"good And Evil"

[Innocent]

This book is avaiable on the Internet Archive for free download:

[url="http://www.archive.org/details/goodandeviltwoin009858mbp"]Good And Evil: Two Interpretations,
Right And Wrong,
Images Of Good And Evil
- Martin Buber[/url]


(Thankfully, this is one of the books that haven't been put into the "[url="http://http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=105661&st=0"]Available Only In Daisy Format[/url]" category. )


I've just started reading the book after getting it printed out. Has anyone here read this? How closely compatible with Church Teaching is this book, in your opinion?

Edited October 14, 2010 by Innocent

[kafka]

I've read Buber's "I and Thou" which was interesting with some good insights, but I havent read this one.

He might come up with some good insights, but as far as if he is in line with Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, that is something you have to judge for yourself. He wasnt a Catholic or a Christian. He was a Jew and a philosopher, so he has some Tradition and Scripture (Old Testament) as well as reason which can discern good and evil and philosophize concerning these. Yet he will be limited without New Testament Tradition and Scripture as well as Magisterium guiding him. Not to mention the difficulties of a mind affected by the Fall which we all have. So there might be some useful and valuable insights, but these have to be fished out with care.

[MichaelFilo]

I've read both, with Good and evil just recently. I loved his discussion of sin. You have to realize though that he represents no Jewish tradition, either modern or ancient. He is of a whole new breed.

To put him in context, he was a man trying to defend "God" in an era when the Bible was under serious criticism. I mean, this was the first time, seemingly, in the modern era (possibly ever) that people were actually realizing that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Torah (he died in them, so ...) well whatever the case, it was causing a stir. People were giving up faith in God as Nietzsche predicted and were instead heading towards "ethical monotheism." It is some sort of religious belief tha advocated morality but no real theology. God was the God of no one, just the God of Plato.

Buber was trying to strike a balance between modernity and orthodox faith. He never considered himself orthodox (he was thrown out of ever synagogue he tried to teach in) but he didn't think modernity had it right. In the book he takes the position that many liberal Catholics take today that certain parts are myth but he says some truths are best conveyed in myth. He is also hesitant with strictly being pro-Jewish (he doesn't believe God simply used the Jews) and in that marked a departure from orthodoxy.

You'll like the book but it's no basis for any theology. He was the last of his breed. He fled Germany before Hitler came and died in the 60's but at the time of his death Jewish theology was going the way of atheism writ large. His theology never struggled with Nazism, but modern Jewish philosophy and theology make a great deal out of that era, often making arguments for a disbelief in God (how can He let it happen) and advocating a strong Jewish identity (Zionists are generally atheists.)

If you aren't familiar with Hebrew and are reading it I would say tread carefully. I don't know Hebrew and he does define some terms, as any theologian does, which I can't fact check.

Also, he doesn't believe in immortality, so that should tell you where he stands next to Catholicism. However, Good and Evil wasn't meant to be a pro-Jewish thought book per se.

I just rambled. It's a really good book, not even close to Catholicism.

[kafka]

ramblings about the history of philosophy and the development of thought are welcome