Martin Buber "I and Thou"
Martin Buber was a child in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He grew up to write one the most famous and controversial pieces in the history of religious philosophy. This piece was entitled "I and Thou."
Buber begins his his piece by stating that a man can only speak two words; rather, two word pairs. These word pairs are "I-You" and "I-It." Buber states that when a man uses the words "You" or "It," the I is implied. However, he who says "you" does not have something for his object. "Whoever says "you" does not have have something; he has nothing. But he stands in relation" (Buber). By this, Buber seems to mean that one must acknowledge his own presence in order to acknowledge that of another. In other words, man exists in relation to those "it's" and "you's" around him. This idea leads right into another facet of his argument: man's experience of the world.
Buber states "...man experiences the world." Buber believes that a man goes over the surface of things and experiences them. It is from this interaction we gain knowledge of the way of things. These external experiences are not changed by the internal experiences we encounter along the way. This idea is in line with the the assertion on the part of the Buber that non-ternal things exist only as a "craving" born in man to take the edge off of the fear of the mystery of death.
Buber asserts later on that when a man experiences, he does not participate in the world because the experience is in them not between them. The world takes no part in the experience, it merely allows man to experience it. This idea of relation is touched on in greater detail in the latter portion of the reading. Buber's idea of a tree brings light to this idea. A man can consider a tree. A man can stand in the presence of a tree. The tree is in the presence of a man. Both must deal with the presence of the other the same, but differently. This idea of reciprocity leads to his pondering of whether the tree has a consciousness not unlike our own. Buber cannot speak to this; however, the point of this idea is that when we stand in the presence of a tree, we experience, not the soul or consciousness of the tree, bu the tree itself.
Upon his pondering of the origins of art, Buber considers a blank form in the presence of a human. The form is not a figment of his soul; rather, the form appears the soul and tried to illicit the creative talents of that soul. There is a risk involved here. This risk lies in the the infinite possibility of the form is compromised and surrendered through the artistic process. It is in the hands of the artist to ensure justice is done to the infinite possibility of the form.
Buber's style is very artistic and not linear in any way. It is often held as being quite difficult to understand. It has even been characterized as adopting the "oracular tone" of a false prophet. However, the fact that cannot be argued is that Buber had a style all his own and his words flowed well even after being translated to English. While his words have evoked harsh criticism from readers over the years, an article which has stuck around this long obviously has some strong points to convey.

How can there only be two word pairs a person can use?

What does Buber mean by a man experiences the world?

Why does a blank form carry a risk with it?