CompareLotze’sdoctrinethattheonlymeaningwecanattachtothenotionofathingasitis“initself“isbyconceivingitasitisFORitself，i。e。，asapieceoffullexperiencewithaprivatesenseof“pinch“orinneractivityofsomesortgoingwithit。
Ifthisbetrue，itisabsurdforsciencetosaythattheegotisticelementsofexperienceshouldbesuppressed。Theaxisofrealityrunssolelythroughtheegotisticplaces——theyarestrunguponitlikesomanybeads。Todescribetheworldwithallthevariousfeelingsoftheindividualpinchofdestiny，allthevariousspiritualattitudes，leftoutfromthedescription——theybeingasdescribableasanythingelse——wouldbesomethinglikeofferingaprintedbilloffareastheequivalentforasolidmeal。Religionmakesnosuchblunder。
Theindividual’sreligionmaybeegotistic，andthoseprivaterealitieswhichitkeepsintouchwithmaybenarrowenough；butatanyrateitalwaysremainsinfinitelylesshollowandabstract，asfarasitgoes，thanasciencewhichpridesitselfontakingnoaccountofanythingprivateatall。
Abilloffarewithonerealraisinonitinsteadoftheword“raisin。”withonerealegginsteadoftheword“egg。”mightbeaninadequatemeal，butitwouldatleastbeacommencementofreality。Thecontentionofthesurvival-theorythatweoughttosticktonon-personalelementsexclusivelyseemslikesayingthatweoughttobesatisfiedforeverwithreadingthenakedbilloffare。Ithink，therefore，thathoweverparticularquestionsconnectedwithourindividualdestiniesmaybeanswered，itisonlybyacknowledgingthemasgenuinequestions，andlivinginthesphereofthoughtwhichtheyopenup，thatwebecomeprofound。Buttolivethusistobereligious；soI
unhesitatinglyrepudiatethesurvival-theoryofreligion，asbeingfoundedonanegregiousmistake。Itdoesnotfollow，becauseourancestorsmadesomanyerrorsoffactandmixedthemwiththeirreligion，thatweshouldthereforeleaveoffbeingreligiousatall。[337]Bybeingreligiousweestablishourselvesinpossessionofultimaterealityattheonlypointsatwhichrealityisgivenustoguard。Ourresponsibleconcerniswithourprivatedestiny，afterall。