The way I read the Jewish theologian, Martin Buber (I and Thou, 1923), he offers a humanist variant of/alternative to existentialism. Where Sartre might say, “Existence precedes essence,” Buber might say, “Relationship precedes essence.” In contrast to the stark “thrownness” of the existentialist, who finds himself alone in an indifferent universe, Buber finds identity itself to be a by-product of the “I-Thou” relation (connections both to fellow humankind and to Being itself). Having shuffled off the existentialist’s burden of aloneness, however, Buber is not exactly the Walmart greeter to Happy Valley. Like the existentialist, he is weighed down with responsibility. For now he carries forever — past, present, and future – the built-in burden of all that connection, the “exalted melancholy of our fate” (16).
shakemyheadhollow
Conceptual spaces: politics, philosophy, art, literature, religion, cultural history
shakemyheadhollow 
A lot of people would seemingly find it simpler if their essence did precede their existence. Adding relationship to the balance helps to shed light both on essence and existence. There’s no need for the existentialist to feel lonely, nor constrained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s easier when essence precedes existence. At least for the existentialist, that would mitigate the burden of responsibility. Per aloneness, remember Alan Watts’s counterpoint to the stark individualism of the existentialists: “We do not ‘come into’ this world [as the existentialists would have it]; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree … We can wipe our brow and know that we’re not alone.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alan Watts! I used to listen to that same lecture on a cassette tape. Wonderful!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many existentialists WANT to feel lonely…
LikeLiked by 2 people
They need to read more Henry Fielding novels.
LikeLike
Ha ha ha! Perfect!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The notion of the sovereign individual has profound political and social implications. The alienation and loss of sense of identity is the inevitable result.
In fact, we are social beings; our relationships are what define us. Sadly, the current ruling thought is that relationships only restrict the freedom of the sovereign individual. No wonder so many people are depressed these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true on the political consequences of individualism gone awry. Thanks, Mike. Gary
LikeLike
Sovereign Individual: n. Bipedal (i.e. slow and weak) prey animal.
LikeLike
Haha. You’re tough on those individualists, Chris.
LikeLike
Nah, only on those nursing the delusion of sovereignty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Buber and Sartre are reconcilable—at least on your points. Relationships help define us and are thus part of our essence. Its just a component. I prefer the existentialist approach of completely responsibility. And I don’t think it has to be so depressing. Use Camus as the explanation. We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not clear to me that Sartre would allow relationships to precede essence. Maybe. But Buber might go so far as to say that existence does not precede relationship. That, at least, I think, would rub Sartre the wrong way. Just guessing. You don’t find something depressing, something close to an admission of defeat, in that dogged insistence that “we must imagine Sisyphus happy”?
LikeLike
Imagination is not required.
Happy or not, each of us is Sisyphus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Each of us might be Sisyphus, but I think Camus’s (Tusa’s) point is that imagination is required if we are to imbue Sisyphus with that gossamer thing called “happiness.”
LikeLike
Well-said. Hey, at least Sisyphus knows what awaits him… like reruns of Gilligan’s Island after school!
LikeLike
What? Gilligan’s Island reruns? If we Sisyphi get to choose our rocks, I’ll take that one!
LikeLike
Sorry for the delay I had to take the gun out my mouth. No I don’t see Sisyphus as an admission of defeat. I think part of the problem is we have poor media created definitions of happiness. There is a notion that somehow one is supposed to be smiling, skipping and happy 24/7 in order to meet that definition. That’s not happiness, though it might be mindlessness. It is moments of happiness amid the times ‘red in tooth and claw’, not ongoing happiness. And I misread the Buber quote while on the phone. Still I think relationships are part of the creation of our essence. Whether it precedes or is simultaneous seems immaterial to me. As for Sartre, he was a scoundrel. I’ll have a cup of coffee with Camus any day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with much of what you say, including the companion-preference for Camus over Sartre, but the whole lot of the existentialists were a bit grim for me — and unnecessarily so. I’d cast my lot rather with Alan Watts per my response to Steve.
LikeLike
Sensing touch, breath, light,
Responsibility, to
Her who gives me life
LikeLike
Actually, the original Buber text (though I read it only in English) is quite poetic, just like this.
LikeLike
Thanks; I will give it a read. I wish my German was better (wie ein Kleinkind gesprochen). Great topic, by the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ich habe es nie auf deutsch probiert, denn ich weiss nicht ob es leicht oder schwer ist.
LikeLike
Reading it in German might take the rest of my life!
LikeLike
haha. i can relate.
LikeLike
“Men prefer to forget how many possibilities are open to them.”
– Martin Buber (from the first paragraph of I And Thou)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies: these words are from the prologue of Walter Kaufmann’s translation. Kaufmann’s words, not Buber’s; still profound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on From guestwriters and commented:
In life we do have to relate in first instance to our self, next to the creation, and then last but not least to the Creator Himself.
An “I-Thou” relation with understanding of past, present and future, is essential to build up something positively constructive.
LikeLiked by 1 person