This article examines the political philosophy of Mihai Şora, one of the most important contemporary Romanian philosophers and the former minister of education in Romania's first post-communist government. After presenting Şora's unique intellectual trajectory that spans over six decades, the article explores in detail his theory of authenticity and alienation as well as his philosophy of dialogue and civil society. Şora's writings shed light on the tension between politics and philosophy and challenge us to rethink the relationship between freedom, authenticity, and liberal principles and values. The final section revisits the role of philosophers in the context of the fledgling Eastern European democratic regimes.
Andrew Wachtel , “Writers and Society in Eastern Europe, 1989-2000: The End of the Golden Age,” East European Politics and Societies17, no. 4 (2003): 583-621.
2.
For an interpretation of Şora's political philosophy, see Aurelian Crăiuţu , “De la dialogul interior la dialogul generalizat: Note despre filosofia politică a lui Mihai Şora” in Dialog si libertate: Eseuri în onoarea lui Mihai Şora (Dialogue and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Mihai Şora), ed. Sorin Antohi and Aurelian Crăiuţu (Bucharest: Nemira, 1997), 101-19. For an analysis of Şora's writings in the context of Romanian philosophy, see Virgil Nemoianu, “Mihai Şora and the Traditions of Romanian Philosophy,” Review of Metaphysics43, no. 1 (1990): 591-605; also Thomas Pavel, “Le Sel de la terre,” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 4 (October-December 1980): 539-42. A collection of essays on Mihai Şora as philosopher, editor, and writer can be found in eds. Antohi and Crăiuţu, Dialog si libertate and Şora, ed. Marius Chica ; Pitestia: Paralela48, 2006).
3.
In his Autobiography, Eliade fondly remembered his former students, Mihai and Mariana Şora, whom he also had the chance to meet again in post-war Paris in 1945-1946. An exceptional account of Şora's French period can be found in Mariana Şora, O viată în bucăţi (Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1992). Mariana Şora is herself a first-rate writer, who has been living in Munich since 1977.
4.
A Romanian translation of this book (with an original postscript) was published in 1995. For more information, see Mihai Şora, Despre dialogul interior, trans. Mona and Sorin Antohi (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1995). Cioran's first book, Précis de decomposition, came out in 1949 at Gallimard; while Eugène Ionesco's first play, The Bald Soprano, was staged a few years later.
5.
For more information about Şora's work as editor, see Tiberiu Avramescu, “ Editorul,” in eds., Antohi and Crăiuţu, Dialog si libertate, 45-58; and Mihai Şora, Filosoficale: Filosofia ca viăţi (Philosophical Miscellanea: Philosophy as Life) (Bucharest : Elion, 2000), 147-48. It is worth pointing out that Şora proposed a plan that included over 2,000 new titles. The initial intention was to publish a new title every week at an extremely affordable price: 5 lei (the average monthly salary then was approximately 2,000 lei). In 1969, the best year of the collection Biblioteca pentru toţi, 94 volumes were published (the print run was 8,963,000 issues).
6.
Most of these texts were originally published in the Bucharest-based journal Viaţa românească and collected later in Şora, Filosoficale.
7.
For more information about Şora's philosophy of education, see Sorin Antohi and Mihai Şora , Mai avem un viitor? România la început de mileniu (Do We Still Have a Future? Romania at the Beginning of the Millennium) (Iaşsi, Romania: Polirom, 2001), 47-55.
8.
See Mihai Şora , Firul ierbii (The Blade of Grass) (Craiova, Romania: Scrisul Românesc, 1999), 289; also see 170-74.
9.
Şora, “Singura cale dialogul” in Firul ierbii, 164-65.
10.
Upon submitting his resignation, Mihai Şora published an important essay in the weekly 22 entitled “A Few Questions” (republished in Şora, Firul ierbii, 177-78). With the benefit of hindsight, Şora reflected on his achievements and shortcomings as minister of education in a substantive interview with Doina Sterescu-Sântimbreanu from December 1992 (republished in Şora, Firul ierbii, 280-89). On Şora's membership in the Civic Alliance and the Party of Civic Alliance, see Şora, Firul ierbii, 188-204; and Antohi and Şora, Mai avem un viitora32-34, 58. Not surprisingly, one of Şora's best political essays, published in November 1990, was entitled “ Ne va salva doar adevărul” (Only Truth Will Save Us), in Şora, Firul ierbii, 188-91.
11.
Of the theoretical texts collected in Şora, Firul ierbii, the most important ones are “We, You, They—Criteria for Living Together,”55-60; “The Theology of Politics,” 259-68; “ A Few Elements of Political Doctrine for Romania Today,” 310-27; “ The Root of the Grass,” 434-54; and “The Philosopher in the City,” 464-79.
12.
Mihai Şora, Clipa sşi timpul (Piteşsti, Romania: Paralela 45, 2005). For a review essay of Şora's most recent two books (published in 2005), see Aurelian Crăiuţu, “Devino ceea ce eşsti! ” 22, No 809 (September 2005): 16-17.
13.
Şora, “ Cuvânt după jumătate de secol” in Despre dialogul interior, 205.
14.
Here is Şora's exact definition of ontological salvation: “Être de la meilleure manière qu'il peut, ce qu'il est déjà obscurement”; see Mihai Şora , Du dialogue intérieur ou fragments d'une anthropologie métaphysique (Paris: Gallimard, 1947), 31. He also writes, Notre problème immédiat et notre seul “problème” véritable est celui du “salut ontolgique.” Car, ce salut, nous sommes à même de le réaliser sans aucune aide extérieure, et nous le réalisons même avec chaque approfondissement de notre existence, avec chaque rapprochement des raciness de notre vie, avec chaque appropriation de nous par nous-mêmes. . . . Tout plongeon réussi vers les sources de notre être nous fait realiser l'état de “salut ontologique.” (Du dialogue intérieur, 47)
15.
Şora, Du dialogue intérieur, 161.
16.
Şora, Du dialogue intérieur, 163. To use Şora's own words, “Organiser l'avoir en ayant les yeux fixés sans interruption sur l'être” (161)
17.
It is worth pointing out here the affinity of Şora's ideas with Camus's defense of a spirit of rebellion toward society's conventions and institutions. Şora was also influenced by the philosophical movement of personalism that flourished in the 1930s and 1940s in France, mostly around Emmanuel Mounier and the journal Esprit. On Camus, see Jeffrey C. Isaac, Camus, Arendt, and the Spirit of Modern Rebellion (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992).
18.
See Şora, Du dialogue intérieur, 141-87. This theme also appears in Mihai Şora, A fi, a face, a avea (Being, Doing, and Having) (Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1985); and is the subject of the opening chapter of Mihai Şora, Eu & tu & el & ea . . . sau dialogul generalizat (I & Thou & He & She . . . or the Generalized Dialogue) (Bucharest: Cartea Românească, 1990).
19.
Şora, Du dialogue intérieur, 150.
20.
Man's tragedy, writes Şora, “c'est de passer la plus grande partie de sa vie à errer sur les voies innombrables et embrouillées du paraître . . . et à ne pouvoir se repaître que des mirages décevants du paraître qui s'y trouve” (Şora, Du dialogue intérieur, 43). On authenticity, it would be interesting to compare Şora's ideas with those of Czech philosopher Jan Patočka. See, for example, Jan Patočka, Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), 98-102.
21.
In this respect, it is worth pointing out the similarity between Şora's position and the ideas of the French Catholic writer and philosopher Gustave Thibon (1903-2001). Thibon was, among other things, the editor of Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace. He wrote about the need for roots in terms that remind one of Şora's “detached attachment”: Enracinement.—Les plantes sont rivées à un coin du sol. Problème: comment sauver l'enracinement sans verser dans l'étroitesse et le fanatisme? L'arbre reçoit sa sève du coin de terre où il prend racine. Imiter jusqu'au bout l'arbre qui se nourrit à la fois d'humus et de lumière. Synthèse du particulier dans ce qu'il a de plus borné et de l'universel ignorant les limites du temps et du lieu. (Gustave Thibon, L'illusion féconde [Paris, Fayard, 1995], 33; all emphases added)
22.
See, for example, the chapter “Dialogue and Understanding ” in Şora, Eu & tu & el & ea, 181-82, 176-77.
23.
One such exception is the Canadian political philosopher Charles Taylor. Two of his books are particularly important in this respect: see Charles Taylor, The Sources of the Self: The Making of Human Identity ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity ( Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1991).
24.
For a good analysis of Havel's politics of authenticity in connection with Charles Taylor's ethics of authenticity, see Ivars Ijabs, “`Politics of Authenticity' and/or Civil Society” ( paper presented at the 5th Annual International Young Researchers Conference, “Thinking in/after Utopia: East-European and Russian Philosophy before and after the Collapse of Communism,”Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, 27-29 October 2005); and Aviezer Tucker, The Philosophy and Politics of Czech Dissidence from Patocka to Havel (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2001).
25.
The core of Martin Buber's philosophy of dialogue can be found in his famous book I and Thou (New York: Scribner, 1958). A good introduction to Lévinas is Emmanuel Lévinas, The Lévinas Reader, ed. Seán Hand (Oxford: Basil Blackwell , 1989). Other representatives of dialogical philosophy are Franz Rosenzweig, Ferdinand Ebner, and Mihail Bakhtin. For a general introduction, see Michael Theunissen , The Other (Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1984), an abbreviated translation of Der Andere (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965).
26.
Writes Buber, To man the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude. The attitude of man is twofold, in accordance with the twofold nature of the primary words which he speaks. The primary words are not isolated words, but combined words. The one primary word is the combination I-Thou. The other primary word is the combination I-It. Hence the I of man is also twofold. For the I of the primary word I-Thou is a different I from that of the primary word I-It. (Buber, I and Thou, 3) For a perceptive analysis of Buber and Şora, also see Ştefan Augustin Doinaş, “Mihai Şora Şi condiţia dialogului interior,” in eds Antohi and Crăiuţu, Dialog şi libertate, 20-29.
27.
See Edmund Husserl, Gesammelte Werke, Band I: Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1950).
28.
Emmanuel Lévinas, “ Martin Buber and the Theory of Knowledge,” in Lévinas, The Lévinas Reader, 61.
29.
On his topic, also see Patočka, Heretical Essays, 4-5.
30.
Şora, Firul ierbii , 60. It is worth pointing out that the text from which I quote was originally published in 1987 (and republished in Firul ierbii a decade later). This theme is also discussed in the last chapter of Eu & tu & el & ea, 206-20.
31.
Şora, Firul ierbii , 440.
32.
Şora, Firul ierbii , 56-58. This theme also looms large in Eu & tu & el & ea (211-20), where Şora interprets it in the light of the distinction between being and having. He writes, “The open `we' always gives . . on the level of being. Its attitude is one of sharing. . . . On the contrary, the closed `we' is entirely grounded on the level of having” (Sora, Eu & tu & el & ea, 217).
33.
Şora, Firul ierbii , 453. For an overview of Şora's political and civic views applied to the context of contemporary Romania, see Antohi and Şora, Mai avem un viitor? Şora's strong defense of diversity and pluralism applied to the context of Europe and European civilization can be found in his essay originally written and published in French, “Unitas in pluralitate ou l'Europe en son entier,” Secolul 20 7-8-9 (1980). A Romanian version of this text appeared in Şora, Firul ierbii, 9-22.
34.
Şora, Firul ierbii, 453; also see 430-33, where Şora defends administrative decentralization and a minimal state sui generis. I note in passing the affinity between Şora's ideas and Havel's plea for local communities. For more information, see Vaclav Havel, “The Power of the Powerless” in The Power of the Powerless: Citizens against the State in Central-Eastern Europe, ed. John Keane (London: Verso, 1985), 93.
35.
For a discussion on this topic, see Şora's essay, “The Theology of Politics,” in Firul ierbii, 259-68.
36.
While it is essential to highlight the connections between democracy and the market, it is equally important not to conflate them. For an overview, see Adam Przeworski , Democracy and the Market ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Larry Diamond and Marc Plattner, eds., Economic Reform and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); and Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, Latin America, and Post-Communist Europe (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996).
37.
Alexisde Tocqueville, Democracy in America trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
38.
Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 435.
39.
Writes Şora, In order to be able to function properly, civil society constantly needs an intense communitarian life as expressed through and by unique individuals who are not interchangeable. . . . The duty of the state is to foster this communitarian life. (Şora, Firul ierbii, 441)
40.
For an overview of the liberal-communitarian debate, see Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd ed. ( Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1996).
41.
On this topic, see Şora's important text, “Câteva elemente de doctrină politică pentru România de azi,” published in Firul ierbii, 310-27.
42.
As already mentioned, Şora's political ideal shares important affinities with Gustave Thibon's ideas. In a speech given at the invitation of a meeting of the Association Lions Prospective in Marseille, Thibon described his ideal community in terms that would have also been endorsed by Şora: Ces valeurs que nous défendons: liberté, solidarité, responsabilité, autorité, sélection, ne peuvent s'incarner dans les faits que dans une société pluraliste et `hautement' différenciée. J'y crois de tout mon coeur. Ce qui implique—et je ne dis pas que c'est facile, mais je dis que c'est nécessaire—une décongestion, une ventilation du corps social, une dissémination harmonieuse des tâches et des responsabilités, un climat où le contact vécu avec le prochain—ce sentiment du `nous'—permette à l'individu de sortir de son isolement sans tomber dans les regroupements artificiels et anti-sociaux issus des idéologies de classes et de partis. Cet idéal là, se situe aux antipodes non seulement du nivellement égalitaire, mais de toutes les formes de technocratie et de totalitarisme qui paralysent les libertés individuelles, qui dissolvent les communautés naturelles et qui favorisent à tous les niveaux le parasitisme et l'irresponsabilité. (All emphases added) Thibon's words are extracted from an essay by Jacques Garello, “Gustave Thibon, Philosophe de la liberté,” published in Société on the occasion of Thibon's death in January 2001. The text was originally posted online at http://www.libres.org/francais/societe/societe.htm (accessed July 2003). Also see Gustave Thibon, Entretiens avec Christian Chabanis (Paris: Fayard, 1975), 93.
43.
Wilhelm Röpke, A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market ( Wilmington, Del.: Intercollegiate Studies Institute , 1998), 91.
44.
Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 7; all emphases added.
45.
This phrase is taken from Tocqueville's notes, published for the first time in the critical edition of De la démocratie en Amérique, ed. Eduardo Nolla, vol. 2 (Paris: Vrin, 1990), 272 fn. h.
46.
It was George Saville, marquess of Halifax (1633-1695), who penned the classical definition of the trimmer in his essay, “The Character of a Trimmer,” written in 1684-1685 and published in 1688. “This innocent word Trimmer,” wrote Halifax, signifieth no more than this, That if Men are together in a boat, and one part of the company would weigh it down on one side, another would make it lean as much to the contrary; it happeneth there is a third Opinion of those, who conceive it would do as well, if the Boat went even, without endangering the passengers. (Halifax, Complete Works, ed. J. P. Kenyon [London: Penguin, 1969 ], 50)
47.
See Raymond Aron, Thinking Politically, ed. Daniel J. Mahoney and Brian Anderson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1997); and Raymond Aron, The Opium of the Intellectuals, ed. Daniel J. Mahoney and Brian Anderson (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2001).
48.
G.M. Tamás , “Democracy's Triumph, Philosophy's Peril ,” Journal of Democracy11, no. 1 (2000): 103-10; Slavoj Žižek, Revolution at the Gates: Žižek on Lenin, the 1917 Writings (London, Verso, 2004); and Slavoj Žižek , Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? ( London: Verso, 2001).
49.
See Adam Michnick's essay “Gray Is Beautiful,” in Letters from Freedom, ed. Adam Michnik (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
50.
Şora, Firul ierbii , 468.
51.
Jacques Maritain, Integral Humanism, Freedom in the Modern World, and a Letter on Independence (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996), 238.
52.
Maritain, Integral Humanism , 238.
53.
See Şora, Firul ierbii, 314-22; and Patočka, Heretical Essays, 117. Worth noting in this regard is Şora's distinction between “functional” and “ontological” identity (Firul ierbii, p. 314). In his view, the latter constitutes the uniqueness of each human being and must never be obliterated by the former.
54.
Şora, Eu & tu & el & ea, 54.
55.
Şora recommends such a “personalist” therapy in Şora, Clipa sşi Timpul, 100; and Firul ierbii, 317. It must be pointed out that the distinction between “person” and “individual” looms large in Şora's writings, and can be traced back to his early phase influenced by Maritain's neo-Thomism and Mounier's personalism.
56.
On this topic, see Şora's revealing postscript to the Romanian translation of Du dialogue intérieur in Despre dialogul interior, 201-14. Also see the final section of Sorin Antohi's essay, “Utopiile unui Mai Ştiutor: Note despre filozofia lui Mihai Şora,” in eds., Antohi and Crăiuţu, Dialog sşi libertate, 17-44.
57.
I borrow this phrase from Vladimir Tismaneanu, Fantasies of Salvation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press , 1998).
58.
See, for example, the moving hymn to hope in Charles Péguy, Men and Saints, trans. Anne and Julian Green (New York: Pantheon, 1944), 232-49.
59.
Şora, Filosoficale, 149. For a provocative characterization of Noica's apolitical philosophy, see E. M. Cioran's statement quoted in Gabriel Liiceanu, The Păltinisş Diary, trans. James ChristianBrown ( Budapest: Central European University Press, 2001), 140.
60.
Mihai Şora, Despre toate ţi ceva în plus; De vorbă cu Leonid Dragomir (About Everything and Something More: Conversations with Leonid Dragomir) (Piteşsti, Romania: Paralela 45, 2005), 56.
61.
Liiceanu, The Păltinisş Diary, 12. In National Identity under Socialism: Identity and Cultural Politics in Ceausşescu's Romania (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1991), Katherine Verdery paid special attention to Constantin Noica's political ideas, but did not discuss Mihai Şora's writings.
62.
Liiceanu, The Păltinisş Diary, xxxi. Noica's own words are telling in this regard: “80 percent will prove unworthy of the hope placed in them, and will use the credit to buy Jaguars, to play roulette, or for erotic intrigues” (Liiceanu, The Păltinisş Diary, 11-12). For an interpretation of Noica's philosophy, in addition to Verdery's book, I also recommend the following exegeses: Sorin Lavric, Ontologia lui Noica. O exegeză (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2005); Ioan Dur, Noica, între dandysm sşi mitul sşcolii (Bucharest: Editura Eminescu, 1994); Andrei Cornea, De la sşcoala de la Atena la sşcoala de la Păltinisş ( Bucharest: Humanitas, 2004); Sorin Antohi, “ Commuting to Castalia: Noica's `School,' Culture, and Power in Communist Romania ,” foreword to the English translation of The Păltinisş Diary, vii-xxiv; and Adrian Marino, “Cazul Noica,” in Adrian Marino, Politică sşi cultură (Iaşsi , Romania: Polirom, 1996).
63.
From a conversation of Liiceanu with Noica on 25 January 1981 , recorded in Liiceanu, The Păltinisş Diary, 167.
