Popular Posts

Friday, March 31, 2017

Soren Kierkagaard on Money and Happiness


Errol, John V. Valdez

The Life of Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
(MAY 5, 1831 – NOVEMBER 11, 1855)


Soren Aabye Kierkegaard is a 19th century Danish philosopher, born on May 5, 1831 in Copenhagen, Kingdom of Denmark, who imposed restrictions on his own love and emotions and declared the idea of subjectivity as truth. From the young age, he was disabled and suffered from complications after his fall from a tree when he was a boy. He was also strongly influenced by his father's depression and stubborn belief in a curse that all his children were doomed to die by the age of 33. He is recognized as the founder of Existentialism, an influential author in psychology, and an important figure in Postmodernism (Shelokhonov, n.d).
He finished his Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Copenhagen in 1841.  His writings revolved around organized religion, Christendom, morality, ethics, psychology and the philosophy of religion. The writings contain metaphor, irony and parables (Wikimedia Foundation, 2017).
His works concentrated on issues on how to live as a single individual, giving concrete human reality over abstract thinking and highlighting the importance of personal choice and commitment. His theological work focuses on Christian ethics, the institution of the Church, the differences between purely objective proofs of Christianity, the infinite qualitative distinction between man and God, and the individual’s subjective relationship to Jesus Christ, who can through faith.  He was extremely critical of the practice of Christianity as a state religion in Denmark. His works in psychology explored on the emotions and feelings of individuals when faced with life choices (Wikimedia Foundation, 2017).
He offered no solutions to the problems in his writings but rather a variety of views on individual, social and political challenges and unresolvable complexities ranging from an “Attack on” approach to an observationist position.  His greatest work entitled “Either/Or” was written in 1842 in Berlin, Germany, was revised and completed in Copenhagen, Denmark in the fall of the same year, and published in 1843.  In this writing, he played his three incarnations, philosopher named “A”, Judge Williams, author of rebuttals to “A”, and editor, Victor Ermita.  This work of Kierkegaard found little understanding among the contemporaries (Shelokhonov, n.d).
                        His early works were written under various pseudonyms.  This is due to create an imitation of discussion between several pseudo-authors were in fact he is the only one. The use of various pseudonyms in his writings is because of his complex personality and intricate thought and reasoning, he made it difficult to distinguish between what he truly believed and what he was making up for a mere arguments.    Among his works are “The Concept of Irony” (1841), “Fear and Trembling” (1843), and “Works of Love” (1847) (Shelokhonov, n.d).
He also wrote many Upbuilding Discourses under his own name and dedicated them to the “single individual” who wants to discover the meaning of his works (Wikimedia Foundation, 2017). In his later works, he analyzed the detrimental effect of organized religion on individuals in Denmark caused by rigidity of established state church. Because of his analysis of fear, sin, guilt and other tools of control over minds, as well as his thoughts on the decay of the Danish State Church and failures of applied religion that led to his statement, “the human race has outgrown Christianity”, ignited attacks on him by many angered critics (Shelokhonov, n.d).
He died in a hospital on November 11, 1855, due to complications from his fall from a tree in his childhood, and was laid to rest in the Assistens Cemetery in Copenhagen, Denmark (Shelokhonov, n.d). 
Kierkegaard on Happiness

            The presented views on happiness by Soren A. Kierkegaard were from the different chapters his work entitled “Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegard,” compiled and edited by Charles E. Moore, published by The Bruderhof Foundation, Inc. in 2002. The following are the views of Kierkegaard on happiness:

1)    The key to happiness is found in the externals - to live an authentic and religious life.
“A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.”
(Kierkegaard S. , Kierkegaard Quotes, 2017)

In Kierkegaard’s “The Speheres of Existence,” found in the preliminary pages of Provocations, he argued that people who are solely concerned with their own happiness have only aesthetic life that means life lived for the moment. These people are more concerned in satisfying their natural desires and impulses physically, emotionally and intellectually.  He described these people as living for enjoyment - on the surface of life, observers, spectators, tasters, but not serious participants.  These people do not have real inner life and self to be offered to others.  Their well-being is determined by the choices or moods of others and by forces that extend beyond their control. They do not internalize in making decisions, thus when they face problems they never accept responsibility or blame.  These people are considered apathetic, indifferent, unintegrated and not committed to any one thing.  Aesthetic freedom is enslavement to the passions that leads a person to the brink of despair. Something better might always come along and so they split their energies in different directions (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
Happiness is found in the externals and can be seen when living an authentic life.  To move toward authentic personal existence is to become a Christian.  This is moving beyond the aesthetic sphere and into the ethical.  The person’s ethical life recognizes the significance of choice by accepting his duty as a moral actor.  The person regards his conscience, take responsibility and fulfill his moral obligations, and set aside his many desires or impulses and his careless freedom. Ethical freedom, as opposite to aesthetic freedom, is the enjoyment and fulfillment of doing one’s duty. A person living an authentic life tries to realize what is of eternal and universal value.  The person realizes that within the soul there is something eternal that cannot be satisfied by a sensory life.  Hence the realization of enduring values of justice, freedom, peace, love and respect for the moral law within propel the ethical self forward into a life of responsibility, caring beyond one’s immediate interests.  All of these will sum up to true freedom, the ability to fulfill one’s duty, to move from what is to what is ought to be (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
The realization of ethical values takes time and effort because it involves choice, resolution and struggles.  An authentic and fully realized individual is unified from within, his actions are one, and accepts responsibility for his commitments. The person is not swayed by his every emotion or by the opinions of others.  Effort is necessary to live in an authentic life because one must passionately choose the path.  Life is an “either/or”, not just between good and evil, but between choosing and not choosing.  The person lives intentionally and intensively and possesses the character, conviction, and willing to sacrifice for something greater than himself.  (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
A higher level of living can be obtained by an individual by living a religious life. This is nothing to do with institutional religion per se but rather the individual lives religiously and the ethical or authentic life is not sufficient to provide solutions for life’s riddles and choices.  Ethical or authentic life fails to adequately deal with exceptional situations because doing one’s duty is not always simple, especially when different duties conflict or obligations are not totally fulfilled.  To Kierkegaard, the “Absolute” is something higher than the universal duty. A fully actualized person has to see himself before God to see himself as he really is.  If this happens, the wide gap between oneself and God becomes clearer because of the sins that has been committed and the failure to fulfill completely the moral duty. If an ethical or authentic individual is truly honest with himself, he lives in constant fear and dread precisely because of his inability to fulfill the moral law and hesitate to give himself absolutely. The most ethical person is precisely the one who feels most inadequate.  Because people existed from the image of God, each person instinctively knows that God is higher than the moral law and greater than any set of values.  People’s highest commitment to make is to God, the very ground of every moral value.  God’s will is finally what matters.  People must ultimately surrender to God in a leap of faith because no one can measure the demands of God (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
When an individual stands before God and no longer sees himself as self-sufficient, he recognizes his own inability to transform himself.  The religious person strives to allow himself to be transformed by God.  The transformation includes three things:
a)    Infinite resignation – dying to the world, the willingness to sacrifice any finite good for the sake of God;
b)    Suffering – undergoing a transformation of the self, though not by self.  It is the process of undergoing “self-annihilation” so that God can do this transforming work; and
c)    Guilt – the feeling of one’s inability to give oneself completely and unreservedly to God.
The religious person, although committed to many ethical ideals as the ethical or authentic person, believes that the ideals are ultimately incapable of fulfillment because of his own inner conditions, not external barriers.  The person recognizes his sinful state.  The person in faith relates himself in repentance and he knows that his chosen ideals are insufficient and incomplete.  The religious person believes that the key to finding God is to recognize and realize his own guilt and need, and that recognized that there is an abyss between him and God, an infinite qualitative difference between man and God.  The true awareness of sin comes from the revelation of God to the individual.  Sin’s corruption is total and one’s ability to choose is itself a gift.  The highest passion of inwardness comes in revelation by God and is received by faith. As Kierkegaard said, “An ethic which ignores sin is an absolutely idle science.” Thus, allowing oneself transformed by God is more important tan fulfilling one’s duty (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

2)    Happiness is immeasurable that is promised to the one who rightly chooses – to be unconditionally obedient.
“I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.”
(Kierkegaard S. , Kierkegaard Quotes, 2017)

                In Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or,” Chapter 2 of the Provocations, to choose rightly is an ultimate blessing and certainly true but the faculty of choice is still a pre-requisite.  The heart is involved in choosing.  To him, a choice that is not used is worse than nothing that will place people trapped as a slave that is not free – by choosing.  People can never get rid of choosing because it remains with them and if not used then it will become a curse.  Choosing is the choice between God and the world.  God’s overwhelming and humbling expression for his condescension and extravagance towards human beings is placing himself on the same level of choice with the world, thus giving people an opportunity to be able to choose, not only can choose but rather must choose. Each person must choose between God and the world. A person must choose because for this way God retains his honor and his fatherly concern for humankind.  Though God has lowered himself to being that can be chosen, yet each person partly chosen Him.  If a person avoids choosing, the presumption is that the person is choosing the world (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
            People are contended in the colossal point of contention, whether to love or to hate.  The love of God is hatred of the world and the love of the world is hatred of God. A terrible fight in the innermost being.  This struggle is a matter of loving and preferring God – the struggle for the highest.  People who do not understand are unwilling to accept the presence of God in the moment of choice, not in order to watch but in order to be chosen.  Each person must choose and the risk lies in the possession of choice (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
            The either/or that God demands from people is the value of unconditional obedience. It is assumed that if the person is not obedient in everything unconditionally, without qualification, he does not love God, thus he hates God.  By not being obedient, the person is not bound to God, thus he despise Him. If a person is absolutely obedient then there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in him and he will become undivided and being single before God.  The presence of ambiguity means the presence of temptation that is enticing that leads to disobedience that will prey the human soul.  A person who surrenders to God, with no reservations, is absolutely safe from being a prey (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
            People are in danger, placed between two tremendous powers that left them to choose. They must either love or hate, and not to love means to hate.  These two tremendous powers that left people to choose are so hostile that the slightest inclination towards one side means absolute opposition of the other side. People must not forget these two tremendous powers where they exists because to forget is a choice (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

3)    Greatest happiness can be changed into greatest torment.

(Kierkegaard S. , Kierkegaard Quotes, 2017)

                In Kierkegaard’s “When Love is Secure,” Chapter 33 of the Provocations, he viewed greatest happiness can change into greatest torment when it is a duty to love. If love is a duty of a person then love becomes eternally secured, secured from ravages of change, eternally and happily secured against despair. Love that is joyous, happy, indescribably confident, instinctive and inclinational, spontaneous and emotional needs to be established securely by the strength of duty.  Despite of its security, anxiety still resides, a force that drives the possibility of change. Spontaneous and emotional love can be changed to its opposite, to hate or it can become jealousy. The heat of spontaneous love is dangerous, no matter how great its passion, it can very quickly become a poisonous fever (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).
            Human love that produce happiness can lose its zeal, joy, desire, originative power and its living freshness due to indifference of habit. Habit cannot be seen that forced people to strive and defend themselves but it resides within them that force them to struggle.  The person is not aware of the occurrence of his habit until it will become noticeable that changed human-inspired love.  When people become aware of the habit that changed their love, they make up for it but do not exactly know how.  This makes people become liable to despair and to become weary.  Genuine love that is transformed and sustained by the eternal will never become characterized by habit (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

4)   Happiness comes with the fulfillment of wishes and changes in external circumstances.
“People settle for a level of despair they can tolerate and call it happiness.”
“Happiness is the greatest hiding place for despair.”
(Kierkegaard S. , Happiness, 2017)


            In Kierkegaard’s “The Dynamics of Despair,” Chapter 37 of the Provocation, he argued that people has the tendency to feel that they are in despair even if they are not.  Because of this attitude of people, their negativity will actually push them not to achieve what they really want and this will lead them to feel that they are in despair.  While they are in the state of despair, they will again do actions, whether by himself or from a help outside him, to go out from that circumstance and fulfill their wishes, desires and wants.  To Kierkegaard, in this situation happiness is restored to the people. (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

5)   Happiness is eternal and related with passion.
In the “Existence and the Existential,” Chapter 69 of the Provocation, Kierkegaard regarded happiness as eternal, that could mean God.  He argued that an existing person should relate himself with passion to God to transform his existence that could lead to happiness.  To Kierkegaard, if a person will not absolutely transform by the eternal then the person does not relate himself to God (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

6)   Happiness is obtained through obedience.
In “Obedience,” Chapter 81 of the Provocation, Kierkegaard argued that happiness is only obtained through obedience.  Despite that man is the master of his destiny and has the ability to understand himself and seek to satisfied himself, if without obedience to follow the eternal, who is God, eternal happiness cannot be attained by people (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

Soren AABYE Kierkegaard on MONEY

The presented views on money by Soren A. Kierkegaard were from the different chapters his work entitled “Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegard,” compiled and edited by Charles E. Moore, published by The Bruderhof Foundation, Inc. in 2002. The following are the views of Kierkegaard on money:

1)   Money is sought  first by man before virtue
In Kierkegaard’s “First the Kingdom of God,” Chapter 54 of the Provocation, he argued that people tend to seek first money to fulfill and satisfy their desires then virtue.  To Kierkegaard, people seek first earthly things and seeking the kingdom of God is the last thing that people will do.  People do not feel the need to go further than fulfilling their earthly desires (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

2)     Man is running after money, status and pleasure.
In Chapter 77 of the Provocations entitled “The Human Condition,” it was argued by Kierkegaard that man runs after money, status, and pleasure.  This view of Kierkegaard is obvious that people gives more importance to the money that they will receive and get, status that they will achieve and pleasures that they will feel by fulfilling their desires.  To him this race is outside the real racetrack to attain eternal happiness since people tends to give last priority on the virtue or seeking the kingdom of God. Fulfilling their desires by seeking money provides them only status and pleasure but not eternal happiness (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

3)       Making money could provide strength to people.
In “Preaching and Proclamation,” Chapter 85 of the Provocations, Kierkegaard argued that people can acquire new strength by making money.  People who are seeking money will be able to gain strength to put out themselves from poverty that possess the highest degree of uncomfortableness and fear.  People are strengthened by comfortable life through seeking money which Kierkegaard described as “fat living.”  When people achieve their desires, they will seek for a more comfortable life which again Kierkegaard described as “fatter one.” This tendencies of people show that no contentment is being achieved that place them to race outside the real racetrack for the eternal (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).

4)   Money will make people into somebody.
In Kierkegaard’s “Worship,” Chapter 98 of the Provocations, he argued that when people will be able to fulfil their desires through accumulation of money.  People will tend to become somebody by acquiring earthly things that satisfy their desires.  People seek things that will lead them to success.  By achieving all these earthly desires, people tend to equate them as proof of God’s grace.  The proof that God’s grace is lacking to people is that they suffer and have torments, they feel grief and in troubles (Kierkegaard S. , Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard, 2002).





CONCLUSION:

            Happiness and money are two great forces that are parts of our everyday life as human beings. We have our own behaviors, hopes, desires, needs, passions, and thoughts that lead us to feel happiness, freedom and love.  Combining all of these aspects of our life we will undergo three different stages in our lives. The lives that Kierkegaard described as: aesthetic, authentic and religious.
            In our aesthetic stage, all of us seek pleasures by fulfilling our needs and desires to push us out in the state of pain or despair. In this life we enjoy earthly things that are provided to us through natural processes or man-made things.  We just say is by simply enjoying the pleasure that the world is providing us in our everyday life.  Reality is many of us equate that pleasure to merely happiness but to Kierkegaard pleasure is earthly while happiness is eternal. We tend to shorten our horizons in looking into the deeper meaning of pleasure and happiness. Once we will be able to learn to stretch and widen and go deeper into the meaning of happiness then this will lead us to the next stage of our lives: the authentic life that sometimes called as ethical life.
            The authentic life is the stage when we do not just feel pleasure but the life where we already have the willingness to make hard decisions on how we want to live in this world.  Not like in the aesthetic stage where in we do not have commitments and our options have no differences, the authentic life leads us to become aware of the two forces that confronts us: what is acceptable (the good) and what is not acceptable (the evil).  This means that our options will make us realize and think of a meaningful choice that we need to select. By the option we choose will now make us different from each other, will now separate our lives to authentic stage.  The option that we pick will shape us into someone and something else. We should keep in our minds that in this stage of our lives we are motivated by the options we make, options that are dictated by love, mutual respect, and concern for other people and to nature.  
As Kierkegaard (2015) stated in is Knight of Faith, happiness is not mere pleasure. Happiness that is dependent upon wealth or luck, upon beauty, or money, or youthfulness is not real happiness because if one of these changes, our happiness dissolves.  Happiness should be eternal, never-ending.
            When we will be able to understand that happiness is eternal then we should know how to live a religious life. We can achieve this stage if we become a true believer of Christ and willing to leave everything and accept the consequences of the calling of our Christ.  This is the hardest stage that only a few people can grasp and live with it. In this stage of life, people must leave anger and vengeance, security and well-being, the approval of society and the vanity of achievement. This means that we must follow Christ, and Christ’s love, no matter where they lead (Kierkegaard S. A., 2015).
            The achievement of the last stage will lead us to eternal happiness. Happiness that our Lord promised us. A life full of happiness wherein sufferings, torments and despair have no traces and have to chance to appear.
            Money is an earthly material things that many of us run after into. If we ask each other if money is a need, there if a great tendency that we will answer in the affirmative.  This is because we are bound greatly with our aesthetic lives.  As much as possible we do not want to suffer from despair and pain and we look into it that money can help us get out of that life circumstance.  We do not want to hunger to weaken us, thus we need money not to feel hungry.  We do not want illnesses strike us, thus we need money to prevent its occurrence in our body.  There are times that money determines our relationships to other people. The more money a person has the more friends he has.  But once a person live in a life with scarcity of money, it is too hard to gain friends.
            Money gave us opportunities to forget the eternal, our Lord God, who is the ultimate provider that all of us need. Even without asking it He will provide us because He knows what are really needed by us.  The Lord can provide us the real happiness that we are looking for that money cannot buy and give.  The feelings that we have when our desires and needs are fulfilled by the money that we have is not really happiness but merely pleasure. Once this pleasure will pass out we placed in despair and again look for something that will satisfy out desires that will gain provide us pleasure. This is a never-ending cycle of life if we do not know how to determine the real racetrack to eternal happiness.
            We should always remember that as we continue our journey in life, money cannot provide happiness but only earthly pleasures by fulfilling our earthly desires. By continued walking through the path of our lives we should learn to live a religious life by observing obedience to what our God wants us to do.  And we able to attain this last and very hard stage of our lives, we will have an assurance that when our time will come we will live in the bosom of our Lord with eternal happiness.

REFERENCES


Kierkegaard, S. (2002). Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard. (C. E. Moore, Editor) Retrieved March 4, 2017, from Holybooks.com: http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Provocations.pdf
Kierkegaard, S. (2017). Happiness. Retrieved March 8, 2017, from Goodreads, Inc: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=happiness+kierkegaard&commit=Search
Kierkegaard, S. (2017). Kierkegaard Quotes. Retrieved March 5, 2017, from SearchQuotes.com: http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Kierkegaard/
Kierkegaard, S. A. (2015, August 30). Knight of Faith. (R. G. Haller, Editor) Retrieved March 6, 2017, from fumcbirmingham: http://fumcbirmingham.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Surrounded-Knight-of-Faith-Soren-Kierkegaard.pdf
Shelokhonov, S. (n.d). Soren Kierkegaard: Biography. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0452567/bio
Wikimedia Foundation. (2017, February 23). Soren Kierkegaard. Retrieved March 4, 2017, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soren_Kierkegaard












Friday, February 24, 2017

Broken Society from Martin Buber’s Perspective and A Lens for Building Peaceful Society



Damianus Abun
Abstract
The existence of broken world cannot be denied. Human beings have to accept the fact that this broken world is caused by human beings themselves. The solution is going back to human beings. Since society is built upon relations, therefore human relationship has to be restored to heal the broken world. The kind of human relationship that can restore unified society is subject to subject relationship, not subject to object relationship. World crisis is caused by I-It relationship in which another human being is treated as object and as a result abuse and manipulation are becoming the norms of relationship. Conflict happens because of misunderstanding and such misunderstanding is caused by not being open to one another. People do not reveal themselves to one another because of mistrust. Buber’s advice is that everyone should open to one another and should be treated as equal human beings, as subjects. Therefore honest and sincere dialogue between man and man is a prerequisite to build a dream world: unified world, not a broken one.  

Key words: genuine relationship and dialogue, subject to subject relationship


Introduction

It cannot be denied that relationship matters much in human society. Human society is built upon relations. There is no society and there is no community, if there is no relationship. When they meet, they relate to each other and know each other and decide to stay together. Such relationship is maintained by dialogue and therefore, the same idea goes that no dialogue, no community or no society. Dialogue is the one that strengthens the relationship because in the dialogue people get to know each other better and makes the relationship stronger. 

We have been living in the society or community for a long time and we have been the eye witnesses of problems that are happening in our society, community and even in the family as the core of society. Conflicts, wars, separation or divorce are no longer extraordinary news to our ears but they are common news that we encounter every day in newspapers, TV, radio and social media. The new generations are born into this kind of society and their growth is formed by this kind of society. Their mind, their world views are affected by the society where they live. What will happen next? Most probably they will perpetuate such kind of society to the next generation, a broken society, a violent society unless there is a total cultural transformation in the way how they relate and view others and the world around them.  

The question of why we have broken society will go back to the basic foundation of society and that is relationship and such genuine relationship is built upon dialogue. Relationship and dialogue are two essential factors that maintain a society, a community or even family. Dialogue bridges the gap and the distances become closer. However, the concern remains: what kind of dialogue that brings the society, community or family together. In this research article, I would like to use the philosophy of Martin Buber, an existentialist philosopher, as a lens to view how we should build a peaceful society. In the view of Martin Buber, it is possible to build a unified world and peaceful world, community or family, if human beings let go their pride, treat one another as equal human being and be honest to one another in their dialogue.      

The Existence of Broken World
  
It might be too idealistic if we dream for a perfect world where all people are living in harmony and having no wars or conflicts between religions, races and countries. It was only the world inside the womb of our mother but when we are thrown or born into this world, we do not see a world of peace without conflicts, a person without enemy, country without enemy or religion without enemy. Though through religion, we are taught not to have enemy but in reality we have enemy. As Wayne (2015) argued that we see all around us the problems of a broken society. The broken world is a reality, it is everywhere. This broken realities mark our existence. It is in our homes, our cities, our countries and in fact this entire world is in chaos. Animosities rule our lives for to disagree with our neighbor is just under the surface of our nature. We have been growing up in these realities and we have adjusted to them and we have accepted them as part of our lives. But the questions are: who will stand up to explain why our world is broken and what has caused it to be broken? Shouldn’t we begin to realize that there is a cause or a reason for this condition? Were we born with this condition? Don’t you think that if spiritual leaders tell us that we are broken then they should be able to explain why the world or society is broken?

The questions that we have raised are nothing new. It has been long time ago, Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) wondered about our life and experience and he came to a conclusion that we live in a broken world. He emphasized that the world we live in is essentially broken, fractured by events in history (Marcel, 1995). He was not alone in seeing such kind of world. Soren Kierkegaard (1983) lamented that this world is irrational, in the sense that we do not understand how it operates. Many things happen not according to human calculations because it cannot be understood by reason. According to him, this world is marked by dread or anxiety, guilt, absurdity, paradox, despair, death and nothingness. Other philosopher before Kierkegaard but within the same generation, Arthur Schopenhauer also viewed the world of his time as dark world because the world is full of sufferings and viewed the life of individual as always a tragedy and therefore he considered this world as irrational because many things happen could not be comprehended (Copleston, 1975, 1946).

The questions are raised: who is to be blamed? Did God inherit the broken world? God never inherited a broken world but a perfect world, a peaceful world, a world of harmony. However, the possibility of broken world or society is imbedded in human blood. It may be true to what the Latin Proverb that says, “homo homini lupus” which means that a man is a wolf to another man. Such proverb reminds us of social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes that prior to social contract; a man lived in the state of nature. Man’s life in the state of nature was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of constant fear of another because man wanted to dominate another man. Life in the state of nature was poor, nasty, solitary, brutish and short (Elahi, n.d). Though we all are living in a civilized world under the social contract but it seems that life before the social contract, life in the state of nature is still the dominant force in human relationship. Man lives in fear of another and therefore no one opens to another. Thus, the current state of affairs which is characterized by insincerity or hypocrisy is blamed to human beings themselves. The solution is with the human beings themselves. They should be the one to restore peace and unity among human beings by establishing genuine relationship and dialogue as proposed by Martin Buber.       

Martin Buber’s View on How Human Beings Should Live

Buber worked upon the premise of existence as encounter (Buber, 1947, 2002). In such premise, Buber recognized that life is never lived alone but life is a society, life is a community or a family, life is with others. Every day we encounter other people and we communicate, then develop a relationship and form a society or community. Society, community or family is a result of relationship and dialogue. Thus, society is built upon relations and dialogue.  There is no society, no community or family without relationship and dialogue and that is why Buber argued that if there is no dialogue among people, there is nothing human. However, the quality of relationship depends much on dialogue because in the dialogue people start revealing themselves to one another. How one reveals himself/herself to one another in dialogue and how one treats the other dialogue is important to establish a genuine relationship and a genuine community. After all, according to Buber, society or community is not a bunch of objects but a bunch of subjects or human persons and therefore one should know the proper way how to deal and relate to one another as persons with dignity.

He wrote about personal relationship between human beings and God, human beings and their world which he summarized into I-You/Thou (Ich - Du) and I-It (Ich-Es) relationship (Buber, 1958). From such pair of words, he went on to explain the genuine relationship. He used the I-Thou or Ich-Du to describe relationship between man and man and God. This is a subject to subject relationship in the sense that people enter into a relationship with the whole of their beings, as genuine persons with their own uniqueness and accept each other as he/she is. One treats the other as subject with dignity, not to be used or manipulated for one’s advantage. Therefore, the specific characteristic of this relationship is reciprocity and mutuality. As a result of such relationship, both parties who enter into a relationship grow together. There is a mutual benefit that both parties received from such relationship (Buber, 1947, 2002). One is not taking advantage of another.

According to Buber, such kind of relationship can be established if there is a genuine dialogue (Buber, 1991). Genuine dialogue is when both parties open themselves up to one another without wearing any mask.  There are no secrets to be hidden but one opens herself/himself up to the other for the other to understand him/her and the other should accept the person as he/she is. It is only in the openness; one can perceive the other correctly and avoid misunderstanding. It is necessary, therefore, for the other to open himself/herself to the other and welcome the other without condition. In this dialogue, one should be silent and listening to the other and enter into his/her world and understand her/him from his/her own stories.

For Buber, genuine relationship is the foundation to build relationship with God (Kramer, & Gawlick, 2003). Buber argued that the meeting between I-Thou is not just between two people or between someone but every particular Thou is a glimpse through the eternal Thou. In other words, our genuine dialogue and relationship with the other and the world is the windows open to the eternal Thou.  Every I-Thou or I-You relationship opens up a window to the ultimate Thou or God (Wood, 1969).  It just means that one cannot approach God without having a good relationship with fellow human beings. One cannot be holy unless one has also good relationship with other fellow human beings and only based on such relationship one can enter into dialogue with God. Therefore, the present world which is marked by brokenness makes it hard for human beings to reach God.  

I-Thou relationship is not just a relationship between man and man, man and God but it also includes the relationship between man and environment. Environment has to be approached through I-Thou relationship or subject to subject relationship. Such idea reminds us that environment is not to be treated as object to be manipulated but to be treated as equal with human beings, as subject. It implies that we cannot also establish good relationship with the eternal Thou unless we have good relationship with the environment because every particular Thou or You is a glimpse through the eternal Thou. Destroying others and destroying the environment is destroying our relationship with God and the disappearance of God into human relations.

Buber recognized that achieving genuine human relationship may become difficult when people fall into I-it relationship. I-It relationship is a relationship between subject and object. It is a relation of person to thing, of subject to object, involving some form of utilization, domination or control. This is not equal relationship because the other is treated as object to be manipulated. One is subject, while the other is object. This kind of relationship is not founded on mutual trust but suspicions or mistrust (Buber, 1952).  Within such kind of relationship, the differences are accentuated and the uniqueness of “I” is emphasized. Man enters into relation not with the wholeness of his being, but part of it. Each is still wearing mask, does not open themselves up to each other. Consequently one cannot open fully himself/herself to the other because of mistrust and prejudices. Within the I-It or subject to object relationship, there is no dialogue but only monologue. People pretend to be in dialogical relationship but in reality there is no real dialogue because one is only emphasizing his/her points and no listening.  

Within this seeming relationship, one cannot fully understand the other because their perception toward each other is limited and such situation always causes misunderstanding. The invasion of seeming and the inadequacy of perception can lead to conflict. They pretend to be in dialogue but the dialogue is full of personal interest, not common interest. They enter into dialogue with the self-interest agenda in which one enter into dialogue because one wants to get something out of such relationship.  According to Buber, there is a movement from relation to separation, a growing crisis of human existence in modern society. He believed that the relationship between individual and their selves, between people, and people and creation was increasingly that of I-It. As a result, it is becoming more and more difficult to encounter God (Wood, 1969). 

Building a Peaceful Society Based on Buber’s Idea

Based on Buber’s idea of the encounter, relationship and dialogue, we cannot deny the fact that building a peaceful society is depending on what kind of relationship and dialogue among human beings. Buber admitted that there is a growing crisis in human society and the reason of such crisis is human relationship. Human relationship is no longer between I-Thou or subject to subject but more on I-It relationship or subject to object relationship. The nature of such kind of relationship is no longer based on mutual trust but suspicions. Each one is suspicious toward the other and one does not trust the other one and therefore create a distance. There is no more room for genuine dialogue and there is no possibility of openness. The more people are distancing from each other, the more they are suspicious.  

Buber frankly pointed out that we are entering into crisis because the relationship between man/woman and himself/herself, between man/woman and the environment are no longer I-Thou but more of I-it. In this kind of relationship, one does not meet the other as subject but as object to be used for one’s advantage. One enters into a relationship with the other because of certain personal interest. One country enters into relationship with the other country because it wants to gain something from such relationship. Business enters into a relationship with other business because of something to be gained. A man enters into a relationship with a woman because he knows that something can be gained from the woman. These agendas are not revealed, but hidden within the person and the other does not have the capability to detect the real agenda of the person why he/she enters into the relationship. Buber lamented that the growth of the individual persons are impeded because of the invasion of seeming and the inadequacy of perception. Why? Within this kind of relationship, people can no longer communicate themselves to one another as what they are and so they cannot really know and understand each other. They are stranger to each other and therefore, they are no longer true to each other because their inner self is not revealed. They are wearing mask all the time, there is no authenticity.

Building a peaceful and harmonious society should be based on genuine relationship or I-Thou relationship. Each one should be treated as subjects, no matter who they are. One needs to accept one another as they are, not based certain condition. Buber advised that in order to create peaceful society, man has to unfold because man does not exist in isolation but in the completeness of relation. The completeness of relation can be achieved through opening up oneself to the other, no pretense, no seeming and ready to welcome the other as they are.                 

Conclusion
 Following the basic concept of Buber about the encounter, we have simple conclusion that broken world is caused dishonest relationship, dishonest relationship. Each one is taking advantage of one another. One is using another as object of manipulation. Buber recommends that relationship has to be a subject to subject, not subject and object. Everyone should be treated as equal individual human beings; no one is lower than the other. Honest and sincere dialogue is essential aspect to build or to heal the broken world. After all, we cannot build relationship with God unless we have good relationship with one another and with the environment.

References

Buber, Martin. (1958). I and Thou. (Ronald Gregor Smith, Trans.) New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Buber, Martin. (2002) [1947]. Between Man and Man. New York: Routledge. pp. 250–51.

Buber, Martin (1991), "Martin Buber: A Biographical Sketch", in Schaeder, Grete, The Letters of 

Martin Buber: A Life of Dialogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Buber, Martin.( 1957). The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays. (Maurice Friedman& Ronald 

Gregor-Smith, Trans.). 1998.  Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

Buber, Martin. (1952). Good and Evil: Two Interpretations. (R.G. Smith &M. Bullock, Trans.).  Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Buber, Martin. (1957). Between Man and Man. (Ronald Gregor-Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge, 2002.

Copleston, F. (1975, 1946), Arthur Schopenhauer: Philosopher of Pessimism, London: Barnes and Noble.

Elahi, Manzoor.( n.d). Social Contract Theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3138759/Social_Contract_Theory_by_Hobbes_Locke_and_Rousseau

Kramer, Kenneth & Gawlick, Mechthild. ( 2003). Martin Buber’s I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press.

Kierkegaard, Soren.(1983). The Concept of Irony. (Lee, M.Capel, Trans.).  New York: Buccaneer Books Inc. 

Marcel Gabriel.1995. The Philosophy of Existentialism. (Manya Harari, Trans. ). 1995. New York: Citadel.

Wayne, L. (2015). The Purpose of Human Existence. Retrieved from https://purposeofhumanexistence.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/our-broken-world/

Wood, Robert E ( 1969). Martin Buber’s Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou. Northwestern University Press


Ethical management in tourism and hospitality industry

  MARK KELVIN C. VILLANUEVA Divine Word College of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, Philippines Abstract   This paper discusses the importance of bu...