This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Romanian to English - Rates: 0.05 - 0.07 EUR per word / 17 - 24 EUR per hour English to Romanian - Rates: 0.05 - 0.07 EUR per word / 17 - 24 EUR per hour
Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Skrill, Wire transfer, Money order
Portfolio
Sample translations submitted: 2
Romanian to English: Constantin Noica’s Up-turned Transcendentalism
Source text - Romanian Distincţia dintre “dincoace” şi “dincolo”, adică dintre transcendental şi transcendent, era esenţială pentru Constantin Noica şi reprezenta un examen al maestrului pentru priceperea filosofică a interlocutorilor. Pentru a începe cu o precizare terminologică esenţială, nu intenţionez să discut despre “transcendentalism” în sens de mişcare spirituală, ci aş dori să întreprind o investigaţie mai filosofică în natura ei. Termenul “transcendental” a fost destul de abuzat de mişcările spiritualiste din secolul trecut, nu fără legătură cu o mişcare culturală autentică şi de primă calitate intelectuala precum transcendentalismul american al secolului al nouăsprezecelea, dezvoltat de Emerson, Thoreau sau Margaret Fuller. Termenul a fost însă dezbracat chiar şi aici de sensul dat lui de tradiţia filosofică germană. Din perspectiva acestei tradiţii filosofice aş dori să întreprind demersul meu în rândurile următoare.
Gândul conducător ar fi acela că, dincolo de faptul aproape evident că Noica este un filosof de tradiţie germană, el face un important pas înainte atunci când concepe modelul fiinţei ca fiind nu numai transcendental, ci şi activ în real. În fapt, el întoarce, re-orientează sau răs-toarnă investigaţia filosofică de la analiza felului în care mintea noastră structurează experienţa primită din realitatea externă înapoi la realitatea externă. Acest demers poate părea la prima vedere echivalent cu o reîntoarcere de la tradiţia germană la tradiţia greacă, însă la o privire mai atentă putem observa că Noica întreprinde acest demers purtând cu sine întreaga acumulare a cercetării transcendentale germane. Acest pas filosofic este deci atât unul reversiv, către greci, dar mai ales unul progresiv pentru momentul actual al filosofiei, deoarece ar putea sta la baza unui proiect de sinteză a tradiţiei filosofice germane cu cea a filosofiei greceşti. În ciuda faptului că acest pas nu a fost sistematizat într-o manieră kantiană sau hegeliană, Noica fiind stilistic mai aproape de Heidegger, intuiţia noiciană este prezentă în diferite pasaje ale operei filosofului.
Termenul “transcendental” are origini medieval-scolastice, pe acea vreme referindu-se la noţiunile care se puteau predica despre orice entitate, anume “fiinţă” (ens), “unu” (unum), “bun” (bonum), “adevăr” (verum) şi purtau numele de transcendentalia. Cea mai semnificativă mutaţie semantică a fost întreprinsă de Immanuel Kant care, în efortul său de a determina cu exactitate ceea ce provine din experienţă şi ceea ce ţine de noi, adică de intuiţie, intelect sau raţiune, a folosit adjectivul “transcendental” (transzendental) cu referire la capacităţile noastre cognitive în exerciţiul lor a priori, adică anterior experienţei. Kant nu mai era de acum un realist, precum majoritatea anticilor si medievalilor, în sensul că nu mai considera că descrie realul aşa cum este, ci încerca să se concentreze asupra condiţiilor de posibilitate a cunoaşterii realului. Cunoaşterea transcendentală, spunea el în Critica ratiunii pure 12A, nu se ocupă cu obiectele, ci cu maniera în care noi putem cunoaşte obiectele chiar înainte de experienţă.
Noica, la rândul sau, pe linia tradiţiei transcendentale germane, gândea similar că ceea ce noi considerăm a fi realul ca sumă a obiectelor nu este de fapt realul în sine, ci doar felul în care subiectul organizează materialul experienţei sau informaţia provenită din real. Pentru a folosi doi termeni clasici, şi pentru Noica obiectul cunoscut este diferit de lucrul-în-sine, obiectul cunoscut este şi pentru el o construcţie mentală în care subiectul are un cuvant greu de spus în organizarea materialului experienţei. El vorbeşte bunăoară de identitatea subiect-obiect, iar nu subiect-lucru, în sensul că obiectul aparţine minţii, iar lucrul lumii externe. Atunci când se pune întrebarea în ce fel mintea noastră structurează materialul experienţei, Kant vorbeşte de formele intuiţiei (spaţiul şi timpul) şi de categoriile intelectului. Noica, la rândul său, în parte reacţionând, în parte completând pe Kant şi tradiţia germană, reduce întreaga listă categoriala la individual, determinaţii şi general (I, D şi G). Pentru Noica, felul în care noi vedem lumea este în mod esenţial o combinaţie între un individual, un general şi determinaţiile lor (I-D-G). Această schemă este ceea ce el numeşte modelul ontologic, modelul fiinţei, sau pur şi simplu fiinţa, pe care o redefineşte astfel ca un model de ordine. Tot ceea ce cunoaştem, prin urmare, cunoaştem prin intermedierea acestui model şi de aceea realitatea ne apare ca structurată de acest model. Tot ceea ce este, în consecinţă, este I-D-G.
Pentru Noica, însă, modelul fiinţei nu este numai funcţional la nivel transcendental, precum în sistemul categorial kantian, ci şi funcţional în realitate. El este o propunere a minţii care structurează întreagul parcurs al investigaţiei realităţii. Cunoaşterea umană porneşte de la model şi de la variate ipoteze de plecare care se ajustează pe parcursul cercetării, dar care sunt re-întâlnite pe întreg parcursul cercetării pentru că modelul şi celelalte teme de plecare ale gândirii reprezintă de fapt ochelarii sau telescopul prin care noi vedem lumea. Iar gândirea nu poate functiona fără un model sau fără o temă de plecare; în lipsa ochelarilor sau a telescopului, suntem doar orbi. Poziţia poate fi asemănată de departe cu cea a lui Gonseth, în linii mari cu cea a lui Popper, si pare mai apropiata de cea a teoriei echilibrului reflectiv al lui Rawls. De aceea eu am numit-o în această lucrare “echilibrul reflectiv” la Noica.
Cred că această idee este capitală pentru filosoful român, ea coagulează ca un întreg operele finale noiciene şi, în plus, face foarte atractiv sistemul noician pentru cititorul contemporan. IDG e important nu doar pentru că e o schemă preluată de la Hegel şi expusă din nou la vânzare cu o pălărie nouă, ci pentru că aduce intuiţia potrivit căreia, în mod fundamental, dacă noi propunem un model ontologic al lumii, atunci noi în fapt propunem lumii o schemă şi descoperim lumea excusiv prin această schemă, IDG. În fapt, in cea mai mare parte a ei, cunoaşterea cotidiana secţionează realitatea exterioară în individualuri şi generaluri încărcate de variate determinaţii. Spre exemplu, noi numim “masă” sau “birou” bucata aceasta de lemn pe care scriem şi îi acordăm în acest fel atât caracter individual (acest birou) şi caracter general (lemnul), cât şi proprietăţi particulare. De fapt, este vorba doar o colecţie de bucăţi dintr-un general pe care noi îl numim lemn, pe care apoi l-am secţionat şi construit ca şi un individual, acest birou. Bineînţeles că biroul nu este numai construcţie a minţii noastre, ci putem afirma că experienţa ne oferă anumite indicii despre caracteristicile lui reale. Dar aceste caracteristici reale sunt construite prin intermedierea ochelarilor noştri, modelul I-D-G.
Mai mult, lucrurile stau la fel şi în cunoaşterea ştiinţifică sau cunoaşterea de orice natură. Există apoi cazuri mai interesante în care individuarea este realmente dificilă, spre exemplu în cazul valurilor, vânturilor sau altor fenomene naturale. În aceste cazuri, mintea umană forţează lucrurile să se încadreze în model deoarece astfel este mai simplu şi mai eficient pentru ea. Aşa cum au susţinut diferiţi filosofi, în principal procesualiştii, atât valurile cât şi vânturile pot fi privite ca individuale. Fără a intra aici în detaliile felului în care filosofii procesualişti discută principiul individuaţiei, putem afirma doar că şi în cazul acesta mintea noastră, gândirea, produce o tăietură conceptuală în realitate delimitând un individual, un general şi determinaţiile lor.
În definitiv, funcţionarea gândirii umane pe baza modelului fiinţei sau simplu a fiinţei, funcţionare numită de Noica devenire întru fiinţă, este extrem de practică şi probabil cel mai eficient mod de funcţionare a minţii. Sa ne gândim ce ar fi dacă de mâine mintea noastră nu ar mai funcţiona prin delimitarea realităţii în individualuri şi generaluri, fiecare cu caracteristicile sau determinaţiile lui proprii. În acel caz am avea două situaţii posibile: fie realitatea ar deveni un complet haos, fie noul model de funcţionare ar fi extrem de complex şi ucigător de complicat. Lumea este destul de complicată chiar şi în funcţionarea celui mai simplu model, I-D-G. Lucrurile stau asemănător cu ceea ce se întâmplă în logică. Ştim că logica binară, cea a adevărului şi falsului, este o creaţie a minţii noastre şi că realitatea mai niciodată nu se încadrează în acest model. Modelul însă este foarte productiv la nivelul cunoasterii cotidiene.
Prin urmare, perspectiva noiciană asupra fiinţei este una nu numai trascendentală; ea concepe modelul fiinţei totodata şi funcţional în real. Mintea sau gândirea noastră are un continuu feed-back şi ajustare din partea informaţiei primite din experienţă, deci din real, însă organizează această informaţie şi o ajustează continuu conform cu un anumit model. Caracterul modelului nu mai este necesar, ci contingent; adică ar fi putut fi altul, însă se întâmplă ca în prezent să funcţionăm cu acest model, IDG, pentru că este cel mai eficient.
Mai mult chiar, este posibil ca Noica să fi încercat să aducă o sinteză a tradiţiilor germană şi greacă. Pe de o parte, cultura filosofică greacă este una ontologică şi realistă: cunoaşterea este o oglindă a realităţii externe. Dimpotrivă, tradiţia germană iniţiată de Kant a accentuat funcţionalitatea minţii sau a gândirii şi aportul acesteia în cunoaştere. Noica îi reproşează însă lui Kant faptul că rămâne la nivelul funcţionalităţii gândirii şi nu trece mai departe la real. Datorită acestui motiv, Noica propune un model şi observă cum acesta funcţionează în real descoperind lumea înconjurătoare cu ajutorul acestui telescop. De aceea el poate afirma că I-D-G nu este numai transcendental, ci şi descoperit în real. Noica propune astfel o sinteza a filosofiei greceşti cu cea germană prin instrumentarea unui idiom filosofic propriu şi în ramele presupozitiilor specifice sistemului său.
Fiinta, ratiune, si proces in filosofia noiciana
Intentia lucrarii de fata este deci aceea de a (re-)construi proiectul noician al unei sinteze a filosofiei grecesti cu cea germana pe baza conceptului de fiinta ca model ontologic totodata real si transcendental. Lucrearea de fata va urma astfel logica sintezei dintre filosofia tranascendentala si cea realista, anume va dezvolta mai intai o parte referitoare la fundamentele transcendentale ale filosofiei noiciene, pentru a prezenta apoi viziunea ontologica noiciana din ultimele tratate. Firul de legatura este acela al modelului ontologic I-D-G, propus in prima parte de ratiunea umana, si redescoperit apoi in viziunea ontologica. Intreaga realitate este descoperita prin prisma acestei scheme simplissime pe care mintea umana o proiecteaza inaintea oricarei perceptii, facand astfel sa configreze intreaga experienta in cadrele ei.
Îndreptîndu-ne atenţia asupra ontologiei noiciene propriu-zise, observăm că ideea care l-a preocupat pe Noica de foarte devreme in cariera sa a fost aceea că întreprinderea filosofică trebuie să aibă drept obiect modalitatea prin care ceea ce devine – individualul – poate avea acces la fiinţă . De aceea, dacă anticii au fost interesaţi în primul rînd de fiinţă şi determinaţiile ei, iar modernii mai cu seamă de devenire, Noica a dorit să cerceteze problema „devenirii întru fiinţă.” Nu a fost vorba de o intenţie superficială de a împăca devenirea si fiinta, ci de faptul de a fi fost urmărit constant de soluţionarea unei probleme pe care o va fi considerat capitală . După cum se observă de aici şi, după cum vom vedea mai departe, doctrina noiciană a devenirii sau procesualităţii este intim legată de cea a felului în care lucrurile au parte de fiinţă treptat, pe măsură ce se împlinesc. Ipoteza acestei lucrări este aceea că teoria noiciană a procesualităţii este capitală pentru viziunea filosofului român, astfel încît ontologia noiciană poate fi considerată ca fiind de factură procesualistă în accepţia pe care eu aş numi-o „lărgită” a acestui termen şi, în anumite etape ale ei, pare a fi în acord chiar cu accepţia lui „restrînsă”. Pentru Constantin Noica, procesualitatea se referă nu atît la translaţia spaţială sau la modificarea atributelor entităţilor, ci mai ales la evoluţia lucrurilor sau a realităţilor ultime, din care lumea este constituită, către împlinirea lor ontologica. Întreprinderea noastră va lua în discuţie doctrina procesualistă noiciană raportînd concepţia sa atît la sistemele ontologice ale unor Platon, Aristotel, Hegel sau Heidegger, cît şi la cele procesualiste ale unor Alexander, Whitehead sau Lupaşcu.
De la primele raportări, pline de uimire, ale anticilor la experienţa schimbării, aceasta i-a rămas omului, pînă astăzi, evidentă, provocatoare şi neexplicată integral; faptul este valabil încă de la Thales, care s-a întrebat cel dintîi ce rămîne constant pe parcursul schimbării, şi pînă la complicatele construcţii contemporane ale unor filosofi precum cei anterior amintiţi. Atît frecvenţa abordării, cît şi locul central pe care îl ocupă în sistemele ontologice problema schimbării lucrurilor, o fac pe aceasta una dintre cele mai importante ale cercetării filosofice.
Marii creatori de sisteme au fost interesaţi să ofere, în limitele conceptelor asumate, o explicaţie raţională a experienţei schimbării. Care erau, în general, dificultăţile de rezolvat? Iată cîteva dintre cele cu care filosofii s-au confruntat încă din antichitatea greacă: Oare toate lucrurile care ne înconjoară sunt ontic constituite să fie coruptibile sau supuse schimbării? Ce este schimbarea? Cît de profundă este ea? Care este apoi mecanismul ce produce schimbarea, coruperea şi chiar distrugerea lucrurilor? După distrugerea lor materială, există ele în alt fel sau au dispărut pentru totdeauna? Ce este neschimbător?
În perioada filosofilor presocratici au apărut cele două soluţii limită: nu există schimbare (eleaţii) versus totul este schimbare (Heraclit). Soluţia oferită de majoritatea filosofilor presocratici a fost aceea de a propune un principiu (arche) neschimbător, care să întemeieze universul schimbător şi să ofere o explicaţie raţională schimbării în general. Cu timpul, problema schimbării a fost cercetată din ce în ce mai detaliat. Bunăoară, conform nuanţărilor platoniciene şi aristoteliciene ulterioare, genul schimbării (metabole) are următoarele specii: „devenire” (genesis), la nivelul categoriei substanţei, şi „mişcare” (kinesis) , la nivelul categoriilor cantităţii, calităţii şi locului.
Filosofii moderni au pus în evidenţă noi aspecte ale problemei schimbării, prin raportarea acesteia îndeosebi la dezbaterile legate de mişcare şi relaţiile mişcării cu materia, spaţiul, timpul şi legile naturii; de asemenea, treptat au intrat în discuţie noi puncte de vedere, privind concepte precum evoluţia, dezvoltarea, progresul, emergenţa şi multe altele. Bunăoară, una dintre întrebări se referea la felul în care este posibilă apariţia unor specii biologice noi în limita legilor stricte ale universului. Apariţia, la un moment dat, a unei specii noi, este înscrisă în legi, sau încalcă legile universului? Soluţiile propuse au fost diferite, iar cercetarea a rămas deschisă pînă astăzi, chiar dacă nenumărate aspecte ale problemei schimbării au fost preluate de ştiinţă şi au putut primi soluţii specifice ştiinţei.
Privitor la Constantin Noica, acesta a fost preocupat întreaga viaţă atît de problema schimbării, cît şi de cea a existenţei unui principiu ordonator al schimbărilor. Să vedem mai întîi termenii. Putem întîlni, în scrierile sale, o mulţime de termeni prin care se referă la schimbare, ceea ce sugerează constanţa preocupării cu această chestiune: există astfel „schimbare organizată”, „schimbare orientată”, „prefacere”, „procesualitate”, „devenire ce decade”, „devenire care duce la devenit”, „devenire întru devenire”, „devenire întru fiinţă” etc. În această lucrare suntem însă interesaţi de viziunea noiciană asupra unui tip special de schimbare, numit de Noica fie „procesualitate”, fie „prefacere”, fie „schimbare orientată”. Pe parcursul acestei lucrări voi folosit termenul de „procesualitate” din două motive: întîi, pentru că este mai cuprinzător; în al doilea rînd, pentru că nu voi raporta filosofia noiciană numai la Hegel ori Heidegger, ci şi la filosofi procesualişti ca atare, precum Alexander, Whitehead ori Rescher.
Cum am mai mentionat, creatorii de sisteme ontologice au fost confruntaţi cu problema concilierii procesualităţii, schimbarea în înţelesul cel mai general, cu fiinţa care era concepută ca atemporală şi neschimbătoare. Soluţia noiciană a fost aceea a modificării sensului fiinţei, anume că fiinţa nu trebuie izolată într-un transcendent atemporal şi sublim, ci este un model de organizare (I-D-G) instanţiat distinct şi în grade diferite în fiecare lucru sau realitate; această realizare nedeplină (numită de Noica „precaritate ontologică”) este temeiul procesualităţii oricărei realităţi către propria „împlinire” ontologica.
Urmarind sa surprinda ordinea existentă în lume, Noica descoperă două aspecte generale valabile pentru orice entitate din univers: 1. Toate realităţile fundamentale constituite în real sunt în devenire sau în procesualitate; 2. Această procesualitate nu este una întîmplătoare, ci realizează o ordine de un anumit tip, mai exact cea dictată de modelul fiinţei (I-D-G). Fiinţa, pentru Noica, este un model (un proiect) al ordinii în lume. Acest model este propriu tuturor lucrurilor, dar este instanţiat, realizat diferit de fiecare lucru în parte. Datorită faptului că modelul nu este instanţiat instantaneu, ci gradual, se poate vorbi de o evoluţie sau procesualitate a fiecărui lucru către „împlinirea,” “saturarea” modelului.
Succint, ce anume descoperă Noica in investigatia sa ontologica? În linii mari, o lume categorizata in functie de modelul IDG propus de mintea umana. Investigatia descopera o lume compusă pe de o parte din anumite entităţi sau realităţi aflate în procesul realizării modelului, iar pe de alta din procese haotice, neconforme cu modelul I-D-G al fiinţei. Ceea ce Noica numeşte în mod curent „realităţi” sau „lucruri” reprezintă compuşi mult mai complecşi decît ceea ce înţelegem în limbajul comun prin „lucruri.” Aceste realităţi sunt compuşii ontologici fundamentali care sfidează haosul şi intră în ordinea modelului fiinţei; ei sunt de două tipuri:
(1) Triplete reale individual – determinaţii – general concret; schematic: I-D-G. Individualul, determinaţiile şi generalul nu pot exista separat, nu au realitate de unul singur, ci numai compunerea lor. Compunerea tuturor celor trei termeni (I-D-G) denotă o realitate care are „fiinţă plină”, adică o realitate care a saturat, împlinit modelul ontologic.
(2) Cupluri reale precare, în proces către împlinirea modelului, constituite prin compunerea a cîte doi termeni. Ele pot avea una dintre schemele: I-D, D-G, G-I, I-G, G-D sau D-I. Realităţile astfel schematizate sunt precare pentru că nu au împlinit încă proiectul de a fi (în limbaj noician, nu au „saturat modelul ontologic”).
Orice realitate fundamentală dintre cele două tipuri este descoperită astfel într-o prefacere sau procesualitate orientată de fiecare dată catre realizarea proprie, distinctă a modelului deplin (I-D-G). Această procesualitate reprezintă o caracteristică universală, deţinută de oricare dintre realităţi, indiferent de stadiul de dezvoltare la care aceasta se află. După determinarea tipurilor de realităţi şi a celor două aspecte generale ale lor vom putea descoperi, o dată cu Noica, următoarele tipuri de procese ale lumii:
1. Procesele care trebuie mentionate cel dintai sunt cele raţionale, specifice omului, pentru ca ele dau – in perspectiva lui Noica – conditiile transcendentale, altfel spus de posibilitate a oricarui tip de cunoastere. Ele descriu orice tip de cunoaştere umană, de la cea comună la cea artistică sau la cea ştiinţifică, drept o desfăşurare, un proces. Cel mai important dintre acestea este procesul denumit „devenirea întru fiinţă”, acela prin care raţiunea modelează datele oferite de experienţă şi constituie lumea de înţelesuri în care omul trăieşte în mod cotidian.
2. Procesul desfăşurării gîndirii, numit „dialectică tematică,” cu patru momente dialectice: temă – antitemă – teză – temă regăsită. Noica aplică această schemă dialectică la doctrina ontologică atunci cînd ia ca temă fiinţa. Se obţine astfel următoarea schemă dialectică a fiinţei: fiinţă – devenire – devenire întru fiinţă – fiinţă (descoperită în real). În această schemă avem procesualitatea gîndirii sub semnul căreia este aşezată întreaga ontologie noiciană.
3. Un alt proces al gîndirii, „descrierea fenomenologică,” este cel care se ocupă cu receptarea apariţiilor fiinţei în real şi cu identificarea modurilor celor mai generale de apariţie ale fiinţei. În general, ca şi la Hegel, procesualitatea gîndirii dezvăluie ordinea lumii. Spre diferenţă de Hegel însă, Noica nu face o cercetare filosofică din perspectiva Raţiunii în sine şi a Fiinţei în sine, ci a unei raţiuni imperfecte, precum cea umană, care descoperă, manifestată în lume, o fiinţă instanţiată încă nedeplin, iar nu Fiinţa perfectă.
4. Procesualitatea cea mai abstractă a gîndirii este surprinsă de „logica synalethică.” Aceasta descoperă legile cele mai generale conform cu care se desfăşoară orice proces de împlinire a modelului fiinţei IDG în univers.
5. Odata incheiata lista proceselor rationale, putem trece in pasul urmator la procesele ontologice descoperite atat in limitele experientei umane, cat si in limitele legitatilor stabilite de procesele precedente, rationale. Primul tip al proceselor ontologice este acela al proceselor „oarbe,” petrecute în haos, in care nu exista nici o conexiune intre termenii I, D sau G.
6. Procesele de constituire, în haos, a „realităţilor precare,” adică primele organizări ale realului in formele I-D, D-G, G-I, I-G, G-D sau D-I.
7. Procesele de constituire a „realităţilor împlinite” in conformitate cu modelul IDG. Noica numeşte această procesualitate şi „prefacere orientată.” Aceste procese se încheie o dată cu împlinirea realităţilor.
8. Procesele specifice realităţilor împlinite, aşezate de Noica, în Tratatul de ontologie, sub numele de „devenire.” Prin urmare, pentru Noica, devenirea este doar o specie de procesualitate. De asemenea, devenirea este numită şi „prefacere organizată”.
9. Procesul numit de Noica „deveninţă”, care se referă la evoluţia elementelor universului (generalurile concrete). Această dimensiune evolutivă a procesului deveninţei surprinde aspectul creativ al procesualităţii în univers. Astfel, elementele, în acţiunea lor, aduc noutate în lume.
Primele patru tipuri de procese sunt procesele ratiunii si prescriu viziunea noiciana asupra lumii, functionalitatea si legitatea ei. Ele reprezinta in fapt legitati transcendentale, legitatile cele mai generale prin care mintea umana gandeste realitatea. Procesele ontologice ne deschid apoi o perspectiva a continutului real al lumii, al unei lumii aflate in mod esential in devenire, in proces. In fapt este un univers in care exista doua desfasurari procesualiste fundamentale—unul al realitatii si unul al gandirii—care se corecteaza reciproc, intr-un echilibru reflectiv.
Ontologia noiciană se va dovedi asadar o ontologie procesualistă în sens lărgit, deoarece realităţile fundamentale noiciene, deşi aflate în proces, nu sunt procese pure, precum la Alexander şi Whitehead; trebuie menţionat şi faptul că, în Douăzeci şi şapte trepte ale realului, există anumite aspecte care par să îl apropie pe Noica de teoriile procesualiste în sens restrîns. Din perspectiva distincţiei lui Rescher, poziţia noiciană ar putea fi caracterizată, sub diverse aspecte, de ambele tipuri. Ca multe dintre sistemele analizate de Rescher, ontologia noiciană presupune numeroase niveluri de complexitate, care dezvăluie, după cum vom observa pe parcursul studiului nostru, variate aspecte procesualiste, fundamentale acestei ontologii.
Translation - English The distinction between “over here” and “over there”, or else between the transcendental and the transcendent, was essential to Constantin Noica’s thinking and was even used as a test by means of which the master assessed the philosophical skillfulness of his interlocutors. To begin with a critical definition of terms, I do not intend to discuss “transcendentalism” as a spiritual movement, but I wish rather to pursue an investigation more philosophical in nature. The term “transcendental” was somewhat abused by the spiritualist movements of the past century, albeit not completely without relation with an authentic cultural movement of prime intellectual quality such as the American transcendentalism of the 19th century, developed by Emerson, Thoreau, or Margaret Fuller. Even in such a case, however, the term was stripped of the meaning conferred to it by the German philosophical tradition. I wish to pursue my argument in the lines that follow from the point of view of that philosophical tradition.
My leading thought would be that, aside from the almost self-evident fact that he is a philosopher situated in the German tradition, Constantin Noica takes an important step forward when he conceives of the model of being as not only transcendental, but also active in reality. Indeed, he inverts, re-orients or up-turns philosophical investigation from the analysis of the way in which our mind structures the experience received from external reality back to external reality itself. This approach may seem at first to be equivalent to a return from the German tradition to the Greek one, yet a closer look may discern that Noica’s approach carries in it the entire accumulated weight of the German transcendental studies. This philosophical step is, therefore, at the same time a regressive one, leading back to the Greeks, and, and most especially, a progressive one for the present moment in philosophy, since it may conceivably constitute the foundation for a project aiming to achieve the synthesis between the German philosophical tradition and Greek philosophy. Despite the fact that this step was not a systematic one in the Kantian or the Hegelian sense – Noica being closer to a Heidegger from the point of view of style – Noica’s intuition reveals itself in many passages throughout the philosopher’s work.
The term “transcendental” has medieval scholastic origins, and in that period it referred to notions that could be predicated of any entity, namely “being” (ens), “one” (unum), “good” (bonum), “truth” (verum), and those notions were known as transcendentalia. The most significant semantic mutation was that undertaken by Immanuel Kant, who, in his effort to determine with precision that which comes from experience and that which pertains to ourselves, or else to our intuition, intellect, or reason, used the adjective “transcendental” (transzendental) to refer to our cognitive capacities a priori exercised, i.e., in a manner prior to experience. Kant was no longer a realist, like most of the ancient and medieval thinkers, in the sense that he no longer believed that he was describing reality as it was, but attempted instead to concentrate on the conditions of possibility that apply to the knowledge of reality. Transcendental knowledge, he said in The Critique of Pure Reason 12A, does not concern itself with objects, but with the manner in which we are able to know objects even prior to experience.
Noica, in his turn, following the line of the German transcendental tradition, thought in similar fashion that what we consider to be the real as a sum of objects is not, in fact, the real in itself, but merely the way in which the subject organizes the material of experience or the information drawn out from the real. To resort to two established terms, for Noica too the known object is different from the thing-in-itself; the known object is to him too a mental construct in which the subject has a weighty role to play in the organization of the experiential material. He speaks, for example, of the subject-object identity, yet not of a subject-thing identity, by which he implies that the object belongs to the mind, while the thing belongs to the external world. When confronted with the question: in what way does our mind structure the material of experience? Kant speaks of the forms of intuition (space and time) and of the categories of the intellect. In his turn, Noica, partly reacting to Kant and the German tradition, partly completing them, reduces the entire categorial list to three terms: the individual, attributes and the general (I, A and G). For Noica, the manner in which we see the world is essentially a combination between an individual, a general and their attributes (I-A-G). This scheme is what he calls the ontological model, the model of being, or simply being, which he thus redefines as a model of order. Consequently, everything that we know we do know through the agency of this model, and for that reason reality appears to us as being structured by this model. Accordingly, everything that is is I-A-G.
Still, for Noica the model of being is not only functional at the transcendental level, as it is in Kant’s categorial system, but also functional in reality. Noica’s model is a tentative proposal of the mind that structures the entire course of the investigation of reality. Human knowledge proceeds from that model as well as from various starting hypotheses, which are adjusted in the course of research but are encountered again through its entire course, because the model and the other starting themes of thinking represent in fact the eyeglasses or the telescope through which we see the world. Furthermore, thinking cannot function without a model or without a starting theme; in the absence of the eyeglasses or the telescope, we are merely blind. This position can be likened from afar to that of Gonseth, in its broad outlines to that of Popper, yet it seems somewhat closer to Rawls’ theory of reflective equilibrium. For that reason I have called it, for the purposes of this work, Noica’s “reflective equilibrium”.
I believe this idea is a fundamental one for the Romanian philosopher because it brings together all of Noica’s late works and makes their unity transparent and, what is more, it makes Noica’s system particularly appealing to the contemporary reader. IAG is important not only because it is a scheme taken over from Hegel and brought out on the market again decked with a new hat, as it were, but because it brings along the intuition that, in a fundamental sense, if we propound an ontological model of the world, we are actually propounding a scheme to the world, and we are discovering the world exclusively by means of that scheme, the IAG. In fact, for its largest part, quotidian knowledge cleaves external reality into individuals and generals charged with various attributes. For instance, we call this piece of wood that we write on “table” or “desk” and thus we grant it not only an individual quality (this desk) plus a general one (wood), but also particular properties. In fact, what we have on our hands is merely a collection of pieces out of a general that we call wood, which we have then sectioned and built as an individual, this desk. Certainly, the desk is not only a construct of our minds, but we are entitled to maintain that experience offers us certain clues as to its real characteristics. Still, these real characteristics are constructed with the help of our eyeglasses, the I-A-G model.
Moreover, the same situation can be encountered in the case of scientific knowledge and even in that of knowledge of any kind. There are, then, more interesting cases in which individuation is unquestionably difficult, for instance in the case of waves, of winds or of other natural phenomena. In those cases, the human mind forces things to fit into the model because this is the simpler and the more efficient way for it. As various philosophers have maintained, most especially the processualists, both the waves and the winds can be regarded as individual. Without getting here into details about the way in which processualist philosophers discuss the principle of individuation, we can only assert that, in this case as well, our mind, our thinking, performs a conceptual cleavage of reality and delimits an individual, a general, together with their attributes.
After all, the functioning of human thinking on the basis of the model of being or simply of being itself, a functioning that Noica calls “becoming in-to being”, is extremely practical, and may probably even be said to be the most efficient mode of functioning of the mind. Let us consider what might happen if, starting from tomorrow, our mind no longer functioned by delimiting reality into individuals and generals, each with its own characteristics or attributes. If such were the case, we would have two possible situations: either reality would become complete chaos, or the new functioning model would be extremely complex and deadly complicated. The world is complicated enough even in the functioning of the simplest model, the I-A-G. This is a similar situation to that of logic. We know that binary logic, the logic of the true and the false, is a creation of our mind and that reality seldom, if ever, fits into that model. Still, the model is a highly productive one at the level of quotidian knowledge.
Consequently, Noica’s perspective on being is not merely a transcendental one; it conceives of the model of being as functional at the same time in reality. Our mind or our thinking goes through a continuous feedback and adjustment generated by the information it receives from experience, therefore from reality, yet it organizes this information and continually adjusts it according to a certain model. The nature of the model is no longer necessary, but contingent; which is to say that it could have been any other, but it so happens that at the present moment we are functioning according to this model, the IAG, for the reason that it is the most efficient.
What is more, Noica could well have meant to bring forth a synthesis between the German and the Greek tradition. On the one hand, Greek philosophical culture is an ontological and a realist one: knowledge is a mirror of external reality. On the other hand, the German tradition initiated by Kant emphasized the functionality of the mind or of thinking and its contribution to knowledge. Noica, however, reproaches Kant the fact that he remains at the level of the functionality of thinking and does not go on to the real. On those grounds, Noica advances a model and examines its functioning in reality, discovering the surrounding world with the help of this ‘telescope’. That is the reason why he can assert that the I-A-G is not only transcendental, but also discovered in reality. Noica thus propounds a synthesis between Greek and German philosophy by instrumenting a philosophical language which is his own and which remains between the frames of the presuppositions specific of his system.
Being, Reason and Process in Noica’s philosophy
The intention of the present work, therefore, is that of (re-)constructing Noica’s project of a synthesis between Greek and German philosophy based on the concept of being as an ontological model at once real and transcendental. Accordingly, the present work shall follow the logic of the synthesis between the transcendental and the realist philosophy, which means, concretely, that the first part shall dwell on the transcendental grounds of Noica’s philosophy, while the second part shall expound the ontological vision of Noica’s late treatises. The connecting thread of my work would be that of the ontological model I-A-G, propounded in the first part by human reason, and rediscovered later in the ontological vision. The whole of reality is discovered from the vantage point of this extremely simple scheme that the human mind projects prior to any perception, thus causing the entire experience to take shape within its frame.
When we focus on Noica’s explicit ontology, we notice that the idea which preoccupied Noica since very early on in his career was that the philosophical endeavor must take as its object the way in which that which becomes – the individual – can have access to being . For that reason, while the ancients were interested first of all in being and in its attributes, and the moderns first of all in becoming, Noica wanted to investigate the issue of “becoming in-to being.” In Noica we are not confronted with a superficial intention of reconciling becoming and being, but with the fact of having been relentlessly pursued by the urge to find the solution to a problem which he must have considered to be of fundamental importance . As can be noticed here and as we shall see later on, Noica’s doctrine of becoming or of processuality is intimately connected to the doctrine of the way in which things gradually partake of being, while they progress towards fulfillment. The hypothesis of the present work is that Noica’s theory of processuality is a fundamental one for the Romanian philosopher’s vision, and consequently that Noica’s ontology may be considered to be of a processual nature in what I would call the “larger” acceptation of this term; moreover, in certain stages of it, it even seems to be in agreement with the “narrow” acceptation. For Constantin Noica, processuality refers not so much to spatial translation or to the modification of the traits of entities, but first and foremost to the evolution of ultimate things or realities, of which the world is made, towards their ontological fulfillment. Our undertaking shall take into discussion Noica’s processualist doctrine by referring his outlook both to the ontological systems of a Plato, an Aristotle, a Hegel, or a Heidegger and to the processualist ones of an Alexander, a Whitehead, or a Lupasco.
From the first astounded apprehensions that the ancients had of the experience of change and to this day, the phenomenon has stood out to the mind of humans as evident, challenging, and not fully explained; this truth has been valid from Thales, who was the first to ask himself what it was that remained constant during change, to the intricate contemporary constructions of philosophers such as those mentioned earlier. Both the frequency with which the issue of change in things is tackled and the central place it occupies in ontological systems make of it one of the most important themes for philosophical inquiry.
The great creators of systems have been willing, within the limits of the concepts they embraced, to offer a rational explanation to the experience of change. Which were, generally speaking, the difficulties that had to be surmounted? Here are some of those that philosophers have had to face ever since Greek antiquity: Are all things that surround us ontically constituted to be corruptible or subject to change? What is change? How profound is it? Which is then the mechanism that produces the change, the corruption, and even the destruction of things? After their material dstruction, do they exist in another way or have they disappeared for good? What is it that is unchanging?
In the period of the pre-Socratic philosophers there emerged the two extreme solutions: there is no change (the Eleatics) versus everything is change (Heraclitus). The solution offered by most pre-Socratic philosophers was that of postulating an immutable principle (arche), which was said to fundament the mutable universe and to offer a rational explanation to change in general. In time, the issue of change was studied in more and more detail. For instance, in keeping with later Platonic and Aristotelian elaborations, the genus of change (metabole) has the following species: “becoming” (genesis), manifest within the category of substance, and “motion” (kinesis) , manifest within the categories of quantity, quality and place.
Modern philosophers highlighted new aspects of the issue of change, by connecting it chiefly to the debates around the idea of motion and the relation of motion with matter, space, time, and the laws of nature; also, new viewpoints gradually came into discussion, concerning concepts such as evolution, development, progress, emergence and many others. For example, one of the questions referred to the way in which it is possible for new biological species to emerge within the boundaries of the strict laws of the universe. Is the emergence, at a given time, of a new species, inscribed within the laws, or does it transgress the laws of the universe? The solutions advanced were different, and the investigation has remained open to this day, even though countless aspects of the issue of change have been taken over by science and were able to receive solutions typical of science.
As to Constantin Noica, throughout his life he was preoccupied both with the problem of change and with that of whether or not there exists an ordering principle of changes. Let us first see what his terms are. In his writings we can encounter a multitude of terms by which he refers to change, which suggests the endurance of his preoccupation with this matter. There are, therefore, “organized change”, “oriented change”, “reshaping”, “processuality”, “becoming that decays”, “becoming that leads to a stalled emergent”, “becoming in-to becoming”, “becoming in-to being”, etc. In this work we are, however, interested in Noica’s vision on a particular type of change, which he calls “processuality”, “reshaping”, or “oriented change”. In the course of the present work I shall resort to the term “processuality” for two reasons: first because it is wider-encompassing; secondly because I shall not delineate Noica’s philosophy only in relation with Hegel or with Heidegger, but also with processualist philosophers in their own right, such as Alexander, Whitehead, or Rescher.
As I have mentioned already, creators of ontological systems have been faced with the problem of reconciling processuality, change in its most general sense, with being, which was conceived as timeless and unchanging. Noica’s solution was that of altering the meaning of being, in the sense that being must not be isolated into a timeless and sublime transcendent, but be conceives as a model of organization (I-A-G) instantiated differently and in various degrees in each thing or reality; this unconsummate realization (which Noica calls “ontological precariousness”) forms the grounds for the processuality of any reality towards its own ontological “fulfillment”.
Seeking to capture the order existing in the world, Noica discovers two aspects that are generally valid for any entity in the universe: 1. All fundamental realities constituted in reality are in becoming or in processuality; 2. This processuality is not a chance one, but achieves an order of a certain type, more precisely the one dictated by the model of being (the I-A-G). Being, for Noica, is a model (a project) of the order existing in the world. This model is proper to all things, yet is differently instantiated, or attained, by each thing in turn. Owing to the fact that the model is not instantiated instantaneously, but gradually, one can speak of an evolution or processuality of each thing towards the “realization”, the “saturation” of the model.
Succinctly put, what exactly is it that Noica discovers during his ontological investigation? In the broadest outline, he discovers a world categorized according to the IAG model put forward by the human mind. Upon investigation one discovers a world made up on the one hand of certain entities or realities which are in the process of realizing the model, and on the other hand of chaotic processes, which do not conform with the I-A-G model of being. What Noica commonly calls “realities” or “things” are in fact compounds much more complex than what we understand by “things” in the ordinary language. Those realities are the fundamental ontological compounds that defy chaos and enter into the order of the model of being; these compounds are of two types:
(1) Genuine triplets individual – attributes – concrete general; or, schematically, I-A-G. The individual, the attributes and the general cannot exist in separation; they do not have any reality on their own, but only through their composition. The composition of all the three terms (I-A-G) denotes a reality that has “full being”, or else a reality that has saturated, or fulfilled, the ontological model.
(2) Precarious real couples, which are in process towards the fulfillment of the model and are constituted through the composition of a pair of terms. They can have any one of the following schemes: I-A, A-G, G-I, I-G, G-A, or A-I. Realities thus schematized are precarious because they have not yet fulfilled the project of to be (in Noica’s language, they have not “saturated the ontological model”).
Any fundamental reality between the two types is thus discovered in a reshaping or processuality that is oriented each time towards the particular and distinct fulfillment of the full model (I-A-G). This processuality is a universal trait, which any one of the realities possesses, irrespective of the stage of development at which it is situated. After establishing the types of realities and their two general aspects, we shall be able to discover, together with Noica, the following types of processes within the world:
1. The processes which must be mentioned first are the rational ones, typical of human beings, because – from Noica’s standpoint – they provide the transcendental conditions, or, in other words, the conditions of possibility, of every type of knowledge. They describe any type of human knowledge, from the common to the artistic or to the scientific one, as an unfolding, as a process. The most important of these is the process called “becoming in-to being”, through which reason shapes the data offered by experience and constitutes the world of meanings in which the human being lives day by day.
2. Next comes the process of the unraveling of thinking, called “thematic dialectics,” with four dialectic moments: theme – antitheme – thesis – theme reacquired. Noica applies this dialectical scheme to the ontological doctrine when he takes being as his theme. One obtains thus the following dialectical scheme of being: being – becoming – becoming in-to being – being (discovered in the real). In this scheme we are confronted with the processuality of thinking which reigns over Noica’s entire ontology.
3. Another process of thinking, “phenomenological description,” is the one whose rationale is envisaging the manifestations of being into reality and identifying the most general modes in which being manifests itself. Generally speaking, the same as in the case of Hegel, the processuality of thinking reveals the order of the world. Unlike Hegel, however, Noica does not undertake a philosophical investigation from the standpoint of Reason in itself and of Being in itself, but from that of an imperfect reason, as is the human one, which, manifested into the world, discovers, instead of the perfect Being, a being not yet fully instantiated.
4. The most abstract processuality of thinking is that grasped by the “synalethic logic.” This logic discovers the most general laws according to which any process of fulfilling the IAG model of being in the universe takes place.
5. The list of rational processes once completed, we may proceed to the next step, namely to the ontological processes discovered both within the limits of human experience and within the limits of the laws established by the previous processes, the rational ones. The first kind of ontological processes is that of the “blind” processes, occurring in chaos, where there is no connection between the terms I, A or G.
6. There come next the processes through which the “precarious realities”, or else the first organizations of the real in the forms I-A, A-G, G-I, I-G, G-A, or A-I, are constituted, in chaos.
7. After those come the processes of constituting the “fulfilled realities” according to the IAG model. Noica calls this processuality and “oriented reshaping.” These processes are over when the realities are fulfilled.
8. The processes typical of fulfilled realities are called by Noica, in his Tratat de ontology [Treatise of Ontology], “becoming.” Consequently, for Noica, becoming is merely a species of processuality. At the same time, becoming is also called “organized reshaping”.
9. Last comes the process that Noica called “becomeness”, which refers to the evolution of the elements of the universe (the concrete generals). This evolutionary dimension of the process of becomeness captures the creative aspect of processuality in the universe. Thus, the elements, in their action, bring novelty into the world.
The first four types of processes are those of reason and they delineate Noica’s vision of the world, its functionality and its set of laws. They represent in fact transcendental laws, the most general sets of laws by means of which the human mind thinks reality. Then the ontological processes open up a perspective over the real content of the world, a world which is in becoming, in process, in an essential way. The universe is in fact one in which there are two fundamental processualist developments – one of reality and one of thinking – which correct each other, in a reflective equilibrium.
Noica’s ontology emerges therefore as a processualist ontology in the wider sense, because Noica’s fundamental realities, although in process, are not themselves pure processes, as they are for Alexander and for Whitehead; here one has to point out as well that in Noica’s Douăzeci şi şapte trepte ale realului [Twenty-seven Steps of the Real] there are certain aspects that seem to bring the author closer to the processualist theories in the narrow sense. From the standpoint of Rescher’s distinction, Noica’s position might be said to share various aspects of both types. As many of the systems analyzed by Rescher, Noica’s ontology presupposes many levels of complexity, which, as we shall notice in the course of our study, reveal various processualist aspects, which are fundamental to this ontology.
Romanian to English: Reckonings, demystifications and other beginnings (On Eliade)
Source text - Romanian Deplasarea centrului de greutate. Basculând accentul pe cel de-al doilea termen, redus la singularul paradigmatic, Eliade a riscat o r`sturnare de priorit`\i. Venise vremea, []i spunea el, ca toate dosarele “concrete”, cum le numea [n Jurnal, investiga\ii filologice, arheologice, de folclor, s` fie dep`]ite, ]i s` produc` o sintez`, o interpretare global` a fenomenelor religioase. Vectorul care totalizeaz` dar mai ales explic` fenomene religioase se rezum` la câteva categorii, ie]ite din creuzetul vocabularului filosofic occidental. Altfel spus, paradigma cu care documente arhaice, [n parte extra-europene, sunt explicitate cititorului european de curând ie]it din mizeria r`zboiului este pe scurt una platonic`, o vulgat` platonic` [n care controversatul verb al “participa\iei” ]i nu mai pu\in problematicul termen “arhetip” sunt suficient necesare pentru a explica de la ceremonii de investire regal` [n Mesopotamia, la ritualuri legate de Anul Nou [ntr-un teritoriu indo-iranian, pentru care am avut prilejul, [n alte contexte, s` constat`m marile discontinuit`\i [n pofida omogenit`\ii lingvistice. Clamând deprovincializarea Europei, Eliade este for\at s` [i foloseasc` instrumentele ]i s` practice, [n interiorul ei, ]tiind bine c` mai ales ei i se adreseaz`, o colonizare categorial`. Aici se afl`, [n fond, desp`r\irea de Pettazzoni ]i de o [ntreag` ]coal` istorico-filologic`, al c`rei rost este [ntr-un fel contestat sau acuzat drept insuficient. Aceast` ]coal` apar\ine pentru Eliade unei epoci dep`]ite, “fericita genera\ie de la 1900” c`rora le-ar mai fi fost permis, [nc`, s` se dedice exclusiv minu\iosului travaliu epigrafic bun`oar`. “Tr`im o teribil` criz` a spiritualit`\ii ; de-a lungul acestei crize, suntem obliga\i s` ar`t`m anumite valori pe care doar noi suntem [n stare s` le vedem [n ea ]i s` le [n\elegem. {n acest sens, r`mânem [n istorie ]i facem “istoricism (...) Ast`zi, când milioane ]i milioane de oameni mor pentru c` au [n\eles prost sau prea bine anumite mituri moderne, când Asia []i face intrarea [n istorie, când ultimii ‘primitivi’ mânuiesc mitralierele sau pier din cauza sifilisului – ast`zi, crede\i c` este totuna s` vezi [n mit un fapt social sau un vis sau o supersti\ie ?”, [i scrie amicului s`u suedez Stig Wikander (la 22 iulie 1951). Scala investiga\iei se l`rge]te ]i, [n bun`starea intelectual` a Parisului, Eliade []i poate permite s` fie critic sau distan\at, a]a cum nu fusese de atâtea ori [n ultimii ani ai deceniului al patrulea, [n România.
Translation - English The shift of focus. Deflecting the accent on the second term, which was reduced to the paradigmatic singular, Eliade risked to upset priorities. The time had come, he told himself, for all the “concrete” files, as he called them in his Journal, all the philological, archaeological, or folklore investigations to be surpassed and to produce a synthesis, a global interpretation of religious phenomena. The vector that sought to totalise and most of all explain religious phenomena was restrained to a few categories, sprung from the crucible of Western philosophical vocabulary. To put it differently, the paradigm used to explicate archaic documents, some of which extra-European, to the European reader recently emerged from the tribulations of war was, in short, a Platonic one, a Platonic vulgate where the controversial verb of “participation” and the no less problematic term “archetype” were judged to be sufficiently necessary to explain anything from ceremonies of royal investiture in Mesopotamia to New Year rituals in an Indo-Iranian territory, regarding which we have had the opportunity elsewhere to remark great discontinuities despite a linguistic homogeneity. Trumpeting the deprovincialisation of Europe, Eliade was forced to use its instruments and to practice a categorial colonization from inside it, well aware that he was addressing Europe first of all. Herein lies, in essence, the break with Pettazzoni and with an entire historical-philological school, whose very rationale was in a way contested or denounced as insufficient. To Eliade, this school belonged to an outdated epoch, the “blessed 1900 generation”, whose members could still get away with single-minded pursuits such as the painstaking one of epigraphy, for instance. “We are living through a terrible crisis of spirituality; throughout this crisis we are bound to reveal certain values that we alone are capable of seeing and understanding in it. In this sense, we remain inside history and we profess “historicism (...) Today, when millions and millions of people die because they have understood certain modern myths poorly or much too well, when Asia makes its entrance into history, when the last ‘primitives’ yield machine-guns or die from syphilis—do you think that it is all the same to see myth as a social fact, a dream, or a superstition?” he wrote to his Swedish friend Stig Wikander (on July 22nd, 1951). The scale of the investigation widens and, in the intellectual welfare of Paris, Eliade can afford to be critical or distanced, as he so often had not been in the last years of the fourth decade, in Romania.
More
Less
Translation education
PhD - University of Bucharest
Experience
Years of experience: 33. Registered at ProZ.com: May 2005.
Romanian to English (Romanian Ministry of Justice, verified) English to Romanian (Romanian Ministry of Justice, verified)
Memberships
N/A
Software
Adobe Acrobat, MateCat, memoQ, MemSource Cloud, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Office Pro, Microsoft Word, Passolo, Powerpoint, SDLX, Trados Studio, Wordfast
I work as a university lecturer in English language/literature and have been a freelance translator and linguist since 1992. In just a few years I worked my way to the top of the trade and, thanks to my complex background and education, I soon accumulated experience as a translator and language service provider in many fields: legal, technical, medical, scientific, multimedia, IT, commercial, humanistic, artistic, educational, journalistic, etc. My main fields are linguistics, literature, and philosophy (thanks to them I have more theoretical knowledge about language than most translators), but if you take the time, I can prove that I am accomplished and informed beyond reasonable standards in almost any branch in which there is writing.
I have directed and produced a professional documentary film and am experienced with subtitles and voice-over.
I have published 18 books in my translation, in various fields, and have totalled over 40.000 translated pages in my professional life.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY
My first job as a freelance translator was in 1992, when, as a junior language student, I was selected to collaborate with a large Romanian publishing house named RAO. Since then I have worked continuously either as a part- or full-time translator, averaging over 2000 pages/year. I have published 18 fiction and non-fiction books in my translation, all for prestigious national or international publishing houses such as RAO, Fundatia Culturala, Univers, Humanitas, Polirom, Anastasia, Central European University Press Budapest, Reader’s Digest, Nebraska University Press, etc, not to mention dozens of articles in fields such as: social sciences, philosophy, theology, literary theory and criticism, history, etc.
In parallel, at roughly the same time, I started collaborating with various individual clients, translation companies and outsourcers, gradually moving from national (Fides, DotCommerce, SDI Mediagroup, etc.) to international companies (Sajan, Anakan GmbH, etc.) and widening my experience and client base. Owing to a very thorough generalist and science training in a highly competitive high school and to a family background in law and medicine, I had no difficulty to take on scientific, technical, legal and medical projects, becoming more and more experienced and knowledgeable in each field through the years. Also, my undergraduate training in linguistics and literature (graduating as first in my class), post-graduate training in literary criticism and theory and art theory, which I joined with a thorough study of philosophy I undertook with the help of academic courses, summer schools, informal reading and discussion groups, but mostly on my own, were the fundament which made me become (thanks to consistent work and the opportunities that I was offered to translate some important authors of contemporary Romanian culture) one of the best-rated translators today from Romanian into English and vice versa in the field of literature, philosophy, and the humanities in general.
Fields of expertise (at least 500 pages provable translation work): Advertising, Anthropology, Architecture, Art theory, Automotive (cars, trucks, etc.), Botany, Broadcasting, Business, Business Intelligence, Computers (IT, Software, Hardware, E-Commerce), Construction, Consumer Electronics (Household Appliances, Office Equipment, Mobile Phones), Cuisine (Cooking, Culinary, Food), Economics, Education, Electronics, Engineering, Environment (Ecology), Film, Fine arts, Games, Gardening, Geography, History, Home Improvement, Human Resources, Humanities, Industrial Equipment & Tools, Law (Legal), Lifestyle, Linguistics, Literature (including Poetry), Management, Manufacturing, Marketing, Mechanics (Mechanical Engineering), Media (Journalism, Multimedia), Medical (including Pharmacy and Medical Instruments), Music (Instrumental, Vocal, Theory, Genres etc.), Nutrition, Petrochemical Engineering and Exploitation, Philosophy, Psychology, Publishing, Religion (Theology, History of religions), Retail, Science (general), Social Sciences, Sports, Telecommunications, Tourism, Transportation, etc.
Additional fields of expertise (at least 100 pages provable translation work): Accounting, Aerospace, Agriculture, Archeology, Automation, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmetics, Energy, Esoterism, Fashion (Clothes), Finance, Folklore, Forestry (Wood), Geology, Insurance, Materials, Mathematics, Metallurgy, Meteorology, Military, Mining, Naval (Sailing), Photography, Physics, Politics, Public Relations, Real Estate, Social Networks, Textiles, Zoology, etc.
Types of projects: books and articles (fiction and non-fiction, academic), product documentation, marketing brochures and user manuals, corporate materials, brand management, instructions for use (IFUs), software localization, clinical research and medical reports, patient information, EU directives, legal documents, certificates, diplomas, licenses, contracts, patents, subtitling, games (PC) and toys, conversations, letters, etc.
My work as a freelance translator has, since 1995, been doubled by my teaching activity within the University of Bucharest, where, through the medium of English, I held classes in Linguistics, Practical Courses of English, English for Special Purposes, British Literature, Literary Criticism, Cultural Studies, Philosophy, etc.
Professional experience:
1992-: professional freelance translator. Authorization from the Ministry of Culture issued in 1995; authorization from the Ministry of Justice issued in 2003;
1994-: assistant lecturer in English at Bucharest University, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures (1997-), Faculty of Orthodox Theology (1996-97), Faculty of Journalism, and The National School of Political and Administrative Studies (1994-96).
Courses and seminars held: English literature (British Survey, Shakespeare, 18th-century, Romanticism, Victorian, 20th-century); English practical courses and English for Special Purposes at the Faculty of Philosophy, Law, Physics, Chemistry, Geography, Geology; Cultural Studies;
2004: full-time translator for multimedia company DotCommerce, Bucharest, Romania;
2001-2003: Research, script writing, direction, and production of documentary film for Jan van Eyck Academie, Maastricht, Netherlands;
1992-1995: editor of TOP Magazine, Brasov.
Activity as a freelance translator:
1992-: translator from/into English for the following publishing houses: RAO, Fundatia Culturala, Univers, Humanitas, Polirom, Anastasia, ART, CEU Press Budapest, Reader’s Digest, Nebraska University Press, etc.
1993- : independent authorised translator; over 10 years’ experience in translating juridical, technical, medical, commercial, scientific, multimedia, computer-related, etc. documents.
Experience in major fields (selected projects):Novels:
Eugenides, Jeffrey, Sinuciderea fecioarelor (Virgin Suicides, Polirom, 2005)
K. Royce, Dansul marionetelor (Remote Control, 1996, RAO);
E. Gann, Magistratul (The Magistrate, 1995, RAO).
Film scripts and subtitles
Rasvan Popescu & Lucian Pintilie – Terminus Paradise, The Penal Colony (after Kafka), etc. (1995-1996), as a collaborator with The National Film-Makers’ Association (into English);
Subtitles: collaboration since 2004 with international subtitling companies. Examples of projects: Mystic Pizza, Alien, Mississippi Burning, Mr Bean, Il Mostro, Sherlock Holmes and the Baker Street Irregulars, The Family Who Vanished, episodes from: Grey’s Anatomy, Roman Mysteries, The Art of Heist, Ancient Discoveries, Reinventors, Fishing Adventurer, Thirsty Traveller, 100 Dollar Taxi Ride, Grainger’s World, Mission Everest, Final Report, etc.
Non fiction – philosophy, social sciences, humanities – major published works
Malt, Johanna, Acele obscure obiecte ale dorinţei (Obscure Objects of Desire), ART Publishing House (to be published);
Andrei Oişteanu, Inventing the Jew: Antisemitic Stereotypes in Romanian and Other Central-East European Cultures (Romanian title: Evreul imaginar), University of Nebraska Press, 2009 (from Romanian into English) http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/product/Inventing-the-Jew,674083.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Jew-Antisemitic-Central-East-Antisemitism/dp/0803220987;
Chesterton, G.K., Ortodoxia (Orthodoxy), Humanitas, 2007 http://www.humanitas.ro/humanitas/ortodoxia-o-filosofie-personala;
C.S. Lewis, Treburi ceresti (The Business of Heaven), 2 vol., Humanitas, 2005
http://www.humanitas.ro/humanitas/treburi-ceresti-vol-i
http://grupareaaproape.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/treburi-ceresti-recenzie-de-a-romila/
http://www.librariaonline.ro/practice/spiritualitate/religie/treburi_ceresti_vol_2-lewis_c_s-p1004669;
Când, unde şi cum s-a întâmplat (What, When, Where, Why, How), Reader’s Digest, 2005 http://www.biblios.ro/c%25c3%2582nd-unde-%2526-cum-s-a-%25c3%258ent%25c3%2582mplat/detalii-carte-939.html;
H.R. Patapievici, Flying Against the Arrow (Zbor in Bataia sagetii), CEU Press, Budapest, 2002 (from Romanian into English) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/423805.Flying_Against_the_Arrow
http://books.google.ro/books?id=I3478vRqjSAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Patapievici,+Flight+Against+the+Arrow&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=rjfrT8TtAqXP4QTO8YnGAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Patapievici%2C%20Flight%20Against%20the%20Arrow&f=false;
Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, Humanitas Publishing House, 2001;
Sorin Alexandrescu, Privind Înapoi, modernitatea (Modernity, Looking Back), Univers Publishing House, 2000;
Sorin Alexandrescu, Modernismul românesc (Romanian Modernism), Univers Publishing House, 1999;
Andrei Oişteanu, Cosmos vs. Chaos (revised version of Mythos & Logos. Studii si eseuri de antropologie culturala, 1998, The Romanian Cultural Foundation) (from Romanian into English).
Selected academic articles published in my translation: in Mircea Cartarescu, Postmodernismul romanesc, Humanitas 1999 (afterword, into English); articles in Dumitru Stăniloae sau paradoxul teologiei (Dumitru Stăniloae or the Paradox of Theology), Editura Anastasia, Bucharest, 2003; article in Transdisciplinarity in Science and Religion, 2/2007, articles in Studia Asiatica (2008-2009), Archaeus (2008-2009), Euresis (2006-2010), National Geographic (2008), etc.
Medical translations:
Volumes published by Reader’s Digest:
Sănătate cu tratamente naturiste (Healing Ailments the Natural Way), Reader’s Digest, 2004 http://www.biblios.ro/s%2526%2523258%253bn%2526%2523258%253btate-cu-tratamente-naturiste/detalii-carte-945.html;
Medicii vă recomandă: Leacuri la îndemână (The Doctors’ Book of Home Remedies), Reader’s Digest, 2005 http://www.librarultau.ro/carte/medicii-va-recomanda-leacuri-la-indemana--i12468;
Mâncarea şi sănătatea (Foods that Harm, Foods that Heal), Reader’s Digest, 2006 http://www.biblios.ro/m%25c3%25a2ncarea-si-s%2526%2523259%253bn%2526%2523259%253btatea-ce-ne-face-bine%253f-ce-ne-d%2526%2523259%253buneaz%2526%2523259%253b%253f/detalii-carte-942.html;
Other projects: large project (over 1500 pages) involving the translation and proofreading of documentation related to medical and surgical equipment for Edwards Lifesciences and Medrad;
translation (and back-translation) of medical articles, clinical trial materials, questionnaires and pharmacological documentation and prospects for various Romanian clients (“Prof. Dr. Al. Obregia” Psychiatric Hospital –2006-2007, Elias Hospital – 2008, Medlife HyperClinic – 2008, etc., as well as individual clients).
documentation for Fexuspine medical and surgical instruments, 2010-.
Technical translations:
John Deere course materials (heavy equipment for agriculture, etc.), 2012, proofreading, over 500 pages;
Brompton (bicycles) marketing materials, 2007-, over 400 pages;
User manuals for Graco fluid manipulation equipment, 2009-2011, over 1500 pages;
Documentation and contracts for petrochemical company Zeta Petroleum (petrol extraction), 2009-2011, over 250 pages;
Automotive software localisation for Opel, over 500 pages, 2009;
Software and user manuals for Johnson Controls (automotive), 2009, over 600 pages;
Documentation for intercom systems for Door Chimes UK, 2009, over 200 pages;
Eaton (power management) brochures, software, and corporate materials, 2008, over 400 pages;
Auto diagnostic software for Technomotor, 2008, over 300 pages;
Petrol drilling equipment for Drillmec, 2008, over 250 pages;
Soluţii practice pentru probleme de zi cu zi (How to Do Just About Anything), Reader’s Digest, 2007, over 1300 pages, http://www.lumearetetelor.ro/webshop/product/solutii_practice_pentru_probleme_de_zi_cu_zi.
Legal translations:
Since 1992: laws, legal documents, diplomas, certificates, licenses, contracts, patents through outsourcers and for individual clients.
Games and toys:
2009-, ongoing translation projects of marketing materials, game instructions and software for major international gaming company, over 2000 pages;
2007-, ongoing translation projects of computer gaming software and internet games and gambling for various clients, over 250 pages.
This user has earned KudoZ points by helping other translators with PRO-level terms. Click point total(s) to see term translations provided.
This user has reported completing projects in the following job categories, language pairs, and fields.
Project History Summary
Total projects
3
With client feedback
0
Corroborated
0
0 positive (0 entries)
positive
0
neutral
0
negative
0
Job type
Translation
3
Language pairs
Romanian to English
2
English to Romanian
1
Specialty fields
History
2
Poetry & Literature
1
Philosophy
1
Anthropology
1
Folklore
1
Mechanics / Mech Engineering
1
Science (general)
1
Medical (general)
1
Other fields
Keywords: English to Romanian translator, Romanian to English translator, translator Adascalitei, Mirela Adascalitei, Romanian translations, Romanian translator, Romanian literature translator, Romanian literary translator, Romanian literature translation, Romanian literary translation. See more.English to Romanian translator, Romanian to English translator, translator Adascalitei, Mirela Adascalitei, Romanian translations, Romanian translator, Romanian literature translator, Romanian literary translator, Romanian literature translation, Romanian literary translation, Romanian philosophy translator, Romanian philosophy translation, Romanian poetry translation, Romanian poetry translator, Romanian linguistics translation, Romanian religion translation, Romanian religion translator, Romanian religious translation, Romanian religious translator, Romanian book translation, Romanian book translator, Romanian article translator, Romanian article translation, Romanian art translator, Romanian art translation, quick Romanian translator, quick Romanian translation, fast Romanian translator, fast Romanian translation, Romanian law translation, Romanian law translator, Romanian legal translation, Romanian legal translator, Romanian it translator, Romanian it translation, Romanian software translation, Romanian software translator, Romanian software localizer, Romanian software localization, international translator, international translation, Romanian commercial translation, Romanian commercial translator, Romanian medicine translator, Romanian medicine translation, Romanian medical translator, Romanian medical translation, Romanian medical instruments translation, Romanian technical translator, Romanian technical translation, Romanian appliances translator, Romanian appliances translation, Romanian electronics translator, Romanian electronics translation, Romanian manual translator, Romanian manual translation, Romanian social sciences translation, Romanian social sciences translator, Romanian political translation, Romanian political translator, Romanian scientific translation, Romanian scientific translator, Romanian psychology translator, Romanian psychology translation, Romanian website translation, Romanian website translator, website localization, Romanian games translator, Romanian games translation, Romanian game translator, Romanian game translation, Romanian subtitle translation, Romanian subtitle translator, Romanian subtitling, Romanian film translation, Romanian film translator, Romanian journalism translation, Romanian journalism translator, Romanian academic translation, Romanian academic translator, Romanian children translation, Romanian children translator, Romanian social media translation, Romanian social media translator, Romanian business translation, Romanian business translator, Romanian HR translation, Romanian HR translator, Romanian marketing translation, Romanian marketing translator, Romanian multimedia translator, Romanian multimedia translation, Romanian language editing, Romanian proofreading, Romanian linguist, Romanian language, Romanian human rights translation, Romanian food translation, Romanian food translator, Romanian restaurants translations, Romanian restaurants translator, Romanian culinary translations, Romanian culinary translator, Bucharest translator, Bucharest translation, quality Romanian translations, quality Romanian translator, Romanian experienced translator, Romanian experienced translation, English Romanian reviewer, english to romanian certified translator, PhD Romanian translator, Romanian Trados translation, traducator engleza, traducator profesionist engleza, traducator literar engleza, traducator legal engleza, traducator autorizat engleza, traducator filosofie engleza, traducator marketing engleza, traducator carti engleza, traducator software engleza, traducator arta engleza, traducator academic engleza, traducator literatura engleza, traducator experimentat engleza, traducator IT engleza, traducator manuale engleza, traducator psihologie engleza, traducator jocuri engleza, traducator stiintific engleza, traducator filme engleza, traducator website engleza, traducator multimedia engleza, subtitrari engleza, subtitrare engleza, traduceri profesioniste engleza, traduceri engleza, traduceri literare engleza, traduceri legale engleza, traduceri autorizate engleza, traduceri filosofie engleza, traduceri marketing engleza, traduceri carti engleza, traduceri software engleza, traduceri culinare engleza, traducator culinar engleza, traduceri produse alimentare engleza, traduceri arta engleza, traduceri academice engleza, traduceri literatura engleza, traduceri IT engleza, traduceri manuale engleza, traduceri psihologie engleza, traduceri jocuri engleza, traduceri stiintifice engleza, traduceri filme engleza, traduceri website engleza, traduceri multimedia engleza, . See less.
This profile has received 611 visits in the last month, from a total of 44 visitors
adami 
Expertise 
Portfolio 
positive
