Buber Prologue
Buber I and Thou Commentary - Prologue - beginning with page 20 is recommended PLUS please everyone read at least 31-37, as Kaufman is really helpful on Buber and Judaism in context of Christianity.
Your recommended assignment begins with page 20, but if you WANT to read the earlier pages, here are some notes. They are somewhat rough, as they were written quickly last year.
= = = = = = = = =
This Prologue is written by the translator as a commentary on the text -- shows something of what the text meant to him, and suggests how the reader can best approach it.
** Beginning section: appears to be centered on a society made up of scholars - an “intellectual community" -- obviously the writer’s primary sphere of reference -- so the types of “men" here are different sorts of scholars -- with the quest for TRUTH at the core -- and the many ways of being self-deceived or of settling for insipid, rote scholarship being delineated (pp 9 and following).
** Page 11 -- varying ways scholars stay locked up inside their own heads. Some take an interest in things, but not as having independent reality -- more as an extension of their own minds, while others operate without perception of their OWN independent reality, so can’t EXPERIENCE anything (12). Or, (13), they live as a member of a collective (“we" so can’t really connect meaningfully to anything outside themselves -- or they relate to others as part of “us" or as outsiders, negatively seen, as “them".
** Page 14 begins his explanation of the difficulties in translating and understanding Buber’s use of “du"(“thou" in English, but not really the same, as “thou" has dropped out of common speech in English). Because of the religious overtones of “thou" in English, Kaufman has chosen not to use the word.
** PP 11-15 -- contrasts “I and Thou" to Freud’s Ego and Id (and Superego) -- both sets of terms from these books which later became understood formulaically.
** PP 16-17-18 -- cautions the reader not to take Buber’s definitions to extremes -- or see them as absolutes, overly simple -- especially giving in to the tendency in Western philosophy to see things DUALISTICALLY (a thing and it’s opposite, rather than a spectrum, or half-tones, or as Buber presents things, a dialectic where one thing changes into the other). Dualism in philosophy often puts one of the opposites higher and one lower (spirit vs matter/nature; light vs. dark; male vs. female) -- Kaufman says Buber has this tendency too.
** PP 18-19 -- possible influence of or resemblance to an essay contrasting Christianity and Judaism using repetition rather than argument to make the case -- also that Buber’s language teases and fascinates, rather than forcing the reader to ethical action. I’m not sure I agree -- what Kaufman DOESN’T seem to imagine is language that’s slippery and paradoxical BECAUSE that’s the only way to mediate mystical experience. (Later: maybe he does.) He also suggests that long-lived books may survive in part because of obscurity -- not a virtue, in his mind!
** PP 21-22 -- then a history of the book’s success -- among Protestant theologians, to start with, then among those who wanted to connect with Jewish wisdom after the Holocaust. Buber was also an unforgettable lecturer because he established genuine contact with his audience -- helping establish the book as a classic. Then came the 1960s when the book was a big hit in the US -- as, Kaufman puts it, an adolescent “neo-romanticism" -- making it clear in his comments that these people could not have really understood or appreciated the book -- and Buber’s “neo-romanticism" appealed to theirs. (See Kaufman’s derogatory definition p 47.)
** P 24 -- Kaufman contrasts I & Thou with later books by Buber that he believes are clearer: Tales of the Hasidim, for its economy and brilliance. I and Thou, in contrast, is obscure, blurry, suggestive – “romantic". Also, people think it MUST be profound, because Buber MUST be wiser-than-average, as in Hasidic leaders. Buber himself described the book as more poetic and inspired than philosophical (p. 25) -- though Kaufman challenges this too.
** P. 25 -- Kaufman attempts to liberate the core ideas from their “romantic" appearance: The sacred is here and now. The only God worth keeping is a God that cannot be kept. . . . The only possible relationship with God is to address him and be addressed by him, here and now. -- This relationship is problematic (26-27) -- easily misunderstood or confused with PANTHEISM (God infused into the world, especially into nature). Kaufman also makes a fascinating argument that the book is grounded in Buber’s relationship with his wife (27-28) - and on 29 offers a psalm suggesting what God needs for humans to be in contact with God. This sets up the second half of the prologue which is much more positive -- he starts out by stating that Buber’s simplicity and obviousness may only be seen in hindsight, after we’ve already taken in his perspective and been influenced by it.
** P. 30 -- more about “God" for non-believers -- leaving God out can flatten the divinity or the spiritual power of the human-human encounter -- bringing the sacred into everyday life. And there ISN’T a substitute for religious language, as much as it is difficult for many.
** pp. 31-32 has more about how difficult God-talk is for non-believers -- and the helpfulness of Buber’s depiction of the human-divine conversation.
** Which leads to how very Jewish the book is. For all his theological erudition, Buber was trying to get back to the rots of Jewish faith -- he was steeped in this in his project of translating the Hebrew scripture into German (34-35), a life-long project. Kaufman contrast the Hebrew culture to the visual Greeks: the Hebrew experience of the Divine was one of listening and speaking, a dialogue. In contrast, Christianity is more Greek in influence, culturally -- where God became MANIFEST -- e.g. visible -- could be seen and represented visually. There was still a Jewish core of dialogue in Christianity, but nothing as central as it was in Judaism -- rather, there became in Christianity an emphasis on “belief" or “faith," for salvation. Buber’s core of relationship, of dialogue, is, Kaufman argues, closer to the core of Judaism.
** PP 36-37 -- Important word: “t’shuvah" -- return: humans can return to God at ANY TIME -- unmediated by church, priest, shaman, rabbi, sacraments. Kaufman argues that Christian (Pauline) understanding is very different, requiring Christ as the mediator of reconciliation.
** P 37 – Buber’s Zionism -- comes from his yearning for a “new type of community" -- as a core emphasis in the book is the human-human encounter. The book is an important social critique -- what needs to be fixed in human society? -- so works as a social change manual too.
** PP 38-39 -- Also a manual on how to read – we’re used to reading for entertainment, diversion -- nothing that comes from someone’s heart and more that merits serious attention. We need to encounter the PERSON behind a book -- the key to vivid, alive scholarship -- and much of schooling goes against this. Also -- Buber teaches how to TRANSLATE (pp. 39-40-43). His life-long work on translating the Bible as an example -- this means committing to the writer -- finding and representing a person’s voice -- so this is what Kaufman has tried to do, pulling out of the way his own responses (well, putting them in the Preface -- the whole spectrum from irritation to adoration).
** P 43 – Buber’s intention was to make the reader chew on the words rather slowly -- slow down the reading process. There’s a temptation for the translator to try to improve on the original -- and the limits of what he COULD do -- and some comments on important terms (44-48).
** Romanticism is defined -- ironically, not admiringly -- on p. 47. Buber is cast in contrast: as all about actual action in the world. Romanticism is seen by Kaufman as escapism. However, I’d like to point out that Romanticism in literature is broader than that, and includes an effort by writers to mediate experience beyond the mundane -- and an effort of kindling an experience of the Divine, especially in nature (see Wordsworth). However, the attitude of escapism defined on p. 47 certainly applies to some readers and writers.