[interview with our guest from this issue, Professor Andrei Marga]
by Ştefan Bolea & Ormeny Francisc Norbert
translated Romanian by Stâncel Theodora-Eva
Ştefan Bolea: Professor, Francisc and I are doctoral students. You defended your PhD thesis in 1976, with a thesis on Marcuse. You also studied, in Germany under prof. Habermas’ supervision. What can you tell us about your doctoral experience? Do you remember what the doctoral life used to be like back then? How did you organize your study, what did you do for fun, and what were your priorities?
Andrei Marga: This is a very broad question… In the 1970s PhD students usually had to take a job. Scholarships were scarce, and were given mostly in experimental sciences, in engineering. More still, the demands were, philosophically speaking, that of international PhDs. In that period France and Germany had superior PhDs, strong PhDs that were somehow accommodated and standardized as level, a remarkable level, I may say, of various countries’ PhD. However, the PhD obliged you to perform an intensive reading; at least, in Philosophy, you didn’t stand a chance, due to the caprices of some board, if you didn’t have intensive reading. And I remember that two summers, practically two years, I summarized Hegel, from beginning to end, and Kant of course; at philosophy you had to thrust yourself into this soil. My own generation was somehow favored by the fact that following the Willi Brandt-Corneliu Mănescu agreement, Romania had recognized Federal Germany as a state. Romania was the first socialist state to recognize Federal Republic of Germany and FRG in its turn made significant gestures.
For instance, among others, of course, it awarded scholarships, it assured scholarships for approximately three hundred young Romanians, that were able to study in Germany the most various disciplines. Throughout its course of development I felt the PhD to be a special grounding, at least as far as exigency it was certainly very apart, the PhD was, according to tradition, the starting platform of a university personality. I knew also from the reading of previous significant biographies, that actually the PhD gives you the base on which to build as a university personality. When I left for Germany, I did intensive reading in Biefield, in Frankfurt am Mein, in Freiburg im Breisgau, and after reading and discussing, obviously it began the articulation of articles, the articulation of parts of the PhD, because the aim was, for all of us that had left, to elaborate the PhD, so it would be ready to be sustained when we would return; that was the agreement between the two governments at that time. It was an extremely productive period, very pleasant: certainly, if I were to refer to extra doctoral things- I kind of wrote it, I wrote many chapters of the PhD on music. Especially then, important opera soloists, appeared on the scene, and, why not, Demis Roussos, appeared on the scene. At that time, Germany was filed with this sort of soloists that attracted the new generations.
Ormeny Francisc: As you well know, today we deal with two types of knowledge: the vertical and the horizontal one. Knowledge, in ascendant sense (Kant: „the starry sky above me, the moral law within me”) and knowledge in descendent sense (the platonic cave). Then came Deleuze and said that horizontal knowledge is also possible, by giving example surfing as opposed to mountain climbing. The latter represents the old type of knowledge, the former, represents the new type. Deleuze said that the issue was to learn how to let us be carried by surfaces, how to place ourselves on an already existent functional orbit. Which is your opinion: in the present day society which of the two should have the precedence: the vertical or the horizontal type of knowledge?
A.M: Certainly, from Deleuze to Onfray, it is argued for a horizontal knowledge, even more for a horizontal ethics or morals. Onfray even suggests a sort of new hedonism, a new Epicureanism so to say. I believe them to be mistaken. Obviously, within Epicureanism there is a humanist component, as it is given, however, should we cultivate solely the horizontal knowledge, then we would not be able comprehend what happens around us, and I believe that continuous crises would arise, crises more acutely than the one there is now. Therefore I wish to be clear: I believe that, in fact, those that argue for the resuming of the general theory, for example in social sciences, for the resuming of metaphysical interrogations in philosophy, those who place the problem of the ascension towards the great and difficult problem of the sense, I think, those are right, because only such a measure, such a tentative can place us as humans in the possession of that which is. Certainly, all around there is an atmosphere of jouissance that explicitly abandons old projects of knowledge, but I repeat the crises of such a moral or interpretation is at the door.
Europe’s problem book has changed because of European Union’s success
Ş.B.: In my review to the German edition of the Unification Philosophy, I mentioned that the writing can be considered a programmatic manifest of The Faculty of European Studies. How do you relate, today, to this seminal text written fourteen years ago?
A.M: The chapters of Philosophie der europaischen Einingung, were created in time and in connection to the Faculty of European Studies’ needs of construction and certainly in connection to the way in which I managed to perceive and conceptualize Europe’s evolution. The goal of this volume was firstly the understanding of what was, the understanding of what goes around and a few anticipations. How would I consider today the volume? It is obvious that the work remains tied to the effort of the last 14 –15 years, however the themes have changed in time, or at least, the European Union’s success makes us to have to change the themes. As it is well known, often, a program disappears because of being accomplished. A valuable work emerges from actuality because the aims connected to it have been achieved. Then I would say, starting this fall we will try to analyze new themes, because Europe’s register of problems, has changed, I repeat due to the European Union’s success. And soon we will have to introduce new themes. This fall new themes will appear, for example the theme of complexity must be approached, even though many local analyses consider complexity just another complication of things. In fact, complexity changes the way of thinking and changes the priority or the array of our themes of thought. Furthermore, it is obvious that this crisis obliges us to take into consideration the “risk”, we must arrive to a conceptualization of the “risk” as a firm ontological term, which cannot be avoided. Furthermore, it is obvious that in Europe we lived at least ten identity-themed years; at present time it must go towards the integration of identities, therefore towards what is already called trans-difference. From this point on, we all depend, and the crisis has shown it, on the mass-media dominated society.
The mass-media domninated reality must be differently conceptualized, and then Adorno and Horkheimer’s interrogation concerning the significance of the cultural industry must be resumed. Furthermore, it is clear that we are entering an „unsafe” society, but when we say „unsafe” we must not immediately fall into the dramatization of things. We say „unsafe” in the sense that today’s given safeties no longer function-this doesn’t mean that there no longer are securities, there are! But they must be re-thought, everything must be re-thought. To take one simple example, to make this idea intuitive, it was clearly seen that the impuissance of a private Parisian bank to pay its clients from a fund, has in fact announced the global crisis. Small causes already provoke global effects. So here there are in a nutshell, some changes in point of view, that intervene and that oblige us to think differently the European problems.
Ş.B.: Tell us a little about your experience of winning the Herder Prize, considered the „Noble Prize of the East”….
A.M.:The Herder Prize, in its entire history, was awarded to foreground cultural personalities from Central Europe, the latter being the target-point of the Prize. It is financed by a foundation appertaining to a Hamburg ship-owner and the University of Vienna, on basis of a secret jury’s analysis, awards it. The Herder Prize was awarded less to philosophers, and more to history authors, to history of arts authors; in Cluj it was awarded to Virgil Vatasanu, to authors of archeology such as Constantin Daicoviciu; there are some others from outside the university, authors of plastic art works and music, I think . It was seldom awarded to the philosophical department. I was very honored when the jury dwelled onto my person. The Prize continues to be a significant reward in this region and the Hamburg foundation continues to support it.
O.F.: What is your opinion concerning philosophy’s postmodern turn (from Lyotard to Zizek)? I know you used to, at some point, called postmodernism a sort of “a coffee house anarchism”….
A.M: Postmodernism signaled out, it must be said, the difficulties of late modernism and I think it had a great merit in signaling out the need to return to the theme of creation, the need to return to a more acute interrogation of what it is, and to the proposal of new solution. Postmodernism can tie itself or not tie itself to what I have previously stated: to comprehensive images of society, theories of society, to comprehensive images of the world, to organized philosophy. In the European version, postmodernism followed the second path, that of a break with this project of modernity to give an integrative image of reality be it human, be it social, be it natural, or be it cosmic. Considering the extent to which it proceeded to the attack of this tendency, I believe that it has truly become a deluxe movement, without being able to adhere to what happens in history.
Especially, that, Parisian postmodernists came to Romania; but they wanted to pronounce themselves onto Romania, they coming from Montmartre, where it is very interesting to drink coffees and change impressions, while having well charged cards from mother and father, and other supporters. In the form that it has arrived here, it is a deluxe perspective….It is in the same time anarchic. In fact, this is the very assumption, the possibility to rebuild the reality of the European countries, by denouncing any organization, by denouncing the very idea of organization (not just the institutionalized one, but automatically the political one, by denouncing on the cultural plan the great tradition of theory). It is no doubted, anarchy and interesting, this anarchism catches especially in the poor countries, in those that have problems of development, such as our case. Or, I may say, it caught, because now it appears to be in reflux. Especially the crisis has obliged many people to take seriously what happens around them. Therefore I believe that evaluation remains valid.
Ş.B.: One of the most important personal gain as master of American Studies apprentice, was the study of American philosophy, that I must confess, that during my student years, I have ignored almost entirely. Do you consider that today a philosopher can accomplish himself, by focalizing on Greek and German sources solely?
A.M.: In the meanwhile, the German philosophy communicates more ample than then the American philosophy is thought to. There is no longer the isolation from American currents, that could have been denounce at Goethe’s level, at Hegel’s level, although both of them were very conscientious about the fact that America was preparing a new approach, a new culture. Consequently, whoever plunges into the present German philosophy, will find American threads; will find, in fact, a symbiosis between the American and German cultures. I would say that on the one hand it is clear enough that we can no longer make philosophy with the Greeks only, who nonetheless must always be read; we can no longer make philosophy with Hegel, or those before him or Kant solely.
You can no longer make many things, by remaining exclusively to the European culture. Philosophically speaking, one may not pass, I believe, behind John Dewey. Whatever passing behind his back, takes you out from contemporary history. Certainly I have the point of view of a contemporaneous, I admit it. Then, one of the effort that have to be made by the new generations would be to make the American philosophy more accessible, more discussed, considering the fact that many things have happened from Dewey on, also. It cannot be over passed Putnam’s argumentation of realism, it cannot be over passed Rorty’s argumentation of contextualism, it cannot be over passed Quine’s vision of knowledge, it cannot be over passed the effort to re-think Hegel in the conditions made today by Brandom. There are not just pieces of rare intellectual shine, but also arguments that remain valid. And in philosophy there is an accumulation of arguments, that you cannot place anywhere on the time scale. I would plea for the taking seriously of the American experience, because at this point there are no longer limits to information, there is not obstacle in its access.
O.F.: How much importance should be given to the pleasure of reading and how much to the rigorous demonstration within the writings of a philosopher?
A.M.: A philosopher, immersing in reading, therefore being on the route that can allow him to call himself a philosopher- you well know, we have many philosophy lovers, we have many philosophy admirers, however it is very difficult to be a philosopher, this being something you find out after death, I mean, it is something one finds out after death if he was or not a philosopher- the philosopher must quickly arrive at seeing the systems of ideas, in a sort of images, pictures of reality, in other way , however, tentative to capture reality within a picture. If he manages to arrive to this fact, and meaning that conceptual systems are also tentative to capture reality in terms, then he has also the pleasure, for he realizes that this is an intellectual spectacle among other things, a high quality intellectual spectacle.
Now, it is obvious that we, as human beings, cannot separate ourselves from Kierkegaard’s argumentation, that we are caught in our lives, we can never fully detach from them. The argumentation that we live life inevitably personal and subjective remains valid. Certainly, texts of the nature of essays, which unfold the thread of personal feelings, continue to be fascinating. I would say that: the philosopher must be open to both experiences, to the experiences of these essays ( a refined attempt to capture in terms that which happens within ourselves, so to say), but also to systematic attempts. Finally, the philosopher must become qualified enough so he may see even how it is adopted the human condition within a mathematic theorem, and to see within an essay about the human condition which would be the chance to formalize it.
The Crisis will erode many of the earlier cultural options
Ş.B.: Everybody talks today, almost in obsessive terms, about the economical crisis. Will this crisis facilitate a profound change in mentality, comparable to the great depression of 1989?
A.M.: For now, a thing is certain: the crisis is also a crisis of the manner of the reproduction of life in the societies of late modernity, a crisis of the manner of development (because, still, development was on the agenda for the last fifty years, all over the place), and with that I would say- it is obvious that it is an ontological crisis, meaning, a crisis of basic concepts which we use to grasp reality. Being a crisis, in these senses, it is clear to me that we will at least, have the obligation or we will at least feel the challenge to think differently. Though, it is unclear whether or not the crisis will determine at a large scale, a rapid change, as a cultural phenomenon
As we can see in televised discussions, clear signs cannot yet be seen, in Romania, or elsewhere. Which would be the correct sign? It is clear that this crisis is also a crisis of the selfish approach towards life, it is clear that it is a crisis of the way in which time was managed. Time was used only in view of obtaining economical gain. This perception, this image of time enters in crisis. So, I believe that these things come on stage even if, for now, there are not clear enough reasons for them.
It must be taken into account, that which Obama also remarked a week ago, that we are in front of the bottom of the crisis, much in front of its depth. Even though there is nothing to enjoy about this idea, it is lucid, I think. No matter the shape, the crisis will erode a bunch of previous cultural options. Personal time, the time of our own life will be calibrated differently. I am certain that this change will arrive. I think we must abandon the idea that comes from physics classes in high school and gymnasium, that there is a proportion between cause and effect. It is obvious, now, that due to small causes there can be global effects, even devastating effects. The present crisis is a clue of this fact. An amount of old theorems, correlations and certitudes crumble.
O.F.: What do you think? If the dismissions and the poverty continue will we have to deal, on the background of the crisis, with the outbreak of some right extremist movements?
A.M.: Well, this depends on what countries we are thinking about…
O.F: Of Romania.
A.M.: … On a general plan, I don’t think it is possible for the months and years that are to come. Why? This crisis has a particularity: it emerged on the background of the biggest production capacity of human kind, a much larger capacity than even that of the ’29 moment, that had as consequences the right movements that we already are familiarized with. Therefore this perspective doesn’t exist, at least for now, it is not in sight. Only a very serious international crisis, would lead to it, or this sort of a crisis is not probable. I believe that the entente systems work. They are not always efficient, still they function, and therefore we may trust them.
Moreover, there are social and first and foremost economical system, such as that of Germany, that stand very strong on their feet even in conditions of crisis. Germany as a great economical power.., but we may take other examples also…The Citizens of Germany do not have dramatic problems and that can be seen, they do not feel just yet the crisis. There is one place where it can be noticed: in export. Germany being the largest car exporting country, evidently feels the limitations, and this is why now the dramatic discussion is now whether or not Germany and the European Union should intervene to save Opel, it being a branch of General Motors.
This is the entire problem. They will probably intervene in the end, because the employees are still Europeans. So, the second argument is that there are at present moment stable economical and social systems. Furthermore, it is true that the crisis also confirms the crucial importance of governance, the crucial importance of governance of a political system. Now, there will probably be a contagion, even with us, even if we take the discussion towards a crisis exit project. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is no project.
There are discussions, but there is no project. Although I might say it depends on the movement within the political space, but here also, the movement is to a larger extent controlled than that in the ’29 and the following years. Finally, I would also consider this factor: there is the chance of a rapid exit from the crisis through an international cooperation. Certainly, Hillary Clinton’s declaration in Beijing was clear enough: if the USA and China unite the crisis will be over passed quicker. What does it mean, in fact? China has an enormous potential to sustain the world’s economic revival. And my opinion is that China will take advantage of this opportunity and will intervene, for the simplest reason that China doesn’t want a crisis, this can be excluded for the start as non-sense. China, probably, finds itself during the most prolific period of development of its entire history. Therefore I believe there are new factors. Certainly, we have no means of excluding a sort of recrudescence of the movements you refer to. Still, looking forward, there appears in sight no argument to sustain a pessimistic idea.
Religion is back onstage, but this does not make Philosophy meaningless
Ş.B.: In your book, Philosophia et Theologia Hodie , but also in your doctoral courses you have emphasized the aspect that contemporary society will confront itself with the phenomenon of post- secularization. Do you think that a new relationship with God and with the problem of religion is one of the new millennium’s challenges, although, we are all immersed in a consumerist society for which the financial success has the precedence?
A.M.: Yes, indeed, we still live in a consumerist society, even though we no longer use this term. Society’s dominating orientation, and with it, its behavior, is indeed towards investment and consumerism. There are the two parameters that try to capture the reality of present societies. Now, whether this leads to an outburst of religion as American texts say…
I think it is already produced. According to the newest American best-seller “God is back”, indeed God has return to our culture. The problem is not really solved, we may ask ourselves “How does God return to culture?”, “ Which is God’s cultural image?”. Certainly, beyond what can be discussed about this cultural image of God, it seems that Heidegger was right when he said that Nur ein Gott kann uns retten (“ Only a God can save us”).
Beyond this discussion that can be moved, it is clear to me that 1) there will be no solution if we do not discuss again the values of present civilization; 2) you can longer, how shall I put it, make more than plausible or at least plausible the values, without the conscience of larger or, at least sustained by stronger foundation than the human ones, order. This is the point where, as philosophers we must be once more modest.
Organizational projects based on world’s philosophical grounds, have failed to this hour, and for the pure reason that the world became truly complex, if we take the term “complex” very seriously. Moreover, the hope that sciences will be a basis for human understanding doesn’t confirm itself either, unless very partially or in very circumscribed cases. As it follows, two sources that the modern era thought to be considerable for the morals in private life, in society’s life, these two sources didn’t prove themselves as big as it was hoped.
Certainly, religion has traveled across her own history, which is known; neither philosophy, nor sciences, nor religion have only bright side, everyone has also its dark sides. However, it is possible at the present moment, even for secularists and atheists, an understanding of religion that accepts, that has no reason to accept at least its structure of supply of compartmental motivation.
I think that here lays the battle. It is not necessarily beside the question “who is right?”: Darwin or religion. There is another problem that can be solved today. The problem, in my opinion is, at this point: how do we supply with reasons a certain moral behavior and here after all factual analysis, empirical ones , if you wish, it is clear that such a supply from the sources of religious tradition is again not just possible, but it also happens. Certainly, we are here “teurocentrists” or Judeo-Christian centrists; it is still the strongest tradition no matter how we look upon things, and based on it, it is our way of understanding reality. I think there is here a source of motivation; I think this is the urgent problem that is raised now on what concerns religion.
O.F: In the West there are atheist religion professors, while here something like that would seem an enormity. What should count more when teaching religion, an eventual confession of faith or competence?
A.M.: Here and now, I imagine there are many who teach religion, more even as some thought that religion returns on stage while substituting philosophy. And here, it must be said, it lies an error, religion undoubtedly returns on stage, but that doesn’t mean that philosophy becomes redundant. The issue of teaching is an issue of competence. Surely, every Church is interested in having its own people teaching, but this is another issue. Any person who had proper instruction can teach religion. Now, here something must be said: you cannot teach religion without possessing a certain sensibility towards religious matter, that is different from the philosophical, scientific political ones, and so on. Anyway, it works when competence accompanied by a refine comprehension of thinks.
Ş.B.: According to the „Diagnosis” there are at least twelve perspectives on looking upon contemporary society. I will mention only some of them: the mass media governed society, the society of the risk, the chaotic society and the invisible society. How would you characterize present Romanian society?
A.M: Yes, it is a very good question. I think we cannot classify it among these characterizations, that were created for more developed societies, however it is obvious that we have a mass media governed society, because with us, we see the behavior (even the electoral behavior) depending massively on what television broadcasts. We ought to have more of a society of knowledge, but the passion of concepts is not as big as we would wish. We also have a society of turbulence, in the sense that the structures are fluid, even too fluid, laws are changed from one day to the other; everything is fluid in this sense.
It is clear we have an asymmetric society, because things depend massively on organizations, we see it in political life also: the parties decide, the individual, so to say, squeezes himself as he can between organizations. There are facts that can fuel one diagnosis or another. It is very difficult to give a characterization of society, there aren’t yet any analyses, with us analysis are very partial. I could lead the discussion towards what I would call governance. I was saying earlier that governance is the key to development. I would say that with us, it all entered into a populist democracy, from which we must exit as soon as possible and go towards a functional democracy, a democracy that would encourage, permit, that would stand on the argumentative debate of the mature. Or, it can be seen, that for now, the debate is pulverized in the multitude of televised shows, the debate is pulverized in the multitude of declarations and it must be said that debate signifies something else.
O.F.: Can the „Becali-zation” of Romania be compared with the „McDonaldi-zation” of America?
A.M.: There is no room for comparison. The „McDonaldi-zation” of America generally meant a menu, to its basis, a means of considering leisure. For now I don’t see any special menu is “Becali-zation”, or an invitation to spend one’s free time, but the expansion of chattering.
Romania cannot support 98 universities
O.F.: Should you still be the Minister (of Culture) what would you change?
A.M.: Well, the system needs to be changed. While I was a Minister in Romania, the system was put to change. It usually changes in ten years. Even Spiru Haret needed three mandates to change the system, as much as he wanted to change it. So, the system must be changed, more even in the case of the Universities things are very perceptible. Romania cannot sustain ninety-eight accredited by the supreme instance Universities, as many as they are at the moment, it is physically impossible. Even an opulent Romania couldn’t sustain them. Romania remains the country of an exaggerated number of Universities and of a reduced effective of students. I would say that: in contemporary Romania there is mush chattering concerning projects, law changing, strategies and pacts. My opinion is that they are already redundant; they were redundant starting with their beginning. Romania needs an urgent analysis and a proper legislation. To be more clear: Romania made, as did other countries, that which is called a rebound reform, a reform through which it were recovered liberties crushed by socialism until ’89, it were recovered University and school traditions.
The matter is now to make the compatibility reform, the synchronizing reform better said, meaning the reform of bringing the system to the practices in the countries that we are associated with within the European Union: Germany, France, UK, and so on. And then, surely, it must be, urgently made the entering the globalization reform, the globalization obliges to entirely different things than other reforms do.
Ş.B.: You published almost thirty books. Which is he book that you feel closest to? And which was the most difficult to write?
A.M.: For an author it is very difficult to recommend one; he automatically makes it in the detriment of another. When I wrote The philosophy of the European Unification, I was enthusiastic with the possibility to enter a field, that was very little systematically exploited. Certainly, there are many points of view, there are many points of departure, but it hasn’t been much systematically work done, and that made me enthusiastically. Religion in the era of globalization also made me very enthusiastically, I was in a period of reading within German universities and it was then that I realized that a problem grows in dimensions and must be dealt with, and I wrote it with passion. Contemporary philosophy always fascinated me, because in philosophy, before anything else, you must understand what goes around the philosophical scene around you, this always being the premises. Finally, the book about argumentation (Argumentation, 2006 n. Ş.B.) both obliged me and gave me the chance to specify how I see some things…. Certainly, there aren’t just philosophical things there, there are strictly logical things also, there are strictly semantic things also, strictly syntax things, however, I also had to formulate some philosophical options on the direction of this thematic. And it was also a fascinating book for me.
Ş.B.: In the end, I would choose a lighter subject. The pages about football in „Diagnosis” are extremely tasty. I liked you pragmatic consideration about the difference between the mentality of the participant and that of the winner, because in the end, participating is just a modest glory. This being said I would like you to answer two questions: Who do you believe will get the title? Did you support Barcelona or Manchester?
O.F.: I also have a question. How can you explain the absolute disaster in contemporary Romanian football?
A.M.: So, who will get the championship? Personally, if it’s a joke anyway, Urziceanu should get it [our note: the interview took place on 30.05.2009], so that the joke be played until the end. I like, as game, the CFR, although the CFR has let us all down. As citizens of Cluj, it would have been nice to have another Champions League here, but hopefully we’ll have it in the years to come. The remainder, unfortunately, the teams are modest and go in vain to the European Cups.
Steaua can go, Dinamo can go, even Timisoara can go, they will all go and come home quickly; it will not be a big deal. About Barcelona- Manchester, I must admit that before the game I was afraid….Certainly, I am not for changing winners from one year to another, anyway, but the outcome is not always like this. Manchester appeared to be a very organized team, hat would not have problems scoring and keeping the result. As it could be seen in the first ten minutes, Manchester was close to scoring and controlled the game. I knew about Iniesta, or Xavi, or Messi’s giant talent, I did not know about this extraordinary stopper from Barcelona, Pique. I wasn’t sure that the Club’s Academy , as it is called, was that proactive of indigenous talents. A new argument has now appeared: indigenous talents set the tone, which is a very nice thing. Alright, but I think the secret was Guardiola’s, Barcelona’s coach, strategy, who knew how to block the English attack, more even that after ten minutes Ronaldo did what he wished, and then he was caught between two individuals, and that was it, the end of discussion. And Rooney was kept at great length so that he could walk as he pleased on the margins! A terribly intelligent tactics, especially in the middle, actually, Barcelona crushed the attack of this very good team, Manchester United. Personally, I supported Barcelona, but I didn’t believe it would win. I was glad that it turned the game and here there was an excellent clue. A team that entered being dominated was almost bewildered by the enormous pressure exercised by Ronaldo, most of all, who shot quite well from any position during this game…. It was interesting to see that a team had recovered, calculated the situation on the field, and took the necessary measures. And the third question…
O.F.: How do you explain the disaster of our national football team?
A.M.: With us, in the first time, in football, but also in economy it was thought that this is capitalism, with small investments, big and quick profits. 1) Capitalism is a rigorous thought, not a simplistic, utilitarian way of thinking. 3) Seriousness is to be wished, in football as in other fields of activity. Let’s not forget, how one of our teams concentrates on the field, even in the championship they don’t concentrate but from time to time. Let see how these English play: they are the ones that give the paradigm, meaning, entering the field and play, continuously, continuously, until you score, win and that’s it, but they do not just sit there. There is too much relaxation on the field, I mean the relaxation in work is over exaggerated on these lands.
Ş.B., O.F.: Thank you very much.
A.M.: I thank you.
# versiunea română a acestui interviu poate fi citită aici.
13 thoughts on “Interview Andrei Marga”
i know this guy, studied his works at university. he’s really strong, well-done, dudes!
a very interesting interview with a man who deserves to be again a minister!
I heard Prof. Marga speaking one day in Wien. Deep and though cool. My respects!
i didn’t know that romanians were allowed to study in FRG back then
Awesome post ! Cheers for, writing on this blog page mate. I shall message you again! I didnt know that!
Deine Meinung kann ich überhaupt nicht teilen.
Kannst du den 1. Teil nochmal erklären?