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

(Is today the 21st, or the 22nd? Philosophy 10, May 21st, 1954.)

...the other group of people, the successful ones. We had dealt last time with Goethe and Saint-Simon. And I said to you that they start us on a new cycle which is neither scholastic nor academic.

Before now setting out to give you examples of people who, in a later stage of any one cycle, attract the attention and gain the approval of the -- their colleagues and the -- of the public, let us look once more at the -- the simple question: how can a man who breaks new ground survive in a society which doesn't even know that this new ground exists? It is like discovering a new continent, if you discover a new way of life, if you -- a new way of thinking. When the first natural scientists said that they couldn't make gold, or that they could prove that the sun was not turning around the earth, or that they could cut up corpses and thereby get an insight into the life of man, or animals -- when all this was started, people said they were mad, or they were obsessed. It is the same when I tell you today that scientists are the most inadequate people to discover peace, because they deal with things, the natural scientists. That has been the -- my information for the last week and-a-half, as you know, to try to show you that the scientist himself, with the theme of a social science, and the scientist himself is a free agent and never a thing. And if the first topic of conversation in social science must be Mr. Einstein, then it is obvious that he cannot be explained by mathematics, although he happens to be a mathematician.

If you cannot understand this, then I have taught this in vain. And most of you will not understand it, because you are absolutely obsessed with the idea that science and mathematics is identical, that the ideal of science is to solve everything mathematically. I have tried to show you that in one science, in the di- -- science of reality minus speech, which you call nature, this is true. But that Mr. Einstein is only interesting because his name is Einstein, because he speaks of relativity, and because he writes equations and books, and makes very silly speeches. And for this reason he's interesting. He's a danger to America because he's listened to as a social scientist. He was wise enough to turn down the presidency of Israeli which -- was offered him, admitting that he would be a complete failure there.

But you think that scientists have -- must also understand politics. But gentlemen, a great man -- a great soul never understands himself. And Einstein would have to understand himself in order to know anything about society. But genius must be na‹ve. He understands mathematics. He understands the world

of things, that do not speak. But when he speaks, gentlemen, he reveals that he is a child, a very nice child. But he has never suffered from humanity. But he has suffered from the question of relativity, which is a very inhuman question, and not -- nobody's concern who has to do with state and Church, and -- education, and poetry, and drama, and history, and the future of the human race. What has mathematics to do with the future of the human race? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Mathematics is for the dead.

And as long as you do not heed this, I closed my last lecture with the words, you remember, that you were the stumbling block -- you, as you sit here -- for the progress of the next cycle, because you don't believe in it, that it is possible that anything could be known outside a mathematical, lawful state of natural law. And now I ask you therefore the simple question: how can a man like myself, or can a -- how can a man like Saint-Simon, or a man like Goethe survive in a society which denies that this is possible, what they're driving at? Ein- -- Saint-Simon had to commit -- tried to take his life at 60 because nobody was going to feed him. He -- I told you, he lived on water for several weeks before he took this desperate step, because he had not even bread. Although he of course -- he had fed the scientists for many years at his dinners. And I quoted that he -- the -- his word -- that he had come into the world to re-heat, to re-warm the frozen hearts, frozen by physics, frozen by mathematics, frozen out; and of course, the scoundrels, the scientists themselves proved as stone-hearted as they are. People who only deal with atoms, why should they be anything but stone-hearted?

Now gentlemen, I will give you a list of the protectorates, the Maecenases, as they are called in the academic world. That was the friend of -- Horace, which -- by whose help Horace did not starve, the Romans' -- the Roman poet. And so we have this expression Maecenas, for those who protect the new, the weak, the unbelieved-in, like Gamaliel, who said of Jesus, "If it is of God, then let it grow," and he tried to protect his student Paul. And the -- but -- but he wasn't listened -- but he would be a Maecenas, somebody without understanding much of what's going on, still saying, "I vouchsafe for this child of God. You may not understand it. I do not understand it, but I -- at least I will make sure that He can work and live."

Gentlemen, in any society, you need sponsors, you need a Maecenas -- Maecenas. You need a protectorate. That's why -- it's the only reason why -- for private property. The government cannot ever protect new life. Government is conc- -- has only laws. And the laws are -- only deal with the known -- can only deal with that which was yesterday. All government is 50 years behind new life. A baby cannot come under the protection of the United States government. That must be mothered by a mother who says, "This child is going to be a genius, although it's Helen Keller." The government cannot understand that Helen

Keller needs a special tu- -- tutor and a special education, you see. It comes too late with all these things. You have -- of course again, as you are academics, and scientifically minded, and objectively minded, you think there is a law for everything. Gentlemen, the law kills all new life. You can only live by the grace of God. That's the relation of grace and law. That's why Christianity says that the law is for that which has been. But you live by free grace alone. You know that's the great sentence of Paul and of the Reformation. And it is certainly not a sentence that is denied by the Church of Rome, that in the new era, we must live by grace.

Now this means, gentlemen, that Goethe and Saint-Simon, Ab‚lard and Anselm, and Paracelsus and Copernicus, the beginners of such -- these three new cycles had to look for a special sponsor group. And they are different. When Ab‚lard was condemned at the Council of Sens by his enemy Bernard of Clairvaux, and by the pope, and by the bishops, there was one man who was able to be -- grant him protection, and protect his sweetheart H‚lo‹se, and grant also a career to their son, {Astrolabius}, who survived this unfortunate -- or calamitous -- I shouldn't say "unfortunate" -- calamitous union. That was Peter the Venerable, the abbot of Cluny. That is, an abbot was able at that time in the Middle Ages in his monastery to defy popes, and archbishops, and princes, and kings, and say, "This is a great man. You may not understand him, but I can protect him." And so he lived his last two years in Cluny -- C-l-u-n-y, the great abbey of Burgundy which the people in Harvard have now re-excavated, Professor Conant -- not the president, but the other Conant -- and which is the pride of France. It's lying in the heart of Burgundy on the road from Canterbury to Rome.

And the monks of Cluny were the princes of their time, and so we learn that in the Middle Ages freedom was protected by the great abbots. They had the power to make exceptions. They had the power to invest, as our modern foundations can, the Rockefeller Foundation. And so Ab‚lard survived there this persecution, only with the help of an abbot.

Now we come to Paracelsus. The Church is older than the living genius. And the people who saved -- saved the -- Ab‚lard represent the past. The Church represents the pow- -- a power from the past that can protect freedom, growth, novelty, genius, surprise, that can explode the frame of reference in which you live, and which is too narrow. You only know that science is science. And I tried to tell you last time that science by its implication can never include the scientist. So it's too narrow, and we came to the limitations of this science.

The second -- the -- Paracelsus and Copernicus were not protected in quite the same way. That is to say, Paracelsus, who was a stormy -- a stormy petrol as Ab‚lard. You remember that I shall ask in the exam on my pamphlet, "A Classic

and the Founder" -- that's why I haven't told you in class here the story of Paracelsus -- I expect you, however -- everybody to have read this booklet. Paracelsus was as much of a genius, and as much of a controversial character as Ab‚lard. The only people who saved him from complete destruction were his friends. He neither had students, nor did he have mighty people backing him like abbots, or archbishops, or the emperor, or the pope, or any such thing. He had only contemporaries. The fa- -- the great miracle of Paracelsus' survival is not that the abbot of Cluny kept a heretic -- that Ab‚lard had been declared a heretic, you see -- in his monastery and said, "For me, he's orthodox enough;" something you cannot understand, you see. But the Middle Ages were very Protestant, you see, and the Middle Ages contained the Protestants and the Catholics, both. And what you call the Middle Ages is not Roman Catholicism, but it's Protestantism plus Catholicism in one. And therefore, an abbot could say, "Well, if Rome has spoken, to me he's still good enough." People have so funny ideas today about the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages certainly were much more Catholic than modern Catholicism, because they contained all what was Protestant.

So this abbot was matched for Paracelsus by lay friends. And the great story of Paracelsus' life is as follows, gentlemen: he dies at 48, at the age of 48. He cannot bring any of his books to print, of his important books. He has to wait 48 more years, as a so- -- allegedly dead man, before -- his collected works are gathered and printed. Take tho- -- down those dates. They are very fascinating for the story of the human spirit. Born 1493 -- ja, 1493. Died 1541. First edition of his works: 1589.

There you can see what is meant by immortality in the Christian age. Not the immortality of somebody not dying. That's all nonsense. He was very dead indeed. But the spirit -- moved, and it took 48 years before the people -- they were chamberlains of a -- of a duke of Bavaria, and the other was a forester, and the third was a mining director. That is, people who were not learned, but were -- trusted him and were impressed by the genius of the man, before they got together and prevailed on another man to devote his whole life to editing this edition. And the edition is like a resurrection, because it took the devotion and the love of his disciples and apostles not -- to do this.

So will you take down: Paracelsus as a scientist completely depends on contemporary trust of non-experts, non-colleagues, because he is the first scientist. There was none other. And he has no students. Quite the contrary. His students were the cowards that -- who denounced him and persecuted him most, because they -- he couldn't prepare them ready for an examination. And students only want to make -- pass their examinations, as you well know. For the rest, they don't care. Students are the most meretricious, and treacherous, and egotistical people I know. They want to get an A. That's what they want. And then

they are through.

You like to think of yourself as -- as noble and generous. You are generous against the poor, gentlemen. But you are not generous against not -- the truth, because you run away with the goods. You -- don't you say, "What do I get out of this course?" Isn't that an infamy? To get out of the truth something, instead of serving the truth? As long as you think of this course that you must get something out of it, gentlemen, you are exploiting it. And you are not doing anything for the truth. It's a privilege to be allowed to serve the truth. But you think it is your privilege to exploit for your own aggrandizement, or your own enrichment, as you call it, or for your own stimulation -- the truth. That's not the -- the truth is weak. It needs your support, gentlemen. It -- you -- it cannot deliver some goods to you. Go to Gimbel or go to Macy's if you want to buy something. For 45 bucks, gentlemen, you are privileged to hear the truth. And that is an enlistment in an army of servants of the truth.

So that's why the arts colleges -- the liberal arts colleges in this college are such devastating places, because everybody tries to take something away from them, instead of giving them something. You can't get anything here, gentlemen, if you do not surrender your own prejudice and your own will here. And that is the only right you acquire by sitting in a course. You can become better men, but you can't get anything out of it.

So that's what I -- I say this, because in my research in the life of Paracelsus, wa- -- I was struck down by the fact that his greatest danger came from his students. They did more to slander him than anybody else. And since you believe all that the students are nice and the rest of the world is bad, it is I think necessary sometimes to assure you that this isn't quite so. Students are very dangerous people. Single -- I mean, there are -- exceptions. But on the whole, gentlemen, the way you flunk, you -- way you cut, the way you are -- try to get by, the way you do a minimum, the way you show 1 percent of the interest that the -- the story deserves, you will admit that you water down and dilute everything in this college. It's a miracle that Shakespeare has survived your onslaught so long. Your bad jokes about everything. I mean, it's really a miracle that any classical text, you see, holds out against the nonsense the students make of it so long. Well, you have already ruined the classics. Nobody reads Homer anymore in this college, or Virgil, or Horace. They are out, and Greek tragedy. You don't go to the Shakespeare plays. You don't read the Bible anymore, so you have consumed in some -- several hundred years all the good things by making people vomit, and by just spitting them out, and by refusing to be impressed by them. Because if everybody -- at 100 percent effort, you would be overwhelmed by it. If you make a 10 percent effort, of course, the thing loses its value. And who makes a 10 percent effort in this college? If he has a high IQ, he makes a 1 percent effort. If

he has a low IQ, he makes a 2 percent effort. And the rest is called Phi Beta Kappa.

It's all a great joke, gentlemen, your education. Nothing more, because you leave the corpse of the values which we offer you stranded, deprived. I'm all -- surprised after every year that it is still possible to announce these great things to a new generation, because you have done everything during that time to annihilate their importance.

So gentlemen, we come to the fact which has very much to do with the idea of private property, gentlemen, and capitalism, and individual enterprise, that the new life of science was only protected by private individuals who were of the same age group as the victim of the authorities on the one-hand side: that is, the older people and the studious students. Paracelsus is a very good argument that you need powerful and private friends if you have something new to say. You can see this to this day in the necessity for an artist to be supported by some rich woman -- a conductor, a painter, a composer. Where would have -- Mr. Ives have been without some followers? You saw in the paper that the composer Ives died yesterday. Did you see it? And he had, of course, without these -- these friends of his, he could not have lived. Because being -- not composing jazz, he was just out of luck.

This is a very important rule, gentlemen. You can be protected by the powers that have been, as in the case of the Middle Ages. Or you can be protected by the powers that be.

Now we turn to Saint-Simon. And that's different again. Saint-Simon only survives through his students, through his disciples. They were not students who could pass an examination, gentlemen. They were not students in your sense. But they were what is so pooh-poohed in this country. They were free disciples, younger people for which he had to wait till his 60th year. I tried to tell you that at 60 only did the -- his first disciples gather, after he had tried to commit suicide in his loneliness and despair.

So that -- you will reach something that has very much to do with our 10 commandments of education, gentlemen. The first 60 years, two generations, of the child and of the fighter, of the believer and the doubter, and protester, had to be spent by Saint-Simon before he found at least five, six people who saw in him the senior, the elder, and who would thereby recognize that he had successfully braved the storms of 60 years, you see, of terra nova, terra incognita, a new continent of thought on which nobody else wanted to follow him, and in- -- inside which nobody else was -- yet found, as an acquaintance. He was like Robinson Crusoe, living on an island all by himself, and these disciples became --

has -- his good Fridays. You know, the Friday, the -- who served Robinson Crusoe on the island.

Now that's a very interesting story, I think, gentlemen. You have three new beginnings, and this fabled pioneer into something of which the contemporaries say it can't be done. The contemporaries of Ab‚lard said, "There cannot be anything but the local tradition of the cathedral church."

Ab‚lard said, "I challenge every one Christian of the last thousand years to come here for free disputation. We'll confront all the opinions of all the fathers of the Church in a frank free-for-all."

That was revolutionary. That uni- -- unified the whole tradition of the Church in a living point of growth, what we call the growing point, where the next issue could be discussed. This man Paracelsus said, "I can't read on botany in a book, and I can't read on anatomy in a book. I must see it all with my own eyes. We must send out correspondents. I must travel. There is a Spanish measles. And there are Russian measles. And there are English measles. And before we don't have reports on the three measles, we don't know what we're talking about." And so he invented the principle of modern science, of the universal information service. Again, this was so new, that he is protected, gentlemen, only by a few chosen contemporaries. This man is saved by a few -- well, how -- do I call people who are before him? Well, I say "authorities" -- by a few authorities, by this -- Peter the Venerable, who can defy pope and emperor, and the bishop, and the archbishop, and Bernard of Clairvaux, another abbot, the abbot of Clairvaux.

That is, gentlemen, we learn that for freedom's sake, you have to have more than one authority. For freedom's sake, you have to have more than one corporation, or one property. And now we learn that for freedom's sake, you have to have the freedom of the children, of the young, to choose their allegiance. These are three important freedoms. They are much more important than the four socalled "freedoms," which are proclaimed in these -- in these cheap Atlantic charters and so, in which nobody believes and for which nobody does anything.

But gentlemen, the world has made progress only on behalf of this fact: that there must be some authorities competing with each other. That's why you have to be against world government. That's terrible. The worst tyranny in the world anybody could think of. You have to have different authorities so that one authority can do something which the other authorities don't like. That's why the gov- -- president had to come out against McCarthy, because we have in this country the idea that there are different authorities for legislation, exe- -- executive branch, and judiciary, because otherwise we would have tyranny. That is the division of -- of our government. That's a very profound principle which you

-- I -- no -- it seems no longer understands anymore sacred, because the life of the spirit depends on this division of authority. Have you ever seen this connection? That's not some- -- anything practical, gentlemen. It's the basis on which you and I alone can believe that we can breathe in any governmental system. Otherwise we would say government is simply wicked, bad, a curse, a tyranny, a despotism, because you always have to convince then the -- the -- those in power, and you cannot. But if you have different authorities, one of them may be able at least, you see, once in a while to protect the new growth, the new seed.

Few authorities chosen, or a few contemporaries, and here, a few disciples, Jesus could -- was able to select 12 disciples -- imagine American society where everybody has to go to school till -- to his 25th year now, where you can't choose disciples. In this college, if you say the man is a disciple, he's laughed at, and ridiculed. The worst thing you can say in America is that anybody is anybody's disciple, because we have -- we have public education. And public education is the absence of any spiritual allegiance to your school. You are only an alumnus. That is, you are sentimental about it. But there is no influence. You have -- we are just facilities, and you do as you please. You get something out of me. So you can't be a disciple. You don't put yourself under the same task, you see.

Now I'm quite serious, gentlemen. In this college -- country as you well know, there is one great laugh, and that is allegiance, loyalty, because everybody wants to be mentally independent. Everybody wants to -- do for himself. And do as he does -- and do as he is -- he pleases. So I think Paracelsus would not have survived in America. Saint-Simon would not have survived in America. He did survive in France, and I told you -- his disciples built the -- the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal. Quite something.

Now, what I have tried to do -- show you is, gentlemen, there are three ways of Maecenas and protection possible. The people before us -- may protect us. These are those -- what I called authorities. The people who live with us, although laymen, may love us and protect us. This would be the Maecenas properly speaking, the contemporary, who just takes a heart and says, "I'll help you. I don't understand, but there must be something." And then there can be the young, who come to you because they look up for some leadership, because they scent that there must be a new way, and that the o- -- their other teachers, or other m- -- administrators, or their parents, or whoever it is, do not offer any new ways, but try to comfort the young with saying, "Do the same as everybody does, and get a job."

These are, I think, eternal possibilities. And I don't think there are any others. Or are there? Gentlemen, there is one in {between}. And I draw your attention to this very delicate fourth way by which Goethe was protected, and by which

Di- -- Descartes was helped -- Cartesius, the -- who followed Paracelsus 150 years later, or 100 years later in his effort. And these are the women. Goethe could only survive because of the women he was in love with, who gave him life. Descartes could only survive, first by a princess of Great Britain, Henrietta, and later by the Queen of Sweden, Christina. They have in all good periods of history done that, the women. They are timeless. Not in this country again. In this country, since they are in business, and in women's clubs, and the League of Women Voters, that's consumed. This country has no reserves for helping on something new, because the women are organized, as much as the men. They have no salons; they have no free time; they have no leisure. They are all busy from morning to evening.

Now gentlemen, the men of whom I am speaking, of a new way of life, must find somewhere people of leisure. He must find somewhere people who are not in a hurry themselves, who can protect them, because they are simply interested in seeing life grow up and revered, as you would revere a new baby, you see. Exactly the same sense. A helpless new baby needs protection. And I'm afraid the greatest terror of the Western world at this moment, gentlemen, is the total absence of such leisure. I'm very pessimistic about the future of science, about the future of human thought, because we are at this moment not destroying ourselves by bombs. That's silly. Can dis- -- nearly everything that could be destroyed by bombs could be re-built, even life -- physical life. You take the life of a soldier, that doesn't kill his soul. That's a physical death. But John Brown's body -- didn't kill his soul. His soul is marching on.

Gentlemen, the thing that cannot be remedied in this country at this moment is that nobody has time. Nobody has time. Now anybody who wants to protect new life must have plenty of time. You -- a hundred years ago a good woman in this country had time. There were some women who could protect a spirit here. That they did. I know of some such case in 1870. Or they could protect a poet. But it's impossible today, because the -- the women who could protect a poet instead write cheap books themselves. Everybody today writes books, as long as some people have to write books, you see, and the others read them, there is still hope. But today -- the -- we send these girls to college, and they all take courses in creative writing and then they produce these horrible short stories for the Saturday Evening Post, and so everybody who should protect real life produces false life himself.

Far too many people try to write themselves, so they cannot support the good books. And you think that's very wise. But they compete. And they club down, of course, the real -- the real genius. There's no selection. Everybody thinks he must do the same. That's why the prognostication, gentlemen, of any renewal of our spiritual life is, in my -- in my estimation, very dim. Whenever an important issue

is put before a good person in this country, you will hear the answer, "I have no time." That's a terrible indictment. To hell with them! You have to have time. People -- the terrible thing is not that these people say that they have no time, but they think that's an excuse. It's an indictment. I can assure you, gentlemen, that the people who are the busiest people -- surgeons, or big -- presidents of firms, know that for anything important, they always have to find time. Anybody who tells you that he has no time for something is cheap, and he's a liar.

I think I have harder worked than any one of you in my life. I have always had time for any important thing that came along. And I -- that's my -- why I think I stayed in my -- in my -- sane. It's a part of sanity, always to be able to have time. And you must remain for the rest of your lives ashamed of this phrase, of yourself, or your wife, "Oh, he's so busy. He's overworked." Just drop that, and you will find it is not true.

People boast of this. The English, you see, have still a good nervous system because the do not -- never boast of overwork. When you meet an -- an -- an Englishman, you see, he has an attach‚ case, a little suitcase, you see, and he says he's just going off hunting, or fishing, or on a weekend party. And he isn't. He works as hard as we. But he feigns that he's a man of leisure. That's their way of -- of posing. And so they cultivate this, you see, that they always have time. They work much harder I think. We are here in this country rather lazy people. But we pose as...

[tape interruption]

...of the human society. In a circus, you always have to have something going on. And therefore, however, gentlemen, you cannot expect that Saint-Simon and Goethe find any great reception in this country, because these two people have lived on leisure, and every new step in society must be based on the support of those who have this wonderful function to believe, to respect, to cultivate, to water, to protect, to favor, and to shelter, you see, and see that this is the most important function a person can have who is not himself provoked to create something. And a very few people are. I mean, creative thought is rare. You can't have a college course on creative writing, gentlemen. That's a joke. What is called "creative" here was formerly -- 100 years ago, called "learning the three Rs." Since you no longer learn the three Rs in grammar school, but there you read the funnies, so now you have this res- -- the learning of the three Rs in college, and you call it "creative writing." That's what it amounts to.

It's -- every term, gentlemen, and let me -- sum this up -- every term of education in this country is two degrees lower than in -- at the source. What you call an academic -- academy is usually one for cooking or skiing, but has nothing to

do with an academy of science. What you call a "high school" is not a higher institution for learning, but a lower institution for learning. That's why you call it a "high school." And the same is true what you call "creative" in writing means to make no mistake, which is a minimum of mechanic writing. It has nothing to do with creative writing. And on it goes. A university -- well, as you know, that's in Northfield, where they drill corporals. That's called a university, Northfield University. It's a military academy, and the military academy is a military trade school. So you have university, academy, and school. Here, and it is a school, but it has either the title "university," or "academy." Both are wrong.

If you want to understand the whole educational process, gentlemen, you must allow these titles here with a grain of salt, as we say. The -- here they are -- have been, so to speak, bandied around in a -- on a lower level. That's why it is so difficult for you to understand their original meaning.

Now the women, the disciples, the contemporaries, the men -- men of property, and the authorities that are varied, that are diversified, that are more than one, they can provide a loophole for a yet-unrecognized service. And that's how Ab‚lard, that's how Paracelsus, and that's how Saint-Simon survived against the deliberate will of their contemporaries. And as I said, the contemporaries are the stumbling block of progress.

If we now come to a later state of the game, gentlemen, when these victims have been killed, and when they have fertilized the ground -- then 100 years later, everybody knows that there can be such a science, and there can be such an effort. And when Newton was born, in 1642, this was another 50 years after the appearance of the books of Paracelsus. Then everybody expected that science could do something. It was also 100 years after Copernicus' book had appeared, in 1543. So Newton is a man, and his contemporary Descartes, who already have all the scientific acclaim.

And I want now to contrast a man like Goethe and Saint-Simon who were not understood by their contemporaries at all, who had just to survive by the skin of their teeth -- how you say? yes -- with the glory that you give to Newton, or to Cartesius. Of Cartesius it was said that in other times, he would have been called a god, so divine was his IQ, his understanding. He lived from 1598 to 1650. And it may arouse your special sympathy that he died be- -- from consumption, or from a fever, because the Queen Christina of Sweden, his -- his Maecenas, was accustomed -- had the bad habit to ask him to tutor her in mathematics and physics in the morning -- wee hours of the day, at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. And Sweden being a very cold country, he couldn't stand these morning hours. He was accustomed to sleep long. And when he came to Stockholm, he died from a cold which he contracted there at the rather early age of 52, because of his be-

loved Maecenas. So you see, it's very dangerous even to have a sponsor, if she has this bad habit of getting up too early.

Well, of Descartes this has been said. He would have been called a god if he had lived in the -- antiquity. Gentlemen, of Paracelsus, you only hear slander. Nobody speaks of him. Ab‚lard the same way. There is a dead silence in the next century about Ab‚lard, because he was erratic. He was controversial, you see. Had he lived 150 years later af- -- after himself, so to speak, he would have been treated like Cartesius, as a potential god, and you may know the wonderf- -- famous verse. I don't know if -- no, I didn't bring the paper, I think, yes, here -- on Newton. Does anybody know the famous verse on Isaac Newton by Pope? That's typical of the success of the -- in the second phase, which you only see, usually. "Nature and nature's law lay hid in the night. God said, `Let Newton be!' and all was light." Have you heard of this before? Well, gentlemen, it's a verse to be remembered, because it shows you the fickleness of human affairs. The same thing that in 16- -- 1530 was condemned as impossible is celebrated in 6- -- in 1700, you see, with this incredible emphasis, and this adoration.

So gentlemen, neither one is important. This verse isn't important, I'm afraid, for the achievement of a great spirit. Nor is the deprecation and the cursing important. I mean, if you are -- if you are clever, if you are superi- -- superior, gentlemen, take the praise and take the cursing of society like rain and shine. It isn't your true, inner story. You must do what you have to do, regardless of {hope}. "Nature and nature's laws lay hid in the night; God said, `Let Newton be!' and all was light."

To me is something very inhuman about this. It's an exaggeration, but I want to show you this exaggeration to show you how society passes from complete blindness to complete idolatry.

Newton lived from 1642 to 1727. And you may have heard that in his last 27 years, he was the president of the mint, because he knew so much about metals. And before, he was professor in Cambridge; and ever since, Cambridge has remained famous for its mathematics and physics. To this day, Oxford is for the humanities, and the -- classical civilization, and politics; and Cambridge is for the natural sciences especially distinguished.

You know what happened in Cambridge? Something again, unheard-of. Fantastic story. You know how he became professor? Who knows? Oh, gentlemen, that's the most wonderful story in the world, of any university. His teacher, Barrows, J. Barrows, sent one of the early papers of -- he was -- of Newton, he was 30 years old -- to somebody else in London, secretary of the Royal Society, and received such -- an enthusiastic reply, that he said, "So I was right. I thought

it was wonderful. I will have to resign my position so that Newton can get it." And he decided at an early age -- he was not even 50 -- to give up his own place so that Newton could be appointed. That's a great story. And it -- so happened.

Now gentlemen, there you see surrender to genius when it is ripe, and can be understood. His own teacher -- imagine! -- sacrificed his whole position to allow Newton to get this position in Cambridge. I think this man's name deserves to be remembered, Barrows -- B-a-r-r-o-w-s. Great man. And in 1727, Newton was buried with the tomb- -- inscription on his tomb in the -- Westminster Abbey in London, "{Humani generis decus}" -- an adornment of the human race.

Between Newton and Descartes, there is a considerable -- dis- -- difference in time. Descartes dies in 1650, before the Royal Society in London is founded, as it was in 1665; that is, before institutions of academic research are really known. So you see in Descartes that he has the respect of the queens, and princesses, but not yet of society. And the -- these 20 -- 77 years, from 1650 to 1727 you may list as the years in which your mentality has been founded, your way of distributing the prizes of humanity, to scientists or non- -- and non-scientists, goes back to those 77 years between the death of Descartes and the death of Newton, because you treat Mr. Einstein as Newton was treated in his own day, by and large. I don't think you have advanced beyond that time at all. It has been -- become democratic what at that time was aristocratic, but I don't think you -- you see beyond the noses of the people in 1727, because you too think that mathematics and science is the latest achievement of the human race, and the leading one. And that of this, the -- H-bomb is -- the cobalt bomb is -- the last example.

However, we can also learn, gentlemen, something in the relation between Paracelsus and Copernicus on the one-hand side, and Newton and Descartes on the other. There is a clear distinction between the first founding generation of Ab‚lard and -- and Anselm on the one-hand side, and the second generation, like Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, or here Descartes and Faraday -- and Newton compared to Paracelsus. What comes in on the -- in the meantime is the new -- the specific method of the new science. Goethe and Saint-Simon said already, "Solidarity, no unemployment; Code de la { }; and speech, speech, and speech once more." But they cannot yet teach it. It takes faith of disciples, and they have not yet the new method to offer. That's why at this moment, there are still many social scientists who think it will have to be mathematics, just the same. They haven't heard yet this new gospel, after 150 years.

The same is true, gentlemen, however, between Paracelsus, who knew that the world had to be expected, that the world had to be analyzed. Copernicus, too. That you had to make free, new hypotheses about anything. And the sun was only a thing among other things. But mathematics, in their new form of

higher mathematics, had not come into their own. Descartes and Newton, gentlemen, are much clearer phases of modernity because they are both -- have made their reputation in higher mathematics. Now neither with the -- neither Copernicus nor Paracelsus have made any contribution to mathematics. Mathematics is the form of the new content, thing, or nature. Mathematics are the latest way of -- or the finest way of analyzing natural processes. You couldn't build a jet plane without higher mathematics, obviously, you see. Quite impossible. Now, Paracelsus, and as you know, Leonardo da Vinci, his contemporary, already conceived of the submarine and of flying. But higher mathematics hadn't been invented and couldn't -- they couldn't compute it. It was impossible.

So gentlemen, the second generation finds the appropriate technique for the new topic. And you remember, we said therefore the second stage is that of science. You remember, we had three stages: idea; science; education; commonplace. Now I'm talking to you at this moment of the contrast between the founders of a new way of thinking and the second generation, or the second century -- after 150 years, who already can operate. And for this they have to contribute not the topic, not the new theme, but a special form. Higher mathematics, gentlemen, is the creation of the 17th century. What you call calculus, as you may know, is exclusively created between 1650 and 1720. And it's there. So exactly in those days of Newton and Cartesius, who was a great mathematician himself. And he died just prematurely, that there were others: Euler, Bernoulli, Leibnitz.

So gentlemen, we learn something in addition to what you knew before. In Newton and Descartes, the world reveres not so much the new question, but a new way of answering the question. The new question is asked by these geniuses Paracelsus and Copernicus. The -- they have the freedom to say, "Let's try it in quite a different way. Let's go everywhere, and let's look at the movements of this universe with complete freedom from any older hypothesis. It may be the other way around." That's Copernicus' merit. You remember what I told you, that he couldn't compute yet the things, because he had not -- no realistic observations. That was his successor, Ty- -- Tycho Brahe, you see, who didn't be- -- even believe in his own -- in Copernicus' hypothesis, but who had this patience of observing the facts, and following the new Paracelsus method of stating patiently what could be seen.

So the same is true of the Middle Ages, gentlemen. If you compare Descartes and Newton, as you should, to Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, you get a reciproci-- -procity. In Bonaventura and -- Thomas Aquinas, you get a new method in addition to Ab‚lard and Anselm. Anselm asked already the question, "How do I constantly renew my notion of God? How do I not rest satisfied with any definition of God?" And the -- he gave the answer: the incarnation is always a -- beyond reason, can never be proven. You -- the priest, have to represent the

incarnation to the sinner by saying to him, "God is greater than your little mind, and if you think -- can't forgive you, I tell you that He can."

So as today with the scientist again, Anselm already saw that theology would have to bring in the freedom of the theologian and the logic of the -- theo- -- of theology, as a science. But Bonaventura and -- Ans- -- and -- and Thomas invented a new method.

If you open the Sum of -- has anybody ever seen the Sum of Thomas Aquinas? In an English translation you can have it. Nobody ever? Who has?

(What was that?)

The -- the Summa. Good. Well, I'm very glad. Well, what's the new method, gentlemen? In every paragraph, in every chapter of the the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, you have the new higher mathematics of the divine. It isn't called mathematics, but it is a confrontation of all the pagan opinions summarized by the philosopher Aristotle confronted with the text of the fathers of the Church. And therefore the whole authority of thought, of previous times is here for the first time clearly confronted and brought together. The -- the Summa of Aristot- -- Thomas reads very monotonously: "The philosopher says...the apostle says." That's usually Paul. {Discendum.} "Therefore, we have to conclude..."

So it is always the compromise or the conclusion between two opposite opinions, as in any university, but the new method is that he has found the two extreme authorities -- one pagan, one Christian -- and therefore he is so Catholic that he comprehends two worldwide ways of judging a situation. And he can hope, you see, that therefore nothing escapes, so to speak. He has construed now a -- a dragnet in which the butterfly of truth, you see, will be caught, because he has here Aristotle as the sum of all Greek wisdom, and he has here the apostle as the sum of all Go- -- biblical wisdom and in between, he grinds out his sentences.

Now we saw that this in -- in the nutshell is already done by -- by Ab‚lard. I told you, he confronts the "yes" and "no" of the fathers. But this is much more radical in Thomas. And everybody can repeat it. You can now have Plato and S- -- Augustine confronted, just as you have Aristotle and Paul. It's a principle on which you can constantly enlarge by always confronting one pagan authority and one Christian authority. And this has been done, you see. And we do it still. In a way. Our colleges -- if you take a course with the professors of philosophy in our department, that's actually what they all the time do. You read a text on Plato, on -- on the city, on politics, you see, and there's always in back of the mind of the professor and the students the Constitution of the United States,

which is a Christian constitution. And you always say, "Well, slavery as recommended by Plato we won't have," you see, "because we rely on the other. But -- he has still a point with regard to the poets, perhaps, or to the election of the officers."

So all the time, we read any one problem still with this double truth: one pagan, one Christian, one post-Christian, or -- in our era, like the political world in which we live today. And the Platonic texts. Has anybody -- read a political text of antiquity? Well. It's dying out, but this has been -- gone on for the last 900 years as a consequence of Ab‚lard's method. But the method is there in Thomas.

Now the second method, gentlemen, which I would like to compare to the higher mathematics of Mr. Newton, who invented calculus, as you know. Descartes I think discovers the binomial -- binomial sentence, how do -- "proposition" or how do you call such a--?

(Theory. Theorem.)

Wie? Theory. Bonaventura is very unknown to you. I think in the next 30 years he will become the preferable saint to Thomas Aquinas for the Church. I think he has a great future. He is his friend. I told you the story of his library, when he drew back his curtain and just showed the Crucifix and said, "These are my books. I do not read Greek." What did Bonaventura then read, or what method did he follow? Obviously it isn't quite enough to point to the Crucifix, because then people don't think at such an occasion. They are just sentimental. But he did think. You can say, gentlemen, that Bonaventura writes out the mind of Thomas Aquinas. That is, in the Middle Ages for the first time, there is the scientist himself made the topic, the theme of meditation. How can a mind like Saint Thomas come and cr- -- be creative and think new things?

In a way, gentlemen, when Thomas himself exploits Aristotle and Paul, he bows to genius. He says, "Human genius has to be listened to. Whether I approve of it, that's -- has nothing to do -- first he has the right to be heard, because he's genius." In Bonaventura, it's more touching, but it's similar. He says, "What is this mind of brother Thomas?" And he -- I have told you this before; I want to bring it back to your ken once more -- says, "There are three rules about new life of science. A {ducta ignorantia}." Thomas is not too proud to say, "I have been ignorant," although he knew more than anybody else. And therefore he has a learned ignorance. The second thing is that he says, "We only make progress by an excess of the spirit, an uplift."

This is against all modern psychology and education, gentlemen. I told you this in another phrase. Bonaventura is the first who said, "Nobody can teach a

science scientifically." Teaching is always affectionate and passionate. A mathematician cannot teach mathematics mathematically. He has to teach it with dedication, with devotion, with emphasis, with interest, with stimulation. The students must like it. And they must be attentive. That's not mathematical. If you teach mathematics mathematically, they go to sleep.

Now that's very funny, gentlemen, that this is denied in America at this moment. The people in every one field really think they must teach their science in the form the science has -- in the textbook. I went to a biology lecture the other day and I was really amazed how a man would be allowed to teach on such a wonderful topic like the life on this earth in such a drab fashion. They did -- don't deserve to teach such wonderful subjects. They -- I really feel that way, because they -- he didn't try to convey to me his admiration and his gladness that he was allowed to deal with such wonderful truth. We expect this from a speaker, that he can let you in on the heat that this topic generates.

And that is what Bonaventura knew. He said it is an excess of the mind by which you are forced to -- take the next step. It is not logical, gentlemen, that we can teach logic. If you would only know this. Then you would have better teaching, and also better learning. You are absolute superstitious. The label "mathematics," or "physics," or "science," or "objective" has made you blind to the fact that objectivity has to be taught passionately, and quite unobjectively. If I want to convince you that you should objective, I have to be terribly serious, and you must be convinced that it is worthwhile to become objective. And for this, this takes some energy, because before, you are sound asleep, you are quite indifferent. And I have to break your indifference. I have to make it important, gentlemen.

Therefore gentlemen, the life of the spirit is the sense of the important. Will you take this down? The life of the spirit is the sense of the important. And where this sense of the important is lost, there is no teaching, there is no life, there is no knowledge, there is no reason, there is no logic, and you can pack up with all your stuff of objectivity, and reason, and science. It isn't worth anything, because you are asleep. It must be -- have a sense of relevance, importance, and let me go further -- the ancients, of course, felt that was implied in the word "important" -- is also urgent. It has to have a sense of urgency. And you can only get the sense of urgency if you are aware that without you, the thing cannot live. You have to know it. Because somebody has to know it; and otherwise nobody might know it, and then it might be lost.

So it's terribly serious, gentlemen, that you should know this, because I assure you, already the people next door haven't the faintest idea of it. But you think everybody knows this. And that's why you are so perfectly indifferent to what I

tell you. You say, "What can I get out of it?" in the fear that everybody else has it already. I assure you, nobody else knows what I am telling you. Perhaps because you know it, it might become known.

But this is the -- the blight on the American college system, you see. If you have 4 million people in the colleges, Mis- -- Mr. 300 -- 3,900,000 -- -29,000th, thinks that he receives what 3 millions, 2- -- 29 -- 328,000 has received before. So why should he bother? Everybody knows this. Commonplace, you see. So it is quite -- he remains indifferent. He says, "I may be interested," or "may not be interested," but nothing depends on it. He is no danger.

Gentlemen, in the highest stage of science -- and that is Bonaventura's lasting contribution -- his higher mathematics of the human spirit say that truth always is urgent, and always is important, because -- now let me add the third thing. We have doc- -- learned ignorance is the opposite from your ignorant learning. The science -- the scholar is at the top of the ladder, ahead of everybody else in his generation when he makes his progress. That is scientific progress, gentlemen. It comes from those who know everything that is to be known now and drop it. And teach the opposite.

That's why you are not -- little research men, when you call your little project "research." It's infamous. You shouldn't do that. Be ashamed of yourself. You go to the reference desk and ask for a book and then you say, "I did a little research." You did some search! Research means that this which has been searched and is now -- seems to be known is searched for a second time. And now questioned. You don't do this. And that's why again, you see, in America everything has been cheapened. These little -- kids in high school do "research" because they do -- take -- cut out some clippings for -- of the funnies. That's called research in funnies. Be ashamed of yourself, of this abuse of the term "research." It's just as bad as you say you're in a university when you are in a grammar school or a military academy. You have not the faintest idea what research is. You abuse this term, because "research" means that you know everything there is to be known about something and then you say, "This isn't good enough," and question it. But you just -- gather a few little scraps about everything -- -body else knows much better, and then you call this "research." And that's the curse of modern progressive education, that they have taken -- destroyed the last remnant of respect, that you little students think that you are scientists and explorers. Have nothing to do with it. You cheapen everything. You dilute everything. You water it all down. It becomes unimportant, indifferent, cheap, and that's again why we have no progress at this moment, because everybody thinks, "Well everybody can know everything." This abuse of the term "research" really makes my -- my -- gives me the pernicious jaundice.

I -- when I came to this class, I looked up the dates of Descartes and Newton once more to make sure that I knew that he died in 1727 and was born in 1642. Do you think I called this research when I refresh my memory in something somebody else has printed in an encyclopedia? Is this research? But you call this "research" if you look up what somebody else has printed. Do you understand how funny that is, when you consult a dictionary, you call this research? Research means that you say the dictionary is wrong. Isn't that clear that this is -- would be the beginning of the -- your learned ignorance? That would be a progress. That would be a step beyond what the ordinary people of today, you see, as an average, can know. Is this clear?

Now. I promised you there was a third thing. There is first the -- the essence of the learned ignorance, the way -- a science progresses. There is second, the excess of the mind. It is a passionate sense of urgency which alone allows a mind to do research, because you cannot do such doubt -- scientific doubt, you see, without -- having the feeling of relevance. This should be doubted, because the salvation of the world depends on this next doubt.

And the third thing, gentlemen. Bonaventura wrote a book, Itinerary of the Mind to God. Itinerary of the Mind to God. He discovered that this mental process was a way of life, that you could go from research to research, and lead a good life by always being on the move. And he has this great, tremendous conception in which you also na‹vely believe, gentlemen, that the history of science is the building of a road by free men, where everybody paves one mile, so to speak, and miraculously everybody acts as a volunteer perfectly, without orders -- receiving orders from anybody -- any tyrant; and together they form a broad avenue that goes in a progressive direction. The Itinerary of the Mind towards God, gentlemen, that's Bonaventura's third idea about which he justifies Ab‚lard, and Anselm, and Thomas, and himself -- very tremendous idea -- that science is a sequence of free spirit -- is a sequence of free spirits who together form an in- -- unpredictable role, every one of them sacrificing his own time's prejudices, surrendering to the truth. Learned ignorance, surrendering of his reputation and of his position in his own time for what he knows, by saying, "That isn't good enough," and by this dump- -- this voluntary dumping of your reputation, this risk, you form a -- well, a galaxy, I don't know -- an enlightened road -- how do you call a --? Well, how the -- as the light travels, together the scientists form one ray of light into darkness. And they fit together in a miraculous way so that they form together the human mind.

Now gentlemen, if you ask yourself what you think about the human mind, you all assume that we all have one mind, or that we can be of one mind, or that scientific progress rests on the identity of your mind with the best minds of all times, because otherwise there could be no scientific conviction. Now the mira-

cle, gentlemen, is not that at this moment people are of the same mind, because you do not understand the atom bomb. You just take this on -- on authority. If you -- think that all people today are of one mind, that's quite wrong. You do not understand Mr. Einstein. I do not understand Mr. Einstein. But 10 other physicists say that he is a great physicist and you believe it. That's all we know about it. It's very little known today about the workings of the scientific mind by the million of people who say that they believe in science, you see; they don't understand it.

However, gentlemen, the greatness of the human mind is quite -- something quite different in the history of progress. It's a fact that yesterday, and today, and tomorrow, there is one man, or two men, or three men, or five men in every generation who understand and are of the same mind, by tremendous discipline, self-discipline, and training, and by this great freedom from their own power -- position -- reputation, you see, in the free service of the truth. That's miraculous.

So would you kindly take down, gentlemen: the identity of the human mind is not an identity between the minds of contemporaries. It doesn't mean that today we are all scientists. And that's why Mr. Einstein doesn't depend on your or my agreement. He's still right with his mathematics, even if nobody today can understand his equation. You don't understand him certainly. And yet you say, "He's a scientist." How do you know? "He has a great mind." How do you know? It's all hearsay. It ceases to be hearsay, gentlemen, when you understand that from Newton, and Descartes, over Faraday, and Humboldt and Maxwell, and many other -- there is one line which in a miraculous way brings together volunteers. Every one in his time doing something quite unexpected. And if you look back, it looks perfectly logical.

Gentlemen, the progress in science in looking backward looks logical, and in looking forward looks impossible. The equation in this progress of science is: as future, the irrational, impossible, illogical, it cannot be done. Looking backward, rational, reasonable, simple, plain, highly understandable. That is what you cannot understand. Anything that is achieved looks logical -- and after it is achieved. And anything, before it is achieved, is impossible. Now the whole sequence of progress is such, you see, that at this moment you cannot say that Saint-Simon and Goethe wouldn't be able to instigate, you see, such a science, because the only solution is that you say, "I must do it. I must help it. I must wait for it. I must yearn for it. I must proclaim it. I must defend it. I must get these people, you see, up, and put other people down." You must do something about it. Then it may happen. Otherwise it won't happen.

So at this moment, gentlemen, the cycle of the social sciences is in great danger. It's still a total risk. The -- cycle of the natural sciences, you look back,

you say, "Of course." First Paracelsus said it should be done this way. And Copernicus proposed it. Then we get Newton and Descartes. Newton verifies finally the laws which led Copernicus to his solar system idea, you see. And the Royal Society carries out the idea of Paracelsus, that there should be such academic endeavor of correspondence all over the earth. And then you get Faraday, who writes the natural history of a candlelight. You may have seen it as a boy. Who has read Faraday's history of a -- you remember. That's popular, you see, educational, for the general public already. And today you get Mathematics for the Million, and it is commonplace. Now it looks very likely. What is more logical that the idea of Copernicus now should be known to you and me, you see? Well, you will admit that in 1543, it was very far from being logical, or predictable, or probable, you see. It was the very opposite.

So will you kindly take it -- take this down, gentlemen? You will not understand ever life, if you do not see that when your parents say, "But you can't carry -- marry this girl. You are too stupid. You don't earn any money. She doesn- -- you don't deserve her." Or whatever they say, or "She doesn't deserve you." And 30 years later, you have their silver -- or 25 years later their silver anniversary. The true story is the more the parents said it was impossible, the happier probably the marriage will be, in retrospect, and the more natural, that you overcame her -- their resistance because you had such great love.

The logic, as an afterthought, and the impossibility as a forethought always go together. You now say, "Of course, America had to be discovered." That didn't help Mr. Christoph Columbus a bit. Did it? The logic of this, that people would -- would finally make enough effort to assure -- ascertain on which globe they really lived. In 1492, it was declared to be impossible. That's all.

Now this is the logic of progress, gentlemen. It is only worthwhile to take a step, if the contemporaries do not understand it. That's why your idea of adjustment is so ridiculous, because it would mean that no progress could ever be made. If you want to adjust yourself to society, it means that nothing is impossible. So then why don't you marry your -- your father's girlfriend? That would be the normal development. It's always possible. She usually remains unmarried. But you can't marry your moth- -- your father's girlfriend. You have to marry somebody else. And she's most distasteful to your parents. Or if she isn't, watch out. Then she's perhaps the wrong choice.

Now this is Bonaventura, gentlemen. That's his new method, which -- it matches the mathematical, of higher -- of higher calculus. Next time I'll want to go on with the lives of some of these people of these three cycles. The men of the idea, the men of the science, and men of the education, and the men of the commonplace. We'll have to talk about Lu- -- Luther next time as the man of the

commonplace.

Thank you.