First things first. Here's a link to the book. https://ia800206.us.archive.org/16/items/IAndThou_572/BuberMartin-i-and-thou.pdf
I've written an intro to clarify--- as best I can-- some of Buber's obscure concepts and terms to make the book a bit more accessible. I've also included philosopher, Ran Lahev's very short video clip introducing the book and its meaning. But first, a few words on the the group reading.
I thought about how to coordinate this, and here's the tentative plan (if anybody has alternative suggestions I'm open to hearing them). The book is 120 pp. and divided into 3 sections.
I propose that we leave comments pertaining to passages from Section 1 (p. 3-34) for the first week (i.e. from today til Tuesday, 10/1/19. Hopefully these comments will get each of us to think of things from different angles, and enter into discussions about section 1. (Note: I'm not suggesting that you read only section 1. How much or little you read, and at what pace is entirely up to you. However, the writing is difficult, and I think it's best to break the discussions up just as Buber broke the book up into the 3 parts.)
If week one goes well and all or some of you want to continue, then we would leave comments pertaining to passages from section 2 (pp.37-72) for the second week (i.e. from Tuesday 10/1 to 10/8).
If all goes well again, we would do the same for the 3rd part of the book during week 3. (Section 3: pp. 75-120)
After that comments would be open for discussing the book as a whole in any way you wish to do so.
In general, I don't like to structure things too much as far as discussions go.. So write about the sections and then the entire book in whatever way you see fit. Comments might include, for example, thoughts about quoted passages, questions about the meanings of certain words/terms and phrases, examples of how Buber's writing does or does not jibe with your own life experience, thoughts on how it might apply to daily living in various settings (home, work, school, leisure activities, etc.) and just about anything else that the book brings to mind. If you have comments or questions about this post, that's fine. But remember, this post is only an attempt to help you understand Buber. It's not about what I think or believe. It is my hope that your comments and questions will elicit replies/responses from other readers. Hopefully my own input by way of comments will have some value as well.
I know that 3 weeks for a little book seems like a long time. But I think it's just about right for a book that so many readers have called "cryptic" and "obscure." It is philosophy, but it is not written as discursive philosophy but in a style that one philosopher has called "descriptive evocation." Through poetic aphorisms, Buber tries to evoke experiences and insights that are almost ineffable. Nietzsche had a profound influence on him in that regard, but since Buber's work has a mystical dimension, it is often difficult to understand. It has perplexed many readers to the point that Buber felt compelled to write a postscript in 1957, 35 years after its publication to help clarify some of the issues that had caused confusion. (The postscript is not in the free online version that I have provided a link to) In that postscript of 1957 he writes:
"Again and again readers have turned to me to ask about the meaning of this and that. For a long time I answered each individually, but I gradually realized that I was not able to do justice to the demand laid upon me...So I have had to set about giving a public answer, first of all to some essential questions which are bound together by their meaning." (Buber: p. 124)
Having read it, I'm not convinced the postscript clarifies the meaning of the text as much as Buber had hoped. In the rest of this post, I'll do my best to shed some light on the unusual terms and concepts employed in the book. I'll also leave links to reliable secondary sources available for free online, such as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry for Buber, which has a pretty clear summary of the book, as well as some of his other work and his biography. So with that, I'll jump right into the main theme/s and concepts you will come across in section one.
_______________________________________________________________
Introduction to I and Thou (concepts, terms and themes)
Following many interpreters in philosophy, I will use the word YOU in place of THOU, primarily because the latter is archaic and is not used in real encounters in our society. Because Thou is used in religious contexts ( e.g. religious services, readings of the Bible) it was used in the translation we're using. Later translations (e.g. that of Walter Kaufmann) have dropped it. What's important is to understand what Buber means by "You" or "Thou" which is very different from most traditional understandings of either word. For example, on page 9, Buber begins describing an "I-You" relation between a human being and a tree. Most of us don't routinely address trees with the pronoun, YOU, which means that this ordinary word YOU (Thou in the 1937 translation) is being used in a very unusual way.
Buber starts the book with a compact aphoristic passage that turns out to state some of the major premises of the book. The opening lines must be at least somewhat clear in order to understand what follows. He writes:
"To man [i.e. all people] the world is twofold, in accordance with his twofold attitude. The attitude of man is twofold in accordance with the primary words he speaks. The primary words are not isolated words. The one primary word is the combination I-Thou. The other...is the combination I-It; wherein without a change in the primary word, one of the words, He and She can replace 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: p. 3)
Also on the first page we find 2 very important statements:
>>"The primary word I-YOU can only be spoken with the whole being." and
>> "The primary word I-IT can never be spoken with the whole being" (ibid)
I'll try to convey a sense of what he means when he speaks of "the whole being" by way of examples. But for now I just wanted to flag the term "Whole Being" or "Whole Person." These terms and the ways of living and being that they stand for are central. Put in abstract, intellectual terms, we are made "whole" only in relationships with other people, nature or God. Hopefully that will become more clear below.
Another thing to notice is that when Buber uses the term "primary word" he isn't talking specifically about language in the usual sense of words and symbols. Rather, he means by primary, that which is most basic metaphysically. It's common to believe that the most basic reality in the human realm is individual consciousness, the self or the "I." But according to Buber, the "I" doesn't really exist without relationships. While many philosophers and psychologists start out from the principle of the individual ego or self, Buber says you only become an individual through relationships with others.
"In the beginning is relation." (Buber: p. 18)
"There is no I TAKEN IN ITSELF [sic]..." (Buber: p. 4)
We can't take these statements at face value or we'd be lost in a forest of pronouns. Yet they are stated as axioms. That is, he does not present arguments to prove their truth, but simply states them as though they are obvious facts that must be presupposed to make sense of life. So, how should we interpret these words, and what is their status? I interpret them statements of what Buber thinks are profound metaphysical truths. Metaphysical truths are those alleged truths that claim to go beyond our personal perspectives and ordinary experiences (the way things appear to us)
in order to reveal the truth of the way things really are (which usually differs from ordinary or everyday understanding). Just as optical illusions can lead us to "see" things in a distorted way (e.g. 2 lines of equal length can appear to have very different lengths), ordinary understanding of the world and the place of human beings in it can be distorted by concepts and attitudes we adopt towards other beings (both humans and beings in nature including animals, trees, etc. ).
For most of us, and for most modern philosophers, "I" experience myself as the locus of consciousness. Experience is, we tend to feel, happening "in here/ in my head." Each of us appears to be independent or separate from all others mentally and emotionally. Each of us would probably consider it to be trivially true that we can describe our experience accurately by saying things like: I interact with others; I bond with them , I break relations off from them, I think about them, love, hate, like, dislike, or respond neutrally to them, I make plans with them, I work with or for some of them, and so on.
We say such things without any sense of mystery, feeling it to be obvious. After all, it was hundreds of years ago that the early modern philosopher, Renee Descartes provided a solid foundation for the existence of the independent subject or self.
I think therefore I am/ Cogito ergo sum.
So this self-evident assertion of the individual as a thinking subject is the basis of most modern Western philosophy and predominates culture, as I stated above. But despite our experience of ourselves as separate beings, Buber says this understanding is something like the philosophical equivalent of that optical illusion I mentioned. It appears to be true, but in Reality the individualistic outlook is not the most basic one, but a warped version of the metaphysical truth as he understands it. Buber holds that the most basic reality is the way we relate to others (be it You, He, She, or It). My sense of being a self only arises after I've been in relationships with others. From a theoretical standpoint we can understand this outlook when we consider the fact that babies don't have language, concepts of "self" or "identities." Those things come with socialization.
Buber say that ultimately there are two basic ways of relating, and each is governed by a basic underlying attitude toward that to which we are relating at any given time.
"To Man the world is twofold in accordance with his twofold attitude." (p.1)
This duality of human nature in terms of basic attitudes is broken down into the two most basic poles of experience.
A) The I-YOU mode of relating
and
B) The I-IT mode of relating.
Because we are almost always living in the I-IT mode of relating, I will start there. When I relate to others (be it people or other beings in nature) I experience them in terms of an attitude that emphasizes "my" thoughts, impressions, feelings, desires, interests, curiosities, etc.( p. 4) where Buber writes:
" I perceive something. I am sensible of [i.e. I sense] something. I imagine something. I will something. I feel something. I think something....This and the like establish the realm of IT." (Buber: p. 4)
All of these examples have in common the fact that I am concerned with various objects of my selective attention.
The world of I-IT relations is divided into the thinking subject ("I') and all those "somethings" (thoughts, experiences, , memories, plans) which become intentional objects of "my" thoughts, desires, sensations plans and the like. This is not to say the I-IT mode is "bad." It is actually necessary for everyday life, and within it there are various gradations of relating some of which approximate the I-YOU more than others (Buber discussed this aspect of his thought in later works, see Sarah Scott link below).
In the I-YOU mode of relating I experience others (in society, nature or the realm of spiritual , life) as undivided, whole beings that can't be dissected or broken into parts without losing the connection with the fullness of the Other person. Usually 'I' relate to others in terms of partial or selective aspects in which I am interested. When riding the bus I experience the person at the wheel only-- or at least mainly-- as a "bus driver" ( an occupational role) which is only one role s/he plays in life. I don't ENCOUNTER THE OTHER AS A WHOLE BEING but as an assemblage of parts to which I selectively attend, focusing on some particular aspect/s of the being (such as personality, looks, intelligence, career, hobbies, fashion sense et. al) and ignoring others according to my partial interests and goals. The person who lectures in the classroom is the "teacher" to me. Only rarely do I meet that person and encounter them as a full human being with an irreducible uniqueness and wholeness. Much, perhaps most of life is lived in the context of selective attention governed by our conscious and unconscious desires, beliefs, biases, memories and plans
Examples of I-It relations:
>>>I walk onto a bus and barely notice the bus driver. I notice her quickly and perhaps don't exchange any words. Nevertheless I rely on bus-drivers routinely to get around. Here the encounter between me and other is almost entirely absent. The other is experienced mainly as a means to an end; a tool to get a job done. A thing to transport me from A to B. He or she is thus objectified.
>>> I notice an acquaintance from work on the same bus and strike up a conversation. We make "small talk" recognizing each other by means of talk about work, what other people we know are like, movies and TV shows we might like or dislike, sports events, music, etc. We might also try to get a bit friendlier by asking questions about the other (curiosity) or wondering what they might be thinking about us, or asking them if they care to go out to a movie sometime, etc. All of this is totally normal, and we take all of this for granted. It's how we are even as we get to know people really well.
>>> I see a stray cat and feel a strong desire to get it to a shelter for strays or a vet. I care about the cat. The attitude is still dominated by the attitude of me being a separate being who might "do something about" a situation that disturbs me. It's a kind of emotionally laden trouble-shooting. It's a very good thing we can notice the misfortunes of others, reflect on it and be motivated to intervene, but it's still an experience not of the cat as a whole being, but as a "cat-in-trouble." We're still feeling separate from the being and slapping labels on it to figure out how to control the situation-- indeed for the better in this example. But the focus here is not ethics. It's basic attitude toward that to which I'm relating. And at the moment I'm only noticing things about the cat that require intervention.
The key insight is that all of these examples reveal a sort of practical attitude in which I'm not really with the other person or being as a "Whole Person" (Buber) but rather my way of relating is "partial." The root word of partial is part, and we break ourselves and others into parts all the time to communicate and function. In the first case it's most obvious. Here is a human being capable of being with others in a rich variety of ways. But for the moment I notice them (if at all) merely as a fraction of their wholeness. I abstract everything from the human being except for one little role called "bus driver." That's it.
In the the second example, it may seem that I am relating to the whole person, but as is normal most of the time, I'm categorizing them and myself thus breaking them down into parts. I take the attitude of co-worker, acquaintance and prospective friend. I try to figure out what to say next that might make the conversation go smoother. To do that, I categorize more (e.g. I think s/he's a movie buff, or so I heard, so I'll ask them if they'd like to hang out and see a movie some time. Maybe that'll break the ice." ) all of this has to do with what philosophers call instrumental reason. We see others as means to ends. This can be either morally good or bad, enriching or debasing, fun or tedious. The point isn't to judge but to see beneath the illusion that we're usually encountering others as Whole Beings. The cat, based on anything I wrote, is experienced as a perhaps lovely, but endangered animal that needs to be moved to another situation for help. This again is instrumental thinking. It's about means and ends. "How can I get this cat to a shelter for strays? Let's see, do I have enough for a cab? Let me dial 911." etc. This is all great, but it's not a spiritual encounter with what Buber calls the Being of the other, that is I am not "fully present" with the cat, but experiencing him/her through a filter of selective attention governed by the attitude of means-to-ends thinking. We spend most of our lives -- even with lovers and spouses-- in such a mode of being, according to Buber.
Examples of I-YOU relations:
Now lets take very similar situations but emphasize what Buber sometimes has called a "gestalt-shift" during which my attitude changes from that of the I-IT mode to that of the I-YOU mode of being. Maybe then the concept of "encountering the other as a whole being" will begin to make sense.
>>I notice the same friend I ran into on the bus; this time in the a park where we walk and talk together. Though at first things are pretty much the same as last time (chatting and becoming friendly) something happens unexpectedly. Two dogs start barking at each other aggressively, and the owners are pulling them back to keep them from fighting. But suddenly, out of the blue, one of the dogs for no clear reason turns around noticing me and my friend. He lets out the weirdest sound, not a bark, but some kind of unique yelp that I've never hear but it sounds absurd and funny in the situation. The dog is also making the most uncanny face, an expression that immediately, along with the yelping sound, makes both me and the friend break out into hilarious laughter at the same time.We are laughing without any cares, without self-consciousness of any kind, we aren't judging or categorizing one another. I'm not wondering whether my friend likes dogs generally or not. I might ask that later on. For now we are, and I can't stress this word enough, together. The thing about togetherness is it can't be broken down into "parts." Laughing-with-YOU is a spontaneous, here-and-now unfolding which is unencumbered by plans, memories, wishes, regrets. The absurd sometimes can jerk us out of auto-pilot and transport us into a mode where I am simply "receiving" a person and/or dog or both in a totally open way that has nothing to do with changing them or changing my self, or achieving any goals (means-ends instrumentality). Hilarity of the absurd is one way of inadvertently undergoing a gestalt-shift from the usual mundane attitude of relating to an I-THOU. My friend and I experienced each other outside of any social roles, norms or judgments for a minute or so. Being transported outside of myself, or being literally "beside myself" as in stepping outside my usual identity or ego, is called ekstasis in Greek , which is where we get the mystical-sounding word "Ecstasy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_(philosophy) An I-YOU experience has an ecstatic quality in the sense that while I'm right in the midst of others in this world (nothing other-worldly going on here) yet I'm transported by way of a transient but vital connection with beings that I exist together with in a situation.
The laughter may have been side-splitting, but it subsides. Yet now my friend and I have (without planning or seeking anything) bonded in a truly authentic way. Nothing about either of our responses was a put-on. Nothing was done for the sake of "making the right impression." What happened unfolded with a Zen-like simplicity and ease. And when it was over we returned, perhaps, to our conversation, but we were not the same. We had looked into each other's eyes during the shared hilarity, seen each other's expressions and that of the dog, taking all of it in without thinking about any of it, but just enjoying this being-together in the moment that was so absurd to both of us. This I-THOU encounter, this irreducible togetherness can occur uninvitedly or during a dance, or while making love (though self-consciousness can hinder the openness in those circumstances) or just holding hands quietly on a bench with one's spouse of 40 years, feeling that bond and togetherness with nothing awkward in the silences. All these and others (Buber talks about a Tree on p. 9 ff) may not last, but they sustain us in an afterglow of truly feeling that life is not alone; that I am not cut off or apart; that the game is worth the candle because I can become fully present with other people and nature, and thus find a kind of wholeness that allows me to feel at one with others (which is togetherness). This isn't done in the "astral realm" or "heaven" or anything like that, rather the spiritual mystery that Buber calls God is found here and now in the middle of our everyday lives. In philosophical terms, God is immanent or present in all beings if we would open our eyes and hearts.
Buber knows that atheists and agnostics read, and often got something out of the book. Because Buber has a pantheistic tendency, or at least a view that God is immanent in all personal, social and natural beings*, it's possible to say without a belief in any particular theology, that there is a spiritual wholeness that can be felt at times. That the world seems more vivid at those times, as if it were aware along with us.
Anyway, this is an attempt using anecdotes, analogies, metaphors and examples to communicate the differences between I-IT living and I-THOU living; and to attempt a description of how we can and do transition from one to the other and back in ordinary situations. Most of all, this is not a mysticism of retreat from this world to another "higher" or "purer" one. Buber's mysticism can appeal to the nonreligious person who can open up and simply appreciate being-with-others.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
*Buber describes his pantheism in the postscript of 1957, which isn't contained in the free online pdf. He compares his views to Spinoza. Spinoza said that we can find God in 2 different realms: that of "spiritual being" and "natural being." Buber emphasizes a third realm which he calls *personal being.* It is there that we may find God or spiritual "presence" not only through our I-YOU relations with people, but in relation with God understood as, in his own words, "The Eternal You" ("The Eternal Thou" in our translation). Philosopher Sarah Scott claims that Buber stated that he found God, The Eternal You, in his wife. God is not "up there" or only approachable through esoteric yoga exercises and such. Those are fine too. But Buber wants to stress that we are already intimately involved with all kinds of beings that-- given a fundamental change of attitude-- might become for us The Eternal You. (Buber: p.135)
**Being-with-others is Heidegger's phrase, but it seems apt here, and I suspect he was influenced to some extent by Buber's I and Thou, as was his one-time student, Emmanuel Levinas).
_________________________________________________
Here's an excellent 7 minute intro to I and Thou by philosopher, Ran Lahev. If you find it helpful, there are 2 others by him that follow this one. If you go the Lahev's channel you can find them there.
Links and Online Resources:
>>This online encycolpedia of philosophy entry on Buber is quite informative and contains a summary of I and Thou.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/buber/
>> Interesting article about Philosopher and ethicist, Sarah Scott [who wrote the IEP article referenced above] playing Martin Buber at the Jewish Museum, in a theatrical reading Buber's writings, as well as mock interviews and spontaneous conversations with audience members after the show. Interesting article about what must have been an interesting event:
https://stories.thejewishmuseum.org/why-do-we-hold-these-talks-if-we-dont-expect-that-in-some-way-they-will-change-us-wish-you-were-here-39a3158642ff
No comments:
Post a Comment