©2008 NewFoundations

Martin Buber's Educational Theory

Analyst: Vu Nguyen


edited 4/30/14



Martin Mordechai Buber was born in 1878 in Vienna, Austria and passed away in 1965. His life was marked by several stages. The failure of his parent's marriage turned out to be quite a milestone for the little three-year-old Buber which caused him to live with his grandparents, Solomon Buber, a respected scholar of Jewish tradition and literature, and Adlele Buber, an enthusiastic reader of literature.[1] He learned about the Jewish sources from his grandfather and his sensitivity to language, literature, and German culture with the help of his grandmother.[2] Buber was "home schooled" until age ten.

In 1896, he went to University of Vienna and then the University of Leipzig. He also went to Berlin twice (in 1898 and 1899) to take courses with famed scholars Wilhelm Dilthey and Georg Simmel. In 1902, he and Berthold Feiwel founded a Jewish publishing house in Berlin. Two years later, Buber completed his doctoral dissertation Toward the History of the Problem of Individuation: Nicolas of Cusa and Jakob Boehme. From 1906 through 1908, he studied under Ba'al Heorshem and Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, two prominent Hasidic scholars. In this stage of his life, Zionism contributed a great deal to what was to become Buber’s most important work, I and Thou, which was published in 1923. Hasidism also extended his intellect to interesting new horizons. In fact, Buber’s thoughts have deep roots in the traditions of Judaism, particularly Hasidism. However, he also embraced many other thinkers and theorists like Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre. Therefore, Buber should rightly be characterized as both a Hasidic thinker and a humanist theorist.

The last stage of Buber's life began with his move to Jerusalem in 1938. In this "attentive silent" stage, Buber said he recognized the importance of the "eternal" as a background for all being and dialogue.[3]

Buber is best known as "the philosopher of dialogue".[4] But he also was a gifted linguist and educational theorist. Indeed, he ranked among the most dedicated humanists and enlightened teachers of all time.[5] After his retirement from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Buber went on tours mostly in U.S. and Europe lecturing and joining dialogues in different sphim or heres including philosophy, education, and psychotherapy.

As an educator Buber was tirelessly active for almost sixty years. He also enjoyed a sixty-year marriage, although he kept his personal life to himself. It is interesting to note that Buber's "primary vices" were pride, a sweet tooth and a stingy streak.[6]

I. THEORY OF VALUE: What knowledge and skills are worthwhile learning? What are the goals of education?

On many occasions Buber criticizes classical education that teaches values as "absolutes." He is equally critical of "modern" education that often gives priority to "objective knowledge".[7]

For Buber, knowledge of self should always be the first and foremost task of any person. For that reason children must be taught to explore their "two autonomous instincts" the originator and the communion instincts. The originator instinct helps him or her learn about themselves and the world. It also helps them learn to tell good from evil and right from wrong.[8]. The instinct of communion makes the child conscious of "mutuality and sharing", which prepares him or her for the true "dialogue" with the Thou.[9]

Education fails if the child is taught the instinct of origination only. In Buber's words, "an education based only on the training of the instinct of origination would prepare a new human solitariness which would be the most painful of all". [10]

Understanding education to be "the selection of the effective world by a person,"[11] Buber encourages the active role of the learner in selecting and building his/her own knowledge. He criticizes the accumulation of knowledge by rote learning, and valued "constructive criticism, the direct experience and the personal integration of the discrete data which have been received".[12]

The goal of the learner is, according to Buber, to turn objective knowledge into "active knowledge." "He also states that a main task of the teacher to be motivating the student to self-learning and self-perfection. But the paramount task Buber sets for the educator is to guide his pupils from the teacher-pupil communion toward the universal communion."[13] And he understands individual growth to be the result of the active involvement of self-actualized individual human in the relational world. That is why he asserts that the "nurturing of relational capacities," not "the provision of opportunities for self-expression and growth," is the major function of education.[14]

Buber maintains that freedom to realize and actualize the individual self in the relational world and freedom from the shadow of history would lead a person to the "potential to enact communion".[15] In this process, Buber sees "change" as a key goal of education. By change, he means: the learner moving along "toward the right and desirable direction ... Inasmuch as the immature person has not yet achieved his final inner shape he is subjected to accept order and form".[16]

Buber also maintains that education is genuine only when it is education of character, which begins with the true essence of the private self, personally re-experiencing the absolute and rediscovering our human nature.[17]

II. THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE: What is knowledge? How is it different from belief? What is a mistake? A lie?

               While Buber does not explicitly define knowledge, his discussions of such terms as "truth", "reality of relation", "values", or "dialogue", suggest what he thinks knowledge is. Buber makes distinctions between "to learn" and "to know." He considers "learning" to be the "becoming character of the act of knowing".[18] Knowledge he divides into two kinds: knowledge of self and knowledge of reality. A person needed to explore and experience both to step "down" into the relational world characterized by the "pure dialogue".

Buber’s theory of knowledge is based on "the primary reality of relation". [19] "Truths," according to Buber, "were disclosed through knowing, loving, believing and other relationships of everyday life, i.e. truths that were disclosed through relational rather than objectivist criteria".[20]

Despite a religious nature, Buber sees a great difference between objective knowledge and belief. In the process of discovering reality, he requires a "pure dialogue, which demanded freedom and liberation of personality. Buber also asserts that humans should not forget the rule of logic, which was considered to be "a true regard for the depth of life".[21]

For Buber, a mistake occurs when any forms of coercion, indoctrination, propaganda, or preaching are used in the classroom. The idea of introducing "values whose claim is absolute" into character education is a mistake as well. [22]

III. THEORY OF HUMAN NATURE: What is a human being? How does it differ from other species? What are the limits of human potential?

Buber, as theologian and philosopher, argues for a special standing of humanity in the universe both in terms of limitations and potentialities. "Man's existence", according to Buber, "is constituted by his participation, at the same time and in the same actions, in finitude and infinity; man's uniqueness is determined by the particular existential characteristics of his relation to 'mystery', cosmos, destiny, death, things and man".[23] For Buber "man is the crystallized potentiality of existence".[24]

Buber’s ultimate concern with "the wholeness of man" required a systematic analysis of human nature characterized not only by "concrete, existential" manifestations but also "unique" features that make human beings distinctive from other species.[25] In Buber’s parlance, "a legitimate philosophical anthropology must know that there is not merely a human species but also peoples, not merely a human soul but also types and characters, not merely a human life but also stages in life".[26]

Unlike the traditional emphasis on 'reason' as a distinctive human characteristic, Buberian thoughts dwell on the idea of humanity as a whole. To him, "human reason is to be understood only in connection with human non-reason".[27] This tension of polarities Buber understood to be crucial.

Markedly, Buber defends the determination of relations as central to human existence. In his book, Between Man and Man, he declares, "real existence, that is, real man [human beings] in his relation to his being is comprehensible only in connection with the nature of the being to which he stands in relation".[28] In other words, without relations, there is no humanity

This type of thinking leads Buber to a profound discussion of the two primary attitudes and relations of human beings, the I-Thou and I-It relationships. As Murphy (1988) clarified, "the ideas of potentiality and inwardness are firmly rooted in Buber's anthropological view of man as intrinsically a relating, loving, reciprocating, rather than self-fulfilling, individually creative, or merely socially oriented being".[29] Buber often argued that only in "genuine meetings", are human life and humanity born.[30]

Buber's conception of human nature suggests an alternative way of looking at the "polar reality" that divides the human "soul" into good and bad. The poles do exist, but as "yes and no", "acceptance and refusal".[31] Buber claims that the good (or bad) was "only direction" (not substance) that could be strengthened and molded, not two kinds of human beings.[32] And for Buber the ego/person duality of human beings parallel the twofold world constituted by the vehicles of the I-Thou and I-It relations.[33]

As an existentialist, Buber reserves the "supreme act of freedom and decision" for human beings. He says, "for he [the human being] alone is free who chooses what to will and wills his destiny….Only he who knows relation and knows about the presence of the Thou is capable of decision. He who decides is free."[34]

What Buber has in mind is that "freedom is not itself an end but a means towards a higher end: the attainment of the ultimate goal of existence which is fulfillment through communion and love".[35] For Buber, there are two orders of freedom& -- one is "the individual's freedom of decision or choice" and the other’s "freedom for self-development and growth".[36]  

IV. THEORY OF LEARNING: What is learning? How are skills and knowledge acquired?

Learning, for Buber, is first and foremost a synthesis of both exploration of the relational world and rediscovery of traditions and values by experiencing the changing world as it is. Learning is indeed a "search for meaning" or as stated in Buber's definition of education, "the selection of the effective world by a person".[37] In addition, for Buber, learning means to "acquire certain value-judgments".[38]

In this meaning-making journey, the child learns as he or she encounters the world, attempts to deal critically with its reality, and through the act of selection, figures out what is significant in all realities he or she encounters for him or herself.[39] This is why, in addition to the influential role of the teacher in the teaching-learning process, Buber demands a great deal of freedom for the learner in his "selection of the effective world." As Murphy (1988) puts it, "a free choosing of its reality, a free venturing into the unknown and the undisclosed and full responsibility for his own knowing".[40]

Learning is not only the process of critical reflection and personal selection but "a deepening of self-awareness and self-consciousness through the processes of disciplined inquiry and understanding which characterize the act of relating dialogically to the world."[41] In learning to know, the child learns to become aware of his personhood and conscious of his presence in relation. But Buber was cognizant that "exploratory experience in learning was not enough ... Education must be 'conscious and willed'.[42]

Ultimately, skills and knowledge are, according to Buber, acquired through dialogue. In Cohen's words, "the heart of education is discourse: the dialogue of query and reply in which both sides ask and both sides answer; the dialogue of the joint study by teacher and pupil of man, nature, art, and society; the dialogue of true friendship, in which the intervals of silence are no less dialogic than spoken discourse.[43]

Relationships provide context for dialogue. Based on his anthropological view of human nature (human beings are described as intrinsically relating, loving, and reciprocating, rathim or her than self-fulfilling, individually creative, or merely socially oriented creatures), what constructs human existence is a web of various relationships (interpersonal, aesthetic and social, the relationship of learning and knowing, etc.) that "enliven, deepen, and fulfill" individual growth.[44]

In dialogue, communication is "central" and thus language becomes a powerful means during the meaning-making processes. As Murphy (1988) elucidates, "a genuine speaking and listening is essential for all true communication, for truly effective learning and ultimately for the entire pursuit of truth".[45]  

V. THEORY OF TRANSMISSION: Who is to teach? By what methods? What will the curriculum be?

Buber has so much to say about who is a true teacher and what teaching should look like. In the teaching-learning process, Buber exalted the teacher-learner relationship and dialogue. The teacher, according to Buber, should take a "formative, disciplinary and highly purposeful" role.[46]

Buber uses two images to characterize the nature of teaching. He first compared teaching with the image of "birth-giving". He wrote in Teaching and Deed, "He who teaches the tradition to his fellowmen is regarded as though he has formed him and made him and brought him into the world".[47]

The second image for teacher was "the zaddik," a figure celebrated in Hasidic legend as a teacher and healer of souls, one who occupies a central place in the lives of the Hasidic communities.[48] Buber wants to see all the qualities of a zaddik in a teacher.[49] The zaddik is the one who "stands for a simple personal witness to truth, exemplifying his active and loving concern for his followers and his wholehearted communion with them".[50] A teacher, like the zaddik, is a human being with strengths and flaws who embraces his or her main functions, like teaching and counseling, as the zaddik did.

On other occasions, Buber speaks of the teacher as a filter and a selector. The teacher as a "filter" takes the task of "refining the diverse messages arriving from the surrounding." As a "selector" the teacher must "stand in contradiction to the old education characterized by a passive acceptance of tradition poured from above (symbolized by ‘a funnel’), as well as the ‘new’ education (represented by ‘a pump’) which pictures education as drawing forth the static powers of the self.[51]

Upon examination, the relationship between the teacher and students is hierarchical. A teacher, as Buber emphasized, takes the major responsibility to exert influence upon him or her students as well as their growth and development of their potentialities.[52] But Buber simultaneously condemned "interference" and "arbitrariness".[53]

And though the teacher-student relationship is hierarchic, the pedagogical realm is "entirely dialogical".[54] A teacher can "apprehend" his students, but his students are "incapable" of "comprehending" their teacher. Therefore, the teacher "must stand simultaneously at the two poles of the education scene: his own and the student’s".[55] As Politzer (1956) points out, Buber emphasizes the significance of a teacher's capability of "being totally engaged existentially with his students and of carrying on a mutually creative dialogue with them".[56] In Between Man And Man, Buber wrote: "For educating characters, you do not need a moral genius, but… a man who is totally alive and able to communicate directly to his fellow beings.[57] Passionately, Buber describes what a good teacher looks like: "A good teacher educates when speaking as well as when silent, during the lessons as well as during recess, during an occasional conversation, through his own behavior, provided he really exists and is really present".[58]

Teaching methods did not attract much of Buber’s attention even though he oftentimes stressed the importance of pedagogic efficiency in the advance of learning.[59] Dialogue undoubtedly stands out as one major method of teaching. Other means that help learners to achieve different goals of education include techniques and activities of collaborative meaning making.[60] His holistic approach to education required teacher to take him or her students' lives as a whole and in developmental experience.

Buber constantly encourages teachers to use music and art side by side with literature in dialogic reciprocity.[61] The curriculum approved by Buber definitely includes general education, religious and moral education, aesthetic education, community and adult education. General education helps students to develop their knowledge of themselves and about the world. It aims to train students to be both humans and intellectuals, using such methods as dialogue and critical meaning-making process. In religious and moral education, students learn how to interpret traditions through images and symbols in music, art, and literature, etc. and develop ways to understand their meanings. Also, it helps students build their own character. Aesthetic education focuses on the creative capacity of human beings and develops imagination and sensitivity as a preparation for a richer experience with multiple aspects of life. Buber sees this as inward movements to the outer larger world. Finally, community and adult education connects every person together as a community of communities. It promotes sharing certain ideals and reaching specific aims among members of a community as well as encourages inter-communal dialogue.

Though Buber criticizes both classical and progressive education, he does not think either one was all bad nor did he reject these positions entirely. He prefers to take the role of a critical thinker, rather than judge, pointing out the pros and cons of both conceptions of education. For instance, though the "new" education tended to hold misconceptions of childhood potentiality and the status and authority of the teacher, it did "liberate" classroom from "the repressive authoritarianism" found in the "old" education.[62] On the other hand, though the classical tradition functioned well in "transmitting the spiritual and cultural heritage and providing a genuine historical self-understanding in the child," it manifested 'will-to-power' excesses, an objectivist epistemology and impersonal teaching strategies".[63]

VI. THEORY OF SOCIETY: What is society? What institutions are involved in the educational process?

Buber's social theory has deep roots in the traditions of Judaism, and Jewish Hasidism plays a crucial role. His conception of a community is built upon such ideals as equal distributions of material resources, social equality, mutual love and help among one another, assurance for all individuals' spiritual, cultural, ethical and social autonomy.[64] The idea of God as a source and ultimate owner of all material resources, which the Torah emphasized, convinced Buber of the legitimation of a "just community".[65] It is worth noting that Buberian socialism was substantially distinct from Marxist centralism or Leninist communism even though all of these socialist thoughts and theories owed so much to the socialist traditions of Judaism.

Buber firmly believes that "the social transformation begins within the community…not through the political process but through the renewal of social and community relationships," Marx and other communist leaders preferred to worship a politically oriented socialism to bring about social changes, which as history records has turned out to be more damaging than rewarding.[66]

Society, according to Buber, is constructed of interrelationships. And Buber's vision of a global, dialogical "community of communities" emphasizes the quality of social relations that "cannot be institutionalized".[67] The substance for interactions between separate spheres of being is found in the notion of the "interpersonal".[68]

Social relations are seen at two levels--individually and between communities; "the Between," as Buber coined it, became the bridge and foundation for this "shared relation".[69] In this social theory, Buber places much weight on the responsibility of individuals who have to maintain "conscious effort to create the quality of their social space", that is to have an appropriate attitude to being and relationships so that the "I-Thou" could be formed and transformed.[70] Evidently, Buber does not believe in the static nature of relation and being; the "I" of the "I-Thou" relation moved forward into relation by changing continually his states of being.[71]

The "I-Thou" dialogic has much to do with Buber's community philosophy. As Murphy (1988) points out: "Just as the intimacy of interpersonal relation is rooted in the essential mutuality and reciprocation of the "I-Thou," so the true spirit of community life is traced in his work to the dynamic plurality of the I-We".[72] The plurality of this reciprocation, based on the genuine address of the "I" and the genuine response evoked in the Thou, reflects the quality of the community spirit.[73]

With a society-as-community model, Buber does not "divide society into those who participate in social growth and those who do not"; rather, the community formation relies on the balance between the person-orientation and the ego-orientation".[74] These two orientations continually compete and co-exist as humans move forward into relation. In modern times, Buber sees the marginal existence of the persona-orientation and the domination of the ego-orientation. He therefore calls for a new balance what allows the reemergence of a community "characterized by the predominance of the person-orientation".[75]

Education of the community spirit is one of the three conditions that help generate the I-We-ness (the others are a deepening of personal conscience, the ground from which the individual's responsible answering to the needs of his community must spring.).[76] Each individual learns "authentic speaking, listening and communing within and between communities" in order to begin "genuine communication" with one another through "the interchange of speech-with meaning".[77] To achieve all the ideals of a just community, Buber suggests "carefully designed programs in adult and community education."[78] He repeatedly urges a more active commitment of educators, particularly Jewish ones, to their task of creating community spirit, promoting community ideals, and establishing a true community.[79]

Buber's commitment to the inter-communal dialogue also appeals to our attention. He devoted much of his later life to promoting dialogue between Jews and Christians, Jews and Germans in the aftermath of the holocaust, and then between Jews and Arabs. With these efforts, Buber proved that he himself applied his own dialogic ideals to the context of communal, racial, and sectarian conflicts.[80]

VII. THEORY OF OPPORTUNITY: Who is to be educated? Who is to be schooled?

Buber, as a religious man, believed life was a gift from "above," and that human beings were responsible for not only being fully of their existential presence but also fully conscious of their "being-ness" within the community. Buber insists that one of the vital goals of education was help the child "become himself", as already mentioned. Buber maintains that humans can not separate the spiritual from the physical sphere of life. Everyone counts on and depends on each other. Thus he saw in life a great potential for a "mutual dialogue".

For Buber, the health and growth of a community relies primarily on that of individuals. The contribution of each and every member to their community is reflected by their individual and social consciousness and interactions with others. Through education, one may become a healthy cell in the organic society. Thus everyone needs educating.

Exploring oneself and perceiving the "other" in its singularity are a two-fold task for every person, asserts Buber. Educators must responsibly help learners develop this ability since this leads a person to ‘know’ one’s fellow human being both physically and spiritually.[81] Interestingly, to illustrate this conception of "inclusion", he used the erotic metaphor which depicts love between a woman and a man.[82]

Education as pure dialogue requires learners to stay open to the reality of the unconditioned and intemporal ... the unknown and undisclosed.[83] All people should be able to complete this task because all are granted the capacity for wonder and adoration.[84] For youth, this openness is not so much an option as a vital requirement. Buber wrote: "Youth is the time of total openness. With totally open senses, it absorbs the world's variegated abundance; with a total will, it gives itself to life's boundlessness … its quest for knowledge knows no limits other than those set by its experience, its vitality no responsibility other than the one to the total of its own life".[85]

Realizing the changing world and its effects on the multifaceted human life, Buber emphasizes the task of "keeping an open mind to the whole world" while passionately calling for a "firm" yet "free and unbiased" stand; and by doing this, one can "grow aware of the world".[86]

In an interconnected world, Buber maintains that education is a means to help individuals understand their personal presence as a unique reality interacting with first, the community and then, society. "Social transformation", as Murphy clarifies, "begins with the community", based on mutual relationships between its members.[87] 

Importantly, Buber urges people to pursue life-long education. He, indeed, was a catalyst for the adult education movement in Israel and an influential adult educator, well-known not only within Israel, but Europe and elsewhere. His creation of the Center for the Education of teachers of the People, which was renamed Martin Buber Centre for Adult and Continuing Education, obviously conveyed Buber's ideals and commitment to adult education.[88] 

VIII. THEORY OF CONSENSUS: Why do people disagree? How is consensus achieved? Whose opinion takes precedence?

We can infer that Buber’s understanding of consensus is both multifaceted and related to dialogue. He once observed that, "There are three principles in a man's being and life, the principle of thought, the principle of speech, and the principle of action. The origin of all conflict between me and my fellow-men is that I do not say what I mean and I don't do what I say."[89] One can conclude from this that, for Buber, true consensus can begin to take shape only when we, and the other, say what we mean and do what we say.

But Buber seems more concerned with "genuine meeting" and dialogue than with consensus. And for Buber the "mystery at the heart of dialogue is the unity of the contraries--the coincidentia oppositorum, or coincidence of opposites".[90] Buber thinks of things in terms of dyads (e.g., I - Thou, I - It, person vs. individual, being vs. seeming, learning vs. knowing, etc.) but one who infers that he fell into dualism misinterprets Buber, who faithfully "held the tension" between the opposites.[91]

Different interpretations of "the holy" in Buber's statement, "a life that is not open to the holy is not only unworthy of the spirit, it is unworthy of life," serves as a good example. Buber does not call people to become saints or supernatural being; he means "humanly holy" connoting the idea that everything in life and life itself can be a messenger from above, which needs a response from living beings and brings those who will, back to the "connection with reality outside of themselves and to some possibility of genuine dialogue".[92]

Buber recognizes the interconnected, changing social world while also requiring that humans must stand firm as free, true beings open to the world and others. He perceives the tensions in reality and embraced them totally in the journey of dialogue between beings.

By living with and among others, worldviews are formed not only as a result of reasoning alone, but also by experiencing life; and central to that, one’s relationship with others. Thus it is understandable that, for Buber, issues of consensus transcend mere agreement or disagreement. Certainly, disagreements do exist, but the essential salvation within them is "acceptance."[93] Acceptance, according to Buber, is the beginning of every true existential relationship in which "I am able to tell, or him or her not to tell, but only to make felt to the other person, that I accept him just as he is".[94] All that others require is our "attention".

Through and by dialogue, Buber learned from others. The consequences of this dialogue and dialectic contributed significantly to multiple fields ranging from philosophy, anthropology, phenomenology to social psychology, sociology, psychotherapy. In the field of psychotherapy, for instance, one can see how important it is for the therapist to realize that the patients' sicknesses are part of their uniqueness, and not to make patients into objects.[95]


In the realm of education, Buber's pedagogic influence is undoubtedly significant. However, Buber's heritage does not lie in his systematic pedagogy but in his characterization of the transformative relationship between teacher and students, in which the teacher is expected to take the leading role of exercising "authentic reciprocation, integrity, care, and decisive intervention" in the learning process.[96] "His theory of knowing as a critical, reflective, freely oriented, but historically informed activity" contributes significantly to contemporary conceptions of teaching and learning.[97]


[1] Mark K. Smith, "Martin Buber on education". The encyclopedia of informal education, (2000). http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-buber.htm.

[2] Dan Avnon, Martin Buber: The hidden dialogue (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 22.

[3] Ibid., 33.

[4] Daniel Murphy, Martin Buber's philosophy of education (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1988), 11.

[5] Heinz Politzer, Martin Buber : humanist and teacher (The Adolf D. Klarmann Memorial Collection, 1956), 24.

[6] Avnon, 20.

[7] Ibid. 43, 98.

[8] Kalman Yaron, "Martin Buber". Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000), 140.

[9] Idem.

[10] Martin Buber, Between man and man (London: Kegan Paul. Trans. R. G. Smith, 1947), 114.

[11] Ibid., 129.

[12] Adir Cohen, "The question of values and value education in the philosophy of Martin Buber." Teacher college record, 80(4), 1979, 98.

[13] Kalman Yaron, 145.

[14] Idem.

[15] Cohen, 764.

[16] Yaron, 141.

[17] Cohen, 760.

[18] Murphy, 104.

[19] Ibid., 95.

[20] Idem.

[21] Politzer, 16-7.

[22] Cohen, 95.

[23] Buber and Friedman, The knowledge of man (New York: Harper & Row, Publishim or hers, Inc., 1965), 15.

[24] Buber, Between man and man, 121.

[25] Buber and Friedman, 14.

[26] Idem.

[27] Ibid., 17.

[28] Buber, Between man and man, 164.

[29] Murphy, 92.

[30] Buber, Between man and man, 69.

[31] Rob Anderson and Kenneth N. Cissna, The Martin Buber--Carl Rogers dialogue (Albany, New York: State New York University Press, 1997), 84-5.

[32] Idem.

[33] Avnon, 153.

[34] Buber, I and Thou (New York: Scribner,1970 New Translation).

[35] Murphy, 93.

[36] Idem.

[37] Buber, Between man and man, 129.

[38] F. H. Hilliard, "A re-examination of Buber's address on education" British Journal of Educational Studies, 21(1), 1973, 47.

[39] Murphy, 104.

[40] Murphy,106.

[41] Ibid., 105.

[42] Hilliard, 46.

[43] Cohen, 759.

[44] Murphy, 92.

[45] Ibid., 106.

[46] Ibid. 94.

[47] Ibid., 98.

[48] Idem.

[49] Ibid., 99.

[50] Idem.

[51] Yaron, 139.

[52] Ibid., 101.

[53] Hilliard, 48.

[54] Ibid., 138.

[55] Idem.

[56] Politzer, 24.

[57] Buber, Between man and man, 105.

[58] Buber, "Adult Education," Molad (Tel Aviv, 1951) (translated by Martin Buber Center for Adult Education, The Hewbrew University of Jerusalem), p. 7. Requoted in Murphy, 198.

[59] Murphy, 205.

[60] Ibid., 207.

[61] Ibid., 210.

[62] Murphy, 96.

[63] Idem.

[64] Ibid., 187.

[65] Ibid., 188.

[66] Ibid.,188-89.

[67] Avnon, 151.

[68] Idem.

[69] Idem.

[70] Avnon, 152.

[71] Ibid., 153.

[72] Murphy, 189.

[73] Idem.

[74] Avnon, 154.

[75] Ibid., 154-55.

[76] Murphy, 190.

[77] Idem.

[78] Ibid., 191.

[79] Idem.

[80] Ibid., 193.

[81] Yaron, 138.

[82] Idem.

[83] Murphy, 122.

[84] Ibid., 123-24.

[85] Nahum N. Glatzer, On Judaism (New York: Schoken Books, 1967), 149.

[86] Buber, Israel and the world: essays in a time of crisis (New York: Schoken Books, 1963), 42.

[87] Murphy, 188.

[88] Ibid., 201.

[89] http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/X00021352/

[90] Idem.

[91] Idem.

[92] Ibid., 8.

[93] Anderson and Cissna, 84.

[94] Buber and Friedman, 181.

[95] Friedman, 22.

[96] Ibid., 113-14.

[97] Ibid., 114.


Anderson, R. and Cissna, K. (1997). The Martin Buber& -- Carl Rogers dialogue. Albany, New York: State New York University Press.

Avnon, D. (1998) Martin Buber. The hidden dialogue. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man, London: Kegan Paul. Trans. R. G. Smith.

­­­­________. (1937). I and Thou. (New translation, 1970) New York: Scribner.

________. (1963). Israel and the world: essays in a time of crisis. New York: Schoken Books.

Buber, M. and Friedman, M. (1965). The knowledge of man. New York: Harper & Row, Publishim or hers, Inc.

Cohen, A. (1979). The question of values and value education in the philosophy of Martin Buber. Teacher college record, 80. 4, pp. 743-770.

________. (1979). Martin Buber and changes in modern education. Oxford review of education, 5, 1, pp. 81-103.

Friedman, M. (Ed.). (1996). Martin Buber and the human sciences. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

________________. (1957). Pointing the way: collected essays. New York: Harper and Bros.

Friedenthal-Haase, Martha. ‘Martin Buber’s and Ernst Simon’s Concept of Adult Education in Crisis Situations’, in Franz Poeggeler and Kalman Yaron (eds.), Adult Education in Crisis Situation, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991.

Glatzer, N. N. (Ed.). (1967). On Judaism. New York: Schoken Books.

Hilliard, F. H. (1973). A re-examination of Buber's address on education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 21(1), pp. 40-49.

Levenson, J. D. (1991). The Him or hermeneutical Defense of Buber's Hasidism: A Critique and Counterstatement. Modern Judaism, 11(3), 297-320. Retrieved March 22nd, 2008, from the JSTOR Achieve.

Murphy, D. (1988). Martin Buber's philosophy of education, Dublin: Irsh Academic Press.

Politzer, H. (1956). Martin Buber : humanist and teacher. The Adolf D. Klarmann Memorial Collection.

Smith, M. K. (2000) 'Martin Buber on education', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-buber.htm.

Yaron, K. 2000, Martin Buber. Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education

(Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), 23(12), pp. 135-146.