Zamanı Satın Almak

Zamanı Satın Almak

Habertürk — 7 March 2017
Interview by Mehmet Çalışkan

By 2017, Nejat İşler had developed a much clearer philosophy for the life he was trying to build.

Earlier interviews had shown pieces of it.

He disliked the television system.

He wanted less public intrusion.

He had moved toward Gümüşlük.

He had become involved with a local football club.

He had begun writing.

He had survived a major health crisis.

Now, speaking with Mehmet Çalışkan, these separate decisions become part of a coherent idea.

His goal, he says, is:

“Zamanı satın almak.”

To buy time.

Money as a Tool, Not a Scoreboard

This phrase changes the way money appears in the archive.

Conventional success treats money as accumulation.

Earn more.

Own more.

Increase status.

Build security.

İşler defines its value differently.

Money is useful when it allows a person to work less.

If enough money creates the freedom to say no to unnecessary work, then money has purchased something more valuable:

time.

This is one of the most important philosophical statements in the entire archive.

The Logic Had Been Forming for Years

The idea did not appear suddenly in 2017.

In 2010, İşler complained that television consumed too much of his life.

In 2011, he said he did not feel much hunger for conventional success.

In 2012, he questioned what success even meant.

In 2015, he stopped doing television series.

The 2017 interview gives a name to the pattern.

The problem was never simply work.

It was losing control over time.

Time Becomes the Real Currency

This produces a different economy.

Traditional economy:

time → work → money → property

İşler’s preferred economy becomes:

work → enough money → less compulsory work → more time

The direction is reversed.

Money stops being the final objective.

It becomes a mechanism for recovering life.

Property as Obligation

The interview also reveals his growing distance from property.

İşler speaks critically about people becoming trapped by ownership and the conflicts property can create.

Homes.

Land.

Possessions.

Inheritance.

Status.

What is normally described as security can also produce:

responsibility,

fear,

competition,

conflict,

attachment.

For İşler, owning more does not automatically mean being freer.

Sometimes it means having more things that must be protected.

Less Ownership, More Mobility

This helps explain the practical shape of his later life.

The goal is not poverty.

Nor is it a moral rejection of material comfort.

It is reduced dependence.

If fewer things require maintenance, fewer obligations control the day.

That creates mobility.

Mobility creates choice.

Choice creates time.

Istanbul After the Hospital

İşler also speaks about his changing relationship with Istanbul.

After leaving the hospital, he moved toward Bodrum and Gümüşlük.

He says that Istanbul had become a city he no longer fully recognized.

This is important because Istanbul had previously been central to almost every layer of his identity:

• childhood,
• theatre,
• cinema,
• television,
• nightlife,
• celebrity,
• work.

Leaving therefore means more than changing address.

It means loosening one of the strongest structures in his biography.

Work City and Life City

By 2015, İşler had already said that he would go to Istanbul mainly for work and live in Gümüşlük.

The 2017 interview gives that arrangement a deeper meaning.

Istanbul becomes associated with:

• work,
• industry,
• speed,
• visibility,
• obligation.

Gümüşlük becomes associated with:

• distance,
• time,
• local life,
• reduced pressure,
• choice.

The contrast is not absolute, but it is structurally important.

Not Running Away from Life

There is a temptation to interpret Gümüşlük as escape.

But İşler’s own life during this period complicates that reading.

He is involved in:

• football administration,
• writing,
• teaching,
• film work,
• community life.

He is not disappearing.

He is changing the conditions under which he participates.

This is less about withdrawal from life than withdrawal from a specific rhythm.

Mortality Changes the Value of a Day

The health crisis remains the background to the whole interview.

Before 2014, time could be discussed as a labor problem.

Too many hours.

Too many shooting days.

Too little rest.

After 2014, time becomes existential.

A day is not merely a scheduling unit.

It is something finite.

That changes the question from:

How much can I work?

to:

What is this day worth?

Urgency and Slowness

One of the interesting paradoxes in İşler’s post-illness life is the combination of urgency and slowness.

He wants to live more slowly.

But he also wants to postpone less.

These are not contradictions.

A person can reduce unnecessary speed while becoming more decisive about what matters.

Less rushing.

More choosing.

Regret Without Drama

İşler also speaks about regret in a way that fits his broader approach.

He does not build a clean narrative of:

“I regret nothing.”

Nor does he turn the past into a catalogue of mistakes.

The more interesting position is ownership.

What happened belongs to him.

Good decisions.

Bad decisions.

Success.

Failure.

The emphasis is on accepting responsibility without constructing a heroic self-story.

Freedom Is Not Rebellion

This interview also shows how much his definition of freedom has changed.

Earlier public mythology often imagined freedom as:

• nightlife,
• women,
• rebellion,
• not caring,
• leaving whenever you want.

By 2017, freedom is much less theatrical.

It is:

having enough control over your time to choose your obligations.

This is a more mature and materially grounded idea.

A Different Meaning of Independence

Independence does not mean needing nobody.

His Gümüşlük years prove the opposite.

He is deeply involved with:

• a football club,
• local people,
• colleagues,
• writers,
• filmmakers.

So independence here means:

not being structurally trapped.

That is different from emotional isolation.

Buying Time Requires Saying No

The philosophy only works if one can refuse.

More television.

More money.

More visibility.

More projects.

More property.

More career.

This explains why saying no becomes one of the most important acts in İşler’s later career.

No is not merely rejection.

It is a method of protecting time.

A Useful Comparison with 2010

The contrast with 2010 is especially revealing.

2010:
“Amacım bırakıp gitmek.”

The statement is negative.

Leave the system.

Escape the pressure.

2017:
“Zamanı satın almak.”

The statement is positive.

Now he knows what the escape is for.

The first interview identifies the cage.

The second defines the alternative.

A Useful Comparison with 2016

The 2016 Uğur Vardan interview asked another question:

Who should benefit from the time that remains?

That interview emphasized contribution.

Football.

Teaching.

Writing.

The 2017 interview emphasizes structure.

How do you create enough freedom to make those choices possible?

Together they form a coherent philosophy:

first recover your time, then decide how to use it.

A Useful Comparison with 2022

The 2022 Gazete Oksijen interview later complicates the Gümüşlük story.

By then, İşler says the area has changed.

It has become more crowded.

Bodrum has become more urbanized.

He eventually closes his home there.

This is important because it shows that Gümüşlük was never sacred.

The principle was not:

live in Gümüşlük forever.

The principle was:

live where your time belongs more to you.

When the place stops serving that function, the strategy can change.

Place Is Secondary to Autonomy

This makes the philosophy more flexible than a simple “city versus village” narrative.

Istanbul is not evil.

Gümüşlük is not paradise.

What matters is the relationship between:

place,

obligation,

work,

ownership,

time.

The correct geography is whichever arrangement creates more autonomy.

Aging Before Old Age

Although İşler was not yet old, the interview already contains a late-life logic.

How many years remain?

How should they be used?

What is enough?

What does ownership really add?

These questions usually become culturally acceptable only later in life.

His health crisis appears to have accelerated them.

The Hidden Cost of Success

This interview also exposes a paradox that has followed İşler since the beginning.

Success creates freedom.

But success can also consume freedom.

A famous actor earns enough to live comfortably.

But greater success produces:

more offers,

more publicity,

more expectations,

more work.

If every opportunity is accepted, the reward becomes a new form of captivity.

The only way out is to redefine success.

Success as Available Time

By 2017, the alternative definition is clear.

Success is not maximum production.

It is not maximum income.

It is not maximum visibility.

It is having enough control to decide:

• when to work,
• where to live,
• what to refuse,
• whom to help,
• how to spend a day.

That is a radically different measurement system.

Why This Interview Matters

The 7 March 2017 Habertürk interview is one of the central philosophical documents in Nejat İşler’s archive.

Earlier interviews contain frustration, withdrawal and experimentation.

This one contains a clear principle:

time is more valuable than accumulation.

Money matters when it buys freedom from compulsory work.

Property can become obligation rather than security.

Place matters only if it supports autonomy.

And the post-illness life is not organized around maximizing career but around protecting the finite resource that career once consumed:

time.

The phrase “zamanı satın almak” may be the most concise summary of Nejat İşler’s mature life philosophy.