[172] that even in the OLD Testament a special interpretation of time and space, and the universe, is always present, and that if they use---even ONLY!--biblical concepts, they are using philosophical concepts^a But they never DO that only, even if they TELL you; they use also the concept of man, they use the concept of history, they use the concept of becoming and of being, but if someone asked, "What do you mean with becoming and being and history and man and animal?", they say, "I cannot answer this because that is philosophy." Now that is the thing which raises a real wrath in me! [some laughter] - not because of ignorance---I don’t mind ignorance; we are here in order to overcome it in ourselves and others---but l mind irresponsible self-contradiction out of emotional motives. The difficulty of every discussion concerning philosophy ^bas such is the fact that there is no definition of philosophy WHICH IS NOT ALREADY A PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM IN NUCE, a condensed philosophical system---that's the difficulty. If you read all the nice (or I would say abominable) textbooks on philosophy, and in the first paragraph you read a DEFINITION of philosophy, then read this paragraph again after you have studied the whole book---and perhaps even a real philosopher---and then go back to the definition and you will immediately know what kind of philosophy this man has who wrote this textbook. Here again we should be honest and say that there is no possible defintion [sic.] of philosophy which is not the immediate expression already of a philosophical system. You cannot escape, by textbook knowledge, from a DECISION in philosophy---that's what I wanted to say.