomous complexes\u201d make felt their presence…<\/em> In marge of such considerations it can be emited the hypothesis that in pshichic-spiritual life of each human individual the archetypes and stylistic factors are effectively present like certain \u201epowers\u201d. When between these powers is declared a disequilibrium, in the sense that, through the enrgy inherent to them, the stylistic factors are not any more able to dominate archtypes, is given the failure of the individual in psychopathy.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Constantin R\u0103dulescu-Motru: Poporul nostru n-a putut c\u00e2\u015ftiga, ce e drept, \u00een trecutul s\u0103u, nici deprinderile unei munci disciplinate, care fac \u00eenflorirea activit\u0103\u0163ii industriale de aiurea; nici deprinderile comerciale \u015fi spiritul de prevedere cu care sunt \u00eenzestrate alte popoare; nici ajutorul pe care religia, \u015ftiin\u0163a \u015fi arta l-ar fi putut da destoiniciei sale suflete\u015fti; nici una din acele deprinderi superioare care dau o actualitate culturii des\u0103v\u00e2r\u015fite, a\u015fa cum s-ar \u00een\u0163elege o asemenea cultur\u0103 \u00een apusul Europei! Dar lipsa acestor deprinderi nu a fost \u00eemplinit\u0103 cu deprinderile pe care le vedem la d\u00e2nsul ast\u0103zi. \u00cen via\u0163a lui artistic\u0103 era naivitatea, dar nu grotescul; \u00een via\u0163a sa intelectual\u0103, limitarea, dar nu minciuna; \u00een via\u0163a sa moral\u0103, simplitatea, dar nu totala pervertire a caracterului…<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Constantin R\u0103dulescu-Motru: Our people couldn’t gain, what is right, neither habituations of disciplined work, which make the flourishing of industrial activity from elsewhere; nor commercial habituations and spirit of prevision with which are endowed other peoples; nor help which religion, science and art could have given to his soul competence; nor one of those superior habituations which give actuality to perfect culture, as such culture would be understood in the West of Europe! But the lack of these habituations wasn’t fulfiled with habituations we see today to it. In artistic life, it was naivety, but not the grotesque; In its intellectual life, limitation, but not the lie; in its moral life, simplicity, but not total perverting of character…<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Petre Andrei: Mul\u0163imea nu are o reflexiune logic\u0103 \u015fi critic\u0103, ci g\u00e2nde\u015fte mai mult prin imagini \u015fi simboluri, subiectul fiind confundat totdeauna cu obiectul, iar preferin\u0163ele luate drept realit\u0103\u0163i. Drapelele, culorile, emblemele, uniformele, toate contribuie la producerea unor adev\u0103rate halucina\u0163ii colective. Adev\u0103rurile \u015fi ideile reu\u015fesc mai pu\u0163in s\u0103 mi\u015fte mul\u0163imile dec\u00e2t iluziile. Mul\u0163imea are \u00een genere caracter dinamic, uneori chiar patologic \u015fi acest dinamism se realizeaz\u0103 prin iluzii, prin fantezie, prin tendin\u0163e mistice. Unei mul\u0163imi i se sugereaz\u0103 u\u015for convigeri, dar acestea se schimb\u0103 tot at\u00e2t de repede, dup\u0103 cel care o conduce sau care \u00eei vorbe\u015fte. Exist\u0103 chiar o tehnic\u0103 a oratoriei pentru mul\u0163ime, care duce la rezultatul dorit. Cine ar \u00eencerca s\u0103 ra\u0163ioneze critic \u015fi s\u0103 exprime \u00eendoieli \u00een fa\u0163a unei mul\u0163imi e de la \u00eenceput condamnat la nesucces, pentru c\u0103 mul\u0163imea are nevoie de afirm\u0103ri hot\u0103r\u00e2te, de formule care s\u0103 se repete tipic \u015fi invariabil \u015fi s\u0103 se supun\u0103 cu convingere, c\u0103ci ea e afectiv\u0103 \u015fi dinamic\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Petre Amdrei: The multitude has no logic and critical reflexion, but thinks mostly through images and symbols, the subject being always confounded with the object, and preferences taken as realities. The flags, culors, emblems, uniforms, all contribute to produce true collective hallucinations. Thr truths and ideas succeed in moving the multitude lesser than illusions. The multitude has generally a dynamic charater, sometimes even pathological and this dynamism is realized through illusions, through fantasy, through mystical tendencies. It is easy to suggest convictions to a multitude, but this changes so quickly, according to that he leads it or who speak to it. There is even a technique of oratory for multitude, whic leads to desired result. Who would try to reason critically or to express doubts in front of a multitude is from beginning condemned to ill success, because the multitude needs decided affirmations, formulas to be repeated typically and with conviction and to obey with conviction, for it is affective and dynamical.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nae Ionescu: \u00a0Numai la noi a fost altfel. Ne\u00een\u0163eleg\u00e2nd c\u0103 situa\u0163ia creat\u0103 prin instaurarea noului stat rom\u00e2nesc cerea nu numai alt\u0103 metod\u0103 de lucru, ci \u015fi o alt\u0103 mentalitate, \u00eencredin\u0163at\u0103 c\u0103 vechea formul\u0103 de via\u0163\u0103 antebelic\u0103 va fi iar\u0103\u015fi valabil\u0103, \u201ec\u0103ci lucrurile vor reintra \u00een f\u0103ga\u015ful lor\u201d, noi nu am cump\u0103nit dec\u00e2t oportunitatea \u015fi \u201emomentul\u201d re\u00eentron\u0103rii vechiului regim… \u00cen beneficiul cui \u015fi \u00een ce scop se \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103 toate acestea? O concep\u0163ie precis\u0103 \u015fi unitar\u0103 nu se deseneaz\u0103 \u00een activitatea regimului. M\u0103surile care se iau \u015fi legile care se voteaz\u0103 arat\u0103 cel mai sl\u0103b\u0103nog eclectism; unei solu\u0163ii clasic liberale i se opune una etatizant\u0103; noi monopoluri de stat se instituie, pe c\u00e2nd altele vechi se desfiin\u0163eaz\u0103. Formulele cunoscute de guvernare \u015fi-au pierdut elasticitatea \u015fi p\u00e2r\u00e2ie \u00een \u00eencheieturile lor anchilozate de b\u0103tr\u00e2ne\u0163e. Vechiul plan, crearea capitalului na\u0163ional, \u00een\u0163eles \u00eengust \u015fi urm\u0103rit pe c\u0103i care nu mai sunt dec\u00e2t fund\u0103turi, devine din ce \u00een ce mai des un interes m\u0103runt de partid \u015fi de st\u0103p\u00e2nire politic\u0103. Situa\u0163ia real\u0103 a \u0163\u0103rii, dezolant\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nae Ionescu: Only to us it was otherwise. Not understanding that the situation created through insturing of new Romanian state requirred not only another working method, but also other mentality, convinced that the old formula from before the war will be again valid, \u201ethat the things will enter in their track\u201d, we didn’t ponder but only the opportunity and the \u201emoment\u201d of reinthronisation of the old regime…<\/em>In the benefit of whom and with what purpose happen all these? A precise and unitary conception is not drawn in the activity of the regime. The measure taken and the voted laws show leanest eclecticism; to some classic liberal solution one etatiste is opposed ; new state monopolies are instituted, while other old are annulled. The known formulas of government have lost their elasticity and cracks in their joints stiff\u00a0 by old age. The old plane, creation of national capital, narrowly understood and followed on ways which are by now only blind alleys, becomes more and more frequently a trifling interest of party and political domination. Real situation of country, distressing.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Petre \u0162u\u0163ea: Nu te po\u0163i cunoa\u015fte singur.- Credin\u0163a ne \u00eenva\u0163\u0103 c\u0103 omul nu e un model al existen\u0163ei. El imit\u0103 modele transumane, dac\u0103 vrea s\u0103 se dep\u0103\u015feasc\u0103. – Toat\u0103 via\u0163a m-am preg\u0103tit s\u0103 m\u0103 rog, dar nu am reu\u015fit \u00a0\u00a0s\u0103 spun dec\u00eet primele cuvinte. – Aspira\u0163ia e doar o tendin\u0163\u0103, iar nu o participare. – Cu Eliade am vorbit totdeauna \u00eempreun\u0103 \u015fi ne-am \u00een\u0163eles separat. – Cioran nu e deloc disperat. – S\u00eent dou\u0103 mari principii care se zbat \u00eentr-o con\u015ftiin\u0163\u0103 autentic\u0103: principiul autorit\u0103\u0163ii \u015fi principiul libert\u0103\u0163ii. – Orice mare inteligen\u0163\u0103 e o pedeaps\u0103. – Omul basculeaz\u0103 \u00eentre libertate \u015fi moarte. – Dac\u0103 exist\u0103 o \u015ftiin\u0163\u0103 a na\u0163iunii, eu s\u00eent de meserie rom\u00e2n! – Nae Ionescu era teocentric perfect, adic\u0103 spunea cam a\u015fa: fac cu umilin\u0163\u0103 tot ceea ce fac la nivelul meu, av\u00e2nd perpetuu supraordonarea Divinit\u0103\u0163ii \u015fi limitarea mea, din ra\u0163iuni transcendente, \u00een timp \u015fi \u00een spa\u0163iu… – Acum, filosofii s\u00eent esei\u015fti. \u00cen mod concret, filosofia nici nu poate fi dec\u00eet combinatorie, stilistic\u0103, ascult\u00eend de o lege mai larg\u0103: omul nu creeaz\u0103, ci alc\u0103tuie\u015fte. – Legionarismul a c\u0103utat rom\u00e2nul \u00een sine… N-a putut. A r\u00eevnit peste limitele puterii lui. – \u00cen genera\u0163ia mea, Noica a fost considerat interesant, dar nu \u015fi inteligent… – poate s\u00eent nedrept -, ca s\u0103 tr\u0103ie\u015fti comod, f\u0103r\u0103 inteligen\u0163\u0103, trebuie s\u0103 te mu\u0163i. – Nu \u015ftiu cine a spus, eu sau Cioran: Eminescu are meritul de a fi\u00a0 salvat onoarea spiritual\u0103 a poporului rom\u00e2n! – Sco\u0163\u00eend c\u0103lug\u0103rii pe Calea Victoriei \u00een pas de defilare, nu faci nici istorie, dar nici nu afirmi credin\u0163a, pentru c\u0103 func\u0163ia monahului este de a participa rug\u0103tor la via\u0163a cet\u0103\u0163ii, iar nu de a participa direct, implicativ. – Iisus Hristos este eternitatea care puncteaz\u0103 istoria. – Un sf\u00eent poate fi analfabet, dar e superior unui geniu, fiindc\u0103 ideea de sfin\u0163enie e legat\u0103 de ideea de minune. Un sf\u00eent poate face o minune. E posibil\u0103 minunea ca fapt\u0103 a lui, dar la geniu, nu. Geniul face ispr\u0103vi, nu minuni. – Babele evlavioase merg la absolut rug\u00eendu-se, iar filosoful tr\u0103nc\u0103nind silogisme…<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Petre \u0162u\u0163ea: One can’t know one self alone.\u00a0 The faith teaches us that man is not a model of the existence. He imitates transhuman models, if he wants to surpass himself.\u00a0 All my life I prepared myself to pray but I did succeed to say only the first words. Aspiration is only a tendency, and not a participation. With Eliade we spoke always together and understood separately. Cioran is not desperate at all. There are too great principles which struggle in an authentical consciousness: the principle of authority and the principle of freedom. Any great intelligence is a punishment. The man oscilates between liberty and death. If it exists a science of nation, I am of profession Romanian!Nae Ionescu was perfectly theocentric, that is he sayd like this: I do with humility all I do at my level, having perpetually supraordination of Divinity and my limitation, from transcendent reasons, in time and in space… Now, the philosophers are essysts. In concrete manner, the philosophy can not be but combinatory, stylistique, listening to a larger law: man doesn’t create but makes. The Legionarism searched Romanian in the self… It couldn’t. It coveted over limits of its power. In my generation, Noica was considered interesting, but not also intelligent… – perhaps I am injust -, in order to live comfortable, without intelligence, you must move. I don’t know who said, I or Cioran: Eminescu has the merit to have saved the honour of Romanian people! Taking out the monks on Calea Victoriei\/The Way of Victory in step of defiling, you neither make history, but nor you affirm the faith, because the function of monach is to participate praying to the life of city, and not to participate directly, implicatively. Jesus Christ is the eternity which points the history. A saint can be illiterate but is superior to a genius, because the idea of sainthood is tied to idea of wonder. It is possible the wonder as a deed of him, but to genius, not. The genius makes deeds, no wonders. The pious old women go to the absolute by praying, and the philosopher babbling syllogisms… <\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru St\u0103niloae: Meritul filosofiei existen\u0163iale este c\u0103 a descoperit superioritatea absolut\u0103 a persoanei fa\u0163\u0103 de lucru, de natur\u0103, de realitatea impersonal\u0103, fie ea chiar spiritual\u0103, \u015fi, \u00een acela\u015fi timp, superioritatea raportului dintre persoane, dintre care ea \u015fi tu, \u00een compara\u0163ie cu raportul dintre persoan\u0103 \u015fi lucru. Raportul dintre persoan\u0103 \u015fi persoan\u0103 e ceva cu mult mai generator de via\u0163\u0103, e un raport perfect, de-o plenitudine p\u00e2n\u0103 la care nici nu poate visa s\u0103 se ridice tr\u0103irea s\u0103rac\u0103 ce o \u00eencearc\u0103 persoana \u00een raport cu impersonalul. Numai raportul cu alte persoane te poate face s\u0103-\u0163i tr\u0103ie\u015fti din plin via\u0163a, numai el e \u00een stare s\u0103-\u0163i r\u0103scoleasc\u0103 toate ambi\u0163iile, sentimentele; numai con\u015ftiin\u0163a c\u0103 te urm\u0103resc alte persoane face s\u0103 urce din ad\u00e2ncurile tale, pe care nici nu le visai con\u0163in\u00e2nd ceva, puteri de crea\u0163ie sau de distrugere de-a dreptul uria\u015fe. \u00cen schimb, raportul cu un lucru nu poate scoate din somnolen\u0163a \u015fi indiferen\u0163a \u00een care e\u015fti cufundat dec\u00e2t vibra\u0163ii obosite, superficiale, f\u0103r\u0103 rezonan\u0163e \u00een ad\u00e2nc. Dac\u0103 apreciezi totu\u015fi, adeseori, cu pasiune anumite lucruri, o faci tot de dragul persoanelor care \u015ftii c\u0103 te urm\u0103resc.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru St\u0103niloae: The merit of existentialist philosophy is that it has discovered the absolute superiority of the person face to the thing, to nature, to impersonal reality, be it even spiritual, and, in the same time, superiority of relations between persons, out of which she and you, in comparison with relation between person and thing. The relation between person and person is something much more generator of life, is a perfect relation, of a plenitude upto which it can not even to dream to rise the poor living which is tried by person in relation to the impersonal. Only the relation with other persons can make you to live completely your life, only it is capable to stir all your ambitions, sentiments; only conscience that other persons follow you makes to come up from your depths, which you even dreamt containing something, powers of creation or of destruction straight away gigantic. In exchange, the relation with a thing can not take out from somnolence and indifference in which you are plunged but tired, superficial vibrations without resonances in depth. If you appreciate however, often, with passion certain things, you do it for the sake of persons you know they follow you.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mihail Manoilescu: Trecem printr-o criz\u0103 grav\u0103, din care ar putea s\u0103 ias\u0103 ori\u015fice, chiar \u015fi o catastrof\u0103 care s\u0103 pr\u0103v\u0103leasc\u0103 iar\u0103\u015fi neamul omenesc \u00een ad\u00e2ncurile, pline de oroare ale animalit\u0103\u0163ii primitive, nu ne poate l\u0103sa indiferen\u0163i. Facem \u015fi noi parte din lumea, de a c\u0103rei soart\u0103 e vorba. Ne g\u0103sim chiar \u00een unele din punctele ei cele mai expuse; ne putem astfel a\u015ftepta la mai multe \u015fi la mai mari neajunsuri dec\u00e2t al\u0163ii. Trebuie dar s\u0103 examin\u0103m \u015fi noi, de pe meleagurile a\u015fez\u0103rii noastre geografice \u015fi la lumina a\u015fez\u0103mintelor noastre istorice, temerile, at\u00e2t de nelini\u015ftitoare, ale at\u00e2tora din conduc\u0103torii de ast\u0103zi ai popoarelor, ca s\u0103 le vedem \u00eendrept\u0103\u0163irea, s\u0103 tragem consecin\u0163ele \u015fi, eventual, s\u0103 ne lu\u0103m m\u0103surile. Este oare depresiunea ce, \u00een chip v\u0103dit, apas\u0103 asupra con\u015ftiin\u0163ei contemporanilor no\u015ftri, numai un efect \u00eent\u00e2rziat al \u201enevrozei postbelice\u201d, pe care au l\u0103sat-o dup\u0103 ele zdruncin\u0103rile \u015fi pr\u0103bu\u015firile produse de s\u00e2ngerosul conflict de acum dou\u0103 decenii? Sau are poate \u015fi cauze obiective, independente de tulbur\u0103rile subiective ale sensibilit\u0103\u0163ii oamenilor, \u015fi care o impun, ca atare, \u015fi celor mai echilibra\u0163i dintre ei?<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mihail Manoilescu: We pass through a grave crisis, from which it can come out anything, even a catastrophy wich to throw down again human kin in depths, full of horror of primitive animality, can not leave us indifferent.We make part, too, from thw world, of whose fate is the word. We find ourselves even in its most exposed points; we can so expect more and bigger troubles than others. So we also must examine, from parts of our geographical settlement and at light of our historical settlements, the fears, so upsetting, of so many of today leaders of peoples, in order to see their justification, to draw the consequences and to take our measures.Is it the depression which, obviously, presses over consciousness of our contemporaries, only a late effect of \u201epostwar neurosis\u201d, which left behind them the jolts and falls produced by the bloody conflict of two decades ago? Or has it perhaps objective causes, independent of subjectives troubles sensibilities of the people, and who impose, as such, also to those more balanced among them?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mircea Florian:\u00a0 Caracterul na\u0163ional nu e inerent filosofiei, pentru c\u0103 cuv\u00e2ntul\u00a0 nu e cuprins \u00een structura con\u015ftiin\u0163ei. Moravurile, literatura, arta sunt na\u0163ionale, nu sunt filosofia. Realitatea nu se schimb\u0103, dup\u0103 cum e privit\u0103 sau intuit\u0103 de filosofi apar\u0163in\u00e2nd unei na\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163i sau alta. Numai voin\u0163a de a g\u00e2ndi \u015fi de a explora e na\u0163ional\u0103, iar sub acest raport diferen\u0163ele etnice se confund\u0103 cu cele individuale. \u00cen cadrul generos al explor\u0103rii filosofice, emula\u0163ia dintre popoare nu e numai \u00eeng\u0103duit\u0103, dar chiar binef\u0103c\u0103toare. \u00cens\u0103 norma suprem\u0103 a explor\u0103rii r\u0103m\u00e2ne adev\u0103rul, chiar dac\u0103 p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een prezent n-a fost descoperit.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mircea Florian: The national character is not inherent to the philosophy, because the word is not comprised in the structure of consciousness. The morals, literature, art are national, not so the philosophy. The reality doesn’t change according to how it is looked at or intuited by philosophers belonging to a nationality or another. Only the will of thinking and exploring is national, and in this respect the ethnical differences are confounded with those individual. In the generous frame of philosophical exploration, the emulation between peoples is not only permitted, but even benefiient. But the supreme norm of exploration remains the truth, even if untill present it wasn’t discovered.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Al. Constantinescu: Dac\u0103 n-ar exista inexistentul, dac\u0103 nu ne-ar p\u00e2ndi moartea, timpul s-ar confunda cu eternitatea \u015fi istoria cu Paradisul. Moartea condi\u0163ioneaz\u0103 genetic istoria \u015fi d\u0103 existen\u0163ei tensiunea pateticului. Timpul cre\u015fte din moarte \u015fi tr\u0103ie\u015fte din ra\u0163iunea ei. Ce-a fost mai \u00eent\u00e2i: moartea sau timpul? Moartea, \u00een sens absolut, ar exclude posibilitatea logic\u0103 a timpului; dar moartea relativ\u0103 postuleaz\u0103 prealabilitatea vie\u0163ii. \u015ei via\u0163a? Fiind c\u00e2\u015ftig \u00een dauna mor\u0163ii, pare subsecvent\u0103 ei… \u00cen infinitul lumii, nu exist\u0103 \u00eenceput \u015fi sf\u00e2r\u015fit; numai \u00een lumea noastr\u0103 \u00eengust\u0103, lucr\u0103m cu asemenea artificii de logic\u0103 antropomorfic\u0103. Numai pe portativul istoriei umane sunt valabile filosofiile noastre, la cheia \u201eantropos\u201d-ului, major sau minor.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Al. Constantinescu: If the inexistent wouldn’t exist, if the death wouldn’t watch us, the time would confound with eternity and the history with the Paradise. The death conditionates genetically the history and gives to existence the tension of the pathetic.<\/em>The time grows from death and leaves from its reason. What was it firstly: death or time? Death, in absolute sense, would exclude logical possibility of time; but relative death postulates the precedence of life. And life? Being gain in damage of death, it seems subsequent to that…In the infinity of the world, it doesn’t exist beginning or end; only in our narrow world, we work with such artifices of anthropomorphic logic. Only on the stave of human history our philosophies are valid, at key of major or minor ‘anthropos’ .<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mircea Vulc\u0103nescu: Sub \u00eent\u00e2mplare insul. Sub ins Dumnezeu.\u00a0\u00a0 Dumnezeu fiin\u0163\u0103 lucr\u0103toare. Dumnezeu singura fiin\u0163\u0103 lucr\u0103toare. \u00a0Paradoxul. \u00cen \u015fi de peste lume. \u00a0E opunere? Diavolul. Prima \u00eencercare de cercetare a ceea ce st\u0103 sub fiin\u0163a \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103rii ne-a dizolvat-o \u00een lumea cea mare a felurilor de a fi. A doua ne-a dus la descoperirea insului, prima fiin\u0163\u0103 substratual\u0103 care unific\u0103 \u00eent\u00e2mpl\u0103rile, d\u00e2ndu-le chip, rost \u015fi \u00eemplinire, ori soart\u0103. Am v\u0103zut \u00eens\u0103, cu toate c\u0103 insul este o fiin\u0163\u0103 deplin existent\u0103, fiin\u0163a lui nu e de sine st\u0103t\u0103toare; singur\u0103tatea de fiin\u0163\u0103 care-l constituie nu-i ajunge, ci cat\u0103 a se dep\u0103\u015fi, afl\u00e2ndu-\u015fi din \u00eensu\u015firi un chip, \u015fi \u00een lume un rost, \u015fi-n vreme o soart\u0103, pe care, abia afl\u00e2ndu-le, \u00eel g\u0103sim exist\u00e2nd deplin.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mircea Vulc\u0103nescu: Under happening the ins. <\/em>Under ins God. God ins with face. God working being. God single working being. The paradox. In and from over world.\u00a0 Is opposition? The devil? The first attempt of research of what stays under being of happening dissolved us in the great world of manners of being. The second one brought us to discovery of ins\/individual, first substratum being which unifies the events, giving them shape, sense and fulfillment, or fate. We have seen yet, even the ins\/individual is fully existent being, his being is not independent; the solitude of being which constitutes him is not sufficient, but tries to self exceed, finding out of features a shape, and in the world a sense, and in the time a fate, which, only discovering them, we find him living completely.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dan Botta: Radiosul univers al rom\u00e2nului \u015fi lumea perfect\u0103 a concep\u0163iei sale e ne\u00eendurat\u0103.<\/p>\n

Acesta este sensul \u00eentreg, singurul sens al pesimismului eminescian. Eminescu ador\u0103 lumea, o contempl\u0103 cu nesa\u0163iu, se \u00eembat\u0103 \u2013 ca \u00een versurile \u201eRug\u0103ciunii unui dac\u201d \u2013 din f\u00e2nt\u00e2nile splendorilor ei, dar el se \u015ftie a fi sortit durerii. A\u015fa se explic\u0103 acel sentiment \u201edureros de dulce\u201d al existen\u0163ei \u015fi tot ce \u00een versurile sale este explozie de durere \u015fi imn de bucurie laolalt\u0103. El \u00eempingea pesimismul s\u0103u \u2013 dac\u0103 acesta este pesimism \u2013 p\u00e2n\u0103 acolo unde-l \u00eemping rom\u00e2nii. C\u0103r\u0163ile lui Schopenhauer nu i-au dat nici m\u0103car con\u015ftiin\u0163a lui. Ea e vie de secole \u00een poporul rom\u00e2nesc. Rom\u00e2nul spune: \u201eFac umbr\u0103 p\u0103m\u00e2ntului\u201d. Am pus odinioar\u0103 acest cuv\u00e2nt \u00een leg\u0103tur\u0103 cu credin\u0163ele Thraciei: existen\u0163a arunc\u0103 o pat\u0103 pe corpul luminos al lumii, via\u0163a e o vin\u0103, un p\u0103cat. M\u0103rturia lui Herodot, care \u00eensemnase aceast\u0103 credin\u0163\u0103 a Thraciei, e confirmat\u0103 deplin de poporul rom\u00e2nesc. \u201eUmbr\u0103 p\u0103m\u00e2ntului\u201d, sentimentul acesta de suprem\u0103 am\u0103r\u0103ciune, de singur\u0103tate \u015fi de inutilitate suprem\u0103, str\u0103bate poezia eminescian\u0103. Sunt momentele celei mai mari depresiuni. Ele nu exclud \u2013 dimpotriv\u0103 \u2013 con\u015ftiin\u0163a infinitei frumuse\u0163i a lumii. Ele rostesc setea desprinderii de contingen\u0163ial, setea evaziunii, a extazului. Ele invoc\u0103 moartea \u2013 ca prag al bucuriei, al acelei regiuni \u00een care se deschid perspectivele frumuse\u0163ii supreme, putin\u0163a particip\u0103rii la via\u0163a frenetic\u0103 a totului \u2013 comunica\u0163ia etern\u0103, cuminec\u0103tura elementelor.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dan Botta: The radiant universe of the Romanian and perfect world of his conceptions is unendured. This is the entire sense, single sense of Eminescu’s pessimism. Eminescu adores the world, contemplate it greedily, gets drunk \u2013 like in the verse of \u201eRug\u0103ciunea unui dac\u201d\/The prayer of a Dacian \u2013 from the fountains of its splendours, but he knows himself destined to sorrow. So it explains that sentiment\u00a0 \u201edureros de dulce\u201d\/sorrowfully sweet of existence and all what in his verse is explosion of sorrow is anthem of joy alltogether. He pushed his pessimism \u2013 if this is pessimism \u2013 up to there where Romanians push it. Books of Schopenhauer didn’t give neither its conscience. It is alive since centuries in Romanian people. The Romanian says: \u201eI make shadow to the earth\u201d. I put once this word in connection with believes of Thracia: the existence throws a spot on luminous body of world. Life is a guilt, a sin. The testimony of Herodot, who had noted this faith of Thracia, is confirmed enirely by Romanian people.\u00a0 <\/em>\u201eShadow to earth\u201d, this sentiment of supreme bitterness, of solitude and supreme uselessness, goes through Eminescian poetry. There are moments of deepest depression.They don’t exclude \u2013 on the contrary \u2013 the conscience of infinite beauty of world. They utter the thirst of detachment from the contingential, the thirst for evasion, of the extasy. They invoke death \u2013 as threshold of joy, of that region where are open the perspectives of supreme beauty, the power of participation to phrenetic life of the whole \u2013 eternal comunication, cuminec\u0103tura\/the eucharist of elements.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru Cristian Amz\u0103r: Marele \u015fi unicul g\u00e2nd al noului tineret rom\u00e2n nu este nici \u201efascismul\u201d, nici \u201eantisemitismul\u201d, cum le e team\u0103 celor cari ar avea ceva de pierdut de pe urma acestor tendin\u0163e, ci cu totul altceva: e g\u00e2ndul unei ad\u00e2nci re\u00eennoiri l\u0103untrice a Rom\u00e2nului de pe toate treptele sociale \u2013 o n\u0103zuin\u0163\u0103 de natur\u0103 spiritual\u0103, educativ\u0103, religioas\u0103 aproape. Tineretul de azi nu are nici ambi\u0163ia de a crea o \u201ecultur\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 la \u00een\u0103l\u0163imea\u201d celorlalte popoare, cu care s-ar lua oarecum la \u00eentrecere; \u015fi tot a\u015fa de pu\u0163in nutre\u015fte ideea unui \u201eimperialism\u201d oarecare, \u00eengust\u00e2nd dreptul la via\u0163\u0103 al altor popoare. Idealul rom\u00e2nesc al acestui tineret nu este nici de r\u0103m\u00e2nere la m\u0103runta gospod\u0103rie a unei politici de suprafa\u0163\u0103, nici semea\u0163a \u00eentindere \u00een l\u0103turi, peste drepturile \u015fi n\u0103zuin\u0163ele altora; el r\u0103m\u00e2ne, din toate aceste puncte de vedere, la politica istoric\u0103 a poporului rom\u00e2n: ap\u0103r\u00e2ndu-\u015fi s\u0103r\u0103cia \u015fi nevoile, \u015fi neamul. Idealul lui este de ad\u00e2ncime \u00een ceea ce voie\u015fte s\u0103 schimbe, de \u00een\u0103l\u0163ime \u00een ceea ce vrea s\u0103 \u00eenf\u0103ptuiasc\u0103. Tineretul de azi nu mai crede \u00een schimbarea formelor de deasupra, \u00een \u00eenlocuirea oamenilor de la conducere cu al\u0163ii la fel cu ei, \u00een puterea de la sine a legilor \u015fi institu\u0163iilor. G\u00e2ndul lui este s\u0103 re\u00eennoiasc\u0103 via\u0163a societ\u0103\u0163ii rom\u00e2ne\u015fti nu \u00een formele, ci \u00een \u201espiritul\u201d ei, nu \u00een \u00eenf\u0103\u0163i\u015farea exterioar\u0103, ci \u00een \u201er\u00e2nduiala ei l\u0103untric\u0103\u201d. E vorba, a\u015fadar, de o schimbare a \u201eomului \u00eensu\u015fi\u201d, a felului s\u0103u de a fi, de a g\u00e2ndi \u015fi de a lucra, iar nu de \u00eenlocuirea oamenilor unii prin al\u0163ii. E vorba s\u0103 atingem, \u00een sporirea noastr\u0103 l\u0103untric\u0103, o nou\u0103 treapt\u0103 de \u201eomenie\u201d, de ad\u00e2nc\u0103 \u015fi \u00eenalt\u0103 omenie, care s\u0103 duc\u0103 neamul rom\u00e2nesc la adev\u0103rata fiin\u0163are \u015fi \u00eentregire de sine \u00een cugetul \u015fi fapta lui istoric\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru Cristian Amz\u0103r: The great and unique thought of the new Romanian youth is neither \u201efascism\u201d, nor \u201eantisemitism\u201d, how are afraid those who would have something to loose from the following of these tendences, but something totally different: it is the thought of deep inner renovation of the Romanian from all social steps \u2013 an aspiration of spiritual, educational, almost religious nature. The youth of today has neither ambition to create a \u201eRomanian culture at hight\u201d of the other peoples, with wich would enter somehow into competition; and as little nourishes the idea of a certain \u201eimperialism\u201d, narrowing the right to life of other peoples. The Romanian ideal of this youth neither of remaining to the small household of a policy of surface, nor of daring lenghtening beside, over the rights and aspirations of others; it remains from all these points of view, to historical policy of Romanian people: defending its poverty, and needs and kin. Its ideal is of profoundness in what it wants to change, of hight in what it wants to realise. The youth of today doesn’t believe any more in the change of forms from above, in replacement of people from leadership with other of same kind as them, in power in itself of laws and institutions. Its thought is to renovate the life of Romanian society not in its forms, but in its \u201espirit\u201d, not in exterior appearance, but in \u201eits inner r\u00e2nduial\u0103\/good order\u201d. It is question, therfore, of a change of \u201eman himself\u201d, of his manner to be, to think and to work, and not of replacement of people ones through others. It is question to touch , in our inner growth, a new step of \u201eomenie\u201d\/humanity, which to bring Romanian people to the true beingness and completion of self in its historical thought and deed.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alexandru Dragomir:\u00a0 Judecarea unei doctrine intelectuale trebuie f\u0103cut\u0103 strict pe teren intelectual, adic\u0103 prin dezbateri de bun\u0103-credin\u0163\u0103 \u015fi cu argumente teoretice, iar nu autoritare. Mai anevoios este c\u00e2nd teoria se refer\u0103 la probleme politice. Iau un caz clasic: Hitler \u015fi doctrina sa. Aici se teoretizeaz\u0103 r\u0103zboiul unui \u201eVolk ohne Raum\u201d( de unde \u015fi nevoia cuceririlor \u00een vederea dob\u00e2ndirii unui spa\u0163iu vital), se afirm\u0103 superioritatea \u201erasei\u201d germane, av\u00e2nd drept consecin\u0163\u0103 degradarea teoretic\u0103 a altor \u201erase\u201d, portivit unei ierarhii \u00een care pe primul loc se afl\u0103 evreii, apoi slavii, francezii, englezii etc., totul av\u00e2nd drept consecin\u0163\u0103 p\u00e2n\u0103 una- alta persecu\u0163ia \u015fi exterminarea evreilor. Este de ordinul eviden\u0163ei absolute (ceea ce \u00eenseamn\u0103 \u201ef\u0103r\u0103 discu\u0163ie\u201d) c\u0103 aceast\u0103 doctrin\u0103 este \u015fi fals\u0103, \u015fi rea; fals\u0103, pe criteriul adev\u0103r-fals \u015fi rea p\u00e2n\u0103 la cruzime, pe criteriul bine-r\u0103u. Numai c\u0103 falsitatea \u015fi r\u0103ul acestor teorii nu au \u00eempiedicat accesul la putere al lui Hitler, vina pentru ascensiunea lui nu revine numai unui \u201eintelectual\u201d (\u015fi mai ales nu \u00een unica lui calitate de intelectual), ci cade \u00een seama multor oameni, printre ace\u015ftia afl\u00e2ndu-se desigur \u015fi intelectualii. \u00cen ce prive\u015fte teoria marxist\u0103, care este teoria unui intelectual \u015fi a unui lupt\u0103tor politic, deosebim \u00eenl\u0103untrul ei o teorie economic\u0103 (plusvaloarea etc.), o teorie social\u0103 (lupta de clas\u0103) \u015fi o teorie filosofic\u0103 (materialismul istoric), care, \u00eembinate, constituie o teorie mai mult sau mai pu\u0163in coerent\u0103… E greu s\u0103 spui c\u0103 intelectualii \u015fi politicienii au r\u0103spundere. Ce r\u0103spundere au avut Hitler \u015fi Stalin? Ce r\u0103spundere a avut Marx pentru teoria marxist\u0103? Cum po\u0163i trage la r\u0103spundere pe un prost guvernator? Dac\u0103 l-ai ales (liber), r\u0103spunzi \u015fi tu. Cum po\u0163i g\u00e2ndi m\u0103car s\u0103-l tragi la r\u0103spundere pe Ptolomeu de la Copernic \u00eencoace? Dar, pe de alt\u0103 parte, cum pot fapte cu at\u00e2t de grele consecin\u0163e (precum o proast\u0103 guvernare sau o teorie gre\u015fit\u0103) s\u0103 fie f\u0103r\u0103 r\u0103spundere?<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Alexandru Dragomir: The judging of an intellectual doctrine must be made strictly on intellectual ground, that is through debates of good faith and with theoretical arguments, and not authoritary. More difficult is when the theory refers to political problems. I take a classical case: Hitler and his doctrine. Here is theorised the war of a \u201eVolk ohne Raum\u201d (from where also the need of conquerances in view of acquiring a vital space) it is affirmed the superiority of German \u201erace\u201d, having as consequence degradation of other \u201eraces\u201d, according to a hierarchy in which on the first place are the Jews, then, Slaves, Frenchmen, Englishmen, etc., all having as consequence for the time being persecution and extermination of Jews. It is of order of absolute evidence (what means \u201ewithout discussion\u201d) that this doctrine is both false and bad; false, on the criterium true-fals and evil upto cruelty, on the criterium good-bad. Only that the falseness and badness of these theories didn’t impede the access to power of Hitler, the guilt for his ascension doesn’t it only due to one \u201eintellectual\u201d (and especially not in his unique quality of intellectual) but falls in responsability of many people, among these being also intellectuals. In <\/em>what regards the Marxist theory, which is the theory of an intellectual and of a political fighter, we find inside of it an economic theory (plusvalue, etc.), a social theory (class struggle) and a philosophical theory (historical materialism), which, joined, constitute a theory more or less coherent…It is hard to say that the intellectuals and politicians have responsability. What responsability had Hitler and Stalin? What responsability had Marx for Marxist theory?How can be drawn to responsability a poor governor? If one has chosen (freely), one answers, too.How can you think at least to draw to responsability since Copernicus to now?But, on other hand, how can deeds with so heavy consequences (like a poor governship or a mistaken theory) be without responsability.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Constantin Noica: Fiin\u0163a o d\u0103 abia \u201e\u00eempletirea dintre general \u015fi individual\u201d… \u015etiin\u0163a fiin\u0163ei nu-\u015fi atinge \u0163inta dac\u0103 nu d\u0103 socoteal\u0103 de fiin\u0163a individual\u0103, de arborele \u201eacesta\u201d, omul \u201eacesta\u201d, f\u0103ptura \u201eaceasta\u201d istoric\u0103. Dar ea trebuie s-o fac\u0103 pentru \u201eorice fiin\u0163\u0103 individual\u0103, a\u015fadar din perspectiva fiin\u0163ei generale… Individualul \u00ee\u015fi poate da \u015fi poate c\u0103p\u0103ta orice determina\u0163ii (ca v\u00eertejul \u00een gol al punctelor materiale sau r\u0103sp\u00eendirea \u00een gol a undelor), dar nu are cu adev\u0103rat m\u0103sura fiin\u0163ei. Lumea poate fi plin\u0103 de aceast\u0103 nefiin\u0163\u0103 secund\u0103; \u015fi dac\u0103 \u00een lumea materiei ne\u00eensufle\u0163ite ea nu este izbitoare, c\u0103ci aici tocmai nefiin\u0163a secund\u0103 e regula \u015fi fiin\u0163a excep\u0163ia, \u00een schimb, \u00een lumea vie\u0163ii \u015fi a omului \u2013 care au costat materia at\u00eeta str\u0103danie spre a se \u00eenchega \u2013 nefiin\u0163a \u015fi ne\u00eemplinirea s\u00eent un adev\u0103rat e\u015fec cosmic, \u00eentr-un sens. Iar aceasta nu \u00eenseamn\u0103 dec\u00eet: nu s-a petrecut conversiunea. S-ar p\u0103rea atunci c\u0103 modelul ontologic ce rezult\u0103 de aici este simplu: un individual se deschide prin determinan\u0163i,care se deschid sub un general; un c\u00eemp ontologic cap\u0103t\u0103 fiin\u0163\u0103 \u015fi asigurare, ca devenind c\u00eemp al generalului… … Fiin\u0163a lucrurilor, fiin\u0163a existentului pe care o caut\u0103 ontologia \u2013 anume: ce este cu adev\u0103rat \u00een lume? \u2013 \u00ee\u015fi cap\u0103t\u0103, cu arheii, un r\u0103spuns conceptual solidar cu tot ce am f\u0103cut v\u0103dit \u00een desf\u0103\u015furarea sentimentului rom\u00e2nesc al fiin\u0163ei, de la \u201e\u00eentrebarea\u201d asupra a ce este p\u00een\u0103 la modelul ontologic posibil.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The being gives only the \u201eknitting between general and individual\u201d…<\/em>The science of being doesn’t reach its target if it doesen’t account of individual being, of \u201ethis\u201d arbre, \u201ethis\u201d man, \u201ethis\u201d historical creature. But it must do it for \u201eany individual being, therefore from perspective of general being….The individuality can give and can acquire any determinations ( like vortex in void of material points or spreading in void of waves), but has not truly the measure of being.The world can be full of this secondary nonbeing; and if in the world of inanimate matter it is not striking, because here just secondary unbeing is the rule and being the exception, in exchange, in the worlld of life and of man \u2013 which has costed the matter so much endeavour in order to coagulate \u2013 the non being and nonaccomlishment are a true cosmic failure, in a sense. And this doesn’t mean but: the conversion didn’t happen.It seems then that the ontologic model resulting from here is simple: an individuality is open through determinations which open under a generality; an ontological field acquire being and insurence, as becoming field of generality…… The being of things, the being of the existent searched by the ontology \u2013 namely:\u00a0 what is truly in the world? – acquires, with the archaei, a solidary conceptual answer with all what we have done visibly in the developing of\u00a0 Romanian sentiment of being, from the \u201equestion\u201d over what it is upto the possible ontologic model.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vasile B\u0103ncil\u0103: \u00cen fiin\u0163a uman\u0103 exist\u0103 doi factori l\u0103untrici: instinctele vie\u0163ii \u015fi apriorismele inteligen\u0163ei. \u015ei un factor mai extern, \u00een raport cu cele de mai sus: senza\u0163iile. Primii doi factori sunt for\u0163e ordonatoare, ultimul reprezint\u0103 materialul de prelucrat, vorbind relativ, fiindc\u0103, altfel, senza\u0163iile \u00eensele se prezint\u0103 cu o prim\u0103 prelucrare. Cum s-ar spune, senza\u0163iile sunt produse semifinite, dar privite \u00een raport cu instinctele \u015fi apriorismele pot fi considerate ca materiale, a\u015fa cum f\u0103cea Kant. Instinctele \u015fi apriorismele sunt un fel de endoderm al spiritului, senza\u0163iile, un fel de ectoderm. Raportate activ unul la altul, aceste dou\u0103 \u201ederme\u201d formeaz\u0103 o adev\u0103rat\u0103 uzin\u0103, care produce via\u0163a \u015fi cunoa\u015fterea. Din instincte \u015fi senza\u0163ii rezult\u0103 via\u0163a biologic\u0103 \u015fi, fapt mai important, via\u0163a moral\u0103 sau o parte a acesteia. Simpatia moral\u0103 s-ar putea s\u0103 nu fie dec\u00e2t un instinct care a ajuns luminat. Instinctul are, de asemenea, mare importan\u0163\u0103 \u00een ceea ce prive\u015fte via\u0163a social\u0103, luptele politice, o mare parte din crea\u0163ia artistic\u0103 etc. Iar din apriorisme \u015fi senza\u0163ii rezult\u0103 \u015ftiin\u0163ele de orice fel, toat\u0103 cunoa\u015fterea teoretic\u0103 pozitiv\u0103. Dar filosofia \u015fi religia? S-ar putea spune c\u0103 ele reprezint\u0103 o colaborare integral\u0103 a for\u0163elor spiritului. Instinctul \u015fi inteligen\u0163a dau na\u015ftere la marile interese spirituale ale omului, ele produc intui\u0163iile fundamentale ale con\u015ftiin\u0163ei, care, \u00eempreun\u0103 cu datele primite din afar\u0103, prin percep\u0163ie personal\u0103 \u015fi prin aportul \u015ftiin\u0163elor, duc, cu ajutorul medita\u0163iei, la viziunile filosofice. Religiile sunt \u00eens\u0103 mai mult dec\u00e2t at\u00e2t: ele sunt viziuni filosofice \u00een raport cu stadiul de dezvoltare \u00een care se g\u0103sea omul \u00een momentul apari\u0163iei lor, dar care au primit, pe deasupra, o revela\u0163ie a c\u0103rei form\u0103 a fost \u015fi ea hot\u0103r\u00e2t\u0103 \u00een raport cu stadiul de dezvoltare istoric\u0103 a omului. \u00cen cre\u015ftinism, aceast\u0103 revela\u0163ie, dup\u0103 ce a fost ea \u00eens\u0103\u015fi anticipat\u0103 par\u0163ial mai ales de profe\u0163ii vechi, anticipeaz\u0103, la r\u00e2ndul ei, foarte mult, de aceea, omenirea n-a ajuns \u00eenc\u0103 s\u0103 vin\u0103 la nivelul cre\u015ftinismului. Se pare c\u0103 \u00een cre\u015ftinism s-a dat omenirii un cadru \u015fi o direc\u0163ie \u00een care s\u0103 se dezvolte foarte mult\u0103 vreme. S-ar putea ca omenirea s\u0103 dispar\u0103 \u00eenainte de a ajunge s\u0103 coincid\u0103 cu modelul creat sau acordat prin religia cre\u015ftin\u0103. Via\u0163a biologic\u0103, \u015ftiin\u0163a, \u00een parte, via\u0163a moral\u0103, arta sunt lucru natural. Filosofia este lucru integral, dar natural sau uman. Religia e \u00eens\u0103 ceva totodat\u0103 natural \u015fi transcedental. \u00cen religie e un cristal de transcendent mai mult sau mai pu\u0163in curat, care s-a dizolvat \u00eentr-un ocean de nelini\u015fte \u015fi de nostalgie uman\u0103.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Vasile B\u0103ncil\u0103: <\/em>In human being there exist two inner factors: the instincts of life and the apriorisms of intelligence. And a more external factor, in relation with the above two: the sensations. The first two factors are ordering forces, the last represents the material to be processed, relatively speaking, because, otherwise, the sensations themselves appear as a first processing. As it could be said, the sensations are semi-finite products, but seen in relation to instincts and apriorisms then can be considered as materials, as did Kant.<\/em>The instincts and the apriorisms are a kind of endoderm of the spirit, the sensations a kind of ectoderm.Reported actively one to another, these two \u201ederms\u201d form a true factory, which produces the life and the knowledge.Out of instincts and sensations it results the biological life and, more important fact, the moral life or a part of this. The moral sympathy could be not but an instinct which arrived to be lighted. The instinct has, likewise, great importance in what regards the social life, political struggles, a big part of artistic creation, etc.And from apriorisms and sensations it results the sciences of any kind, all theoretical positive knowledge. But philosophy and religion?It could be said that they represent an integral colaboration of the forces of spirit. The instinct and the intelligence give birth to great spiritual interests of man, they produce fundamental intuitions of conscience, which, together with the data rceived from outside, through personal perception and through contribution of sciences, lead, with the help of meditation, to philosophical visions. Religions are yet much more than that: they are philosophical visions in relation to the stage of development in which man was founded in the moment of their apparitions, but which have received, over all, a revelation of which form has been decided also it in relation to the stage of historical development of man.In Christianism, this revelation, after it was itself partially anticipated most of all by the old prophets, anticipates, at its turn, very much, that for, the manking didn’t arrived yet to come to the level of Christianism. It seems that in Christianism it was given to mankind a frame and a direction in which to develop very much time. It could that mankind disappear before arriving to coincide to the model created or accorded through Christian religion. The biological life, the science, in part, the moral life, the art are natural thing. The philosophy is an integral thing, but natural or human. Religion is but something at the same time natural and transcendental. In religion there is a crystal of transcendent more or less clean, which developed in an ocean of unrest and human nostalgia.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Teodor M. Popescu:\u00a0 Trebuie s\u0103 spun c\u00e2teva cuvinte despre Biserica Ortodox\u0103. Mul\u0163i o judec\u0103, acuz\u00e2nd-o c\u0103 nu a jucat un rol deosebit \u00een istoria culturii. Ori, aceasta \u00eenseamn\u0103 s\u0103 nu-i cuno\u015fti trecutul, activitatea \u015fi influen\u0163a avut\u0103 \u00een R\u0103s\u0103rit. Desigur, Biserica Ortodox\u0103 nu s-a aflat \u00een situa\u0163ia Bisericii romane, care a trebuit s\u0103 preia \u00een Apus mo\u015ftenirea Imperiului Roman, dar opera sa cultural\u0103 nu este c\u00e2tu\u015fi de pu\u0163in neglijabil\u0103. \u00centr-un anumit sens, Biserica Ortodox\u0103 a f\u0103cut mai mult pentru credincio\u015fii s\u0103i dec\u00e2t Biserica Romei \u00eens\u0103\u015fi. Ea a reprezentat \u00een cadrul statului cea mai important\u0103 \u015fi mai venerabil\u0103 institu\u0163ie cultural\u0103, a cultivat limba na\u0163ional\u0103, a creat o \u00eentreag\u0103 literatur\u0103, a avut arta sa, a \u00eentemeiat institu\u0163ii de o mare utilitate social\u0103 \u015fi na\u0163ional\u0103, a constituit o adev\u0103rat\u0103 \u015fcoal\u0103 pentru popor, l-a educat, i-a modelat sufletul, i-a insuflat o pietate specific\u0103, virtu\u0163i \u015fi moravuri care sunt zestrea oric\u0103rui popor ortodox. Consider c\u0103 se poate afirma c\u0103 nici o alt\u0103 Biseric\u0103 nu a f\u0103cut at\u00e2t de mult pentru cultura na\u0163ional\u0103 a poporului \u015fi mai ales nu a dezvoltat \u00een asemenea m\u0103sur\u0103 sim\u0163ul milosteniei \u015fi al iubirii cre\u015ftine ca Biserica Ortodox\u0103. Dac\u0103 \u0163inem seama de rolul jucat de Biserica Ortodox\u0103 \u00een s\u00e2nul popoarelor, care timp de mai multe secole, au fost lipsite de organizare statal\u0103, trebuie s\u0103 recunoa\u015ftem c\u0103 \u00ee\u015fi merit\u0103 pe deplin numele de maic\u0103 a acestor popoare \u015fi a culturii acestora, care, p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een scolul XIX, a fost o cultur\u0103 medieval\u0103, bisericeasc\u0103 \u015fi monastic\u0103, plin\u0103 de credin\u0163\u0103 \u015fi de armonie. Din p\u0103cate, civiliza\u0163ia apusean\u0103, adoptat\u0103 de popoarele nostre ortodoxe, le-a adus, odat\u0103 cu binefacerile sale, \u015fi idei nereligioase, \u015fi prejudec\u0103\u0163i anticlericale. Sunt mul\u0163i pe la noi care au \u00eenv\u0103\u0163at s\u0103 repete c\u0103 Biserica este o institu\u0163ie inutil\u0103. Spiritul laic \u015fi francmasonic, care se face resim\u0163it \u00een unele cercuri influente, vine s\u0103 \u00eent\u0103reasc\u0103 aceast\u0103 concep\u0163ie nedreapt\u0103 \u015fi periculoas\u0103. Biserica Ortodox\u0103 se afl\u0103 \u00eentr-o situa\u0163ie politic\u0103, social\u0103 \u015fi cultural\u0103 diferit\u0103 de cea a Bisericilor apusene. Ea nu a aprins ruguri, nu a condamnat oameni de \u015ftiin\u0163\u0103, nu a manevrat puterea lumeasc\u0103, nu a profanat Evanghelia \u015fi altarele, nu a pus religia la dispozi\u0163ia st\u0103p\u00e2nitorilor politici. Desigur, a avut \u015fi ea sl\u0103biciunile ei, dar a fost pe nedrept condamnat\u0103 pentru gre\u015felile altora. \u015ei se face o mare eroare c\u00e2nd se repro\u015feaz\u0103 Bisericii Ortodoxe lipsa de cultur\u0103 a popoarelor ei. To\u0163i cei care cunosc istoria politic\u0103 a R\u0103s\u0103ritului, recunosc c\u0103 Biserica Ortodox\u0103 a fost o institu\u0163ie providen\u0163ial\u0103 pentru popoarele sale.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Teodor M. Popescu: I must say a few words about Orthodox Church. Many judge it, accusing it that didn’t play a special role in the history of culture. Or, this means to don’t know its past, activity and influence had in ith East. Surely, the Orthodox Church wasn’t in situation of Roman Church, which had to take over in the West the inheritance of Roman Empire, but its cultural work is not at all negligeable. In a certain sense, the Orthodox Church made more for its believers than Church of Rome itself. In represented in the frame of state the most important and most venerable cultural institution, it has cultivated national language, has created an entire literature, has its art, has founded institutions of great social and national utility, has constituted a true school for people, has educated it, modelled its soul, insufflated a specific piety, virtues and morals which are the dowry of any Orthodox people. I consider that can be affirmed that no other Church made so much for national culture of people and especially didn’t developed to such extent the sense of Christian charity and love as the Orthodox Church. If we take into account the role played by Orthodox Church in the bosom of peoples, which, for many centuries, have been deprived of state organisation, we must recognize that it merits fully the name of mother of these peoples and of culture of these, which, until the XIXth century, was a medieval, churchish and monastic culture, full of faith and harmony.<\/em>Unfortunately, the Western civilisation, adopted by our Orthodox peoples, brought, at once with its boons, also unreligious ideas and anticlerical ideas. There are many at us who learned to repeat that Church is an useless institution.The laic and freemasonian spirit, which makes felt in some influetial circles, comes to strengthen this unjust and dangerous conception. The Orthodox Church is found in a political, social and cultural situation different from that of Western Churches. It didn’t light stakes, didn’t condemn men of science, didn’t manoeuvred worldly power, didn’t prophaned the Gospel and altars, didn’t put religion at disposal of political rulers. And it is made a big error when it is reproached to Orthodox Curch the lack of culture of its peoples. All those who know political history of the East recognize that Orthodox Church was a providential institution for its peoples.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru St\u0103niloae: Exist\u0103, prin urmare, na\u0163ionalism \u015fi na\u0163ionalism. Exist\u0103 na\u0163ionalism care poate fi o grea c\u0103dere \u00een p\u0103cat, \u015fi de multe ori este a\u015fa, dar antina\u0163ionalismul e prin sine, ca fug\u0103 nu numai de forma cre\u015ftin\u0103 a vie\u0163uirii, ci \u015fi de con\u0163inutul ei firesc, o \u015fi mai grea c\u0103dere \u00een p\u0103cat. Desigur, o form\u0103 cre\u015ftin\u0103 a vie\u0163uirii poate compensa \u015fi, dac\u0103 e arz\u0103toare, chiar supracompensa dezavantajele ce ob\u0163in c\u00e2nd se alege alt con\u0163inut de via\u0163\u0103 dec\u00e2t cel natural, dar care se alege nu din dispre\u0163 fa\u0163\u0103 de cel natural, ci pentru idealurile mai \u00eenalte. Na\u0163ionalismul \u00eens\u0103, ca tot con\u0163inutul natural al vie\u0163ii, chiar dac\u0103 nu ne m\u00e2ntuie el, ci credin\u0163a din el, nici nu pierde practic\u00e2ndu-l cu credin\u0163\u0103. Exist\u0103 deci un na\u0163ionalism pe care, practic\u00e2ndu-l cu credin\u0163\u0103, nu ne pierdem m\u00e2ntuirea, chiar dac\u0103 el proriu-zis ne m\u00e2ntuie\u015fte, ci credin\u0163a, spiritul cre\u015ftin cu care \u00eel infuz\u0103m.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dumitru St\u0103niloae: It exists, therefore, nationalism and nationalism. It exists nationalism which can be a hard fall in sin, and many time it is so,\u00a0 but the antinationalism is through self, as running not only from Christian form of living, but also from its natural content, a still harder fall in sin. Surely, a Christian form of living can compensate and, if it is burning, even supercompensate disadvantages obtained when it is chosen another content of life than that natural, but which is chosen not out of contempt that natural, but for higher ideals. The nationalism yet, as all natural content of life, even if it doesn’t save us itself, but the faith from it, it is nor loosing by practising it with faith. It exists hence a nationalism which, practising it with faith, we don’t loose our salvation, even it properly doesn’t save us, but the faith, Christian spirit which we infuse to it.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nichifor Crainic:\u00a0 Mimetismul e o solu\u0163ie de continuitate \u00een dezvoltarea normal\u0103 a culturii na\u0163ionale. Nici o cultur\u0103 na\u0163ional\u0103 \u00eens\u0103 nu poate cre\u015fte parazitar pe trupul altei culturi… O cultur\u0103 \u00eenfipt\u0103 ad\u00e2nc \u00een autohtonismul etnic \u015fi absorbind \u00een pl\u0103smuirile ei lumina spiritual\u0103 a ortodoxiei are singur\u0103 de partea ei garan\u0163ia unui stil propriu.\u00a0 Biserica s-a \u00eentemeiat pe p\u0103m\u00e2nt din pricina p\u0103catului. P\u0103catul e distan\u0163a neasem\u0103n\u0103rii omului cu Dumnezeu, e golul imens deschis de om \u00eentre p\u0103m\u00e2nt \u015fi cer.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nichifor Crainic: The mimesis is a solution of continuity in the normal development of national culture. No national culture, yet, can grow parasitary on the body of another culture… A culture thrusted strongly in ethnical autochtonism and absorbing in its creations spiritual light of Orthodoxy has alone on its part guarantee of a proper style. The church was founded on earth because of the sin. The sin is the distance of disimilarity of man with God, is the immense void opened by man between earth and sky<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicolae Mladin:\u00a0\u00a0 Bra\u0163ul lui Dumnezeu \u00eel simt ocrotitor peste destinul rom\u00e2nesc, destin m\u0103rturisitor al lui Hristos… Biserica trebuie a\u015fezat\u0103 ca alt\u0103dat\u0103, \u00een inima neamului; ea trebuie s\u0103 devin\u0103 c\u0103l\u0103uza, temelia \u015fi energia dinamizatoare a statului. Cei ce acuz\u0103 Biserica de st\u0103rile actuale, atunci c\u00e2nd ea, de c\u00e2nd exist\u0103\u00a0 \u201estatul modern\u201d rom\u00e2n, a fost ostracizat\u0103 \u015fi statul, cu toate mijloacele lui: \u015fcoal\u0103, legisla\u0163ie, pres\u0103, politic\u0103 etc. \u015fi-a crescut genera\u0163iile \u00eentr-un duh necre\u015ftin, dau dovad\u0103 de miopie; le lipse\u015fte viziunea clar\u0103 a cauzelor degrad\u0103rii noastre… Statul e deci obligat s\u0103 colaboreze cu Biserica… Noi avem certitudinea neclintit\u0103 c\u0103 un stat rom\u00e2n \u00een care ar pulsa \u00eentr-adev\u0103r viu \u015fi real, nu numai oficial, duhul credin\u0163ei str\u0103mo\u015fe\u015fti ar fi cea mai deplin\u0103 realizare at\u00e2t pe plan spiritual, c\u00e2t \u015fi pe plan politico-social, din Europa.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nicolae Mladin: The arm of God I feel protecting over Romanian destiny, destiny confessing of Christ… The church must be set as older time, in the heart of the kin, it must become the guide, foundation and dynamizing energy of the state. Those who accuse the Church for actual states, then when it, since it exist the Romanian \u201emodern state\u201d, has been ostracized, and the state, with all its means: school, legislation, press, politics, etc. grew its generations in a non-Christian ghost, give proof of miopia, are lacked of clear vision of causes of our degradation… The state is therefore obliged to colaborate with Church… We have the unflinching certitude that a Romanian state in which would pulsate indeed living and real, not only official, the ghost of ancestral faith it would be the most perfect realisation both on spiritual, as well as political-social plan in Europe.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Traduceri de George Anca<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Din g\u00e2ndirea interbelic\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lucian Blaga: Arhetipuri, din cele mai diverse, putem \u00eentrez\u0103ri ca nuclee efective \u00een jurul [&hellip<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27102","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articole"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27102","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27102"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27105,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27102\/revisions\/27105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.marianagurza.ro\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}