Fike asked:

What are the similarities and differences between Thomas Aquinas' and Martin Buber's thought
towards religion? What are the strengths and weaknesses of their approaches to understand our
relationship with a higher power? and what conclusion can you draw about the difference between
describing something and interpreting something?

I really appreciate your time, thoughtful ideas and opinions.

============

Aside from obvious differences like Thomas being a Dominican monk from Southern Italy writing in
the thirteenth century and Buber being a German Jew affiliated to Eastern European Hasidism writing
in the Twentieth Century.

Both are existential, but Buber's emphasis is humanist, he defines man existentially, while Thomas
defines God existentially. Buber is unclear about God, whether He is 'alongside' existence or 'over
and against' it, but it is clear that Buber's God is interpersonal. Both writers relegate psychology to its
proper place within metaphysics (rather than instead of it, as in Freud and Jung). Thomas has more
to say about God and a theory of language (analogy) that is existential. Buber's existential theory of
language is limited to basic utterances, and his ideas largely revolve around these. Thomas showed
the proper way to talk about God by contrast with improper ways (metaphoricity, univocity,
equivocity). Both men saw philosophy and theology in terms of each other and did not
compartmentalize them. Thomas saved theology/ philosophy (he revolutionized it) from essentialism,
Buber saved theology/ philosophy from psychologism and ideological monism (such as Marxism,
materialism, Communism, historicism, phenomenalism and so on).

Matthew Del Nevo

www.sicetnon.com