[364] no basic destiny^a, there is no structure of mind^b, there is structure of body^c, all this changes--and it is meaningless to speak about man at all. Unfortunately they fall into the same self-contradiction by calling their disciplines "anthropology" or "sociology," presupposing a concept of man--anthropos means man, and sociology^d is the science of society. So they have concepts of what man is, because they don’t speak about animals; they must have some point of difference between man and animals which makes it possible that they deal with these funny beings called "men" for which they don’t want to have any characteristics, but actually of course they have; and this is a methodological trick.

The same is true of sociologists: the possibility of a society as they conceive it, in which there are different opinions, in which there are fights about power, and things like that, presuppose a special nature of man’s society and man generally. So don’t be afraid of the relativists. However: wherever and [however] they speak "down" to you, you only need always to find out their self-contradiction, and then you can go ahead. Whether they accept that they are in a self- contradiction or not doesn’t matter--they are neurotic defense mechanisms, sometimes--but it is

necessary that you make them as clear as possible, and that after you have done it, you simply go ahead and ask the philosophical question, "What does it mean if use the term 'anthropology^e' instead of 'zoology?' " And if you ask that question, then they MUST give an answer, and the same is true for sociology in contrast to the analysis of plantations of plants and their living together, which ALSO is a reality.