Martin Buber and Michael Bachtin.

 

§ 16. Martin Buber and Michael Bachtin.

 

S

ome at times rather popular philosophers, like M. Buber, that made himself in the very épimòme of a dialogueism missionary are very persistent in their belief that "life is meeting people", "Leben ist Begegnung.", “you are nothing without the Other”, “truth emerges only in the eyes of the Other”. I do think it is indicating an oversimplified view.

Aside from being a dialogican B. endulged in the  Zionistic project, in continuance of the Hungarian lawyer Th. Herzl´s work, Herzl, who also started the newpaper Die Welt in Germany. Buber – a keen propagandist - even tried to make Kafka editor of a Zionistic paper in Prague. In vain, though. Kafka once wanted to start a cultural ( non-political ) newspaper, together with the psychoanalyst Otto Gross, but due to the health of Gross, this project never materialized..

The Viennese mystic, Martin Buber, with looks like a real Rabbi, devoted a great deal of his time to this dialogical principle ( about "Wort-Paare" in Die Schriften uber das Dialogische Prinzip ( 1954 ). "Spirit is Man´s answer to it´s You. Spirit is Word. Spirit is not in I, but between I and You." Buber claims that Man cannot be a true partner to himself, somebody who poses genuine questions to himself and gives genuine answers. ( Logos, p. 16.)  B. wrote several books declaring that there are double concepts "Ich-Du" and the like, asserting, that it is impossible to utter the word "I" without implying a "You". Life is lived, looking for a distant You.

Thus it is rather poetical, also, the whole Buber thing..... It is – in fact - all in the case of Buber - very tiresome reading, I think. It deals with completely ideal meetings between people, and not with reality. One might say that Buber´s writing all are philosophy when philosophy is at it worst. It is noteworthy that M. Buber was D. Hammarskjöld’s favorite philosopher. ( The Swedish publicist M. Svegfors seems in his writings about H. to be blinded by the pure intelligence, that D.H. was a top student - based on records from his high school - of H., and thus overlooks all his weaknesses, i.e. his absolute senseless mysticism. Cf. S.s book Dag Hammarskjöld, 2005. )

Buber in turn claims that Kierkegaard true enough is humanitarian, but still he calls him "an-antropic". ( Ib., p.292. ). It is a rather daring awful thing to say about somebody. But Martin Buber asserts that what he says is nothing new; it is only "put all together and executed" ( "gesamt gesammelt und ausgefuhrt" ).

Among Buber´s influences are S. Kierkegaard via Ferdinand Ebners Das Wort und die geistlichen Realitaten ( 1921 ), where Ebner feels indebted to S. Kierkegaard but as to a human being who did not have the capability of finding the "You" in others. ( ! ) The salvation is to Ebner found in his own life, in the midst of sickness and close to his own death,: There is only one You, and that is in fact God.". Thus Buber is on a true anti-intellectualistic ground, like of course Ebner is. Buber is also deeply involved in the mystic chassidic tradition, and has translated parts of the Old Testament. Bücher der Kündung. ( Verdeutscht von Martin Buber mit Franz Rosenzweig. (1958)) ( An extraordinary Harry Potter-like metaphysical kaleidoscopic saga is Buber´s book Gog and Magog. It has its motive from Old Testament. B. had a strong imagination. If St. Augustine was the most dangerous seducer of Christianity, Buber might be called the most insidious seducer of the Modern Era hype in Cure Books for Seelen-Angst.

 

W

hy is the utterly famous Mr. M. Bachtin´s (1895-1975) , book about dialogue ( La poetique de Dostojevskij ) so severely authoritarian? There is in the philosophy of dialogue - dialogical philosophy - a kind of mysticism, a superstition, a claim of the "truth", by which each of these philosophers monologically and in an authoritarian way is oversimplifying human intercourse and the human condition in general. By ending up in lofty and beautiful metaphysics they want to eradicate every doubt. ( I do understand the dialogical genius of Dostoyevskij, but it would be foolish of me to admit, that I do believe that Dostoyevskij is the only author with this type of technique. I even think of it as childish to believe it.) (The editors really seem very much inclined to idolize persons. Cf. B.s book on Rabelais. And that is per se not a good thing. Having idols ... that is for kids.) M. Bachtin left several manuscripts, who posthumously became famous.