|
Word Gems
self-knowledge, authentic living, full humanity, continual awakening
|
Great Books
Summary and Review
|
John Hick
An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (1989)
return to 'Great Books' main-page
see a copy of the analysis format
Commentary by ChatGPT
An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (1989)
An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (1989) is a carefully chosen title, and each part matters.
- “An Interpretation of Religion” — Hick is not claiming to give the interpretation of religion, as though one theological system had been definitively proved. He is offering a philosophical interpretation of what religion is and why it exists.
- “Human Responses” — religion begins, for Hick, not with God handing humanity a ready-made theology, but with human beings responding to an encounter or awareness of something beyond themselves. Different cultures interpret that encounter differently.
- “the Transcendent” — this is the crucial word. Hick avoids simply saying “God,” because he wants to account for the ultimate reality encountered through Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religious traditions without reducing one tradition's vocabulary to the standard of all the others.
So the title essentially means:
How should we understand the world's religions as diverse human responses to an ultimate reality beyond ordinary human experience?
The deeper idea
This title announces Hick's mature religious pluralism.
His argument is roughly:
Transcendent Reality → human encounter → culturally conditioned interpretation → different religions
The important distinction is between the Transcendent itself and human interpretations of the Transcendent.
This is strongly influenced by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Just as Kant argued that we never encounter reality entirely apart from the structures through which the human mind apprehends it, Hick argues that religious experience is always interpreted through the conceptual categories of a particular culture.
Thus Christians experience and interpret the Transcendent as God, Hindus through concepts such as Brahman, and Buddhists through a different conceptual framework centered on Nirvana—without Hick requiring us to conclude that one group has encountered the Transcendent while the others have simply made mistakes.
That makes the title almost a miniature statement of Hick's philosophy:
Religion is not primarily humanity possessing God; it is humanity responding to the Transcendent.
And that is why he says “an interpretation” rather than “the interpretation.” The humility is intentional: our religious formulations are responses to ultimate reality, not transparent photographs of ultimate reality.
For your review project, I would make the mental anchor:
“One Transcendent Reality, many human responses.”
That is probably the single phrase that best captures what Hick is trying to accomplish in this book.
An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (1989)
1. Author Bio
John Harwood Hick (1922–2012) was a British philosopher of religion and theologian whose work moved progressively from evangelical Christianity toward philosophical theology, comparative religion, and religious pluralism. His mature thought was deeply influenced by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), especially Kant's distinction between reality as it is in itself and reality as experienced through human conceptual structures. Hick was also influenced by the world's major religious traditions, particularly Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and by his own earlier work on the problem of evil and “soul-making.”
An Interpretation of Religion was based on Hick's Gifford Lectures of 1986–1987 and was published in 1989. It is his most comprehensive philosophical formulation of religious pluralism.
2. Overview / Central Question
(a) Form and length
- Prose — philosophy of religion / comparative theology
- 412 pages, including front matter, in the 1989 first edition.
- Based on the Gifford Lectures, 1986–1987.
(b) Entire book in ≤10 words
One transcendent Reality, many culturally conditioned human responses.
(c) Roddenberry question: “What's this story really about?”
The book asks how we can take religion seriously while acknowledging that the world's religions make conflicting claims about ultimate reality.
Hick's answer is that the great religious traditions are different culturally conditioned responses to one transcendent Real, rather than separate religions competing to possess exclusive access to ultimate truth.
The decisive move is to distinguish the Real as it is in itself from the Real as human beings experience and conceptualize it through different cultural categories.
Religion therefore becomes less a matter of possessing the one correct theological description and more a matter of human transformation from self-centeredness toward Reality-centeredness.
The deepest question is:
Can radically different religions all be authentic responses to the same ultimate Reality?
2A. Plot Summary of the Entire Work
Hick begins with a remarkable observation: human beings encounter the universe in more than one way. The same world can be experienced religiously or naturalistically. The universe does not force upon everyone a single interpretation of itself. Hick calls this the religious ambiguity of the universe.
He then examines the phenomenon of religion historically and phenomenologically. The great post-Axial religions—Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and related traditions—are characterized by a concern with salvation or liberation. Despite enormous doctrinal differences, they share a practical orientation toward transforming human existence. The decisive movement is from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.
Hick next examines the traditional arguments for and against religious belief: cosmological and design arguments, morality, religious experience, naturalism, religious language, and the rationality of faith. His purpose is not to “prove God” in the traditional sense. Rather, he argues that religious belief can be rationally warranted as an interpretation of human experience, while recognizing that a naturalistic interpretation of that same experience remains possible.
Then comes the book's central conceptual revolution: religious pluralism. Hick argues that the great religions cannot all be literally describing ultimate reality in exactly the same way because their descriptions sometimes contradict one another. Yet it would be too quick to conclude that all but one are false. Instead, he proposes that the various religions represent culturally conditioned ways of experiencing, conceptualizing, and responding to the Real. The familiar divine figures and ultimate principles—God, Allah, Brahman, and nonpersonal ultimates—are not simply identical concepts; they are different personae and impersonae of the Real as encountered within different forms of human consciousness.
The final portion asks what this means for theology and ethics. If religious traditions are genuine responses to the Real, then their truth should be judged substantially by their transformative fruits: Do they move people away from egoism, hatred, domination, and self-centeredness toward compassion, moral transformation, and Reality-centeredness?
Hick therefore shifts the decisive test of religion away from “Which doctrine has the correct metaphysical description?” toward “What happens to human beings when they genuinely live in response to the Real?”
3. Special Instructions for This Book
The crucial distinction to preserve throughout the review is:
The Real itself ≠ any particular human conception of the Real.
That single distinction unlocks most of Hick's pluralistic argument.
4. How This Book Engages the Great Conversation
This is Hick's attempt to solve one of the great problems created by the modern encounter among civilizations:
If Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other religions all contain profound spiritual lives, what are we supposed to make of their conflicting truth claims?
Historically, there were three obvious answers:
- Exclusivism: My religion is true; the others are fundamentally mistaken.
- Relativism: There is no religious truth; religions are merely cultural constructions.
- Pluralism: Different religions may be genuine responses to one transcendent Reality.
Hick chooses the third.
The pressure forcing him toward it is not merely intellectual. Modern transportation, migration, scholarship, and global communication had made it increasingly difficult for a Western Christian philosopher to treat other religious traditions as distant curiosities.
Hick asks us to take seriously something that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore:
Other people have religious experiences as profound and transformative as our own.
The Great Conversation therefore moves from:
“Which religion owns the truth?”
toward:
“How can human beings encounter one Reality through radically different conceptual worlds?”
That is a much larger question.
5. Condensed Analysis
What problem is this thinker trying to solve, and what kind of reality must exist for their solution to make sense?
Problem
The central problem is the conflict among religions.
The religions of the world do not merely use different words for exactly the same doctrines. They make genuinely different claims:
- God is personal.
- Ultimate reality is impersonal.
- There is one incarnation.
- There are many manifestations.
- There is resurrection.
- There is rebirth.
- There is creation.
- There is no creator.
If these statements are all interpreted literally as descriptions of ultimate reality, they cannot all be true.
Yet Hick sees something else:
These religions produce comparable forms of spiritual transformation.
Their saints, mystics, sages, and exemplary practitioners often display compassion, self-transcendence, courage, and moral seriousness.
So Hick faces a fascinating problem:
How can conflicting religious beliefs nevertheless participate in genuine religious truth?
Core Claim
Hick's answer is the pluralistic hypothesis.
The great post-Axial religions are:
different culturally conditioned ways of experiencing, conceiving, and responding to an ultimate divine Reality.
The key is his distinction between:
The Real as it is in itself
The Real in itself—ultimate reality independent of our conceptual categories.
The Real as experienced
The Real as it appears through human consciousness, culture, language, mythology, religious tradition, and conceptual structures.
Here Hick invokes Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Human beings do not simply receive reality like cameras. We encounter reality through structures of consciousness and interpretation. Hick extends this insight into the philosophy of religion.
Thus:
One Real → many human modes of apprehension → many religious traditions.
This does not mean all religions teach the same thing.
It means they may be different responses to something that exceeds all of them.
Opponent
Hick's principal opponents are three.
1. Religious exclusivism
The claim that one religion possesses the uniquely correct revelation of ultimate reality.
Hick considers this difficult to maintain once the religious experience and moral transformation found in other traditions are taken seriously.
2. Naturalism
The claim that religious experience can be completely explained without reference to transcendent reality.
Hick does not believe the existence of naturalistic explanations automatically disproves religious interpretation. He maintains that the universe remains religiously ambiguous.
3. Religious relativism / non-realism
The opposite mistake: concluding that because religions differ, there is no transcendent reality at all.
Hick rejects this too.
His position is neither:
“My religious interpretation is the Real.”
nor:
“There is no Real.”
It is:
“There is a Real, but our religious concepts are culturally conditioned responses to it.”
Breakthrough
This is where Hick becomes genuinely important.
He changes the basic diagram of religious thought.
Old model
Reality → one correct religion
Hick's model
Reality → human consciousness → cultural interpretation → religious tradition
That is a profound shift.
It allows Hick to preserve religious realism without requiring religious exclusivism.
He can say:
Ultimate Reality is real.
while simultaneously saying:
No religious tradition possesses a complete conceptual picture of that Reality.
This is why the book is more than an argument for tolerance.
Tolerance says:
“Other religions may be wrong, but we should be nice to them.”
Hick's pluralism says:
“Other religions may be genuine encounters with the same ultimate Reality.”
That is a much more radical proposition.
Cost
The price is equally radical.
If our religious concepts are culturally conditioned, then Christianity cannot simply claim that its theological formulations are literal descriptions of the Real as it is in itself.
And Hick's pluralism therefore threatens the very doctrines it seeks to preserve in transformed form.
The obvious question is:
If the Real cannot be adequately described, how can Hick know enough about it to construct his theory?
This is the book's most serious vulnerability.
Hick says that the Real is beyond our conceptual categories, yet he constructs a fairly elaborate conceptual theory about the Real.
The danger is that the pluralist hypothesis itself can begin to look like the very kind of universal religious system that Hick criticizes other religions for claiming to possess.
That objection deserves attention.
One Central Passage
Hick summarizes the pluralistic hypothesis by saying that the religious traditions involve an:
“infinite Real, in itself beyond the scope of other than purely formal concepts”
which is differently conceived and experienced through different cultural forms of human life.
Why this passage matters: it contains almost the entire architecture of the book.
The Real is infinite.
It is not captured by ordinary concepts.
Human beings nevertheless encounter it.
They encounter it through different cultural forms.
Those encounters generate different religions.
The result is not one religion falsely pretending to possess Reality, but a plurality of authentic human responses to Reality.
6. Fear or Instability as Underlying Motivator
No artificial “tension” is necessary here.
There is one genuine pressure:
The discovery that sincere, intelligent, morally serious people inhabit radically different religious worlds.
Hick refuses to solve that problem either by dismissing other religions or by abandoning transcendence altogether.
His answer is to rethink what it means for a religion to be true.
7. Interpretive Method: Trans-Rational Framework
This book fits your trans-rational framework particularly well.
Hick is highly rational and analytic. He distinguishes concepts, tests arguments, compares alternatives, and invokes Kantian epistemology.
But his ultimate subject is something that cannot be reduced to conceptual description.
This creates an interesting convergence with your own emphasis on trans-rational insight.
Hick's Real is not another object in the universe waiting to be measured.
The important question becomes:
What is it like for a human being to undergo transformation in response to the Real?
Here Hick's criterion becomes experiential and existential.
The proof of religious response is not merely:
“Can I construct a logically airtight theology?”
but also:
“Does this response transform the person?”
That is a very different conception of religious knowledge.
8. Dramatic & Historical Context
Publication: 1989
The book was published by Yale University Press in New Haven in 1989; the first edition runs to 412 pages.
It arose from Hick's Gifford Lectures of 1986–1987, a prestigious lecture series devoted to natural theology and the philosophical study of religion.
The intellectual climate was particularly important.
By the late twentieth century, comparative religion had made it increasingly impossible for Western philosophy of religion to treat Christianity as though it were the only serious religious worldview. At the same time, analytic philosophy was demanding greater precision about religious language, evidence, epistemology, and realism.
Hick attempts to answer both pressures simultaneously.
He wants:
philosophical rigor + religious realism + global pluralism.
That combination is what makes the book historically significant.
9. Sections Overview Only
The book has four large conceptual movements:
I. Phenomenological
- The Soteriological Character of Post-Axial Religion
- Salvation/Liberation as Human Transformation
- The Cosmic Optimism of Post-Axial Religion
II. The Religious Ambiguity of the Universe
- Ontological, Cosmological and Design Arguments
- Morality, Religious Experience and Overall Probability
- The Naturalistic Option
III. Epistemological
- Natural Meaning and Experience
- Ethical and Aesthetic Meaning and Experience
- Religious Meaning and Experience
- Religion and Reality
- Contemporary Non-Realist Religion
- The Rationality of Religious Belief
IV. Religious Pluralism
- The Pluralistic Hypothesis
- The Personae of the Real
- The Impersonae of the Real
- Soteriology and Ethics
- The Ethical Criterion
- Myth, Mystery and the Unanswered Questions
- The Problem of Conflicting Truth-Claims
This is an exceptionally logical architecture:
What religion does → whether reality permits religion → how we know → how multiple religions can be true.
11. Vital Glossary
The Real
Hick's name for ultimate transcendent reality, beyond any one religious conception of it.
Real an sich
The Real in itself, independent of human conceptualization.
Personae of the Real
Personal forms through which the Real is encountered, such as the divine figures of theistic religions.
Impersonae of the Real
Nonpersonal forms of ultimate reality associated particularly with Eastern religious traditions.
Religious ambiguity
The fact that the universe can be experienced and interpreted both religiously and naturalistically.
Post-Axial religions
The major world religions emerging from the transformative religious developments associated with the Axial period.
Soteriology
The study of salvation or liberation.
Reality-centeredness
Hick's term for the transformation away from self-centered existence toward orientation around ultimate Reality.
Religious pluralism
The view that multiple religions can represent authentic responses to ultimate Reality.
Religious realism
The claim that religious experience refers to something genuinely real rather than merely psychological or cultural projection.
Non-realism
The interpretation of religious language in which its truth does not depend upon reference to an objectively existing transcendent reality.
Myth
For Hick, a religious story or statement need not be literally true in order to convey genuine religious truth or evoke an appropriate response to Reality.
12. Deeper Significance / Strategic Themes
There are three particularly valuable ideas here.
1. Hick separates Reality from our picture of Reality
This is perhaps the most important.
We normally assume:
What I believe about God = what God is.
Hick says:
What I believe about God = my culturally conditioned apprehension of the Real.
That distinction opens enormous intellectual space.
2. Religious truth becomes existential rather than merely propositional
If different religions cannot all be literally correct about ultimate metaphysics, Hick asks us to look at what they do to people.
The central religious movement becomes:
self-centeredness → Reality-centeredness
This gives religious practice a common structure beneath doctrinal differences.
3. Pluralism becomes more than tolerance
This is the real historical contribution.
Hick does not merely say:
“Let everyone believe whatever they want.”
He proposes a philosophical explanation for why religious diversity exists.
That is much more ambitious.
13. Decision Point
Are there 1–3 passages that carry the whole book?
Yes. Section 10 is warranted here.
This is one of the rare Hick books where deeper engagement is worthwhile because the book's central idea depends upon several conceptual transitions that are easy to oversimplify.
I would select three:
- The Religious Ambiguity of the Universe — establishes why religious and naturalistic interpretations remain possible.
- The Pluralistic Hypothesis — introduces the Real an sich and the Kantian framework.
- Soteriology and Ethics / The Ethical Criterion — shows how Hick moves from metaphysical pluralism to a practical test of religious authenticity.
These three passages together would expose the engine of the entire book.
14. “First Day of History” Lens
Yes.
This book contains a genuine conceptual leap.
Hick did not invent religious pluralism. But he gave it a systematic philosophical architecture.
The important innovation is:
Religious diversity is not merely a sociological fact; it may be epistemologically inevitable because human beings encounter the Transcendent through culturally conditioned categories.
That is the “first day” moment.
Hick effectively takes the Kantian distinction between reality and human apprehension of reality and applies it to the world's religions.
The result is a new intellectual possibility:
Different religions can be genuinely responsive to Reality without possessing identical descriptions of Reality.
That idea has had enormous influence on subsequent philosophy of religion and theology. Hick is widely regarded as a major figure in the development of modern religious pluralism.
16. Reference-Bank of Quotations
1. “the religious ambiguity of the universe”
Paraphrase: The universe permits both religious and naturalistic interpretation.
Why it matters: This is the starting point for Hick's epistemological modesty.
2. “self-centredness to Reality-centredness”
Paraphrase: Genuine salvation is transformation away from ego-centered existence toward ultimate Reality.
Why it matters: This is Hick's common denominator across religions.
3. “the Real in itself”
Paraphrase: Ultimate Reality as it exists independently of human conceptualization.
Why it matters: This is the metaphysical fulcrum of the pluralistic hypothesis.
4. “the personae and impersonae of the Real”
Paraphrase: Personal and nonpersonal forms in which ultimate Reality is encountered within different traditions.
Why it matters: This allows Hick to accommodate both theistic and nontheistic religions.
5. “different culturally conditioned responses”
Paraphrase: Religious traditions express human responses shaped by their particular cultures and conceptual worlds.
Why it matters: This is virtually the subtitle converted into a theory of religion.
17. Core Concept / Mental Anchor
“One Real — many human apprehensions.”
Or, even more dynamically:
The Real → human consciousness → cultural interpretation → religion → transformation
This is the anchor I would retain from the entire 412 pages.
18. Famous Words
There is no single phrase from this book that has entered ordinary popular culture like Shakespeare's “brave new world.”
But several expressions have become strongly associated with Hick's thought and are worth recognizing whenever they appear in philosophy of religion:
“The Real an sich”
Hick's distinctive adaptation of Kantian language for ultimate Reality as it is in itself.
“The religious ambiguity of the universe”
The universe can be experienced religiously or naturalistically.
“Self-centredness to Reality-centredness”
Hick's compact formulation of salvation as human transformation.
“The personae and impersonae of the Real”
Hick's way of accommodating both personal and nonpersonal religious conceptions of ultimate Reality.
“Pluralistic hypothesis”
The name Hick gives to his central theory that the great religious traditions constitute different culturally conditioned responses to the Real.
Bottom Line
This is the John Hick book to remember.
Death and the Eternal Life asks:
Can the person survive death?
An Interpretation of Religion asks the much larger question:
What if the world's religions are all encountering something real, but encountering it through different human lenses?
Hick's answer is his great conceptual move:
There is a transcendent Real, but no human religious tradition possesses a transparent, culture-free description of it.
Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other traditions are therefore not simply competing photographs of Reality. They are different culturally conditioned responses to Reality.
And Hick gives the idea a practical test: the important question is not merely which religion can win a metaphysical argument, but whether the tradition actually transforms human beings from self-centeredness toward Reality-centeredness.
For your project, I would classify this as a Second-Look / Deep Book, unlike Death and the Eternal Life. It contains a genuine “first day of history” conceptual moment, and the distinction between the Real and our culturally conditioned apprehension of the Real is substantial enough to justify preserving it as part of your permanent conceptual framework.
Ed: Human beings interpret “the Real” differently, but, my own view, this is not a systemic flaw but part of the larger process of a collective humanity, like facets of a diamond, each reporting what’s been apprehended concerning the Transcendent. No one sees everything about God, no one ever will, and it’s meant to be that way.
Chat: Yes. Your view is actually a significant departure from Hick at one crucial point. Hick tends to explain religious diversity primarily through the limitations and cultural conditioning of human apprehension. Your formulation gives that diversity a more positive metaphysical purpose.
I would put your insight this way:
Religious plurality is not merely a limitation of human knowledge; it may be the means by which humanity collectively comes to know more of the Transcendent.
The diamond-facet analogy is especially good because it avoids two opposite errors:
- Exclusivism: I have the whole diamond; everyone else is mistaken.
- Relativism: There is no diamond; there are only facets.
Your position says:
There is a real diamond, and the facets are genuinely different views of the same Reality.
And importantly, a facet is not a defective diamond. It is a particular surface through which the diamond becomes visible. Its limitation is also its contribution.
That produces a very interesting conception of collective humanity: perhaps no individual, culture, or religion is supposed to possess the whole vision. The incompleteness is not necessarily an epistemological failure; it may be structural to the human adventure.
In that sense, the religious traditions become something like a vast, centuries-long distributed apprehension of the Transcendent:
individual experience → cultural interpretation → religious tradition → encounter with other traditions → enlarged collective understanding
And this gives your statement an especially strong ending:
“No one sees everything about God, no one ever will, and it’s meant to be that way.”
That last clause is the genuinely distinctive part. You're not merely saying human knowledge happens to be incomplete. You're suggesting that the incompleteness itself has purpose.
That is actually a fascinating extension of Hick: pluralism not as a problem to be explained, but as part of the design of the human encounter with the Transcendent.
Ed: The Sufis with their parable of the blind people discovering an elephant were onto this view.
Chat: Exactly. The blind men and the elephant is almost a perfect folk-parable for the distinction you're making.
Each person encounters something genuinely real, but from a different location:
- one feels the leg and says, “It is like a tree”
- another feels the trunk and says, “It is like a snake”
- another touches the ear and says, “It is like a fan”
- another grasps the tusk and says, “It is like a spear”
The important point is that none of them is simply wrong. Each has apprehended something true, but none possesses the whole.
There is, however, a useful refinement to your diamond analogy. The elephant parable is often used to say all religions are partially right. Your view goes somewhat further:
The partiality may itself be intentional.
The Sufi image, especially as it developed in Islamic mystical thought, can therefore become a model for collective human knowing: different persons and traditions apprehend different aspects of an inexhaustibly rich Reality.
And that gives you a particularly strong response to the problem Hick is wrestling with. Hick says, essentially:
Why do human beings experience the Transcendent differently? Because our apprehension is culturally conditioned.
Your answer might be:
Yes—but cultural conditioning isn't merely a defect to be overcome. It is one of the instruments through which the Transcendent becomes progressively disclosed to humanity.
That is a considerably more optimistic metaphysics of religious diversity.
The enduring wisdom of the parable is beautifully compressed into:
“Many apprehensions; one Reality.”
And that fits remarkably well with your facet-of-a-diamond image.
Ed: And this is why, in our 30 Dialogues concerning the pedagogical structure of LakeField Farm, I stated that faculty and staff must remain vigilant to allow for “the Spirit” to speak through whichever instrument it might choose. This means that even a newcomer to the Farm might receive an insight into a better policy that the tenured might have overlooked. This is also why “the CEO should always speak last” at staff meetings, lest he or she suck all the oxygen out of the room.
Chat: Yes. What you're describing is the institutional application of the same epistemology.
The underlying principle is:
No person has a monopoly on insight; therefore, the institution must be designed so that insight can emerge from anywhere.
The connection to the elephant/facet analogy is quite direct. If reality exceeds any individual's perspective, then authority and insight cannot be perfectly correlated. The person with the longest tenure may possess the most experience, but the newcomer may see something precisely because he or she is not habituated to the existing assumptions.
That gives “the Spirit” a very practical meaning in the LakeField Farm structure: remain open to unexpected sources of truth.
And your rule that “the CEO should always speak last” is more than a meeting-management trick. It is an epistemological safeguard.
If the CEO speaks first, several things can happen unconsciously:
CEO states position → others interpret the discussion through it → dissent becomes psychologically expensive → apparent consensus emerges.
If the CEO speaks last:
people think independently → possibilities surface → disagreement becomes visible → CEO listens → decision incorporates the widest available field of perception.
So the leader's restraint actually increases the intelligence of the organization.
There is also a beautiful paradox here:
The person with the greatest formal authority deliberately postpones exercising that authority in order to discover what the organization knows.
That seems very much in keeping with your larger conception of the Farm. The goal isn't merely to have competent people executing policies devised at the top. It is to create a living community of discovery, in which the unexpected insight is welcomed regardless of its source.
And this connects directly to your statement about humanity and the Transcendent:
No individual sees the whole → therefore listen to one another → unexpected facets appear → collective understanding expands.
Applied institutionally, that becomes:
No leader knows everything → therefore listen before deciding → unexpected insight emerges → the institution becomes wiser than any individual within it.
That is a remarkably strong philosophical foundation for a pedagogical institution.
|