[30] So the whole lecture [course] is based on this duality of the meaning of religion^a, and therefore these lectures of the last week were the real fundamental ones, and they would demand in principle a whole lecture-course. But since this cannot be done, I promise you to come back to them from this hour to the last hour next semester, again and again, because this is really the foundation of an understanding of the relation of religion and culture. = Last time I gave you the determining proposition about the relation of religion and culture, namely that religion^b is the substance of culture^c and that, as such, culture is the form of religion. When we say this, it means that religion also must be the substance of language, and language a form of religion. The meaning of the first half of this assertion, namely that religion is the substance of culture, is dependent on an understanding of language generally. It is dependent on the assertion which I want to make and argue for, namely that all language is based on an encounter^d of mind and reality. Language^e is the result of an encounter of mind and reality. The words and structures of a language are abstractions from this encounter. If this is true, then it is obvious that the basic encounter in which a language is created, has a special significance and a special power because, here, original creation is going on. This is the reason why the philologists--I always feel that at least one section of my being is a philological one--that every philologist (he who loves the logos, the word-- that is what "philo-logy^f" means) tries to trace words back to the place of their birth. Sometimes this can lead into absurdities, because words have their history, and you cannot simply go back and say, "From now on this word shall mean again what it did before." On the other hand, if you go back to the creative sources in which a group of men encountered reality in an original and fresh way, then you get a lot of insights into the language of today. Therefore, one should not despise philology, and that means: going back into the history of language, to the genuine meanings. Neither philosophers nor theologians nor educators should despise this philological task. It is an interesting and somehow distressing observation that original languages,