^{page 279 note 1} Bolder than most official philosophers of science, Findlay asks the good question as to why the entire universe must be interpreted in such a way as to keep constant one contingent measurement—the velocity of light—when the infinite variety of chance encounters between things might have been explained by the invariant character of their natures; see I, 140; cf. 144.

^{page 281 note 1} It is curious indeed that Tillich's thought is described in this way. Tillich would not allow that ‘ultimate concern’ is a merely ‘human attitude’ any more than Findlay would accept the reduction of his eidetic phenomenology to the ‘merely psychological.’