tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2790176952101008132.post5012838489138430776..comments2011-12-06T09:52:31.437-08:00Comments on Existentialism @ Rhodes: I-It has meaningDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2790176952101008132.post-36550713489774056242011-12-04T16:51:07.969-08:002011-12-04T16:51:07.969-08:00I tend to agree with Patrick's reading of this...I tend to agree with Patrick's reading of this concept. I think that the "meaning" that is addressed here is dealing with the communication of thought. There must be a receiver to in order for this relationship to be meaningful. The dialogue cant be stagnant, rather I feel like there must be an exchange involved. And in my own understanding, a relationship is, when looked at stripped of all of the attachments just an ongoing dialogue. If looked at in this way, you can understand that meaning belongs to the conversation between two subjects conversing, but it is not present when one subject addresses a rock.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17056233439191832412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2790176952101008132.post-18503664437666027902011-11-29T11:26:21.565-08:002011-11-29T11:26:21.565-08:00I suppose that the concept of "meaning" ...I suppose that the concept of "meaning" itself presupposes something that can be articulated or communicated, which can only occur in the context of an I-Thou relationship where mutual understanding is possible (even a fabricated I-Thou relation, as when we speak to ourselves). That, at least, is what I take to be the sense of Buber's contention that the I-It relation has not meaning. But your objections are well taken and could take some effort to unpack fully.Patrick Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16476715428156290140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2790176952101008132.post-42010305078697542042011-11-22T11:43:22.997-08:002011-11-22T11:43:22.997-08:00I cannot find much to mention that you or Brian ha...I cannot find much to mention that you or Brian have not touched on, but I did want to add that to an extend, I can see the I-It relationship as having meaning, simply through an analysis of the I-It relationships a person has. Perhaps this is more of a round about I-Thou relationship with the self, but after reading your post I began to question how the two different relationships interact. As Brian said, one cannot exist without the other.Therefore, can't the I-It relationships a person have give an impression of who they are, as though you were in an I-Thou relationship with them. Or, couldn't someone analyze their own relationships and form a pseudo I-Thou relationship through the reflection on the relationships they share with others.<br /><br />Perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but this post really got me thinking about it, and its much appreciated.JonathanCavellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05349439313858075921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2790176952101008132.post-18210100711851757882011-11-21T13:25:34.084-08:002011-11-21T13:25:34.084-08:00Well to see to your point and argue against Buber ...Well to see to your point and argue against Buber I was talking with Dr. J and it is possible to have an I-It relationship with God/universal and that jazz. It is just how one describes the relationship; and I agree with you that I-It relationships do have meaning; they are important so one can create those I-Thou relationships. Since there is a seperation you need one to really have the other. If that makes sense. Interesting post.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07167995826384589927noreply@blogger.com