Chapter Four. Between Daniel And I And Thou: A Phenomenological Comparison Between Descriptions Of Unity
Israel Koren
2010 DOI: 10.1163/ej.9789004181236.i-398.24 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that the common scholarly view is mistaken: what distinguishes Buber's Daniel from I and Thou is not his approach to mysticism, since Buber rejected absolute unity (unio mystica) in both. The unity in Daniel belongs to a moderate extroverted mysticism of identity in difference, and Daniel more strongly carries a mythical-mystical sense of reality as a kingdom of danger, risk, and holy insecurity. |
Abstract
In this chapter, author wishes to refute dominant view among Buber scholars, that what differentiates Buber's book Daniel from I and Thou or, more broadly, Buber's earlier thought and his dialogical thought, is his approach to mysticism. The discussion of Buber's manner of confronting problem of multiplicity and phenomenological examination of mystical descriptions in his writing indicated that Buber rejected possibility of existence of an absolute unity (unio mystica), and that field in which his descriptions of unity in Daniel ought to be placed is that of moderate extroverted mysticism (identity in difference). There is a certain mythical-mystical element that is very much dominant in Daniel and less strongly felt in I and Thou - namely, that of insecure nature of reality, of it being the kingdom of danger and of risk and the kingdom of holy insecurity.Keywords: Buber; Daniel; I and Thou; unio mystica; unity