[187] human history. So facts are also in the realm of philosophy; there are no pure facts, there are always facts described in terms which transcend the pure fact and show them according to principles which in themselves have nothing to do with the facts. The historian^a must evaluate his sources, their reliability, and this again is not independent of an understanding of human nature. In the moment in which a historical work implicitly or explicitly gives assertions about the meaning of historical events for human existence, then the PHILOSOPHICAL presuppositions of history are evident. Again, where there is philosophy^b, there is expression of an ultimate concern, there is an element of faith; ^chowever hidden it may be, there is passion for something ultimate BESIDE the JUSTIFIED and NECESSARY passion of the historian for pure facts. Now I think these considerations show the unity of human nature in all these functions. These functions are within each other; they are not BESIDE each other, and if we better understood this simple fact of the within-each-otherness of all human functions, many foolish mistakes about problems of religion, philosophy, science, and history could be avoided. Now all this shows that in spite of the fundamental difference of the philosophical consideration of the world, and the religious concern about that which is ultimate in being and meaning, there is a basic unity between them. One has spoken on this basis about "philosophical faith^d." The existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers^e has written a book which is translated Philosophical Faith. I don't like this term. The term seems to me misleading because it seems to confuse the two elements,