In the honor of the 100th anniversary of the publication of Martin Buber's I and Thou (1923), I would like to examine Buber's thought by referring to the commentary and introduction of the new edition of Buber's collection of works, Volume 4 “The Dialogical Principles” and Volume 12 “Philosophy and Religion.” In particular, I would like to show that the leading concept of “I and Thou” is not a dialogue but a relationship, and that his ideas are philosophical anthropology rather than philosophy. Buber regarded philosophy as objectification and abstraction, and pointed out the problem of I-It. On the contrary, under the influence of Dilthey's idea of “Erlebnis,” he formed his own theory of the I-Thou relationship.

Clifford Geertz's interpretative approach to the comparative study of religion, alongside his definition of religion as a system of symbols providing human beings with ethos and a world-view, has long been subject to criticism. However, it persists in the field of religious studies without adequate reflection on the critiques it provoked, nor on Geertz's overarching theoretical framework. Consequently, as the way Geertz's theory is referred becomes standardized and banal, Geertz's theory itself risks appearing obsolete. This paper begins by elucidating Talal Asad's critique, highlighting points of disagreement with Geertz's theory. It then uncovers Geertz's theoretical intent, which extends beyond merely describing individual cases to seeking general knowledge, despite his acknowledgment of the pitfalls associated with generalizing non-Western examples through Western-derived concepts. Lastly, the paper reconsiders Geertz's theory of comparative religion as articulated in his work Islam Observed, while contemplating the appropriate contemporary stance towards his theory, incorporating criticism into the evaluation.