I and Thou

In his postscript, Buber deals with three specific questions that have been put to him since the initial printing of this work. The first question is whether there is a genuine difference between the I—Thou relation that exists between people, and that of the I—Thou relation that exists between the I and the lower rungs of created beings (e.g., different animals or plants). In response, Buber highlights the fact that it is speech that characterizes all relation, either in its absence, its presence, or its longing. The question of relation with spirit is one that focuses on the human desire for spiritual transcendence, and the innate religious sense of human beings where we sense the presence of a spiritual voice calling out to us that demands a response. This is a mysterious thing.

The distinction between human relation and relation with animals, however, is one that is much more obvious. With human beings, we can speak and communicate easily on account of our shared nature and philological capabilities. Apart from the fact that there are different human languages, the fact remains that human beings are able to speak face-to-face with the same language. This is not true of human beings and animals (and the lesser life forms of plants and bacteria). In this case, the relation is one-sided.

The second question concerns the integrity of those relations that exist between people of differing social status, where there might be questions of inequality that would be legitimate. In this case, the recognition of the possibility of the Thou relation needs to be affirmed, but it is also true that certain human relations actually require an imbalance that is for the benefit of one of the parties. Take the relationship between parent and child, for instance: The relationship has a naturally-occurring imbalance in power and influence, but it is for the benefit of the child that this imbalance persists. The child has need of the parent as an authority, as a caretaker, and as an educator. Thanks to this necessity, then, the I—Thou relation is still possible since the imbalance is actually for the sake of the person’s good. The author’s example of a therapist and patient demonstrates a similar dynamic of imbalance: the one is meant to work for and on the other, but this is not a rejection of the other’s personhood; it is rather an affirmation of their personhood and its needs, and thus their Thou can persist.

The third question concerns the possibility of any relation at all outside of that with the Eternal Thou: If the Eternal Thou is the ultimate presence, and if all other Thous are ordered to the Eternal Thou anyway, is it possible (or even desirable) to cultivate relation apart from this? If the world were a place that was intrinsically competitive, then this would likely be impossible. In that case, the Thou of creation would be in competition with the Eternal Thou, and only one could win out. Thankfully, explains the author, this is not the case. The Eternal Thou is that in which all other Thous exist; in fact it is that in which all reality exists. Due to this, every other Thou with which a human being could enter into relation is already and by nature ordered to, and contained within, the Eternal Thou who is omnipresent and the ground of all existence.