[192] they call themselves, do the same thing, and sometimes the knives are so sharp that they don't cut any more but break. In any case, the purpose of doing this is finally undercut, namely, to cut into reality, and to get out of reality its true essence, its true structure. This development will take place now in the same way in which it took place at the end of the 19th century, with the epistemological predominance. But however this may be, these tools are needed, and their sharpening is necessary; but they do not prejudice, in the name of faith, any special philosophy. And it is GOOD that in the creative periods of the Roman Catholic Church, before the Counter-Reformation, not only Platonic^a but also Aristotelian,^b and later on not only aristotelian [sic.] but also Platonic, philosophy were admitted, and, beyond this, Augustinian^c voluntarism, and others. Kantianism^d was often combined with Protestantism. I remember when I was still a very young high school boy, I heard a lecture from a famous professor of theology of that time, at the Berlin University, who said that as Plato^e is the philosopher of the Greek Orthodox and Anglican Church, as Aristotle^f is the philosopher of the Roman Catholic Chuch, so Kant ^gis the philosopher of the Protestant Church. I was deeply impressed, but not convinced! And I am today less than ever! But this is not adequate to say. There are philosophical possibilities open to interpret the conceptual elements of ALL kinds, and even Locke^h and Humeⁱ are not excluded if you take them as hidden metaphysicians. If you take them simply as epistemologists, then they wouldn't help you very much,