C O N T E N T S

What Is Philosophy ? Sources Of Philosophy The Comprehensive The Idea of God The Unconditional Imperative Man The World Faith and Enlightenment

The History o f Man The Independent Philosopher The Philosophical Life

The History o f Philosophy

APPENDICES Philosophy and Science

On Reading Philosophy

Bibliograp hy Index

W A Y T O W I S D O M

Hi ocrat doubt, we are far more advanced than pp the Greek physician . But we are scarcely entitled say that we have progressed m r only advanced beyond his ate ials, beyond use hilos scientific findings ofwhich he made . In p o itself we have scarcely regained his level . Of It lies in the very nature philosophy, as tin uished g from the sciences , that in any Of its for must dispense with the unanimous recognition The certainty to which it aspires is not Of the Obj scientific sort, which is the same for every mind ; inner certainty in which a man ’ s whole bei pates . Whereas science always pertains to

Objects , the knowledge Of which is by no means ns pe able to all men, philosophy deals with the ns of being, which concer man as man, with a which, wherever it is manifested , moves us mor deeply than any scientific knowledge .

System atic philosophy is indeed bound up with th ' m ad ancec sciences . It always reckons with the ost v O h scientific findings f its time . But essentially philosop f ff “ Springs rom a di erent source . It emerges before an m en science , wherever achieve awareness .

The existence of such a philosophy without science i revealed in several striking ways : First : In p hilosophical matters almost ev ery o n' m m believes hi self capable of judg ent . Whereas it i c recognized that in the sciences study, training, metho ! are indispensable to understanding , in philosophy me generally assume that they are competent to form a! m ! Opinion without preli inary study . Our OW 8 W H A T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ?

o ur our o w n manity, own destiny, experience strike as r a sufficient basis fo philosophical opinions . notion that philosop hy m ust be accessible to all ustified . The circuitous paths travelled by specialists philosophy have meaning only if they lead man to

awareness o f being and Of his place in it . Second : Philosophical thought m ust always spring ‘ for Om free creation . Every man must accomplish it imself . ’ A marvellous indication of man s innate disposition 3 philosophy is to be found in the questions asked by hildren . It is not uncommon to hear from the mouths f children words which penetrate to the very depths A : f philosophy . few examples A out child cries in wonderment, I keep trying to h ’ ” f . ink that I am somebody else , but I m, always mysel T his boy has touched on one of the universal sources Of ertaint of y , awareness of being through awareness lf e . the He is perplexed at mystery of his I , this oystery that can be apprehended through nothing lse . ! uestioningly, he stands before this ultimate alit e y . Another boy hears the story Of the Creation : In the beginning God made heaven and earth and ” mmediatel ? y asks , What was before the beginning ” ( his child has sensed that there is no end to question n g, that there is no stopping place for the mind , that [0 conclusive answer is possible . A little girl out walking in the woods with her father istens to his stories about the elves that dance in the “ le arings at night But there are no elves Ier father shifts over to realities , describes the motion 9 W A Y T O W I S D O M

Hi ocrat doubt, we are far more advanced than pp the Greek physician . But we are scarcely entitled say that we have progressed beyond Plato . We ha only advanced beyond his materials , beyond t m hiloso scientific findings ofwhich he ade use . In p p itself we have scarcely regained his level .

It lies in the very nature Of philosophy, as di tin uished g from the sciences , that in any of its forms m ust dispense with the unanimous recognition Of a The certainty to which it aspires is not o f the o bj ectiv scientific sort, which is the same for every mind ; it is inner certainty in which a man ’ s whole being partie articul pates . Whereas science always pertains to p o f objects , the knowledge which is by no means indi w hol pensable to all men, philosophy deals with the s Of being, which concern man as man, with a trut

m ‘ which, wherever it is anifested , moves us mor deeply than any scientific knowledge . System atic philosophy is indeed bound up with th ' m : sciences . It always reckons with the ost advance scientific findings Ofits time . But essentially philosoph f ff ‘ springs rom a di erent source . It emerges before an science , wherever men achieve awareness .

The existence o f such a philosophy without science i revealed in several striking ways : First : In philosop hical m atters almost ev ery o n. m O f believes hi self capable judgment . Whereas it i ( recognized that in the sciences study, training, metho m e! are indispensable to understanding , in philosophy generally assum e that they are competent to form a! m Opinion without preli inary study . Our OW! 8 W H A T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ?

our o ur manity, own destiny, own experience strike

as a sufficient basis for philosophical Opinions . notion that philosophy m ust be accessible to all ustified . The circuitous paths travelled by specialists philosophy have meaning only if they lead man to

awareness of being and o f his place in it . d : Philosophical thought must always spring

free creation . Every man must accomplish it for m l se f . A marvellous indication Of man ’ s innate disposition philosophy is to be found in the questions asked by ildren . It is not uncommon to hear from the mouths children words which penetrate to the very depths A : philosophy . few examples out in wonderment, I keep trying to ’ ”

f. somebody else , but I m, always mysel boy has touched on one of the universal sources o f int y , awareness Of being through awareness Of the He is perplexed at mystery Of his I , this ery that can be apprehended through nothing

! uestioningly, he stands before this ultimate

Another b oy hears the story Of the Creation : In the beginning God made heaven and earth and i e Wh i ? mmediat ly asks , at was before the beginn ng This child has sensed that there is no end to question m ing, that there is no stopping place for the ind , that no conclusive answer is possible . A little girl out walking in the woods with her father listens to his stories about the elves that dance in the clearings at night “ But there are no elves hi Her father s fts over to realities , describes the motion 9 W A Y T O _W I S D O M o f of the sun, discusses the question whether it is sun or the earth that revolves , and explains the reas for supposing that the earth is round “ ’ ” axis Oh, that isn t so , says the little girl nl ! stamps her foot . The earth stands still . I o y be ” “ ” “ ou what I see . Then , says her father, y d ’ Him 1 Go d . believe in , you can t see either The m m girl is puzzled for a o ent, but then says with g ’ ’ assurance , If there weren t any God , we wouldn t d here at all . This child was seized with the won er existence : things do not exist through themselves . An she understood that there is a diff erence b etw ee questions bearing on particular Objects in the worl our i and those bearing on ex stence as a whole . Another little girl is climbing the stairs o n her o n visit her aunt . She begins to reflect how ss changes, flows , pa es , as though it had n “ But there must be something that ’ sam e I m climbing these stairs on my — ’ m ’ my aunt that s so ething I ll never forget . ment and terror at the universal transience Of thing here seek a forlorn evasion . Anyone who chose to collect these stories migh m ’ co pile a rich store Of children s philosophy . It i som etimes said that the children must have heard m m this fro their parents or so eone else, but such objection Obviously does not apply to the child ’ s re s serious questions . To argue that the e children do continue to philosophize and that consequently s utterances must be accidental is to overlook the that children Often possess gifts which they lose as grow up . With the years we seem to IO W H A T rs E H I L O S O P H Y ?

n and un conve tions and opinions , concealments estio ned acceptance , and there we lose the candour of The child still reacts spontaneously to the O f life ; the child feels and sees and inquires

which soon disappear from his vision . He t for a moment was revealed to him and is when grownups later tell him what he said

questions he asked . Spontaneous philosophy is found not only in — dren but also in the insane . Sometimes rarely veils o f universal occlusion seem to part and ni ni etrating truths are ma fested . The begin ng of rtain mental disorders is Often distinguished by atterin s g metaphy ical revelations , though they are ually formulated in terms that cannot achieve ficance : exceptions are such cases as HOlderlin and

Gogh . But anyone witnessing these revelations o t help feeling that the mists in which we ordin r live o u lives have been torn asunder . And many

people have , in awaking from sleep , experienced gely revealing insights which vanish with full w im akefulness , leaving behind them only the i pression that they can never be recaptured . There s profound meani ng in the saying that children and fools tell the truth . But the creative originality to which we ow e great philosophical ideas is not to be sought here — but among those great m inds and in all history there have been only a few Of them—who preserve their candour and independence .

‘ ‘ : cannot av oid Fourth Since man philosophy, it is always present : in the proverbs handed down by t m radition, in popular philosophical phrases , in do inant

I I W A Y T O W I S D O M

convictions such as are embodied in the idiom Of “ m o f e ancipated , in political Opinions , but most

since the very beginnings of history, in myths . There on no escape from philosophy . The question is

whether a philosophy is conscious or not, whether it re ec good or bad , muddled or clear. Anyone who j philosophy is himself unconsciously practising

philosophy .

s itse What then is thi philosophy, which manifests so universally and in such strange forms ? The Greek word for philosopher (philosophas) con O notes a distinction from sophos . It signifies the lover wisdom (knowledge) as distinguished from him considers himself wise in the possession of k This meaning Of the word still endures : the essence p hilosop hy is not the possession of truth but the sear m for truth , regardless of how many philosophers m belie it with their dogmatis , that is , with a body didactic principles purporting to be definitive a s comp lete . Philo ophy means to be on the way . m cv questions are ore essential than its answers , and

answer becomes a new question . — ’ But this on - the - w ay ness man s destiny in contains within it the possibility o f deep satis and indeed , in exalted moments , Of perfection . This s m perfection never re ides in for ulable knowledge , in dogmas and articles of faith, but in a historical con ’ summation O f m an s essence in which being itself is ’ To m revealed . app rehend this reality in an s actual aim situation is the Ofphilosophical endeavour . TO o r be searchingly on the way, to find peace and 12

W A Y T O W I S D O M ofreason in the presence of failure and in the prese of that which seems alien to it . Philosophy is the principle Of concentration throng

f of . which man becomes himsel , by partaking reality

stirri Although philosophy, in the form of simple, as h ide , can move every man and even c ildren, scious elaboration is never complete , must for undertaken anew and must at all times be — as a living whole it is manifested great philosophers and echoed in the sophers . It is a task which man will face in one form m n another as long as he remains a .

Today, and not for the first time , philosophy i radically attacked and totally rejected as sup erfiu ou r o f ? o harmful . What is the good it It does not help u in affliction . Authoritarian church thought has condemne independent phil osophy on the ground that it is worldly temptation which leads man away from destroys his soul with vain preoccupations . Pol totalitarianism has attacked it o n the ground philosophers have merely interpreted the worl m various ways , when the i portant thing was to ch it . Both these schools Of thought regard as dangerous , for it undermined order, prom o f v spirit of independence , hence re olt, delude t and dis racted him from his practical tasks . Tho uphold another world illumined by a revealed those who stand for the exclusive power of a here and now would equally wish t o ext l phi osophy . 14 W H A T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ? d everyday common sense clamours for the simple

tick of utility, measured by which philosophy

Thales , who is regarded as the first ofGreek oso h ers p , was ridiculed by a slave girl who saw him i into a well wh le observing the sky . Why does he ch the remote heavens when he is so awkward in ngs with the things Of this world ? philosophy then justify itself? That is im It cannot justify itself o n the basis of a some

e for which it is useful . It can only appeal to the every man which drive him toward philo hou h t . g It is a disinterested pursuit, to which

Of utility or injuriousness have no relevance , to endeavour proper man as man , and it will con ue to fulfil this striving as long as there are men alive . en those groups which are hostile to it cannot help their own peculiar ideas and bringing forth pragmatic systems which are a substitute for philo ;o h — as p y , though subservient to a desired end such

Marxism or fascism . The existence of even these i stem s y shows how indispensable p hilosophy is to man .

Philosophy is always with us .

Philosophy cannot fight, it cannot prove its truth, m ff no but it can com unicate itself. It o ers resistance where it is rejected , it does not triumph where it gains Is of a hearing . It a living exp ression the basic univer lit of th e sa . y of man, bond between all men Great systematic philosophies have existed for tw o and one - C half millennia in the West, in hina, and in A t India . great radition beckons to us . Despite the w of ide variety philosophical thought, despite all the c ontradictions and mutually exclusive claims to truth, 15 W A Y T O W I S D O M

no re is in all philosophy a One, which m ssesses but about which all serious efforts have at : one hi es gravitated the eternal p losophy, loso hia erennis p p . We must seek this historical fou n Of our thinking if we would think clearly anin f ll g u y .

W A Y T O W I S D O M

e about the greater matters , . g . , about of o f the the moon, and those Of the sun , and stars , ” o about the genesis f the universe .

Wonder impels man to seek knowledge . In wonderment I become aware of my lack Of knowled ow n no t I seek knowledge , but for its sake and ” satisfy any common need . In philosophical thought man awakens from bondage to practical needs . Without ulterior purp he contemplates things , the heavens , ? m asks , what is all this Where does it co e the answers to his questions he expects no profit but intrinsic satisfaction . Second : Once I have satisfied my wonderment an b dou t . admiration by knowledge of what is , arises ex aminatio have heaped up insights , but upon critical nothing is certain . Sensory perceptions are conditione by our sense organs and hence deceptive ; in any event they do not coincide with what exists in itself outside of me, independently my perception . Our categories f m are those o our hu an understanding . They become entangled in hopeless contradictions . Everywhere hil proposition stands against proposition . In my p oso phical progress I Seize upon doubt and attempt to k apply it radically to everything, either ta ing pleasure in the sceptical negation which recognizes nothing but by itselfcannot take a single step forward , or inquiring Where then is there a certainty that rises above all doubt and withstands all critique ? D ’ “ escartes famous proposition, I think, therefore ” I am, was for him a solid certainty, though he doubted every thing else . For even a total fallacy in my 18 S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y

nkin a g, fallacy which may be beyond my under to n in nding , cannot blind me the realizatio that

be deluded in my thinking I must be. al doubt gives rise to a critical examina

knowledge, and without radical doubt

e no true philosophical thought . But the question is : How and where has a foundation tainty been gained through doubt itself? third : While I concentrate my energies upon ow led e of t g hings in the world , while I am im d in doubt as a road to certainty, I am of sed in things ; I do not think myself, ofmy aims ,

v . o f happiness , my sal ation In forgetfulness my elf I am content with the attainment o f this know

edge . This changes when I become aware of myself in my i i n tuat o .

The Stoic Epictetus said , Philosophy arises when ” aware o our own weakness and hel l s nes we become f p e s s . How Shall I help myself in my weakness ? His answer was : By looking upon everything that is not within e ff my power as n cessary and indi erent to me, but by r on aising what does depend me , namely the mode Of to and content my ideas , clarity and freedom by thought .

our And now let us take a look at human state . We a are lways in situations . Situations change, opportuni If m ties arise . they are issed they never return . I to myself can work change the Situation . But there are situations which remain essentially the same even if their momentary aspect changes and their shattering 19 W A Y T O W I S D O M f is : ff orce obscured I must die, I must su er, struggle, I am subject to chance , I involve s inexorably in guilt . We call the e fundamenta ! is tions of our existence ultimate situations . That sa y , they are situations which we cannot evade change . Along with wonder and doubt, awaren of these ultimate situations is the most

of - to - source philosophy . In our day day live our evade them, by closing eyes and living not die did exist . We forget that we must , f i o . gu lt, and forget that we are at the mercy chance We face only concrete situations and m aster them to o r to m u profit, we react the by planning and acting in our the world , under the impulsion Of practical to t interests . But ultimate si uations we react either by or Obfuscation , if we really apprehend them, by despair and rebirth : we become ourselves by a change ur of in o consciousness being.

Or we may define our human situation by saying r iance can b lace n w r l iste e that no el e p d i o ldy ex nc . Ingenuously we mistake the world for being as our such . In happy situations we rejoice at strength, we are thoughtlessly confident, we know nothing but

our . actuality In pain and weakness we despair . But if we come out Of this situation alive we let ourselves slip back into forgetfulness of self and a life Of hap m ess p .

Th e erm ere rans a e as u ima e s tua n is Grm situat t h t l t d lt t i tio z ion. This ’ is a c nce cen ra im r ance for th e un ers an in as ers u o pt of t l po t d t d g ofj p tho ght, as for th e un ers an n of x s en al sm . As the c n ex a e s s th e d t di g E i t ti i o t t bov how , ultimate situations are the inescapable realities in relation to which alone e en U m e human life can b e mad g uinely m eaningful . lti at situations cannot b e e n e ch anged or surmoun ted ; th y can o ly b e acknowl dged . 20

W A Y T O W I S D O M unreliability ofthe world : there are in the world thin of worthy faith, things that arouse confidence ; the is a foundation which sustains us : home and co parents and ancestors , brothers and sisters an foundatio friends , husbands and wives . There is a of in historical tradition, in native language , faith, i the work of thinkers , poets , and artists . tradition also gives no security, it is reliable . For we encounter it always man ; God is nowhere in the world . Traditi of implies a question . Keeping sight the tradition man must always derive what for him is certainty being , the reliable , from his own primal source But the precariousness Of all worldly existence is f to wi warning to us , it orbids us content ourselves h the world ; it points to somet ing else . — The ultimate situations death, chance, guilt, and — the uncertainty of the world confront me with the of reality failure . What do I do in the face of this absolute failure , which if I am honest I cannot fail to recognize ? Of The advice the Stoic , to withdraw to our ow n n freedom in the independence of the mind , is o t ’ ’ adequate . The Stoic s perception of man s weakness to was not radical enough . He failed see that the mind m in itself is e pty, dependent on what is put into it . s of and he failed to con ider the possibility madness . The Stoic leaves us without consolation ; the indep en dent mind is barren, lacking all content . He leaves us ff without hope , because his doctrine a ords us nc opportunity of inner transformation, no fulfilment 2 2 S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y

- self conquest in love, no hopeful expectation o ible ss . And yet the Stoics ’ striving is toward true phil o h p y . Their thought, because its source is in m the ti ate situations , expresses basic drive find a revelation of true being in human

al for man is his attitude toward failure it remains hidden from him and Over him only objectively at the end or whether erceiv es it unobscured as the constant limit of his ence ; whether he snatches at fantastic solutions or consolations faces it honestly, in silence

unfathomable . The way in which man hes his failure determines what he will b e

In ultimate situations man either perceives nothing ness or senses true being in spite o f and above all

hem eral . p worldly existence Even despair, by the very f act that it is possible in the world , points beyond the w orld . ff Or, di erently formulated , man seeks redemption . R ff the edemption is O ered by great, universal religions m of rede ption . They are characterized by an objective o f of guarantee the truth and reality redemption . T Of heir road leads to an act individual conversion . ' This philosophy cannot provide . And yet all phil o sophy is a transcending of the world , analogous to

redemption .

To sum up : The source of philosophy is to be sought f i o . n wonder, in doubt, in a sense forsakenness In 2 3 W A Y T O W I S D O M whi any case it begins with an inner upheaval , i Its determ nes goal . Plato and Aristotle were moved by wonder to se a of the n ture being . Amid infinite uncertainty Descartes sought co

pelling certainty . Amid the sufferings of life the Stoics sought t of repose the mind . of ow n Each these experiences has its truth, clothe

always in historical conceptions and language . I making these philosophies o ur ow n we penetrate historical husk to the primal sources that are a

within us .

The inner drive is toward firm foundations , depth

being, eternity . But for us perhaps none o f these is the most fund

mental , absolute source . The discovery that can be revealed to wonder is a source o f inspiration but beguiles us into withdrawing from the world and m succumbing to a pure , agical metaphysic . Compel ling certainty is lim ited to the scientific knowledge

by which we orient ourselves in the world . Stoic imperturbability serve s us only as a makeshift ir as r m its l distress , a efuge fro total ruin , but in e ns remai without content and life . These three motives - wonder leading to know l edge , doubt leading to certainty, forsakenness leadin — g to the self cannot by themselves account for ouJ

present philosophical thought . a t In this crucial turning point in history, in this g of unprecedented ruin and of potentialities that car tlu ee only be darkly surmised , the motives we hava 24

W' A Y T O W I S D O M

to existence , is only a medium for impersonal D ings and values . efence and attack then b means not by which m en gain power but by is they approach one another . The contest a contest in which each man surrenders his wea to the other . The certainty of authentic being re only in unreserved communication between men live together and vie with one another in a m m co unity, who regard their association with no t another as but a preliminary stage , who take s for granted and que tion everything . Only ni ation mu c is all other truth fulfilled , only m unication am I myself not merely living but m life . God manifests Hi self only indirectly, ’ through man s love Of m an ; com pelling certainty hol particular and relative , subordinated to the W m The Stoical attitude is in fact e pty and rigid . The basic philosophical attitude of which I an speaking is rooted in distress at the absence o f co m m unication m , in the drive to authentic com unication and in the possibility of the loving contest w hicl t profoundly uni es self and self. And this philosophical endeavour is at the same tim e rooted in the three philosophical experience m m we have entioned , which ust all be considered it the light of their meaning, whether favourable OJ m m m an hostile , for com unication fro man to .

so . And we may say that wonder, doubt, the ex erience Of p ultimate situations , are indeed sources 0 m philosophy, but the ulti ate source is the will t < m m m authentic co unication , which e braces all thc m . fO rest This beco es apparent at the very outset , 2 6 S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y

s not all philosophy strive for communication, rI ess m ? no t v itself, de and a hearing And is its ery

communicability, which is in turn inseparable uth ? ( of Communication then is the aim philosophy , and communication all its other aims are ultimately oted : s of awarenes being , illumination through t o a tainment f peace . T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E

HE R E I S H O U L D like to speak of one of th ff indis di icult philosophical ideas . It is an p most i dea, because it forms the foundation

thinking . It must be intelligible philosophical m form, though its elaboration is a comp si ple of ff a I shall attempt to give an intimation this id a ir . Philosophy began with the question : What a first sight, there are m ny kinds of being, At o f the world , the forms the animate and in all the infinitely many things that come and go . what is true being, that is , the being which h everything together, lies at the base of everything, being from which everything that is issues ? T s O thi there are curiously many answers . The first venerable answer of the first philosopher is : Every m m thing is water and co es fro water . Later thinkers said that everything is fundamentally fire or air or m or the indeterminate or matter, or ato s ; that life is primal being, from which inanimate things have merely degenerated ; or that the mind is true being t s and tha things are mere appearance , its ideas , which s m it produce as though in a drea . Thus we find a m m great nu ber of etaphysical attitudes , which have been known as materialism (everything is m atter and m s r sm echanical p roces ) , spi ituali (everything is m m s r spirit) , hylozois (the cos o is a living sp i itual 2 8 T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E

ce so on . w as ) , and In every case being i as something exist ng in the world , from

all other things sprang . which then is the correct view ? Tlu ough nds of years the warring schools have been to one o demonstrate the truth of any f them . is m each view some truth manifested , na ely an tude and a method of inquiry which teach men to one something in the world . But each becomes lse when it lays claim to exclusiveness and strives

explain all existence . Why is this so ? All these views have one thing in ommon : they apprehend being as something which onfronts me as an Object, which stands apart from h as of I t i nk it . This b ic phenomenon our

- usness - is to us so self evident that we barely suspect the riddle it presents, because we do not nk f r . o inqui e into it The thing that we thi , which we is speak, is always something other than ourselves , it the Object toward which we as subject are oriented . of our If we make ourselves into the object thinking, r we ou selves become as it were the Other, and yet at the same time we remain a thinking I , which thinks about itself but cannot aptly be thought as an Object ob ectness of because it determines the j all objects . We call this basic condition Of our thinking the subject as object dichotomy . As long we are awake and conscious we are always involved in it . Twist and turn as we will we are always in this dichotomy, always oriented toward an object, whether the Object be the of our reality sense perception, whether it be the con of c or cept ideal Obje ts , such as numbers geometrical 29 W A Y T O W I S D O M

or or im ossib figures , whether it be a fantasy even an p imagining . We are always confronted outwardly of inwardly by objects , which are the content i s . s consciousne s As Schopenhauer said , there object without a subject and no subject without a object .

What is the meaning of this ever- present subj ec Object dichotomy ? It can only mean that being as whole is neither subject nor Object but must m w Co prehensive , hich is manifested in this dich l C early being as such cannot be an Object . thing that becomes an Object for me m from the Co prehensive in confronting me , For th break away from it as subject . the I , d is a eterminate being . The Comprehensive m obscure to y consciousness . It becomes clear only on through Objects , and takes greater clarity as the m m Objects beco e ore conscious and more clear . The Comprehensive does not itself become an object but is m the o anifested in dichotomy f I and Object . It remains itself a background , it boundlessly illumines m the pheno enon , but it is always the Compre h nsi e e v . m But there is in all thinking a second dichoto y . Every determinate Object is thought in reference to D m m ff other objects . eter inacy i plies di erentiation of

' o ne authni the from the other . And even when I think Of etcallyis being as such, I have in mind nothingness as its antithesis .

Thus every Object, every thought content stands in to a twofold dichotomy, first in reference me, the 30 T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E

and ing subject, secondly in reference to other As ts . thought content it can never be every

r f. the whole of being, never being itsel ught must break out Of the Com pre

It is a particular, juxtaposed both to the I

to other Objects . hus in our thinking we gain only an intimation Of m Co prehensive . It is not manifested to us , but in ry th g else is manifested in it .

What are the implications Of this idea ? Measured by our custom ary understanding in i to t . elation things , seems unnatural Our under n g, attu ed to the practical, resists it . basic operation by which we raise ourselves everything that is thought is perhaps not It , but it seems strange because it does not bring knowledge Of a new Object which we then n apprehe d, but aspires with the help of the idea to r transform ou consciousness of being .

Because it shows us no new Object, the idea, u our meas red by customary worldly knowledge, is empty . But by its form it opens up to us infinite t possibilities in which being may manifes itself to us , and at the same tim e lends transparency to everything s of that is . It tran forms the meaning the world of of Objects , by awakening in us a faculty sensing what s authentically i in the phenomenon .

Let us attempt a further step toward the elucidation m of the Co prehensive .

‘ To philosophize concerning the Comprehensive 3 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M would mean to penetrate into being itself. This Fo only be done indirectly . r even as we speak we i th engaged in Object think ng . Through Object the nonob ect t to we must gain indices to j , hat is m Co prehensive . An example is the thought operation we have j - Ob performed . The moment we state the subject j dichotomy in which we always find ourselves which we cannot see from outside, we make it

an Object . But this is basically incongruous . dichotomy is a relation between things in the w m e as which confront Objects . This relation beco an image by which to express what is not visible can itself never become Object . m Still thinking in i ages , we ascertain through the source that is present within us a polyvalence in this ”

- subject Object dichotomy . It is fundamentally dif ferent on h , depending whet er I as understanding am

Dasein - oriented toward objects ; as , being there , toward as God my environment ; or existence toward . t As understanding we confront tangible hings , and to a certain measure we succeed in Obtaining com i pelling and un versally valid knowledge, but always m s Of deter inate Object .

As - o ur being there, as men living in environment, our we experience in it what we perceive with senses , what achieves reality for us as the presence which cannot be reduced to universal knowledge . — As existence we are oriented toward G o d trans cendence— o f and this through the language things , or which existence uses as hieroglyphics symbols . Neither our understanding nor our vital sens ualism 32

W A Y T O W I S D O M

consciousness of profound and inexhaustible meaning . For one him who has experienced it, this becoming is

the true awakening, and the awakening to conscious ness in the subject- Object dichotomy is more in the of nature sleep . Plotinus , the greatest mystical phil o so her of p the West , writes “ Often when I awaken to myself from the slumber of : the body, I behold a wondrous beauty I then believe firmly that I belong to a better and higher world , I call forth the most glorious life within me, I n have become o e with the godhead . We cannot doubt the existence of mystical

experience, nor can we doubt that mystics have always been unable to communicate what is n most essential in the experience . The mystic is m m immersed in the Comprehensive . The co unicable

- partakes of the subject Object dichotomy, and a clear consciousness seeking to penetrate the infinite can

never attain the fullness Of that source . We can speak

only of that which takes on Object form . All else is incommunicable . But its presence in the background of those philosophical ideas which we call speculative

constitutes their content and meaning .

On the basis of our philosophical inquiry into the

Comprehensive, we Shall be better able to understand m of the great etaphysical theories history , the theories of m For fire , matter, the ind , the world process , etc . in reality they were no t solely the Object knowledge as a which they are Often interpreted, and considered s which they are completely false ; they were hierogly e of out of phi s being, devised by the philosophers the 34 T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E

of of presence the Comprehensive , for the elucidation — the self and Of being and then at once m istaken for positive objectivizations of authentic being . m o f When we move a id the phenomena the world, we come to realize that we possess being itself neither in the Object, which becomes continuously more r m estricted , nor in the horizon Of our always li ited w of orld taken as the sum phenomena , but only in the Comprehensive which transcends all Objects and h - orizons , which transcends the subject Object dichotomy . Once we have ascertained the Com prehensive our through basic philosophical operation, we realize that all the metaphysics we have listed , all those supposed insights into being, are in error as soon as they interpret anything that is in the world , however m i portant and significant, as being itself. But they are the only language in which we can speak when we s transcend all objects , idea , world horizons , phe nom ena t o t , perceive being i self. not For we do attain this goal by leaving the world , t m articu excep in incommunicable ysticism . Only in late object knowledge can our consciousness remain clear . Only in Object knowledge , experiencing its o ur limits through what it surmises at the limit, can consciousness achieve content . Even in the thinking which transcends Object knowledge we remain in it . Even when we see through the phenomenon it holds us fast . Through metaphysics we Obtain an intimation of the Comprehensive in transcendence . We understand hi t s metaphysics as a symbol . 35 W A Y T O W I S D O M

But we lose its meaning if we succumb to irresp o of sible aesthetic enjoyment its ideas . For its content manifested to us only if we perceive the reality out symbol . And we perceive it only of the rea our existence and not out of mere which in this sphere declines to see any meaning at But above all we must not look on the sym bol reality as a physical reality like the things which grasp , live with, and consume . To regard the Obj m as being is the essence Of all dogmatis , and mistake the materiality of symbols for reality specifically the essence Of superstition . For sup stition th is chained to the Object, faith is rooted in

Comprehensive .

And now the last methodological consequence 0 our experience of the Comprehensive : the conscious our ness of the discontinuity of philosophical thinking . When we think Of the Comprehensive in phil oso hical an o f is p terms , we are making Object what essentially not an Object . Hence we must always make a reservation : we must retract the object content of what has been said , if we would arrive at that experience o f the Comprehensive which is not a com municable content resulting from inquiry but an our m attitude Of consciousness . It is not y knowledge o f but my consciousness being that changes . But this is a basic trait of all true philosophical m thought . Man soars to the Co prehensive in the m medium Of deter inate object thinking, and only in m that mediu . He actualizes in consciousness the of our foundation life in being, the guidance from that 36 T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E

of sphere , the basic mood and meaning our life and activity ; ~ h e frees us from the fetters o f determinate thinking, not by relinquishing it but by carrying it to the extreme . In the general philosophical idea he m for leaves roo its realization in the present . Being can only be for us on condition that it b e come present to the mind in the dichotomy Of subject

our . and Object . Hence drive toward clarity That which is present only obscurely must be apprehended out of in object form, of the essence the I fulfilling itself. Being itself, the foundation Of all things , the our absolute , presses upon consciousness in Object form which, because as Object it is inadequate , dis of integrates , leaving behind the pure clarity the f presence o the Comprehensive .

Awareness Of the subject- Object dichotomy as the fundamental fact Of our thinking existence and of the Comprehensive that becomes present in it gives us the freedom needed for philosophy . us It is an idea that frees from every existent . It com pels us to turn back from the impasse of ab solutiz a tion . It is as it were an idea that turns us about . For those who found support in the absoluteness of things and in a theory of knowledge confined to o f m E Objects , the loss the is nihilism . xclusive reality and truth cannot be imputed to that which dis course and Object thinking have made determinate and hence finite . Our philosophical thinking passes through this n m for ihilis , which is in truth a liberation authentic o r being . By u rebirth in philosophy the meaning and 37 W A Y T O W I S D O M

of value all finite things , though always limited, enhanced ; we are made fully aware that our rO must lead through them, but at the same time achieve the only possible basis for freedom in dealings with these things . The fall from absolutes which were after a illusory becomes an ability to soar ; what seemed a abyss becom es space for freedom ; apparent Nothi ness is transform ed in to that which authenti being speaks to us . T H E I D E A O F G O D

U R W E S T E R N I D E A Of God springs from two orical t roots : the Bible and Greek philosophy . When Jeremiah saw the ruin Ofeverything for which his his he had worked all his life , when country and o f people were lost, when in Egypt the last remnants his people turned aside from their faith in Yahweh ff and O ered sacrifices to Isis , and when his disciple “ Baruch despaired , I fainted in my sighing, and I ” “ find no rest, Jeremiah answered , Behold , that and which I have built will I break down , that which

I have planted I will pluck up , even this whole land . And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek them ” not . In such a situation these words mean : It is enough DO that God is . not ask whether there is immortality ; the question of whether God forgives is no longer important . Man no longer matters , his defiance as well as his concern for his ow n beatitude and eternity is extinguished . It is also impossible that the world of should have a purpose susceptible fulfilment, that it should endure in any form ; for everything has been created out o f nothing by God and is in His hand . o ne : When everything is lost, but thing remains God ’

. o is If a life in this w rld , even with faith in God s guidance , has failed , this overpowering reality still : remains God is . If man fully renounces himself and 39 W A Y T O W I S D O M

his aims , this reality can be manifested to him m adv a only reality . But it does not anifest itself in m t it does not anifest itself abs ractly, but descends Of the existence the world , and only here mani ’ w o itself at the limit . Jeremiah s words are hard They are no longer bound up with any will to his ffi ical e cacy in the world , though such a will preceded them throughout a lifetim e and ultim at m through total failure, ade them possible . They r m simple words , free f om i aginative flight, and they contain unfathomable truth, precisely because they are without finite content or any fixation in the world . The Greek philosophers expressed a similar thought ff in di erent terms . At about 500 ! enophanes proclaimed : There m his is only one God , resembling ortals neither in of aspect nor in his thoughts . Plato conceived the god — — head h e called it the Good as the source of all knowledge . Not only is the knowable known in the light Of the godhead ; it also derives its being from the godhead which excels being both in rank and power . The Greek philosophers understood that the many o g ds were decreed merely by custom, whereas in nature there was only o ne Go d ; that God is not seen m one with our eyes , that he rese bles no and can be m recognized in no i age . or God is conceived as cosmic reason or cosmic law, or m as fate and providence, as de iurge . But this God Of the Greek thinkers is a God originat G o d m ing in thought, not the living Of Jere iah . In essence the two coincide . From this twofold root 40

W A Y T O W I S D O M

But if the proofs for the existence of Go d a construed as scientifically compelling proofs such or we find in mathematics the empirical sciences, are false . In this light Kant r Then came the reverse proposition : Since f of of proo s the existence God can be refuted, the d no Go . hi For of T s inference is false . the nonexistence can be proved no more than his existence . T proofs and their confutations show us only that a proved God would be no God but merely a thing in the world . ai f f The truth, as ag nst all supposed proo s and re uta of of : so tions the existence God, seems to be this The called proofs of the existence of God are funda f at mentally no proo s all, but methods of achieving ta f of cer inty through thought . All the proo s the exist ence of God and their variants that have been devised through the centuries diff er essentially from scientific f ' proo s . They are attempts t o express the experience of ’ Of u man s ascent to God in terms tho ght . There are roads of thought by which we come to limits at which the consciousness of God suddenly becomes a natural presence .

Let us consider a few examples f The oldest of proo s is the cosmological proof. From the existence of the cosmos (the Greek name for universe) we infer that G o d exists ; from the world ff process , in which everything is e ect, we infer a last cause ; from motion the source of all motion ; from the of f accident the particular the necessity o the whole . 4 2 T H E I D E A O F G O D If by this syllogism we mean to infer the existence hi hi f one t ng from the existence Of another t ng, as we for example in inferring from the existence of the of the moon which faces us the existence of the hi r side w ch we never see, it is inapplicable . In manner we can only infer the existence of things of hi world from the existence other t ngs . The is as a whole not an object, because we are s in it and we never confront the world as a

Hence we cannot, from the existence Of the e as a whole, infer the exist nce Of something

than the world . this notion takes on a new meaning when it is no

f. proo Then metaphorically, in it expresses awareness Of the inherent in the existence o f the world and

selves in it . If we venture the thought that there : might be nothing , and ask with Schelling Why is ? there something and no t nothing we find that our certainty of existence is such that though we cannot determine the reason for it we are led by it to the Com prehensive , which by this very essence is and cannot

h . not be , and t rough which everything else is

True , men have looked on the world as eternal and said that it existed out of itself and hence was identical t : with God . But his is not possible

Everything in the world which is beautiful , appro riate p , ordered , and embodies a certain perfection the vast abundance Of things that fill us with emotion — in our immediate contemplation Of nature all this cannot be apprehended through any fully knowable

w . orldly thing, through matter, for example The design 43 W A Y T O W I S D O M

its Of organic life , the beauty of nature in all forms order of the universe in general become increasi mysterious as o ur knowledge advances . God b enev But iffrom all this we infer that , the m creator, exists , we must call to ind all that is disordered , base in the world . And this gives r fundamental attitudes for which the world is frightening, terrible , and it seems as plausible t the existence of the devil as of God . The mystery transcendence is not thereby solved but merely grows deeper . But what clinches the matter is the imperfectibility f o . con the world The world is not finished , but in tinuous change ; our knowledge of the world cannot be completed, the world cannot be apprehended through itself . of so Far from proving the existence God, these called proofs mislead us into placing God Within the is real world , or second cosmos , which as it were ascertained at the limits of the cosmos . Thus they

Obscure the idea Of God . hr But they move us deeply when, leading t ough the of concrete phenomena the cosmos , they confront

Nothingness and imperfectibility . For then they seem to admonish us not to content ourselves with the world as the sole meaning of our life in the world . Again and again it is brought hom e to us that God is not an object ofknowledge, ofcompelling evidence . He cannot be experienced by the senses . He is invisible,

He cannot be seen but only believed in . But whence com es this faith ? Its source is not in the of limits worldly experience but in the freedom Ofman . 44 T H E I D E A O F G O D

e man who attains true awareness o f his freedom s in n certainty Of God . Freedom and God are ? parable . Why This I know : in my freedom I am no t through my f self, but am given to myself, for I can fail myself and cannot force my freedom . Where I am authentically myself, I am certain that I am not through myself. The highest freedom is experienced in freedom from the world , and this freedom is a profound bond with transcendence . ’ We also call man s freedom his existence . My o f certainty of God has the force my existence . I can have certainty Of Him not as a content Of science but as presence for existence . If certainty of freedom encompasses certainty Of ’ God s existence , there must be a connection between n of the negatio freedom and the negation of God . If I no t of selfhoo d do experience the miracle , , I need no Go d relation to , I am content with the empirical

o f . existence nature, many gods , demons e on Ther is , the other hand , a connection between the belief that there can be freedom without God and d ifi a ion e c t . the Of man This is an illusory, arbitrary ’ freedom, in which man s will is taken to be absolute t O and independen . I rely in the force f my will and in a t defiant acceptance o f death . But his delusion that I am through myselfalone turns freedom into perplexity

- and emptiness . A savage drive for self assertion turns ’ o t a despair, in which Kierkegaard s desperate will to ” ” be oneself and desperate will not to be oneself b e come one . God exists for me in the degree to which I in freedom 45 W A Y T O W I S D O M authentically become myself . He does not exist as a scientific content but only as openness to existence . But the illumination o f our existence as freedom does of God not prove the existence ; it merely points , one m ight say, to the area in which certainty Of his ex n iste ce is possible . The thought that strives for compelling certainty ’ e cannot realize its aim in any proof of God s existenc . But the failure of thought does not result in nothing t in ness . It points to tha which resolves into an

- m exhaustible , forever questioning, Co prehensive con sciousness of God .

God never becomes a tangible object in the world and this means that man must not abandon his free dom l of to the tangibi ities , authorities , powers the world ; that he bears responsibility for himself, and must not evade this responsibility by renoun of m cing freedom ostensibly for the sake freedo . He must owe his decision and the road he chooses to ’ himself. Kant has said that God s unfathomable wisdom is as admirable in what it gives us as in what it ’ denies us . For if God s wisdom in its majesty were our always before eyes , if it were an absolute authority, speaking unequivocally in the world , we should be of its God puppets will . But in his wisdom wanted us to be free .

of of God unattain Instead the knowledge , which is a able , we gain through philosophy Comprehensive consciousness of G o d . “ ” God is . The essential in this proposition is the 46 T H E I D E A O F G O D

do not reality to which it points . We encompass this reality In thinking the proposition ; merely to think it a For le ves us empty . it means nothing to the under i standing and to sensory experience . We apprehend ts as meaning only we transcend , as we pass beyond the world o f Objects and through it discover authentic of our reality . Hence the climax and goal life is the point at which we ascertain authentic reality, that is , G d o . This reality is accessible to existence through the orientation toward God that lies at its source . Hence G od faith in , springing as it does from the source , not resists any mediation . This faith is laid down in any definite articles of faith applicable to all men o r in any historical reality which mediates between man and f or . God and is the same all men The individual, always in his own historicity, stands rather in an Go d re immediate , independent relation to that m i quires no inter ed ary .

This historicity, which can be communicated and no t described , is in this form absolute truth for all , and yet in its source it is absolutely true .

God is reality, absolute , and cannot be encompassed by any of the historical manifestations through which

to . He speaks men If He is , man as an individual must o be able t apprehend Him directly . The reality of God and the immediacy of our his torical relation to Go d exclude any universally com pelling knowledge of God ; therefore what matters is not our knowledge Of God but our attitude towards God h as conc l God . From time immemorial been e v ed in empirical forms , including a personification after 47 W A Y T O W I S D O M

is the image of man . And yet every such conception m wh the sa e time in the nature Of a veil . God is not r we may see with ou eyes . Our true attitude toward G o d has found its pro foundest expression in a few biblical injunctions Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or 127: m This eant, to begin with, that invisible man must not worship Him in statues , i effi ies rohib g . Gaining in depth, this tangible p developed into the idea that Go d is not only invisible O o r but also inconceivable , unthinkable . N symbol metaphor can describe Him and none may take His G o d place . All metaphorical representations of without t exception are my hs , meaningful as such when under m stood to be mere hints and parallels , but they beco e superstitions when mistaken for the reality OfGod Him self.

Since every image conceals as much as it discloses , m O m we co e closest to God in the negation f i ages . But even in the Bible this Old Testament commandment ’ was not fulfilled : the image Of God s personality ’ e — remain d His wrath and His love, Hisjustice and His t m mercy . I is a command ent that cannot be fulfilled .

Parmenides and Plato , with their speculative doctrines o f being, the Indian Brahman philosophers , the Chinese Taoists attempted to apprehend without images the su ra ersonal Of — p p , pure , intangible reality God but in t this they did no succeed . Human thought and human m vision cannot dispense with the i age . And though in philosophical thinking sensation and Object almost ’ m of vanished , perhaps ulti ately some wisp God s presence remains , with power to engender life . 48

W A Y T O W I S D O M

for as as enduring problem man, actual it w of a o thousands years g . on A third biblical saying : Thy will be d e. fundamental attitude toward God means : B ow confiden before that which defies understanding, it is situated above and not below the understanda our no Thy thoughts are not thoughts , thy ways are ” ur o ways . Trust in thi s basic attitude makes possible an all of w ordles encompassing sense thankfulness , a impersonal love . Man stands before the godhead as the hid and can accept what is most terrible as His decision, fully aware that in whatever finite form he expresses and this God it is spoken in human terms hence false . To sum up : Our attitude toward the godhead is defined by the commandm ents “ No image and no ” “ ” O likeness , No other god , and by the attitude ” acceptance expressed in the words Thy will be done .

n G d r i Reflection o o clarifies ou faith . But to believe s G o d no t to see . remains in the distance and remains TO m question . live by God does not ean to base one self on calculable knowledge but to live as though we our on staked existence the assumption that God is . To believe in God means to live by something which is of not in the world , except in the polyv alent language or phenomena, which we call the hieroglyphs symbols of transcendence . God is God G d The Offaith the distant , the hidden o , d the indemonstrable Go . Hence I must recognize not only that I do not know T H E I D E A O F G O D

e t ven that I do not know whether I believe . no no possession . It confers secure knowledge, O ives certainty in the practice f life . Thus the believer lives in the enduring ambiguity of

e Objective , in enduring willingness to hear . He i tens patiently and yet he s unswerving in his resolve .

fweakness he is strong, he is open, though

he is resolute . on God is typical Of all significant thought : it does not bring secure know self- hood it gives a free area for on the whole emphasis is love in the world , of on ading the symbols Of transcendence, the

d breadth Of that which is illumined by reason . why all philosophical discourse is so in It calls for completion out of the being of

m who hears it . w —it Philosophy does not give , it can only a aken can to remind , and help secure and preserve . In it each of us understands what he actually knew

“ before .

5 1 T H E U N C O N D I T I O NA L I M P E R A T I V E

IN L o v I N E , battle, in pursuing lofty tasks , m for uncondition a act without regard consequences , When a man acts unconditionally his life is not ultimate, he subordinates it to something else .

When we Obey the unconditional imperative , empirical existence becomes in a sense the raw mate m a of a . enco s Ofthe idea , oflove , loyalty It is p eternal aim, it is as it were consumed, and it is of allowed drift at random in the stream life . Only the limit, in extreme situations , can the call Of t of unconditional lead to loss life , to acceptance inevitable death, while in bondage to the conditional our we wish first, last , and at any price to preserve physical existence .

Men have , for example , risked their lives in a mm for m co on struggle a com on life in the world .

Solidarity was then the ultimate condition . Originally such communities were built upon trust but later they came to be based on the inspiring com mand of an authority in which men believed , so that t of faith in this authori y became a source the absolute . m This faith freed men from uncertainty, spared the the

. uncon need to inquire for themselves However, the ditional in this form was subject to a tacit condition, namely the success Of the authority . The believer to h desired live t rough his Obedience . If the authority 5 2 T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T I V E

to as men d be successful a power, and lost their

s . in it, a ruinou emptiness arose the only escape from this empti ness Is for man to win authentic being as the !A TIVEf of his oundation decisions . This h as happened in history when individuals staked their lives through obedience to an absolute imperative : they remained loyal where disloyalty

would have destroyed everything, where a life saved

through disloyalty would have been poisoned , where a betrayal o f absolute being would have made a saved

life wretched .

The purest example is perhaps Socrates . Living in of his the lucidity reason , out Of the Comprehensive Of r nu nonknowledge, he went his way unswe vingly, selfri ht deterred by the passions Of anger, hatred , g eousness to ; he made no concession, refused avail him of self the Opportunity for flight, and died happy,

staking everything on his faith . r Certain marty s , like Thomas More, have displayed ives in r the purest moral energy in their faith . The marty dom he worl o f is To some others subject to question . die for some thing in order t o bear witness to it is to give an aim to ’ ort to p one s death, hence make it impure . Where martyrs in to g have actually been inspired by a longing die, i so o f , perhaps in imitation Christ, by a death urge which not infrequently darkens the soul with symptoms o f

hysteria, the impurity is still greater . 6 UHCOII w ho Rare are the philosophers , without firm alle JndlflOfl iance of , g to a community faith, standing alone before believer m Is God , have realized the maxi : To philosophize to ’ LUtllOlli n to i ) lear how die . Seneca, for years await ng his death 53 W A Y T O W I S D O M tio the( 11es because 1 a n to i sentence , overcame the de escape d ctated by ’ hat[or andW t e him understanding ; in h end he did not betray eimf Orelseth p unworthy actions , and he preserved his co ”hm ’ “ when Nero demanded his death . Boethius “se lt if W : nocently, sentenced by a barbarian he died mo mm’m’ un’ hizin ‘ p g in full lucidity, turned toward ra AllsuchEmPe m . being Bruno overca e his doubts and nton nedepende e what concessions h had made , in the high resolve for stand fast no purpose, even if it meant death at the stake . m en r Seneca, Boethius , Bruno were with thei weaknesses , their failures , men such as ourselves . They had to conquer themselves . And this is why they can fi point the way for us . For saints after all are gures who or for us can live only in the twilight, in the unreal Of r light myth, but cannot stand up unde realistic commandofm m en y scrutiny . The unconditional acts Of which men as tne beco exisec. l were capable give us true encouragement, while the mselfambecau I i s e difi ation y , mag nary provide only empty c . nessisobscurea

O We have recalled historical exam ples of men who m Of hc w Let n w “ Pilaf“ know ho to die . us o attempt t o elucidate the i m fimOfbun unconditional i perative . g ? nternewbe When I ask myself: What shall I do I arrive at an i gn ’ answer by adducing finite aims and m eans by which to Situatfofi mm Thlslmerafi‘ attain them . I must obtain food and for this work is p ' dett m m en m rnnesalla needed . I ust live with in a com unity : here I n our am of W111hiltits9 helped by certain rules conduct . In every case an aim t o Theuncondn determines the means appropriate it . hen But my basis for recognizing these aims lies either In ce110i an01 some unquestioned practical interest or in utility . aC no t“inflam Empirical existence, however, is ultimate end, in 54 T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T I V E

ecause the questions remain : What kind Ofexistence ? What for ? th e imperative is grounded in an authority Obey because someone else has willed it ” It is written . But such authority ‘ m mains unquestioned and hence unexa ined . Fo All such imperatives are conditional . r they make On e dependent on something outside me, practical ncondition al imperatives on the 4 m “ have their source in yself. Conditional confront me as fixed but transient prin

which I can outwardly sustain myself. m wi m e Unconditional imperatives come fro thin , sustaining me inwardly by that which in myselfis not only myself . The unconditional imperative com es to me as the command of my authentic self to my mere empirical m Of existence . I beco e aware of myself as that which I myselfam, because it is what I ought to be . This aware ness is obscure at the beginning and lucid at the end m l unconditiona . Of y _ action When we become aware of the im perative our questioning ceases in the cer tainty of being—though in temporal life there is at Of once a new beginning questioning, and in a changed situation certainty must forever be gained anew .

This imperative precedes every aim, it is that which m deter ines all aims . Accordingly it is not an Object Of o ur will but its source . The unconditional is a foundation Of action and hence not an Object of knowledge but an element Of of faith . In so far as I know the reasons and aims my action, I am in the finite, I am subject to conditions . 55 W A Y T O W I S D O M Only when I live by something that can no longe explained by Object knowledge do I live by the conditional .

A few propositions may suggest the meaning of t n u conditional imperative . First : as opposed to passive acceptance Of things decisio they are, the unconditional attitude implies a o t of lucidly taken, u an unfathomable depth, a deci W sion with which I myself am identical . hat does thi mean ?

It means to partake in the eternal , in being

Accordingly, it implies absolute reliability and loyalty r which derive not from nature but from ou decision . The decision is arrived at only through lucidity which is the product Of reflection . Expressed in psychological no t terms , the unconditional attitude does lie in the momentary state of any man . Even though he may activ it reveal overpowering energy in his momentary y , I it suddenly slackens , he grows forgetful and unreliable Nor does the unconditional decision reside in the innate character, for the character can be transformed in m tholo rebirth . Nor does it reside in what we call in y ’ ical m m g ter s a man s de on, for this demon is without

. no loyalty Overpowering as it may be , mode Of

of of - uncon passion, vital will , self assertion, is ditional in the moment ; all are relative and hence perishable . Thus the unconditional demands an existential decision that has passed through reflection . This means that it does not arise from any natural state but ut o Of freedom, which cannot help being what it is , 56

W A Y T O W I S D O M

ossibil passion , habit, and fidelity to a promise . The p of authentic comm unication in loving contest can sa denied . That which is demonstrable is by that token not unconditional .

Third : The unconditional is timeless in time . The unconditional impe rative is no t given lik empirical existence . It grows within man in time . when man conquers himself and goes decision unerringly leads him does the un n Ste adfastnes come into its ow .

'

Singlemindedness , mere perseverance in man are convincing signs that he lives by the unconditi imperative . In our temporal existence the unconditional is manifested in the experience Of extreme Si and in situations when we are in danger Of becoming untrue to ourselves . But the unconditional itself is never entirely tem poral . Whenever it may be , it also cuts across time . s Regardles Of when it is conquered , it is eternal , existing in every new moment through recurrent m m rebirth fro the source . Hence : Where a develop ent m Of in ti e seems to have given us possession it, all can ’ still be betrayed in a moment . Conversely, where a man s past seems to be mere factuality, weighing him down under endless contingencies to the point Of annihila m tion , he can nevertheless at any mo ent begin as it were from the beginning through sudden awareness of the unconditional .

m of These propositions , it is true , suggest the eaning the unconditional imperative but do not elucidate its 58 E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T I V E Which becomes clear only through the

s Of good and evil . heeding the command Of the unconditional we

a choice . A decision becomes the substance of the

an . He has chosen what he understands as the good the decision between good and evil ff Good and evil are di erentiated on three levels . I as m un . We regard evil the i mediate and

strained surrender to passions and sensual impulses , Of to the pleasure and happiness this world , em rical of existence as such ; in short, evil is the life the ho remains in the sphere Of the contingent, who v or li es from day to day like an animal , well — a adly, in the unrest Of change life in which there is

O decision . Good in contradistinction is the life Of the man who no t reject the happiness of this world but sub

ates it to the morally admissible, seen as the l rsa law Of just action . This morally admissible

Olute .

as distinguished from mere weakness ,

rs to the natural bent, consists in what perversion : I do good only if it does me no harm o r does no t cost m e too much ; or stated abstractly : although I will the unconditiona l embodied in the moral imperative , I follow the law Ofthe good only in so far as it is com patible with undisturbed sensual pleasure o n only this condition , and in no unconditional sense

t - do I w ish o be good . This pseudo virtue might be called a luxury Of fortunate circum stances in which I ff t tw can a ord to be good . In the case of conflic be een moral imperative and my vital interest, I may, 59 W A Y T O W I S D O M

Of according to the magnitude this interest, be sec capable of any v illainy . In order to avert my

to . death, I may Obey orders commit murder Or I allow my favoured position which saves me from co fl i ct to blind me to my evil . out It is good , in contradistinction, to lift oneself o f un this condition contingency, wherein the tional is subordinated to the requirements Of v In happiness , and return to an authentic life unconditional . This is a conversion from continu selfbetrayal and impurity Of motives to the serious of the unconditional . — 3 . On this level , evil is only the will to evil the to destruction as such, the urge to inflict tort cv cruelty, annihilation, the nihilistic will to ruin thing that is and has value . i unconditiona Good , in contrad stinction, is the which is love and hence the will to reality . s Let us compare these three level .

On the first level , the relation between good and evi is m oral : the question is whether our natural incl m tions are governed by a will subservient to oral laws . ’ In Kant s words , duty is opposed to inclination .

: . On the second level , the relation is ethical the Of ! essential is the authenticity our motives . The purity of the unconditional is Op posed to an impurity which ;

o f . consists in the reversal of the relation contingency, in which the unconditional is made contingent on practical conditions .

On the third level , the relation becomes meta physical : here the essential lies in the m otives them selves . Love is opposed to hate . Love impels to being, 60 T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T I V E

w to nonbeing . Love grows in bond ith trans

ence ; hate , severed from transcendence , dwindles

abstract punctuality of the ego . Love works as building in the world ; hate as a loud catas submerging being in empirical existence and n g empirical existence itself.

each level an alternative is revealed , a decision one o ed for . A man can only want thing r the

ifhe is authentic . He follows inclination or duty, or of ives in perversion in purity motive, he lives

r of . Of hate o out love But he can fail to decide . m tead of deciding , we vacillate and stu ble through combine the one with the other and even accept f as h a state o things a necessary contradiction . i indecision is in tself evil . Man awakens only

he distinguishes between good and evil . He becomes himself when he decides which way he is going and acts accordingly . We must all continuously recapture ourselves from indecision . We are so little capable Of fulfilling ourselves in goodness that the very O f force _ the passions that drive us headlong through life is indispensable to the lucidity o f duty ; when we really love we cannot help hating whatever threatens our love ; and it is precisely when we feel certain that our motives are pure that we succumb to the perver sion of impurity . The decision has its special character o n each of the three levels . Morally, man seeks to base his decision on thought . Ethically, he rehabilitates himself from of perversion through a rebirth his good will . Meta s o f phy ically, he achieves awareness being given to his himself in ability to love . He chooses the right, his

6 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M

o ut of . motives become authentic , he lives love when the three levels become one is the uncondit

realized .

To live out o f love seems to include all the rest . love gives certainty regarding the ethical truth do acts . St . Augustine says : Love and what thou But it is im possible for us men to live solely by o f for this force the highest level , we fall const m into errors and isunderstandings . Hence we not rely blindly in o ur love at every moment but elucidate it . And for the same reason we finite b need the discipline by which we conquer our and because of the impurity of our motives w of o urselv e distrust ourselves . When we feel sure Of that is precisely when we are going astray . Only the unconditional character Of the good fil t our mere duties with con ent, purifies ethical motive s dis olves the destructive will of hatred . t uncondl e But the foundation Of love , in which the tional ’ is grounded , is identical with the will to authentic reality . I want what I love to be . And I! cannot perceive what authentically is without loving it . M A N

I s M A N ? u Physiology st dies him as body,

gy as soul , sociology as a social being . We

man as nature , which we investigate as we do o r f , other living creatu es , and as history, Of critical sifting tradition, by an g Of the purpose pursued by man in his o f hts and actions , and by the elucidation events o f e basis motives , situations , natural realities . study o f man has brought us many kinds w ledge but not the knowledge of man as a

question rises : Can man be fully apprehended which is knowable concerning him ? Or is there m f ing above this , na ely, reedom, which evades ow ledge but is always present in him as

The truth is that man is accessible to himself in two as o f ways : object inquiry, and as existence endowed with a freedom that is inaccessible to inquiry . In the one case man is conceived as Object, in the other as the nonobj ect which m an is and o f which he becomes n aware when he achieves authe tic awareness Ofhimself. ’ m i Of We cannot exhaust an s be ng in knowledge him, we can experience it only in the pri m al source o f our thought and action . Man is fundamentally more than he can know about himself. 63 W A Y T O W I S D O M

We are conscious Of our freedom when we

cognize imperatives addressed to us . It is up to

whether we carry them out or evade them . We can m seriously deny that we ake a decision , by which

decide concerning ourselves , and that we are

sponsible . N0 one who attempts to deny this can logica m confront other men with an i perative . Once accused man in court said he was not to blame beca he was born that way and could not help doing as did and could accordingly not be held resp onsib and the good - humoured judge replied that it might just as reasonable to say that the judge who tence d him could do no diff erently since that was he was and he could no t help acting in accordance wit

the laws .

Once we have achieved awareness of our freedom w may take a second step toward the apprehension ourselves : Man is a being who exists in relation to

God . What does this mean ?

We did not create ourselves . Each man can think m that he ight possibly not have been . This we have in mm m m m co on with the ani als . But at the sa e ti e , where in our freedom we decide through ourselves and are not automatically subordinated to a natural law, we are not through ourselves but by v irtue Of being given o ur do to ourselves in freedom . If we do not love , we o ur not know what we should do , we cannot force m ur freedo . When we decide freely and conceive o f o lives as meaningful , we know that we do not owe ourselves to ourselves . At the summit Offreedom, upon 64

W A Y T O W I S D O M

as of never man a whole . When these methods lay claim to absolute knowledge Of the whole and this they have all done—they lose sight man and go far toward extinguishing their proponents o f ow n m consciousness man and even their hu anity , the humanity which is freedom and relation to God . of The study man is of supreme interest, and i m pursued in a spirit of scientific criticis , rewarding . I this is done , we know methodically what within what limi ts we know a thing and in know, terms of what is possible , and how radically inaccessible to this knowledge authentic hum anity remains . And we avert the danger ofobscuring man by

- pseudo knowledge of him .

of Once we know the limits knowledge, we Shall entrust ourselves all the more clearly to the guidance ff s which freedom itself O er to our freedom, if it is oriented toward God . This is the great question Of humanity : Whence ? does m an obtain guidance For it is certain that his life does not flow along like that Of the animals from generation to generation, constantly repeating itself ’ in accordance with natural law ; man s freedom Opens of his up to him, along with the uncertainty being, an opportunity to become that whi ch he can authentically be . It is given to man to work in freedom upon his m u e pirical existence as pon a material . Hence man hi r alone has a sto y, that is , he does not live only by ’ hi s biological heritage but also by tradition . Man s lif hi s e is not merely a natural process . And freedom for an calls guid ce . M A N

We shall not discuss here the cases in which the power of man over man becomes a substitute for this guidance . What we have in mind is the ultimate of Th e guidance man . thesis Of philosophical faith ’ : hi is Man can live by God s guidance . What does t s mean ? We believe that we have in the unconditional f ’ imperative an intimation o God s guidance . But how is G o d not this possible when is corporeal, when there is no unmistakable form in which he exists as God ? God If God lends guidance, how does man know what wills ? Is there an encounter between m an and God ? so ? And if , how does it occur hi We have autobiograp cal records telling us how, h as in men faced by critical problems , long doubt hi suddenly given way to certainty . T s certainty is the f reedom to act after perplexity and vacillation . But the freer man knows himself to be in this lucid t certain y , the more aware he becomes Of the trans cendence through which he is . Kierkegaard reflected each day upon God ’ s guid to ance, and in such a way that he knew himself be ’ always in God s hand : through that which he did and that which happened to him in the world he heard G od and yet in everything he heard he found many not meanings . The guidance he received was tangible, it provided no clear command ; it was guidance through freedom itself, which knows decision because it knows itself rooted in the transcendent foundation . Guidance through transcendence is different from ’ ui o f any guidance in the world , for God s g dance is one i only k nd . It is given through freedom itself. 67 W A Y T O W I S D O M

The voice of God lies in the self- awareness that daw nSiz th e i in individual, when he is open to everything that to comes him from his tradition and environment . The medium in which man is guided is his judg-w n i t ment regarding his ow actions . Th s judgmen m Of restrains or i pels , corrects or confirms . The voice ’ God as judgm ent regarding man s actions has not other expression in tim e than in this judgment Of man himself with regard to his emotions , motives , actions . In the free and forthright self- awareness Ofj udgment

- ff m an in self accusation , in self a irmation indirectly ’ Is finds God s judgment, which never definitive and always equivocal .

Consequently, human judgment is in error from the ’ outset when m an expects to find in it God s final word , upon which he can absolutely rely . We must mercilessly unmask the self- will that lies in our moral

- - self satisfaction and self righteousness . Actually no man can ever be fully and definitively satisfied with himself; he cannot be entirely self m contained in his judg ent Of himself. He requires the Of m en judgment his fellow concerning his actions . He is particularly sensitive to the judgment Of those he f respects . He is less moved by that o the average man and the crowd , of inert individualized institutions , but ff even here he is not indi erent . Yet the judgment that is ultimately decisive for him is not even that Of the men he respects , although this is the only judgment accessible in the world ; only the judgment of God can be decisive . The individual is never entirely independent in his of judgment himself. He always attaches importance 68 M A N

judgment Of another . Even the primitive hero , hi s t to death in unswerving for itude, has in the judgment of other men : undying fame is the Of of n the dying heroes the Eddas . li i re is also a truly so tary heroism, which s no based on the community and has eye to fame . S authentic independence is sustained perhaps by

o f w - inner harmony a ell favoured nature, it erh ap s unconsciously from the historical its Of a remembered community, yet ness finds nothing in the present world to

can hold . But if this heroism does not sink

nothingness , it may be presumed to have deep

in authentic being, and this , stated explicitly, of d be the judgment God rather than Of men .

gh the truth Of the judgment by which man is

ni - is ma fested only through self conviction , takes two forms : the universal imperative and the r n nc ion isto ical i j u t . The universal ethi cal imperatives carry intuitive ion onvict . Ever since the ten commandments they ’ been a form Of God s presence . These imperatives indeed be recognized and followed without th mi Of in God, by a drastic li tation their meaning Of what man can do out himself. But whole arted Obedience to the ethical commandment learly heard in freedom is usually bound the perception of transcendence precisely in

However, action in concrete situations cannot dequ ately be derived from universal commandments 69 W A Y T O W I S D O M i and prohibit ons . In every historically actual situati guidance lies in an immediate necessity- of- doing which cannot be derived . But what the individual this case perceives as his duty remains q u estionab o f ow n however certain he may be it in his mind . T very nature Of this hearkening to implies the risk Of error, hence humil on our reliance certainty, forbids us ow n m acts as an i perative for all , as to th fanaticism . Even the purest clarity ’ have seen under God s guidance must no t ther give rise to a certainty that this is the only true road r fo all . For it is always possible that everything will looki ff entirely di erent later . In all lucidity we can choose ai h . t e as false road Even certainty Of decision, in so far it is manifested in the world, must retain a certain element Of suspension . For the most devastating threatq to truth in the world is the overweening claim to the o f absolutely true . In the certainty the moment the is humility Of the enduring question indispensable . Only in retrospect are we filled with the wonder o f m ui an unfatho able g dance . But even here it carries ’ no certainty, God s guidance cannot be made into a possession . k of Psychologically spea ing , the voice God can be out heard only in sublime moments . It is Of such moments and toward such moments that we live .

Ifman experiences guidance through transcendence, is transcendence real for him ? What is hi s relation to it ? M A N

i o f our to Even n the bareness abstraction, relation n ndence a sce can take on a crucial seriousness . But as en in o ur world we seek support for our certainty in ’ e concrete . Man s supreme achievement in this orld is communication from personality to person li o ur t . y Accordingly, relation to transcendence , if

e may speak in paradox, becomes sensibly present

our encounter with the personal God . The godhead us its drawn to in aspect Of personality, while at the ame time we raise ourselves to the level o f beings God ap able of speaking with this . us In the world , those powers which have flung to r us : of he ground st ive to dominate fear the future , nx i us o attachment to present possessions , care in the ace Of dire possibilities . Opposing them man can e rhap s in the face of death gain a confidence whi ch

ill enable him, even in the most extreme, inexplicable ,

m . eaningless situation , to die in peace Trust in the foundation of being can manifest i as tself as disinterested gratitude, peace in the belief ’ in God s being . l us Of In ife, freedom gives a sense receiving help from transcendence .

For polytheism , helpers and adversaries become ” gods and demons . A god did it expresses the poly ’ his t theist s consciousness Of events and own ac ions , which are thereby hallowed and endowed with significance but at the same time dispersed into as innumerable vital and spiritual powers , conceived existents . ’ As against this , God s help , in the authentic self to hood that knows itself be radically dependent, 7 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M

of is the help the One . If God is , there are n demons . Often God ’ s help is narrowed to a finite content a m — n thus lost . As for exa p le when prayer as enco — with the invisible God degenerates from m su ccum conte plation tending towards silence, the passion of seeking the hand of the personal God and becom es an invocation Of this God for practica ends . To the m an who sees through the opaqueness 0 s life God sends all po sibilities , including the situations

Of hopeless annihilation . Then every situation b e ’ a com es task for man s freedom, and in this task he stands , grows , and falls . The task, however, cannot be adequately defined as pursuit Of earthly happiness but can only be understood clearly through tran nd nce sce e , this sole reality , and the unconditional m Of com andment love that is manifested in it, which , Of infinitely Open by virtue its reason , sees what is and reads the symbols Of transcendence in the realities of the world .

Priests , it is true, accuse the individual who orients himself to God through philosophy Of arrogance and

- self will . They demand Obedience to the revealed God . In reply to them this may be said : the individual engaged in p hilosophical thought, if he has drawn a decision from the primal source, believes that he is obeying God , not with any Objective guarantee that he knows God ’ s will but rather as a continuous of venture . God works through the free decisions the individual . 7 2

T H E WO R L D

WE C A L L R E A L I T Y that which is present to o ur hi us in practice, that which in dealings with t ngs, or with living creatures , and with men is resistance to becomes matter . We learn know reality through our daily association with people, through the handling Of ni n tools , through tech cal k owledge , through contact of with organized bodies men . That which is encountered in practice is clarified by of scientific knowledge, and as knowledge reality ne w made available for practice . But by its very nature the knowledge of reality transcends the immediate interests of practical life . i Pract ce, which is always at the same time struggle, one of mastery of resistance, is only its sources . Man is of wants to know what real , regardless any practical is u interest . A profounder source Of the sciences p re, n devoted contemplation, lucid passion, a liste ing ’ for the world s answers .

Knowledge becomes scientific through method, a systematic uni ty is ascertained in what is known ; the scientist looks beyond the multiple and disparate to unifying principles . This knowledge of reality seem s to find completion in the world system . The world system purports to i one disclose real ty as a whole in world, a cosmos , 74 T H E W O R L D

to part of which is related every other part . gh it has always been recognized that such a st be imperfect and will require constant nevertheless the world system h as been as Of ed a product knowledge, and in principle form in which being as total reality becomes

ble to us . The world system is expected to

pass the whole Of coherent knowledge . World are as Old as human knowledge ; and at all times have striven for world systems eans Of attaining a uni fied awareness Of the

it is significant that the search for an all ni ing world system, in which the u verse

3 - w - a self contained hole , this so self evident o n g for a total world view, is based a funda ental fallacy which h as only been understood in

' ecent times . For scientific critique teaches us not only that every wo rld system up to now has collapsed under the weight >f its ow n contradictions but that the systematic Ini ties of knowledge which are indeed the goal Of :cience have been diverse and sprung from essentially n hi m liff ere t roots . T s beco es increasingly evident h ni Nlt the advance of science . Even as the u ties — — J eco m e more universal particularly in physics the n ore marked become the cleavages between the J h sical of y world , the world life , the world of the soul , h e of : world the mind . These worlds are indeed con l CCt . They are arranged in an order of develop n ent ; the reality of the later stage presupposes that of zh ‘ arlier e e , while the reality of the earlier seems able 75 W A Y T O W I S D O M to stand without that of the later ; for can be no life without matter but ther V without life . ain attempts have been the later stage from the earlier, but becomes more evident . The one totality in the world, to whi ch all the unities susceptible of exploration by knowledge belong, is itself no unity such as might be

- m or hi subsumed in an all e bracing theory, w ch as idea might serve as a beacon for scientific inquiry . There is no world system but only a systematization of the sciences . World systems are always a particular sphere of l knowledge, erroneously absolutized and universa ized . Different scientific ideas give rise to special per e i is o sp ct v es . Every world system a segment taken ut

of . the world The world itself cannot become a system . All “ scientific cosmologies ” have been mythi cal cosmologies , built on scientific methods and scant remnants Of myth .

The world is no Object, we are always in the world, we confront Objects in it but never have the world of itself as an Object . Far as our horizons methodical o ur inquiry extend, particularly in astronomical of hi conceptions Of the nebulae, w ch our Galaxy, of mi with its billions suns , is only one among llions , and of in the mathematical conception universal matter, all that we see here is aspects of phenomena and f o f not the oundation things , not the universe as a whole .

- The universe is not self contained . It cannot be of explained out itself, but in it one thing can be infini explained by another ad tum . N0 one knows to 76 T H E W O R L D

limits future research may yet attain, what s se will still open before it .

A critical approach to science calls for the abandon

ent Of world systems , which is also a prerequisite to i hi ph losop cal apperception Of being . True, the t Of being demands a familiarity th every branch of scientific inquiry . But it seems to the hidden aim Of science to attain through inquiry a limit at which the area Of nonknowledge is opened For the most lucid knowledge . only fulfilled ow l d e ge can lead to authentic nonknowledge . tic being is revealed not in any world uilt on knowledge but in fulfilled non ow led e g , which can be achieved only through n ific no e t t . cognition, not without it and before it is the supreme striving Of knowledge to reach the For our point where cognition fails . consciousness Of b eing finds an indispensable source in nonknowledge, but only in fulfilled , conquered nonknowledge .

We approach the reality of the world from a dif ferent angle . Scientific knowledge can be included in the general proposition : All knowledge is interpreta t of ion . The method we apply to the study texts may be Of taken as a parallel to our study being . And the a is no t nalogy accidental .

For we possess being only in its interpretations . To s hi peak Of it is to interpret it, and only that w ch is apprehended in speech falls under the head Of the k re hiloso hi c nowable . But even in the p p p stage the ’ language of men s practical dealings with things 77 W A Y T O W I S D O M

contains an interpretation of being ; being is always us defined in reference to something else . Being is for

only in an interpretive context . Being and the know Of x ledge being, the e istent and what we say Of it, are

accordingly a texture of diverse interpretations . All

being is for us an interpretation . Interpretation differentiates between something hi that is and something w ch it means, for example, between the Sign and what it stands for . If being is as hi is taken that w ch to be interpreted, it would seem that we must differentiate in the same way : interpretation concerns something other than itself; what confronts us in interpretation is being itself. But our attempted differentiation is not success For hi ful . not ng enduring remains , nothing purely hi e knowable , w ch n ed only be interpreted and is not itself interpretation . Whatever we know is only a beam Of light cast by our interpretation into being, or , we might say, the capture of an opportunity for interpretation . The power to make possible all these interpretations must lie in the very nature Of being as a whole . is But the interpretation is not arbitrary . If it sound , it has an objective character . Being compels Of these interpretations . True, all modes being are for us modes Of interpretation, but they are also modes of necessary interpretation . Consequently, the doctrine Ofthe categories as structures Ofbeing sees the o f for modes being as modes Of interpretation , thus example breaking down the “ Objective ” categories ff or into identity, relation, cause and e ect, freedom i express on, etc . 78

W A Y T O W I S D O M remain unfulfilled and hence fundamentally not understood . It is not only the absolute world systems that are

- for our gone . The world is not self contained and i knowledge it breaks down into diverse perspect ves , because it cannot be reduced to a single principle . The reality of the world as a whole is no object of knowledge .

In the light of what we have said of God and exist o ur ence, we may sum up experience Of the world in th e proposition : The reality of the world subsists ephemerally between God and existence . Everyday life seems to teach us the contrary : that we men take the world or something in the world as an absolute . And Of the man who has made so many things the ultim ate content Of his existence we may L : i to hi say with uther that wh ch you hold , upon w ch i d s Go . you stake your existence, that truly your Man cannot help taking something as an absolute, whether i will ngly and knowingly, whether accidentally and fi tf ll u y or resolutely and steadfastly . Man has a kind Of home in the absolute . He cannot ev ade it . In that home m he ust live . History down through the centuries reveals awe inspiring figures Of men who have transcended the nk world . Indian ascetics , certain mo s in China and the

West, left the world in order to partake Of the absolute in worldless meditation . It was as though the world had — m vanished ; being fro the viewpoint Of the world , — i nothingness was everyth ng . Chinese mystics freed themselves from the toils Of 80

W A Y T O W I S D O M

of hi willin n in the temporal course his life . T s g implies two fundamental experiences : First the experience Of God ’ s absolute transcend over the world : the hidden Go d recedes farther farther into the distance if I attempt to seize apprehend Him universally and forever ; He is calculably near through the absolutely hi form of His speech in a situation which is unique . ’ ri of Second , the expe ence God s speech in Go d world : the world is not in itself, but in it spe always with many meanings , and this speech can become clear historically in the existential moment an cannot be generalized .

Freedom for being does not see the ultimate in the world as such . In the world eternal being and temporal manifestation meet . Yet we do not experience eternal being outside 0 m n to that which is empirically a ifested us in time . Since that which is for us must be manifested in the o f r no temporality the wo ld , there can be direct God knowledge Of and existence . There can only be faith . — The principles Of faith Go d is ; there is an uncon ditional im perative ; m an is finite and imperfectible ; ’ — man can live in God s guidance enable us to sense the truth only in SO far as they embody their fulfilment of in the world as speech God . If, as though passing the a world by, God should directly pproach existence, the m event would be incom unicable . The truth of all universal principles speaks in the form of a tradition 8 2 T H E W O R L D

of a p articularity acquired in life ; these are the s in which the individual consciousness has us ened to the truth : our parents told so . There is vast hi storical depth in such formulas as for Thy ’ ” “ ” “ ”

Ol . y name s sake, immortality, love As principles of faith become more universal they of their historicity . They rise to the level pure raction . But with such abstractions alone no man live ; where concrete fulfilment is lacking they only a minimal value as guides to memory and They have at the same time a cleansing power : free us from the fetters Of pure materiality and us superstitious narrowness , helping to adapt the

reat tradition to present realization .

Unlimited devotion to God is the authentic mode of istence . That to which I devote myself in the world , to the point ofstaking my life, must be constantly tested ’ in of relation to God , under the condition God s will in whi ch we believe . For in blind devotion man heedlessly s erves —the power which is over him only factually and w h e hich does not elucidate , and he may even serve ” the hi s devil through failure to see, question, think . — In devotion to reality in the world the indisp ens a m o f — ble mediu devotion to God grows selfhood, which at the same time asserts itselfin that to which it is :l e ote d h as v . But if all empirical existence been reduced :0 reality, family, people, profession, state , world , and of f this reality fails , then we can conquer the despair 10thingness only through the self- assertion which :ranscends of s the reality the world , which tands alone J efore i o ut of God and ex sts God . Only in devotion to 83 W A Y T O W I S D O M

0d and not to the world is this selfhood granted a ecei v ed as the freedom to assert it in the world .

The ephemeral subsistence of the world between G nd existence is the burden of a myth — iblical categories conceives the world as the m estation of a transcendent history : from the crea hrough the fall of man and the redemption to the

! f the world and the resurrection of all things . In y th the world does not exist out Of itself but assing stage in a transcendent process . ransient l , but the rea ity in this transience x istence . The eternal is manifested in the orld . It is thus that man as an individua o f hi m of edge mself. And in this anifestation t ternal there lies a paradox : for in it that whi ch ternal as such is once again decided . F A I T H A ND E N L I G H T E N M E N T

H A V E S T A T E D the principles of philosophical God is ; there is an unconditional imperative ; ’ is fini te and imperfectible ; man can live in God s reality of the world subsists ephemerally

11 God and existence . These five propositions re to one nforce and lend impetus another . But each has ts ow n Of source in a fundamental experience existence . None Of these five principles is demonstrable in the of ense a limited insight into Objects in the world . ” “ ” out only be pointed , elucidated ” reasoning, recalled to mind . They do ns itute for of t a creed , despite the force the fai th placed in them they remain in the suspension of e owledg . I follow them not because I accept a dience to an authority but because by my

cannot elude their truth .

b statements Of principles fill us with misgiving . too of are readily treated like a body knowledge,

his vitiates their purpose . They are too readily is t for into a dogma which subs ituted reality . n should be commu icated, in order that men may rstand one another through them, in order that

may be confirmed by communication, in order they may awaken men when conditions are definiteness o e . But by the f their statement

r - n ise to pseudo k owledge . 85 W A Y T O W I S D O M

For Statement demands discussion . when we think there are always tw o possibilities : we may arrive at th statem n truth or we may miss it . Thus every positive e demands safeguards against error, and side by sid with the ordered building up Of thought we find per version . Consequently, all positive exposition must b permeated by negative judgments , limitation, an critique . But in philosophical thought this battle 0 discussion is not a struggle for power ; it is a struggle fO lucidity through questioning, a struggle for clarity an truth, in which we allow our adversary all thos weapons of the intellect with which we defend our ow faith . In philosophizing I have recourse to direct state r ment whe e a direct question is asked . Is there a Go d Is there an unconditional imperative in our life ? I man imperfectible ? Is there guidance by God ? Is th reality of the world suspended and ephemeral ? I an n compelled to answer, whe I am confronted by th t

principles characterizing lack of faith, which are mor< or less as follows : : G o d First There is no , for there is only the w orlc

and the laws governing its process ; the world is God . : Second There is no unconditional imperative, ID! the imperatives which I Obey originated in time ant

are in process of change . They are determined b x

custom, habit, tradition, Obedience ; everything hi infinitum contingent upon somet ng else ad . : Third Man is perfectible, for man can be just a perfect in his way as the animal ; it wilf ' b e possible t<

f . breed a per ect man There is no inherent, funda a f or ment l imper ection frailty in man . Man is n( 86 F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T

rmedi te a being but complete and whole . True,

everything else in the world he is transient, but he to ed in himself, independent, adequate

his world .

There is no guidance by God . This guid

an i - e is llusion and a self deception . Man has the ngth to follow himself and can rely on his ow n n th g . r The world is eve ything, its reality is the sole i e . ent reality Since there is no transcendence,

in the world is indeed transient, but the

elfis absolute, it is eternal and not ephemeral,

transition and suspension . dealing with such statements Of lack Of faith osophy has a twofold task : to apprehend their f igin and to elucidate the truth o faith .

Lack of faith is generally regarded as a product Of ? ! e Enlightenment . But what is enlightenment The teachings Of enlightenment are directed against e blindness which accepts ideas as true without stiohin —c g them ; against actions , magical — g ons which cannot accomplish what they are ff to accomplish, since belief in their e icacy o n assumptions which can be proved false ; gainst restrictions on questioning and inquiry ; m gainst traditional prejudices . Enlightenment de ands n unlimited striving for insight and a critical aware

not prim arily n e nm e n s E light t . A a s n can l s i ca a u e enl enm en is se ig ifi t phi o oph l ttit d , ight t oppo d to rstition re u ce and an t n e se a s ruc s th e ee es a eh en , p j di , y hi g l th t ob t t d p t pp r n e n of a d respons to reality . W A Y T O W I S D O M

Ma n strives to understand what he bel desires , and does . He wants to think for hims wishes to grasp with his understanding, and possible to have proof of what is true . He wants knowledge to be based on experience which is fun to mentally accessible to everyone . He seeks paths source of insight instead of permitting it to be s before him as a finished product whi ch he need on accept . He wishes to understand to what degree proof is valid and at what limits the understanding frustrated . And he would like also to have a re basis for the indemonstrable premise, which h Of ultimately take as the foundation his life , authority he follows , of the veneration he

‘ respect in w hich he holds the thoughts an great men , of the trust which he artic which, whether only at this p particular situation or in unfathomable . why he obeys . true and ev ery t right to this condition ; he it inwardly . And such participation must be

- : self conviction . In short enlightenment i words Of Kant man ’ s departure from the conditio ” Of immaturity for which he himself is responsible . I t ruth it is the path by which man comes to himself.

But the demands Of enlightenment are so eas misunderstood that the very term is ambivalent . T T . rue can be true and there can be false enlightenment An enlightening, t itsel notfr accordingly the fight agains enlightenment is omoutside , by 88

W A Y T O W I S D O M

is limit upon questioning, aware Of the factual limi For it not only elucidates prejudices and beliefs which were hitherto unquestioned elucidates itself. It does not confound the m the understanding with the contents of h In its view these contents can be elucidated b rational understanding but they cannot be base upon the understanding .

Let us now discuss some ofthe attacks that have be made on enlightenment . It has been called the ro ation of t o ow e e g man, who wishes only what has been bestowed upon him by grace . Those who make this accusation fail to recog that God does not speak through the commands revelations of other men but in man ’ s selfhood his through freedom, not from without ’ o n within . Any restriction man s freedom, nWill G o d restrictio versalhuma and oriented toward God, is a he reectour(on very thing through which G o d t y j enemies Of enlightenment rebel against God POW toattainlm hilsehial uiié favour Of supposedly divine but actually p o p c s c of i hi lno ositiontot contents faith, njunctions , pro bitions , i pp hi therecanbelt and rules Of conduct, wherein, as in all t n folly and wisdom are inextricably Wiflwutatrucsdc si cease questioning these things is to renounce the hum tuationmakethis; manfallsintothe mission . The rejection Of enlightenment is a kind 0 m Offanaticald treason against man . ecisim Bari One Of the m ain elem ents of enlightenment i rersareerette science notio , a science free from preconceived W whose searching and questioning are not limited hytheseam m Not ai s and truths set forth in advance (apart from such infrequent! F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T

cal , humanitarian restrictions as those forbidding ’ en a use Of m s objects Of experiment) . : We have heard the outcry Science destroys faith . reek science could be built into faith and was useful

r its elucidation, but modern science is utterly

s . It is a purely historical phenomenon resulting

catastrophic world crisis . We may expect its end r d should do ou utmost to hasten it . These critics ub t the eternal truth which shines forth in modern

ence . They deny the dignity Of man which is today

‘ n er ossible lo g p without a scientific attitude . They

philosophical enlightenment, which they as ate only with the flatness of the understanding and of with the breadth reason . They turn against ralism , seeing only the congealed liberalism Of n t and superficial faith in progress , o the of a force liberality . They attack tolerance s ff n indi erence, and fail to recog ize the uni for man readiness communication . In short i d r foundat on in human ignity, in the power to attain knowledge, in freedom, and advocate hi al philosOp c suicide . In opposition to these beliefs we are certain that today or there can be no integrity, reason , human dignity without a true scientific attitude, where tradition and situation make this attitude possible . Wherescienceis lost of v a uel man falls into the twilight g y edifying sentiments ,

- Offanatical decisions arrived at in self willed blindness .

Barriers are erected, man is led into new prisons .

Why these attacks on enlightenment ? Not infrequently they grow out of an urge to 9 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M

m outh ie absurdity, a drive to set men up as p fo r and Obey them . They arise out ofpassion whi ch no longer follows the laws Of the day the experience Of the bottomless builds a s

- saving pseudo order without foundation . And grow out of the unfaith of those who, in their desir faith, persuade themselves that they have a faith . out of a will to power which fosters the belief that are more compliant when they are blindly su to an authority which is an instrument Of this power Often the enemies of enlightenment have invoke Christ and the New Testam ent—rightly SO if they ha in mind certain churches and theologies down throng un ustifi abl thinki the centuries , but j y if they were u of the source and tr th of the biblical religion as such, for these are alive in true enlightenment, they are elucidated by p hilosophy, which helps perhaps to pre m for serve the humanity in the new technological world . Ifthe attacks on enlightenm ent Often seem meaning Of Of ful , it is because the perversions enlightenment, which are indeed Open to attack . What makes the ff p erversions possible is the di iculty Of the task . It is true that the enthusiasm with which every newly awakening man attains freedom and through it a greater sense of Openness to the godhead goes hand in h m and with enlighten ent . But soon enlightenment may r become an unwar anted aspiration . For God is not heard unequivocally out Of freedom but only in the course Of lifelong effort through m oments when man is granted what he could never attain by thought . Men cannot always bear the burden Of critical non knowledge in mere readiness to listen at the proper F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T

t ment . He desires defini e knowledge Of the ulti

h e has rejected faith, he abandons himself to

lect as such , and from it falsely expects cer of e decisive questions life . But since

t provide such certainty, his expecta y by deceptions : the finite and m 80 on te, so etimes this , sometimes that, and

variations , is absolutized into the whole . A for category is taken cognition as such . The Of persevering self- examination gives way

- overweening trust in a definitive pseudo certainty . en claim absolute truth for opini ons based on acci

nt - and situation , and in their pseudo lucidity

mb to a new blindness . In its assertion that man on ow n now and think everything the basis of his.

such enlightenment is indeed arbitrary . It rts this impossible claim by undisciplined half

cannot combat all these perversions of enlighten by abolishing thought but only by a realization u ht g with its full potentialities, with its critical ness Of limits and its valid accomplishments

sustain the test Of knowledge . Only a develop Of thought achi eved through the self- education whole man can prevent any body Of thought whatsoever from becoming a poison ; can prevent of enlightenment from becoming an agent death .

The purest enlightenment recognizes that it cannot dispense with faith . The five propositions of philoso phical faith cannot be demonstrated like scientific 93 W A Y T O W I S D O M

is theses . It not possible to impose faith by ration

or . means , by any science philosophy It is a fallacy of false enlightenment to suppose the understanding by itself alone can know truth on being . The understanding is dependent somet As is o n else . scientific cognition, it dependent is on experience . As philosophy, it dependent c of faith .

The understanding can indeed clarify, develop thought, but that which lends its Opinion b O jective significance, its thought fulfilment, it mus action purpose, its philosophy authentic content to be given it . The source Of these premises upon which thought t must depend is ultimately unknowable . They are; of Iff rooted in the Comprehensive out which we live . of ; the force the Comprehensive fails us , we incline to s the five negative propo itions Of unfaith . The premises Of sensory experience come from the : histori world , the premises Offaith have their source in cal tradition . In this outward form the premises are merely guides by which we find our way to the Fo r authentic premises . the outward premises are subject to constant testing, not only by the under standing as a judge who Of himself knows what is true but by the understanding as an instrument : the understanding tests experience by other experience ; it also tests traditional faith by traditional faith, and in so doing tests all tradition by the original awakening Of its contents out Of the primal source Of o ur ow n self hood . The sciences provide those necessary insights into experience which no one following the prescribed 94 F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T

1 ’ b rati eth ods l can elude ; while philosophy, through its ason ed ‘ a ro ach pp to tradition, makes possible our

cannot combat unfaith directly but we can t the demonstrably false claims of rationalistic seudO - knowledge and the claims of faith that ass ume

falsely rational form . The principles of philosophical faith become false of when they are taken as communication a content . For none ofthese principles implies an absolute Object ; they are to be taken as the symbol of an infinity b ecom in h i g concrete . Where t is infin ty is present in faith, the endless reality Of the world takes on meaning as its ni hi i ma festation . But t s meaning must st ll be inter reted p . When the philosopher utters these principles Of to hi faith, they assume an analogy a creed . The p lo sopher should not exploit his nonknowledge in order to

evade all answers . He must be circumspect in his philosophizing and repeat : I do not know ; I do not

even know whether I believe ; however, such faith, i expressed in such propositions , strikes me as mean ng

ful ; I will venture to believe in this way, and I hope I

shall have the strength to live by my faith . In philo Sophy there will always be a tension between the seeming indecision Of the suspended utterance and the

reality of resolute conduct .

95 T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N !

NO R E A L I T Y I s more essential to our self- aw arene us b roade than history . It shows the i k nd , brings us the contents Of tr our life is built, shows us standards by which unconsciou measure the present, frees us from to our own hi bondage age, teaches us to see man in hi s highest potentialities and imperishable creations . We can make no better use of leisure tha familiarize ourselves and keep ourselves familiar the glories of the past and the catastrophes in everything has been shattered . We gain a understanding Of our present experience if we see it in m of hi us the irror history . And story becomes alive for when we regard it in the light of our own age . Our life becomes richer when past and present illumine onei another . is ; It is only the concrete, particular history which hiloso close to us that truly concerns us . Yet in our p p hical approach to history we inevitably deal in certain ab stractionS u

History sometimes appears to be a chaos of acci ni an o n dental happe ngs , eddying flood . It passes , m one m fro tur oil, from one catastrophe to the next, with brief intervals of happiness, little islands which it In this chapter certain passages from my book Vom Ursprung and Ziel def Geschichte ave een re r uce er a m h b p od d v b ti . 96

W A Y T O W I S D O M as is shown by paintings and remains of tools . Bu only for the last five to six thousand years that we h hi had a documented , coherent story . History breaks down into four basic segments : First : We can only infer the first great steps towar of the use oflanguage, the invention tools , the kin of and use fire . This is the Promethean tion Of all history, through which man became distinction to a purely biologically defined

of can . species , which we scarcely conceive ro this was , over what vast periods of time the p tended, we do not know . But this age in the very remote past and it must have been many times longer than the comparatively insignificant span of time covered by o ur documented historical era . Second : The ancient high civilizations grew up 000 000 between 5 and 3 in Egypt , Mesopotamia , on o n and the Indus , somewhat later the Hwang of River in China . These are little islands light amid the broad mass of mankind which already populated the whole planet . C Third : In the years centring around 500 B . . — from 800 to 200 the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid, Simultaneously and independently in China ,

India , Persia, Palestine, and Greece . And these are the foundations upon which hum anity still subsists today . Fourth : Since then there h as been only o ne entirely ri to new, spiritually and mate ally incisive event, equal the others in historical significance : the age of science and h tec nology . It was foreshadowed in Europe at the 98 T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N

of the Middle Ages ; its theoretical groundwork laid in the seventeenth century ; at the end of the teen th century it entered on a period Of broad

rowth, and in the last few decades it has advanced at

headlong pace .

of Let us cast a glance at the third segment, that the “ 00 h as i ears around 5 Hegel said , All h story 5 toward Christ and from Christ . The appear o f S on of the of God is the axis history . Our reminds us every day of this Christian

of history . The flaw in this view Of history is can have meaning only for believing Christians . even Western Christians have not built their em cal view Of history o n their faith but have drawn essential distinction between sacred and profane

story .

If there is an axis in history, we must find it em iricall o f p y in profane history, as a set circumstances significant for all men , including Christians . It must carry conviction for Westerners , Asiatics , and all men, without the support of any particular content of nd faith, a thus provide all men with a common his t orical m of fra e reference . The spiritual process which took place between 800 0 and 20 seems to constitute such an axis . It was then that the man with whom we live today came into “ ” being . Let us designate this period as the axial age .

Extraordinary events are crowded into this period . In i Lao China l ved Confucius and Tse, all the trends in of M O Chinese philosophy arose , it was the era Tse,

Chuang Tse and countless others . In India it was the W A Y T O W I S D O M age of the Upanishads and of Buddha ; as i philosophical trends , including skepticism alism , sophistry and nihilism, were developed . In Ira Zarathustra put forward his challengi ng concep tio of the cosmic process as a struggle between good an t : evil ; in Pales ine prophets arose Elijah,

D - Jeremiah, eutero Isaiah ; Greece produced the philosophers Parmenides , Heraclitus , Pl tragic poets , Thucydides , and Archimedes . All development of which these names are a mere inti tion took place in these few centuries , independe th and almost simultaneously in China, India, and

West . The new element in this age is that man ev ery wh ered of as ! became aware being a whole, of himself and his his limits . He experienced the horror Of the world and ow n a helplessness . He raised radical questions , p p roach ed the abyss in his drive for liberation and his redemption . And in consciously apprehending mi li ts he set himself the highest aims . He experienced the absolute in the depth of selfhood and in the clarity

Oftranscendence . l D Conflicting possibi ities were explored . iscussion, hi hi wi partisans p, intellectual sc sms (though thin a common frame of reference) gave rise to movement n and unrest bordering o spiritual chaos . This era produced the basic categories in which we still think and created the world religions out of which men still live . hi The opinions , customs , conditions w ch had hi therto enjoyed unconscious acceptance came to be

i w as . quest oned . The world thrown into turmoil IOO

W A Y T O W I S D O M

And the sociological conditions of all three regi reveal analogies : innumerable petty states and cities astonishi struggle ofall against all , and yet at first an prosperity . But these centuries in which so much h were not characterized by a simple asc ending 0 ment . There was destruction and creation at there was no fulfilment . The supreme realized in individuals did not become out 0 heritage . What started as freedom th e became anarchy in the end . Once creative impetus , ideas congealed into levelling occurred in all three spheres . As the diso grew intolerable, men sought new bonds and stability . The end w as first characterized by political dev V ments . ast despotic empires arose almost si ousl hi th y in C na (Tsin, Shi, Huangti) , in India ( Hellenisti Maurya dynasty) , in the West (the Ev er w h er empires and the Imperium Romanum) . y systematic order and technical organization emerge from the collapse .

The spiritual life of men is still oriented toward the‘ axial age . China, India , and the West have all wit nesse d conscious attempts to restore it , renaissances .

True, there have been great new spiritual creations but they have been inspired by ideas acquired in the axial age . Thus the main line of history runs from the birth Of humanity through the civilizations of high anti uit ff q y to the axial age and its o shoots , which

102 T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N

ayed a creative role up to the dawn of our own

Since then a new line would seem to have begun . age Of science and technology is a kind of second able to the first invention of tools

If we may venture a presumption by analogy, we hall pass through vast planned organizations analogous 0 those of Egypt and the other ancient high civiliza from whi ch the ancient Jews emigrated and on

when they laid a new foundation, they looked as hatred a place Of forced labour . Perhaps kind will pass through these giant organizations in new axial age , still remote, invisible, and eiv able , an axial age Of authentic human upsurge . ay we are living in an era of the most r h as atast op es . It seems though everything ad been transmitted to us were being melted and yet there is no convincing sign that a new is in the making . is new is that in our day history is for the

- becoming world wide in Scope . Measured by which modern communications have given r is of be, all previous histo y a mere aggregate cal histories . — What we formerly called history is ended an term ediary m oment o f five thousand years between prehistoric centuries in which the globe was p op u

d and the world history which is now beginning . of millennia , measured by the preceding era ’ an s existence and by future possibilities , are a inute n hi r to i terval . In t s inte val men may be said 103 W A Y T O W I S D O M

to have gathered together, have mustered t t of forces for the ac ion world history, to have acquire the intellectual and technical equipment they neede for the journey which is just beginning . We must look to horizons such as these when incline to take a dark view of the realities of our a and to regard all hum an history s lost . We j ustified in believing in the future pote ni al l 1 huma ty . In the short view is gloom, in the view it is not . But this becomes evident only in of light history as a whole . The more fully we realize ourselves in the pres seeking the truth and ascertaining the criteria th humanity, the more confidently we may look to future .

w h 1 meanin . o And now, as to the g of history Those h as n believe that the historical process an aim Ofte , i strive to real ze it by planning . But we become aware of o ur helplessness when we‘ to : seek p lan and organize history as a whole . The overweening plans of rulers , based upon a supposed of total knowledge history, have always ended in catastrophe . The plans devised by individuals in their restricted circles fail or else contribute to unleashing ff quite di erent, unplanned complexes of events . The historical process can be seen either as an irresistible mechanism or as an infinitely interpretable meaning new which manifests itself by unexpected events , which remains always equivocal, a meaning which, even when we entrust ourselves to it, is never known to us . 104

W A Y T O W I S D O M

of everything if, partaking the primal source, to n entrust myself transce dence .

We cannot define the ultimate aim of hist ory but can posit an aim which is itself a p remise for realization of the highest human potentialities . An ni m nd that is the u ty of anki . Unity cannot be achieved through any rationa scientific universal . This would produce a unity of Nor understanding but not mankind . does reside in a universal religion, such as might be arrive at through discussion at religious congresses . Nor ca it be realized through a conventional language base on 0 reason and common sense . Unity can be gained n ot from the depth of historicity, as a comm knowable content but in boundless comm unicat of the historically different in never- ending dialog m rising to heights of noble e ulation . o Of i A dial gue th s sort, which will be worthy of man, requires an area freedom from violence . practical unity of men striving for such an area nonviolence seems conceivable , and many of already taken it as their goal . This goal uni i on s mank nd at least the basic levels of life, which doe ti not imply a common and universal faith, does no ' i seem entirely utopian . Its real zation will require a stub—born political struggle against the powers that b e and o ur very situation may well drive us into such a struggle . Prerequisite for such a unity is a political form upon e which all can agree, since it provides the best possibl

for . basis of freedom all This form, which only in the 106 T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N

st h as been developed in theory and in part is ed , the constitutional state built on elections laws which are subject to modification solely

means . In such a state men battle to gain

on for the just cause , to win public opinion widespread and enlightened education and of served dissemination news . would be no wars in a constitutional world r where no state would possess absolute sovereignty its mankind itself, acting through constitutional ns , would be sovereign . desires communication and aspires through a constitutional order

ust, is moving toward justice , we not be helped by an optimism born of enthu

for such ideas , which sees the future as all

t . For we have every reason to take the opposite

of us - We see, each in ourself, the self will , the sistance - to self elucidation , the sophistry , with which is used as an instrument of obfusca we see rejection of the unfamiliar in the place o f muni i n cat o . We see the pleasure men take in er and violence ; we see how the masses are swept war ; stricken with blind lust for gain and ad

ure , willing to sacrifice everything, even their On the other hand we see the unwillingness o f

masses to deprive themselves , to save , to work and quietly toward the building of stable and we see the passions which force their ost unobstructed into the background of the

107 W A Y T O W I S D O M

And quite apart from the character of men, we i of the irremediable injust ce all institutions, we situations which cannot be solved by justice, situations arising for example from the increase redistrib utl on of the population or from th possession by one group of something desire and which cannot be divided . Hence there seems almost to be an limit at which violence in some form must a through . Once again we are faced with the ques is it God or the devil who governs the world ? An though we may believe that ultimately the devil is i f i f o s o . the service God , there no proof it

When in our isolation we see our lives seeping as of a mere succession moments , tossed about by accidents and overwhelming events ; we contemplate a history that seems to be at an v hi im elle lea ing only chaos be nd it, then we are p hi raise ourselves above story . Yet we must remain aware Of our epoch and hi situation . A modern p losophy cannot dev without elucidating its roots in time and in a p t of o ur is ions epoch, it not from thes our hi we draw p losophy, but now as at all o not the C mprehensive . We must adjust tialities our 5 to the low level of age, not to our eluci Ourselves epoch, but attempt, by h ou the age, to arrive at the point w ere we can live our primal source . hi Nor must we deify story . We need not accept

108

T H E I N D E P E N DE N T P H I L O S O P H E R

TH E I N D E P E N D E N C E O F man is rejected by al t s w hicl totali ariani m, by the totalitarian religion claims exclusive truth as well as by the totalitariar state which, melting down all humanity into materia of for its edifice power, leaves no room for individuality and even controls leisure activities in accordancr with an ideological line . Today independence seem to be silently disappearing beneath the inundation 0 u un uestio nec all life by the typical , the habit al, the q commonplace . But to philosophize is to fight for our inner endence p , under all conditions . What is inne independence ?

Since late antiquity the philosopher has bee o represented as an independent man . The p has certain salient features : This philosoph independent, first because he is without needs , from the world of possessions and the rule Of pass he is an ascetic ; second , because he is without for he has seen through the illusory terrors religions ; third , because he takes no part in eac ment and politics and lives without ties , in p of retirement, a citizen the world . In any case I I O T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R philosopher believes that he has attained to a posi t of out ion absolute independence, a vantage point of r side things , in which he cannot be moved o shaken . This philosopher has become an object Of admira of tion but also distrust . True , numerous philosophers of this type have disclosed rare independence through poverty, celibacy, aloofness from business and politics ; they have manifested a happiness which did not spring from anything eternal but from awareness that life is a journey and from indifference to the of B ut blows fate . some of these figures also reveal egoism and ambition, pride and vanity, a coldness in human dealings and an ugly hostility to other phil h r oso e s of . p . And dogmatism is common to all them Theirs is an impure independence which seems very much akin to an ununderstood and sometimes ridiculous dependence .

Nevertheless , side by side with biblical religion these philosophers do Offer a historical source o f possible independence . Acquaintance with them ow n encourages our striving for independence , perhaps precisely by showing us that man cannot sustain him ih self isolation and detachment . This ostensible absolute freedom turns automatically into a new on reco ni dependence , outwardly the world, whose g

is unclarifi ed . tion courted , inwardly on passions The road of the philosophers of lat e antiquity off ers us no promise . Although some were magnificent personali in for ties, they created , their fight freedom, rigid

figures and masks without background . We see that independence turns into its Opposite I I I W A Y T O W I S D O M

is not to if it is held to be absolute . And it easy say i for what sense we can strive independence .

The concept of independence is almost hopeless For ambivalent . example

The philosopher, and the metaphysician u m particular, sets up thought struct res like ga es which he remains superior because of hi s unlimit m uestio power over the . But this gives rise to the q Is man master of his thoughts because he and can carry on his creative game without ru to a foundation, arbitrarily, according to h as i f he himself dev sed , enchanted by its orm, is Go d conversely, because he oriented toward a thus remains superior to the discourse in which m hi ust inevitably clothe absolute being, w ch to never fit the absolute , and hence needs be adjusted ad infi nitum ? Here the independence of the philosopher cousi in his not succumbing to his ideas as dogmas but i mak ng himself master over them . But mastery one ’ s ideas remains ambivalent—does it mean arbitrary freedom from ties or does it imply ties in transcendence ? Another example : In order to gain our indep end ence we seek an Archimedean point outside of the world . This is an authentic quest, but the question is Is this Archimedean point an outsideness which makes m an a kind of God in his total independence o r is it the outside point where he truly meets God and ex p er iences his only complete independence, which alone can make him independent in the world ?

1 12

W A Y T O W I S D O M

of dis eloquent turns phrase—and striking images , in regard of communication all this dictatorial language of is not wisdom and prophecy enough . Thus those who are deluded into supposing that they possess being as such often endeavour to make man f of orget himself. Man is dissolved in fictions being and yet these fictions themselves always conceal a possible road back to man ; hidden dissatisfaction may lead to the recovery of the authentic seriousness which becomes real only in existential presence and casts off the ruinous attitude of those who take life as it is and do what they please . This irresponsible type of independence is also irres on manifested in intellectual opportunism . An p sible playing with contradictions permits such a man to take any position he finds convenient . He is versed in all methods but adheres strictly to none . He espouses an unscientific attitude but makes scientific gestures .

He is a Proteus , wriggling and changing, you cannot of grasp hold him, he actually says nothing but seems to be promising something extraordinary . He exerts an attraction by vague hints and whi sperings which of give men a sense the mysterious . No authentic discussion with him is possible but only a talking “ ” back and forth about a wide variety of interesting things . Conversation with him can be no more than an of aimless pouring forth false emotion . Irresponsible independence can take the form of ff indi erence to a world that has grown intolerable . is What does death matter ? It will come . What there to be perturbed about ? We live in the joy of o ur vitality and the pain of its T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R

n A bbi g away . natural Yes permits us at all times to eel and to think according to circumstance . We are

tn lemi al p o c . What is the good of taking sides ? Love n d tenderness are possible but they are at the mercy if of time, the ephemeral, of the transient as such . l othing is unconditional . or We drift along, without desire to do to be any h of or ing in particular . We do what is asked us what m ee s appropriate . Genuine emotion is absurd . We are lCl l p in our everyday dealings with men .

No horizon , no distance, neither past nor future ustain this life which expects nothing and lives only [ ere and now . The many forms of illusory independence to which ve can succumb cast suspicion upon independence tself : . This much is certain in order to gain true ndep endence we must not only elucidate these various orms of independence but achieve awareness of the imits of all independence .

i Absolute independence is impossible . In think ng we we dependent on experience which must be given us, 11 living we are dependent on others with whom we

‘ tand in a relation of mutual aid . As selfhood we ate le endent p on other selfhood , and it is only in com n unication that we and the others come truly to

m rsel e . v s . There is no isolated freedom Where there is ‘ re ed m o it struggles with unfreedom, and if unfreedom NCI‘C fully overcome through the elimination of all e sistances freedom itself would cease .

Accordingly, we are independent only when we are i t the same time enmeshed in the world . I cannot 1 15 W A Y T O W I S D O M achi e ve independence by abandoning the worl i n m Indeed , independence the world i plies a par attitude toward the world : to be in it and yet not in to be both inside it and outside it . This thought

“ shared by great thinkers of the m ost varying trends :

With regard to all experiences , pleasures , states happiness and unhappiness , Aristippus says his how but I am not had ; St . Paul tells followers to t part in earthly life : have as though yo u had not ; B hagav ad- Gita admonishes us to perform the task b not to strive after its fruits ; Lao Tse counsels man act through inaction . These imm ortal sayings might be interpreted infinitum . Here we need only say that they all expr of inner independence . Our independence the is inseparable from a mode of dependence on world . A second limit to independence is that by itselfalon it negates itself Independence has been negatively formulated as ff or freedom from fear, as indi erence to fortune, good as bad, as the imperturbability of the thinker mere m m ni spectator, as i u ty to emotions and impulses . But the self who achi eves such independence is reduced to o f the abstract punctuality the ego . n Independence does o t derive its content from itself. not l t e It is any innate gift, it is not vita ity, race, h will

- to power, it is not self creation . Philosophical thought grows out of an independence i in the world , an independence signify ng an absolute attachment to the world through transcending of the world . A supposed independence without attachment

1 16

W A Y T O W I S D O M we do good only under the tacit condition that 0 good action will not be too harmful to our happine is and that this makes our good deed impure . This di ra cal evil that we cannot overcome . SCSuS o n! sndcau Our independence itself requires help . We can Conseufl do our best and hope that something within is q — usroom invisible to the world will in some unfathomable hind ! sometoours come to our aid and lift us out of our limitations . dthendo1 only independence possible for us is dependence o an indeendet transcendence . p n in des air g, p er I should like to give some intimation of how a butnotov in measure of independence can be achieved i n philoso growsup hilosoh phi cal thought today P p Let us not pledge ourselves to any philosophical school or take formulable truth as such for the o ne and exclusive truth ; let us be master of our thoughts ; us not let heap up philosophical possessions , but apprehend philosophical thought as movement and seek to deepen it ; let us battle for truth and humanity in uncon ditional communication ; let us acquire the power to learn from all the past by making it our own; let us listen to our con temporaries and remain open to all possibilities ; let each of us as an individual immerse hims elf in his ow n hi s historicity, in origin , in what he has done ;

let him possess himself of what he was , of what he

has become, and ofwhat has been given to him ; let us not cease to grow through our own historicity into the historicity of man as a whole and thus make

ourselves into citizens of the world .

1 18 T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R

We lend little credence to a philosopher who is r erturb able of p , we do not believe in the calm the oic o m , we d not even desire to be un oved , for it is our [manity itself which drives us into passion and fear rd causes us in tears and rejoicing to experience what Consequently only by rising from the chains that ad o ur us to emotions , not by destroying them, do we to men me ourselves . Hence we must venture to be rd then do what we can to move forward to our true d ff ependence . Then we shall su er without complain g, despair without succumbing ; we shall be shaken it for not overturned , the inner independence that ows up in us will sustain us . hi is Philosophy is the school of t s independence, it

DI. the possession of independence .

1 19 T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E

IF O U R L I V E S are not to be diff use and meaningless our they must find their place in an order . In affairs we must be sustained by a co ni of principle, we must find mea ng in an edifice w i fulfilment, and sublime moments , and by repet our we must gain in depth . Then lives , even in t of s erm eat performance monotonou tasks , will be p by a mood arising from our conscious participation ni a mea ng . Then we shall be sustained by an awareness of of o of the world and urselves , by the history which our ow n we are a part, and, in lives , by memory and loyalty . An order of this sort may come to the individual from r i w as the world in wh ch he born, from the church whi ch shapes and animates the great steps from birth to death and the little steps of everyday life . He will then spontaneously fit hi s daily experience into that order Not so hi in a crumbling world , w ch puts less and less f as aith in tradition , in a world which subsists only outward order, without symbolism and transcendence, which leaves the soul empty and is not adequate to man, which, when it leaves him free, thrusts him back his ow n m upon resources, in lust and boredo , fear and ff di indi erence . Here the in vidual can rely only in him s v hi o elf. By li ing p losophically he seeks t build up by 120

W A Y T O W I S D O M mere work in whose aims we immerse ourselves as

- itself a road to self forgetfulness , omission , and gui And to lead a philosophical life means also to of seriously our experience men , of happiness and of c success and failure , of the obs ure and the It means not to forget but to possess ourselves to of our experience , not let ourselves be distracted to not think problems through, to take things granted but to elucidate them . There are two paths of philosophical life : the p of solitary meditation in all its ramifications and of of path communication with men, mutual under i standing through acting, speak ng, and keeping silence together .

We men cannot do without o ur daily moments of our profound reflection . In them we recapture self of awareness , lest the presence the primal source be lost entirely amid the inevitable distractions of daily life . What the religions accomplish in prayer and w or ship has its philosophical analogy in explicit im

ni . mersion, in inner commu on with being itself This can take place only in times and moments (regardless whether at the beginning or end of the day or in between) when we are not occupied in the world with worldly aims and yet are not left empty but are in contact with what is most essential .

Unlike religious contemp lation , philosophical con t em lation h as p no holy object , no sacred place, no no t fixed form . The order which we give to it does become a rule, it remains potentiality in free motion . 12 2 T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E

contemplation , unlike religious worship , de

ands solitude . What is the possible content of such meditation ?

First se - r ction e e . , lf fl I call to mind what I have done,

ought, felt during the day . I ask myself wherein I m erred , wherein I have been dishonest with y

wherein I have evaded my responsibilities , ein I have been insincere ; I also try to discern good qualities I have displayed and seek ways in to o n of enhance them . I reflect the degree nscious control o ver my actions that I have exerted — the course of the day . I judge myself with regard

my particular conduct, not with regard to the whole —I an that I am, for that is inaccessible to me find les in accordance with whi ch I resolve to judge perhaps I fix in my m ind words that I plan to to in myself anger, in despair, in boredom , and i states in which the self s lost , magic words as it m : i re inders (such as observe moderation, th nk of

b e G o d . ther, patient, is) I learn from the tradition runs from the Pythagoreans through the Stoics

tians to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, with its

' to self- reflection I realize that such can never be conclusive and that it is infinitely susceptible to error . i Second transcendin re ect on. , g fl Guided by philos o hical p methods , I gain awareness of authentic being, of m the godhead . I read the sy bols of being with the help of literature and art . I gain understanding of them by phi losophical scrutiny . I seek to ascertain that which is independent of time or that which is eternal in time, seek to touch upon the source of my W A Y T O W I S D O M freedom and through it upon being itself; I seek as it were to partake of creation . Third on should be done in the resent , I reflect what p . Remembrance of my own life with men is the back ground against which I clarify my present task down to the details of this particular day, when in the inevitable intensity of practical thinking I lose my of the awareness Comprehensive meaning . — What I gain for myself alone in reflection would i —b e as it were all nothing gained . is not What realised in communication is not yet, what is not ultimately grounded in it is without adequate foundation . The truth begins with two . hi mConsequently p losophy demands : seek constan co munication, risk it without reserve, renounce the defiant self- assertion which forces itself upon you in ever new disguises , live in the hope that in your very renunciation you will in some incalculable way be given back to yourself.

Hence I must constantly draw myself into doubt, I not on must grow secure, I must not fasten to any hi m w ostensible light wit n yself, in the belief that it ill illumine me reliably and judge me truly . Such an attitude toward the self is the most seductive form of - inauthentic self assertion . — - refl ection If I meditate in these three forms self , of transcending meditation, contemplation my task and open myself to unlimited communication, an imponderable presence which can never be forced : of may come to me the clarity my love, the hidden and 124

W A Y T O W I S D O M

world into transcendence, without hearing any di

and unequivocal word of God , but reading symbols of the polyvalent language of things and y o f living with the certainty transcendence . Only transcendence can make this q u estionab a life good , the world beautiful, and existence itself

fulfilment . o to Ifto philos phize is to learn how die, then we must h learn ow to die in order to lead a good life . To learn to how live and to learn to die are one and the same thing .

ower o t Meditation teaches us the p f hought. o f Thought is the beginning human existence . In accurate knowledge of objects I experience the power o f of the rational , as in the operations mathematics , in the natural sciences , in technical planning . As my s i method grow purer, the logic ofmy syllog sms becomes m of more co pelling , I gain greater insight into chains li causality, my experience becomes more re able . But p hilosophical thought begins at the limits of this rational knowledge . Rationality cannot help us in the essentials : it cannot help us to posit aims and Go d ultimate ends , to know the highest good , to know and human freedom ; this inadequacy of the ra tional s of hi gives ri e to a kind thinking which , w le working of m with the tools the understanding, is ore than understanding . Philosophy presses to the limits of rational knowledge and there takes fire . He who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought . He who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition . 12 6 T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to

stion . He who acknowledges no mystery is no

seeker . Because he humbly acknowledges the f possible knowledge the philosopher remains

the unknowable that is revealed at those limits .

cognition ceases , but not thought . By tech

applying my knowledge I can act outwardly, nknowledge makes possible an inner action by

I transform myself. This is another and deeper f thought ; it is not detached from being and toward an object but is a process of my rm ost self, in which thought and being become

tical . Measured by outward , technical power, of thought inner action is as nothing, it is no ow led e g that can be possessed , it cannot be according to plan and purpose ; it is an

tic illumination and growth into being . understanding ( ratio) broadens our horizons ; of es objects , reveals the tensions the existent , permits what it cannot apprehend to stand

full force and clarity . The clarity of the understanding makes possible clarity at its limits , and arouses the authentic impulses which are thought and one action, inward and outward act in . The philosopher is expected to live according to his doctrine . This maxim expresses poorly the thought h h as that lies be ind it . For the philosopher no doctrine if by doctrine is meant a set of rules under which the particular cases of empirical existence might be m m subsumed , as things are subsu ed under e pirical ’ species o r men s acts under juridical norms . Philos ophical ideas cannot be applied ; they are a reality in 12 7 W A Y T O W I S D O M

m a : 0 themselves , so that we y say in the fulfilment these thoughts the man himself lives ; or life is p er hiloso meated with thought . That is why the p and the man are inseparable (while man can be sidered apart from his scientific knowledge) ; and is why we cannot explore philosophical ideas in selves but must at the same time gain awareness of th

philosophical humanity which conceived them .

Philosophical life is in constant peril of straying int perversions in justification of which phi propositions are invoked . The formulae date existence are distorted by the vital will u Peace of mind is conf sed with passivity, con with an illusory faith in the harmony of all knowing how to die is mistaken for flight from in difl er nce for e . world , reason total The best perverted to the worst . The will to communication is perverted into self : contradictory attitudes we wish to be undisturbed,

- - yet demand absolute self certainty in self illumination . We wish to be excused because of our nerves and yet to s ask be recognized as free . We are cautiou and taci on f turn, and secretly our guard even while pro essing 6 of unreserved readiness for communication . We think ourselves whi le we are supposedly speaking of the idea . The philosopher who strives to understand and over come these perversions in himself knows his u m o u certainty ; he is always the lookout for criticism, he seeks opposition and wishes to be called to question ; he desires to listen , not in order to submit but in order

12 8

W A Y T O W I S D O M

theWW attained, perfect . Our states ofbeing are only manifesta over fl of to o0“ tions existential striving or failure . It lies in ou the g lUC n - - hin w nature to be o the way . We strive to cut onet g H6 cc. time . That is possible only in polarities sxisten 1 f hlcal t Only when we exist entirely in this time o philosOp h of hichhes istoricity can we experience something the ete shipw lestoh present . hestrugg

as his lin. Only determinate men, each in specificity, ca andree g as u treat: we experience humanity s ch . Weare Only when we experience o ur own age as o ur relinquishour Comprehensive reali ty can we apprehend this age as arenot egnieu of of of r as are part the unity history, and this unity histo y flutterings ni part of eter ty . nthoscwhosit In our ascending journey the primal source grows arcintelhgihlec us our clearer for behind empirical states , but ther hesame“meg constant danger that it will return to obscurity . departure for of The ascent of philosophical life is the ascent deends which p , as individual man . He must accomplish it thoughincom in communication and cannot shift responsibility neverbeeomet} others . We achieve this ascent in the historically concre no t so elective acts of our life, by electing any weltanschauung laid down in propositions . us And now, in conclusion, let venture a metaphor that may characterize the situation of philosophy in the temporal world Having oriented himself on secure dry land through realistic observation, through the sp—ecial sciences , through logic and methodology the hi of p losopher, at the limits this land , explores the of world ideas over tranquil paths . And now like a butterfly he flutters over the ocean shore, darting o 130 T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E ver the water ; he spies a ship in which he would ke to on of r out go a voyage discove y, to seek the ne thing which as transcendence is present in his x — istence . He peers after the ship the method of — hilosophical thought and philosophical life the 1ip which he sees and yet can never fully reach ; and

e struggles to reach it, sometimes strangely staggering

nd reeling . of We are creatures this sort, and we are lost if we our linquish orientation to the dry land . But we re no t t our content o remain there . That is why utterings are so uncertain and perhaps so absurd o n those who sit secure and content dry land , and re intelligible only to those who have been seized by 1e o f same unrest . For them the world is a point ep arture for that flight upon whi ch every thing e ends on ow n p , which each man must venture his r u o gh in common with other men, and which can e of ver become the object any doctrine .

13 1 T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y

PH I L O S O P H Y I S A S old as religion and old than the churches . In the stature and purity champions and in the integrity of its spirit i not on usually, though always , been a level with t of world the church, whose rights it recognizes in of specific sphere . But without sociological form ow n it has been helpless in its confrontation with t church . It has enjoyed the accidental protection powers in the world, including the favourable sociological situations in order to r itself in objective works . Its authentic reality is is to every man at all times , and it in some omnipresent wherever there are men .

The churches are for all , philosophy for individu ni The churches are visible orga zations , wield m en is power over masses of in the world . Philosophy an expression of a realm of minds linked with one another through all peoples and ages ; it is represented hi by no institution w ch excludes or welcomes . As as i long the churches have t es with the Eternal , r their outward power exploits the innermost ene gies . As they draw the Eternal into the service of their power in the world, this power, like every other power in the ni world, grows si ster and evil . As long as philosophy remains in contact with eternal r to truth it inspires without violence, it brings orde 132

W A Y T O W I S D O M aristocrat who felt that he could not engage in t political activity befitting hi s rank because of : D moral degeneration Bruno , escartes, Spin institutio were solitary thinkers , without any i them , seek ng the truth for its own sake ; Anselm the founder of an ecclesiastical aristocracy ; Thom servant of the church ; Nicholas of Gusa a card whose ecclesiastical and philosophical life Machiavelli an unsuccessful statesman ; Kan

Schelling, professors who developed their philos hi in connection with their teac ng . We must rid ourselves of the idea that p hiloso ff of activity as such is the a air professors . It ff seem to be the a air of man, under all conditions of as of um circumstances , the slave the ruler . We stand the historical manifestation of the truth only i examine it in conjunction with the world arose and the destinies of the men w ho c If these manifestations are remote and alien to us m in itselfis illuminating . We ust seek the philosophical idea and the thinker in their physical reality . The of truth does not hover all alone in the air abstraction . of hi for The history p losophy comes alive us when, by thorough study of a work and of the world in which it was produced , we participate as it were in that work . After that we seek perspectives which will accord hi of i111 us a view of the story philosophy as a whole, schemas which, though questionable, serve as guides so by which to orient ourselves in vast a region .

The whole of the history of philosophy throughout : tw o and a half millennia is like a single vast moment . 134 T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y

- of the growing self awareness man . This moment

a - y be looked upon as a never ending discussion, sclosin of g clashes forces , questions that seem in

luble, sublime works and regressions , profound

and a turmoil of error . our study of the history of philosophy we seek a

which to situate philosophical ideas . through the history of philosophy as a whole can arn how philosophy developed in relation to the diverse social and political conditions and l rsona situations . i Philosophy developed independently in Ch na, D dia , and the West . espite occasional intercom these three worlds were so sharply own to the tim e of Christ’ s birth that each ow n in the main be studied in its terms . date the strongest influence was that of hi o n Indian Budd sm China , comparable to that of

Christianity on the Western world . In the three worlds the development follows a i sim ilar curve . After a preliminary h story whi ch difl i cult it is to clarify, the fundamental ideas rose — everywhere in the axial age (8oo 2oo After this

' there was a period of dissolution in the course of which the great religions of redemption were con solidated ; there were recurrent periods of renewal ; there were all - embracing systems (Scholasticism) and m m logical speculations of subli e metaphysical i port, carried to the utmost extreme . What was the specific Western character of this synchronistic development ? First it consisted in a mi m greater dyna s , bringing with it constant crises and 135 W A Y T O W I S D O M

developments ; second , in the greater diversity languages and peoples m anifesting the ideas ; a hi t rd , in the unique development of Western sci Western philosophy falls historically into four periods : First : Greek philosophy travelled the path from myth to logos , created the basic Western concepts , the categories and fundamental conceptions of being m n a . whole , of the world and For us it remains the archetype of simplicity ; in making it o ur ow n we preserve our clarity . Second : Christian- medieval philosophy travelled the path from biblical religion to its conceptual under standing, from revelation to theology . It was more than m a conserv ative pedagogic Scholasticis . Creative m thinkers , chief a ong them St . Paul , St . Augustine, L s Martin uther, disclo ed a world which in its source us was religious and philosophical in one . For it rem ains to preserve alive in our m inds the secre t of Christianity as manifested in this wide realm of thought Third : M odern E uropean philosophy arose hand in hand with m odern natural science and m an ’ s new personal rejection of all authority . Kepler and

Galileo on the one hand , Bruno and Sp inoza on the other represent the new roads . For us it remains to preserve the true m eaning of science as they a re — pp hended it although it was also perverted from the — m very outset and of spiritual freedo . : The hiloso h o German idealis Fourth p p y f m. From Lessing and Kant to Hegel and Schelling we have a series of thinkers who p erhaps excel all previous 136

W A Y T O W I S D O M endured for a thousand years was drawing to a cl The rep resentatw e philosophers of the epoch

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, thinkers of a typ had formerly not existed , clearly related to the hi t s age ; and Marx who, intellectually a world from them, excelled all modern philosophers in influence . w hi An extreme thinking became possible, questioned everything in order to penetrate t o t Off encum profoundest source, which shook all in order to free the vision for an insight into existe the unconditional , and actuality, in a world that been radically transformed by the technological

We draw up schemas o f this sort in envisagi a history o f philosophy s a whole . They are 5 fi i l our h c a . In searc for deeper meanings we may touch on such questions as these : Firs t : Is there a unity in the history of philosophy ? This n unity is ot fact but idea . We seek it but attain only to particular unities . Certain problems (such as the relation between m i body and soul) co e into focus at various t mes , but the historical factors coincide only partially with a logical construction of the ideas . Progressions o f for systems can be shown ; it can be shown , example, how, as Hegel saw it , German philosophy and ultimately all philosophy culminated in his own o f system . But constructions this sort do violence to the to facts , they fail take into account those elements in earlier philosophical thought which are fatal to Hegelian thinking and are hence ignored by Hegel ; 138 T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y

ph ers who erect them tend to neglect the ’ ssence o f m other en s thinking . N0 construction history o f philosophy as a logically coherent

of positions coincides with historical fact . construction we can give to the history ( 1by the genius ofthe indiv idual h er D m hilosop . espite all de onstrable ties and in uences r , greatness remains an incompa able miracle , uite apart from the development that is accessible

our understanding . The idea of a unity in the history of philosophy may p ply to that perenni al philosophy which is internally me its , which creates historical organs and structures , is garments and tools , but not identical with them . ( 1: The be innin and its si ni canc g g g fi e. The b e is o f the first appearance an idea , at some i in t me . The source is the fundamental truth

lw ay s present . misunderstandings and perversions of thought

at all times return to the source . Instead of this source by following the guidance of ni mea ngful , transmitted texts , some thinkers fall into the error of seeking it in temporal beginnings :

- e . i n . g , the first pre Socratic philosophers , in early

Christianity, in early Buddhism . The journey to the source which is always necessary assumes the false m o for f a search for the beginnings . It is true that those beginnings which are still s attainable exert a powerful spell . But an ab olute beginning cannot be found . What passes in our tradition for a beginning is a relative beginning and i was itself the product of earl er development . 139 W A Y T O W I S D O M

Hence it is a fundamental principle of historic study that in examining transmitted texts we restri hr hi ourselves to their real content . Only t ough a s ical attitude can we deepen o ur insight into what been preserved . There is nothing to be gained reconstructi reconstituting what has been lost, by earlier phases , by filling in gaps . Third : Can we speak of development and progress philosophy ? We can observe certain lines o f develop : ment, for example from Socrates to Plato and to Aristotle, from Kant to Hegel , from Locke Hume . But even such sequences are false if we take them to mean that the later thi nker preserved and transcended e the truth of his predecessor . Even wh re generations are thus visibly linked , the new is not encompassed in what went before . The successor often relinquishes the of essence the earlier thought, sometimes he no longer even understands it . Th ere are worlds of intellectual exchange whi ch hi endure for a time, to w ch the individual thinker contributes his word , as for example , Greek philos o h t hi p y , Scholas ic philosophy, the German p los ” 0 hi cal m f 1 6 1 0 p move ent rom 7 0 to 84 . These are m ep ochs of living co munion in original thought . There are other epochs in which philosophy endures hi m to as pedagogy, others in w ch it almost see s have vanished . The total view of the history of philosophy as a m i i hi progressive develop ent s m sleading . The story of philosophy resembles the history of art in that its sup reme works are irreplaceable and unique . It resembles the history of science in that its tools 140

W A Y T O W I S D O M Certain thinkers and epochs make it plain that hi no history of p losophy has its gradations . It is level field in whi ch all works and thinkers stand on an equal footing . There are heights of vision to which only a few have attained . And there are great men, no suns amid the hosts of stars . But this does t mean that we can set up a definitive hierarchy which would carry conviction for everyone . It is a far remove from the Opinions held generally in a given epoch to the content of the philosophical hi n works created in that epoch . That w ch the u der

of - standing all men looks upon as self evident, hence requiring no interpretation, can be expressed in the form of philosophy just as well as the great philosophic ideas that are susceptible of endless interpretation . A n tra quil , limited vision and contentment with the world thus seen ; the yearning for the unknown ; and

m - questioning at the li its all these are philosophy .

We have spoken of an analogy between the history of of philosophy and the authority religious tradition . ni True, philosophy has no cano cal books such as those possessed by the religions , no authority which need simply be followed , no definitive truth which simply exists . But the historical tradition of philosophy as hi of i a whole , t s deposit inexhaust ble truth, shows o ur hi r us the roads to present p losophical endeavou .

The tradition is the profound truth of past thought, toward which we look with never- ending expectancy ; it is something unfathomable in the few great works ; it is the reality of the great thinkers , received with reverence . 14 2 T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y

The tradition is an authority that cannot be obeyed vith certainty . It is incumbent upon us to come to nurselv es our ow n through it by experience, to find sur ow n s i n l ts ource source . Only in the seriousness of present philosophical hi nking can we gain contact with eternal philosophy 11 its ni historical ma festation . It is through the his orical manifestation that we gain the profound ties us hat can unite in a common present . Thus historical research is conducted on various l his to ev e s . In approach the texts the conscientious tudent of philosophy knows on which plane he is n in of ov g . He must gain intelligent mastery the ‘ s of hi fact . But the end and summit storical study i es in the moments of communion in the source . It is hen that the light dawns which gives meaning and hi i . W nity to all factual research ithout this centre, t s >hiloso hi cal of p source , the history philosophy would

) 6 a mere record of fallacies and curiosities .

Once it has awakened me , history becomes the nirror of what is my ow n : in its image I see what I l ny se f think . — The history o f philosophy a space in whi ch I — :hink and breathe reveals in inimitable perfection m p for . rototypes my own searching By its atte pts , its s o . uccesses and failures , philos phy raises the question It encourages me through the example of those men who have unswervingly followed its arduous path . To take a past philosophy as our own is no more possible than to produce an old work of art for a

. second time . At best we can produce a deceptive copy We no have text, like pious Bible readers , in which we 143 W A Y T O W I S D O M

We may hope to find absolute truth . love the Old texts as old of out to we love works art, our hearts go them, re we immerse ourselves in their truth, but there mains in them something remote and unattainable, hi unfathomable, though it is somet ng with which we hi us on always live , something w ch starts the way to r hi hi ou present p losop zing . For philosophy is essentially concerned with the We o ne is and present . have only reality, and that here

now . W our hat we miss by evasions will never return, but if we squander ourselves , then too we lose being . i Each day s precious : a moment can be everything . We are remiss in our task if we lose ourselves in the or t past future . Only through present reali y can we gain access to the timeless ; only in apprehending time can we attain to that sphere where all time extinguished .

APPENDIX 1

P H I L O S O P H Y A ND S C I E N C E !

1L o s o P H Y H A s F R o M its very beginnings looked elf as science, indeed as science par excellence .

animated its devotees . How its scientific character came to be questioned n be understood only in the light of the development

the specifically modern sciences . These sciences made

des in the nineteenth century, largely loso h to p y , often in opposition philosophy, ff to in an atmosphere of indi erence it . If

was still expected to be a science, it was in a nse than before ; it was now expected to be a he same sense as those modern sciences that m their acco plishments . Ifit were

it was argued , it had become pointless out 8 well die . ago the opinion was widespread that ophy had had its place up to the moment when

the sciences had become independent of it, the n gi al universal science . Now that all possible fields o ff research have been marked , the days of philo Now that we know how science obtains m validity, it has beco e evident that philo cannot stand up against judgment by these ri ria t te . It deals in emp y ideas because it sets up

Reprinted by permission of the Partisan Review. 147 W A Y T O W I S D O M

ri undemonstrable hypotheses , it disregards expe ence, of ener i seduces by illusions , it takes possession g needed for genuine investigation and squanders the in empty talk about the whole . This w as the picture of phi losophy as seen science conceived as methodical , cogent, univers valid insight . Under such circumstances could philosophy legi timately claim to be scientific ? To this situation philosophy reacted in tw o ways

1)The attack w as regarded as justified . Philosophers is withdrew to limited tasks . If philosophy at an end because the sciences have taken over all its subject r s e of its matte , there remains neverthele s the knowledg as t hi of history, first a fac or in the story the sciences m hi of themselves , then as a pheno enon in the story of in thought , the history the errors , the anticipated of sights , the process liberation by which philosophy has made itself superfluous . Finally, the history of philosophy must preserve the knowledge of the philosophical texts , if only for their aesthetic interest . Although these texts do not make any serious contri b ution to scientific truth , they are nevertheless worth reading for the sake of their style and the intellectual attitude they reflect . Others paid tribute to the m odern scientific trend by rejecting all previous philosophy and striving to give philosophy an exact scientific foundation . They seized upon questions which , they claimed , were reserved for phi losophy because they concern all the sciences ; m m ’ namely, logic , episte ology, pheno enology . In ff e ort to refurbish its reputation , philosophy became a

r to . se vile imitator, a handmaiden the sciences It 148

W A Y T O W I S D O M ms Omod of uT of philosophy . Whether it is the slave science l ‘if a w ull la ’ whether it denies all science , it has in either c l dmmlalla dsiantafl ceased to be philosophy . W w The seeming triumph ofthe sciences over philos lullcVFW ueml m ul unr h as for some decades created a situation in pp hi must bc Nothing philosophers go back to various sources in sea m muSllfma is [wihirrg true philosophy . If such a thing found, the ll/idem tion o f the relation between philosophy and s fi l becausel PM will be answered , both in a theoretical and in 0 scrence10 of utmo ruerent concrete sense . It is a practical question the 115 am asfinlsllCd; urgency . danduus shortlive , us oal l‘lOd We shall appreciate the full weight of this p roble uonscro g z “1 auembrarns if we consider its historical origin . It developed fro m e u duo thatesrsls[ro three complexly intertwined factors . These are a hworld-ssu spirit o f modern science ; b) the ancient and sible y t recurrent attem pt to achieve universal philosophi and articulars an knowledge ; c) the philosophical concept of truth, a p for unrecedentedsass w as first and all time elucidated in Plato . p Ad m modern hsics c a) The odern sciences , developed only py Throuhthemrte last few centuries , have brought into the world a g scientific attitude which existed neither in Asia nor in split upanddep. ' heloreseemedtot antiquity nor in the Middle Ages . letenessof the n Even the Greeks , to be sure , conceived of science as p — Greekcosmos methodical , cogently certain , and universally valid . m Th knowledge . But the odern sciences not only have 3) eancienrs brought out these basic attributes of science with tooneanother l

‘ ll- greater purity (a task which has not yet been com a embracingbod lete d modern p ) , they have also given new form and new seiencesst of hamo foundation to the purpose , scope , and unity their oireference l r . f one fields of inqui y I shall indicate certain o their grpossiblelor d e a c conceivable fun am nt l haracteristics . Our 150 P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E

1 nothin is ind rent ) To modern science g ifi . In its eyes

ery fact, even the smallest and ugliest, the most t ant and most alien , is a legi imate Object of inquiry

the very reason that it exists . Science has become

l . y universal There is nothing that can evade it . thing must be hidden or passed over in silence ; emal n a mystery . is ni science by defi tion unfinished,

progresses toward the infinite , whereas ent science in every one of its forms presented itself finished ; its actual development w as in every case set ow n ort lived, and it never its development as its

nscious goal . Modern scientists have understood that

- - all embracing world system, which deduces every n one or r is im os g that exists from a few p inciples , p le - h as . A world system other sources and can only un1v ersal validity if scientific critique is relaxed s for are mistaken absolutes . Such ented systematizations as those achieved by one of physics cover only aspect reality . ugh them reality as a whole h as become more up and deprived of foundations than it ever in e seemed to the human mind . Hence the com f as to n—ess o the modern world compared the

k cosmos . scattered 3) The ancient sciences remained , unrelated no t t to one another . They did aim at constitu ing an

- all embracing body of specific knowledge , whereas the modern sciences strive to be integrated into a universal

- is no frame of reference . Though a true world system for of is t longer possible them, a cosmos the sciences s ill of conceivable . Our sense the inadequacy Of each 15 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M special branch of knowledge demands that each scien as be connected with knowledge a whole . 4) The modern sciences attach little value to possibilities of thought ; they recognize the idea definite and concrete knowledge , after it worth as an instrument of discovery and to infinite modifications in the process of invest is True, there a certain similarity between anci so as modern atomic theory, in far the general w as is concerned . But the ancient theory merely intrinsically finished interpretation of p ossibilit based on plausible explanations of available erience p , while the modern the

tion with experience , undergoes perpetual confirmation and disproofand is itself an implem ent

investigation . 5) Today a scientific attitude h as become p ossib an attitude of inquiry toward all phenomena ; tod the scientist can know certain thi ngs i wh definitely, he can distingu sh between and what he does not kn ow ; and he has unprecedented abundance of knowledge little the Greek physician or the Greek tech by The moral imperative science is to search for reliable know ledg

of unprejudiced inquiry and critique,

preconceived ideas . When we enter into of of lea i have the sensation breathing clean air, v us behind all vague talk, all plausible opinions ,

stubborn prejudice and blind faith . Ad b) Modern science shares the age- old striving hi i total philosop cal knowledge . Ph losophy had from 152

W A Y T O W I S D O M

his the cave and touches on in dialectic , this truth that applies to being and to that which is above all being how fundam entally different it is from the truth o f the m sciences , which ove only amid the manifest b e b ing without ever attaining to eing itself, an different from the truth o f the dogmatic system holds itself to be in possession of the whole of What a distance between the truth which can ' be set down in writing but which, accord u seventh epistle , tho gh it can only be thought, is kindled in a favourable moment ni ation of mu c among men understanding, truth which is written , universally cogent t ell ible thi nkin ig , distinct and available to all creatures !

Three so different conceptions of scientific kno — ledge the first patterned on the method of m science , the second derived fro the idea philosophical system , and the third related t truth which is directly apprehended by the in (Plato ’ s truth being an example)—all contribute t present confusion . An example : Its inquiries and investigations in the economic field have made Marxism an important force in scientific m develop ent . But this it shares with many other trends , and its scientific contribution does no t account for its s influence . Marxism al o represents a philosophical thesis regarding the dialectical course of history as a r total process which it pu ports to understand . Thus it constitutes a philosophical doctrine but on e with a claim to universal scientific validity . It has the same 154 P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E

’ istem olo ical p g basis as Hegel s philosophy, whose ectical m ethod remains its implement . The differ only that for Hegel the core of the historical “ ” s lies in what he calls the idea , while for of w ho it lies in the mode production of man , his the animals , obtains sustenance through Both Hegel and Marx derive all

hat they regard as the core . Marx claim s to have stood Hegel o n his

ead ; that however is only in content , for he did not ’ ep art from Hegel s method of constructing reality of y the dialectic the concept .

Now this identification of economic knowledge , 5 gained by scientific method , hence inductively, is subject to constant with the dialectical knowledge of the which passes for essentially definitive is the sou rce of the fallacy com mitted by Hegel and in a different form by the type of modern philosophy that began with Descartes and was repeated ’ u m by Marx . Marx s absolute, excl sive clai therefore originates in a conception of philosophy as total , m m syste atic knowledge ; but at the sa e time, his r of m doct ine is presented as a result odern science, n t from which it does o at all follow . In addition to the conceptions patterned on modern s science and total philo ophy, there op erates in Marxism r also a thi d conception , reflecting the lofty idea of an ’ m s s absolute truth that fulfils an will and aspiration , analogous to the Platonic idea of truth , although r m o entirely different in characte . Marxis c nceives of s m an itself as the true consciousness of the cla sless . I S5 W A Y T O W I S D O M

This quasi - religious postulate is the source of a kind of fanaticism which invokes not faith but mo science, which charges its opponents with stupi or malice, inability to overcome class prejudice contrasts these with its own universal human truth is free from class bondage and hence absolute . uncriti Similar intellectual tendencies , which hypostatize a field of investigation that is within its limits into a total science and infuse religious attitude, have been manifested in the of racial theory and psychoanalysis and in many

fields . The false confusion of heterogeneous eleme on produces here, a large scale, results that are familiar on a small scale in ev eryd of never being at a loss for an

‘ mere plausibility, stubbornly uncritical statements a ffi a rmations , inability to explore in a genuine sense, t on listen, analyse , test , and reflect principles . The infuriating part of it is that science is invoked t defend somethi ng that runs directly counter to t i unders a scient fic spirit . For science leads us to the t ni of ing of the principles , limitations , and mea ng

knowledge . It teaches us to know, in full of the m ethods by which each stage of knowledge hi . i e ac eved It produces a certainty whose relativity, . . dependence on presupp ositions and methods 0

investigation, is its crucial characteristic . Thus we are today confronted with an ambiv ale

concept of science . Genuine science can , as has alw

been the case , app ear to be occult ; it is in the nature

a public secret . It is public because it is accessible 156

W A Y T O W I S D O M

- of to test the truth meaning scientific knowledge,

auscultate it, so to speak, must participate in the

work of these scientists . out Third , a pure philosophy must be worked new conditions that have been created by the for of sciences . This is indispensable the sake the scie For is themselves . philosophy always alive in sciences and so inseparable from them that the puri both can be achieved only joi

of a bad philosophy . The concrete work of is guided by his conscious or unconscious and this philosophy cannot be the object o f method . For example : It is impossible to prove scientifi u : that there should be s ch a thing as science . Or choice of an object of science that is made from amo an infinite number of existing objects on the basis this object itself is a choice that cannot be j ustifi : scientifically . Or The ideas that guide us are tested the systematic process of selves do not become an Science left to itself as is o less . The intellect a wh re, i ’ . s it can prostitute itself to anything Science a whore, i s said Len n, for it sells it elf to any class interest . For C usa m Nicholas of it is Reason, and ulti ately the of ni “ knowledge God , that gives mea ng, certainty, and for truth to intellectual knowledge ; Lenin, it is the classless society that promotes pure science . Be that as o f of hiloso it may, awareness all this is the business p is phical reflection . Philosophy inherent in the actual 158 P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E

themselves ; it is their inner meaning that the scientist with sustenance and guides his

cal work . He who consolidates this guidance reflection and becomes conscious of it has of the stage explicit philosophizing . If this

e fails , science falls into gratuitous convention,

rrectness - , aimless busy ness , and spine s s servitude . hi A pure science requires a pure p losophy .

But how can philosophy be pure ? Has it not always “ ” cience ? Our answer is : It is science such a sort that in the sense of modern r is y it both less and more than science . can be called science in so far as it

oses the sciences . There is no tenable philo utside the sciences . Although conscious of its hi character, p losophy is inseparable from It refuses to transgress against universally

insight . Anyone who philosophizes must be

with scientific method . is n ot trained in a scientific to keep his scientific interests alive will inevitably bungle and stumble ke uncritical rough drafts for definitive Unless an idea is submitted to the coldly of ate test scientific inquiry, it is rapidly

- fi re .of or in the emotions and passions , else

withers into a dry and narrow fanaticism . w ho Moreover, anyone philosophizes strives for ientifi c knowledge, for it is the only way to genuine nknow led e g , it is as though the most magnificent 159 W A Y T O W I S D O M insights could be achieved only through man ’ s q ru-ns for the limit at which cognition aground , seem ingly and temporarily but genuinely and fi nitiv el no t y , with a sense of loss and despair but a sense of genuine i knowledge can m ake definitive nonknow le it alone can achieve the authentic failure which op e no t up a vista , merely upon the discoverable existe but upon being itself. In accomplishing the great task of dispelling m d sc magical conceptions , o ern ience enters upon of t path that leads to the intuition the true dep h, m i 0 authentic ystery, wh ch becomes present through the most resolute knowledge in the consu of tion nonknowledge . Consequently philosophy turns against those wh wh despise the sciences , against the sham prophets mi deprecate scientific inquiry, who stake the erro n scie ce for science itself, and who would even hold science , modern science, responsible for the evils and m of the inhu anity our era . Rejecting superstitious belief in science as Well as m uncon di conte pt of science, philosophy grants its tio nal m recognition to odern science . In its eyes science is a marvellous thing which can be relied upon m ore than anything else , the most significant achieve r ment of man in his histo y, an achievement that is the source of great dangers but ofeven greater opportunities and that from now on must be regarded as a pre of m requisite all hu an dignity . Without science, the ow n philosopher knows , his pursuits eventuate in nothing .

160

W A Y T O W I S D O M

Yet in this intellectual transcendence, which proper to philosophy and which is analogous i is For scientific forms , ph losophy less than science . does not gain any tangible results or any intellectual

binding insight . There is no overlooking the simp fact that while scientific cognition is identical through o ut hi its to the world , p losophy, despite claim univer salit is no t or f y , actually universal in any shape orm . This fact is the outward characteristic of the peculiar A t nature of philosophical t ruth . l hough scientific truth is ai to universally valid , it rem ns relative method and assumptions ; philosophical truth is absolute for him

“ r its who conquers it in histo ical actuality, but state n i ments are ot universally valid . Scientific truth s one — and the same for all philosophical truth wears multiple historical cloaks each of these is the manifesta t of i h as its ion a un que reality, each justification, but r m they are not identically t ans issible . The one philosophy is the philosophia perennis around hi no which all philosophies revolve, w ch one possesses , r in which eve y genuine philosopher shares , and which nevertheless can never achieve the form of an intellec for tual edifice valid all and exclusively true . Thus philosophy is not only less but also more than of is in science , namely, as the source a truth that h accessible to scientifically binding knowledge . It is t is philosophy that is meant in such definitions as : To philosophize is to learn how to die or to rise to god —or to i o head know being qua being . The mean ng f such definitions is : Philosophical thought is inward action ; it appeals to freedom ; it is a summons to transcendence . Or the same thing can be formulated 162 P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E l hi y z P losophy—is the act of becoming con genuine being o r is the think—ing of a faith in be infinitely elucidated o r is the way r hi sertion th ough t nking . But none of these propositions is properly speaking a

efi nition . is hi There no definition ofp losophy, because hilo sophy cannot be determined by something out

There is no genus above philosophy, under

it can be subsumed as a species . Philosophy

itself, relates itself directly to godhead , and

futility . It grows out

primal source in which man is given to himself. To sum up : The sciences do not encompass all ofthe ruth but only the exact knowledge that is binding to h he intellect and universally valid . Truth as a greater of hiloso cope , and part it can reveal itself only to p

al reason . Throughout the centuries since the early hi dle Ages , philosop cal works have been written “ ” under the title On the Truth ; today the same task i e still remains urgent, . . , to gain insight into the essence of truth in its full scope under the present conditions f hi o scientific knowledge and storical experience . The foregoing considerations also apply to the relation between science and philosophy . Only if the tw o are strictly distinguished can the inseparable m connection between them re ain pure and truthful .

Through research and study the university strives to achieve the great practical uni ty of the sciences and V philosophy . At the university a philosophical iew of the world has always been made manifest through scientific method . 163 W A Y T O W I S D O M

of The university is the meeting place all sciences . as ni so far these remain an aggregate, the u versi resembles an intellectual warehouse ; but in so far of they strive toward unity knowledge, it resembles

- never finish ed temple . A century and a half ago this w as still self- evid the philosophical ideas that were assumed by scientists in the various disciplines were brought to of highest light consciousness by the philosophers . th e situation has changed . The science fragmented by specialization . It has c ie e d m e l v that scientific cognition , arked by the n of universally valid particular knowledge , could away from philosophy . Is the present dispersion of the sciences the ulti and necessary stage ? One might wish for a philosophy that would encom pass and assim ilate the whole tradition , that would be equal to the intellectual o f o ur m situation ti e, that would express the contents m of m intellec co mon to all us , and this both in subli e tual constructions and in sim ple propositions capable '

nO ' of finding resonance in every man . Today we have such philosophy . Old university seals dating from the fifteenth century reveal figures wro ught in gold which represent Christ ‘ s distributing their ta ks to the faculties . Even where such seals are still in use they no longer express the modern reality ; yet they still bear witness to the task o f unifying the whole . Today neither theology no r philosophy creates a D m m ? whole . oes the university still have a co on spirit

As regards its organization, it still seems to constitute 164

W A Y T O W I S D O M

of embodied in the totality a specific science . T philosophy thus becomes in a sense the spokesman vi knowledge in general , pro ded that constant care taken to see this particular domain in relation to all t to knowable and thereby anchor it in depth . The teacher of philosophy in the service of suc efforts is not a leader w ho lays down the law but a to i attentive and patient listener, eager find mean ng i the broadest interrelations . The teacher of philosophy reveres the ind w ho of b u great philosophers , are not specimens a type t not creators (such do exist today) , but he rejects the of idolization men, which began even in the academy of n Plato , for even the greatest are men and err, and o w ho one is an authority must be obeyed by right . And the teacher of philosophy h as respect for each r — science w hose insights are binding but he condemns r. the scientific pride which imagines that everything can )

‘ be known in its ultimate foundation or even goes so far as to suppose that it is known . His ideal is that of a rational being coexisting with

. for other rational beings He wants to doubt, he thirsts objections and attacks , he strives to become capable of playing his part in the dialogue of ever- deepening hi of s communication , w ch is the prerequisite all truth hi and without w ch there is no truth . His hope is that in the same measure as he becom es a rational being he may acquire the profound contents which can sustain man, that his will, in so far as his striving is honest , may become good through the of direct help the transcendent, without any human mediation . P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E

of hi a teacher p losophy, however, he feels that it duty not to let his students forget the great minds to r hi e past, prese ve the various philosop cal as of to to an object instruction, and see it sciences influence philosophical thinking ; to cidate the present age and at the same time to join s of S tudents in conquering a view the eternal .

167 APPENDIX 11 O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y

IF I T I S i as 1t true that ph losophy concerns man man, must lie within our power to make it generally l n t elli ible to i g . It must be possible commun cate briefly a not certain fund mental ideas , though of course the m o f i hi h as co plex operations systemat c p losophy . It been my intention to gi ve an intimation of those elements in philosophy which are the concern of every v no man . But in so doing I have endea oured t to in disregard the essential , even where it seemed rin i all ffi t s c y di cult .

The present lectures are little more than sketches , covering but a sm all segment of the possibilities of philosophical thought . Many great ideas are not even h as touched upon . My aim been to encourage my on listeners to reflect these matters for themselves . For those who m ay seek guidance in their philoso p hi cal reflections I append what follows .

THE STUDY O F PHILOSOPHY 1 . ON Philosophical thought is concerned with the ulti hi m in mate, the authentic w ch beco es present real life .

Every man as man philosophizes . But the developm ents of this thought cannot be hi understood at a glance . Systematic p losophy calls for m a : study . Such study y be divided into three parts ir First : P articipation in scientific inqu y . From its two 168

W A Y T O W I S D O M

I venture these maxims : proceed resolutely but do not e not run aground ; t st and correct, haphazardly or i ni arbitrarily but in a construct ve spirit, retai ng as ff k every experience an e ective force in your thin ing .

ON PHILOSOPHIC L R DING 2 . A EA When I read I wish first of all to understand what a d the author meant to s y . But in order to un er stand what he mean t I must understand not only hi a his language but s subject matter s well . My understanding will depend on my knowledge of the subject . It is through the understanding of texts that we set o r out to acquire u knowledge of the subject . Hence we must think of the subject itself and at the same time of what the author meant . One without the other makes the reading fruitless .

Since when I study a text I have the subject in mind , my understanding of the text undergoes an involuntary For transformation . a sound understanding both are necessary : immersion in the subject matter and return ’ r f to a clear unde standing o the author s meaning . In the first process I acquire philosophy, in the second historical insight . Reading should be undertaken in an attitude com pounded of confidence in the author and love for the a subject he has taken up . At first I must read s though hi everyt ng stated in the text were true . Only after I have allowed myself to be completely carried away, after I have been in the subject matter and then re m as its e erged it were from centre, can meaningful criticism begin . O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y

of How, in studying the history philosophy, we make past philosophy o ur own may be elucidated on the basis of the three Kantian imperatives : think for your self; in your thinking put yourself in the place of every ni i other man ; think in una m ty with yourself. These imperatives are endless tasks . Any anticipated solution making it appear that we have already fulfilled them is o ur a delusion ; we are always on way to a solution . i i And in th s h story helps us .

Independent thinking does not spring from the void . hi What we t nk must have roots in realit y . The authority of tradition awakens in us th e sources in anticipated in faith , by contact with them the beginnings and in the historical fulfilments of p hiloso hical p thought . Any further study presupposes this confidence . Without it we should not take upon our of selves the trouble studying Plato or Kant . Our ow n philosophi cal thinking twines upward as it were round the historical figures . Through the under of i standing their texts we ourselves become ph losophers . hi i hi But t s confident learn ng is not Obedience . In t s “ ” f r w n ollowing we test ou o essence . This obedience is a trusting to guidance ; we begin by accepting somethi ng as true ; we do not break in immediately and constantly with critical reflections which paralyse m o u r ow n . what is true , though guided , move ent And this Obedience is the respect which does not allow of easy criticism but only ofa criticism which through our own conscientious effort comes closer and closer to the core of the matter until it is able to cope with it . The limit o f obedience is that we recognize as true only what through o ur independent thi nking has 17 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M

our ow n e become conviction . No philosopher, not ven is f Amicus P at o . l o the greatest, in possession the truth , ma is amica veritas g . We arrive at the truth in independent thinking only if in our thinking we strive constantly to put ourselves in the lace o eve other man n to p f ry . We must lear know what i for hi s possible man . By seriously attempting to t nk what another h as thought we broaden the potential i of o ur ow n to it es truth, even where we bar ourselves ’ k to the other s thin ing . We learn know it only if we venture to put ourselves entirely into it . The remote and alien, the extreme and the exception, even the us no anomalous all enjoin to neglect original thought, r indifi ren e to miss no truth by blindness o e c . Accord in l of to g y , the student philosophy turns not only the philosopher of hi s choice whom he studies without stint as hi s own ; he turns also to the hi story of philo to w as sophy, in order learn what and what men have thought The study of history involves the danger of disp er noncom rnitm ent to thi sion and . The imperative nk in unanimity with ourselves is direct against the temptation to indulge too long in curiosity and the pleasure of contemplating diversity . What we learn from history should become a stimulus ; it should either make us or us of attentive call to question . The elements history not ff our should lie indi erently side by side in minds . We ourselves must create friction between these elements which historical fact itself h as not brought into exchange and contact . We must create a relation even among the most disparate elements . All elements come together by being received into 172

W A Y T O W I S D O M becomes apparent that Hegelian thinking cuts th heart o ut of them and buries their remains in th of r vast graveyard histo y . Hegel was finished with th past because he believed he had encompassed th t no whole of it . His ra ional penetration is t candid is endurm exploration but destructive surgery , it not g not questioning but conquest and subjection, it is a

- living with but domination . It is always advisable to read several accounts of history side by side in order to safeguard ourselves

one V as - If against accepting any iew self evident . we read only o ne account its classifications force them us selves upon involuntarily . It is also advisable to read no ac count without at least sampling the related original texts . hi Finally, stories of philosophy may be used as reference works for literary orientation , and various philosophical lexicons are also useful .

T ! TS 4 . E For individual study it is worthwhile to acquire a limited library containing the really important texts . Any list upon which such a library might be based will is be subject to personal modification . But there a core is which almost universal , though even here the accent will vary ; there is no universal accent that will be accepted by all . It is a good idea to begin by specializing in one of philosopher . It is course desirable that this should be one of the great philosophers , but it is possible to find the way to philosophy through a philosopher of second hi or third rank . Any p losopher, thoroughly studied , 174 O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y leads step by step to philosophy and the history of h philosop y as a whole . For antiquity any bibliography is limited by the o f small number extant texts , particularly of complete For works , that have been preserved . more recent centuries the texts are so abundant that, quite on the ffi one contrary, the di culty lies in selecting .

L ST O AM ES I F N . I WESTERN PHILOS O PHY ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY Fragments of the Pre - Socratics (600 Plato (42 8 Aristotle (384 Fra m en s of th e O ld S o cs 00 S eneca d . A D g t t i (3 ( . .

c e us ca. A . D . 0 arcus u re ius ru e A D Epi t t ( 5 M A l ( l d . . 161 Fragments of Epicurus (342 Lucretius (96

Th e Sce cs . S ex us Em iric s ca A . D . pti t p u ( . Cicero

- P arch c A D — 106 u a. . . I ( 43 l t ( 45 2 5) . P A D n s . 2 0 loti u ( . 3 D 80 B o ethius ( A . . 4 CHRISTI AN PHILOSOPHY u s ne Church Fathers : St . A gu ti (354 h t ri ns Middle Ages : J o n Sco us E gena (9th century) . A elm — e ar 1 —1 1 t h o m as 1 ( 1033 1 Ab l d ( 079 4 2 ) S . T ( 2 2 5 as r hart 1 J o hn Du ns Scotus (d . M te Eck ( 260

h am c 1 ~ i h f s oo o . c o as o a Willi am of Ock ( a. 3 5 ) N l Gu ( 1401 Luth er ( 1483 C alvin ( 1509 M ODERN PHILOSOPHY l 6th centur : lVIachiavelli Th om as ore Parace sus y , M , l ,

on a ne B run o aco b B ohm e B acon . M t ig , , J ,

1 th cen ur : Descar es Ho es S noz a Le n z Pasca . 7 t y t , bb , pi , ib it , l 18th century I 75 W A Y T O W I S D O M

ENG I A I NA L I : oc e Hum e . L SH R T O L STS k , FRENCH AND ENG LISH M ORA LISTS

i th centur : La Ro chefou cauld La B ru re . 7 y , y e h nt : s f 18t ce ur Shafte b ur Vauv enar ues Ch am ort . y y , g ,

G MAN I : K ant icht e He e S ch e in . ER PH LOSOPHY , F , g l, ll g I 9th century : M T Y n r i G MA N A AD I I e . . h e ou e chte ER C E C PH LOSOPHY, g , g F , L t z o e .

THE IGINA P HIL OSOP HE Rs : Kier e aard ietz sche . OR L k g , N Modern sciences as an area of philo sophy : POe ICA L AND N M I I : To c uevi e Lore ECO O C PH LOSOPHY q ll , i a v o n St e n M rx . , d ax I OF I : Rank e B u rc h ar t M Web er . PH LOSOPHY H STORY , k ,

Da i . A U A I ; K . E . v o n B aer rw n N T R L PH LOSOPHY ,

GI A I : ech n er reud . PSYCHOLO C L PH LOSOPHY F , F In roughly characterizing these men I shall venture a number of inadequate remarks . In no case do I or s of expect to classify di pose any philosopher, although m y statements will inevitably sound as if I did . I should like my remarks to be taken as questions . They are intended merely to call attention to certain things and perhaps to help some readers to find out ow n where their inclinations lead .

ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

The Pre - Socratics have the unique magic that lies ” m difli cult in the beginnings . They are unco monly to understand correctly . We must attempt to dis regard all the “ philosophical education” which veils their immediacy in current habits of thought and

th e - i speech . In Pre Socratics thought is work ng its way out of the original intuitive experience of being . In ’ reading them we participate in m an s first intellectual of hi illuminations . The work each of these great t nkers 176

W A Y T O W I S D O M whether Aristotelian or anti - Aristotelian or concei of as transcending this entire plane thinking . Plotinus used the whole tradition of ancient sophy as a means ofexpressing a wonderful original in mood , which has come down th ages as e true metaphysic . Mystical communicated in the music of a speculation w remains unequalled and which re - echoes wherever 111 have thought metaphysically . n Platoni The Stoics , Epicurea s , and Sceptics , the and Aristotelians (the later Academics and t e tics) created the universal philosophy of the educate classes of late antiquity for whom Cicero and Plutarc D also wrote . espite all the conflicting positions an constant polemics among them , they represent its world in common . Participation in all aspe intellectualan amounted to eclecticism, but it also characterizes specifically limi ted fundamental attitude of ancient centuries , the personal dignity, the contin of a world in whi ch the essentials were merely repea w as a world which strangely finished and barren, n is in which men understood o e another . This home of the cosm opolitan philosophy that still hi currency today . Its last captivating figure is Boet us Consolatio hiloso hiae whose p p , by virtue of its mood 0 beauty, and authenticity, is among the basic works philosophy . hi ni Since then, philosop cal commu ties of educatio concepts , style, and attitude have been realized by o f clergy the Middle Ages , the Humanists Since the

Renaissance , and in a weaker sense by the speculative, idealistic German philosophers between 1770 and 178

W A Y T O W I S D O M

of Scotus Erigena conceived an edifice being, God eo latonic prising , nature and man, in N p ories g with dialectic freedom of development . contributed a new mood of self- awareness and op e f to . o the world A man learning, he knew Greek D translated ionysius Areopagita . Working with tr tional concepts , he erected a magnificent i to original in ts attitude . He sought define f nature, and ounded a new speculative which has enjoyed influence down to the present is of d hnorr work a product ancient tradition, blende ai dn deep Christian and philosophical f th . methodofadap n of his c The methodical thi king the Middle Ages birnonluin becomes original withAnselm . Immediate me minim ofhis revelations are expressed in the dry language lbiseomplctcsuhil n r his ar um e a d ju isprudence . While logical g onhefoundinl and particularly his dogmatic propositions are alien to DunsScotusan. us hi s so as , ideas are still alive, in far we disregard thestructureofrs of their historical cloak Christian dogmatism and take momentwhenits as them in their universal human import we do those lbatpassedason of . Parmenides bytheprofound of t of Abelard teaches the energy reflec ion, the roads questionolwilla of contradic the logically possible, the method dialectic Here andNw o . of ~ tion as a means exploring problems . By this extreme epistemologyand i of quest oning through the confrontation opposites he theoryofknowle of became the founder the Scholastic method which senseolhumanl ' its ; at achieved summit in Thomas Aquinas the st for LO i same t me he sowed the seeds of disintegration in the ofthech naive Christianity which had sustained men before works ha beli everinChrb Thomas Aquinas erected the grandiose system which ar e knownto has r m been ove whel ingly accepted in the Catholic ( utati m ons) To 180

W A Y T O W I S D O M

’ not t Ockham s works . They have been ranslated i is German . This perhaps the only great gap still to of filled in the history philosophy . Nicholas of Cusa is the first philosopher of the Mid Ages whom we encounter in an atmosphere w hic

us our ow n . to True, he remains entirely his for faith, in him the th still unbroken, the trust Church will one day emb r philosophy he no longer projects one system ; of Thomas , he does not make use the Scholastic met which logically apprehends all tradition in its tradictions to , but turns directly the matter in h whether it be metaphysical (transcendant) or empi

(immanent) . Thus he employs special methods bas on ow n his intuitions , and finds a wonderful divi being, which in these Speculations is revealed of a new way . In this being the godhead he sees t realities of the world , and in such a way tion opens the path to e insights which become the instruments of the

- h of . God His is an all embracing thoug t, close to reality and yet transcending it . The not circumvented but itself Shines in the light e is is s transcendenc . This a metaphysic which e OIi n indispensable . The time spent in p g it may f counted among the happy hours o the philosopher . ff With Luther it is di erent . To study him pensable . He is a theological thinker who of philosophy, speaks the whore reason , yet he hims thought out the basic ex istential ideas without which present philosophy would scarcely be possible . The 182 O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y

of passionate seriousness of faith and of

shrewdness , of depth and hatred , of tration and coarse bluster makes it a duty, rm en t to study him . This man gives forth a o undl hi s y antip lo ophical atmosphere . ’

alvin s greatness lies in disciplined, methodic form,

logic , unswerving and dauntless adherence to hi i les . s hi p But loveless intolerance makes him, in s as his in practical activities , the repellent h e i s S of philosophy . It is good to have looked him to ni e face in order recog ze this spirit wherever, in o r it d fragmentary form , is manifested in the He is the supreme incarnation of that Christian ntolerance against which there is no weapon but l ran e nto e c .

ON M ODERN PHILOSOPHY

to In contrast ancient and medieval philosophy, Odern philosophy forms no comprehensive whole but

an agglomeration of the most disparate, unrelated

rts , full of fine systematic structures , none of which

. of is actually dominant It is extraordinarily rich, full the concrete and of bold , free abstractions , in constant i n ff t relat o to new science . Its works are di eren iated along national lines , written in Italian, German ,

- French, and English, in addition to those carry overs from the Middle Ages that were still composed in Latin . We Shall attempt a characterization of modern hi p losophy in chronological order .

The sixteenth century is rich in heterogeneous , r s ext aordinary personal creation , which move us by

m . their immediacy . They re ain rich sources 183 W A Y T O W I S D O M In the political sphere Machiavelli and M initiated the modern approach to history as a ch ff D causes and e ects . espite their outmoded tr their works are still graphic and interesting . o Paracelsus and B hme Show us that world , equa i rich in profundity and superst tion , with clarity and is uncritical confusion , which today known theosophy, anthroposophy, cosmosophy . Rich in tuitions and images , they lead into a maze . discern the rational structure that lies hidden in l B ob cabbalistic quaintness and , particu arly with in dialectical subtleties . Montaigne is the type of man grown indep end without desire for realization in the world . morality and opinions , integrity and shrewd sceptical openness and sense of the practical m of expressed in odern form . The reading Montai is immediately captivating, philosophically it i of 8 perfect expression for this form life , but at the time it is in a sense paralysing . His earthbound sufficiency is a delusion . Bruno in contrast is the infinitely struggl l hi . p losop her, consuming himse f in inadequacy has knowledge of the limits and believes in on eroici urori supreme . His dialogue the f is a b work of the philosophy of enthusiasm . Bacon is known as the founder of m odern empir and of the modern sciences . Both erroneously . did not understand true modern science, the m atical of its b e innin science nature, then at g this science would never have come into being by for methods . But in an enthusiasm the new, charac 184

W A Y T O W I S D O M without the greatness that comes of a basic attitu which is profoundly human . The eighteenth century Shows for the first time broader stream of philosophical literature addressed a general public . It is the century ofthe Enlighten The English Enlightenment has its first repr n ative figure i Locke . He provided the E society growing out of the revolution of 1688 with l i intellectual and po itical groundwork . Hume s t wh brilliant analyst ; an intelligent writer, even as tedious , he does not strike us commonplace . is i of scepticism the bold, unflinch ng integrity who dares to stand at the limits and face the i of fathomable, without speak ng it . Both in France and in England there w as a litera of aphorisms and essays by Observers of men ”

. to society, whom we call moralists Theystrove b hi a philosop cal attitude into psychology . In seventeenth century the work of La Rochefoucauld e La Bruy re, in the eighteenth century that Ch amfort of Vauvenargues and , grew out the worl of the court . Shaftesbury was the philosopher of a o aesthetic discipline f life . Along with a systematic energy and an openness is what is deepest and what most remote, the gre German philosophers have an intellectual vigour wealth of ideas that m ake them an indisp ensab foundation for all serious philosophical though h ic te . Kant, F , Hegel , Schelling Kant : for us the decisive step toward awareness being ; precision in the intellectual operation of trans cending ; an ethos growing out of our inadequacy ; 186 O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y

of conception and humanitarian feeling ; like

a personification of radiant reason . A noble

hte : speculation carried to the point of fanatic

frantic attempts at the impossible, brilliant

on, moral eloquence . He initiated a

e trend of extremism and intolerance . mastery and m any- sided elaboration of the categories ; explored the full range of intel l t ff at itudes , e ected the most comprehensive of ation Western history . ellin g : indefatigable p onderings on the ulti broached disquieting mysteries ; failed as creator

opened up new paths . teen th century represents transition , dis of tion and consciousness dissolution, expansion of h material world , scientific scope . The p ilosophical etus w d indled in philosophers turned professor,

ing pale, arbitrary, unconvincing systems and ies on the history o f philosophy which for the h s time made the whole istorical material acce sible . authentic philosophical drive survived in ex cep

ely recognized by their contemporaries , and

academic philosophy is instructive , full of usness and zeal ; however, it no longer essence of man but derives from the

world with its cultural ideals , its well mi m riou sn ess . , and its li tations Even its ore

figures , such as the younger Fichte and e difi cation will be studied for their , not for b stance u . 187 W A Y T O W I S D O M

The original philosophers of this era are Kierkega and Nietzsche . Both without system, both m catastr and victi s . They are aware of the

out . astounding truths , and Show no way In the age is documented by the most merciless self- cri in human history . : of ro Kierkegaard forms spiritual action, p intellectual commitment . In him everything, ticularl is y congealed Hegelian thought, made

V . again . iolently Christian : Nietzsche endless reflection, auscultation a questioning of all things ; digs deeply but discovers l . V foundations, except for new paradoxes io en

- anti Christian . The modern sciences become vehicles of a phil o hical p attitude, not in their general concerns but i numerous though separate personalities . Here are few names only as examples . Political and social philosophy : Tocqueville a prehended the course of the modern world tow of democracy, through sociological knowledge ’ ancien re ime of of g , the French Revolution, and of His reoccu atio United States America . p p f of i of autho reedom, his sense human dign ty and led him to inquire realistically into the inevitable of the possible . He was a man and scientist the of order . On the basis the political actions and ide 1 8 z v on n the French since 7 9, Loren Stein i terpreted the events of the first half of the nineteenth century in o terms f the polarity between state and society . He ’ of considered the question Europe s destiny . Marx m utilized these insights , developed them in econo ic

188

W A Y T O W I S D O M

Psychological philosophy : Fechner established of b etw e methodical , experimental study the relation the psychological and physical factors in perception (psychophysics) ; this he conceived a of a logical but actually fantastic theory of the a Of his tion all life and all things . In deb psychology Freud naturalized and trivialized m of subli e insights Kierkegaard and Nietzsche . hum barren, hateful weltanschauung masked by itarian forms was indeed appropriate to an age w h to hypocrisy it pitilessly dissected , but Freud failed s not that this world was the whole world .

L ST O AM ES I F N . II CHINA AND INDIA CHINESE PHILOSOPHY

f t r r C . Con uc us 6 h cen u B . C . Lao Tse (6th centu y B . ) i ( t y ) Tse (second h alf of th e 5th century Chuang T (4th century

ND N I I IA PH LOSOPHY — Up anish ads (roughly 1000 400 Pali Canon of B u dhism ; tex ts fro m the Mah abh arata ( 1st century ’ - Ka il a s Ar h a r B h a av ad Gi a etc . ut t shast a Sh an a g t , ; y ; k (9th century

As thus far accessible to us in translations an a d hi interpretations , Chinese n Indian p losophy s far inferior to Western philosophy in scope, in dev For ment , and in inspiring formulations . us m of philosophy re ains the main object study . It indeed an exaggeration to say that all we understan of Asiatic philosophy is what we would understan 190 O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y

our ow n out it through philosophy . But it is true most interpretations lean so heavily on th eWestern that even for those who do not understand nt al languages the error is perceptible .

e , though the parallel between the three — — ments China , India, the West is historically it gives us a distorted picture in that it seems to on e equal emphasis all three . For us this is not the Despite those indispensable insights which we thinkm to Asiatic g, the main ideas which animate of re those Western philosophy . Only in Western do phy we find the clear distinctions , the i n formulat o s of problems , the scientific orienta

the thorough discussions , the sustained thought, uS ch to are indispensable .

L S O M ES I T F NA . III

I IN R IGI N LI A U A ND ART PH LOSOPHY EL O , TER T RE , ligion : Th e B ible ; the texts collected in source books of r o y . a ure : Homer esch us So hoc es ur des Dan e t ; A yl , p l , E ipi ; t ;

akes eare Go e he Dos o e s . p , t , t y v ky

Leonardo ch e an e o Re m rand . , Mi l g l , b t

ord er to possess ourselves of the contents of Sophy dow n through its history we must read and d the philosophers in the restricted sense ; we obtain a clear view of the development of the and we must allow ourselves to be moved by

t works of religion , literature, and art . We not keep turning to new and varied works but

se ourselves in those which are truly great . 19 1 W A Y T O W I S D O M

Th e Great Works

Some few works of philosophy are in their ow n as of as infinite great works art . They contain m c thought than the author himself knew . True, v profound idea implies consequences of which thinker is not immediately aware . But in the philosophies it is the totality itself which conceals infinite . An astonishing harmony pervades the v contradictions , so that even they become an express of x of truth . The comple ity thought, clarity in the foreground , reveals depths . The more patiently we study more wonderful they seem to us . Such ’ of Phenomenolo Plato , Kant, Hegel s gy i each for reasons of ts own . In Plato we m form, supre e lucidity, the keenest of method , artistic expression philosophical without sacrifice of clarity and force . In Kant w scu ulous of the greatest integrity, p weighing m I word , the most subli e clarity . Hegel is occasionally carried away by his these defects are counterbalanced b hi creative genius , w ch reveals deep does not integrate them in his own of is full violence and deception, toward dogmatic scholasticism and aestheticism . Philosophies vary exceedingly in rank and in kin It is a question of philosophical destiny whether or n in my youth I entrust myself to the study of a gre philosopher and to which of the great philosophers entrust myself.

W A Y T O W I S D O M

one contrary, when you study great philosopher, should also consider another who is very diffe him ou to o ne from . If y restrict yourself , even the unprejudiced philosopher, the result will be Philosophy is incompatible wi th any deification of in which o ne m an is regarded as an exclusive And the very essence of philosophical thought to not openness the truth as a whole, to barren, abstr truth but to truth in the diversity of its supre i realizat ons .

194 APPENDIX III B I B L I O G R A P H Y

H O S E R E A D E R S W H O wish to look more closely to my philosophical writings may consult the follow

g brief bibliography . My two principal phi losophical works are

- i cd . I Philoso h e. 2 B . p , Heidelberg erlin, - V 1 8 Springer erlag, 94 . a r it W h he . 2 Von der . 1 8 . Munich, R Piper, 94 .

Short works treating the subject matter of these adio talks in greater detail :

G a b i D r hiloso hische l u e. 1 e . . p p Mun ch, R Piper, 1 8 Zii rich - V 1 8 94 ; , Artemis erlag, 94 . d : The P erennial Sco e o P English e . p f hilos

o h . Ne . w p y , trans by Ralph Manheim r 1 York, Philosophical Libra y, 949 ;

London , Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1 0 95 .

d Exist n . c rnun t un e 2 d. e Ve f z , Br men,

- V 1 . Storm erlag, 947

Philoso hie und Wissenscha t. Z 3 . p f urich, Artemis 8 V 1 . erlag, 94 On contemporary philosophy

ituat on r eit. I Die eisti e S i de cd. . g g Z 7 ,

1 . ed : Berlin , W . de Gruyter, 949 English . 195 B I B L I O G R A P H Y

M an in the M od rn A R e e. o o g L ndon, 1 ledge and Kegan Paul , 934 . om Urs run und iel er G schichte Z V d e . 2 . p g Z uri - V 1 Artemis erlag, 949 ; Munich, 1 d O . e : The ri in Piper, 949 English . g Goal o Histor f y , London, Routledge a

Kegan Paul (in preparation) .

m E uro aischen Geist . Vo . 3 . p Munich, R Pip 1 d Th Euro an S e . : e e 947 . English p p S O M 1 8 London, . . . Press , 94 .

Works devoted to individual philosophers

D ar i d die Ph loso hie cd . I esc tes un . . p 2 , Berli 1 W . de Gruyter, 947 . i s l Gru et che cd . . t 2 . N z . 3 , Ber in, W de y 1949 r n Nietzsche und das Ch iste tum. Hamel B h r t b e f 1 6 iic e s u . Sei ert, 94 M a e r ed x W be . 2 . 3 . , Bremen, Stor

V 1 . erlag, 947

On philosophy as manifested in the concret sciences :

l m n P o atho ie d . I Al e ei e ch lo . c . g sy p g 5 , Heid - l - 1 V . berg Ber in, Springer erlag, 947 trindb r n van Go h cd S e u d . . 2 . g g 3 , Breme -V 1 Storm erlag, 949.

Articles in English

“

of . Rededication German Scholarship , trans Zuckerlandl American Scholar 1 by M . , , 5 (April, 1 - 1 8 . 2 80 8 . No , 196

This book originated in twelve radio lectures m com issioned by Basel radio station .

199

I N D E X — mmun ca n : of rut 1 2 a ec ca me Marx Co i tio t h , 3, 5 7 ; Di l ti l thod of m s c sm not c mmunica e e e 1 —6 y ti i o bl , 35 ; H g l, 54 uni ersa uman rea ness fo r 1 c m : su ec - ec 2 et v l h di —, 9 ; Di hoto y bj t obj t, 9 and uni m an n 106 8 in m ean n ty of ki d, ; i g

th e s ca fe 12 2 et se . philo ophi l li , q — Communi cations before Christian 3 1 3 ; result of awareness era 1 ff eren a n e e s , 35 Di ti tio , l v l of, m mun secur in 2 1 and ev - 62 Co ity, ity , good il, 59 m re ens e th e 1 2 8—8 nit m an 1 Co p h iv , , 3, 3 ; Dig y of , 9 re ac e r u cer a n scuss n eman e b st h d th o gh t i ty Di —io , d d d y ex s ence and s ca 86 i t , 43 ; philo ophi l 7 a a areness Of 12 s n e ra n vis e S ns f ith, 94 ; w , 5 Di i t g tio , ibl ig Com prehe—nsive consciousness G od, 46 7 n na im era es ma sm n e en ence 11 Co ditio l p tiv , 55 Dog ti of i d p d , n uc a ms and — u a s urce s Co d t, i , 54 5 Do b—t, o of philo ophy , - —c 1 18 1 2 C o nf umus (55 1 478 B 99, 33, 9, 4 1 0 DuI S c us n 12 6 1 9 S ot , Joh ( 5 75 nsc usness 6 1é 1—2 Co io , 33, 3 n em a n : ure m s cs Co t—pl tio p , of y ti , 80 1 re us and i s c c ar as er 12 60 1 ligio ph lo ophi , E kh t, M t ( 75

12 2 et se . t c a n 8 q gyp , iviliz tio of, 9 sm ca r ex s ence a the r e I oo Co ologi l p oof of i t of Elij h p oph t, 2— nli htenm ent : ai and 8 — God, 4 3 g f th , 5 95 ; m es sc en c 6 ack a and the 8 em an s Cos ologi , i tifi 7 l of f ith , 7 ; d d rea n ree s urce s ca 8 efin n of 88 am a C tio , f , o ofphilo ophi l of, 7 ; d itio , ; biv u ence 88—0 a ac s on 8 —0 tho ght, 9 l of, 9 ; tt k , 9 9 ; rea e r na t I I n a ure 8 C tiv o igi li y, t of, 9 u ures r nthusiasm 18 C lt , g owth of, 97 , 4 n r nm en Dasein e n - ere E vi o t, (b i g th ) an e l er 12 6 18 1 r en e ar D t , A ighi i ( 5 , o i t d tow d, 3

D . 1 on 19 1 Epictetus (A . 50 75 ; ar wn ar es 180 1 6 s urce i s I D i , Ch l ( 9 7 , o of ph lo ophy, 9 18 cureans 1 8 9 Epi , 7— Dasein ! e n - ere r en e curus 2 2 1 1 ( b i g th ) , o i t d to Epi (34 7 75 ar en r nm en 2 rasmus es er us 1 66 1 w d vi o t, 3 E , D id i ( 4 79 ea 2 0 and tness erna ar a e in th e 6 D th, ; wi , 53 Et l, to p t k , 5 ea ur e ca ev e ff eren a n b e D th g , 53 Ethi l l l of di t—i tio — ec s n ex s en i a em an e e en and e 60 6 1 2 D i io , i t t l, d d d by tw good vil, 59 , unc n na m era e 6 ur es 8 —0 1 1 o ditio l i p tiv , 5 E ipid (4 4 4 7 9 m ern 1 6 Deification m an uro ean s , , 3 of , 45 p philo ophy od — escar es ené 1 6 18- 1 vil : e n n rue 60 D t , R ( 59 9, d fi itio of, 59; t , 59 ; an h es s and —62 tit i of good , 59 es a r 2 0 x s ence : n er I o r en e D p i , E i t wo d of, ; o i t d es c m res r se 102 ar 2- and free m D poti E pi , i of, tow d God, 3 3 ; do , e erm nac m ca ns 0 em r ca and th e uncondi D t i y, i pli tio of, 3 45 ; pi i l, eu er - sa a 100 tional m era e 2 D t o I i h, i p tiv , 5

e e m en and r ress in x s en a sm 2 on. D v lop t p og philo E i t ti li , s 1 0—1 ophy, 4 e ser n th e 8 a ure rea 2 2- D vil, vi g , 3 F il , lity of, 3 e n un m e th e a 2 2 r e in th e m re D votio , li it d, to God, F ith, ; oot d Co p au en c m e of ex s ence 8 - h ensiv e 6 na ure 1 and th ti od i t , 3 4 , 3 ; t of, 5 ; 2 02

I N D E X — r s 1 2 f ur n e ec ua ass v Histo y of philo ophy, 3 44 ; o I t ll t l p i ity of er s 1 6 —8 ea un in cen ur 1 p iod of, 3 ; id of ity , t y, 37 1 8— th e e inn n 1 - 0 n er re a n all n e e is 3 9 ; b g i g. 39 4 ; I t p t tio , k owl dg , 7 men and r ress 1 0—1 dev elop t p og , 4 —; fi ca n s ers 1 1 2 rres ns n e en ence classi tio ofphilo oph , 4 I po ibility , i d p d es mas 1 88 1 11 - 1 Hobb , Tho ( 5 75, 3 4 8 sa a th e r e 100 1 5 I i h P oph t, Holderlin ann rist an 1 0 , Joh Ch i ( 77 as ers scuss n : th 1! J p di io of

S ua n on. e m er 100 1 1 , 2 ; th Ho , , 9 it tio of m en 8 n. uan t m re 102 t, 7 H g i, E pi of, — erem a the r e the v n um an s s 1 8 h h , g H i t , 7 9 J i P op t li i of —0 100 um e a 1 11 1 0 1 6 . 39 4 , H , D vid ( 7 4 , 7 , u men man and 6 186 J dg t, of of God, ’ um in recei in s u ance H ility v g God g id , Kan mm anue 1 2 t, I l ( 7 4 70 an er c v a i n on 8 Hw g Riv ,—i iliz t o , 9 sm 28 Hylozoi , 9

eas s ecu a e Id , p l tiv , 34 on en enm en 88 on 79 ; light t, ; m a es ne a n in c ses I g , g tio of, lo t 11 —18 on s u in good, 7 ; t dy g a r ac 8 pp o h to God, 4 s 1 1- ophy, 7 3 - m era e unc n na 2 62 . I p tiv , o ditio l , 5 K autil a 1 1 0 y , 33, 9 And see nc n na m era e U o ditio l i p tiv K e er ann pl , Joh m era i e un ersa . See n v ersa I p t v , iv l U i l Kierke aar S0r g d, imperative 8 13 ; 176, 188, m era es c n na I p tiv , o ditio l, 55 will to b e ones m er ec th e r I p f tibility of wo ld, 44 u ance 6 g id , 7 ; n e en ence : re ec e a I d p d j t d by tot lit m an i , 17 an s a aren disa ar m, 110 ; p i i pp t Knowledge : earance 1I O ; am a ence p of, biv l of sense of the mys c nce I 12—1 a s u e n e o pt of, 5 ; b ol t i d a a s c n na lw y o ditio l, endence m ss e I 1 m a p i po ibl , 5 li it Kn e e u fi e owl dg , f l ll d, ti ns 11 - 18 ach e e a o of, 5 ; how to i v n nk n e e o owl dg , 77 m easure 118—1 of, 9 Kn e e sc en i c : c m are owl dg , i t fi o p d n e en en i s er the 110 I d p d t ph lo oph , , s 1 philo ophy, 7. 57 9 ensa e 8 r u m e p bl , ; th o gh thod, 74 n a s r ua f un a ns a in I di , pi it l o d tio l id , 8 eve men n e en en La ru ere ean de 16 1 6 9 d lop t of i d p d t y , J ( 45 7 , hiloso h I 1g6 P P y , 35 n ian i s ex s on 1 0- 1 a sse -fa re 1 I d ph lo ophy, t t , 9 L i z i , 9 n ua re a n an ua e use 8 I divid l , l tio of, to God, 47 L g g , of, 9 n us er c v a n on 8 Lao Tse m- nfucius 116 1 0 I d , Riv , i iliz tio , 9 (p Co ) , 99, , 9 nference a ex s s La c e ucau Fran ois de I th t God i t , 43 Ro h fo ld, g

n unc n s r ca . See s r cal 16 1 1 6 186 I j tio , hi to i l Hi to i ( 3 7 , n unct n e n fr e W elm 16 6 i j io L ib itz, Gott i d ilh ( 4 nsan e s n ane us s of t 18 - 6 I , po t o philo ophy 75, 5 E the 11 en n a m r c an v , L i , Vl di i Ilyi h Uly o ns u ns rreme a e n us ce 18 0 on sci ence 1 8 I tit tio , i di bl i j ti ( 7 , 5 of 108 ess n ra m 1 2 , L i g, Gotthold Eph i ( 7 9 n e ec and a 1 6 18 I t ll t f ith, 93 3 , 7 n e ec ual r un sm 11 eralism 1 I t ll t oppo t i , 4 Lib , 9

I N D E X arace sus e ras us 1 0 0 ec mes P l , Th oph t ( 49 5 ; how it b o

1r 18 1 et se . ec s and m 75, 4 — 59 q obj t Parm emdes of Ele a (czrca 539 4 74 16 1 ; both less and in no 100 180 s ecu a iv e do ctrin sc ence 16 ) , , ; p l t i , of e n 8 b i g, 4 asca a se 162 1 18 P l, Bl i ( 3 75, 5 P 1 1 1 1 6 au S t . 1 6 l, , , 7 , 3 ’ P eace in th e e ef in s e n 1 b li God b i g, 7 P e acefu ness of the s er 110 P s c an func n 12 l philo oph , hy i i , tio of, 9 P erf ec n 12 c e a M ran a ann 1 tio , Pi o d ll i dol , Giov i ( P er a e i cs 1 8 1 ip t t , 7 79 P ers a s r ua un a ns a in a 28—8 100 1 i , pi it l fo d tio l id , Pl to ( 4 34 , 33, 166 1 1 l 1 I - 98 , 7 , 75, 77, 92 3 ; er ers n : or rue evi —60 of r ress e n 8 m ve P v io t l , 59 ; p og b yo d, ; o d en enm en 2— an ers in n er 2 eac n on light t, 9 3 ; d g of wo d , 4 ; t hi g God th e s ca fe 12 8— philo ophi l li , 9 en m ena of em r cal ex s en ce e n 8 s ca c nc Ph o lity pi i i t , b i g, 4 ; philo ophi l o n sc ence 1 - 79 tio of i , 53 4

Phenonienolo Mind e e 1 2 Plo ti us A . D . 2 0 1 gy of (H g l) , 9 ( 4 34 , 7 Phi s er : the nd e en en 1 10 I g lo oph i p d t, 7

1 rai nin in sc entific sc ne u arc A . D. 1 1 8 9 ; t g i di ipli Pl t h ( 45 75, 7 essen a 1 P t e sm 1 ti l, 59 oly h i , 7 P s ers th e firs 101 v a ence 2 hilo oph , t, Poly l , 3 ' Philoso hia eyerzms 16 162 rac ce a s urce rea p p , , P ti o of lity , 74 P i s i ca a es s 6 ra m a i c su s u e for s h lo oph l f ith, th i of, 7 P g t b tit t philo P s ca fe th e 12 0—1 a h s 1 hilo ophi l li , , 3 ; p t 5 - of 12 2 et se . al 12 1 ra er e enera n 2 , q ; go of, 9 3 P y , d g tio of, 7 Philosophical thought and rational Premises of faith and of sens kn e e 12 6 ex er ence — owl dg , p i , 94 5 — s e is earn Pre- cra cs 1 1 6 Philo ophiz , to, to l how to So ti , 75, 7 7 die — r s ns su es m ean n , 53 4 P opo itio to gg t i g —of P i s : not c arac eri e the un c n na m era e 6 8 h lo ophy h t z d by o ditio l i p tiv , 5 r ress e e e m en —8 con seu o - kn e e 8 p og iv d v lop t, 7 ; P d owl dg , 5 ‘ ” cern e the e ein Ps c anal s s 1 6 d with whol of b g , y ho y i , 5 8 akes acc un of sc en c Ps c era r un e in il ; t o t i tifi y hoth py, g o d d ph o kn e e 8 t u sc ence s 12 owl dg , ; wi ho t i ophy, 9 ! s n an e us i s exis P ur essen al in sc ence and ( po t o ph lo ophy) , ity ti i ence of 8—12 : access e all s 1 - 6 t , ibl to , 9 ; philo ophy, 57 3 e er- resen 1 1—12 m eanin and v p t, ; g n ature 12—16 aim of 12 1 - 1 ues n n : essen a s of, ; , , 3 4 ; ! tio i g ti l to philo ophy, s urces 1 —2 ul ma e s urce 12 th e fi rs ues n 28 o of, 7 7 ; ti t o ; t q tio , o f 2 6— th e firs ues n of 28 , 7 ; t q tio , ; s ecu a e eas and s a e ac a e r 1 6 p l tiv id , 34 ; t t R i l th o y, 5 m en s ack of fa t 8 s r of a ance u and t ofl i h, 7 ; hi to y , R di , tho ght , 49 1 2— and see s r ank e e v on 1 3 44 ( Hi to y of philo R , L opold ( 795 s re e rms s u o f 1 6 18 ophy) ; th fo of t dy , 7 , 9 1 m us b e s u e th e a na s c seu - n e e 33 ; t t di d with R tio li ti p do k owl dg , 95 r in c w as r uce ea fi nd and a re en 1 wo ld whi h it p od d, R lity, to pp h d, 3 ; — 6 1 en ures at all m es 1 1 o f fa ure 2 2 ; s m , 3 34 ; d ti , 4 ; il , 3 y b—ol of and sc ence 1 —6 th e sc en ce s ca 6 of God 6 and see i , 47 7 ; i phy i l, 3 , 4 7 ( ar ex ce ence 1 e ff e c s God unc n na m erati e p ll , 4 7 ; t of ) ; —o ditio l i p v m ern sc en ifi c ren s on 1 8 and 6 efini n od i t t d , 4 , 5 7 ; d tio of, 74 ; D E X

e - an ers 68 S lf will, d g of, en e ca d. A . O . 1 1 S ( 75, 77 ; m ar r m ty do of, 54 ex us Em iricus 1 S t p , 75 S af es ur An n s l e er h t b y, tho y A h y Coop , r ar of 16 1 1 6 186 thi d E l ( 7 7 , ank ara 1 0 Sh , 9 Shi m re 102 , E pi of, S u a ns u ima e - 1 20 2 071. it tio , lt t , 9 , Sociological conditions of the axial a e 1 g , 02 Socrates (470- 399 140 ; and e ence a s u e m era e ob di to b ol t i p tiv , 53 u e ru h in 2 —6 Solit d , t t —, 5 Sophocles (495 406 19 1 ’ S eec s in th e r 8 2 p h, God , wo ld, en er O s a 1880 Sp gl , w ld ( 97 n a ene c us ( 10 16 2 Spi oz , B di t ( 3

Spi ri tual found ations lai d (800- 200 8 —10 9 , 99 2 r ua sm 2 8 Spi it li , S a em en and scuss n 86— t t t di io , 7 S e n ren v on 1 6 188 t i , Lo z , 7 , ness e n th e Still ofb i g, , 49 c sm 2 2— 2 em and ri Stoi i , 3, 4 ; pty gid,

- u ec ec c m 2 et se . S bj t obj t di hoto y, 9 q ; m eanin of 0—1 m l ca ns of g , 3 ; i p i tio , 1 ree m es 1- resul of 3 ; th od of, 3 3 ; t a areness - 8 w of, 37 S uffer n 2 0 i g, u ers n s m s and 6 S p titio , y bol , 3 S m m e a s cs a —6 y bol, t phy i , 35 m c c 1 Sy boli logi , 49 m s of ranscen ence 0 Sy bol t d , 5 s em a a n the sc en ces 6 Sy t tiz tio of i , 7

a s s a em a re en T oi t , tt pt to pp h d God, 48 e ac ers s 16 - T h ofphilo ophy,—5 7 Thales of Mile tus (640 546 — 15 e and s 16 Th ology, philo ophy, 4 5

m as S t . of u nas 122 Tho , , Aq i ( 5 1 1 180—1 182 34 , 75 , , u r na n in 0 et Tho ght, God o igi ti g , 4 f se . and ra ance er o q ; di , 49; pow , 12 6—8 circa 0 100 Thucydides (b. 4 7 m e un c n n a is m e ess in 8 Ti , o ditio l ti l , 5 c ue e m e de 180 To q vill , Co t ( 5 8 176, 18 I N D E X

erance 1 an s a s circa 1000- 00 Tol , 9 Up i h d ( 4 . s n en n 8 Tool , i v tio of, 9 a ar an sm and n e en en and s 1 Tot lit i i , i d p d t Utility, philo ophy, 5 s 1 r 10 philo ophy, 4 , n ee rn se a un ersa not r uce Toy b , A old Jo ph, 97 V lidity, iv l, p od d ra n 2 2 and un ersa i s T ditio , ; iv l ph lo ophy, 7 r nc es 82— Van V ncen 18 11 p i ipl , 3 — Gogh , i t ( 53 ranscen ence 2 m s er Vau enar ues ar u s de 1 1 T d , 3 3 y t y of, v g , M q i ( 7 and free m er s 1 6 186 44 ; do , 45 ; hi oglyph 7 o r s m s 0 and a areness s n and e n 11 —1 y bol of, 5 , w —of Vi io b i g, 3 4 se 6 ui ance r u 6 8 lf, 4 ; g d th o gh, 7 ; ’ and e ence 6 m an s re a n Wea nfin e o—b di , 9 ; l tio lth, i it , 49 0 a s u e 8 2 Wel er M ax 186 1 to, 7 3 ; b ol t , of God—, , ( 4 97, 7 ranscen n refl ec n 12 1é T di g tio , 3 4 9 rans ence un ersa of n s Wes ern c arac er dev elo T i , iv l, thi g , t h t of

10 r s an era 1 et se . Ch i ti , 35 q ru searc for 12 u fi le nl in W e su r na n the 26 T th, h , ; f l l d o y hol , bo di tio to , c mm un ca n 26 a s u e and W 0 o i tio , , b ol t , ill of God, 5 th e a s u e rue rea ene W c mm un ca n th e u m a b ol t ly t , 4 7 ; th t d ill to o i tio , lti er een n c a ms th e s urce s 26- by ov w i g l i to o of philo ophy, 7 a s u e rue 0 sc en fi c and W ev 60 b ol t ly t , 7 ; i ti ill to il, s ca 16 W rea 60 philo ophi l, 3 ill to lity, s n m re 102 Wil am c am 1 00 1 T i , E pi of, of O kh ( 3 7 1g1—2 ma e a a nmen th e W s m 12 6 Ulti t , tt i t of , 49 i do , ; of God, 4 n n e e - 6 c na m era th , 2 ; W n er sense 10 ; the s urce U o ditio l i p ti—v , 5 o d , of, o m es a ec s n 6 has rea s r 2 i pli d i io , 5 7 lity philo ophy, 7 , 4 in m an —8 is m e ess in m e W r the —8 recar usness , 57 ; ti l ti , o ld, , 74 4 ; p io ’ 8 an n m a n d s n s in 2 2 not e erna — 5 ; i ti tio of Go thi g , ; t l, 43 4 ; t ui ance 6 en mena em r c g d , 7 ph o lity of p—i i n ers an n r en e ar ence rea 80 1 U d t di g, o i t d tow d , 79 ; lity of, ec s 2 W r e erna 8 2 obj t , 3 o ld t l, Un in the s r s W r s s ems and c eren ity hi t—o y of philo ophy, o ld y t oh t ues n of 1 8 e e q tio , 3 9 l dg , 75 Un m an n aim s r W rs re i 1u18s 122 - ity—of ki d, of hi to y, o hip, lig o , 3 106 8 — n ersa m era e 6 0 en anes n s x U iv l i p tiv , 9 7 X oph of Colopho ( i th n ers s ri n of ac eve cen ur eac n on 0 U iv ity, t vi g , to hi t y t hi g God, 4 uni of sc ences and l s ty i phi o ophy,

16 et se . Z ara us ra 100 3 q th t ,