"Thoughts on Martin Buber and I and Thou"

"Thoughts on Martin Buber and I and Thou"

cji
2/19/09

Over the years the ideas of Martin Buber have infiltrated much of Philosophy an all of the field of human intercourse or relationships. The translations have helped in some ways for understanding but with the translators added comments and textual changes much value is lost rather than added in their applying modern day to Buber’s day (the early 1900’s). With this in mind one needs to keep an open mind at what’s being read and said by those who are presenting Buber’s information.

With the advent of instant knowledge at one’s fingertips – skewed and biased from those who feel the need to control such knowledge harking back to the tradition of the schools, though seven millennium, there’s an air of authority to everything which is printed, viewed or spoken. People want to believe the worldly and thus justify their payment of allegiance to those of the world. In short anyone can be an expert on what someone else has said by just proclaiming the appropriate degrees and initials after their names. (Note: after 9/11/2001 a plethora of experts arose and wrote tons of books on Terrorism, etc.)

Therefore what is the purpose of one writing and one reading non-fiction? The writer is attempting to either self-explain to themselves or to others something they discern as part of the worldly and using the worldly language and guise of rhetoric and vague that leaves open for discussion what they’ve said without actually saying what’s said they said. Many then enter the fray after a book or article has been posted to dissect, analyze, critique, expound and otherwise add their two cents to what’s been written (some up the ante to much more than just two cents.) Authors have their reasons – some simply write for money and to appease the community of their peers. Others might write to meet a requirement for a professional recognition and in many cases change something which has been previously written with their slant. For the safety of the institution we’ll compromise with all of the above and say most write to convey or put on paper their own thinking on a subject.

(Note: as a writer of sorts I write because of what’s prompted and what I see and feel about me – caring nothing for the world or their acceptance of what I write except to try to uplift and present eternal truths. Altruistic comes to mind but it’s much more than that – yet it’s difficult to separate it and my goals. Over the years almost 50 now I’ve written prose, poetry, essays, newspaper columns, technical papers, talks, and answers to enquiring questions of others. In addition when I write it’s from years of pondering, research and continued research – primary source if available – and prayer. Study cannot be overlooked but one must choose carefully what to study – and this is the writer’s responsibility to those who might read what they’ve written. Much of what I write is ‘hard words’ for many – but this is my approach – 1) I’m not going molly-colly you and I won’t lie to you – and I won’t justify the wrongdoing or the worldly. Meaning is the most important along with understandability – there’s nothing written to confuse a reader – what I write is clear, concise and makes common sense. This is my responsibility as a writer – either for me or others.)

On the readers part they’re reading for one of three reasons: 1) it’s assigned to be read or needful in one’s pursuit of a degree or work place promotions; 2) reading for enjoyment or the joy of reading; or 3) reading to learn and assimilate that what’s good and further truth for their library of eternal knowledge. (Note: It would be this presenter’s guess that not many are reading for number 3 on the list.) And for the second on the list many do not venture into non-fiction for the pure joy of reading or for reading enjoyment.

(Note: as a reader (and I still read a lot – mostly non-fiction and some fiction for a change of pace) I read for interest and improvement to learn what I don’t know and need to know. My reading is directed towards those things in one plain where it deals with what I write on – i.e. terrorism and religious views and beliefs. I read the Scriptures daily and study them (meaning all of the Scripture – not just the Bible). I like L’Amour and Clancy – Clive Cussler (non-fiction) for pure enjoyment – but I also can discern a lot from these writers. When I did some graduate studies a professor asked what I thought was the most important thing to study about history – and I answered quickly the people themselves. For if one can understand a person from their own writings, letters, etc. and those about them – one can have a tad more insight as to why they did what they did.)

Therefore with most reading of non-fiction reason number one – i.e. assigned or for vocational pursuit this leaves the field closed and well fenced by those who run the institutions of higher learning and business, is the most important. There’s a trade-off with ones values and beliefs to attain the degrees of higher education or professional improvement. It’s finding the balance and understanding what may or may not be compromised. There’s books about that some institutions of higher learning and the business world feel are must reads – but within a personal value system they may be nothing more than trash. One always has to decide what price to pay – if any at all – which is always an option.

Now back to why one reads Martin Buber – which would be mostly business or educationally assigned. With this being the reason what should one expect to get out of such a reading as, “I and Thou?” First to study who Martin Buber was and what was about him at the time of his writings and this work published in 1923. This was in the aftermath of WWI and Germany (where he lived and worked) was in the throes of depression which the world would experience in the1930’s. Upheaval and heavy debt reigned in the nation – the loss of many of its young men in the war and the destruction of the infra-structure of both industry and government was not pleasant to be part and parcel of in any way – with the exception of those with power – either real or supposed. Some had this because of wealth – and others had this within the elite of the educational world.

Somehow with the coming and going of wars the infrastructure of the higher educational systems keeps on the same train on the same tracks and going in the same direction. One must remember in the ivory towers of education have spawned the anti-war – appeasement (at any cost) – and general isolation from the realities of real life or real problems. This situation still exists today and if the forerunner of nations on the brink of decline as a result of the insular teachings and lifestyles within these institutions. The inbreeding is part and parcel of education – in order to teach at the higher levels one must attain more and more degrees – and thus much of the outside world is numbed into unfeeling. As a result we find educational heroes and demagogues prolifically enshrined therein.

It would be like asking someone to enter into the environment of higher learning and give an absolute truth – which ran counter to all of the training and education of those present. Stoning comes to mind or the equivalent found today. Don’t rock the boat – get your degree and then you can go and do as you wish! In other words the absolute truth is not welcome within this environment – for to these institutions there’s no such thing unless they proclaim it to be so. This then is the environment of Martin Buber! It was one of closed and inbred rules and laws of beliefs and understandings. And as a result what he wrote was without understanding in many parts accepted. Even the Germans published it – to which he commented, “They must not have understood it,” (c.1933).

What did he write and why? My initial guess is that within his personal belief system which went through some major flux – he sought to put down a mathematical problem and solutions using words to describe the various relationships he saw about him and others. The idea of ‘I and Thou’ which has been changed by the translators (more recently) gives great definition to a belief of a God (or greater person) with whom we are attached. Using what’s he’s learned within the schools and books available to him he tried to define this relationship and then other relationships found within the worldly community of the five senses. In his approach and presentation he’s accomplished this quite well. Though to the reader much seems redundant or repetitive the need is for finite clarification within his mind and not theirs.

Thus to approach Buber’s book, “I and Thou” I’ve had to separate my beliefs and knowledge in my library and to look at his resources and beliefs. Then to ignore the ‘translator’s prejudice and notes’ finding the string Buber wanted us to follow and seeing what he was seeing. (Note: To take the time to explain all of this now would be too consuming – but if this is further desired I’ll add this at a later date. Better I’ll refer the readers to Robert Wood’s work, “Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou,” 1969.) Suffice to understand what Buber was seeing and what his translator was seeing were not and are not the same. Maybe had Dag Hammarskjöld's finished his efforts there wouldn’t be this turmoil today.

Copyright © 2009 – cji