Callie Boozer 9/27/14
Professor Ceisel Communication
I and Thou Response Paper
Martin Buber’s I and Thou contains three sections each consisting of observations and ideas of various lengths. When read individually these observations are not pieces of a story that all chronologically go together, but rather smaller parts of a larger argument that Buber is making. In the first part of the book Buber establishes the foundation for his larger argument, which is that man has two ways of interacting with the world- the way of “I-It” and the way of “I-You.” In the second part he discusses the ways in which man exists in society as well as how our society works as a whole. In the last part of the book Buber explains his solutions …show more content…
I was particularly confused by Buber’s argument that the feeling of hatred towards another person is not considered a relation like the relation of love is. If you can love a person as a whole can’t you then hate a person as a whole? Also, it is possible to love a person completely and still be annoyed by one or two of their qualities without this seriously taking away from their love. So in this case does it mean that Buber thinks then you don’t really love that person because you are aware of their individual qualities and that you are merely experiencing them? I think it would be very rare for people to love every single characteristic of another person so much so that they do not even see these characteristics as individual characteristics. Even a mother can tell when their child is acting obnoxiously or inappropriately but this doesn’t make the mother love them less. I think this confusion stems from Buber’s definitions of what is encounter versus what is experience, because his definitions aren’t exactly crystal clear. Buber’s definition of experience is not exactly the idea of experience that we would use in our everyday language. Buber is arguing that if information is retrieved or analyzed then it experience rather than encounter. But if a person hates someone that doesn’t mean they are trying to get information out of the relationship they have with them and yet Buber says …show more content…
Technology has removed people even further from encounter and more towards experience now that it has become so advanced. His ideas in this portion of the book are similar to David Bohm’s idea about communication today and how communication is becoming less and less effective with the increasing role of social classes and technology. I thought that Buber’s argument about the institution of marriage being separated from feelings was confusing. Earlier in the book he argued that love was the foundation for encounter and here he’s saying that marriage and the feelings within marriage (which I presume to be love) are separate things. I would disagree with the fact that marriages today are based more on experience and the “I-It” than encounter and the “I-You.” Furthermore, how could the ties of a community be considered a relation of love over those of a marriage. It is likely that I am not understanding these ideas the way Buber means them to be
Professor Ceisel Communication
I and Thou Response Paper
Martin Buber’s I and Thou contains three sections each consisting of observations and ideas of various lengths. When read individually these observations are not pieces of a story that all chronologically go together, but rather smaller parts of a larger argument that Buber is making. In the first part of the book Buber establishes the foundation for his larger argument, which is that man has two ways of interacting with the world- the way of “I-It” and the way of “I-You.” In the second part he discusses the ways in which man exists in society as well as how our society works as a whole. In the last part of the book Buber explains his solutions …show more content…
I was particularly confused by Buber’s argument that the feeling of hatred towards another person is not considered a relation like the relation of love is. If you can love a person as a whole can’t you then hate a person as a whole? Also, it is possible to love a person completely and still be annoyed by one or two of their qualities without this seriously taking away from their love. So in this case does it mean that Buber thinks then you don’t really love that person because you are aware of their individual qualities and that you are merely experiencing them? I think it would be very rare for people to love every single characteristic of another person so much so that they do not even see these characteristics as individual characteristics. Even a mother can tell when their child is acting obnoxiously or inappropriately but this doesn’t make the mother love them less. I think this confusion stems from Buber’s definitions of what is encounter versus what is experience, because his definitions aren’t exactly crystal clear. Buber’s definition of experience is not exactly the idea of experience that we would use in our everyday language. Buber is arguing that if information is retrieved or analyzed then it experience rather than encounter. But if a person hates someone that doesn’t mean they are trying to get information out of the relationship they have with them and yet Buber says …show more content…
Technology has removed people even further from encounter and more towards experience now that it has become so advanced. His ideas in this portion of the book are similar to David Bohm’s idea about communication today and how communication is becoming less and less effective with the increasing role of social classes and technology. I thought that Buber’s argument about the institution of marriage being separated from feelings was confusing. Earlier in the book he argued that love was the foundation for encounter and here he’s saying that marriage and the feelings within marriage (which I presume to be love) are separate things. I would disagree with the fact that marriages today are based more on experience and the “I-It” than encounter and the “I-You.” Furthermore, how could the ties of a community be considered a relation of love over those of a marriage. It is likely that I am not understanding these ideas the way Buber means them to be