[274] of his soul, the spiritual blindness of his human situation, are examples for the profound existentialist element in Greek tragedy and already in the Greek myth. Now what is this blindness^a? Here I come to a VERY important point in our whole academic discussion, which is going on to my great enjoyment on the campus here now, namely the discussion about the function of objective knowledge in relationship to man's self-interpretation. If blindness were identified with lack of knowledge, then those who have most knowledge are least blind. The history of philosophy and prophetism and every observation which you can make with people of today with whom you are in relationship will show you that this is completely wrong. The amount of knowledge is not in proportion to the amount of insight. Here I use the word "insight^b." This is a dangerous word, like "intuition," and it means exactly the same (intuitio in Latin means "sight") , but both words must be used. The word "insight" is especially interesting because its understanding is ALSO one of the great achievements of depth psychology^c, namely the distinction between knowledge and insight with respect to the psychoanalytic process itself. I don't know whether I said that already---if not, I will say it now, namely that if you ask an analyst "Who are the most difficult patients?", then he will answer "Those who know everything about analysis"---because they have the most deadly weapon of defense against insight into themselves. Now this is the best example for the fundamental difference between theoretical knowledge^d and participating insight-^e--or perhaps I should have said: detached knowledge and involved insight.