• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

I and Thou: The Spreadsheet!

March 1, 2013 by Daniel Horne 9 Comments

bubermeme
cdn.memegenerator.net

Regardless of how or whether you relate to Buber's vision, I and Thou makes for a frustrating read. Seemingly simple words are used in new and alien contexts. Solutions are announced rather than derived. Worse, while nominally divided into three parts, I and Thou is really more of a loose collection of 61 aphorisms. Following Buber's reasoning by comparing his different uses of "word pairs" (e.g., "I-You" in the context of person, or tree, or cat) becomes particularly tricky as a result. Of course, Buber would probably consider this a feature, not a bug; his oracular style seems deliberately designed to provoke a kind of dialogue between the book and the reader. (That's true even if your end of the dialogue often feels like, "What the f___ are you on about?") According to Walter Kaufmann, who translated I and Thou's most recent edition:

Most of Buber's German readers would be quite incapable of saying what any number of passages probably mean. The obscurity of the book does not seem objectionable to them: it seems palpable proof of profundity .... It is not even impossible that in places Buber himself was not sure of the exact meaning of his text.

But help exists for obscuro-skeptics. Robert Wood’s 1969 text, Martin Buber's Ontology, takes a surprisingly analytic approach toward dissecting I and Thou's structure. Wood created a chart that indexed and cross-referenced key concepts contained within the book's 61 sections. In short, he created a Buber spreadsheet! Firmly ensconced in my I-It mode, I used Microsoft Excel to replicate Wood's chart for the blog-viewing public.

The chart functions as follows: The numbers appearing below any given concept indicate those book sections in which the concept is discussed. Where a particular concept is the primary focus of the book's section, I've placed the numbers in a black box with colored digits. Reading horizontally along the rows, you can see which concepts appear with greatest emphasis in each section. Reading vertically along the columns, you can identify those sections in which a primary concept appears. The spreadsheet is likely useless to anyone who hasn't read I and Thou. However, it may have utility for any readers trying to divine Buber's meaning by comparing and contrasting the book's recurring themes.

-Daniel Horne

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Reviewage, Web Detritus Tagged With: Martin Buber, ontology, philosophy blog, structuralism

Comments

  1. Kyle Walton says

    March 2, 2013 at 7:09 am

    Thanks Daniel. This’ll be a great boon when I eventually get around to tackling this.

    Reply
  2. Tammy says

    March 2, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Nice spread sheet and thanks for it. My understanding is the Transcendentalist phenomenology approaches are:

    1) Semitic (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are centered on God.
    2) Indic (Hinduism and Buddhism) are centered on the Self.
    3) Sinic (Confucianism Taoism and Shintoism) are centered on World.

    Looking at the spread sheet and off the top of my head it’s very interesting that the “Key Notions” Thou/God/World and “III. The Eternal Thou” is the heaviest cluster grouping which is relational or Covenantal.

    This is simplistic but according to the Jewish canon (Tanakh) interpreting sacred texts and daily walk or practice (Halakhah) there are two types of law in the Torah: Apodictic (Decalogue/Absolutes/no exceptions) and Caustic (Case law/case-by-case – if this happens then do this). Reconfiguration was the norm in case-by-case law. I write all this to say many biblical scholars believe the Jewish Jesus was saying get back to the Covenant and the Caustic law with work itself out because both laws were equally important for practical reasons in relation to others.

    Buber’s I and Thou seems similar pointing to the importance of the relational aspect. That’s my take anyway.

    Reply
    • Simon Borrington says

      March 2, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      Hi Tammy,

      Having been a small part of the Not-School study group reading ‘I-Thou’, can I just say I found it easier to understand than your intriguing post.

      All the best.

      Reply
      • Tammy says

        March 2, 2013 at 4:54 pm

        It’s that bad?

        Reply
        • Simon Borrington says

          March 3, 2013 at 4:01 am

          I apologise – that was an ill mannered post.

          It’s not that it is bad – it is that I wouldn’t know whether it was bad or not. I am constantly amazed (in a good way) a by how much stuff falls within Philosophy’s tender(?) embrace!

          Re: ‘I and Thou’. It intrigued me for a while, until I thought why is Buber spending so much ‘I-It’ time discussing something that he states quite clearly falls outside of this categorical approach. Is he trying to justify the ‘I-Thou’ relationship, or convince me of its validity? Because the way he has gone about it is to reduce the ‘I-Thou’ to the thing it is not supposed to be, and this approach doesn’t really do the job.

          Rather than clarification, or inclusion, the average chap feels to have encountered something esoteric, which is sort of, by definition almost, exclusive.

          All the best and keep well.

          Reply
          • dmf says

            March 3, 2013 at 9:36 am

            not an easy business trying to foreground what may not only exceed the grasp of categorization/calculation but may even be the conditions for the possibility of such doings. One of the many concerns about efforts to make the thinking through of complexities easy to grasp, easy to make use of, turn into gossip level cut&paste discourse.

          • Tammy says

            March 3, 2013 at 10:23 am

            No need to apologize, in-fact appreciate your feedback. Those were the thoughts of the top of my head thinking about Martin Buber in context – context is everything so I’ve been taught analyzing literary and biblical texts.

            I’m thinking to myself how would Buber if he had this “I and Thou” encounter make sense of it or better yet express it given the time period in which he lived, WWII?

            Buber draws on the historical figure of Jesus and the Buddha, a strong secular academic, and engaged in the Hebrew school of thought, yet, this was a time when the textual criticism called “higher criticism,” was shaking orthodoxy. Higher criticism was and still is a contention between biblical scholars and the philosophy of religion.

            (On a side: reminds me of Augustine who said read the Latin philosophies they will help you find the way going back to the early Christian writers or Patristics.)

            It seems to me reading I and Thou, Buber is drawn to the Wisdom texts, which has a strong philosophical tradition in the Jewish tradition. But, the Wisdom texts weren’t considered “authoritative” texts, and I think he wrestled with this. Hence, his infatuation with Hasidism—which was mystical and orthodox. Go figure!?! Anyway, the five Jewish Wisdom books (all about human behavior) were in dialogue with each other – arguing, analyzing, and critiquing what it means to be human and righteous (as in right behavior).

            I don’t know if this will clarify, but gave it a shot.

  3. Tammy says

    March 2, 2013 at 11:27 am

    Can I share this spreadsheet?

    Reply
    • Daniel Horne says

      March 3, 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Hi Tammy,

      Of course, though it’s not really for me to give permission, as it primarily “belongs” to Wood and/or Northwestern University Press. As long as the citation to Wood remains intact, I’m sure it’s fine.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Seth Paskin on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • John Heath on PEL Eulogies Nightcap Late March 2023
  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in