Rating: 
Summary: I always return to this book...
Review: The image of the self is incomplete without the image of the other. There are very few books that resonate so meaningfully or reflect the human condition as accurately as does I and Thou. Buber presses upon his reader the importance of engaging all of one's self in experience in order to be fully attuned to one's environment and the entities present in it, not to view the other as separate from the self but as vital and purposeful in its own self.
Rating:
Summary: I always return to this book...
Review: The image of the self is incomplete without the image of the other. There are very few books that resonate so meaningfully or reflect the human condition as accurately as does I and Thou. Buber presses upon his reader the importance of engaging all of one's self in experience in order to be fully attuned to one's environment and the entities present in it, not to view the other as separate from the self but as vital and purposeful in its own self.
Rating: 
Summary: excrutiating
Review: There are two basic ways to interpret the story of the Fall of Man as it appears in Genesis. The first is that Man had an ideal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden, which he ruined by eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The subsequent interplay between Man and God since then consists of an elaborate attempt to reestablish that original Edenic bliss. In this view, Man essentially makes himself worthy of God by returning to a passive, submissive role and yielding to God's will. The alternative understanding of the story is that when God created Man he withheld two things from him: knowledge/reason and eternal life. Having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, Man acquired the capacity to reason and develop knowledge. In order to make sure that Man did not also acquire the infinite lifespan in which to develop this knowledge, God banished him from the Garden. In this view, Man is in the process of becoming God. The subsequent relationship between Man and God consists of God putting obstacles in Man's way, like the multiplicicity of tongues as a result of the Tower of Babel, and man overcoming them. The difference between these two views is stark and explains much of Western history. The first view is a more spiritual and inspirational view; it is grounded in the emotions and the inchoate yearnings of human beings to be comforted. It is a slave ideology, conveying the message that externalities are insignificant and what really matters is a personal relationship with God. It requires no action on the part of Man, merely submission. On the other hand, the second understanding is a call to action on the part of Man and a challenge to God. It is an aspirational view, grounded on the belief that Man is perfectable. It reflects the belief that through reason, increasing knowledge and expanding life spans, Man will one day be God's equal. In this context, Genesis is not a tragedy but a revolutionary manifesto. All of which brings us to Martin Buber's I and Thou. We had to read this in Philosophy and Religion my Freshman year at Colgate and I found it excrutiating reading. Returning to it twenty years later has not helped. Stripped of all the obtuse language, repetition and other kerfluffle, Buber's point is this: humans are capable of two types of relationships, the I-It relationship is what we have with things or people whom we treat as objects. The I-Thou relationship is the type of mutual relationship we have with some people and which he thinks we should have with God. In the I-Thou relationship we recognize others as beings rather than things. (...) Buber's concept of I and Thou, with it's emphasis on recognizing interrelations and dependencies and then immersing oneself in them, resembles Taoist or Buddhist ideas, but it also harkens back to the first reading of Man in the Garden of Eden above. The goal is to experience this kind of completely internalized relationship with God. It is, by and large, an attempt to comfort Man with the notion that it is in fact possible to enjoy such a relationship with mysterious spiritual forces which we can perceive in the world around us but which we can not understand through pure reason. It is static, passive and wholly inner directed. If I understand him properly, which I doubt, the following analogy might help: think of Alexander Pope's image of the chain of being; in Buber's philosophy it suffices to recognize your place as a link in the chain and how you interlock with the other segments and that together you all form God's creation Through this realization, and acceptance of your role, you can then approach God. Simply being and accepting being is enough. It is this understanding of existence that has resulted in Buber being termed a religious existentialist. Buber's theology though, like Existential philosophy, has been utterly rejected in Western culture and a good thing it is. Instead we, by and large, believe in the infinite perfectability of Man. We are not content to live out our existence as mere links in a chain; we believe that we can follow that chain to it's end and understand God's secrets, thereby becoming God ourselves. (...)It is easy to see how this activist, outer directed understanding of Man's role in the Universe has led to the ascendancy of Western Civilization. While other peoples, believing in a Buberesque sufficiency of their current existence, have dithered away their days in purely spiritual and contemplative pursuits, we in the West have been driven by the idea of Progress. Perhaps this is even the best term to oppose to Existentialism; our culture is, in nonpolitical terms, Progressive rather than Existential. We refuse to just be, choosing instead a process of becoming, always becoming, whether that means becoming more intelligent, longer lived, or whatever. At any rate, the book is still just godawful--impenetrable prose joined to silly ideas--and whoever decided that eighteen year olds should start out their college educations by being required to read it should be flogged. GRADE: F
Rating:
Summary: excrutiating
Review: There are two basic ways to interpret the story of the Fall of Man as it appears in Genesis. The first is that Man had an ideal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden, which he ruined by eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The subsequent interplay between Man and God since then consists of an elaborate attempt to reestablish that original Edenic bliss. In this view, Man essentially makes himself worthy of God by returning to a passive, submissive role and yielding to God's will. The alternative understanding of the story is that when God created Man he withheld two things from him: knowledge/reason and eternal life. Having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, Man acquired the capacity to reason and develop knowledge. In order to make sure that Man did not also acquire the infinite lifespan in which to develop this knowledge, God banished him from the Garden. In this view, Man is in the process of becoming God. The subsequent relationship between Man and God consists of God putting obstacles in Man's way, like the multiplicicity of tongues as a result of the Tower of Babel, and man overcoming them. The difference between these two views is stark and explains much of Western history. The first view is a more spiritual and inspirational view; it is grounded in the emotions and the inchoate yearnings of human beings to be comforted. It is a slave ideology, conveying the message that externalities are insignificant and what really matters is a personal relationship with God. It requires no action on the part of Man, merely submission. On the other hand, the second understanding is a call to action on the part of Man and a challenge to God. It is an aspirational view, grounded on the belief that Man is perfectable. It reflects the belief that through reason, increasing knowledge and expanding life spans, Man will one day be God's equal. In this context, Genesis is not a tragedy but a revolutionary manifesto. All of which brings us to Martin Buber's I and Thou. We had to read this in Philosophy and Religion my Freshman year at Colgate and I found it excrutiating reading. Returning to it twenty years later has not helped. Stripped of all the obtuse language, repetition and other kerfluffle, Buber's point is this: humans are capable of two types of relationships, the I-It relationship is what we have with things or people whom we treat as objects. The I-Thou relationship is the type of mutual relationship we have with some people and which he thinks we should have with God. In the I-Thou relationship we recognize others as beings rather than things. (...) Buber's concept of I and Thou, with it's emphasis on recognizing interrelations and dependencies and then immersing oneself in them, resembles Taoist or Buddhist ideas, but it also harkens back to the first reading of Man in the Garden of Eden above. The goal is to experience this kind of completely internalized relationship with God. It is, by and large, an attempt to comfort Man with the notion that it is in fact possible to enjoy such a relationship with mysterious spiritual forces which we can perceive in the world around us but which we can not understand through pure reason. It is static, passive and wholly inner directed. If I understand him properly, which I doubt, the following analogy might help: think of Alexander Pope's image of the chain of being; in Buber's philosophy it suffices to recognize your place as a link in the chain and how you interlock with the other segments and that together you all form God's creation Through this realization, and acceptance of your role, you can then approach God. Simply being and accepting being is enough. It is this understanding of existence that has resulted in Buber being termed a religious existentialist. Buber's theology though, like Existential philosophy, has been utterly rejected in Western culture and a good thing it is. Instead we, by and large, believe in the infinite perfectability of Man. We are not content to live out our existence as mere links in a chain; we believe that we can follow that chain to it's end and understand God's secrets, thereby becoming God ourselves. (...)It is easy to see how this activist, outer directed understanding of Man's role in the Universe has led to the ascendancy of Western Civilization. While other peoples, believing in a Buberesque sufficiency of their current existence, have dithered away their days in purely spiritual and contemplative pursuits, we in the West have been driven by the idea of Progress. Perhaps this is even the best term to oppose to Existentialism; our culture is, in nonpolitical terms, Progressive rather than Existential. We refuse to just be, choosing instead a process of becoming, always becoming, whether that means becoming more intelligent, longer lived, or whatever. At any rate, the book is still just godawful--impenetrable prose joined to silly ideas--and whoever decided that eighteen year olds should start out their college educations by being required to read it should be flogged. GRADE: F
Rating: 
Summary: Hmmm...
Review: There is something about the German language (perhaps it's the abundance of compound words, or the complicated grammar) that promotes this kind of philosophy - by - obfuscation. The phenomenon is widespread, (cf. Hegel, Heidegger, Adorno, et al). Take a relatively simple idea, preferrably one based on sentiment rather than logic, and then try to convey it as obscurely as possible through the use of compound words, vast sentences brimming with dependent clauses, and the most paradoxical lines of reasoning available. The result will then be hailed as a masterpiece by those who make a living out of teaching courses on this material (and those who take the courses and are afraid to admit they didn't understand much). Out of the idea that the relations of the self to others are very important (and that God is the most important of those others), Buber has crafted this impenatrable monstrosity. Sadly, there are many others like him out there, whose livelihood comes from being as verbose as humanly possible. I recommend as an antidote Popper's wonderful little essay "Against Big Words."
Rating:
Summary: recommended edition trans. by the able Kaufmann
Review: This book should destroy any psychological notion that people exist in separate subjectivities. Buber's beautifully written psycho-mystical prose leaves one breathless. A deserved classic.
Rating:
Summary: READ IT! READ IT! READ IT!
Review: This book speaks of the true nature that is at the centre of all religion. it is difficult to read at times and you can't read it all in one day and comprehend most of what it says. The translation may not do it full justice so if you can read it in German by all means do. It is an extremely profound book that can change your life if you are willing to let it. The book talks about how life is just a collection of thoughts and process, and that is "I and It". Occaisionally we MAY experience these beautiful moments that are gone as fast as they came, these are "I and Thou", hence the title. If I were to endorse only one book this would be it. Everyone who can read should definitely read Martin Buber's "I and Thou".
Rating:
Summary: An obvious - but thought provoking essay on relationships
Review: This book was truly amazing and I continual refer to it with my relationships with other people. And that is the central commandment - to realize that we have relationships with people, trees, dogs, and god (an I-You relationship). We do not experience the abovementioned as objects (an I-It relationship) but they have life that reciprocates our actions. Buber explains our relationships and how we should go about interpreting them. For example, animals and plants are a relationship beneath language, people our related to within language, and finally the eternal you (god) is above our function of language. "Feeling dwell in man, but man dwells in his love. This is no metaphor but actuality: love does not cling to an I, as if the You were merely its "content" or object; it is between I and You. Whoever does not know this...does not know love..." The only way one can find themselves is to experience the relationship. I highly recommend this book, but I do suggest a dictionary nearby because the wording can get rather tricky. Admittedly it is a difficult read, but taking your time with each paragraph and rereading when necessary, I am confident that if you truly want to find out more about a simple but thought provoking philosophy you will find yourself done with the book in a matter of weeks.
Rating: 
Summary: Use the Kaufmann translation instead
Review: This is a great book, written originally in German. The German language has two second person singular pronouns: "dich", and "du". "Du" is reserved for intimate friends. RG Smith, in the 30's, translated Buber's book "Ich und Du", rendering "du" as "Thou". In 1969, after Buber died, his son asked Walter Kaufmann, himself a well-known philosopher and translater, to retranslate the text. Kaufmann renders "du" as "You". I think this makes all the difference in the world, whether you think of "Thou" as aloof and transcendent, or as "You", intimate and immanent. I recommend the Kaufmann translation over the Smith.
Rating:
Summary: Use the Kaufmann translation instead
Review: This is a great book, written originally in German. The German language has two second person singular pronouns: "dich", and "du". "Du" is reserved for intimate friends. RG Smith, in the 30's, translated Buber's book "Ich und Du", rendering "du" as "Thou". In 1969, after Buber died, his son asked Walter Kaufmann, himself a well-known philosopher and translater, to retranslate the text. Kaufmann renders "du" as "You". I think this makes all the difference in the world, whether you think of "Thou" as aloof and transcendent, or as "You", intimate and immanent. I recommend the Kaufmann translation over the Smith.
|
