You Must Be a Subject

“ — What, then, does one experience of the Thou?

— Nothing at all. For one does not experience it.

— What, then, does one know of the You?

— Only everything. For one no longer knows particulars.”

— Martin Buber, I and Thou

Martin Buber in his seminal work, I and Thou, reflects on man’s relation to the world. It is comprised of short aphorisms, that once understood in its totality, contribute to his larger argument — a philosophy of dialogue. A philosophy that is worth considering and analyzing.

His argument is as so: human beings are unsatisfied precisely because of the loss of spiritual and mystic relation once had with the world and god. He coins this relation the I-Thou relation. The modern world has become increasingly preoccupied with a different relation, namely, the I-Itrelation. This relation is manifest in the meta-games, the overarching structures (be they linguistic, cultural, or social) that add an emphasis on economic materialism, or an overt obsession with possessions.

The I-It relation is concerned with the subject, the individual, and objects, the rest.

The I-Thou relation is concerned with subject, individual, encountering another subject, an equal individual.

And this I believe is true. When one encounters another, they are for all intents and purposes whole. The subject acknowledges the other as subject, totally whole and present. There is no obscuring the other to object.

Yet, the I-Thou relation is quickly obliterated once the subject begins to see the other as an object of desire, of fear, of hatred, so on and so forth. That is, the subject begins to dissect and separate the other subject as nothing more than just a collection of parts — no longer is the other a whole and present subject. Just another collection of things to be used and influenced, a means to an end. The I-Thou relation dissolves into that of the I-It relation. Consequently, the other is deprived of their subjectivity…but this go much farther. For if one fails to acknowledge the innate subjectivity the other possesses, they in essence also fail to acknowledge their own subjectivity. The I-Thou relation is a mutual encounter, requiring equal reciprocation.

Now, allow me to return to his larger argument. In the present day, where all transactions between subjects is largely a commercial one, there leaves little to no room whatsoever for the I-Thou relation. The world is governed by millions of interconnecting I-It relations. Where it ought to be subjects amongst subjects, the world has been reduced to billions of objects aimlessly toiling about the world.

We shouldn’t disregard governmental institutions or private companies. For they are but the domains that permit these objects to continue about. And if not the domains, just larger objects dominating and subjugating subjects, or should I say, objects. All this contributes to the lost spiritual connection with the world once held by our ancestors.

People are deprived of their subjecthood. We have deprived ourselves of our very human source. Our relation to the divine and ourselves. We are but slaves to one another. Playing these games and partaking in these super structures that ultimately leads to our alienation from the world and failed realization to be subjects. Whole and totally present beings, conduits of the divine.

Truly, that is what a subject is. Whole and present beings, manifestations of the divine. The moment we begin to see others as a collection of objects, made up of this or that, in this or that time, we are no longer in relation as subjects but as objects.

Buber suggests we should strive for a connection with the ultimate Thou. The divine, the absolute, god…what have you. When we establish an everlasting connection with the ultimate Thou, we regain our lost subjectivity. We acknowledge every-thing and every-one as a manifestation of the ultimate Thou. No longer aliens, but inhabitants of the larger One.

And so, it seems that Buber’s answer to the prevalent angst and meaninglessness that has plagued modern humans is no other but religion. However, he is not suggesting a unified religion. Religion needn’t be a communal event or inclusive activity. Rather, it should be an individualistic and exclusive activity. A subject must by its own merit achieve his subjectivity.

This is obviously easier said than done. At first it seems counter-intuitive. How is it that we unite all by distinguishing and separating every individual? Well, it’s become apparent that objectification and belonging to a group has done nothing put harbored resentment and distaste for every-thing not alike. Then, it must now become a matter of subjectification.

That is, in order for each being to actualize their human potential and subjecthood, they must deprive themselves of all objects and object-relations. Akin to ascetism, but not quite. For even ascetics attempt to objectify themselves in order to reach a divine objecthood. One should constantly remind themselves if their relation is either the I-It or the I-Thou. If the former, then forget it. If the latter, then hold on to it.

There is no resolute conclusion to this reflection. But perhaps in detailing the twofold relations of the world, one may be reminded of what is purposeful and divine and what is not. And I cannot possibly undertake thae challenge to provide a conclusion, nor should I want to. I am a distinct subject encountering the world in my own personal way — and I mean that as literally as I can. And you are a subject encountering the world in your own personal way. I mustn’t take away from that, but instead remind you of that.