[207] forgetting that there is an essential nature of man which is distorted, in our existential structure. What kind of statement was this? (It was in a philosophical seminar.) It was a RELIGIOUS EXCLAMATION, but not a philosophical argument. And that is the distinction l want you to make: where are we in the realm of ultimate concern, in these discussions? [and] where are we in the realm of philosophical arguments? You will find many philosophers who may make such statements. You may find, also, some who would say: the world is as it is, as existentialism^a has described it, a matter of more evil than good. And l know how many young people today feel like this; it is understandable, in the countries of the present world situation. But it is a matter of ultimate concern and not a matter of philosophical analysis and argument. So we must now finish this second alternative, where l wanted again to show you THAT THERE IS AN ARENA of philosophical fights, where from the point of religion, we are spectators---epistemology, anthropology. There lS a DIMENSION in which we are NOT spectators, because the fighting philosophers have come into our realm themselves and say there is no such thing as man's predicament^b. They say it either as naturalists:^c "The world is as it is, and there is no essential goodness in it"---or they say it as idealists:^d "The world is good, and all distortions are only preliminary and will be overcome by US--- namely the men of good will"---which is the arrogance of the idealists.^e Now there is another alternative, to which l cannot go in this moment, but l ask you,