No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 October 2009
The essential argument of Lawrence Perlman's critique of my essay “Martin Buber's Epistemology: A Critical Appraisal” is that I have misunderstood Buber insofar as I claim that his dialogical philosophy is largely Kantian in structure. In response it must be said that Perlman has worked hard to make his case—but finally it is unconvincing, even seriously misleading, because it rests on a triple misunderstanding, i.e., a misunderstanding of Kant, of Buber, and of Katz.
1. In my Post-Holocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought (New York, 1983), pp. 1–51.
2. Ibid., pp. 8–9.
3. See theKaufmann, Walter trans, of I and Thou (New York, 1970), p. 125.Google Scholar
4. Ibid, p. 55. I have added the more usual term Thou in brackets for Kaufmann's term You.
5. Ibid, p. 59.
6. Buber, , “Distance and Relation,” in The Knowledge of Man ed. M., Friedman (1966), pp 62–63.Google Scholar
7. Ibid, p. 61.
8. Buber, “Man and His Image-Work,” in Knowledge of Man pp. 157–158
9. I and Thou, trans. Smith, Gregor (New York, 1958), p. 3 (emphasis added).Google Scholar