[248] But is this MAN? This is the question. Is this not a self-loss of man, in his own creation? Now the question of a name is not a very important one----it is a symptomatic one. You can call everything what[ever] you want, if there is a common convention about it---and if you call the doctrine of human bones "anthropology^a," it is alright; and the doctrine of man^b in primitive societies "Anthropology," it is alright. But then something else must be done if a word is narrowed down to its narrow or primitive meaning. You must invent a word for its larger meaning. And it was one of my great sorrows, when I came to this country and gave, in my early lectures, a doctrine of man, I was not able to find a word for this except "doctrine of man," and there is no adjective for "doctrine of man," so I couldn't use sentences in which the abbreviation of a good adjective did appear. Of course, if I used "anthropological," one of my students would immediately raise his finger and say, "That means, in our language, the doctrine of bones!" [laughter]. Now however this may be, we need another name, namely of that being which HAS CREATED the doctrine of bones and of sociological intercourse, etc., and which is MORE than all this, because he has created them. And that, I would call the "doctrine of man" and don't know how perhaps some time the word "anthropology" will become imperialistic---I hope it will; I am not always for imperialism, but in this case I am for it---and swallow the doctrine of man, philosophical as well as theological, so that we can use the word "anthropological" again for real statements about man as man, and not about man as lost in his creations. This situation demands a doctrine of man,^c which is NEITHER physics^d NOR biology NOR psychology^e