[275] Now take these two words: then you have a criterion for many things which are the problem of our situation here today. I myself must confess that I owe the clear distinction of these two things to my practical and theoretical participation in psychoanalytic processes. It is something absolutely different, if you know by heart the whole literature of Freud^a (or any other analyst whom you prefer), or whether you EVER were in the situation in which you tried to get insight ^binto what is going on in the depths of your own personality. The first, of course, has the toil of work---you must learn and read and try to understand---the other includes the hell of suffering without which no one can win the insight into oneself because participation in those movements of the soul, in which the character and the deviations were formed, which you experience in your life today, this insight is a matter, not of curiosity, but of going through hell, as everybody says who ever did it seriously. Now out of this, then, insight develops---insight by participation, in your past and in your present unconscious developments and realities. So it is not ENLIGHTENMENT, what is done here. If it were enlightenment, it wouldn't help. This brings me to some words about Socrates^c. I am afraid that some theologians STILL prove the superiority of Paul the Apostle^d over Socrates^e by the tremendous insight that you can know what is good and DON'T do it, while Socrates^f was so stupid [as] to believe that if one knows the good, one would do it! Now this tremendous "superiority" is the superiority of a 10-year