Martin Buber – I and thou

For Buber, I am defined in terms of my relationships. I am not a self-sufficient entity that is independent from others. My relationships are part of who I am.

Buber distinguishes between two kinds of relationship to another person (or more generally, to everyone or everything in our world): I-It and I-Thou. The first type of relationship takes place when I relate to a person as an object – an object of perception, an object of knowledge, an object of manipulation, etc. I look at him, I examine him, I attempt to understand him, I use him. I may do so with good intentions, for example when I try to figure out how to help him. Still, there is a distance between us: I am here, he is there. Our worlds are separated, and I examine him from a distance.

But there is another way to relate to a person: I-thou (I-you). In this kind of relationship, I am WITH the other person. I do not look AT you from across a distance that separates us. I do not try to know you, to exploit you, to help you. I simply am present with you.

In this kind of relationship I am FULLY present. Unlike the I-it relationship, in which I engage only part of myself (my thoughts, for example), the I-thou relationship involves my entire being.

Since my relationships define who I am, I am different when I am I-thou and when I am I-it. I-it relations are often useful for practical purposes. But I-thou is my authentic way of being. It expresses my full being. And although it may last only a few minutes, it gives life to me and to my relationships.

As an example we might think of a husband and wife who always behave towards each other 'appropriately', according to the 'rules'. If the couple does not experience I-thou from time to time, then the relationship is dead.

The I-thou relation is perhaps what Donna desires. On the other hand, unlike Buber she does not define herself in terms of relationships. Also, she is not bothered by distance – indeed, she needs some distance in order to 'be in touch with herself'. Buber's concepts and distinctions are not the ‘language’ of her world.

Nevertheless, through his ideas she might discover that there is a contradiction in her world: On the one hand she dreams of I-thou relations, but on the other hand the Other in her world is essentially distant, hidden, dangerous. I-thou relations are highly valued, but they cannot exist in such a world.

***

None of these theories captures Donna's conception of the Other. This is not surprising. Every theory expresses a particular understanding of a particular thinker. A theory is a single 'voice' in the polyphonic choir of human reality. We cannot expect a living human being to fit into some universal schema.

Indeed, what is special about good philosophers is not that their particular understanding is more true or more universal, but that they are capable of putting their understanding into words. They can speak their 'voice' (or understanding) with great sensitivity, with illuminating observations and distinctions, with deep analyses. And yet, their philosophy expresses no more than one understanding: their own understanding, not Donna's.

Nevertheless, these theories are not without value for her. They can help her become aware of the rich network of understandings in which her life is embedded. After all, her particular experiences are not isolated from the complex network of human experience. Her personal 'voice' is not independent from the rest of the choir. By exploring the variety of human understandings, she can come to understand more deeply the meaning of her particular understanding of life.

If she explores her world in this way, she would probably discover that her Other is unpredictable, surprising, and treacherous. Dog owners are crazy, monstrous, irrational, incomprehensible. Her boyfriend did not just die - he 'abandoned' her. Her good friend Peggy disappointed her. She remembers her grandfather not in the many sweet moments they had together, but in his sudden anger. She longs for togetherness, but the Other always signifies the possibility of betrayal.

The details of her conception is something Donna will have to investigate by herself. She will then come to realize that there are other ways of understanding the Other. Her understanding is only one voice of life in a much richer symphony. Most likely she will be surprised to discover that what she takes for granted is not obvious at all. Eventually she would be able to see the Other, and her life in general, from a broader perspective.

* * *

Donna’s example illustrates that in philosophical practice we are not concerned, as in academic discussions, with the question which approach is the correct one, or which is more accurate as a universal theory. Our goal is to understand the inner logic of the different approaches, expose their assumptions, examine their implications, and in this way learn about ourselves. There is no need to decide between Sartre, Ortega, Buber or Levinas and declare that one of them is correct. It is better to listen to all these approaches as different voices of human reality, each of which conveys different important understandings.

As a philosophical practitioner, I have no interest in trying to capture reality with theoretical descriptions. This is not the way to touch reality. I ‘listen’ to the different ideas and the understandings they express. I open inside me a space for all of them and give them voice like a human choir. At this point of listening I rise to a higher point of understanding, a polyphonic understanding. I am no longer in this or that particular theory. I no longer identify myself with a specific opinion. I am now at a point which overlooks all theories, which appreciates all the voices of reality without judging them as 'correct' or 'incorrect'.

In order to achieve this attitude I need to undergo an inner transformation. This attitude requires that I ‘listen’ beyond myself. I open inside me an inner space for all voices. In this way I go out of my little cave to the place which is beyond caves, to an awareness which is higher than opinions, to an understanding which is not just the sum of many theories, but which is wisdom. This is a place which is many and one, or to borrow the words of Plotinus: 'a presence superior to knowledge'.

And this is what I would like to suggest to Donna: First, that she become aware of her 'theory' of the Other, and realize that it is one cave among others, one voice of human reality among others. Then she would be able to go beyond her particular theory, and beyond all limiting theories.

Voices of Human Reality