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

...acting as the teacher of philosophers in Greece. He is not a philosopher in the sense that he wants to strip individual cases of their proper names. We have talked about this. And that's the essence of philosophy, to generalize, to subsume more than one differently named thing under the same heading, as you all do, every day. You are all philosophically inclined. You want to generalize. You say, "That's sex," and thereby you destroy your personal relations to your girl, because a girl is unique, and if you call it "sex relation," there is no relation, to speak of, left. That is not a relation with a girl. But that's a naturalistic relation, because this girl has a proper name. She is Elizabeth Smith. And Elizabeth Smith has no sex relations. But she either loves you or she doesn't love you. If you don't have the power to let her stand -- and this relation stand in its own right, you can never live. You'll remain the -- a psychic case for the analyst. Most of you crave this. You want to be somebody else's case. You want to be judged by some man who can -- or your mother, or so, who can chaperone you through life -- and "Oh, this is nothing but." And we said that all philosophy tries to say of all disturbing events, "This is nothing but."

If Dante had said, "Beatrice is nothing but a girl," he would have never written The Divine Comedy. If Washington had said, "This is just a rabble in arms" at the Boston Tea Party, he would not have ceased to be an English gentleman and become president of the United States, which nearly cost him his life, because he hated the rabble and all its -- their works. And he was not a rebel, and not a rabble. And he didn't belong to these bankrupts who started the rebellion in this country.

And therefore, gentlemen, you make life just as impossible as The Dartmouth when he today writes that this country, which is in a sound coma, is taking a decisive step by taking unasked and unrequired the case of Israeli to the United Nations. Have you see this ridiculous statement in The Dartmouth today? This man should be spanked. Who writes this -- this stuff? Huh?

(I did.)

You did? Well. Courageous man. Decisive. Decisive. We should be ashamed of such action. Nothing what these lawyers in -- Washington know except to talk. They have been warned -- warned for a whole year that this is brewing, you see. And now they feign as ob -- as -- this they are surprised. It's a great scandal, that the greatest country of the world knows nothing but to weep like an old woman. Old women, that's what we are in foreign politics. And old women do not want to see that a new thing has happened. The -- they always

recall -- reduce everything to precedent, to something that happened before. And that's philosophy, gentlemen, which wipes out this event as a unique event and says, "That comes under Paragraph Such-and-Such."

We said, however, there is one item in -- in Homer, where he really opens the way to this onslaught on all personal life, which is philosophy, because -- Homer is an after-dinner speaker. He cannot get his audience in the temple, or in the assembly, or in the army, or in court, or in the family -- the bedroom. He can only get his audience where? Where does a singer -- where does a -- an epis- -- where is it -- where is it sung? Wie? At a festival. And that's an unreal situation, because it's not even at the cult of the festival, but at the end of the festival, when everybody is -- makes -- is making merry.

And gentlemen, you must understand that there is -- is a limitation of art. The public for art is not serious. The -- the only person serious in Hamlet is the -- Sha- -- is -- is Hamlet -- is -- is the poet, Shakespeare. But you, who buy a ticket, gentlemen, you are not possibly serious because you want to spend a pleasant evening. That's not serious. You are not willing to do anything but -- being amused. You want to be entertained. So the entertainment industry, gentlemen, has its limitations in the desire to be entertained by the people who buy the ticket.

And that is Homer's far-reaching first step. There have been, as far as we know, no such things in the world before, an epics -- a poetry, which was only there to entertain. All former poetry, gentlemen, has still connection with prayer, with cult, with -- war, battle song. That is, it had a serious purpose. For example, you take a battle song. That's the marching order. That makes you march, you see. And soldiers fight better. So it is not disconnected with serious business. You understand the difference? But your pinup girl, in the barracks of an -- of an army camp, that's different. That's for your entertainment. And that therefore undermines morale. They say it -- it enhances morale. I don't know. Maybe. But certainly it is not serious for the army as such. It's your private business.

And so the first public, gentlemen, out of a people is created by Homer. And perhaps you take this down, because in this country as you know, there is today a -- a sad confusion between public and people. And any philosopher must know the difference. A people is -- you and me in serious business, at an election, at a marriage, at a funeral, in court as a witness. This is -- are the people. Today in America, however, you get away with murder if you pretend that the public is the people. The public will not stand it. Gentlemen, the public is not the s- -- people, because the pub- -- the public is the irresponsible mob that wants to be entertained. And a statesman has to go for the people against the public. And to live by public opinion, gentlemen, is a bad policy, and I'm afraid you see at this

moment, Sir, a great example of this going on in this country. The -- coun- -- country -- must -- can only live through people. It cannot live by public or -- by the public, because the public is nothing but sand dunes. It ch- -- shiftless. Has no root, has no time sense. It is in a hurry. It has -- is sensational. It's Hearst.

We have this reputation in the rest of the world, did you read this -- this kind of rote -- name-call, I mean, about the -- Asiatics and the Africans, why they hate us, because they say we are only out for sex and murder. Any headline here is "Sex" and "Murder." That's for the public, gentlemen. Obviously it's not for the American people. And woe to you if you insist that the newspapers give you a cross-section of public -- people's -- the people's opinion. We are lost. You can only hang -- our head in shame and you can -- expect the rest of the -- the other four continents marching into this continent, destroying it and its wealth, just from hatred and contempt. All the goodness of the American heart is absolutely camouflaged by this idea, the -- a man in India or Indochina forms of America, that it is only interested in rape, and in murder, and crime. What else can they? Marilyn? And such -- na, I won't say what. I mean, your -- your heroines, gentlemen, they are a -- scandalous in the eyes of other people. The lowest of the low.

The public looks at the posterior, at the sensational, at the dirt. And the people have to live through the ages. And the great difference, of course, gentlemen, and the simplest for you to remark is: the public has to be entertained now. The people can wait. The public cannot. -- Here, we are assembled. I have to entertain you. If you take this as entertainment, as some of you do, then -- I cannot -- you will not have any -- any gain from this cour- -- class, because the gain should come in 10 years from now. Then you are as real people. If you, however, forget this -- when you leave this class, the whole thing has been a mistake, because you would be much better entertained on the other side of Main Street -- other end of Main Street, in The Nugget.

So there is a great difference, gentlemen. We in this college, we should appeal to you as people. And on -- in The Nugget, they appeal to you as public. And I'm afraid we have very bad precedents. There's a book in this country abou- -- on politics, which makes the public the hero. It's written by a justice of the Supreme Court.

({ } people { } -- as individuals or { }?)

Whatever. You can be a friendly group. Can be a fraternity, in which you call dirty stories. That's also the public, because not one of these people lives here on his -- here you are, my dear man. You are 21, now -- you see. You have a decent background. Your parents take -- trouble and finally you end up here.

Anything that enters your mind which -- which is -- going to -- to procreate in you the power to keep us -- a people going -- this nation going, goes to you as a people. Anything however, that goes cross-sectionwise to entertain you at this moment -- here are the seven fraternity brothers -- in as far as most of the fraternity brothers, if they are any good, know a little bit about each other's background, and help each other pass their exams, and -- and -- spend their weekends, and meet their families, they are people. In as far as they can be put together, at this moment, the more, you see, momentary their -- their -- their gath- -- gather- -- gathering is, you understand, the more this is public.

So we all, at every moment, gentlemen, are torn. The public is that which is here and now. The people is that which is from Adam and Eve to the last day. Because the public, as you know, reforms any moment. Public opinion is -- is like a woman -- that is for sale. You can buy public opinion, you can cheat public opinion. You can impress public opinion, because it is out for sensation, can be tickled. It can be stimulate- -- you even say so of a lecturer. This unfortunate man, you -- you dis- -- dishonor him, you treat him like a harlot. You say "He's stimulating." Well, heavens! Young men haven't to be stimulated, gentlemen.

I have -- I think I've told you this before. I have -- all my life, I am now nearing 70, gentlemen, the only question I have to ask from my environment is: heavens! not to stimulate me. I am stimulated enough. Are you so bored that you have to be stimulated?

But gentlemen, I am driving at something which has to do with philosophy. Philosophy is hard-put, because it is second impressions. And all philosophy has to look therefore for a new, special group, as we have it here in the liberal arts college now, finally, as its outcome, which is gathered and convened, and driven together to listen to philosophy outside the first-impression orders, outside the Church, outside the school, outside -- I mean -- I mean, the grammar school and the nursery -- outside the family, outside the court, outside the nation. Philosophy is international, is it not? It is interfamilial. It is interlinguistic. It is inter-, you see, inter-, inter-, inter-, inter-, inter-, inter-, inter-. Because it is second, you see. And it is that which every one of us wants to know besides the immediate order in which he knows very well when to get up, and when to go to work, and when to vote, you see. It's all this realm of second thought where you say, "Perhaps I wouldn't have to get up in the morning," you see. And "Perhaps I wouldn't have to vote in -- in Podunk." And "Perhaps I could emigrate to China," and "Perhaps" and "Perhaps," you see. All the perhapses of your mind get organized in philosophy.

Therefore, in Homer already there awakens this tremendous problem, gentlemen: Who are the people who philosophize together? What is the broth-

erhood of philosophers? Where do I meet the other men? And in this sense, then the public of Homer is the first attempt to create an audience outside the responsible barracks of the army, or the responsible place of a court with all -- the jury. To speak, gentlemen, you must understand this -- to you all this is so natural -- to speak in freedom and irresponsibility, anything that's -- goes -- crosses through your mind, you need an undangerous environment. You cannot in a little town say anything that is true about your neighbors. They will otherwise lynch you, you see.

Most people in a little town know so terrible things about their neighbors that they feel they can never talk in this town about them. They have to go to some place in Florida. And then they can tell the stories they know about their neighbors, without giving their name, I suppose. But it's very entertaining, if they tell all the stories they know of what has been going on in their town. They cannot tell it in their town, you see. That's absolutely impossible. If you want to live in your family, you cannot tell all the stories about your family -- to these members of the family. They don't wan- -- like to listen to these stories, that they have been in jail. But they have been in jail. And they have been divorced. You cannot talk about it.

Have you ever been ma- -- met this problem -- of meeting divorc‚s -- and the husband and the wife in the same room? Or -- to talk about the sacraments with the divorced couple? Or -- with one partner, the -- what you believe in, the sacrament of marriage. You can't tell them. You see, you better keep quiet. You see, you may keep your conviction, but you can't spread it there without wounding these people, you see.

It's terribly -- so, there are any number of things which in our vital relations, gentlemen, we can neither think nor say. It is no good, gentlemen, to think of the Oedipus Complex while you are with your mother and your father. If you are lying on the couch in an analyst's room, no harm done, you see. You are, so to speak, in a second world. Well, that is the creation of philosophy, gentlemen. There would be no analysts if there hadn't been philosophers in Greece who at one time said, "We must create for any mind a realm, a room, a space for second impressions." But he must never bring these second impressions in confusion, you see, in cahoots with the first impressions. For heaven's sake!

So any -- as you know, any analyst is very careful to create this second space, where nothing what you say about your impressions -- your first impressions is ever -- ever leaks out. You couldn't live with the people of whom you tell all your first impressions to this man in the realm of second impressions. It's very serious, gentlemen. Anybody who burns through this -- this safety valve, this fuse, goes nuts.

A young man in Manchester, New Hampshire, of Greek Catholic origin had a -- father and a mother who -- who were still practicing this religion. And the father, as a matter of fact, is a Greek Catholic priest. And there were also sisters. And the boy was the youngest, and the -- you may say the least gifted. Wasn't directly feeble-minded. But it seemed wise to have him go on a farm on Long Island and milk the cows. Which he did, to everybody's satisfaction. Then the war came, the Second World War. He went out with the boys, and suffered from being strange, from not being -- belonging to the ordinary religion -- here, Roman Catholic or Protestant, but being a Greek Catholic, of course that's -- was for him too much of a -- nonconformism.

And he said to his father that he wanted to become a Roman Catholic. And this father was very cheerful about it, and said, "Oh, that's all right." And -- but unfortunately he was prevented -- the parents were prevented, and also the sister, from attending the ceremony. The boy was just as good as gold. And he is still a pre-philosophical mind where "Yes" is "yes," and "No" is "no." And so the Catholic minister -- the Roman Catholic priest made a terrible mistake. He baptized this child of God again. As you know, that's in -- in itself forbidden. But the Roman Cath- -- Church has this rule that you cannot be baptized twice. But in case -- they -- they call it, you see, a conditional rebaptism.

But in this case, gentlemen, now I beg you to be very serious, because most of your sisters and brothers are destroyed by the American chil- -- childishness in these matters, and indifference in these matters. Well, this boy -- he was 18 or 19 -- no, no, 21, when he was -- when this happened; 21 -- ja, something like that. But being very simple-minded. When he heard that he hadn't been baptized before, that he hadn't been a Christian, that his father was denied the privilege of being a priest, of having standing, and he was not just a layman, as you think, this good father, you see, whom he had worshiped. It was his competition between the American army, so to speak, and the -- this serious environment, and the comradeship in the army, and this good -- very good parenthood, this very good background in his family -- when this word "baptism" and this word, "I hereby baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," when this was spoken again over him, and he suddenly became aware that in the eyes of this Roman Catholic preacher, he had been a pagan, his father was a pagan, his father was not a Christian, he collapsed. He had to be in -- put in a straitjacket, and he has lost his mind.

That is the human relation to the word, really, when it is still unspoiled. That's the relation which you find in an Indian tribe. That's the relation which you find in all real societies, which are not as degenerate as ours, where words mean nothing, where you cannot reach a child or a person by just calling his name and thereby building him into society. This is very serious, gentlemen. The

man -- has lost his mind. The -- this could have been prevented if the parents had been present at the ceremony. And the Catholic priest has -- has repented. They -- he asked his father to go with him into the cell of this unfortunate victim of his stupidity, and crudit- -- crudiness. And of course, to this poor Irish young priest, this was all new. He had just done what was routine. And he hadn't done -- known what a human soul is. You find many theologians who don't know this.

And the Ro- -- coarseness today is very much today with the theologians, gentlemen, that I have to say you -- tell you frankly. It's terrible. They don't know A from B. He just thinks that this is something in itself, and -- and doesn't have anything to do with your and my daily life. But you also live by certain words, and if you would be put into a -- into a concentration camp, gentlemen, would be given a number, and would have to live for five years without anybody recognizing that you have a name, you probably would also break down under the strain. Because to have your own name is the recognition of the unity and continuity of your existence, you see. And this cannot be discussed. There cannot be a second impression replacing the first impression.

I -- made you -- I want to threaten you with these two examples, gentlemen, that you must take the problem of philosophy as one of dynamite. This is not a pleasure to philosophize. The Greeks had to philosophize in order to be Greeks, in order to live in a world of mighty empires under the impact of trading, and -- with the enemy, so to speak, constantly, with people who believed otherwise. But once you -- omit this addition that any man needs these first impressions to bind him to his sanity, to his friendship, to his kin and kindred, you do not see that philosophy is not anything that you can put over on a 4- -- 1-year-old baby. But that it is a second experience, and therefore, is lacking always in stringency. It is always a step outside your roo- -- your -- the -- the -- soil in which you must remain rooted.

And here is this great story which proves it. Will you kindly read this 8th book, where this begins?

You have the real -- Page 129. {Prenz- -- Prenzler}. You have it?

(The eight- --)

Oh, keep your legs. They are wonderful. No objection. Who has it? Nobody brought The Odyssey, I suppose.

(Oh, The Odyssey?)

Yes. Yes, Sir. You?

(What page, Sir?)

Wie? 129. No Homer? No Odyssey? Who has The Odyssey? Please.

(At the point where- --).

"Presently." "Presently."

("Presently the bard's fine voice was heard above the music of his lyre. His theme --")

Turn around. They should all -- they have no books, you see.

("His theme was the love of Ares and Aphrodite, of the beautiful crown. He sang of their first and stealthy meetings in Hephaestus' palace, of the many gifts Ares made her, and the dishonor he did her to King Hephaestus' bed. But the son, {Islay}, went on to tell, had whit- -- witnessed their loving embraces, who came to inform Hephaestus, who when he heard the galling truth, went straight to his workshop, with his heart full of evil thoughts, laid his great anvil on the { } and forged a chain network that could neither be broken nor undone, so as to keep them prisoners forever.

("His fury with Ares inspired him as he worked. And when the snare was finished, he went to the room where his bed was laid, and threw the netting right around the bed posts. A number of further lengths were attached to the rafters overhead, and hung down light as gossamer, and quite invisible, due to the blessed gods. It was a masterpiece of cunning work.

("When he had thus surrounded the bed and set his trap, he made a pretense of leaving for the pleasant town of Lemnos, his favorite spot on earth. Meanwhile, Ares of the golden reins had not kept watch for nothing. Directly he saw the master craftsman leave, he made his way to the great god's house, filled with a passionate desire for Scytheria.")


(Si-ther-EYE-a? of the lovely crown.)

Ja. That is Venus.

("Now she had lately returned from a visit to her mighty father Zeus, and had just sat down when Ares came in at the door, grasped her hand, and saluted her fondly. "Come, my beloved," he said. "Let us go to bed and lie in each other's arms, for Hephaestus

is no longer about. He has gone to Lemnos I think to visit his { } friends and listen to their barbarous talk." Aphrodite desired nothing better than to sleep with him, so the two went to the bed and lay down. Whereupon the netting, which Hephaestus' ingenuity had contrived, fell around them in such a way that they could not move or lift a limb. They found too late that there was no escape. And now they were faced by the great lame god himself, for the sun -- acting as a spy -- had given him word. And he had turned back before reaching the island of Lemnos, and hurried home in anguish. Standing there in the entrance, he was seized by a spasm of rage, and raised his voice in a terrible shout, so that all the gods might hear him.")

Would you go on?

("Father Zeus, and you other happy gods who live forever. Come here and see a comic and cruel thing. Zeus' daughter Aphrodite has always despised me for my lameness, and now she has given her heart to this butcher, Ares, just because he is goodlooking and sound of limb, while I was born a cripple. And who am I to blame for that, if not my father and my mother? I wish they had never begotten me. But you shall see how these two have crept into my bed and are sleeping in each other's loving arms. The sight cuts me to the quick. Yet I have an idea that they won't be eager to prolong that embrace. No, not for a moment, not for all their love. Theirs is the sleep that both will soon be tired of -- theirs is the sleep that both will soon be tired of. But my cunning meshes are going to keep them just where they are, till her father hands me back every one of the gifts I made him to win this { }-faced hussy, who may be his daughter, and a lovely creature, but is the slave of her passions.

("The shouts brought the gods trooping to their house with the bronze -- with the bronze boar. Up came Poseidon, the earthshaker, Hermes the bringer of luck, and the archer, King Apollo. But the goddesses, constrained by fim- -- feminine modesty, all stayed at home. There they stood then, in front of the doors, the immortals who are the source of all our blessings. And when they caught sight of Hephaestus' clever device, a fit of uncontrollable laughter seized these {happy} gods.")

Now, let's stop here. Gentlemen, the -- the indignity of the story and the dignity of the story, I com- -- recommend to your attention. I hope you will leave -- read on yourself. It's of course a famous example of the reasons for Plato's hatred of Homer, or hatred, or his -- his great love, admiration, turned into fear and terror of the consequences of this treatment of the gods. If you ask yourself -- this is a very famous story, of course -- what is dignified about this is, it is the genuine mistreatment of this polio-stricken Hephaestus, whom his wife betrays.

I just got some news today that a good woman gave birth to a boy -- her

father lives here in our town, and is deeply polio-stricken. He is a complete cripple. His first wife ran away from him when he had polio -- when he got polio. This woman had the courage to marry him, and they are very happy. And they -- here is this child born to them. And you can imagine then that there is a great tragedy involved when such a cripple is betrayed by his wife in favor of a strong man, exactly as it is described here. This is much more horrid than when two real rivals of the same physical status, you see, are one winning out over the other. It's a much greater moral injury. And I think Homer stresses this point very beautifully. And I think that is that aspect of the story by which it is made tolerable, because we have not just a joke, and not just a farce, but we also have the cutting pain of the cripple.

And therefore I -- this story is not to be dismissed lightly. It is a great example, gentlemen, how Homer sides with men against the gods. He humanizes the gods to such an extent that even Hephaestus isn't -- not just a clown, but a semi-tragic figure, you see, because he deserves better. He deserves real love, and not this -- this Hollywood love. And on the other hand, gentlemen, of course, the human -- the -- the divine majesty of the gods is -- is missed. If you humanize the gods, then the gods cease to be gods, to a certain extent. All you can {save} is that they are at least human. You understand? Isn't -- do I make my point clear? It is important since we have these three words, of the logos, the ethos, and the -- and the phusis, you must see that Homer does humanize the gods. And what he takes away from them in majesty he adds to them in humanity. You can see that the -- the ethos of Hephaestus is perfectly accessible to you and me.

Now I would say that this is a typical attitude, gentlemen, of any such social intercourse, as in your fraternity, as at a -- at a -- in an after-dinner speech, as in the theater. Anything that is not totally serious will always take the world bel- -- above us, and the world below us, and make {us} -- into some human thing. You have a social gathering, and you will treat the dog fight, and the roosters' fight, and the bull fight as a social entertainment, you will in a way humanize, domesticate the world below us, too. You will have flea races, as they have in Florida, I'm told. Is it true? Wie? Wie? Flea races, no? F-l-e-a. Isn't that correct?

I have a friend who has made all his money by bullfrog races. Also in Florida, there are the stupid ones, and they are bored. It -- it's very strange, gentlemen, and may -- help you to see the impact of what we are -- trying -- what I am trying to develop here before you, that if you -- if you are in the non-serious situation, if you don't have to plow the land, then you can treat the ox as an object of a fight, you see. But if you want to plow the land, you better don't do that, because you need the bull. You under- -- see the difference?

We live today in -- in a -- in a -- such an apartment and -- and skyscraper world that it is quite hard for you to see that at any minute, gentlemen, when people gather in a carefree mood in a bar, or in a -- at a -- in a club, or in your fraternity houses, or at Mac's, or whatever it is, that they really do something to the world beneath us, the world of nature and the world of things, and to the world above us. We humanize both. The way of any social intercourse is that the ethical, or what you call "the social," prevails and absorbs all considerations about the powers above and below. Look how you talk about a revolution or a civil war at -- at a bar. You say, "Oh, it will be quite excited to see a revolution." Now gentlemen, in a revolution, in Budapest, many shed -- tears are shed, many lives are destroyed. Many hopes are buried. But in a social ga- -- gathering, as a paper, for example, is -- your -- I don't know if your paper brought this terrible news: first that Hungari- -- Hungary would go to the Olympics just the same, and said second that two of its first-rate athle- -- athletes were killed in the rioting. Now gentlemen, I was wounded by these two -- news at this moment. It's after all much more important whether the people of Hungary get their liberty than if the Olympics take place. To hell with the Olympics, compared to this. That's -- one is serious, and the other is not serious. In this country, of course, the Olympics is serious, and the fate of Hungary: who cares? That's how you treat play in comparison to seriousness. And the -- at least the papers play it up for all it is worth. The headline is: "Olympics" -- "Hungary Goes to Olympics." The headline is not: "Let's Fight for Freedom."

That was different a hundred years ago. This had -- all this treatment of the events in Hungary, gentlemen, when Kossuth died under the same Russian gunfire -- or he didn't, but his cause did -- died in 1850 -- was very different. Kossuth was a great national hero in America, as you may have heard. And Kossuth suffered this very fate that the people in Budapest have suffered, you see. The Russians intervened. The Hungarian rebels had -- had conquered their freedom against the emperor of Austria. And then, in -- to their dismay and shame, the emperor of Russia offered brotherly help to the man in Vienna, and marched in, and the Hungarians were overcome by Russian arms. And that makes the whole thing in Hungary today so very difficult for the Russians. They know very well how they are hated, for this memory of 1850. But the papers here so -- are so ill-informed, they have mentioned even the monument, and the holiday of 1850. But they have never said that it was the Russians who defeated the revolution. They only talk of the Habsburgs defeating the Hungarian- -- no, the Russians did it in 1850, and therefore every Hungarian at this moment feels that -- this gruesome game, you see -- must not be repeated. I hope they will not trust any offers from their so-called government.

But the -- the massacre is already wholesale. And at such a moment, pardon me for -- insisting on this, it is bad taste for the Americans to mention the

Olympics, and not to say that good people fighting have died in Budapest, but to pick out the one athlete who's killed and s- -- and give him a special space when he is dying, together with his -- the rest of his people. So that the people here get the -- the, so to speak, the picture, that the only thing that matters in Hungary: will the Olympic Games remain intact?

But that comes from after-dinner.

(Sir, I think you'll find that if you read a few other newspapers, the one newspaper you read is only one, and there are probably hundreds across this country that are describing thousands of other Hungarians who are being killed as well { }.)

Well, I have seen these headlines, Sir. I'm -- have to tell you this, I mean. I -- I grant you that -- by the way, the -- your newspapers are far from reflecting the -- the serious people in this country, as you know this, too.

But I think it is sad that our public opinion does not reflect what really I think the people at this moment feeling. They d- -- they don't. They are scared to ob- -- for any -- any -- any real broader sentiment.

But this is an inevitable situation, gentlemen. Philosophy must look for a second public. And the Homeric public is the first public that has been formed around something that is not serious, and yet is mental. The mind here goes for a walk, you see, but it is not a -- solitary walk, but people get together on a certain theme. And since most of you are not accustomed to understand this difficult problem, gentlemen, of living in a -- in a society of direct action and immediate responsibility of mores, and another society of mental reflection, I have to draw your attention to the fact that this second social world has been created by the Greeks. And for example, the Russians try to destroy this. There shall be no such second world, you see. The -- they try -- to make the philosophical world into the serious world. That's why they are such poor Platonists. They are really Greek philosophers who want now to make their ration- -- their plan, you see, their abstract picture of society their utopia, their republic, their laws, their Platonic dialogues, their "dialectics" as they call it, you see. They want to make -- to penetrate the home so that the child must denounce the parents, you see, if any word is said that isn't Marxian dialectics. So you see it's of very practical impact that you understand that philosophy is only in a second realm possible. If you make it identical with the first, hell breaks loose. And if you don't have it at all, the little groups stagnate, and you get the uncivilized Indian tribe, where there is no thing but serious, you see, life, and there is no meditation, and no reflection going on in public.

So the formation of a public, gentlemen, it's very hard for you to understand, is necessary. Where you have no -- only the people, you have primitive life. Where you have the public, you have reflection. Where you have only the public, you have tyranny. Because you destroy the -- these groups that can afford immediate action, undoubted action, you see, immediate integration, celebration, ceremony, ritual, and -- liturgy, serv- -- divine service, what-not.

And the constant problem of mankind is, gentlemen: how much public, how much people? Whenever we philosophize, we gather with people with whom we do not live day by day. We gather with a public that stretches out through universe. You can s- -- also say, gentlemen, that from Homer's burlesque fear about the gods, the problem of philosophy has been: to ennoble the public so that it ceases to be just entertained. Philosophy is an attempt to make out of this after-dinner audience of a public, you see, a second world, a second realm, a second citizenry of spirited people, who -- although they are on stilts, although they live in a second community of thinkers, of grownups, of people removed from their -- from their immediate community, will only be entertained by a -- reflection on these serious things, and not be only interested in -- in letting their hair down and cheapening the seriousness.

In Homer's Achilles and Ares, gentlemen, what happens? The tone is lighter than it is in the morning, when the priest offers sacrifices to the gods. You can see this. This is laughter, you see. This is joke. Well, it's like an after-funeral, when the gay music sets in. You cannot weep all day. So at the funeral, you are serious. You come home. Then there -- always the -- at a military funeral, the music, you see, returning from the cemetery is asked -- always required to play a gay melody. That's a very wise custom, you see. You have to return to -- to life by this relief of tension. And that's the same with an after-dinner speak, after a big festival, after a great celebration, you get humorous, and you give off steam -- let off steam.

Now this then is the -- the problem of philosophy since Homer. You can see that if all the activities of a group like the Greek people roaming the seas, coming to foreign places, would be to go in Hoboken into a bar and to get drunk, so to speak, and to dismiss authority, dismiss seriousness, and just joke about it, that there would be a total loss of energy. And it's -- you must think of it in terms of physics, of the entro- -- the law -- how do you call the law, of the loss of -- ? entropy -- loss of, you see, a loss of energy, you see, loss of heat. If our society would always give off steam and never rebuild it, then we would of course be faced by a tremendous loss, and then every Indian tribe and every Mau-Mau group would be perfectly entitled to cry out against colonialism, to say, "Let the English go home, because they destroy our mores, we -- the things become less serious, we now see that things are not so decisive, so important as we do them."

You can do them differently, so people will stop doing anything. They will become indifferent.

Gentlemen, if we had only Homer, all over the place, and Broadway, our life in this country would le- -- lose too much energy. Now philosophy is the strange attempt to use this leisure -- to use this leisure to build up energy into these private homes, into these courts, into these barracks, into these army places, into the White House, and not to play golf with Cola-Cola people, but to listen to a seer, or to a poet and to be inspired again, and not to relax. I -- we always hear in this country only that people who are busy must relax. I think they mustn't relax at all. They must be rebuilt up again, to a higher pressure. But always you hear in this country that these poor businessmen have to relax. That's not true that this is enough. They have to get on a higher pitch than all the businesses -- life. They must then come in to their business from a higher point of view, and not from a lower.

And it is just as important, gentlemen, to rebuild the necessary tensions in a society, than always to say that they must be dismissed. This is what I regret to say about this business of Israel. For one year, we have been forewarned, but since this country wants to sleep out his -- its prosperity, you can't find anybody who will do anything, or sacrifice anything for this peace outdoors, so to speak. It's too hard a life out there. Most Americans have to return from Palestine, because they just couldn't stand the life there. It's too hard.

So gentlemen, philosophy is against Homer in this sense, that it wants not to relieve the tension, but to build up a higher pressure tank. You know of a -- these water systems where the pressure tank is put in the attic, and then the water runs down. The problem is then, for philosophy to build this attic, where you can put your pressure tank so that the peo- -- the rooms in which the people normally live, you see, can receive new -- the water with new pressure.

It has never been solved by philosophy, but it is its ambition. It's Plato's ambition. It's Aristotle's ambition. It's the -- ambition of the Stoics, that -- couldn't they find an avocation, a public, a -- a treatment of the public by which the public would be so ennobled that it would impart to the people, you see, in their daily activities a better life.

And I think anybody who studies philosophy must have this dream or -- in his mind, gentlemen. Philosophy is an attempt to use the leisure, you see, not for relieving the tension, but for increasing the tension. That's for you perhaps a little difficult to understand, but it must -- should make clear the -- the paradox of philosophy. Since the Greek days, gentlemen, the Greek philosopher says, "Here I -- I take advantage of leisure. Homer has created a -- the good use of leisure for

entertainment, for humanization. Into this niche, into this nook, I also {march in}, you see. And I'll get my public, you see, then to {replace}, with the background of their {family life}, with the background of their laws, you see, with the background of the universe, with the real order.

So, leisure ennobled. That is the social task of philosophy. You will admit that it is the critical point today: you get a four-day week, what are you going to do with your leisure? If you treat it as merely non-serious, you see, you will get just murder. You will get every day a fantastic crime, because people will not do -- know what to do with these three days. It's a very serious problem, you see. How can you treat 160 million people to a four-day week if they don't know at all what to do in the rest of -- for the rest of the time. And there will be so many perfect crimes, because that will be the only thing that will come to mind.

Well, that's serious. It's -- it's a very serious business, gentlemen. Nobody -- heaven knows what going to happen. The pious one may go to the mosque on Friday, and to the synagogue on Saturday, and to the church on Sunday. But there will be very few people who want to do that. And what do you do with the rest?

This is not -- this is not wanton, gentlemen. You must think in these very practical terms of today. There were no three days, of -- but the rich, of course, had leisure. They had slaves, in Homer's days as today. And it is to the people who had -- were liberals in their own -- in the ancient sense, that is, who had no work to do, who had other people to del- -- do their work to whom philosophy caters.

And this Homeric story here therefore has much more than -- than meets the eye. It is the constant problem of your -- our time today. We are all now through the machines in the place of the people in Greek who indulge in philosophy, you see. They either indulged in philosophy or in sports, or in -- in -- in orgies, in debauches, in -- in all kind of nonsense, in self-destruction. And we have the same situation, of course, today, because a whole nation today is freed from chores through our machinery. And very few who could philosophize in Greece are of course nothing compared to a nation that is -- how many horsepowers are behind every American? Does anybody know?

(Potentially four.)



Fifteen years ago it was already 31 horsepowers behind every American. It must be- --.

({ } talking about the machinery. You're not talking about the development of the { } body itself?)

But you are not a horse.

(No. But the human body is -- { } development now.)

No, I mean the electric power, the steam power, the gasoline power, the combustion engine, all the -- horsepower that are disposed of -- amount to, I think, 111 or something like that for every American at this moment. Working in -- in your service, Sir. You have it. Every American -- I don't know the figure, by the way. Does anybody know? It's a -- who is in Tuck School? None of these economic slaves? Well, look it up. It's a very -- most fascinating story. You must think that every one of you, as we sit here, have 111 horses constantly serving us 24 hours a day. Well, have you ever thought what -- that -- this is really true. That's -- we are all drunk with this power. I mean, all the accidents on the road teach you that the temptation of having 300 horsepowers at your disposal goes to a man's head. We all are today great captains, because every one of us has a whole army, at least a company backing him up. Ja. Isn't that true?

For these people, philosophy is the problem, gentlemen. If you have power, and if you have time, what to do with it. All people under the necessity of life don't need to philosophize, because every day, you see, the laborer -- has -- knows that if he doesn't work, he will starve. That's very simple, gentlemen. Ten hours a day work, no philosophy, you see. But leisure.

The problem, gentlemen, of philosophy is: can leisure be treated as the avant-garde of life, or is it the epilogue of life, of your weekly life, of your daily life? And mo- -- for most of you, it is the epilogue. But it should be the avantgarde, it should be the prelude. Leisure is a seed, gentlemen, and not the dregs. That's a great problem.

Let's have a break here. But only three minutes, please. I have to go on.

[tape interruption]

...the first hundred years -- or thousand years of Greek philosophy -- or 800 years of philosophy -- who dies, and -- whom I call the Nietzsche of antiquity. Nietzsche comes at the end of the story of modern and medieval philosophy. He is, compared to Ab‚lard and Thomas Aquinas, a -- a man who explodes phi-

losophy. And he is, as he called himself, at least, a materialist, however doubtful that may be. And he is an atheist. And yet, if you read Nietzsche, has -- has anybody ever read anything by Nietzsche? He -- has been no -- no such religious philosopher in the last thousand years, Nietzsche, because the -- the death of God is his great cry. "Where is God?" so to speak, you can ask. His whole work is centering around the death of the divine inspiration, the divine spirit. And so he has this paradoxical situation then -- circumscribed in which you and I find ourselves. The more skeptical we are, the more we will represent today the divine spirit; and the more orthodox, and routine churchgoers we will be, the mehr -- more we will contribute to the death of the spirit. That's a paradox.

Every Sunday when I go to church -- I preached last Sunday in our church, it is quite a pain in the neck, because you are not sure that this is the place where the spirit today lives. This paradox is, however, of -- exists from time immemorial, and in antiquity, we -- I made you read Lucretius to see that the same tension that we find in Homer: the gods, and men, and the gods critically humanized, and the man exalted by a greater unity into this tremendous effort of the Greek spirit in this common enterprise, and this common enthusiasm -- that this is at the end of the era the same. Lucretius invokes the gods, speaks to the -- Memmius, and deals with matter as the only power that is needed to explain everything. That's paradoxical. It's like -- Nietzsche, who assures you that Christianity is dead, and is -- the -- when he goes mad, breaks down, you see, with a -- signing himself, "The Crucified," because so much was his Christianity in -- awake in him that he only lived with the great incognito, because the gods, gentlemen, can only come to life if we do not blaspheme, and do not quote them too early. The man who says, "In God's name," usually doesn't act in God's name. But you may very well act in God's name without saying so.

This is the same paradox in Lucretius. And -- I cannot explain this to you, because you stand partially before life. But I have to arouse you to this sense of wonder, that an atheist in antiquity invokes the gods. That's -- is strange. But it is not stranger, gentlemen, then that you should honor your fa- -- father, and your mother, and love the wife of your choosing. Any man who -- who has to go through this has two religions. And he has to unify them. That will seem to you strange. But we live by contradiction. We don't live in a very nice, settled system. But we try to make contradictions, you see, live in us in harmony. That's the problem of man. We are not -- mathematical examples, with 2 and 2 is 4. But we have two prime numbers, so to speak, inside ourselves. Let's take 37 and 31. And you have to harmonize the two of them. Every one of us has so -- contradictory genes in himself. You have to be your father's son, and your mother's son, and you have to be your wife's husband, and your children's father, and you have even to be a member of a party, and you have to -- citizen of the -- member of a church, and it's all not -- and it doesn't end in -- in -- in -- in an equation of

mathematics, gentlemen, most contradictory. And therefore philosophy is only honest when it begins with a contradiction, Mr. Leibowitz. And I cannot tell you, as in chemistry or in medicine, you see, that 2 and 2 is 4.

I wrote a letter -- read a letter in church last Sunday. Since you are a premed student, I'd better give this to you, where I say the scientists today lose their heads, totally. They won't wonder anymore. They say that they are only scientists, these doctors. And they kill their patients. Science in this moment in America kills medicine. And -- and a friend of mine left -- this college because he thought the medical school was just absolutely bent on science. And so -- he's a doctor -- son of a doctor, and so he has some good tradition in himself. And he went to another medical school. And he wrote me the following letter: "My professor gave us a first lecture today on medicine. And he said, `A doctor who is honest must know that he can comfort everybody, he can relieve a few -- he can relieve numerous people, and he can cure a very few.'"

The modern doctor who is science-drunk, thinks that he's only there to cure. And he gives up to -- relieve, and he gives up -- to comfort. Such a doctor doesn't know the limitations of science. "`You must know, my dear students,' he went on to say, you must conquer everybody. But you may relieve a few -- some, and that you may cure indeed very few. And if you don't, you don't know the limitations of your science.'"

Now, in the same sense, gentlemen, philosophy wants to show you your limitations, Sir. And as long as you do not wake up to the fact that philosophy is not a science, gentlemen, you are not -- philosophizing, you see. You try to { } -- we know certain things in philosophy. I know what a syllogism is, you see, for example. And such simple, and minor things. But they are of a subordinate nature. The great power of philosophy is to check every one of your blasphemous arrogances in your own proper field, as a doctor, as an engineer, as a statesman, as a mother. They -- you all go haywire because you think that you are God Almighty, if you follow the procedure of his business; 150 years ago, a father thought nothing of spanking his -- his son. It was within his rights and -- there have even been Spartan fathers, as you know, who would prefer to kill their son against letting pass an -- disobedience, a lack of discipline.

Now we don't think this anymore. So here's a family, by a sense of wonder of -- the part of philosophy had to be put in a new light. The rules of the family no longer, you see, are the same, because we have upset them. Today, I think, philosophy must attack science, because science is haywire. It's absolute megalomania, as you see from the atom bomb. All philosophy -- centers around the fact that we have to tell physicists that we are not interested in their findings. Or only very limit- -- they help us. And that they have nothing to say. And as

long as you go to the physicist, in asking for political advice, this country will -- is at the brink of disaster.

Philosophy has to do this, or it's no good. Because the sense of wonder must always make you attack the god of the day. The sense of wonder has nothing to do with your toothache, or with minor matters. The sense of wonder in philosophy is wondering about the shibboleth, about the dogma of the day. For example. I do -- I won't -- can't go into the details of this today, but it's obviously -- if philosophy has any future, it will have the future of criticizing science, of saying that science is only possible by scientists, and scientists are people who still have a sense of wonder, and therefore you cannot streamline men, and you cannot buy men, and you cannot have science through money. And then I read such statements that in 20 years we can harness atomic energy economically, I hope that this will break down, gentlemen. I do not think that you can predict for 20 years any such thing, you see. It's just, I think, ludicrous.

Well, that's just one example of -- of what we're up against, against the megalomania today of sciences, who, however, have been produced by philosophy persuading the older order of society, the priesthood, and the family, and the nation to allow these scientists. Now they've gone too far. We now have to call them back. Formerly they burned the witches. Now the witches burn us.

Well, these -- isn't -- aren't these producers of atom bombs -- and -- and bacter- -- bacteriocide and so -- are they not witches? They are. That's all they are.

So, Mr. Leibowitz, is -- does this -- I -- it will not satisfy you. But I had to defend my position, why I had to show you that in every generation, in the first of Greek philosophy as much as in the last, at the end, in Lucretius, you see, there is still a contradiction. It isn't so simple as you would like to have it, as you can have it in a special field, of a science. Philosophy protects the living man who can produce sciences -- perhaps you take this down -- of various kind, who has created one day chemistry, and the next day sociology, and today a science protecting us against science. We call this today "sociology of science," which would be an attempt to confine, or to show what the scientist can do and what he cannot do, you see. The place of science in society would be the solog- -- sociology of science. You can see that this is a new science -- it wasn't -- it wasn't necessary 500 years ago, when science had to be created, to talk of the sociology of science, because we had to -- just to think of getting -- getting science. But today, we must know what a physicist can do and what he cannot do.

Only to show you, gentlemen, that philosophy is the perpetual sense of wonder to distribute in us our power to find new truth, our power to get along

with our fellow man, and our power to dominate dead matter. And to distinguish what is dead matter, what in you and me, for example, is just routine, is -- is a question of our changing concept of nature, our changing concept of theology, and our con- -- changing concept of ethics, or of mores, or morality of the social sciences.

Now this was my justification towards you. And now look -- let's look up the text of this very good book by Mrs. {Kathleen Freeman} and let's read -- or let's at least speak of the people who turned from Homer's attempt to joke about the gods to the opposite attitude to become serious about things, and to try to find the divine in the cosmic order of the universe. And we had already Thales of Miletus crying out, shouting that everything is water.

The two next men we have next to no -- no fragments from them: Anaximander and Anaximenes, gentlemen -- tried to correct Thales in a certain way. Thales says, "I have my first common denominator. I'll get my Egyptian friends, and my Mesopotamian friends, and ourselves on the salt lake of the Mediterranean, and the people -- far away on the ocean all together in the recognition that water is one, and that probably all earth and everything comes from water." Now you see, he is not very far from the truth, because as you know, we supposedly have the same blood as the fishes, because we used to live in the water. And saltwater still today is the cure -- curative for your eyes for this reason probably, because if you put saltwater in your eyes, any inflammation will immediately disappear. That's a very strange fact, because fishes of course would have their eye, or -- or sea animals would have their eye in the water, you see, and therefore feel the saltwater sympathetically as -- as part -- best -- the best environment they can {be in}.

The -- it is very hard for you and me to understand why this man Thales should be so important, if we only know this one thing: everything is water. I have however today, in the first half, I -- made an attempt to remind you of this fact that in leisure, people should also try to get up steam, and not to get -- off steam. And if everything is water, you can see that all the partial civilizations of the Nile, and the cult of Osiris, and the cult of Poseidon -- which is the god of the salt sea -- suddenly appear in a new light. And these cults can be purified, and can be regulated, you see, in the various cities of Greece, in the light of this recognition -- Heaven, what man wants to -- to worship is his common origin, you see, his -- the original force. And it doesn't matter that one is Osiris and one is Poseidon; a tremendous simplification sets in, and as far as people give in to this consideration.

And here you have the power of a generalization, gentlemen, and that power of generalization may free you from local, parochial anxieties. And since

everybody says today we should get out of our anxieties, and the "Age of Anxiety," Thales, of course, is important and made this tremendous impact on tradition that Thales is called the beginner of all Greek philosophy, because he shows the driving power of -- towards generalizing, towards finding a common denominator. If you can find a common denominator, people of different origin and background can be uni- -- -ted in some common effort, some civilizing effort. They can go home, everyone in his different cult, into his different city, and do something in the same direction, although what they have to do in the cult of Poseidon, and what they have to do in the cult of the Nile god will look different, you s- -- see how the application of such a generalization, you see, is individual.

But the principle is identical, and you can therefore imagine that people would travel to -- to Thales and get indoctrinated, you see, to take home something they -- everyone would have to apply in a home town, in his own way. You cannot talk to a worshiper of the sea god in the different -- same terms later on, as you talk to the worshiper of the Nile god, you see. But you can bo- -- in both cases perhaps tell them that they don't have to sacrifice human beings.

And it seems, as far as we can see, that from 600 B.C. to 400, more or less, human sacrifices were eliminated in Greece. Under the impact of such teachings, the local cults, so to speak, lost their stringency, their severity, and people wouldn't dare to risk their all, life and death, on -- on these cults. The cults themselves lost their severity.

That's just a -- one example -- one aspect of this. We are told that Thales traveled, went to Egypt. And you see immediately that once this process is set in motion, the next man tries to improve on it in an opposite direction. Thales thinks, in your eyes, materially: water. To me, it's a great spiritual step, the unification of different phenomena. To you, he will appear perhaps just as a {hydrograph}, a man who worships water, and a materialist. Now Anaximander of Miletus, the same city, as you see, on the coastline of Asia Minor, all three are of Miletus on these pages of 18, 19 of Mrs. {Freeman} here -- says the non-limited is immortal and indestructible. It is very hard for us to understand what the unlimi- -- non-limited is. But one thing is clear. The -- this second man tries a logical category instead of a physical, non-limited, you see. You cannot define it as water. You cannot define it as earth. You cannot define it as Heaven. You cannot define it as -- as -- as fire. Anaximander feels it is indefinite. That's perhaps the best translation. I think the "non-limited" in -- on page 19 here is -- is confu- -- is -- is not the best translation. There has been much debate of what is meant by the -- that which has no boundaries, no -- no boundary line, no borderline. You cannot define it. So I think the best translation is "the indefinite." Or "the indefinable" is perhaps -- comes closest in my mind to what he tries to say. He says, "Behind all the things we can define, because they compare and can be opposed to each

other, there has to be something common." If you get earth and water, and you try to get down to the common denominator, you see, Heraclit- -- Thales says it's all water. But he lets still one of things of our immediate experience stand, one first impression.

Now the great step, gentlemen, of Anaximander, and I hope Mr. Leibowitz, you will -- you will see what a scientific progress there is in this, is: I must also sacrifice the water. I have reduced everything to water. Now I must take the final step and must say, "That source material cannot even be called water. It must be called the indefinable, or the indefinite. That which is the matrix out of which all these elements, you see, disperse. Therefore I construe a background thought, you see, which I nowhere find in reality." Because the great idea of this man is that this which is in back of everything remains in back of everything, in the sense that "I can only think it, but I cannot present it," you see, because "I must reduce everything that appears in the phenomenal world, in the physical world, in the world of my five senses, to something as we do today exactly with atoms or electrons. It is a constant zest -- quest of -- of our nature that we want to penetrate behind that which is of the moment, because it is passing; it is transient. It is not the very thing. So the -- the step from Thales to -- to Anaximander is one from phusis to logic.

Now we get the third man. If I read him right, Anaximenes of Mil- -- Miletus coming 15 years later. Fifteen years in the life of the mind, gentlemen, are as much as 30 years in the life of the body. When you come to Dartmouth College, to any college or any university, you will find that it has to be refounded every 15 years. Human beings change their nature every 30 years. It is unknown in this country, which has no intellectual experience, so to speak -- it cannot -- that things of the mind have to be revamped every 15 years. You cannot send your child to a school which you haven't known for 15 years. You have no idea what quality the school has. It's just prejudice that you think still it's a good school. Everything changes in a school within 15 years. That's very important to know for you. Don't send your child to a school unless you have made sure that its reputation is not dated, you see. I could -- I don't wish to slander any schools in the land. But I could give you chapter and verse on some interesting institutions of high standing in the -- in the, so to speak, hall of glory of this country, but they just have lost their -- their power, you see. And they still live on their old names, like the Saturday Evening Post. That's a similar example. They should have shut down a hundred years ago.

Gentlemen, all spiritual enterprises should have a limited lifespan. We once founded a magazine which is now very famous in background -- in -- in -- in -- in hindsight, so to speak. And we said it should not last more than four years, which it did. And then we had spent our -- our energy and our faith, and

we had said what we wanted to say, and that was it. -- In America, this -- this -- this technicality, that everything of the mind is treated as though it was like a legal corporation, to live forever, is very bad. Very bad. Things shut -- close down just as much as they have to be founded.

I have a friend who in his youth founded a fraternity under the condition that it had to dissolve after one term, and then be refounded by fresh blood the second. He said, "It will only be good as long as we find people who, in the same spirit, will have still the same faith as I have now to found this time, this fraternity." He exaggerated, I grant you. It was -- but it was an expression of his real understanding of the laws of the spirit. He did not want to rely on mechanics, you see. And he didn't want to see the spirit die. And I -- I ask you to consider this seriously in your own groups, gentlemen. You haven't to -- to refound everything every term. But to let things just go on because they are there is a very -- very poor reason, very poor reason. It's really no reason.

So Anaximenes, gentlemen, tries to vivify, to ethicize the universe, because he says, "As our soul being air, holds us together, so do breath and air surround the whole universe." That is, he tries to treat the cosmos of reality, the whole world of reality as a living being, as our -- as somebody like you and me, as ourselves written large. It is the first idea of the macrocosms, which penetrates and prevails in all {Greece}. But you see here that it is still done in the -- exactly the order which I have tried to make important for you, which any modern man forgets: that nature must be judged by society, by the polis; that phusis is -- is a second experience for the man who has grown up in a community. And so he says, "As our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air surround the whole universe."

So gentlemen, if you say microcosm is man, and macrocosm is the universe, you usually think that we are the second edition, the -- this pocket edition of the universe. Now Mr. Anaximenes of Miletus on page 19 here says the opposite. What does he say? He says that the universe is what? Do you have the text? Who has this book? Well, what does he say, if you read this sentence? Who is the -- who is the analogy of what, of the other? Here is an analogy. One is like the other. Well, who is -- leads, and who -- who is compared?

({ } he is comparing himself with breath, and the breath is surrounding the universe, making the universe in other words within { } man { } is around the universe.)

So who comes first? Whose experience is the older one?

(The man.)

The man. "I know of myself that my breath keeps me together. I die if I don't breathe." You see, "holds together" means simply, "keeps me going." That's -- would be the better, little too slangly, translation, you see. As our soul being air, you see, keeps us going, so the universe is kept going, you see.

Now obviously this is terribly important, gentlemen. Anaximenes is an ethis- -- ethical natura- -- naturalist. Anaximander is a logical physicist, you see. And Thales is -- is quite drunk with the -- the phusis themselves, you see. He generalizes water, all matter into water. Anaximander generalizes the logical expression: "I must be careful; the -- the primary thing cannot wa- -- be called even `water.' It must be called that which has no name, yet, that is not yet, you see, gone in any one direction. That is not visible, that is not definite." And the third man says, "If I want to understand the universe, I must com- -- have an analogy of -- from my own life breath. It's a living universe."

Now all these three things, gentlemen, today are lost on you, I'm afraid, because we live in a dead universe. Modern physics, gentlemen, and ancient physics -- I've said to you this before, but it's terribly important for you never to forget it. Physics today is a special science. And the ancient physicists were philosophers. Therefore, the ancient philosophers always knew that there had to be life inside that which they define as -- as phusis. The modern physicist is a specialist, and he's only -- has to do with dead -- dead things, electrons. He is not responsible, you see, for the spirit of the physicist himself. He has to explain Mr. Planck. But Mr. Anaximander has to explain Mr. Planck, and Mr. Anax- -- Anaximenes. And so Anaximenes then says, "As I live, so the universe lives." This is still a valid statement, gentlemen.

L.P. Jacks -- has anybody ever heard the man's name, L.P. Jacks? A very great Englishman who died at the age of 96 last year -- a friend of mine whom I owe that he -- I lectured at Oxford on his -- at his invitation. And I owe him a deep load of gratitude. He wrote a very wonderful little booklet -- he was very popular in this country -- which was called -- is called "The Living Universe." And in -- he is the editor of the great Hibbert Journal -- or has been. He's dead now -- for 30 or 40 years. Hib- -- has anybody seen the Hibbert Journal? Who has? Oh, gentlemen! Well -- Hibbert Journal is the great cultural center of English theology and philosophy, the Hibbert Journal. And -- it just shows where Dartmouth lives: not in the living universe, that not one of you has seen this. It's of course lying on the shelves here. Do you never look at these -- at these magazines at all? You only read sports? Reader's -- why ly- -- is this -- is this -- is this -- book -- magazine room there?

Well, "The Living Universe," gentlemen, shows that the philosopher has quite a different universe at heart than the physicist. Our physics- -- the physi-

cists deal with the little element in the universe, those things as a -- as a very great Frenchman has called it, "which have already died." The physics -- physicists deal with the corpses in the universe. The stars, and the -- the -- has been even said that all oxygen in the universe is dismissed from our -- from living bodies. And when they die, this oxygen streams out into the universe and fills the dead spaces. That's -- F‚lix Ravaisson's doctrine of how oxygen came to exist, because oxygen, this fiery element, is always -- it generates in -- in living creatures. And when you find it outside the living, you ask: How does it get there?

So the physicists deal with the corpses. They deal -- not deal with the beginning of life, but they deal with the remnants of life, with the relics of life. And therefore, you have the wonderful primary story of man. -- I'm always overcome myself by the sense of wonder, that Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes take the three steps to interpret the universe so that any man in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Persia, in Asia Minor, in Greece can a- -- prove, one: that all matter is one; the other: that this source matter should not be called with any specific name, but should, you see, have a general name; and third: that if we want to understand this universe, which the two others try to develop and to make plausible as one universe, that it should be -- at least have the quality of a living, breathing, living, you see, universe.

All these three things, gentlemen, come to me to this day with a stroke of genius, and with a great challenge -- if you could today bring Anaximenes of Miletus to life again, and lead F‚lix Ravaisson's doctrine to victory, that physics deal with the corpses of the universe, with the dead aspect of the universe, and that this is a -- a -- a posterior situation to the creation of the living universe, you see, the whole world would look different, and we could even make peace among ourselves and with the Russians, because you are hampered today in all your thought about reality, including the news in the papers, gentlemen, with your idea that we live in a technical, physical universe. We don't. We live, as Anaximenes said, in a universe that do s- -- does breathe, and draw air as our soul.

Thank you.