- Show more
What is man according to Martin Buber’s book
The book Martín Buber called What is the man? As a person, he has wondered about the composition and functioning of things by instinct of oneself, the human being descends from the strain of primates, but there are several theories about man in this book that has impacted is the historical journey of thedifferent images of organization and to conceive in the life in different ways. Actually what impacts most is how the possibility of understanding how we have reached here was discovered. The story about the facts form in us the idea that important events were changed to the world, however it does not arise from nothing, but from a specific space and time. In a historical moment, they are absolutely transformed, and not into a mement of inspiration, but in the thread of those events and especially of everyday life.
But the first thing Buber raises is how philosophy has faced this question. What is man? At every moment that need for the latent question in the different ways of understanding life. In our conception of what we are absolutely our way of relating, the barriers that we put, the opening or closure, the limits and in general what we consider that it is good or bad.
Now we are going to focus on the book on several points of reading that writer Buber asks the question at all times in the book, what is man? For Buber there are two types of vital moments: those in which man feels wrapped up, such as feeling at home "targets" and those in which man feels unprotected and needs to ask about the essence of himself "weathering times"Of solitude, now this is an advance of what the book is man? Bring soon and talk about him.
Martín Buber begins this book by analyzing the questions asked by Kant: What can I know?, What can expect?, What is man? Kant says: the first responds to metaphysics, to the second moral and to third religion and fourth anthropology. In the background all these disciplines could be re -founded in anthropology, because the first three issues reversed in the last one: to Buber adheres to this appreciation: philosophical anthropology is the fundamental philosophical discipline. Compare man with other living beings with other things, but to capture the entire man: this man who is the people, the type or age to which he belongs, knows what, outside of him, nobody else on the earthKnow: that it travels along the narrow path that leads from birth to death;Try it that nobody is not him can prove: the fight with fate, rebellion and reconciliation and sometimes, when he joins by choice with another human being, he arrives in his own blood what goes through the other of the other.
Buber makes brief exhibitions of the most outstanding philosophical positions on the subject of man. He is especially interested in the positions of San Agustín, Pascal, Kant, Feverbac, Nietzsche. Because in them man is conceived in his genuine problem. Criticism, however the positions of Aristotle, Saint Thomas and Hegel, because they are attempts to give man fictitious security. For this, individualistic and collective anthropologies must be overcome. Individualist anthropology deals only with the person’s relationship with himself.
The fundamental fact of human existence is not the individual as such or the community regarding the fundamental fact of human existence is man with man, for Buiber the fundamental fact is what calls the sphere between a sphere that is Find beyond the subjective and more here of the objective. It is a common sphere to two beings, but that exceeds each other’s own field.
To this book is the fundamental anthropological question, it is as Buber affirms the other philosophical questions they redirect this issue. Therefore it is an importance of importance for each who is interested in the problems of philosophy or cares about transmitting to their students or people the basic questions of the discipline. The text addresses the question of the relationship with our fellow men is not only anthropology, but also ethical, for Buber, individualistic anthropologies must be overcome in itself only deals with the relationship of the person with themselves. Collectivist anthropology does not see man but only society, and both the isolated individual and society are fiction.
For this, several points of the book taken, which for Buber, Pascal is the one who most clearly expresses what infinitely large and the infinitely small and thus realizes the limitation, of insufficiency, the greatness of man is great is how much is known how much it is known miserable; A tree is not known miserable, it is therefore to be great to know that it is miserable.
It is too danger to make man to what extent it is similar to beasts, without showing his greatness. And it is equally too dangerous to make him see his greatness without his misery ”
"It’s a word, man knows that he is miserable. It is therefore miserable, for what it is;But it’s great, because he knows him "
"Man can’t live without him. But who only lives with him, is not a man ”Martín Buber’s philosophy treats with unusual Hondura the problem of our relationship with our fellow men, a fundamental ethical problem and special importance in our times.
One of the points of seeing this book is that each person as an objective is to analyze the cosmology of Aristotle, man knows that position occupies in the world, this world would break with the doubt that he would recover the feeling of care with the theology of the theology of the theology ofsame and would almost definitely break with Pascal by creating an image of the world linked to infinity. Taking into account several points that philosophers give realA perfect society can be reached, however security is broken when the people come to power and have to decide, because the decision arises from the insecurity of man not from the security of the future. To end this conclusion for Buber, several supplies supply to reflect on communication in general to communication as phenomena and process of the human being in his social life career.