For example, Aristotle is one of the great thinkers. He is thought to be the father of Western logic. But he himself is not very scientific in his approach. In his book of logic he writes that women have less teeth than men. He had two wives. Only one was enough, but he had two. So he could have asked Mrs. Aristotle 1, or Mrs. Aristotle Number 2 – whoever was less terrible – to open her mouth, and count the teeth before writing such a statement. That would have been a scientific approach, an intelligent approach. But because it has been believed for centuries that women have to have everything less than men, how can they have an equal number of teeth?

So in Greece it was a long tradition, but not a single man ever tried to count. Not a single woman ever tried to count to prove that this is absolutely nonsense. And when a man like Aristotle writes in his book that women have less teeth than men, what do you want me to call him? What is the purpose of having two wives if you cannot even do such a small experiment…? His approach is not experimental, it is not existential. It is not scientific. He is simply accepting a superstition which is absurd. Now I cannot say that he is a man who knows. He has not even learned the ABC of knowing.

The woman is very much troubled that I have called a few thinkers idiots. But what else is one supposed to do?

Immanuel Kant, a great German thinker, remained unmarried his whole life for the simple reason that he could not decide whether to marry or not. He researched all possible sources about marriage. One woman had even asked him; they were friendly. She waited a long time so that he would ask. Women are not supposed to take the initiative – that looks unwomanly. But she was getting tired. And he could not ask because he was still continuing the research.

Finally, the woman asked. He said, “I was worried that one day you were going to ask, and I have not come to the conclusion. I have found reasons for marriage; I have found reasons against marriage – and they are equal. If I find one reason more in favor or against I can be decisive. But how can I decide with such a situation? Just give me a little time.”

He took three years more, and still he remained indecisive. This is not the way to get married. This is a very idiotic way. And after three years, finally, he managed one reason more in favor of marriage. It was a simple thing which should have been the first thing, not the last thing.

Finally, he thought that marrying or not marrying may have equal reasons, but marrying has one thing: it will give you experience, and not marrying will not give you any experience. But this should have been the first intelligent thing. He ran towards the house of the woman – because it was already three years since he had seen her – and knocked on the door. The father opened the door. Immanuel Kant said, “I am ready, because I have found one reason more.”

The father said, “It is too late. She has already two children; she is married. You will have to find some other woman.”

But no other woman ever asked him, and he could never gather the courage to ask because he was afraid the woman would say no, and he was not willing to hear no from anybody.