[133] which does exist is the doctrine of man^a, because the psychological movements are not something which can be separated from the totality of man. He is definitively a Gestalt philosopher, and believes that man is a living Gestalt^b, a unity, a living structure, of a monistic character, and not a composition of body and soul. But here again philosophical, metaphysical, and even religious elements come into the picture. I agree with him very definitely and believe that is the most adequate way of dealing with man as a totality, but even this is not decisive. And even here we must be cautious (I speak very much against myself in this lecture today!--sotto voce) because l am glad if I can find something which SEEMS to help theology and which is useful as apologetic weapons. But l know that these weapons, after a certain time, turn always against the theologian who uses them. For this very reason, and after a long life of this experience, l ask you not to use them at all, insofar as you are [a] theologian. But don't give them to the others either! (laughter). They will turn against them ALSO. We don't need these apologetic weapons at all. What we need is something quite different, namely an understanding of the dimension in which religion^c moves. And if we have THIS, then we can have, let us say, four different theories of man: One: the so-called materialistic theory. It is very interesting that a Church father such as Tertullian^d was a Stoic materialist and never had any doubts that this is completely compatible with a very radical and even in his later years fanatical, affirmation of Christianity^e. He was not worried about a materialistic interpretation of man, about the understanding of the soul as a refined substance, if only this soul is able to have what we experience in ourselves as having, namely the possibility of deciding, of deliberation,