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

...before the human mind. Even before you. It is for few, gentlemen, for the few, and it is an attempt to make life more difficult. Because in the atom age, obviously -- electronics age, the great danger is that life is too -- becoming too easy. That's all unpopular in this country, because in this country it's a recommendation to say that things are getting easier. To me it is not a recommendation. I'm bored by anything that's easy, or I have been all my life. I'm only interested in things that are difficult.

So philosophy goes against the trend. If it doesn't go against the trend, it is not philosophy. Everything that's called philosophy in this country is trash, because it says that everybody can think it. That's impossible, gentlemen. Philosophy is that which not everybody can think. Otherwise it would not be anything but the routine thinking of -- the common sense, you see. So there is a tremendous distinction between philosophy, gentlemen, and what you are accustomed to call "thinking." I defy you to show me one idea of yours which is your own, one thought which you have thought against the resistance of the whole world, and which you have defended by the witness of the -- to the truth under danger of life. Before that, I'm not interested in what you say. It's not interesting, gentlemen. It's just imitation, echo of other people's thought.

Everything worth, gentlemen, has to be personified by a whole man's life. Now the strange story of Greek philosophy is, gentlemen, that every thought that the human mind can think up about the universe, about man, and about the direction of man's life in the universe, or the treatment of man by the universe have been one -- thought before. And that's Greek philosophy. So the history of Greek philosophy is like going to the system of botany, as you find in -- in a -- in -- botany all the plants, and as you find in zoology all the animals, you find in -- in Greek philosophy all the thoughts, but all the thoughts embodied by philosophers. So not just some flimsy midsummer-night dream thought, what you call a "thought" in a bull session. I mean, "I had an idea." And next minute you say, "I'm sorry. I forgot it." But ideas lived by a whole man's life, and thereby impregnated and able to im- -- make an -- leave an imprint on the history of humanity. Plato stands for the doctrine of ideas, so he's still alive. If he had just played with it in a bull session and then forgotten it next day, nobody would either know the doctrine of ideas nor would he know Plato.

But you all have heard at least the name Plato, and he has become terrible reality in the Bolshevik government in Moscow. They are all Platonists. Because their ideas are stronger than their practical experience, you see. They can put in concen- -- people in concentration camps because they are enemies, you see, of

society, while this is their own relation. And all these real, experienced feelings, you see, do not count. Under the idea, you see, you forget even your empirical contact and feelings. Husband denounces wife; wife denounces husband; children denounce their parents, you see, because the idea is paramount that they are an enemy of society, enemy of the class. That's all Platonism.

Well, once upon a time, this man has lived. Now the strange thing is that the Greeks have exhausted the possibilities of thinking. So the first tremendous impact of this lecture course should be on you that there is no progress in your sense of the word in thought. Man in the Christian era has not been able to invent new things totally. He has entered new combinations. Everything can be combined in a new thing, but the elec- -- theory of the electron, which we hold today about the elements is found in Greek philosophy first. The atom theory and the idea that the whole universe consists of equal -- equal things is the oldest doctrine we find in Greek philosophy, already 500 B.C. We have to talk about this once more.

Today I only make this first point, gentlemen. Greek philosophers have exhausted the possibilities of original thought. That's very much against your idea of automatic progress. You think that because you are born younger than I, you must have better ideas than I. As long as you think this, gentlemen, you can have -- do no thinking. The -- he is the most original man, gentlemen, who tries to be the ordinary, the true man, who tries to think the truth. In order to think the truth, you must forget all catering to originality. You will be the most original thinker under one condition: that you don't try to be original, but veracious. All the philosophers of Greece, gentlemen, tried to be the philosopher, the only one, the only true philosopher. And that's why they are marked out by great originality. If you turn around, go to Broadway, where they have to invent something original, all these people are forgotten the next day. They may have a hit, they may have -- create a sensation. They may tickle your senses. But it's ephemeral, because they try to be original.

Anybody who tries to be original, gentlemen, is an enemy of philosophy. He may be very successful in his own day. And he probably will lure the people, as in a true circus, you see. "Never seen!" "Sensation!" You see. "For the first time!" "Only time in the world!" There was a -- there was a department store in New York 50 years ago with a sign: "The only original cone in the world." It was a good joke, you see. There are many cones in the world, as you know. But he was the only original cone in the world. That's a joke.

Serious people, gentlemen, want to represent the human kind. Therefore, human thought is philosophical only if it is generic. If you say to yourself, "I want to think what every human being wants to think, has to think, should

think," you see, "is privileged to think." As soon as you think, "I want to make an impact on the world by making some -- something which nobody else has done," you become like this man who wanted to -- became famous in antiquity and he burned the famous temple of Ephesus -- in Ephesus of Diana. And the people -- said, "We won't fulfill this man's desire. We won't name him. We won't mention his name anymore, so that he may be forgotten, and he may not come to the -- to the goal of his ambition to be a -- renowned for his misdeed." Hitler, all arsons -- arson I think is an -- is an attempt to do something original. You know, there are these firebugs in the world, as there are juvenile delinquents. They want to make a name for themselves by being original. And it is nearly always a destructive act. It is -- you see, you can be original by destroying.

But to be true, gentlemen, you must not try to be original. But you will be -- the funny thing is that Plato is highly original; Aristotle is original. But both people did not want to be original. A good mother, gentlemen, will give birth to the best child -- tries to be just a mother. If she tries to be an original mother, she will end in Hollywood, and she'll have to adopt children.

That's a very strange rule, gentlemen, of truth. Truth demands from us submission, obedience to truth. Anybody who tries to be original doesn't want to obey, but to stay in command. That's why most young men are so highly unoriginal, because in their pride, they want to show what they know, and what they have thought, and it is always borrowed, and it is always plagiarized, and it is always just repetition. Any man who forgets that it is self who speaks or thinks, you see, is on the way to truth. In other words, gentlemen, all truth is selfless.

It's -- the relation of philosophy, gentlemen, then is a very queer one. It is the relation of the mind to truth in the form of obedience. Obedience is not popular in this country, but it's the one quality without which any civilization dies. This is a disobedient country, and that's why it is so shallow, and has such a poor prognostication for the future. You cannot talk in this country about the future, because the future can only be reached by obedience and service. It can never be reached by self-seeking or by Cadillacs. It's impossible if you say, "I want this and this," to have any future, gentlemen. The first question toward the future obviously is: what did mean -- God mean as "the end of the world"? If you don't obey this end, you will miss it; you will go astray. If you ask "What do I want?" you -- you provoke a tremendous rebellion in all the cosmic forces, because obviously you little frog, or you little bee, or you little wasp, and -- and I myself the same way, we are not up against these cosmic forces. We'd better obey; we are so small. We'd better find out what we are meant to do. And that's only to be fo- -- to be found by obedience.

So the first thing that will strike you, gentlemen, is that all Greek philoso-

phy is a great act of obedience. It has been said very simply if you want to -- to s- -- know why you are not philosophers so far, why you are self-seeking individuals and why you therefore are not in contact with truth, but just with opinion, and with editorials, and with broadcasting, and with television, and all these fleeting, floating, indifferent fogs in which you move --. I'm sorry, I -- I slipped on this in my eagerness. The -- I don't -- can't carry -- perhaps it comes back to me.

The -- the quality of obedience then is nothing that distinguishes philosophers, gentlemen, from religious man. But I made an attempt last time to put you on your guard to see that Greek philosophy is not in the same sense religious as the prophets of Israel. The Bible and Greek philosophy obviously form two big streams -- or poo- -- two big avenues to truth, and they are of a very different character. And although I have not completed quite this -- what I meant to say at this moment, my next thing I -- what I would like to stress today is that there is a simple way of defining the distinction between philosophy, the service of truth in obedience and selflessness. There is a -- still a difference between the service of God in the sanctuary, of prayer. Philosophy is not in itself prayer. And prayer is not philosophy. But obviously both are attempts to meet the truth, and to fulfill man's destiny, to find the way -- the direction in which we can fulfill our destiny, and receive the -- the commands under which we want to act.

Well, I'm back now to m- -- now I can make the point. Gentlemen, the modern scientist is perhaps the most in- -- unphilosophical being there is. That's so frightening. I mean, this is a nation of plum- -- plumbers. They call themselves "engineers," and the engineers call themselves "scientists," and the scientists think that they have the secrets of the world. But -- but they do -- usually not know that they obey. What is the command over all science? The imperative. And that is the great achievement of Greek philosophy to bring this out: the imperative that is written in large letters over anybody who enters the science field is, "Let there be science." He does not question the necessity that science has to be. And science is a human creation. There is no science without your and my sacrifice for it.

Now you all, who think -- enough to be scientific, or objective, or enlightened, or rational, or of -- whatever you call it, unemotional, you have this big order written in front of your -- of your skull: science shall be. Instead of the Ten Commandments, which I from -- as a person prefer, you have this one commandment: let there be science. That's very difficult for a scientist to understand that he's obeying. That is, that he -- I -- a scientist is God. But you all, gentlemen, in this country, the one thing you can appeal to -- even to -- by a -- for a -- with a truck driver or -- or with a housewife is that s- -- "Oh, science? Well, we have to have science," they will admit. They will bow to it, and if they it's scientifically

necessary, they will have themselves questionnaired, and analyzed, and tested, because it's science. What can you do about it, you see? Even if it is highly destructive, science has to be worshiped, science has to be paid for, science has to be served. So people answer the most obscene questionnaires just from fear that they might desert the cause of science.

Philosophy now, gentlemen, is the knowledge of our commands. And it brings out, among other things, that the imperative, "Let there be science," is a perfectly arbitrary imperative, if you leave it alone. Obviously it cannot be the only imperative. You can also say, "Let there be me," "Let there be the United States," you see. And Hitler said, "Let there be the German race," you see. And if you drive -- push one command, obviously you go crazy. The number of imperatives, as I may call it, or commands to which we owe obedience is the great problem of philosophy. But in order to know what is necessary, the philosopher must themselves act under a necessity.

Anybody, gentlemen, who is in philosophy investigates commands under one condition: that he knows what a command is. And he can only be a co- -- a, you see, an expert in investigating commands that dominate our life: patriotism, law-abid- -- lawfulness, loyalty, you see, reverence, love, friendship, whatever you take -- science, power, vanity, whatever you cultivate -- youth, vitality, dynami- -- dynamism, revolution, democracy -- he can only discuss these big gods, these idols, if he has some experience in worship. And therefore gentlemen, philosophers must obey their sense of wonder. The -- the god which the philosopher serves is his admission that this which he does not understand attracts him, and deserves his -- his investigation, his following it.

What's the difference, gentlemen, then of this obedience of the philosopher to the obedience of a prophet like Isaiah, in the Old Testament? I think today we shall devote a few more -- a little more time to laying down the law why Judaism and Greek thought are eternal approaches to life, to truth, to reality, whatever you call it. They are eternal. There is as much Jews and Greeks today as there were 2,000 years ago. We only know that they both have to coexist, whereas the Greeks thought they could do without the Jews, and the Jews thought they could do without the Greeks, you see. We know better. We have to have both elements.

Gentlemen, in -- the prophet speaks of the power which is in back of us. And the philosopher speaks of the powers which we can face. That's a very simple, I think, division -- distinction. But I tell you, it is a very precious one. You don't find them in textbooks, because unfortunately the Greek textbooks on phil- -- the textbooks about Greek philosophy or modern philosophy are written by people who say that they have na- -- no truck with prophecy. And the Biblical

scholars, or theologians, or preachers on Sunday school pulpits, they think they have nothing -- no truck with the Greeks. I think this -- this thinking in watertight compartments is silly. I have all my life not forgotten that I pray on Sunday when I thought on weekdays. And I have not forgotten on Sundays that I think on weekdays, you see. These are two realities between which anybody has to alternate. You too, gentlemen, whether you know it or not.

We always pray, gentlemen, between the beginning of an enterprise and its end, because nobody else believes us in this time. So we need some reinforcement. You are secretly in love with a girl. It takes you a year before you convince your parents that you should marry her. During this year you have a religion. You see, you pray to some power that may keep you afloat. You cannot prove your point to anybody. You don't even know if you are right. You are testing it. What keeps you going, this time? Why don't you shoot yourself the first day you have this unhappy idea that you should get married? Why do you brave the storms?

Anybody -- take an author. Who has written a short story in his life? Not one of you? Now, that's an honest man. All right. Well, gentlemen, any author who conceives of a little opus he wants to write, and finishes it, is -- held -- going -- kept going, while this is working in him, by his faith. Because before he has finished the story, he cannot even prove to himself that it's worth writing. It must be there. Any more -- mother who carries a child for nine months in her womb, can only do this by faith. She doesn't know how it -- come out. It may be a -- ter- -- monster that is born. As you know, the people tell us today how many dangers there are in our genes. And so they try to frighten us. And all these poor women, if they really fall into the hands of these modern crypto-scientists, they -- they are terrified by all the dangers they run into, you see. Blood groups are not right, and so on, and so on. And they are all quite sure that they must die. But they don't.

Now gentlemen, in any process which you cannot see, you are on the side of prayer, and on the side of the prophets, and the side of mere faith, because this has to do with the things in back of us, that -- pushing us on. A woman in love takes the consequences. She is pushed forward by her love until the child is born. She hardly know how -- knows how she gets through all this. But she does. She cannot see the god who makes her bear the child. That's the invisible part of life, gentlemen. She can only know that she should obey such great urge.

So gentlemen, the Bible has to do, as you know, with the invisible part of God, because God is in back of the believer. He pushes you and me forward. But if you turn around, you don't see anything. You can hear God's voice, but you can never see God. Again, it's so funny; this isn't mentioned today.

The Greek story is the opposite, gentlemen. The Greeks say this: "What is behind you, you cannot see; but you see what is before you." I've found this in an old Greek text -- this morning, by accident. I'm very glad I did. It's a very good definition of philosophy. Will you take it down: what is behind you, you cannot see; but you see what is before you.

Now all Greek philosophy says and tries to say, "Make everything visible, then you will know what it is." The Jews neglect the eye, and the Greeks emphasize it. All Greeks' words of knowledge are connected with the visual sense. The word "insight," as you use it yourself, you see, is taken from "sight." And it's a very important word. The word "idea" means by and large the same: that what appears before the inner eye. An idea is that which I do not have to see outside, physically, but I -- I still can see with the inner eye.

Now if you try to see God with the inner or the outer eye, you are pagan. The Jews would reject this. God must be listened to. You cannot see God. When Moses tried to see God, God said, "It cannot be done. I'm sorry. You are my favorites, but you cannot see me."

And I think the whole story of you and me is this -- this knowledge that we are moved by two different tendencies: by the attempt of making things visible, and therefore knowing them; and by our understanding that we ourselves cannot live by sight. But we are pushed forward by -- by forces that are -- push us forward to the -- famous, unknown destiny. As you know, this country is so Greek that it even called the Pacific "Manifest Destiny." First it stopped at the Mississippi, then at the Rockies, and finally in -- in California. But you know, if you overextend the idea of Manifest Destiny, you end in Saipan, and in -- in the teahouse under the moon. And that's very bad, because obviously there is no manifest destiny for Americans right there and then.

And so the manifest destiny, the attempt to see the future of America in terms of visibility, I think is in tatters, is in ruin. And the sooner the American people would understand that you can no longer see the destiny of America, the sooner perhaps you may find what the destiny could be. At this moment, as you know, since 1890, this country is torn between Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and a decent respect for humanity on the other hand. And we haven't solved it -- as you see from our treatment of the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal. In the Panama Canal, it's -- you see, it's manifest destiny that the United States should own Panama, the Panama Canal Zone, you see. But in the Suez Canal, we aren't so sure, because it is outside our direction of our seeing. So we suddenly invent new principles for the other international -- waterway. And this we call our idealism.

It's a very poor policy, gentlemen, and it comes all in America from its preponderant Greek attitude in the last 150 years, gentlemen. America wanted to see the whole truth. And my history of Greek philosophy therefore is bound to collide with your illusions that it is enough to see everything, or to make it visible. The Greek way of -- to -- to -- towards truth, gentlemen, is one-half of the way to truth. And not more. And I think any history of philosophy that tries to sell you philosophy as -- enabling a man to be just a philosopher and nothing else is a great cheat today. It leads into dis- -- it leads into Communism; it leads into fascism; it leads into any monism, into the idea that if I see things, you see, I already know what to do.

As you know, nobody is more cri- -- cruel than the voyeur, as the French call him, the man who sits at a burlesque show and looks at a stripteaser. If he has any humanity, he would go to the stage and go home with this girl. Ja, that's a human action. To be sensuously excited is not bad, gentlemen, but to be not excited enough to go home with this girl -- that's cruelty. That's staring at things that must not be looked at. That's obscenity. What is obscene, gentlemen? That you are not passionate. That's obscene. That you play, joke, laugh about something that should excite you to the roots of your being. So a reasonable person doesn't expose himself to {sexual} excitement unless he can follow it up. But to go wantonly to this, this is for old people, gentlemen, or for scoundrels, because seeing there runs away with you, you see, into realms where seeing is no good.

Love is not to be seen, gentlemen. Love is unseen. Invisible. If you don't remain -- leave it invisible and at night, you will -- fall very sick. Now the whole country, as you know, America, is sick by this, what is called by the French, the voyeur pe- -- . Gentlemen, the voy- -- "voyeur" means the people -- the people who peep through keyholes. "Voyeur" means trying to s- -- look where you -- there is nothing to see, you see. Where you either have to be in love yourself, you see, or leave things alone.

So -- gentlemen, the first rule about philosophy is: what can be achieved by philosophy? And there is a limitation. Philosophy can never deal with those things which are never to be seen. Prayer neglects the world and says, "If I have you, my God," the famous prayer runs, you see, "What do I care for Heaven and earth?" That is, all the visible things. You know this from the psalm. That's very true, gentlemen. But still it's very nice to have 10 acres of land, and a garden, and a tree. That's all visible, you see, you -- there's very much about -- to be known about it. So I think neither the Jewish nor the Greek way are -- are enough. The Israelites too have now land; they have a country; they have a city; they have railroads; they have citrus fruit. They have all kind of visible things, you see. A nation needs this.

So the -- the paradox between Greek philosophy, gentlemen, and Jewish prophecy is that both are educators of the rest of humanity, and both are -- have sacrificed their own happiness, and their own -- you may say their own fulfillment to this service for all of us. The Greeks represent an extreme. And Israel represents an extreme. In Is- -- in Greece, a whole nation has been sacrificed with, and for, and in the direction of, an attempt to teach all mankind what can be made visible, and what can be learned by looking at things.

Gentlemen, the Greeks are sacrifices. And the -- Israel is sacrifice. The chosen people certainly are sacrificed, and the chosen minds are sacrificed for your and my sake. If we today can look back at the Bible, we are very glad that we don't have to be I- -- Jeremiah, obviously, you see. But with the help of Jeremiah, we may prevent the fall of America. Jeremiah couldn't prevent the fall of Jerusalem. If you read the Bible right, you must be grateful that in one great case, you see, you know all the consequences when people do not obey orders from the invisible. And in Greek tradition, you can see what happens when people neglect reason, neglect the search for nature, and causes, and science, you see, because the Greek philosophers have founded all the sciences we enjoy today.

This was then my first thesis today, gentlemen. I think it is important for you to understand this from the very beginning, that to be a philosopher today is never something exclusive. The wise philosophers have known this. The stupid philosophers do not know this today. You can today in America distinguish the philosophers who know that philosophy is only one-half of the powers that lead us to truth; and the idiots who think, like the Free Masons, that philosophy can replace everything else.

We have then two roads. Prophecy, dealing with the powers that we cannot hope to make visible; and Greek philosophy, dealing with the powers that we can hope to make visible. Anybody who only thinks of one of these roads, gentlemen, is already impoverished. Does not make use, so to speak, of a great help, of a great aid on the other side.

Now, I give you a great modern example, gentlemen, of this admission of philosopher -- a philosopher that he's only entitled to one-half of authority and leadership in matters of truth. You may have heard the name of Schopenhauer. This is a little difficult, the man's spelling, Schopenhauer, one of the few independent thinkers of the 19th century. Most thinkers in -- in the 19th century were taken in by the bourgeois class and were, like Daniel Webster, for sale. Corrupt. Daniel Webster is this outstanding example of this corruption by money. Was a great lawyer, and a great mind. But I think the play, The Devil and Daniel Webster, could be rewritten, you see, because Dan -- the -- Webster was in the grip of the devil. And you know that's why Whittier wrote this terrible

accusation against Webster. Has anybody re- -- read Greenleaf Whitti- -- Whittier's poem against Wibs- -- Webster? Who has? Ja. It's a g- -- it's a great -- I mean I'm always proud to think that in New England this poem was written in the lifetime of Webster, de- -- debunking him and denouncing him as a corrupt thinker.

Well, Webster would have said, "Oh, I'm a philosopher, and of course I'm better than even a Christian, because philosophy can explain Christianity, even, you see, so my philosophy is all-comprehensive."

Gentlemen, this man Schopenhauer was a contemporary of Webster, by and large. He lived from 178- -- -88 to 1860. Perhaps you take his dates even down. It's quite interesting, because it is the Greek -- the Greek phase of Europe. That is, the renaissance of Greek philosophy which was at -- then at its high point. It's hard to understand how much at that time Greek set the standard for everything, every the -- the -- the model, the style, you see, of -- was Greek classicism, you see, the would -- you would imitate the pillars of the Acropolis. It was the time when the Elgin Marbles were sent from Athens to the British Museum, where they still are the pride of the British Museum. This is, you see, worship of Greek spirit.

Well, this man Schopenhauer wrote his famous philosophy, The World as Will and as Representation. Die Welt als Wille und Forstellung. And he exercises an influence as great as Emerson on the world. I mean, Ri- -- Richard Wagner's operas were written around Schopenhauer's philosophy. And when he died, he made a testament in honor of the soldiers' widows and orphans -- of those soldiers' widows and orphans who had died in throwing down the rebellion of '48 in Europe. This man was so aware that he, as a philosopher, was in great danger of neglecting obedience, that he wanted to honor the obedience of those soldiers who, in a most difficult position, you see, against their own countrymen, had obeyed the law and laid down their life for order. For an American, hard to understand, the sympathy of the philosopher with people who shoot against rioters in the -- and you know, Mac- -- MacArthur could never run for president, because he had commanded a march against rioters in Washington in 1932. That's General MacArthur's tragedy. That finished him politically. Because in this country, you always side with rebels. And you always think that a soldier who shoots at a striker is less good than the rebel who is shot at.

Now obviously, the two -- thing has two sides. If you have no social order and if you have nobody who defends the order, you see, then there is no order. And the obedience of the soldier may be a blind and na‹ve one, but as long as this mortar and cement is there, you can live in peace and study at Dartmouth College. And as soon as you people stand for anarchy, and independence of

everybody, and mere philosophy -- "Wait till I have thought it out" -- there would be no -- no order in which you could follow up your thinking. Isn't that clear?

And Schopenhauer, in this very strange testament, which of course became quite famous, wanted to express his indebtedness to the opposite way of life, which is one of strict obedience, you see, without questioning. And it shows you perhaps from the very beginning the paradox of philosophy. All philosophers rely on other people not being philosophers. Philosophy can never be the exclusive nourishment of the human mind, for the simple reason that it comes too late. If we would have to wait always for any order of our actions, and all the actions of our sisters, mothers, brothers, you see, until we have found our final system, we'd all be starved to death, by that time. Can you see this?

Philosophy takes time, gentlemen. And during that time, somebody else has to rule. And it's one of the amazing stories of America, gentlemen, that during the last 30 years, a -- a -- a heresy called pragmatism could be believed, where people lived in a fools' paradise, and everybody had thought -- time enough to think up for himself all the truth, and could sit back and wait until he had found the truth; and allegedly nothing had to be done in the meantime. In the meantime, the people have to obey. And they have to fight wars. And you cannot go to the battlefield with the ridiculous comfort of Mr. John Dewey that pragmatism will one day tell me what I might think right.

Gentlemen, this country is very sick, because this dualism of prophecy and philosophy has been tampered with. The great inheritance of America during the last 30 -- 40 years has been thrown away. It has been based on the coalition of Israel, of the Bible, and of Greek philosophy. That's Christianity: the synthesis between the {two}. And during the last 40 years, you have been fed on the absolute fallacy that you could wait for the results of philosophy to live.

Gentlemen, while I am indulging in philosophy here, and you are here in this course, we are indebted to all those people who, while we are thinking, obey the existing order and law. And if you do not see this interaction, gentlemen, between philosophy and prophecy, and the Ten Commandments, so to speak, then every step into philosophy will be a misunderstanding, as it largely is in America. What is called in America "philosophy" is nothing but game, a game of the human mind. What you do in bull sessions, where you abolish God at random and -- and -- enthrone Him again, occasionally.

Once you have understood, gentlemen, that in thought, too, there are two sexes, two genders: male and female, receptive and active, prophecy and philosophy. And philosophy is purely the male gender, you see, the one that says, "I think," then you live in reality again. Then the brown study of philosophy will

not overtake you. As long as you think, "I think what I think," and that's the whole story -- your whole story, you see, you are not a real human being, because you forget that you are only one-half of humanity. You don't have to call it even "male" and "female," gentlemen. The male and female in the flesh is only a subdivision of the truth that all truth comes to us and is begotten by us. It is received, and it is uttered. You im- -- are impressed by the truth, and you express truth. Where you are sitting here, I am trying to impress the truth on you. Obviously you go out, you have to say something, it will be your truth, and it will seem active, you see. Now if you think that only the active operations of your mind are the whole story, you see, you deny your true experience, because the -- you couldn't think if nobody had thought into you. You couldn't speak if I hadn't spoken to you, or if your mother hadn't spoken to you, you see. You are only the -- the throughfare between receiving and between giving out. You are never the source of any truth.

Gentlemen, nobody is the source of truth. We are all only in the metabolism. And -- and you can -- may say that you are one of those posts on a power line through which the electric cable is strung, you see. But that's the most you can boast of, to be one of the pillars of the power line. But you do not -- you are not the power station. You do not beget the electricity.

And it is strange, gentlemen, that all the great philosophers who have come nearest to being their own power station, people like Plato or Schopenhauer, any really creative thinker has been most convinced of the fact that he is not really the power station himself, that he also has received in order to give, you see.

So we also will respect this dualism, gentlemen. Man's mind then is: "Gentlemen, bi-sexual, bisexual." And that is our honor. That's why we -- I am immersed in reality. If you really thought that your mind was against the whole universe, there -- it would be highly improbable that anything good would come out of this mind. You would be too estranged from this world, would you not? You wouldn't -- rootless, you would be just like a plant trying to grow on blacktop. It can't be done.

But that's by and large the American -- the American id- -- superstition, that here is man and there is the universe. You look at the universe and this you call your philosophy. Because you think seeing is believing, you mis- -- confuse the two things. We want to abolish believing, and you want to have only seeing.

So gentlemen, the mind is bisexual, and the Greek philosophy is one sex of the mental process. Let us put it this drastical way, because it's a great fact that the world is not just physically sex. It is spiritually sex, too. The creative process

is the marriage of two minds. And Shakespeare knew this. That's why you need a friend in -- even as a philosopher, so that your truth can be reflected in him and in the opposite sequence. Take Engels and Marx. Take Montaigne and Bo‚tie. Who has read Montaigne?

Well, the whole Greek experience of philosophical friendship is summed up in Montaigne's Chapter 28 of the first book of his Essays. Anybody who wants to give a treat to his girlfriend should read this essay. It's very simple, because he s- -- even says there, it's like a marriage, a marriage of minds. It's very -- something very chaste. It has nothing to -- with -- to do with your idiotic treatment of sex, but it has to do with the deep cosmic sequence that the higher we come up in the scale of creative life, gentlemen, the more polarity is needed to have life. As you know, the most primitive -- the stones have -- do not have to divide to subsist. They are just there, you see. Then you get the algae, they have already to -- the division of the cell. When it comes to men and -- mammals, you have to have female and male. Now if it comes to spirit, you see, the embrace, the mutual polarization is even more needed.

You need -- for the greatest truth, gentlemen, you need enmity. Not just love. That's why Christianity, who was after the Holy Spirit, had to say, "Love thine enemy," because if you do not love thine enemy, you omit part of the truth. This, your enemy, has also -- represents also part of the truth, you see.

Now, physical love, gentlemen, sexual being, that's going by attraction. So you marry, you love, you go with the person you like. The philosopher, gentlemen, must love the man who thinks the opposite. That's much more difficult, but it's a greater result. If I do not think the truth that is opposed to my truth, I cannot grow -- grow into the full truth. Isn't that obvious? Any truth that I hold is partial as long as somebody can oppose my truth. You understand this?

Here we come, of course, to the second discovery of the Greek mind. Since the Greek mind tried to see everything, and make everything visible -- that is, act upon the truth as an agent, and not submit to the truth as a victim or as an obedient servant -- since the servant in Isaiah is the great accomplishment of Judaism, the s- -- servant -- God's servant, you see; and since the philosopher, the thinking, rational master of the universe is the Greek ideal, the Greeks had to place the bisexual element of truth into some other context. And that's called dialectics. All Greek thought knew that you had to have a complement to your truth. Somebody could always say the opposite, you see. And if you do -- didn't listen to this opposition, you hadn't gotten any valid truth, you see.

So the Greeks, by this problem of having more than one speaking up and saying something, created this history of Greek philosophy, gentlemen. The

history of Greek -- philosophy is an attempt to have all truth embrace each other. If you have a history of Greek philosophy, and every philosopher says something opposite, you see, and you allow everyone to voice his picture of the world, you have a tremendous act of symphonic love, of mutual embrace, you see. One philosopher can only be a Platonist, or an Aristotelian, you see, or a Stoic, or an Epicurean, or whatever you -- a cynic, you see. But the history of Greek philosophy is the concert, the symphony of all these minds.

So the mystery of this idea, that we teach a course in the history of Greek philosophy is an attempt to cure the monopolistic attitude of philosophers that their active mind is the one approach to truth.

We have then two dogmas in this course, gentlemen. One is that the Greeks represent all the attempts of the human mind to act, to react upon the universe by thought, by their own mind's systematic capacity of conceiving, of seeing, of gaining insight. This is balanced by the fact that we do not teach here a course on Plato alone, or on Aristotle alone, but the story of the dialectics of these minds, how one begot his opponent, his enme- -- enemy, you see, so that the history of Greek philosophy in itself transcends -- goes beyond any individual's action, you see, because it has this tolerance that includes this man's opposite number. Can you see this strange paradox of the philoso- -- his philos- -- history of Greek philosophy? We cannot say that Plato is right, that Aristotle is right. But we simply state what they have seen, you see. And we may hope that the panorama, you see, is truer than what everybody has seen. Can you see this?

So the history of Greek philosophy, gentlemen, and we need this term. I wanted to introduce it in a kind of human fashion. One of the most difficult words of the English language -- and I hate to use it, but you have to learn these terms -- is "transcendent," as you know. There -- you read in many books what Transcendentalism is, and we had the Concord Transcendentalists. You have -- may have heard of Emerson, and -- and Alcott, and so on.

Now, take it very simply, gentlemen. The history of Greek philosophy transcends, obviously, the system of any one philosopher. It's the most primitive way in which I want to introduce this difficult term, so that it becomes quite familiar to you in a harmless manner. We will have to use it, unfortunately perhaps, again. And you'll run into -- in the literature always into these terms: Kant is a transcendental philosopher, Emerson is -- idealism is transcenden- -- dental, and then there is a difference between "transcending" and "transcendental." To hell with all this! I have -- however I have tried to avoid this term. I can live without using the term at all. But in our connection, I think it will make sense to you if you remember that any one system of a Greek philosopher tries to give his total insight. Ja? And the remarkable thing is that after the man has tried

to be very explicit and very complete, you see, up pops another man and says, "Here is my world view," you see. And the history of Greek philosophy tries then to be a view of views. That's transcendence, you see. Any one of these views is transcended by a view of views which does not reduce any one of these views to another view, which doesn't say, "Oh, Platon has to be expressed -- explained in terms of Aristotle, and Aristotle in terms of Heraclitus," and so on. No. We -- we try to have a panorama in which we move on from one system to the next system, you see, but always learning to our amazement, you see, that they see different things, you see. And that one is not refuted by the other. But you and I know more after we have looked through these different glasses.

Let's have a break here.

[tape interruption]

...idea of full knowledge, and that we know each other, as the Apostle then says in the New Testament, fully. It means that we move as one body, that --.

I have several time -- periods in my life had this great fortune of really living with another person so that we could at long distance still know that the other person was living in exactly the same rhythm. These are very rare periods, even with your -- own wife, that you are in such full harmony that over long distances you respond, and you act, and you correspond, you see, over 3,000 miles of water as though you were one body. But the whole tradition of the Church, of the body of Christ, and the whole tradition of the marriage vows, that any husband and wife become one body, is of course -- we talked about it yesterday night -- the condition of true love. Gentlemen, in this country where marriage is a contract, where people give each other rights and pocket money, and think that A is A and B is B, you can never get married. Most people in this country are not married. I know mothers of 12 children in this country who never got married, because they have always kept to themselves.

Self is in the way of marriage, gentlemen. It is in the way of friendship. It's in -- certainly in the way of philosophy, because it means that you remain an individual. And that's too small to encompass any reality. Life begins only of -- humanity where both sexes are -- get together, because the full man is male and female. You are not complete human beings, gentlemen. You are just one-half of it. But you all pose as -- as, of course, as he-men, and think that's all.

Now, I give you an example of the pure Greek mind, to -- perhaps to convince even my interlocutor of the intermission -- who was it? Ja -- that they -- I have a poi- -- an important point. I have a colleague who came at the same time

to this country as I did, from Germany. And he was professor of philosophy at the University of Berlin. But he really was only a psychologist. He -- he acquired fame as an -- investigating on the Canary Islands in Madeira the gorillas. And he knows all about them. And he came to Harvard, and he delivered a lecture which to me always has been the high point of Greek arrogance, of philosophical superstition, of what I try to eliminate from the very beginning, as an super, super, super, you see, superlative claim of philosophy.

This man said, "What is my --" his name is Wolfgang K”hler. He said, "What is my ideal? My ideal is to be able to lay on a -- on a couch in the surgical -- operating room of a hospital under the knife of a surgeon who operates my brain, and to be able to see my brain at the same time." He wanted to be object and subject in the same person. He wanted to see it all.

Now I -- you can't have a clearer statement of the Greek obsession, you see, to make everything visible. I certainly would try to close my eyes and forget all about it, if I had to be operated on my brain. I'm not interested in seeing this at all. I just -- don't have this -- this curiosity of the voyeur. I think it's perversity -- a perversity. But he thought it was an ideal. And he -- the funny thing is that he expected that everybody would share his desire, and that -- it was acceptable to all his American listeners as tremendous vision. Here is the man under the knife, un- -- the scalpel of the surgeon, and he is able to see his own brain while it is operated on, this brain; with the powers of the brain, he can see the brain. Now I call this schizophrenic.

It has been uttered, gentlemen. This was in the year of the Lord 1933. And therefore the Second World War was inevitable, because when nations deviate from their power to love, and become so aggressive mentally that they want to see the rest of the world only, you see, without embracing it and without obeying common orders, the -- war is just the expression of this total split. This man, you see, trying to be male and female inside himself in one, being just a philosopher, you see, cannot pay any attention to the upkeep of the world as -- as a loving and -- and embracing body, obedient to the orders of our maker. Can -- can't you see that Mr. Wolfgang K”hler is responsible for the World War?

Mere Greek thinking, gentlemen, leads to war. All philosophy ends in war, because it eternalizes the separation of what we see -- the object; and who sees -- the subject. The separation of subject and object, you see, if you want to see your wife, you can. But you can't love her then, because to love a person is to forget the distinction of object and subject and to become one.

It's very important that we m- -- make this point. And I'm glad for your question, but you must see that you have raised a very stupendous question. You

understand? If you can see God, He will always remain outside of you, because gentlemen, the gist of the matter is: the eye-sense is given us for the outside. You see what is outside the skin. And if you look with an electric lamp, you still don't see the inside, with the -- with these modern instruments. I know everybody thinks we should all become diaphanous and see each other's intestines. First, I don't want to see them, and then -- nothing would be achieved if I could see the intestines of President Eisenhower. That's -- if you read the newspapers, that's all the people try to do: see his intestines and then decide whether they should vote for him.

Well, it has all happened. The old Etruscans, they looked into the intestines of the animals, and -- in their sacrifices and they thereby ran their politics. We have now such an Etruscan { }. Is called {Paul White}.

This is a superstitious country as any. But it's Greek superstition: make things visible and we think we'll know them. You know nothing by seeing things. As soo- -- long as you do not see this paradox, you see, that what you see sometimes is not worth seeing, it doesn't prove anything, you have not reached the point of modern wonderment, you see. Today all philoso- -- all thinking, gentlemen, must include Greek philosophy, but it isn't enough to imitate the Greeks. After all, we live 2,000 years later.

I introduce you into the history of Greek philosophy then with the hope, gentlemen, that you can rise above it. All the people who just try to be philosophers again today, without this one earmarking our own period as being different from the Greek, I think are monsters. They plunge the -- certainly the war in the -- the -- mankind into the Third World War. And America is riddled of these people who say that seeing is believing.

I want to make one more point. The -- the example of Wolfgang K”hler is I think an outstanding example. If I could make you shudder over the presumption of this, gentlemen, that he wants -- that he thinks it's the ideal of the philosopher -- that's what he said -- to see himself under the knife of a surgeon, while his brain is operated on, when you see the absurdity of this desire, you will understand the opposite. We have here a great man on this campus, that's Mr. Steffansson, the Arctic explorer. And when the war broke out, the Second -- socalled Second World War, the "unnecessary war" of 1941, then -- who said so? The "unnecessary war"? Wie? Who has called the Second World War the "unnecessary war"? It's not my invention.

(Didn't he call that -- I mean, there was that big argument about whether that one battle was necessary? Thought people that { } something { } -- didn't he say that?)

Oh no. Mr. Truman is not capable of such profound utterances.

No, it was Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill has said this, the Second World War was unnecessary. And you have -- but gentlemen, it will take you a whole life to -- if he's -- the sooner you will understand that it was unnecessary because it was a Greek ment- -- only necessary because of the wrong mentality of America -- that America has produced the Second World War single-handed, single-handed in 1919, then you will finally have understood Woodrow Wilson who said exactly that before he died. He had the students come to his house in 1923 on his deathbed and said, "There will be a terrible war in 20 years. And the sacrifice of the First World War will look ridiculous compared to the blood, and devastation, and destruction of the Second World War. And it's all because you do not understand, because you want to see things."

He ended as a fundamentalist, Woodrow Wilson, because he knew that Greek -- the Greeks' mind had destroyed America. And it still does. And they -- I'm not joking, Sir. This -- the war is the unnecessary war if this course -- on the history of -- of Greek philosophy is understood.

Now Mr. Steffansson knew something about these things. He's -- he's an independent mind, and -- although he's born in Dakota. And he went to Washington and said, "People," -- in the Pentagon, he said, "Boys, what's the matter with you?"

"What have you, Mr. Steffansson?" they asked quite politely.

And they -- he said, "Haven't you known that the world is round for 400 years now?"

"Oh, yes," they said. "We have always known that."

"Yes," he said. "But why haven't you believed it?"

"What do you mean?" They were very irritated.

And he said, "Well, you may have known it, but you have not believed it, because then you would have put your observation planes into the Aleutians, and not to Hawa- -- into Hawaii, because you have gone to the -- to the place which is -- is the longest distance from Japan, on the Equator. And since the earth is a ball -- is a globe, you see, therefore obviously it's a shorter way via the Aleutians. Less mileage."

They had of course to admit it. And they corrected their mistake.

Gentlemen, one of the opening shots, then, of my history of Greek philosophy is that any intellectual act has two sides to it: faith and reason. You can know something and not believe it. Now, you have been brought up in this absolutely silly dichotomy, which even your ministers seem to believe, that people believe certain things, and know other things. That is not the problem, gentlemen. Dismiss it. The problem of true philosophy is that knowledge may stifle belief, and belief may stifle knowledge -- of the same thing, the very same thing. If you know that the world is round, you don't have to act upon it for -- you see, you can store it somewhere in your brain, you see, and not do anything with it. Everybody in this country could know -- and does know, in a way -- that a Third World War is impossible. But nobody acts on it. They don't believe it.

The president tries to act on this assumption, but you don't even talk about -- {maybe} about the next war. There can't be any next war. If you would know this, we would -- behave differently. But the war industry and the onethird of the American budget would go to pieces, so -- so of course, you don't like the idea. It might interfere with your prosperity. So there might be a Third World War perfectly abortive, and lead to the -- the end of your civilization, because you don't believe what you know, or what you -- perhaps you are too young, but what the people in Washington already know very well.

War is impossible. It hasn't to be tried a third time. And the question is not to know this, but to believe it.

Will you kindly then take down -- one more result, gentlemen, of this discussion of prophecy and philosophy? The same man must believe what he knows, and know what he believes, you see. It is no longer interesting to say, "I believe in the Virgin Mary -- in the virgin birth, and I know that it is impossible," you see. The problem is to know that the earth is round, and one, and a very small speck, a planet, and to act on this assumption in your political bearings, and your thought, you see. That's much more difficult. The people in Alabama show you that it is nearly impossible. You know that man is born equal, but you don't act upon it. You don't believe it.

Gentlemen, faith and knowledge are the old bugaboos, so to speak, the ol- -- in the conflict between science and religion. Gentlemen, science and religion are both dead. Faith and philosophy are something quite different. The living faith of a person, gentlemen, may be stifled by dead knowledge. And mere faith may be lazy to implement it by communication in philosophical terms. What I believe I've tried to express reasonably, so that you can know what I believe, you see. And what you know, you have to believe. You know that you shall -- honor a hoary head, and shall get up, and sh- -- shall honor your parents. You know this, but do you believe it? It's the only interesting question, you see. And you

know that you must leave your parents and cleave to the wife of your choosing. But do these apron-string students of Dartmouth know that their -- their girl must be more than just a substitute for -- for -- for sex? Do they break away from their mother? When does it happen?

I -- again I -- the last day I ran into this -- into this story. A young Dartmouth boy got married. His mother, one of these possessive, wonderful mothers, all-loving, all-powerful, omnipotent. She built a little s- -- tiny department -- apartment on top of their own cottage -- of the parents' cottage, and forced this daughter-in-law, who came from abroad, by the way, to live with them. Well, the poor girl, for a fortnight after the wedding day, had gray hair. I would get gray hair, too, in such a condition. You see, because the boy did not know that he had no right to bring this young woman from Europe into her mother-in-law's house, that this was a -- a crime against the -- the -- he didn't -- he hadn't hurt -- he thinks -- he goes to church even, this boy. And he had himself carefully baptized before they got married so that they could have a religious ceremony. But it didn't help, because he didn't believe anything of wha- -- the ceremony he had gone through with. So he brought his -- this poor woman, who -- who accepted this, and is now victimized. And she looks -- all the light has gone out of her face, of course. How else could it be? He broke the law. He didn't believe what he knew.

A man who cannot stop loving his mother for 24 hours has no right to marry. He must forget his mother. Then she'll -- the love to his mother will come back another time. When she -- he has grandchildren, she will be very glad to -- you see, to have grandchildren. But she can only have real grandchildren if he can forget his father and his mother from love for his wife, because otherwise he has no -- he's impotent. He has no power to select. Selection means to forget everything else -- everything else.

When your mother says, "I'll die from a broken heart," if you really love the wife of your choosing, you must say to your mother, "I'm very sorry, but I can't change that." She never dies from a broken heart. She knows that she has overstepped her mark. She has no right to complain when the boy finally gets a man. If she says this, she just -- hasn't been spanked enough in life. They all have a broken heart at random, you see, over the telephone, long-distance.

But that's all done in this country because, gentlemen, there is a total distinction between faith and knowledge, and seeing, I mean, and -- and -- and this is important. But it's a different kind, you see. The two things, the prophetical insight, that comes from obedience, that is, actualization of the truth, you see, application of the truth, where the truth is not doubted, and the philosophical way in which we find the truth, and therefore has to be doubted before we settle

on the final truth, you see, they are, of course, in opposition as two parts of the same way.

Any truth, gentlemen, like the one, "The earth is round," has one road in which we acquire the knowledge of this truth, you see, and it has another way into our system by which with this truth then permeates every act of our being. We call this permeation by the truth, being permeated by the truth "faith." And we call the acquisition of the truth -- we call "philosophy."

But these are correlative. Can you see that one is nothing without the other. And -- I think this country is sick, and by the way the whole Western world, and that's why the Russians laugh at us, and feel that we are all decadent, because the -- both schools, the philosophers and the ministers, have built themselves up as if they were owners of the total road, you see. The road towards truth, and the permeation by truth obviously, you see, cannot be separated, ever. Can you see this?

So the result of all this for today, gentlemen, is something I think quite fruitful. In the history of philosophy, we must hold onto the real problem of truth in our own life, gentlemen, that it has to be at the same time known and believed. Known and believed. The same truth has -- and you think that is not so.

Gentlemen, if the United States sacrificed $3 billion for the Groves project in -- and the -- the -- the atomic bomb, that's faith, isn't it? Because it's actualization. You see, you go ahead and you -- you give everything you have for producing it. That's not knowledge. That's faith. As I said, in every -- anybody who writes a short story, while he's writing it, acts on faith, because he doesn't know how he makes out, you see. Nobody can tell him. And he can only prove later that he knew all the time, you see. But he -- hardly knows all the time, because he's sleepless, and -- and he doesn't know. Of course, he is wavering, himself. But it permeates his system until it's out, this -- this little child of his imagination. The same as a pregnancy of a woman. She goes through with the nine months on faith.

Could you see this then, gentlemen? Faith and knowledge pertain to the same content. Once you know this, you are highly superior human beings, because nine-tenths of the Americans d- -- don't wish to know this. They think knowledge is for one thing, and faith is for another thing. And the -- so what has happened is, gentlemen, since you are all little scientists, you only have faith in scientific things. And therefore you think you must buy all these things that are produced, conscientiously, you see. If you would know that all knowledge, and all faith, you see, are always concerned with the same things, you might also care to know about things that are -- deserve to be believed in, like love, or hope, or

faith itself, or -- or peace, and all the good things of the spiritual life. But it has very much to do with your strange Greek upbringing, that you have despised things of mere faith, you have said. "Oh," you see, "we want to know." But gentlemen, where you know, you also believe. So you can turn it around, too: perhaps where we believe, we also ought to know.

You know many more things, gentlemen, by faith that are worth knowing -- for example, friendship, and love, and loyalty. They'll never be commodities. They'll never be scientifically so. But one can know many things. My course itself is an attempt to show you that this very wonderful -- spectrum of the human spirit first is believed. It is -- you must believe that it is worthwhile knowing philosophy before you understand a thing about it. Don't you -- here why you are, just by word of mouth? Somebody has told you it's a worthwhile thing to study philosophy. You don't know this now. I try to make you know why you love philosophy. Understand this?

Gentlemen, all unvisible things must be believed first and known later. All visible things -- you see, the opposite is true. You can first know them, you see, and love them later. First you see a mountain, and finally it took the pe- -- people of this world, as you know, 5,000 years before they dared to climb the Alps. They were hated. They were feared. They saw them all the time. They knew they were there. But they wouldn't climb them. Today we climb them, you see. The love has come later to the visible things. It's always this way, you see. And the invisible things we love first, and later we come to know them.

So the relation of faith and -- of knowledge and faith is itself a problem of philosophy. And I promise you, when we read Lucretius next time, you will -- may be surprised to find that the ancient Greeks were not half as impotent in their thinking as modern pragmatists are, and modern American scientists. They had this great passion of reconciling faith and knowledge for the same thing, you see. The -- the thing that has happened in the last centuries is really very ter- -- terrifying, gentlemen. If I speak of belief here, today, in this country, or faith, they say it's a luxury for Sundays. And they do not know that the World War II was only won because Mr. Steffansson went down in time to Washington and told them that they should believe that the earth was round, you see, and not just know it for their geology courses, you see. They hadn't done anything about it, so they hadn't believed it.

As you see, one-half of all your political knowledge is dead-letter -- because you don't believe it. You will -- you -- pay lip service to democracy, but you worship Hollywood and rich men. Anybody who does this certainly doesn't believe what he says.

So faith and knowledge are Greek problems. And we'll see when we read Lucretius a very exciting thing follows, gentlemen. The -- the Jews and the Greeks had the same theme, only they arranged it in opposite order. The -- the Jews wh- -- didn't want to forget what man believed. And then they said, "As far as possible, we must know this," you see. The Greeks didn't want to forget what they could see -- you see, the world, the earth, the water around them, the things, you see. Then they wanted to get as far as they could in their love of this, in their belief in it. And -- both in a way are therefore two great experiments carried out over a thousand years for us. You can learn from Judaism, and from Greek -- the Greek philosophy, you see, how far can -- man can get by one starting -- from one starting point. The Greeks begin with the visible, gentlemen, so they begin with knowledge. But they never, never, never have given up the path of believing in it, too.

That is, gentlemen, in other words -- now comes the secret of this -- of this meeting today, gentlemen: the relation of knowledge and faith is: the treatment of reality as world or as God. When we believe, we have a relation to a power that is superior to us, you see. We must. When the earth is round, she can give us order. If you only know it, you see, it's a world. We look at it, it's nature.

Now the Greeks begin with seeing, but they always worship the gods. In antiquity, there has always been the problem: how much worship besides {knowledge}? So any Greek philosopher will -- down -- this is the formula I want you to take down very carefully, gentlemen -- any Greek philosopher also remains and is a theologian. The ancient notion of philosophy is richer than ours. In modern philosophy, the philosophers are nothing but philosophers. In all ancient philosophers, you find a -- equally strong streak of theology. The great name of Plato in antiquity was The Theologian. And the best book on Greek philosophy written in the last 10 years is written by Mr. Jaeger, Werner Jaeger at Harvard. You may have heard of his book, Paideia. It's used quite much in Classical Civilization -- Mr. Jaeger has written his best book on the theology of Greek philosophers. The theology of the Greek philosophers, because they made clear that all these people tried to believe also what they knew, and tried to make us believe, you see, in these powers, as regula- -- the regulating principles to which we should owe obedience. Not just knowledge.

The world doesn't command, gentlemen. God commands. Now the same power I can treat as the world by looking at it. I can treat it as God by bowing to it.

So gentlemen, the Greeks are all philosophers and theologians. The history of Greek philosophy treats theology and philosophy before they are divided. And you plunge not only into philosophy when you go into antiquity, but you

cannot distinguish in any of the great people of antiquity whether they are theologians or philosophers. They are both.

Thank you.