Talk:Martin Buber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Philosophy template

I have been thinking about the philosophy template (which I originally added to this page). I was reading on the template's discussion page and became somewhat convinced that we could do without it. What this would require is taking the most relevant information out and putting it in the article. The benefits would include extra space, less clutter, and a more professional presentation (the "quick facts" approach is actually misleading). I think I will get on this, but comments are welcome. --Vector4F 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The salvagable information in the template seems as follows:
  • Major philosophical schools: Existentialism, Theism (both mentioned in intro summary)
  • Main Interests: Metaphysics, Ethics, Philosophy of Religion, Judaism, Theology, Sociology, Anthropology
  • Notable Ideas: Dialogic Principle (explained in philosophy section)
  • Influences: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant, Feuerbach (mentioned in life and philosophy sections)
  • Influenced: Scholem, Barth, Berdyaev, Brunner, R. Niebuhr, H. R. Niebuhr, Tillich, Benjamin
I will start integrating this information into the article. --Vector4F 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the information about Herzel is wrong. This page states that Herzel did not acknowledge the need for religion and culture in the new state. He said complimentary things about the Jewish faith and of the orthodox believers.

[edit] Article Organization

I've added some subsections for further work. I hope to get to filling these in soon. Also it may be prudent to shorten the life section. --Vector4F 10:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • filled in some content to the philo section. feel free to change... i'm a fan of buber and have read just about all his works, but it's been a while since i've tackled it in a scholarly way. Oldseed 07:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Please create a redirect from "Buber"

Looks like this has been done. —Ashley Y 08:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounciation

How do you pronounce "Buber"? —Ashley Y 08:19, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is like "Boober". --goethean ॐ 19:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books Named After Nietzsche Quote

Part of a favorite quote of mine by Nietzsche:

"Good and evil, and joy and woe, and I and thou--coloured vapours did they seem to me before creative eyes. The creator wished to look away from himself,--thereupon he created the world."

--Friedrich Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra, pg. 17 in Thomas Common translation, in Section: "Backworldsmen")

I just looked at the names of Buber's two books ("Good and Evil" and "I and Thou") and realized the connection. I don't know if this is well known or not. Does anybody have thoughts on this?

Buber was strongly influenced by Nietzsche and this is probably the major source of his existential bent. The concept for I-Thou is related to the Nietzsche quote, but the specific word pairs (I-It, I-Thou) are, per Buber's explanation, taken from other sources. Buber wrote in "I and Thou" that Nietzsche "understood true relation" (Kaufmann trans.), which we might take to mean Buber understands the interpersonal psychology of Nietzsche's work (but Buber is not specific on this). In addressing that specific quote from "Thus Spake Zarathustra", Buber certainly agrees that reality is relational and that this nature comes from God, who is the eternal Thou.
I am not sure if Nietzsche makes an appearance in "Good and Evil", so I would have to check, but this is a distinct possibility. --Vector4F 09:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy section

The article needs an exposition of Buber's philosophy. In fact, there also needs to be a seperate article on the subject to go into a little more depth (I was thinking of the title "Dialogic Principle" or something like that). Do you think you could collect and tighten the above for "publishing"? I was thinking of three elements for the philosophy section. First, Buber's major I-Thou thesis, what it is and isn't, and what it means (according to Buber). Second, The dialogical inquiry into religion, introducing Buber's thesis on God and religion in general. Third, Buber's definition of man and its existential leanings. --Vector4F 15:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The work you describe would take a very large article, if not a book. It is much beyond me; perhaps we could collaborate. Yesselman 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, collaborate of course. We certainly dont need a book-length - even the article on Hegel isn't too long. Maybe 5 paragraphs, tops, on philosophy for this aricle and eight or so for the article on dialogue. I've lent out my "Life of Dialogue" book that goes over the material, so I've sort of delayed in getting to it. Since you've laid out some material here, I think we have a good start on breaking it down a little and hammering out a skeleton. I think if we handle this part first, then we can implement his themes in the sections on Hasidism and Zionism. Comments and criticisms are appreciated. --Vector4F 02:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
OK. Please take the lead. I have bought "Life of Dialogue" from Amazon and will be getting it in a few days.Yesselman 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I just rewrote the philosophy section. It's long, so I will see about cutting it down and moving the whole version to its own page. Some things don't need to appear on this page (for example, the note about the translation). I will try to move on and explain Buber's work on Hassidism and tie that into his mystical approach to things. --Vector4F 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Types of Meeting

From FINDING GOD: Ten Jewish Responses by Rifat Sonsino & Daniel B, Syme: Copyright 1986 by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations; ISBN 0807403121; Page 88:

How do we establish a dialogue with others? Buber says that we relate to others in two distinct ways. One is "I-It" and the other "I-thee"

1. "I-IT"—

This relationship is one one of "experiencing and using." The person (in this case, "I") who "uses" the other to satisfy personal needs relates to the other as an object, an "It." For example, when a cab driver takes a passenger to a designated place and gets paid for that service, the relationship between the two is one of "use." Each is "using" the other for personal benefit. ......

2. "I-thee"—

"I and thee" does not mean exclusively "I and G-D." It refers to an intimate relationship between the subject ("I") and any other being or thing, including G-D.
Buber speaks of "I-thee" as a higher relationship than "I-It," one in which the two parties fully accept one another. One does not "use" the other; one does not judge the other. In this real encounter, there is mutual confirmation of their separate selves. It is as if the two have the capacity to feel each other's pains and joys.
In this mutual relationship of "I-thee," the subject does not lose its identity. In other words, the "I" does not become one with the "thee." Buber, who is no mystic, does not claim that in an "I-thee" meeting the two parties reach a total communion. On the contrary, each one retains his/her individuality, remains separate from the other, and, yet, completely accepts and confirms the other. ....

In Summary—

Martin Buber introduced a new way of thinking and relating to others. In doing so, he exposed one of our human weaknesses, namely our treating others as objects, "using" them as things or relating to them for personal benefit. In his terminology, we turn them into an "It." As long as we concentrate only on our own selves, we may be able to gain comfort and prosperity in life but will never be able to become genuine human beings. That is only possible through an "I-thee" relationship which elevates us to a higher plane of existence. "The relation with man is the real smile of the relation with G-D; in it true address receives true response" (I and Thou, p. 103).
It is by genuinely relating to others as "thou" that we meet our "Eternal thou," G-D. This is not done by denying the world and our work in it. On the contrary, it is within the context of how everyday life is lived that G-D is truly revealed.

Yesselman 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I and thee

From Martin Buber's I and Thou; ISBN: 0684717255; p. 14.

Walter Kaufman translates 'I-Thou' as 'I—You' {better, for english, I-thee as in "with this ring, I thee wed".}.

I-thee sounds unfamiliar. What we are accustomed to is I-Thou. But man's attitudes are manifold, and Thou and You are not the same. Nor is Thou very similar to the German Du {thee}.
German lovers say Du to one another, and so do friends. Du is spontaneous and unpretentious, remote from formality, pomp, and dignity.
What lovers or friends say Thou one another? Thou is scarcely ever said spontaneously.
Thou immediately brings to mind God; Du {thee} does not. And the God of whom it makes us think is not the G-D to whom one might cry out in gratitude, despair, or agony, not the G-D to whom one complains or prays spontaneously: it is the God of the pulpits, the God of the holy tone.
When men pray spontaneously or speak directly to G-D, without any mediator, without any intervention of formulas, when they speak as their heart tells them to speak instead of repeating what is printed, do they say Thou?

Yesselman 15:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Relationship

From Martin Buber's I and Thou; ISBN 0684717255; p.127. <Comment on the phrase in Buber--whose work centered around the ideals of religious consciousness, interpersonal relations, and community.>

In the relation to G-D, unconditional exclusiveness and unconditional inclusiveness are one. For those who enter into the absolute relationship, nothing particular retains any importance—neither things nor beings, neither earth nor heaven—but everything is included in the relationship. For entering into the pure relationship does not involve ignoring everything but seeing everything in the thee, not renouncing the world but placing it upon its proper ground. Looking away from the world is no help toward G-D; staring at the world is no help either; but whoever beholds the world in him stands in his presence. "World here, G-D there"—that is It-talk; and "G-D in the world"—that, too, is It-talk; but leaving out nothing, leaving nothing behind, to comprehend all—all the world—in comprehending the the, giving the world its due and truth, to have nothing besides G-D but to grasp everything in him, that is the perfect relationship.

Yesselman 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinozistic Mysticism

Mysticism is that INTERACTING TOTALITY that is more than the sum of its parts.

1. Imagine that you and the room you are sitting in as one corpuscle. Feel the

organic interdependence of the Parts.

2. Imagine as you drive down a main arterial highway that you are part of the blood traffic—where each vehicle has its assigned task for the perpetuation of your society. When you stop at a red light, feel you are a corpuscle of the blood stopping at a heart valve. FEEL the organic interdependence of the Parts.
3. Imagine you are conducting a large orchestra when that perfect chord is hit. Feel the rapture of love that flows over you—the need for every player, every instrument, the audience, the hall itself, the Universe itself.

Yesselman 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buber and Hasidism

<Comment on the followong phrase in Martin Buber, 3rd paragraph--From 1903 he became occupied with the Jewish Hasidism movement.>

Kindly see first Spinozistic Mysticism.

From Martin Buber's The Life of Dialogue; 1955, 2002 4th Edition; 0415284759; p. 31:

The unity which the ecstatic experiences when he has brought all his former multiplicity into

oneness is not a relative unity, bounded by the existence of other individuals. It is the absolute, unlimited oneness which includes all others. The only true accompaniment of such experience is silence, for any attempt at communication places the ecstatic back in the world of multiplicity. Yet when the ecstatic returns to the world, he must by his very nature seek to express his experience. The need of the mystic to communicate is not only weakness and stammering; it is also power and melody. The mystic desires to bring the timeless over into time he desires to make the unity without multiplicity into the unity of all multiplicity. This desire brings to mind the great myths of the One which becomes the many because it wishes to know and be known, to love and be loved—the myths of the 'I' that creates a 'thee', of the Godhead that becomes G-D. Is not the experience of the ecstatic a symbol of the primeval experience of the world spirit?

Yesselman 16:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why German name of Lwów?

The name of city under Austrian occupation should be Polish - Lwów. It's the same case like with another Polish cities in times of Partitions - see Kraków, Warsaw, Rzeszów, Przemyśl etc... (Majan (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Please read History of Lviv. There never was an Austrian occupation, in fact Galicia (Central Europe) was part of Austria, later Austria-Hungary, from the late 18th century until 1918. It wasn't a Polish city as it did not belong to any state called Poland. Furthermore there were several ethnic groups living there at the time. And finally, the city's official name was Lemberg. WP can only reflect political and historical realities, not interpret or change them, whether we like that or not. Regarding the other cities you're citing, this is another matter, and must be dealt with on the respective pages. --Catgut (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)