I and Thou

Though Buber's writing can be quite thick (he himself confessed to not understanding all that he wrote, working from a sense of inspiration), his basic premise is incredibly simple: true life is lived in relationship. By relationship, Buber does not mean experiencing or using others, for then we are treating them as objects. But, when we confront and relate to others, we live in the presence of God, the "eternal You." Buber likewise disdains a view of God that confines Him to religious forms and God-space. God is earthy and active, and we know Him as we live out His revelation in the day to day.

Theology is really not my thing, is what I'm coming around to. I and Thou is one of the masterpieces of 20th century philosophy, written in the aftermath of the modernist slaughter of World War I, and gaining new relevance in decades since. In looping elliptical sentences masterfully translated by Walter Kaufman, Buber describes a transition between an I-It view of the world, one of finite systems and ends, towards an infinite I-Thou conversation with the divine spirit.

It's a gorgeous book, and mostly reinforces my take that you either get spirituality, or you don't. And a lot of people who claim to do, probably don't. It's not really something you can put into words. Buber got it.

I'll close with a story. My grandmother was working at show more the American Jewish Committee in New York when Martin Buber made his first visit to the United States in 1951. Every single one of the rabbinical students was desperate to be his secretary for the visit, which is why the director gave it to my grandmother (22 years old, definitely not going to be rabbi, carried herself as a bit of ditz). All of the boys were furious. And as for the great Jewish theologian, well as my grandmother put, "I never felt like more of an 'it' than when I worked for Martin Buber." show less

As the translator's preface says in this edition, this needs to be read like you would a poem because indeed it is a poem. Hence it must be read more than once. In fact, you could probably read it multiple times over the course of your life and never truly master it. And rightfully so. It is not a text to be mastered by one you enter into relation with. In true Buberian fashion and must have an I-Thou encounter with the text itself. Likewise, words cannot do justice to the contents, message, and spirit of this book. Language is not adequate to express its effects. All I have to say - which isn't saying much - and yet which is saying everything - this book has the potential to change your life.

Buber is one of the greatest Jewish thinkers show more of the 20th century and this work was almost an instant classic. I can see why every major theologian cites "I and Thou" in their work. Whether you agree with all his ideas or not - doesn't matter - read it, and have an encounter. show less

“Every real relation with a being or life in the world is exclusive. Its Thou is freed, steps forth, is single, and confronts you. It fills the heavens. This does not mean that nothing else exists; but all else lives in its light. As long as the presence of the relation continues, this its cosmic range is inviolable. But as soon as a Thou becomes It, the cosmic range of the relation appears as an offence to the world, its exclusiveness as an exclusion of the universe.”

Martin Buber's I and Thou is not so much a formal approach to theology as it is a simple answer to "How should I be in the world?" Ethical living is found not in the realm of interiority and constancy, but within dynamic relation to the world. We must respect the show more humanity and complexity of every person sui generis, not only their function in our lives at any particular moment.

This is a very nice introductory ethos. But Buber pushes the extent of the I-Thou relationship further: to the cosmos and to God. And from that position, he also argues that God is in dynamic relation with creation. The model of an omni-max God, almost a force rather than a being, hinders divine relation and makes creation trite. If God is everything already, then the world was created as a bauble and God can only understand us as an It. For creation to be meaningful, God has to grow in relation to it: to be surprised and delighted by our decisions as "created co-creators" (not Buber's term, but I think he would've liked it). We must treat the world and one another in a way that affirms God's presence and presentness, for "the world is not divine sport, it is divine destiny. There is divine meaning in the life of the world, of man, of human persons, of you and of me."

The orthodox alternative, that God is omni-max and unchanging and 'faith' is about what set of beliefs you keep, ends up looking like idolatry in contrast to Buber's theology of compassionate relation. We therefore end up at an empowered existentialism: God didn't create the world teleologically, but instead the meaning of life is dynamic, as the creation uniting God with the world is worked out in mutual and loving relationship. show less

For me, this was quite a challenge. But definitely worth it.

I and Thou is about relationship. Buber describes entering into relation in its purest form as "saying Thou." He does not consider this relation to be a form of "experience." The I-Thou relation is true relation, but experience is another word for what he calls the I-It relation.

I-Thou, he explains early on, may refer to relation with God, a person, a tree, of an "inanimate object." What distinguishes I-Thou is that in the moment of the relation all external concerns and all experience outside the Thou fall away. When this happens--and Buber makes clear that a human being is not capable of living continuously in this state--no matter whether it is with a partner, a river, or show more God, one is in the presence on the Divine.

Buber mentions the Buddha and Buddhism at one point, and I think it is the contrasts of this Thou philosophy with that tradition that appeal to me the most. Both of these spiritualities appear to lack much practical guidance for day-to-day life. But what distinguishes them to me is the one encourages retreat to the monastery and the other requires intense involvement in the world. One demands total discipline; the other, just pausing to be in the present. One, to me, seems virtually unreachable; the other, I feel is within my capacity at any moment.

It sounds like I'm saying this is the easy way to Enlightenment, but I'm not. Putting Enlightenment on a pedestal just feels wrong to me. At that point it becomes just another kind of "salvation." Finding the Divine in the everyday is good enough for me.

I admire Buber now more than any other spiritual writer I've read (though I admit that is a short list). I will definitely seek out more of his work. show less

Martin Buber is a wily cat but he's got some great things to say about relationships. Particularly, his notion of the twofold world and the dynamic relationship relationship in different realms of existence. Buber posits the ideal of relationship in genuine meeting of I-Thou but acknowledges that the world of I-It (or object-ish) must exist as well. That's pretty grounded for someone who waxes on about his encounter with a horse! I prefer the Smith translation for the beauty of language, compared to Kaufmann's arguably "clearer" reading of the text.

This was the one sticking point for me:

"Feelings accompany the metaphysical and metapsychical fact of love, but they do not constitute it; and the feelings that accompany it can be very different." (66)

I've always thought that Kant's discussion of the metaphysical is besides the point. Sure, there are forces in the universe that lie outside of human understanding. That does not mean that our "feeling" of these forces, of which love may be one, is not primary.

I am writing this as a layman of philosophy. I've only read bits of "A Critique of Pure Reason" and am piecing together the knowledge I have of the material vs. the metaphysical.

For Buber, verbs are key. One does not "experience" or "use" the other, the You. One "encounters" or show more "stands against" this being.

This is a lovely and dense piece of spiritual and philosophical wrangling. Whether you are an atheist or evangelical, you probably have some experience of the divine. What that means is truly being a part of the world. show less