{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

(Philosophy 10, February 17, 1954. Philosophy 10, February 17, 1954. Testing 1, 2, 3. Testing 1, 2, 3. Testing 1, 2, 3. Philosophy 10, February 17, 1954.)

So since we have no reports, as -- would the second { }, I would like to -- want to tell you -- as we go along and describe these stages of any man's mental life, I would like you to deal yourself, at some length, with one of the great heroes of these various stations on our {collaborations}. One, for the last stage, as always { }, Cardinal Newman, who represents a man who's waiting for this last phase all his life. As you may -- know, he had to live to his 90th year before this fulfillment came. Three times as long as his master. He was the cardinal then of the Roman Church; and when he was 90, everybody was in agreement about him. And before, nobody was.

Then we have, as the great teacher of mankind, Plato. And as a ruler, we have nobody better in this country than John Quincy Adams, the pr- -- great president, who today is quite wrongly, I think, not very well known by most of you. You -- most of you -- who knows when he was president? John Quincy Adams. Well, that's a minority report.

Then I should {say} -- try this time to give you a counter case, as counterpoint for Mr. -- Cardinal Newman, you may take the terrible Hitler, who had all his name, so to speak, in glory in advance, you see, and nothing left. We may take in relation to Plato, it would be very useful if you knew Mr. John Dewey, who just died last year. And I think he also leaves behind rubble and ashes. And you will also -- can compare John Quincy Adams with his strange hero pr- -- previous to George Washington, the military hero of this country, Mr. Pepperell. Who has heard of William Pepperell? No? Very important man. Was the one baronet made in Eng- -- in America by the English crown. Here in New England he lived, and -- people thought he was very important.

So I think -- I'll leave it to you. Every one of you will have to choose within the next week one of the three heroes -- or if that's more interesting, more savory to you, more appetizing -- a comparison. I don't wish to press these scoundrels -- Hitler -- the scoundrel Hitler on you -- and I do not wish to bore you with Mr. Dewey, and -- but I do think that some of you may need very much a clear understanding of -- in Newman's case of the -- the devil, as compared to the saint. I think in Plato's case, it is terribly important for all of you -- anybody who wants to have -- be on a school board or in politics should know of the influence of Mr. Dewey on this country which there -- Eisenhower administration now tries to shake off. He is the accused in all the battles that go on at this moment in

this country: John Dewey, the great philosopher of Teachers College, New York. Who has gone to a progressive school? Oh, you are all reactionaries! None of you has gone to a progressive school. That's wonderful. Really, not one? May I repeat the question: who of you has gone to the Horace Mann School? Wie? Which is your school?


Well, there we are. Well, if that isn't progressive, it's crazy. Otherwise it's a very nice school. My own daughter-in-law went there, too.

So. So gentlemen, now I appeal to your seriousness. I say I want to have any one of you -- every one of you decide -- whether he will wish to treat John Quincy Adams biographically as to his merits as a ruler; Plato as a teacher; or Newman as a saint. But -- a man with a good name. What?

(What is it you said about Newman, Sir?)


(How did you want us to treat Newman?)

As what he is, as -- just as Newman. Can call -- you can also treat him as Oldman. That's more than a joke, gentlemen, because certainly that's what he became, an elder in the realm of man. Just a very old man, and you may study what it means to be spir- -- old. You have no idea what it means to old. You think it's physically old. You think old comes from having -- withering on the stem. Old is something quite different. Old is somebody in authority. And you want -- I want you to treat Newman as an authority. And that's a great problem with you, because you don't know what authority is. You mistake it for police forces, or something like that. Is Mr. Malenkov {an} authority? He is not. But Mr. Newman is {an} authority. And why is he that, you see? Just by living, without any power, without any money, without anything. That's your problem. What is authority? Those -- who took 57? {No, no}. You remember. That has been our problem there.

Now, as I said, some of you, however, knowing that they are more children of their own day than of any respectable tradition, should treat the -- these three opposite numbers, because Dewey, and Hitler, and the -- Pepperell -- I didn't take for politeness any of our present-day generals. I could -- have taken MacArthur. Pepperell is a very interesting case of the cheap life, the quick life, the fast life -- whereas John Quincy Adams did everything -- did everything the hard way. Everything in -- in -- in Pepperell's life was first from the outside in.

To give you one example, Mr. Pepperell is fas- -- a fascinating person because he was made Chief Justice of New Hampshire one day and the next day, he began the study of the law. He bought his first law book the day after he had been appointed Chief Justice. We have nearly beaten him with Earl Warren, but not quite. That's a frivolousness of the ruler, which you have so plentiful in this country. People who should sell shoestrings on the street being made governors and statesmen, because everybody can do that, as you say. Pepperell is the first case in point. And it's a very important thing, gentlemen. And I take you there -- in -- back -- the town of Pepperell is not very far from here. Who has been through Pepperell when he goes to New -- Boston? You must know it. That's -- the town is called after his family.

Well, in Pepperell you have the cheap politician who comes -- gets the success first and the achievement never. And with John Quincy Adams, you have it the very -- other way around. Now, I -- appeal to you. Perhaps you are not in this mood. But think it over for a week, whether you should draw this comparison. And, as I said, this is optional. The comparison will not entail more work, but it will perhaps help you to clarify the issue; is a kind of -- of help -- easy -- eases your problem when you have the two men to compare. Black and white is always easier to con- -- see than just the white. You can see that.

So next week, we'll -- we'll -- I'll have your -- we'll -- you'll give me your choices. Then we'll write a paper on this in the following three weeks.

(Sir, we're supposed to write a paper comparing two of these men?)

That's optional whether -- not two of these men, but you either write on John Quincy Adams, or you write on Plato, or you write on Newman. Or you compare John Quincy Adams and Sir William Pepperell. Or you compare Newman and Hitler. Or you compare Plato and John Dewey. Clear?


Now our discovery of last time, gentlemen. We took in -- oc- -- we occupied a -- quite a new field, which has nothing to do with what the philosophers do by themselves, or what the psychologists do by themselves, or what the political scientists do by themselves. We brought them all together. And we said the real field of thinking man, of speaking man, of rational man is not that man is a rational animal. Nothing ever more stupid has been said. Man is not a rational animal. That's one of these cheapnesses which are good for juke boxes, but certainly not for any thinking human being, because we found that, as the very moment I indulge in the luxury of thinking, and of thinking that my thinking should have some importance; that I should be -- for example, be given the vote,

because I can think, I'm of age; that I can be a witness in court, because I can make a reasonable statement, you see; that I can marry, because I can say with seriousness that she wants me to marry her. And so on. Wherever man is treated as a thinker, other people think about his thinking, and he tries to impress his thought on others. Isn't that true? All the time. When you think inside of you, you prepare yourself to speak. Or when I shock you with something, and you give it a moment of thought afterwards, you think in order to digest what has been said. All the time thinking, gentlemen, we found, is imbedded in a circulation of thought, and really -- {give} yourself up, you see -- to people, here, towards people and we depend on what people say to us and what people say among themselves about us.

So here is your circulation of thought. I think, and I say. You think of me, or I think of you, and that makes you think. In -- for example, I say something now, and you say, "This is nonsense." This is in answer to me, but you are too polite to tell me, you see. But tomorrow, you may write a letter, or you may express your opinion upon me to somebody else. Then we would be on this -- on these two segments. I have said something. You have thought in your corner. That's your corner there, you see. It's just a corner, where one thinks of life. And then you come out with the statement that this professor is no good, you see. Not to my face.

However, I make use of this privilege, too. I say to my wife, "I have a terrible class this year," and so she knows and I know, but you don't know, you see. So we think about you. You think about me. And this is the thinking process. In order to understand this, I wish to add one more word, gentlemen, that anybody who thinks is a person.

So, that his thought comes under the jurisdiction of he having to be a thinker. And as soon as I act as a thinker, gentlemen, my whole name -- as Mr. Smith, or Mr. Huessy, or Mr. Black, or Mr. White -- comes under somebody else's judgment and opinion. So you see all thinking has in fact at least -- we'll see that this is not quite sufficient -- two terraces, two steps, two rungs of one ladder. Here is your -- what you mostly think, "I have wonderful thoughts." They are here somewhere, I suppose. Usually they are in the stomach when you have a bad digestion. Most people begin to think very hard, you see. Most depressions come from poor digestion, as you know.

But you are here. Any modern philosophy tries to analyze thought. Now I invite you to -- also to analyze the thinker. The thinker, not by psychological apparatuses, but by what other people say of them, because that's the safest way to recognize what -- who we are, what other people think of us. Also that's why -- one -- of you asked me whether I didn't think much of psychology. I certainly

don't. That's meant for -- for the physical animal. But certainly not for the man -- the real people whom you meet. With these machinery, you don't find anything about what I think of you, what you think of yourself, what you should think of yourself. You see, there is no standard of right or wrong in psychology. It's -- you are just a frog. But you are not a thinking being. But that's a longer way.

But the main point is: our discovery is, gentlemen, that all thought processes divide you into what you think, and who thinks, and who you are -- that is judged by others. Partly if they are kind, by telling you. Partly if they are unkind by not telling you. And partly by your being free or not free, according to the society, to talk back, and to tell them what you think of them, and to influence their thought of you, and of the world, and of themselves in your way, too, so that we all are intertwined -- as, by the way, any normal person knows quite well -- in this wonderful process of all mutually gossiping about everybody else, and thereby establishing what we call "public opinion."

And everybody in this country allegedly believes in public opinion. But when you come to the people who analyze this, they think it consists of 96 million people, everybody thinking in separation. That's not the case. It's a very con- -- artificial network. Everybody thinking about everybody else. The -- that's public opinion. And you think it's -- it's just a questionnaire written down, with 96 million people, everybody saying what he thinks. That's why these questionnaires and Gallup Polls are so silly, you see, because the very moment a man -- a questioner comes to me and asks me a question, I certainly change my opinion, because he asked me the question, you see. It sets me thinking, and I -- says, if people want to know ahead of time what I do, I'll do the opposite. And that's why these Gallupsters, as you know, cannot -- were betrayed in, because they didn't know that they were themselves a power inside the opinion. It's very simple. They began on the wrong end.

They just -- you see, everybody in this country wants to have everybody taken by -- himself. You never get anywhere if you try to do this. How can Dartmouth treat itself without taking into account what Yale thinks of -- of Dartmouth? If -- if Dartmouth and -- and Harvard, and -- everybody else would write suddenly a letter to Dartmouth, politely, "We decline to play any more games with you," you see, where would we be? For un- -- some unfathomable reasons, because we are all Communists, for example, Mr. -- suddenly the people may decide there they won't play with us. Now, what's our own opinion of our own college then worth? You see, nothing. We are made by the others. We make them. They make us. Isn't that true?

It's very strange that people should have in these strange sciences of -- on public opinion and so, make this mistake.

I give you another example how important -- practical this is. There is a college in Europe, which calls itself the "College of Europe." It's in Belgium, and it was established after this last war -- world war, for the typical international relation, good-heartedness, to bring all the people of Europe together in representativeness and give them a common cause, and then they should go back and administer the -- the big coal union, and the big steel union of Europe, you see, and prepare a real United States of Europe. And to you and me, on the surface of things, and with our individualistic { } in psychology and political science, you may think it's a wonderful idea.

Now I have friend who is a trustee in this college, and his daughter went to this college. And I'm going to teach there too, someday. And the daughter went there and she found that they couldn't get on at all, these 38 nations represented in this college, these Europeans. And no spirit whatsoever. Everybody's just saying that they were -- that he themselves represented the most beautiful nation on the world -- of the world, and that the others shouldn't take away any corner of land, or any power from Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Andorra, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and how all these interesting principalities are called. "Call Me Madam." You know -- have you seen "Call Me Madam"? You see the patriotism of this great gentleman there.

Now -- so I was asked, "What's the matter?"

"Well," I said, "It's very simple. You are in Belgium."

I happen to subscribe to a paper that comes out in Brussels -- Brussels is the capital of Belgium, and -- that's what I think of you. And it's published by some African Negroes. And it's called L'Afrique et le Monde, Africa and the World. And it's all written from the viewpoint of a black man in Africa. It has one day an article on Eleanor Roosevelt. And you would be surprised how proud an American feels when he reads this article, and how ashamed he must then feel about the treatment she gets in this country at this moment. She's a very great person in the world, but you don't know it. And the people who are against her are very small people in the world, and are despised there. And you don't know this, either. And I know her personally, and I say she is a very great woman.

But this is, well, just one thing -- there is, of course, there is an article on Mr. Bunt- -- how -- what's his name?


Bunche. And there are articles on Mr. Cabot Lodge, as a representative of the United States at the United Nations, for example. Then there are articles on

engineers, on the latest American movies, but also on the French, on the -- on the English, stories of India's relation to Africa, stories of course on Belgian Congo, where they -- these people are at home. It's a fascinating paper, because the world is viewed there from an opposite angle, from the point of view of a man in the heart of Africa. And very -- written in French, splendid French, so instead of learning -- reading all your stupid French textbooks, you should subscribe to this. Very cheap, too. And read L'Afrique et le Monde. If you read this for three years, I assure you, gentlemen, you have undergone a real course of studies.

Now, when you read this, you under- -- suddenly see that this black man in Katanga, where they produce all the copper, as you know, of the world, that there -- Europe of course is a unity. It's one thing for an African Negro. And so I suggested to my friend, the trustee of the College of Europe, that he wouldn't make any headway with unifying Europeans, unless he brought in a nonEuropean, or several non-European students who, by their simple, na‹ve faith, that all the Europeans formed the unity, would force the Europeans to behave as a unity. And I said, "Unless unity is recognized by someone, the people will nev- -- only see their differences."

He got very angry. He's the old school. He's very much of a rationalist, and of a lawyer. He had never heard anything of mutual recognition. Well, I tried to sell him the idea of corporations who on- -- also do not exist unless the law incorporates -- accepts that they are incorporated, you see. Legal persons are made by recognition. There is no General Motors unless the judge says so.

He -- but the old school tie, gentlemen, all the people who have learned with Mr. Dewey, don't know this, that you cannot re-found Europe without some witnesses from the outside coming in and always speaking to the Europeans as though they were undivided. I need somebody else who thinks of me, what I must hear in order to believe it and to be healthy. That's why you have to have a sweetheart after you had parents. First your parents recognize you, you see. Then you are dumped on a -- in a -- on a school like Exeter or Andover, and you are nobody. And that's -- you have to live through before you are known there, again. Then you come to Dartmouth as a freshman, collapse completely, you see. And in -- in -- in Yale, they commit suicide when they are not received into these fraternities, as you know, because they want recognition. Somebody else must tell them that they really have made the grade, as you know. And otherwise, they are very unhappy.

Now everybody wants to be recognized, gentlemen, by somebody else. And my example of the College of Europe is only a very typical example how -- all the international beginnings today are completely ruined -- by the silliness of the idea that everybody is first something in his own right. And then he gets togeth-

er with somebody else, and they do something together. That has never been the case. You are an -- absolutely nobody when you get engaged. You are annihilated. You are in despair. And then she lifts you up and says for the first time with a recognizable voice, "I think that one -- day you will be all right." And there begins your life story, your own life story. And not before. And if you are not in despair, you can't get married. Then you have a -- just a mistress. As long as you feel superior, you are not in love, because love means to despair of oneself, and to need somebody else to restore one's own self-confidence. That's very simple, that's all it is. But proud people cannot really -- love. It's impossible.

We had a boy here who has -- his father was the most successful father in the world -- man in the world, not -- father. And -- well, he blew out his brains when he was 45, from mere success, because he had relied completely on himself. And so one day, his own strength gave out. There was nobody in the world who would tell him that he was a fine man. So far, he had told himself, you see. When this stopped, he just went, as the usual American businessman is likely to do. At the age of 45, "I've seen all the pictures. I've -- made myself. I always thought I was a fine fellow. Now I don't think so anymore. Good-bye." That can -- happens when -- with the wrong psychology and the wrong sociology which today people have, saying that what they think of themselves is important.

Gentlemen, "self-slaughter," as Shakespeare calls it, self-slaughter is only forbidden, because we never know who we are. We always depend on other people telling us, either on judgment day in Heaven and hell, or from other people who love us, or -- even more articulately so, usually from people who hate us.

Yesterday I -- read a very interesting remark. Where it said -- people said -- people may have hated Christ in the first century of our era, but He is not a myth, because they never said He hadn't existed. The only thing they had to admit was that He had been -- had lived. That's a very great compliment, you see. People who hated Him, who fear Him -- like the Jews or the pagans of his days, and the magicians, and the sorcerers, and the demonists -- they had -- the only thing they had to allow for is that He was there. Very often, gentlemen, that's all you can get from your neighbors, the admission that you are a cantankerous cuss, but that you -- do live around the next corner. And that already is a certain recognition of your reality.

In fact, Anatole France, the great French novelist, wrote a little story about Christ's memory. And he made Pontius Pilate -- you may know Pontius Pilate played a certain role at the Crucifixion -- Pontius Pilate went into retirement at 65, and was sent to Nice at the Riviera, and lived there on his little pension as a Roman proconsul. Perhaps it was a large pension; I do not know. I thought of

the college professors'. And so, some friend one day visited him and said, "The latest news in Rome is, you know, that Nero burned the city, because of the Christians. He made them into flaming torches. Do you know anything about the origins of this damned race?"

And Pontius Pilate said, "No."

"Well," he said, "Now listen. They tell me that you are responsible for the whole thing, that there was a man who claimed to be the Messiah, and that you had Him executed."

Whereupon Pontius Pilate lit his next pipe and said, "Jesu de Nazareth, je ne m'en souviens pas."


They were Chinese.

So he declined to accept the existence of the man. Gentlemen, you -- you wouldn't know this, but in any field of human endeavor much more than you think, people exist, but the other people think they don't count. We say, "The man does not count." That is -- a very hard blow for a man. It is much more important when people think that he doesn't count than when they think he is evil, because evil people you fear -- look at all the senators and Mr. Dewey running for cover against Mr. McCarthy -- they fear him. That's a tremendous recognition, you see; but there are other senators, I should think, who do not count. The other senators don't care a bit what these people think of them. And they do -- are not influenced in their own decisions by what these people think.

Gentlemen, so we make a discovery that the weight of a person is the first logical statement about his reality. That has nothing to do with his value, with his goodness or evilness. It has simply to do with the degree of existence, you see, whether you are -- you know this -- what is Casque and Gauntlet? Is Mr. {Kramer} here? Well, that's the group of people who think of each other that they are important. Well, they may successfully make the rest of the world believe it. Isn't that true? That's a very artificial thing, and it has to exist everywhere, that you have a group of people who -- who they think, and they make other people think that they should think that it is important what these people think. It's a hoax.

But we live by these hoaxes. Public opinion polls are very made up not of the idea I think. For example, you come to -- you have a modern painting. And you think the world of it. And you ask a man in the {Knoedler -- the Knoedler} Gal-

lery in New York to put it on exhibit. And he says, "Oh, I -- I ..." he always tells you, "It's a wonderful portrait, Sir. It's a great painting. This man is a genius. Only I think the public wouldn't accept it."

Or you come to a publisher and you have a manuscript. And he says always, "Great, but I -- I don't think the people -- you know, I understand it, but the people will not understand it." The same with music. The same with the theater. You see, the middle man always insists that he knows his public better than you do, and he thinks it's not for the public. So you always have to try to get the thing before the public and never before the middle man.

But only to show you the importance mo- -- no -- new ideas in medicine today are not held down by the public, but by the other medical men, because they think what this new doctor -- -fangled doctor thinks is not important. And so their thought about what he thinks is decisive in the prospering of this new research. You can see this very easily. Nobody today can -- can do research without support of the whole -- of the whole profession. If the profession thinks this is crazy, then out he goes with the best idea.

That's what I'm so afraid of, gentlemen. There is so much money invested in research in this country that there is a complete paralysis of research. Well, it's very simple, gentlemen. Where you have money, you have greed. Where you have greed, you have lack of talent, because greed is always the substitute for genius. A man has to be greedy when he's afraid that he hasn't the guts and the talents. When do you have to be avaricious, gentlemen? In your old age. Misers are old people who are no longer are creative, who no longer have the sureness that tomorrow they'll have a new idea and make more money. You begin to be a miser when you have to -- only a very small endowment, so to speak. And when you begin to be -- get old, I -- you see, would be a fool if I was not a little more thrifty when I was when I was 20. You have to be wasters. I must not. If I am a waster now, I'm youthful too long. I'm childish. That's all, because when I began, I could hope to lay up for -- for a -- a cold day, you see, but not -- and that there was plenty of time. But now, there's much less time.

So gentlemen, niggardness, and misery, they have their day. Mis- -- you -- you are a miser when you can no longer expect that in addition to what you have, more can come in. So a man of 85, of course he has to be a niggard, if he has only very little. Don't you see this? Most normal. All these virtues, gentlemen, are -- and vices, be careful. They are all -- a virtue is a vice at the wrong ti- -- at the right time, and a vice is a virtue at the wrong time. That's all there is. Why do I say this? In order to show you that large investments in research are against youthfulness, because you get people who go there for the money, and not for their genius. You cannot help people's imitating genius and talent.

I'll give you a terrible story. A Dartmouth graduate went to -- Harvard, and won the history prize there. Was assistant to the professor -- leading professor there, and he formed a group, a club of -- of historical -- of -- how do you say? -- graduate students in history. Twenty-five of them. Harvard is a big place. Supposedly a good place. And so they studied history. And one day I came down to speak to this group, and they told me of their latest dream. And there you see what research -- how research is imperiled by money. Terribly imperiled. Mr. Ford had founded the Ford Foundation. And he seemed willing to support any good cause. Therefore my friend had settled down with the 24 colleagues to invent a scheme by which it would be made plausible for the Ford Foundation that they should support these young men, and their wives, and children for the next three years on a wonderful piece of research.

I said, "Do you know what you want? What is your dream, of -- what do you want to -- to search?"

"Oh," they said, "We have to find out what the Ford people would like us to search for. And we'll write that in."

Now that happens today in the lar- -- on the largest possible scale all over America. I told them that I -- didn't want to hear of this anymore, that I was ashamed of them and that they were scoundrels. They laughed and said they didn't think so. The world owed them a living -- at least Mr. Ford did. And that's going on all over the place, gentlemen. It's swinish.

The less money is -- is institutionalized, you see, the more you will really discover. The Curies did their -- did their thing as you know in a garage, and Mr. Hertz, the great discoverer of the Maxwell waves, worked in Germany in a barn. When he was 45 -- or nee -- 38, he was recognized as the greatest living physicist in the '90s of the 19th century, and they gave him a call to Berlin and offered him a new -- a new research laboratory and everything, and he said, "Why do you offer me all this wealth now, when I am a burned-out volcano?"

And that's what you have in America, you see. You take these -- these graduate people who have heard that physics now is … la mode, or how is this place called -- not … la mode not quite, but -- how's the place called, where they are? All these -- these ex- --?

(Los Alamos. Los Alamos.)


(Los Alamos, it's Los Alamos.)

Yes, Los Alamos. Call them … la mode.

Well, gentlemen, you see, it isn't yet decided. That's why I'm teaching this course. In 30 years, it is very much in jeopardy whether this country will have any scientific progress, whether it hasn't bl- -- dammed it all up with the sand of money. The first generation of research -- these are volunteers, and no board of trustees, and no founding -- foundations will be -- ever be able to understand what these youngsters, these geniuses are doing. They are ahead of them. How can they understand? It's like asking Pilate to understand Jesus. It's ridiculous, because people who administer money, gentlemen, are there for looking backward, for being cautious, for knowing all the investment problems of 6 percent or 3 percent interest. That is, they are dealing with the recurrent things of life. An administrator is there for the past so -- that it may go on. And a research man is there for the opposite, as you can see, for that which has never been done before.

So when a -- when such a trembling administrator is faced with 40 projects, he'll take the 39 asinine projects invented to please him, as my 25 friends have proven in this case. And the one real, bold man, he'll say, "That's -- that's a wild cat. That's erratic." And he will be infuriated, and he'll say, "This man should look -- see the psychiatrist, Mr. McKenna."

And that's what we are now doing on the largest possible scale in this country, singling out the -- the 25 Harvard graduates and giving them the Fulbrights. How else can it be? Money is the -- will be the death knell of genius in this country, if people no -- less -- really believe that, as these 25, that they first must appeal to Ford and then to the research.

I told my friend, he's now in Cal- -- out -- profess- -- teaching in California, "My dear friend, if you have any guts, any spark, any genius, the -- you come first, and the money comes much -- 10 years later. You have to do something. Where's -- what you're doing." He did nothing; he waited for the application blank. And he was a semantic blank. Blank, blank, blank.

People who first ask for money and then want to act, gentlemen, well, they are just the people who first ask their wife whether she has a Cadillac or not. That's not the way of getting married. It's the same thing. If a man must do something, he's a man of God. If a man can do something at pleasure, because there's money to be had, he'll not achieve anything. He'll get the money, sure. But money's just circulating in -- in the past of life. I mean, that's organized life, you see. That's not organic life.

Well, we'll come to this, gentlemen. We have made a start to help you on, believe me, to discri- -- -tinguish between the rank of a thought and the content

of a thought. The rank of a thought depends on whether a man is quite sure that it doesn't matter what people think of him, nor does it matter what people tell him, but that he's true, and that he'll tell the world and take all the consequences. That's the only thought that's important.

When you say that you are going to marry this girl, and break down all other people's resistance, it is obvious, gentlemen, that your thought is very important, that it has a rank of a creative act. When you, however, go out of this class and for -- and for just one minute and say, "Oh, I don't think much of this -- just seems to be all very wild" and then forget about it, your rambling, your criticism, your judgment of my course is quite unimportant. It is -- would only be important if you would band together and say, "Out he goes. He mo- -- must no longer teach at Dartmouth College." Then you would go down in history as riotous students, you see, and you will become important. And your thought will make a dent.

I don't know why people don't -- everybody knows these things, gentlemen. But it's strange, they are not rated as philosophy. To me, they are the deepest philosophy in the world, because they connect, gentlemen, thinking with ranking in the hierarchy of the human race of the spirit. The place in the realm of the spirit, which you attain, depends on the rank of your thought, and not of its content. It doesn't matter that you privately say some day in your corner, "There may be a God," you see. The only person who is important with regard to the think -- thought, "There is a God," is obviously the man who does something about it -- who sings every morning, like a good monk, his Gloria to -- in honor of the Lord. And therefore makes other people sit up and say, "Well, if a man devotes his whole life just to praising the Lord, how mighty must this lord be?"

So your bull-session discussions about the existence or non-existence of God are not very high-ranking discussions, you will admit, you see. They are just the beginning of something. If you would become a sound atheist and go around and smash all the churches, I would begin to believe that you are -- have an important -- something important, because you stick your neck out, you see. You risk something.

Can you see -- we have made a discovery gentlemen, between the rank and the content of a thought. Now you can unfortunately live in this country for 10 million years and you never heard -- hear something of the dignity, or the rank, or the class of a thought. And we'll come in the second part to recognize, gentlemen, that somebody who thinks something for the first time, like a research man -- a real research man, for example, you see -- holds a higher rank than somebody who thinks with the whole crowd today that Copernicus was right. You will admit that Mr. Kepler and Mr. Copernicus' thoughts rank higher than

your thought which contains exactly the same truth. Isn't that true? As soon as everybody thinks something, it holds a sm- -- a lower rank than as long as it is dangerous to think such a thing. Isn't that true? That's just a very simple example.

And I have now tried to show you, gentlemen, that whenever a thought is discussed, you also have to look at the position of the thinker. Do the other people think he is a fool? Do the other people think -- give him credit for it? Do they think he has -- he just says what everybody says? On all this depends the value, the importance, the weight of this thinking process here.

Now, finally, we can come -- go on. But I thought it was very important to show you once more this figure. I was then -- wish to remind you that we found here the philosophy, what everything is -- philosophy is, is dealing with the content of one man's thought inside itself -- himself. And philosophy has therefore no way of appreciating rank, of appreciating public opinion, of giving you the story of the thought in reality. We said that religion dep- -- de- -- de- -- de- -- defines how much of this thought I owe to the world, and how much the world owes me in criticism, and which way, because my neighborly relation, you see, that my neighbor should love me, you see, as he loves himself, that's the great hope.

Again, most people you see are so strange. You always repeat the sentence -- this commandment, "Love the Lord thy God and thy neighbor as thyself." Gentlemen, nobody believes this. Nobody believes -- loves his neighbor as himself. But you know what we all hope? That our neighbors will love us as they { } themselves, you see. That's our great faith. Most people believe that our neighbors in the long run may be willing to love us as they love themselves. Isn't that true?

There again, you have the circulation of thought. We always have a firm conviction that other people should be Christians. We excepted. But everybody thinks that the world in some way owes him the truth, you see, owes him benevolence, owes him tolerance, owes him even a living. Nobody can help expecting some good treatment by somebody in the world. Otherwise he goes crazy. If you have a persecution mania, that means that you do not believe in the Golden Rule by -- for others, you see. What is a persecution maniac? A man who -- who doesn't believe that all the other people -- or some other people will be Christian. And it's an abnormal man.

So gentlemen, we are all like thieves. Any thief who takes a watch, as you know, recognizes property, because he wants to keep the watch, you see. So we all steal love, because we all take it for granted that other people are nice to us,

but when we are nice to others, we take it for granted that this is by special grace.

So gentlemen, religion is in every human life at the bottom, because we all believe that other people believe. Here you see the fruitfulness of getting out of your own prison. While you are sitting and thrashing it out whether there is goodness, or -- or order in the world, or freedom, you all assume that everybody else is free to treat you well, that everybody else is free to make an exception in your favor. You go down on your knees when you are to be sent away from college and ask the dean to keep -- let you stay. How can you make such a foolish gesture if everything is just a natural law, as you believe? Everything scientifically regulated? You don't believe it for a minute. You always believe that you have the right to treat everything scientifically. But the dean must think of you as an exceptional angel of light, you see. And if you -- after you have broken all the rules of the college, you still send your uncle, who is an alumnus of Dartmouth, to the dean and say, "Now, look. He is a terrible boy. But make an exception."

Now, gentlemen, do you know what it means to make an exception? Have you ever thought that all you people who believe in science deny science every day? Because in science there are no exceptions; and in your life, there always is, because you always think that something can be forgiven you. People can wink at your debilities, and your deficiencies. You all accept your religion. Religion always is simply the discretion by which we distribute freedom and law. What is religion? That is religion. Religion is your way of thinking of some part of the world being free and some being under law. The atheist says, "I am under law; therefore I don't have to be gracious. But all the other people have to listen to my -- idiocy," you see, "and they -- and -- buy my books, and be impressed by my cleverness." They all believe that they'll get the full money -- worth for the books these people sell. Very strange.

Gentlemen, religion consists of three elements: what's the world like, what am I like, what are the other people like. The simplest is: the other people are fools to be exploited; I am the clever, smart man; and the world is recognized as being, you see, always the same under law, gravity, heat, warmth, et cetera, natural law. The funny thing is, gentlemen, that you not only believe that the rest of the world are fools, but you always believe that you can fool them by appealing to a religion which is opposite from yours. You see, all the things which you say you cannot be taken in by, you hope the other fellow will be taken in by, isn't that true? So gentlemen, any atheist is a split personality, because he believes in one set of rules for himself, and in the religious rules which he abolishes for himself as valid for all the others, because he lives -- makes a living only by this.

Atheism is always the exploitation of the religion of others. Of his good wife, for example. We have a Dartmouth graduate who became a farmer. He studied, and he hasn't so much brain. He became a good farmer, but I think there was at -- in the beginning I thought there was nothing else. He married a very fine girl from Smith, and they moved up to a farm. And he was a very successful farmer; also he was rich. And he got his money from a capitalistic enterprise in New York. So that was his second religion. Now, he unfortunately, being very stupid and having graduated from Dartmouth in those unfortunate '30s, he was a Communist. And one day he put his wife on the road to canvass the state of Vermont for Earl Browder, as president. "Earl Browder for President."

(Earl Browder.)


(Earl Browder?}

Ja. Communist president. Don't you know? Oh, -- everything forgotten? Oh, we nearly had him. And -- he was a candidate for president. That was perfectly legal.

Now gentlemen, what had to be the result of this crank -- crank's behavior? Here he was a farmer, and doing a good job as a farmer, patriarchally tilling the soil. And then he was living on his income from the big city. And finally he sent his -- beautiful young wife on the road to canvass the villages of Vermont for Communism.

This poor ass, of course, lost his -- out in his marriage, because there was some theatrical -- theatricals going on in Dartmouth. One of the boys here looked very well in his role. I don't -- think he looked very well out of -- without the costume. She fell in love with him. She played in the same play and ran away with the boy to California. And so he got his divorce. He got his divorce, because what could he say to his wife? As a Communist, he could not appeal to her faithfulness. He could not appeal to monogamy. He could not appeal to the sacraments of the Church. He could not appeal to the education of children. You see, they had children. He could only say, "I have made a fool of myself, because I meant to -- that she should canvass for Earl Browder, but she got the whole of Communism. The other side, too, with regard to personal affairs," you see. She bought the other half of Communism. And why shouldn't she? She was the wife, and so she always is the better half. She got the better half, the personal freedom. And he got the idiocy, the -- the regimentation for the -- you see.

It's a very simple story, gentlemen, that you cannot appeal to a law that you

first must have -- {are} said should be abolished. And Communism has a whole set of rules. You see, slavery in economics entails freedom in marriage. And slavery in marriage entails freedom in economics. So the American male is enslaved in marriage by his wife, and free in economics. And in Russia, it's the other way around. He's free with regard to the women, but he's enslaved to economics. Because there's always two hearts to any religion or philosophy, or political science, or constitution, you see. And most people only stare at one half. This man only stared at the political half, at the economic half, and he didn't see the person. And most of you, when you hear "free enterprise," you don't know that it means women's clubs.

How people could fall silent, if you -- in every article that's written in favor of free enterprise would put in instead, "women's clubs." That's the other half of the American mentality, you see, the abolition of the masculine virility in the family.

Well, what I mean to say is, gentlemen, that my friend -- this farmer, Dartmouth graduate, Communist, and capitalist -- that he had three religions: for the world, for his neighbors, and for himself. And that's too many. What we call "religion," gentlemen, in the sense of an orthodox man, is that he knows of this tripartition: that we all have faith about the behavior of other people, will as to our own behavior, you see, and expectation as to the lawful order of the dead universe. And that the -- religion is an attempt to make the three into one. That's why I believe in the Trinity. The father, who is the world; Christ, who is we ourselves; and the Holy Spirit, which in- -- are -- who are our neighbors. And that in these three forms, everybody has religion.

I only meant to show you, gentlemen, religion is just as necessary as philosophy. Everybody thinks, everybody expects, everybody tries to think what he has to expect, and that's politics, because if other people treat you as a fool, can the wife run away? There's a law of divorce, so she can. In Catholic countries, she could not. She would have not been able, you see, to follow out her heart's desire. She would have had to commit a- -- adultery. She would have done this, as they all do in Catholic countries, instead of getting the divorce, you see. I don't know what is worse. Very difficult to decide. Sometimes I think divorce is -- worse than adultery. I really mean this, gentlemen, because adultery can be forgiven. And -- you see, it is an appeal to the magnanimity of the two people concerned. Divorce is just nothing. It's just destruction. But you are too moral, you see. In Newport, Rhode Island, as you know, they -- they all committed at first fornication, and then they had a -- divorces. So finally everybody had been married with everybody else.

I hope nobody is from Newport. Is there anyone? Nobody from Rhode Island? Well, you know. Is it not right? Wie?


Now gentlemen, then we said, it always takes art to express one's own philosophy and inject it into the religious and the political goings-on, whether it's rhetorics, whether it's any other form of -- of our -- of expressing oneself. And so we got to these four elements of the circulation of thought. Any one thought has a philosophical aspect with regard to content. It has an aspect as to expectation. That's religion. We believe in progress, therefore you all expect that a true thought will bear fruit one day, you see. In a tyranny, that's not true. In Russia, is the fruit -- more fruitful an idea is, the more dangerous it is for the man, and the more improbable is that anybody will ever be allowed to listen to it.

I have a -- I have a manuscript lying in the Caucasus at this moment. My friend died at the age of 68. His wife -- widow and his daughter are surviving there. They tremble that this manuscript be discovered. I hope they haven't destroyed it by now, which is a very great discovery about the brain, but -- and the part -- other parts of the central nervous system. And he was -- he hoped that he could divulge this in -- in 1948. He was going to Russia -- to Moscow; then they clamped down on him and said it wasn't materialistic, his theory. And therefore, he got a heart attack, and he had been through the mill. So -- he was a German who fled to Russia. And so he died a few years ago. And there you have philosophy, a thought, you see, which can -- according to the religion of the Russia that's now prevailing there, has no expectation of ever being listened to, you see. Cannot even be published.

Once you see this, one of you asked me this question, with regard to what I thought of psychology or motivation. Who asked about motivation? {Wasn't it Zimmerman?} Gentlemen, inside of me, I also have some thoughts about art, about religion, and about politics. I'm a voter, after all, you see. So from my point of view of philosophy, I look on these other things, down. So in my life, as an individual, philosophy is on top. Politics is down, because I try to treat it right, and the arts are here, and religion is here -- or you can also put religion down -- right down in the cellar. That's perhaps the best.

So we get a very queer situation. We get four squares, or three at least. Here, in this one square, where I am on top, I have here my philosophy. And with the help of it, I'm judging religion, as you all do. And never thinking perhaps that religion is judging you.

There's a wonderful story -- a typical Dartmouth story. Psychologist came to this college, and offered as a lecture, "Psychology Looks At Jesus" -- "A Psychologist Looks At Jesus," yes. So this class -- 10 at that time, was so enraged, thanks to me -- that they said I knew -- that we would -- the class would offer a counter-

lecture, "Jesus Looks at Psychology." And that's your only answer you can give to the psychologist, when he begins to mix metaphors and to speak on religion. That perhaps they would kindly listen to what religion has to say about the psychologists. But they never do. They evade this, you see. They always sit in judgment.

I only want to show you, where you have the "I" as the beginner of wisdom, "me," then philosophy is on top, religion is down, the arts and the politics are here, so to speak, wings -- wings of your activities. You dabble a little in politics, and you have your musical score, and you go to Tanglewood, et cetera. Now, from the viewpoint of politics, it is just the other way around. You take a slick politician, and he says, "College? Down. Education? I prefer illiteracy."

Any ward politician has politics written on top. And certainly he has philosophy down, down, down. That's -- he calls this, "Well, it's common sense, common sense." And the rest is brown study. And then of course, he has rhetorics in his left finger, and five finger rings besides, and diamond stud here, and Mr. Truman's long tie. And -- so arts, that's the means of politics. Big shows, horse races, circuses, theaters, you see, display, dinners, Jefferson dinner, I'm -- always content to buy Republican, and so on. And then he has religion also as a handmaid, of course, subservient. You go to every -- every church service possible. You collect church services just to show the people that you are a very good man.

And so you see this is the square, the magic square of the politician. And now you come to the priest. And he uses, of course, the arts, the philosophy -- of St. Thomas or what-not -- and he uses the arts. He has his ritual. He has incense in the church. He has paintings. He has music, you see. And they are all his -- they- 're very useful. And he uses -- tries to put down the politician. Politics are here down, too, for the really religious man -- for the real, religious leader.

Well, I -- perhaps I have shown you enough to make you see how wonderful the intellectual world really is, that it is quite untrue or quite misleading to organize the world from the point of view ...

[tape interruption]

... any one of these men ...

[tape interruption]

... the family; be it America, be it the family, be it the village -- the priest, that is. He should, if he's really a religious person. I don't mean the priest who is

ordained, but who is simply serving the good will of the community.

So what I -- have I done here, gentlemen? I have really seemed to -- go astray. I have repeated my deduction of last time. You remember last time I tried to show you that any group of people, and any individual must, at the end, reduce this field of force in which three thoughts must finally coincide: what I think of myself, what the world says that it thinks of myself, and what they say behind my back. I have established this field of force. I have now re-established it, here. I have tried to show you that the saint, who makes the name for himself -- or the devil, that makes no difference -- that the teacher who says what is exception and what is the rule, and the ruler who says, "This has to be done!" -- exception and rule. And that's the inheritance. "Heritage" you -- we call it better.

What's left behind of it all? That these three people have three different sets of values. Can you see this? The same thing, however. They have to know the truth of philosophy, of religion, of politics, and of the arts. Every one of them uses these three in a different manner. The -- we will see that the artist is the eternal child. He doesn't reach up to this maturity of these three people. I repeat, the ruler, the teacher, and the saint exist in all -- every one of us as a potential, because, gentlemen, although you may not become president, you have to rule yourself. You have to rule normally -- even your family, but that's you -- will not do, but yourself, you have to rule. You have to know when you should get up, when you should get out, when you should get in. That is to rule.

Everybody, as I said, has to teach, because he must appeal to the sense of lawfulness, on justice in others. So if I, for example, hit you, by accident, I have to say, "Pardon me." That's teaching, because I establish the fact that this is an exception. Because if I would make it a rule, you would hit me, you see.

Gentlemen, everybody teaches, everybody rules. Anybody who says, "Excuse me," teaches, because he lays down the law. Because, what is excuse? To say, you see, "This shall remain outside the law. That is, I make an exception. I claim an exception." This is so important, but most people don't know. We are all, gentlemen -- this you have learned in the -- in this strange blabber of Mr. Thomas Paine, that everybody is a priest, everybody's a king. You have heard this, but you have never made any use of it. You know that Luther has said that we -- there is a universal priesthood. The Church has never denied it, the Roman Church. It's true. It's ancient, but you never knew what it means.

A priest is a man who leaves for -- behind a name. An elder who, for the whole community for which he is responsible, either makes a stink -- a stench leaves behind, or a good odor, because, gentlemen, if you have a good ruler, a good teacher, then the whole community gains honor. And the priest is a man

who carries it through, who alternatingly rules or teaches. There is no ruler who not occasionally must teach. There is no teacher who not occasionally must rule. You can see this. Even I, with my complete lack of discipline, have sometimes to intervene, when you are too -- to irregular. Isn't that true? I mean, in -- a certain amount of discipline is needed in the classroom. And a certain amount of -- of articulation is needed in a ruler. There is a message about the state of the country by Mr. Eisenhower, which is doctrine, you see. That's teaching.

So gentlemen, really, I have tried to show you that the mature part in men, the superior part, is really a very wonderful tri-folding. It stands up like this. This would be rule, teach, and be named, be recognized. This is a long word, but you understand now what it means. Be recognized for what -- that you are. If a good real- -- ruler and a good teacher is in you, the world will recognize your dignity, will make room for you. If the whole country has a good ruler and good teachers, the Russians will be overawed and will not go to war against us. That is, on the recognition of our ruling and our teaching, our very existence in the world depends.

And that is true, gentlemen, in such an extent you can write it down. There is no distinction between the individual and the group in this respect. Whether I myself rule myself, and teach myself, and uphold the law and the exceptions -- or whether the whole world has great teachers and rulers -- the life process is exactly the same. No -- there's no difference.

It's one of the great faults, gentlemen, of you. You have not the imagination to see. Perhaps you put it down. The body politic and the individual member of the body politic underlie exactly identical mental rules -- mental laws. The process of law is not separate in the whole and in the part. You are so blinded by your physical proud -- pride in the physical -- in the visible, that you think that the government of the United States, and you -- your self-government of your own body and soul, gentlemen, are not essentially the same government. But can't you see this? It's exactly the same thing.

All mental processes, gentlemen, are valid even more for the human race as a whole than they are for individual. That is, you can explain Christ much more readily than your own vagaries. It's obviously -- that in you I find all the -- mental processes curtailed, abbreviated, amorphous, you see. But in the perfect man, I find them very clearly expressed. Christ was a priest. Christ was a poet. Christ was an elder -- that's priest -- and a king, as you well know, and a teacher. And in the perfect man, that's quite natural for you. But you have never thought that this is only because He was a normal man, that you cannot breathe one thought and one idea without positing this strange quadrilateral of the human mind, which in any one moment postulates art, philosophy, politics, and religion.

Isn't this a very miraculous world?

We all, you and I, are only little refractors, little { }, little mirrors of the fact that all mankind represents one great attempt to rule right -- govern; to speak right -- teach, you see; and to develop this reputation, so that your children will still be proud to bear your name, to share your religion, perhaps even to share your philosophy, probably sharing your political allegiance, because I don't think they'll all emigrate from America. So in the end, it is very vital to you that your children should be Americans; that they perhaps should stay in the same denomination as you, you see; that they should have your same -- the same convictions you have with regard to the treatment of your family, of your children -- that is, your philosophy.

And therefore, gentlemen, we all believe in the unity it is -- must be possible that ruling, teaching, and recognition are one for all men and are all present in you. And you cannot reduce your mental processes to any reconciliation, to any atonement, to any good end unless you stop your silly approach to thinking, which consists in saying that it doesn't matter what you think, that you can think as you please. Gentlemen, that's the only thing you cannot. Nobody can think as he pleases, because when he thinks, he enters into a lawful universe. That's as lawful as the Niagara Falls, that the water must go downhill, gentlemen, it is equally true that thought must rise. It must rise to the stature of rule, of teaching, and of establishing a reputation. If your thought is not rising, it is just as little thought as a stone is a stone when it doesn't fall.

Thinking, gentlemen, is that power in the universe which overcomes gravity. And that's why it is right to put this in form of a tree. Just as the sap rises in a tree, in the same way human thought rises. And we call this therefore "the spirit." Gentlemen, the spirit is always the combination of one more -- more than one form of thinking. Philosophy alone, that's not spirit. Ruling alone, policeman -- no spirit, you see. That's just the law. Teaching, I'm afraid no spirit. But when you all -- ritual, just pomp and forms; no spirit. But the combination of these three faculties, gentlemen, they make an inspired being. When your president is at the same time a teacher, as Abraham Lincoln, in the Second Inaugural, or the Gettysburg Address, you know that he is inspired, don't you? Why? Because he oversteps the bounds of one form of thought. Ja? Can you see this? He appears on the opposite side of the triangle, too.

Ja, you look at me in -- in despair. Do you un- -- follow? No, the -- you, Sir. You, you. I just want to make sure you understand what I say. Yes, it's you, yourself. All right.

So we have made a discovery, gentlemen. There is something more than

thinking. That's the integration of thinking. We call the togetherness of various shapes, hues of thought as teaching and ruling in -- in harmony -- that's the realm of the spirit. Now, to most of you, "spirit" is just a word of rubber, of Kautschuk, or -- what's a spirit? You don't know. It's something very uneasy when people -- in this country mean spirited -- spiritual life. I always -- I try to avoid this term, because people think it's mysticism, or spiritualism, or ghosts, or some such nonsense.

Gentlemen, it's very simple. The spirit is the integration of various modes of thinking. It is the -- thinking to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh power. And unfortunately neither the politician, nor the philosopher as such, nor the priest as such have every heard of that. They repeat the Creed, and they repeat philosophy, and they repeat the Constitution ad nauseam, as you know, but they do not know that this is only one way, you see, of stating our relations to each other.

We'll have to study this from now on, but you understand already. We have made a discovery: there are three ways, and they are really one.

Thank you.