Miscellaneous

Origins of Medieval Thought

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Religious studies

Lesson: 4-18

Genre: Lecture

Track: 24

Dictation Name: RR107B4

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

The negative apologetic method of Doctor Van Til makes clear that any position other than a Christian Theistic one, which begins with the presupposition of God and his infallible word, cannot account for the ordinary experiences and realities of our world. As we have seen already, the Greek, roman and medieval world collapsed because they were on alien ground, and ultimately were not able to sustain a civilization.

Nominalism and universalism in Medieval philosophy both destroyed the possibility of definition, in that universalism because it ended up in the emphasis on the oneness of things, made impossible any description, in that anything was one. In a universe where everything is water, nothing can be described because everything is identical. In a universe where everything is many-ness without anything binding one particular to another, again because of the total atomism, the total anarchism, definition is impossible.

This is a chronic problem in the history of human thought. And as a result you see over and over again a retreat of philosophy from the problems of every day life, because it has ceased to have any capacity to account for them. Thus, to turn to modern thinkers briefly before we go back to Descartes and the origins of modern thought, it is important to note this point. (Simpson?) One of our most prominent contemporary scientists, devotes in one of his books two chapters to an examination of why science must exclude the concept of purpose. And basic to his argument is that: ‘You cannot have a purpose without a purpose. And a purpose introduces super nature and the super natural, with which science must not deal. And as a result Simpson feels that as he deals with nature he must omit any reference to design, any reference to purpose, meaning. As a result, the world he portrays is a totally meaningless world, and as a biologist he has given us something that is devoid of life itself. Because how can you account for life?

Thus Isaiah (Bullman?) another scholar has made it clear that science again must in terms of analysis avoid those things which it cannot analyze. Another man, Ponnamperuma has said and I quote: “Life itself is only a special though complicated property of matter, and there is really no difference between a living organism and lifeless matter.” That is an amazing statement is it not? No difference between a living organism and lifeless matter. But of course it is a necessity for him to say so, because if he were to assert there is a difference, he would then have to account for life, and this he cannot account for. When I studied psychology at the university, the textbook that was used refused to refer to life or consciousness.

Another book that was given in the course as a reference book had one passing reference to consciousness, but admitted that it was something they were referring to only to exclude, because to admit the fact of consciousness was ultimately to point to the supernatural and to

God. In other words, any philosophy that is consistent to itself, would end up denying the world and reality, if it begins on any other grounds than the presupposition of the triune God and his infallible word. Because the given, the starting point of a philosophy is ultimately its total world. Therefore if it does not begin with God who is the creator of all things it ends up with nothing.

As one scholar a century ago in criticizing the doctrine of evolution pointed out, the fallacy of evolution is that what has evolved must be that which was involved. Think of that for a moment. What has evolved must be that which was involved. If it was involved in the beginning, then the original atom had in it all the potentiality of the universe and was equivalent to God. So what progress have you made? You have created the original atom into something that had all the potentiality of God in itself. The ability to bring forth everything that the Universe has been and shall be. What has evolved is what was involved, and therefore Freud had to turn to Lamarckianism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which science says is an impossibility. As the only way to get something in to evolution which was not first of all involved.

Now turning to Descartes with these things in mind. Descartes is the fountainhead of modern philosophy, and he began in the period of the enlightenment, when the rebel of the medieval era had been cleared away by the Reformation, but the natural man was now in revolt against the Reformation. And as a result Descartes sought a new starting point in philosophy, something other than God, and by clinging to his methodology which he insisted was strictly scientific, he made mans autonomous mind the starting point. The famous term of Descartes was Cogito Ergo Sum, I think therefore I am.

He said, “I will begin by eliminating everything from the world which can be doubted away, in order to get at that which cannot be doubted, and I will begin from there.” And so he said: “I have no evidence of the existence of anything finally, except myself. And I think therefore I know I am, I exist. This then,” said Descartes, “is my starting point, my autonomous mind.” From this he sought to establish reality rather than to live in terms of it.

If God were to be established, God was to be established only because Descartes mind discovered him. Now Descartes said, “I think, and in my thinking there are impressions of an outside world. I don’t really know in my mind that there is an outside world, that there is a table here and people there. I get sense impressions of them, my eyes, my ears, my hands, convey to my mind impressions of that outside world, but I actually do not have with my mind contact with that world, so I cannot prove that that world exists. But I will assume the validity of my impressions, and posit an outside world, a material world. So I have two things, my impressions tell me that there are things outside, the material world. So I have on the one hand mind, or spirit, and the other hand my mind or spirit receives impressions of a world of matter.

But Descartes then had a problem. Two substances. Again you see he was getting into the old Hellenic dualism. How are these two substances to be brought together, how could he guarantee that his sense impressions were true, valid impressions? His conclusion was that: “Well, I must posit a God, and the purpose of this God is to guarantee that my sense impressions as my mind receives them are valid.” Thus the purpose of God was no more than as a kind of insurance policy. Now a spare tire is an insurance policy. You carry a spare tire in your car as an insurance against a blow out or a flat tire. You don’t like using that spare tire, especially on a wet day it’s a sloppy thing to have to put it on yourself.

Well, in Descartes philosophy, God is as it were a spare tire, he is just there to make sure these two worlds of substance and matter are properly linked together. And of course in all philosophy, in all religion, other than a consistently Reformed position that is Van Tillian, that is Biblical, God is basically the spare tire. He is there to make sure that everything is alright when you have a flat tire, and a great many people have the spare tire mentality when it comes to God: “He is a good thing to have when you need him. But life is much better if you can get along without him.”

This then was the philosophy of Descartes. And after Descartes the enlightenment was underway, a revival of the kind of thinking the Renaissance expressed. Doctor Louis Bredvold at the University of Michigan in his very, very telling book The Brave New World of the Enlightenment, which incidentally virtually had him excommunicated from the academic community, because it’s so telling an indictment of the modern mentality, outline the five basic positions of the enlightenment and the modern mind as it developed after Descartes, with Locke and the birth of the enlightenment. All of these rest on the philosophy of Descartes in that now, man is the starting point, man is the final point of reference. First of all says Doctor Bredvold: “There is a rejection of the past and of history. History is replaced with social science, with and engineering of the world, rather than with an analysis of history. Second there is a rejection of institution and culture, you break the bonds of institutions. You don’t need them, you move in terms of man autonomous mind. Third you posit that evil is in the environment rather than in man, so that instead of regenerating man you work to regenerate the environment. This of course is the whole program of salvation as we have it in politics today. Slum clearances, welfare grants, every kind of thing to change the environment, to regenerate the environment, but not to regenerate man. That is the ultimate in heresy from the modern perspective.

Fourth, they have not forgotten man, by changing human institutions, human nature itself will be born again. How do you change man then? You change his environment. So the way to have man reborn is to regenerate his environment. And fifth, the predestination of the world must be placed in the hands of the new managers, the scientific planners. This then was the perspective of the enlightenment. But the enlightenment as it progressed and modern, the spirit of modern philosophy as it developed, encountered another roadblock in the person of a very great philosopher, Bishop Barclay, or as the word is now pronounced, Berkeley. Berkeley California was named after the good Bishop.

And Bishop Berkeley, as he analyzed the philosophy of Descartes said: “Yes on the one hand you have mind, the autonomous mind of man, and here you have the material world and you have God guaranteeing these impressions.” But he applied Occam’s razor to this philosophy, and he said: “You don’t need to have the material world. Let us just say: “Here is the autonomous mind of man, and God is sending him these material impressions.” And he raised the famous question: “If a tree crashes to the ground in a forest, where no man or animal is, is there a sound?” and the answer is no. There are waves, but there is no sound until a human ear converts them into sound. And therefore all the world of impressions, the waves, the trees, everything, represents impressions that come directly from God.” And so Bishop Berkeley although beginning with the autonomous mind of man, tried to reestablish the centrality of God in a kind of left handed and secondary fashion.

Then the next great philosopher of the enlightenment was David Hume. And Hume said: “What evidence is there that you have God? All we have is the mind of man and sense impression, and man is unable to verify his impression because the mind is not in direct contact with reality, all he has are impressions, no immediate contact with the real world.” Now of course you remember the famous answer of Samuel Johnson to this, when he read of this. He stamped the floor with his foot, and he kicked the table, and he said: “It is there.” Now of course this is the reaction of common sense. But in terms of strict thinking, strict logic, Hume was right. Short of positing God you cannot have anything, in fact short of beginning with God you have no guarantee for the validity of ordinary human experience, you cannot prove it. And so Hume said you have nothing, nothing exists but the mind of man and the impressions that that mind has. No guarantee of God, no guarantee of the physical world, no guarantee of anything.

And the consequence was a major crisis in philosophy and science. With the publication of Hume’s work, the entire intellectual world was aghast. They recognized the logic of it. They did not want to begin with God. Anything was intellectually conceivable, except God. As Napoleon remarked a little later, he said: “The world will believe anything, so long as it is not in the Bible.”

Now this was precisely the perspective of modern philosophy. They were ready to believe anything so long as it was not in the Bible. Into this tremendous crisis of modern philosophy stepped Emmanuel Kant. And it is an impossibility to understand any of the modern world, the existentialists, the Hippies, Modern art, the Modern Theatre, apart from the thought that stemmed from Emmanuel Kant. Now at the very beginning of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant’s great work, in the preface, the preface to the second edition, Emmanuel Kant set the temper of the new philosophy very plainly with these words and I quote: “Hitherto, it has been assumed that our knowledge must conform to objects. That all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a-priori, by means of concepts, have on this assumption ended in failure. We must therefore make trial, whether we may not have more success in the task of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.”

Now here you enter into a world which is at first grasp difficult to understand. Some philosophers have said that Kant is the great hurdle in all philosophy, because the average student finds himself completely baffled by Kant. And with reason. Let us analyze this statement very closely. First of all, he says: “Until now it has been supposed that our knowledge must conform to objects, that is, If I think I see you out there, in order for my vision to be correct, my vision has to conform to what is out there, I have to see you. And if I see a church out there, the test of the accuracy of my seeing is, that what is out there conforms to what I believe I see in here.” But, says Kant, “What philosophy has shown until now is this. If you begin with the autonomous mind of man, ultimately what you have is the autonomous mind of man, and you can’t get from here out there. You can’t prove anything, you can’t verify anything, you have nothing except your impressions.” So, he said: “Why don’t you just turn the thing upside down. Why don’t we make trial therefore, whether we may not have more success in the task of meta physics if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge. If we say: “Well, I see a purple cow out there, therefore there must be a purple cow, there has to be one out there.” Or: “I see you double if I have been drinking to heavily, therefore you have to be double.” Now this is putting it on a very ludicrous level, but this is the implication.

The phenomenal world, therefore, the world I experience, must conform to what I see. Do you see why therefore, the last thing modern art wants to do is to depict something that conforms with something out there? On the contrary, what is out there has to conform with what is up here. As a result the modern mentality is one of total warfare with the entire external world, with the reality as God has made it. Hence you have the new mathematics. One of the leaders of the new mathematics, a prominent European mathematician has said that: “The problem with the old math is that it gives us a ready made world by God. God has made it, it’s a finished product. But with the new math, man makes his own world, and is free of God.

Now this is the implication of Kant’s position. You abandon this world, you admit that out there is the totally other that you aren’t able to reach, and there may be a God out there, but the important thing now is that objects must conform to our knowledge.

And as a result the hand of man was raised against the real world of God. In one of the writings of an American novelist whose books are very telling as an illustration of the modern mentality, Moby Dick by Herman Melville. There is a character who takes a significant name, and at least 4 characters appear in the various novels of Melville, either bearing this name or character. Ishmael. And according to scripture Ishmael was a wild man, whose hand was raised against every man. And Melville in Moby Dick in chapter 57 says: “Call me Ishmael. I myself am a savage, owing no allegiance but to the king of the cannibals, and ready at any moment to rebel against him.”

What does this all mean? It means that modern man must of necessity, because of his apologetics which begins with autonomous man, declare war not only against God but the world that God has created. He does it not only with modern art and with the new man, but he must do this by destroying every trace of anything that suggests that there is a real world out there that God made that has unalterable laws.

This may sound like insanity, but unless you grasp what Kant is doing, or did, and what modern man after Kant is trying to do, you cannot fathom what the modern world is. This statement is fundamental to the whole of the modern mentality. “We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in task of metaphysics if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge.” And as a result, from thereon there was progressive warfare against all reality beginning with God.

As a result to, the three age thinking was revived, and Hegel became a great champion of it. And Hegel’s philosophy of mind, or Geist or Spirit, postulates that the only reality is mind, and that mind is working progressively through all of history with one purpose, to incarnate itself in a social order, to incarnate itself in the world, till the whole world and all society becomes and incarnation of man.

In other words, the gospel has been taken over by the natural man and reworded, so that history as it were instead of moving to the Bethlehem of Christ, as William Butler Yates said in his famous poem on the second coming, is moving towards the incarnation, the second coming, and a new Bethlehem of the beast. When man and the spirit of man, the mind of man will have remade the world in his own image. The venom of these men against God was enormous.

We have an interesting account with respect to Hegel of a visit with him by Heinrich Heine, Heine records this in his Confession. When he was a student he spent a day with the great philosopher Hegel, very deeply flattered that he could. And his account is worth reading at length, and I quote: “It was easy to me to prophesy which songs would be whistled and twittered one day in Germany, for I saw the birds hatched that later sounded the new tunes. I saw how Hegel with his almost comically serious face sat as brooding hen on the fatal eggs, and heard him cackling. To be honest, I rarely understood him. And it was only through subsequent reflection that I obtained an understanding of his words. I believe he really did not want to be understood, hence his delivery so full of clauses, hence perhaps also his preference for persons whom he knew would not understand him, and on whom he bestowed the honor of his familiar company, that much more readily. Altogether Hegel’s conversation was always a kind of monologue, (Side?) forth by fits and starts, and a toneless voice. The Baroqueness of his expressions often startled me, and I remember many of them. One beautiful starry skied evening we two stood next to each other at a window, and I a young man of 22, who had just eaten well, and had good coffee, enthused about the stars and called them the abode of the blessed. But the master grumbled to himself. “The stars, ha. The stars are only a gleaming leprosy in the sky.” “For God’s sake,” I shouted. “Then there is no happy locality up there to reward virtue after death?” But he staring at me with his pale eyes said cuttingly: “So, you want to get a tip for having nursed your sick mother, and for not having poisoned your dear brother?” Saying that, he looked around anxiously, but he immediately seemed reassured when he saw that it was only Heinrich Beer who had approached to invite him to play whist. I was young and proud and it pleased by vanity when I learned from Hegel that it was not the dear God who lived in heaven who was God, or as my grandmother supposed, but I myself here on earth. This foolish pride did not by any means have a corrupting influence on my feelings, rather it raised them to the level of heroism. At that time I put so much effort into generosity and self sacrifice, that I certainly out shone the most brilliant feats of those good philistines of virtue, who merely acted from a sense of duty and obeyed the moral laws. After all, I myself was now the living moral law, and the source of all right and sanctions. I was immune against sin, I was incarnate purity. The most notorious Magdalene’s were purified by the cleansing and atoning power of the flashes of my love, and stainless as lilies, and blushing like chaste roses as they emerged from the God’s embraces with an altogether new virginity. These restorations of damaged maidenhoods I confess, occasionally exhausted my strength.”

A very interesting statement is it not? Heinrich got the point. The mind of man is the only God, and the mind of man is totally beyond good and evil, to use Nietzsche’s phrase. The mind of man as it incarnates itself will remake reality, or as Heine rather humorously says, he made even the prostitutes with whom he associated, because he is now God, and he will regenerate whatever he touches. That was putting Hegel’s thought on a practical basis. But it is precisely what Hegel’s thought amounted to. The real world is to be abolished. The mind of man now is to remake reality, issue its own eternal decree, for objects must conform to our knowledge.

This is the key note to the modern world. This is the program of modern politics, modern philosophy, modern art, modern revolutionary movements. Objects must conform to our knowledge. The knowledge of an unregenerate man, who, denying God, says: “I am God. And I will make all things new.” Unhappily instead of making all things new they make them after the pattern of the old sin. Are there any questions now? Yes.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] You create knowledge, you are God, you see. This is the essence of existentialism. You make your own knowledge as God. This is why you see, the average Christian is the last person to understand modern thought, usually. It is so insane to him that he just fails to grasp what they are saying. It doesn’t occur to him as possible that they mean what they say. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] I know Francis Schaeffer personally and think very highly of him, and some time ago I read in his works, but I am too rusty on them now to comment, I am sorry.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, Heidegger’s thinking is existentialist and it is in line with this kind of philosophy, we will be touching on it perhaps tomorrow if I have time, and I will be dealing with Sartre, who is of course very close to Heidegger, but it is in line with this Kantian premise. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, this is altogether wrong, the Reformation was a rebellion against the Renaissance, as well as late medieval humanism, and the Counter Reformation was also a rebellion against the Renaissance, as well as the Reformation. But the Reformation was anti Renaissance to the core. Yes?

[Audience Member] I think on the first question which was asked, how do we get God, that the question was …?... How do we get knowledge?

[Rushdoony] Yes, the Christian believes in the Triune God, and knows therefore that God validates our experience, that we have a real world to deal with. Therefore knowledge is possible, we are not dealing with illusion or something unknowable.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Right, there is an excellent book which develops the philosophy of knowledge by Van Til, a syllabus on epistemology, and there is now a paperback book on the subject. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] What was the last?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes. Well, analogical thinking can be of various sorts, and all these terms, it depends on philosophy in which they are used, you see. But in terms of Van Til’s thinking, analogical thinking means that we think not creatively, but we think God’s thoughts after him. Now in Aristotelianism, and this is what Clark would have reference to, it is the analogy of being, all being is one, and it is interrelated, and so there is a connection from one thing to another, from the lowest atom to God, because they are all one being. But for us, there is no analogy of being, but our thinking is analogical, in that God is the interpreter of all reality, God having made all things gives the meaning of all things, and we are to understand all things in terms of God, we think His thoughts after Him. Now, equivocal and univocal thinking are again in terms of whatever philosophy, and again here we get into defining the philosophy, but there if you follow what Van Til has to say on Univocal thought I think you will have the safest guide. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] What was that?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, well I am not a mathematician, so I would be no good at applying this in any detail, and in fact counting the change in my pocket, which is small change, is about the limit of my math. However, actually the new math I have been told by students, including my daughter who has had both the new and the old, is a round about method of solving problems, it is no advantage. But the reality is that the new math is trying to break down the concept of absolutes. It wants to destroy the idea that there is any reality out there to conform with the concepts. Thus, at the lunch table this noon I was telling some of the faculty members of a problem that my daughter brought home one day, which began, and my wife went up in smoke when she saw it: “If 8 is greater than 15.” Now stop a moment and mediate on what that is calculated to do to the mind of the child. To unsettle it totally, as to any reality of anything. “8 is greater than 15.” That is how the problem started. And the net effect of the new math is precisely that, all things are possible to man. A world of total potentiality, and total possibility. The new grammar is trying to do the same thing with Grammar, to break down the idea that there are any laws of language. So, it is to introduce total progressivism, relativism, into speech, into arithmetic.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, modern art of course is radical humanism, and the art of the last century was moderate, conservative humanism. Art in the modern age has been humanistic, it has been concerned with glorifying man. This increasingly has been the tendency of poetry also, so that, and I am very partial to a great deal of poetry, but you have to recognize that especially with the romantic poets it has been the sheer exaltation of man. In modern poetry it is the total exaltation of a private experience. It is not communication. Thus when you read some of the contemporary poems, you puzzle over it. ”What is this fellow trying to say?” Well he isn’t trying to say anything, he is simply telling you: “If this invokes an inner, private experience with you, in these words, and if looking at this picture invokes an inner private experience with you; that is the only thing. It was the expression of my private experience, and if it stimulates something in you that is fine. But there is nothing that I am trying to say to you.”

Communication is gone. Communication presupposes community, and in a world in which every man is his own God and his own law, community is an impossibility. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] No I am not; I am familiar with one or two articles she wrote a couple years ago in Christianity today, and she saw all kinds of glorious Christian truths in Faulkner and that turned my stomach. There is a class of people like her, who can go to any kind of filth that is produced, and they can somehow read the gospel into it. And really, great is their faith. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, Ayn Rand is a very brilliant and a very stimulating thinker, but a radical anarchist, of course. And for her the individual is the only reality, hers is a world of social anarchism, she does not believe in a state, she does not believe in any kind of law binding man to man, she believes of course in the natural goodness of all men, and so she wants to create a social order which is purely voluntary. And she believes all you have to do is to remove the state and you have removed evil. Now her economic thinking and her monetary thinking is good, but she is an anarchist, not as radical as some of those who are consistently existentialist, but she is an anarchist. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Oh yes, he is very conservative, very conservative. And I wouldn’t want to hold Van Til to account for what I believe and what I say, but I know when I lectured once at Westminster and I was a guest at his home at the time, I got a lot of static from the students, that I had a lot of hearty amen’s from Doctor Van Til. Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] There is no movement, there are isolated books being produced. Right now in California a group of scientists are producing, and it should go into print before too long, a high school text book in biology which will be thoroughly creationist. This is being done under the direction of Doctor Walter Lammerts, former professor of genetics at the University of California at Los Angeles, chief of research for Germaine laboratories, and I think he has won about 11 prizes in genetics. It will be an outstanding book. And the same group of scientists, all strictly 6 day creationists, hope to produce a series of science text books for Christian schools, so this is one very fine effort.

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] I don’t know, there are a few isolated ones that have been produced, it takes a lot of time and money, you see. This is where something ought to be done, I tried a few years ago to interest some people in it, but the man who for a while showed interest in doing it, finally felt that he could do a lot more by pouring all kinds of money into revival campaigns. But what I felt was that there were a number of fine Christian school teachers across country who, if they were subsidized to stay out of teaching for a year to write a textbook in their field and then put it out in mimeographed form and use it experimentally in some schools until they could with alterations make it a thoroughly useful textbook, we could then publish it, and do a great deal for the Christian school movement. This is an area where a great deal needs to be done. Now there are more Christian schools on the grade school level, but we do not need the textbooks so much on the grade school level as the high school level, because to the grade school children the teacher is more important than the textbook. The teacher can overcome the effect of the textbook. But as they reach the high school age, it is the textbook that is more important in the mind of the pupil than the teacher, and the textbook influences them more and more the higher they go up in their education. Any other questions? We have time for… Yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Well, maybe I’ve been speaking out of turn, but I was suggesting to some of the faculty this afternoon that they hold an institute for teachers here, the seminary could render an important service. There are institutes held across country, I’ve spoken at many of them, I’ve spoken several times at the Reverend T. Robert Ingraham’s Christian School Association Institute at Houston Texas, I’ve spoken at Washington State and elsewhere at Teachers Institutes, at Illinoi where I spoke to 1100 Christian school teachers at a conference, there are many such held, and they do an excellent work in improving the level of understanding by the teachers of the philosophy of Christian education, the kind of materials they have to use and so on. One more question, yes?

[Audience Member] …?...

[Rushdoony] Yes, the value is this. You remember in that quotation by Heine, he said that Hegel was teaching with great obscurity, so it was difficult to gain the real impact of it, but enough of it would rub off on his students, so that it would affect their mind, it would unsettle and destroy their faith in God, it would little by little carry the impact that they were God and would have to remake the world, not with the same drastic radicalness that Hegel had, only the superior students picked that up. And so it is today, the average student doesn’t fully grasp the implications of what philosophy teaches, those that have become philosophy majors do. But it does have an unsettling effect on all of them, and it is a form of evangelism as it were, converting them to a radically anti Christian perspective. And as such it is deadly. It is significant that modern philosophy has gone into what is called the school of logical analysis, it no longer deals with the main problems of philosophy, with the world out there, it is only with what is in here, the mind of man. So it has totally surrendered any other world, other than the world it is going to imagine and re-make.

Well, our time is up, and tomorrow we will conclude our study.