The Rudolf Steiner Archive

It is quite possible that to some among my audience my manner of dealing with the subject of these lectures may have appeared somewhat singular. Singular, inasmuch as it might possibly be said that these are isolated ideas and thoughts on a possible way of building the social structure, and that the catchwords so common in the social movements of today are noticeably lacking in these lectures. Certainly, thoughts and ideas must be a foundation, but I think it has been made clear that these thoughts and ideas differ considerably from much else that has been said on the subject. For instance, we often hear it said that there is no equal distribution of wealth, and that some evil is the cause of this; that such evils must be abolished, and so on. We often hear such remarks at the present day. It appears to me more important to act in this sphere just as in practical life. If we have to do with some commodity needed by human beings, and produced by a machine, it is not enough to draw up a program and announce that a meeting must be called and an organization founded in order that the commodity in question may be produced. This is the way modern social programs come into being. It seems to me far more important to indicate the way in which the machine, in the present instance the social organism, should be put together and utilized in order that it bring forth something which will meet the more or less conscious social demands of the present day.

And I think no one can say that these lectures have not dealt with the means by which bread, coal, or other necessities are produced. In my opinion they have dealt with such matters. They have dealt with the actual foundations of the social organism, with the manner in which men must live and work together within that social organism, in order to bring about the fulfilment of social demands. I wish to preface my lecture with these remarks, because such a reproach might possibly be made in regard to this, my concluding lecture.

Only those who see why the price of bread which appears on every table is connected with the economy of the entire world, and why the events taking place in Australia or America and the commodities these countries produce are related to the price paid here for bread or coal, will recognize the presence of an international problem which involves the whole social question. In view of the many prevailing opinions and prejudices, however, it is not exactly easy to speak of the international problem at the present moment. Have we not seen to what unheard of conditions international intercourse has led us during the last five years? Did not the belief prevail within the widest circles—pre 1919—that international feeling, international understanding had been established in modern humanity? To what has this international feeling, this international understanding led? It has led to the fact that over a large part of the civilized world the people have torn one another to pieces! (Twenty-six years later—1945—finds the condition even worse. Ed.) And even those ideas and idealistic aims whose greatest value lay in their international character have proved a failure, as their promoters themselves acknowledge. We need only recall the words, the pronouncements and views of international Christianity, for this is what it claimed to be, as it joined in so many cases in the chorus of international chauvinism. And we might cite many an instance of the shipwrecking of international impulses in late years. Also, when we speak of the international life of mankind, perhaps more particularly in reference to its economic aspect, we shall find it necessary to revise our thoughts and our judgments in this respect. It will be necessary to penetrate to these sources of human nature which can only be found when we look towards the spirit and the soul. To do so, to avoid the mere repetition of the words ‘spirit’ and ‘soul,’ to give heed instead to the actual dominance of the spirit and soul, this, in my opinion, has at least been attempted in these lectures.

All over the world the relations existing among human beings in their common work are governed by two impulses, about which it is of the highest importance that the truth should prevail among us, a true unvarnished conception, not disfigured by hackneyed phrases. Two impulses dwell in the human soul, which are related just as the north and south poles of a magnetic compass are related to one another. These two impulses are egoism and love. It is a widespread opinion that ethical law requires that egoism be conquered by love, and that in the progress of human evolution pure love should supplant egoism. This claim is put forward by many on the ground of ethics, and to-day also as a social need. But an understanding of the kind of opposition which actually exists between the two forces of egoism and love is certainly less evident in our day. In speaking of egoism, we should recognize that it begins with the bodily needs of the human being. We cannot understand that which arises from the bodily needs of the human being, unless we regard it as belonging to the sphere of egoism. The needs of the human being proceed from egoism. Now we must believe that it is possible to ennoble the feeling of egoism; and, therefore, it is not a good thing to form one's opinions from the phrases current on this subject. To say that egoism must be overcome by love does not help us much to understand egoism. For the point is, that he who meets his fellowmen with a purely human interest and understanding acts differently from one whose interests are narrow, and who gives no thought to all that fills the hearts and souls of his fellow creatures, and who is without interest for his surroundings. On this account, the former, who is truly interested in his fellowmen, need not be less egoistic in life than the other; for his egoism may be precisely his desire to serve human beings. It may call forth in him a feeling of inner well-being, of inner bliss, even of ecstasy, to devote himself to the service of his fellowmen. Then, as far as the outer life is concerned, deeds which are absolutely altruistic to all appearance may proceed from egoism; in the life of feeling they cannot be appraised otherwise than as egoism.

But the question of egoism must be extended much further. We must follow it through the whole life of the human soul and spirit. We must see clearly how the spirit and soul-nature arise out of man's inner being in various manifestations, just as the bodily wants arise. Thus, everything in the nature of creative fantasy, of imaginative creation arises out of the inner being; likewise all creations in the sphere of art. If we proceed in our investigations without bias and seek a right understanding of such things, we shall find that which is the creator of man's imagination. All that rises out of the unknown depths of his being has the same source, but at a higher stage than the bodily wants. The life of imagination, of fantasy, which is developed in art, viewed subjectively, reposes on a feeling of inward satisfaction, more refined, nobler than the satisfaction of hunger, for instance, but not different in quality for the individual himself, even if what is produced thereby may have a different significance for the world.

But all human egoism is directed by the fact that man must agree with his fellows, that he should live and work together with them. Egoism itself requires that he should live and work with other men. Much of what we carry out in common with other men is absolutely founded on egoism, and still may be credited to the noblest human virtues. If we contemplate maternal love, we find that it is absolutely founded on the egoism of the mother; yet it manifests itself most nobly in the common life of humanity.

But that which is actually founded on egoism, because man needs his fellowmen for egoistic reasons, extends over the common family life, over the common life of the tribe, over the common life of the nation, of the people; and the manner in which a man conducts himself among his people and in his nation is nothing but the reflection of his own egoism. In the love of country, in patriotism, egoism doubtless rises to a high level; it is ennobled; it takes the form of an ideal and rightly so. But that ideal is, nevertheless, rooted in human egoism. Now this ideal must spring from human egoism, and it must be realized in order that the productivity of a people may be able to pass on something to humanity. And so we see how from that single impulse of the human soul—egoism, all that ultimately finds expression in nationalism is developed. Nationalism is egoism experienced by the whole nation in common. Nationalism is egoism carried into the spiritual region of life. Nationalism, for instance, is saturated with, glows with, the imagination of the people in which it finds expression. But this life of imagination itself is the higher spiritual development of all that constitutes human wants. We must go back to this root, in order to gain a clear understanding of it by right contemplation.

Of a very different species is that characteristic of human nature which develops as internationalism. We become national, because the feeling of nationalism arises out of our own nature. Nationalism is a blossom on the growth of the individual human being who is of the same blood as his tribe, or is bound by other ties to his people. Nationalism grows with the man. It grows into him as a certain bodily growth. He does not possess internationalism in this way. Internationalism is rather comparable to the feeling we acquire when we contemplate the beauties of nature; through this contemplation we are impelled to love, to reverence, to understanding, because it has become a reality to us, because it impresses itself on us, because we give ourselves up to it freely. Whereas we grow into our own nation because we are, so to speak, members of it, we learn to know other nations. They work on us indirectly through our knowledge of them, our understanding of them. We learn little by little to love them with understanding; and in proportion to our learning to love and to understand mankind in its different peoples in their various countries, does our feeling grow for internationalism. There are two absolutely distinct sources in human nature from which arise, respectively, nationalism and internationalism. Nationalism is the highest development of egoism. Internationalism is that which permeates us more and more, as we give ourselves to a wide understanding of human nature. We must regard the common life of human beings all over the civilized globe in this light, especially if we wish to come to a clear understanding of the conflicting element in these impulses, nationalism and internationalism.

Even if the economic life were governed by its own conditions, and an attempt were made to understand it, it would still be necessary to point to the two impulses in the human soul just mentioned. What we have called the threefold human life element in these lectures leads us back to these two impulses in the human soul. Think of the economic system, for instance; consider how it pervades the whole national and international life of humanity. Let us examine this economic system. We are compelled to recognize its origin in human wants, in consumption. The satisfaction of these wants is really the whole task of economic life. Production and distribution of commodities, administration, human intercourse, and so on, are necessary to supply human requirements. And here again we may ask: What element of human nature lies at the root of requirement, of consumption? Egoism is at their root. And it is important that this fact should be properly understood. If it is understood, no one will feel impelled to ask with regard to the economic life: “How can we overcome egoism?” but rather: “How is it possible for altruism to meet the just demands of egoism?” Perhaps this question may sound less idealistic, but it is the true one.

When we turn our attention to production by which consumption is satisfied, we see at once that something else is necessary, The producer is of course at the same time the consumer. He whose business it is to produce must have an understanding not only of the process of production, but also of the life of his fellowmen, so that he can devote himself to the work of production in a manner corresponding to their needs. The producer must be able, indirectly or directly through institutions of which we have spoken, to see what men need for their consumption. He must then devote himself unselfishly and with understanding to some kind of production for which he has the capability. It is only necessary to describe this, and people will be forced to see that the real motive-power of production is self-sacrificing love towards human society, even though the sphere in which it manifests may appear dry and uninteresting. And nothing constructive will ever be said regarding the actual solution of the social problem, until it is understood that production can only be regulated in a social manner by the creation, through the spiritual and equity organizations, of a source from which unselfish love for the various branches of production can flow into the human soul, because of the producers' interest in their fellowmen and in life.

Between these two—consumption governed by egoism, and production in which love is the ruling principle—there is the distribution of commodities, holding the balance between them. Today this is brought about through the rise and fall of the market, through supply and demand, but in future times an association of men will substitute intelligence for the fluctuation of the market. Men will be there who will make it their task to regulate production in conformity with their observation of the needs of the consumer. So that the market will consist in commodities which the associations, already mentioned, will be able to produce; these associations having first studied and observed intelligently the needs of consumption. All catchwords in this department of life will be discarded, and the attention will be wholly given to realities. Who has not seen that in modern times something has arisen which was bound to appear as a result of the continual widening of man's horizon all over the world? Instead of the former national economy, limited to small territories, we have a world-economy. It is true that so far this world-economy is only in the stage of a sort of demand; though it has developed to such an extent that in almost every part of the world commodities are consumed which are produced in other parts of the world. Here again human ideals and the feelings of the human soul have not kept pace with the world requirements which have become evident. Everywhere we see how urgent is the demand of modern times for a world-economy, for arrangements by which a world-economy could be rendered possible.

What are the conditions under which world-economy (Cf. World Economy, by Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophic Press, New York.) is alone possible? Of a truth, this question can only be answered after we have first turned our attention to the form which the social order of the future must take from the present time on, if the order of the Commonwealth takes the place of the old despotic order—that of might—and of the present method of trade. The Commonwealth is the social order in which production will be carried on by associations, through contracts with other associations.

If this should really come about, where would the real difference lie between such a community, and the mere trading system of society, the ruling system today?

The difference shows itself in the fact that in the trading system the individual or the single group has, for the most part, to do with another individual or another group. What are the common interests of individuals or groups in their mutual relations? At present, whether they are producers or consumers, their production and consumption are divided from one another, as if by a chasm, by the chances of the market. And the chances of the market are the means of bringing about the distribution of commodities and of facilitating commerce. Whatever may be our opinion as to the justification or otherwise of the domination of capital, or of labor, and the like; as to the significance of capital and the significance of labor; it must be admitted that the essential fact in our system of exchange is that the distribution of commodities should be the ruling factor. Distribution is the link between production and consumption; when these are sundered from each other by the abyss of the market, there is no means of communication between them through the exercise of intelligence.

What will take the place in the Commonwealth of the system of distribution now prevailing? The whole domain of economic life will be drawn into the sphere of interest of every producer. Whereas it is now the interest of the producer to find out how he can procure and dispose of his products, which, however, he does out of self-interest, it will be necessary for every producer in the Commonwealth to have a full interest in consumption, distribution, and production. That is to say, it will be necessary that the entire economic process be reflected in the economic interests of the individual man. This must be the essential point in the social order of the Commonwealth.

Let us see what would be the position of this commonwealth, (which also in the single State today is undoubtedly a demand of the future,) with regard to the international problem. How does this international problem present itself to us, especially with regard to the economic system? We can see that though a universal demand exists for a world-economy, the single nations stand separate within the circuit of the whole world-economy. These separate nations, apart from the other historical causes of their existence, are held together for a time by the feelings arising out of the egoism of the community. Even in the highest part of the life of a nation, in literature, art, science, religion, it is the imagination arising out of egoism which holds the groups of people together. The groups thus held together take their place in the sphere of world-economy, and in the course of the 19th century they have asserted themselves with particular energy, and ever more and more decidedly up to the beginning of the 20th century, when the climax was reached. We might describe what really happened by saying that while other interests which bore a much greater resemblance to those of the old despotic order of society formerly prevailed between the nations, the principle of exchange and barter became even more prominent, precisely in the mutual intercourse of nations. This condition of things, therefore, reached its height at the beginning of the 20th century. Just as production and consumption were carried on in the various states, so what was supplied, to other states or was derived from them was absorbed into the egoism of the various states. Thus value was attached only to that in which the single state, as a nation, was interested. The reciprocal economic relations established between the states were absolutely dependent upon the commercial principle, ruling the system of trade in regard to the distribution of commodities. In this sphere, but on a large scale, it was especially evident how the, mere system of trade must lead ad absurdum; and the fact that this actually came to pass was one of the chief causes that led to the disaster of the World-War. (World-War I. Ed.)

That this great opposition existed between the demand for a world-economy and the influence of the various states against its realization is now becoming ever more and more evident. Instead of promoting a world-economy, these states closed their frontiers, shut themselves off by imposing customs and duties and by other measures, and laid claim to every advantage that might result from a world-economy, seizing all for themselves. This led to the crisis which we call the catastrophe of the World-War. There were, of course, other causes of the disaster but this is one of the chief causes. Therefore it is important to understand that the very first step towards the improvement of international relations is to be able to carry on commerce across, frontiers, but on different principles from those on which the present system of exchange is based.

Just as every single person, if he wishes to share in the work of the community, must take an interest in production and consumption wherever it is carried on, just as every member of the community must be interested in the whole sphere of economy, consumption, production and distribution, so in every country in the world impulses must prevail which would lead to a genuine interest in every other country; so that nothing resembling the chance conditions of the present market could prevail among the peoples of the earth, but a real inner understanding would prevail among them.

And here we come to the deeper sources of that which is bring sought through the abstract ideals of the so-called League of Nations, the avowed object of which is the correction of certain evils in the common life of nations. But the principle underlying it is the same as that on which many other schemes are now founded. Many of those who at the present day ponder over the evils of life seize upon the first means at hand to carry out some reform or other. Some one sees that a certain luxury has wide distribution and feels impelled to impose a tax on it, and so forth. Such a reformer never thinks of going to the source of the evil in question, of devising a social structure for the community in which an undesirable luxury could not come into existence. But this is precisely what is necessary in the life of nations. Therefore we shall never attain sincere international social relations by regulations of a merely corrective character. There is no other way than by finding the source of a common understanding among the various peoples.

There can be no understanding of other nations as long as we keep to one thing which is as natural to the human being as his growth, so long as we look only to that which must lead to nationalism, to the division of peoples among themselves. What is there in the spiritual life of our day which is the only thing that bears an international character, and alone has not been lost during the War because it was impossible for men to take this character away from it? (For had this been done, the field itself would have been annihilated.) What is there that is truly international on the earth? Nothing but the field of modern science which is concerned only with the outer world of the senses.

Abstract science has acquired an international character. It has been easy to see in these times, when there has been so much falsehood in the world, that, whenever anybody did science the injury of misusing it in the service of nationalism, he robbed it of its true character. On the other hand, do we not see by this fact which I have quoted that this kind of spiritual life which expresses itself in intellectualism was not able to establish international understanding? I think it may be seen clearly enough that the powerlessness of this abstract trend of thought, which I have described from so many different points of view, has shown itself most distinctly in the relation of this abstract spiritual life to internationalism. Science was not able to pour into the human soul international impulses deep enough to resist the terrible influences of these last years. And where science attempted to evoke social impulses, such as those in the international socialist movement, it was found that international socialism was also unable to hold its own, and that it mostly flowed away into national channels. Why did this happen? Just because from among the old heirlooms of humanity it had only inherited intellectuality, and intellectuality is not powerful enough to work creatively in life. Thus we see how, on the one hand, this new scientific mode of thought, which arose simultaneously with capitalism and technical science, contains within it an international element, and yet at the same time proves its impotence to establish a true international relationship among men. In contrast to this, we must call to mind and apply here what I said in my fourth lecture regarding the mode of thought known as spiritual science, which is founded on perception and knowledge of the spirit.

This spiritual perception does not rest on outer sense perception; it is the result of the individual development of human nature. It springs from the same soil as imagination; but it is rooted in profounder depths of human nature. For this reason it rises not only to subjective, imaginative forms, but reaches to the objective knowledge of the realities of the spiritual world. This kind of spiritual perception is today very often misunderstood. Those who have no knowledge of it say what can be found in this way by spiritual perception is merely subjective, and cannot be proved. Mathematical truths are also subjective and incapable of being proved! No agreement among individuals can confirm the truths of mathematics. Anyone acquainted with the Pythagorean theorem knows that it is true, even if a million others contradict it. Thus, spiritual science is also presented as an objective aim. It takes the same way as imagination, and rises higher; it is rooted in the objective depths of human nature, and ascends to objective heights. Hence this spiritual perception rises above all that which, as imagination, inspires the nations. It is sought equally by one people or another, in one language or another. It is one and the same in the experience of all human beings all over the earth, if it is only sought deeply enough. Hence that spiritual perception which, as I have indicated, can actually enter into and inform practical social life, can, at the same time, enter actively into international life and form a bond of union between one people and another. The poetry of a people, its peculiarities in other branches of art, will be produced by it in its own individual way. To spiritual perception something arises out of the individuality of a people which is similar to that which arises elsewhere. The roots from which things spring are in various places. The final source of all results is the same over the whole earth. Many people speak of the spirit today who do not know that the spirit must be interpreted. When the spirit is understood, it is found to be something which does not separate, but unites men, because it can be traced back to the inmost being of man, and because one human being brings forth the same as another, and because he fully understands that other.

So that when we actually spiritualize that which otherwise finds expression as individualism in the imagination of one people, the single peoples will become simply the manifold expression of that which, to spiritual perception, is one. Then, over the whole earth, people will find it possible to tolerate the different national peculiarities, because there will be no need for an abstract uniformity everywhere; the concrete one, found through spiritual perception, will find means of expression in manifold ways. By this means the many will be able to understand each other in the spiritual unity. Then, from the many kinds of understanding of the unity, they will be able to frame articles for a League of Nations, and then, out of the spiritual conditions, out of the spiritual understanding, legal statutes can arise which will unite the nations. Then in the individual peoples that will appear which is possible to every people, namely, interest in the production and consumption carried on by other peoples. Then through the spiritual life, the legal and judicial life of the peoples, one nation will really be able to develop an understanding of other nations and peoples over the whole earth.

People must make up their minds to recognize the spirit in this department of life, or they will be obliged to renounce all hope of bringing about any improvement, no matter how well-intentioned their statutes may be. It is true, large numbers of people now express their disbelief in the working of this spiritual element; this is comprehensible, because they have not the courage to approach this spiritual truth. It is truly hard for the spirit to gain a hearing; but when it can unfold, even in a small circle, in spite of hindrances, it shows itself to be all that I have just said of it. If only the feelings of the people in some of the belligerent states could have been known, if their thoughts about their enemies, their hatred towards each other, could have been seen, and the absence of international feeling existing in the countries at war been realized, you would understand why he who now addresses you returned again and again to the place which he has already mentioned in these lectures, in north-west Switzerland, where spiritual science has erected the Goetheanum, the University of Spiritual Science.

What sort of place was that during the years of the War? It was a place where, during the whole War, people of all nations worked together without intermission, without any lessening of understanding each other, in spite of many a discussion which may or may not have been necessary. This mutual understanding, since it was the result of a common grasp of a spiritual conception of life, has already become a reality, even though for the present only in a small circle. We may say that we have been able to make the experiment in this sphere. We have been able to show that those who met there from time to time were able to understand others. This understanding must not be sought by vague allusions to the spirit. It must be sought through the most intense, sincere self-conquest, by means of the impulse of the spirit. Men and women of today do not wish to hear that the spirit must be striven for by each one personally. There is much talk nowadays about the spirit, that the spirit must come and must permeate the purely materialistic social demands; but, beyond this appeal to the spirit, we hear little! If such people, who in other respects are well-meaning, full of insight and permeated by social ethics, would only reflect that we have indeed had the spirit! Can we appeal today to that same spirit which has been with us? It is that very spirit which has brought us into our present circumstances. Therefore, what we want is not a new situation created by the old spirit. An old spirit cannot bring us anything new! This has been proved to us. We need a new spirit. We must strive for this new spirit and it can only be won in an independent spiritual life. Therefore, if we picture to ourselves how the demand for a world-economy will be fulfilled—for fulfilled it will be, out of its own inner necessity—we shall find that within its scope one social form will take its place beside another, everywhere producing spiritual and legal conditions out of the human beings who live together in those social bodies. That which is brought forth in this individual manner will be precisely the means for the understanding of other social bodies, and will thus become the means by which true world-economy will be carried on. Unless such means are created, the old so-called national interests will arise again and again in world-economy, and will claim for themselves all that they can extract. And as every social body has the same desire, and will be void of understanding for the others, disharmony must of necessity again make its appearance. How, then, can a world-economy be carried on? Only in so far as political and intellectual organizations do not dominate the individual forms of the economic system; for they must have an individual form. They attain universality and unity in spiritual understanding alone, which over the whole earth is the other unity. In order that the earth may be freed from individualism that other unity must be everywhere recognized.

Even as it is true that, if we only descend deeply enough into human nature, we may develop to objective heights in which we find, as a spiritual perception, that which may also be found by anyone of any other nation, so it is also true that the needs of human consumption all over the earth are not affected by variations in nationality. Human wants are international; only they are the opposite pole of that which is spiritually international. The internationality of the spirit must furnish the understanding, must permeate with love that understanding of other nationalities, and must be able to expand that love to internationalism, in the sense already indicated. But egoism is equally international. Internationalism will only be able to establish a connection with world-production when the latter springs from a common spiritual understanding, from a common spiritual conception of unity. Never out of the egoism of the peoples will understanding of universal consumption arise. From a universal spiritual perception alone can that develop which proceeds not from egoism, but from love, and which, therefore, can govern production. What is the cause of the demand for world-economy? Owing to the growing complexity in the conditions of human life everywhere, and the consequent increasing similarity of human needs, it becomes ever more evident that human beings everywhere have the same wants.

How can a uniform principle of production be created to meet this uniform demand, one which will actively promote a world-economy? It can be created through our upward striving to the spiritual life, to a true spiritual perception, which is powerful enough to create a common world-production, for the common world-consumption. Then the balance can be struck, because unity in the spirit will work towards unity of consumption, towards unity of substance. Then the balance will be struck in the distribution of goods as mediator between production and consumption. Thus we must be able to look into the human soul, if we would understand how, over the whole civilized world—in reality out of many organisms—one uniform organism may arise. In no other way can this uniform organism be built up, this uniform organism which must be such that, in accordance with social demands all over the world, a true organic bond may be created between production and consumption, so that the piece of bread, or the coal required for the single household, or for the single person, may truly correspond with the social demands which are now making themselves felt in the subconsciousness of the human race.

I know very well that when such subjects are raised to this sphere of observation, many will say: But this is the height of sheer idealism! Nevertheless, in that sphere alone is to be found the impelling force for manifold things outside that sphere. And it is just because men have not sought that driving force, which can only be found in this way, that the present social and political conditions now prevail over the whole civilised world. People must come to realize that those who make it their task to create the inner impelling forces for the single social organism, such as the state, and for the social organism of the world, are the truly practical workers. They must come to see that many workers who are often called “practical” have only a rudimentary and merely abstract knowledge of their true sphere. Not until these two facts are recognized will the social question be placed on a healthy foundation.

One of those to whom all this has been a matter of most serious thought for a long time, when he was lecturing on a particular aspect of human life, pointed out that the so-called idealists are by no means the most ignorant concerning the connection of ideals with real life. He was conscious of the folly of those who call themselves practical, and who consider that the thoughts of the idealist are very beautiful, but that practical life demands something quite different. The truth is that practicality actually demands these ideals, if it is ever to become true practicality. And the would-be practical people hinder the realization of these ideals, because they are either too lazy to understand them or have an interest in preventing their realization. The same man of whom I have spoken said: The idealist knows just as well as anyone that ideals are not directly applicable in practice; but he knows too that life must be shaped in conformity with those ideals. People who cannot convince themselves of this truth only show that their help has not been called upon in the shaping of events! One can, therefore, only wish them rain and sunshine in due season and—if possible—good digestion!

This is intended to show the relationship between idealism and actual practical life, which is called into service, for example, in the building of a bridge. The art of engineering which brings a bridge into being is certainly not controlled by ideas which originate in matter. As the finished bridge must first exist ideally and can only become a real practical bridge after it has been well worked out in thought, so must idealism be something practical, springing from inner practical perception. We must have the instinct, the feeling, which will enable us to carry into actual practical life such objective laws, for instance, as govern the art of engineering. Then it will no longer be asked: ‘How can these things be carried out in practical life?’ For when enough people understand these ideas, they will forthwith put them into practice in actions and deeds. We often hear people say that these ideas are beautiful in many respects, and if realized would be very fine; but humanity is not yet ready for them. The masses, they say, are not yet ripe. Let us see what is really meant by such an assertion. He who knows the relationship of idea to actuality, who understands practical life according to the character of its reality, judges the masses differently. He knows that there are enough people now who, if they only go deeply enough into their own inner nature, can bring full understanding to bear on the matters with which we have dealt. The greatest hindrance is the lack of courage. The energy is lacking to urge them forward to what they might attain, if they could only develop in themselves full self-consciousness. Above all,. we need to correct something within ourselves; of this practically every human being is capable, if he only gives heed to reality. While, on the one hand, people fall into materialism and even take a delight in it, on the other hand, they fall a prey to abstractions, and will not penetrate to reality. Even in external life people are convinced that they are of a practical turn of mind, but they take no trouble to see things so as to recognize their real character.

For instance, suppose that someone comes across a new assertion and believes it. He accepts only its abstract content, and in doing so he may become estranged from life, instead of understanding it better. The writing of a fine editorial presents no great difficulty nowadays. For there is so much commonplace in modern civilization that only a small amount of routine is required to enable a person to write phrase after phrase. It is not the point whether or not we agree with the literal meaning of an article nowadays, but it is important that we should be able to judge the extent to which this meaning accords with reality. In this respect there is much to be corrected in the present day. One is impelled to say: That which people should demand today above all things is truth which they should courageously unite with reality. Here are two examples of what is meant.

You may read statistical reports, perhaps of the Balkan States; for it has become usual to acquaint oneself with the conditions prevailing in the world, to pass judgments on political situations, and similar matters. We can judge of the way in which people gain their information by reading statistics, let us say, of the Balkan States. We read that there are so many Greeks, so many Bulgarians, and then we can calculate how far the claims of the various elements, Greeks, Bulgarians, or Serbians, can be justified. If we then examine more closely into the details, and compare what we have gained through abstract knowledge about the number of Bulgarians, Serbians, and Greeks in Macedonia, we often find that the father of a family is registered as a Greek, one son as a Bulgarian, and another as a Serb. Now one would like to know how this agrees with the truth. Can the family be really so constituted that the father is a Greek, one son a Bulgarian, and another a Serb?^* Can we learn anything as to the reality from statistics made in this way? Most of the statistical reports in the world are made after this fashion, especially in commercial life.

Because people do not always feel the necessity of pressing forward through the actual words to the truth of what they hear, they commonly misjudge things. They do not examine closely enough into facts. They are content with the mere surface of life, which is only a covering for the true reality. Today, the first necessity is not to waste time in discussing whether humanity is ripe or unripe, but to point out where the principal evils lie. Once discover and take the trouble to disclose these evils and indicate with sufficient energy the way to deal with them, then people will realize them quickly enough!

A second example: At the beginning of June 1917 the world could read the speech pronounced by the then Emperor Karl of Austria, on his accession to the throne. In that speech from the throne there was a great deal said, very appropriately at that time, about democracy. Again and again democracy was the theme. Now I have read a good deal about this speech, about the enthusiasm with which it was received by the people, and how splendid it was to proclaim democracy to the world at such a time. Taking this speech from beginning to end and looking merely at its literal content, from the journalistic standpoint it was a fine achievement, if we confine ourselves to the style and composition of the sentences, calculated to call forth feelings of he pleasure and gratification. Very good! But let us look at the truth! Let us place this speech in its milieu. Then we must ask: Who is speaking thus and in what surroundings? There we may see standing in the medieval splendor of his coronation robes, glittering with jewels, the despotic ruler of bygone days, making no attempt to hide his magnificence, surrounded by his brilliant gold-laced paladins. The Middle Ages, complete in all the ceremonial, which, had it spoken truly, would have chosen another subject than democracy!

What is a speech on democracy, however beautiful the words, delivered in the midst of such medieval magnificence? A world-historical lie. From the literal content of the things of the present, we must go back to a perception of the reality. It is not enough to grasp things with the intellect; one must see things as they really are. This is just what spiritual science demands. We cannot deceive ourselves as to the outer reality without paying the penalty. He who would know the spiritual reality in the true sense of spiritual science, as it is taught here, he who would behold the spiritual world, must, above all things, accustom himself to the most absolute truth in the world of the senses; he must yield to no deception regarding all that takes place around him in the world of his five senses. Especially he who would penetrate into the spiritual world must use his five senses in a true and sane manner, and must not give himself up to fantastic thought, as do the many business men, the so-called practical people, so much admired, to whom the whole world defers. What we want is not a lamentation over the immaturity of the people, but to show them that we must be true in our inmost soul. Then we should cease to hear continually that untrue talk about the spirit, the spirit. Then will these falsehoods about the difference between right and might be no longer heard throughout the world, but we shall hear of work being done which consists in striving to attain the spirit. Then we shall hear that the spirit so striven after has been won and that men are living together a common life, in which they find equal rights for everyone. Only then can we speak of the manner in which an economic system, spiritualized throughout and pervaded with the spirit of equity, will be able to establish the true and real Commonwealth.

It is much more essential that we should recognize the fact that a sufficient number of people are here who at least look within and take themselves in hand, who can have an inner understanding of such hints as I have given. We must never weary of emphasizing these things. We must not, however, think that the mere repetition of phrases to the effect that the spirit must govern the world will bring about, as by enchantment, the coming of the spirit. No! By the work of the human spirit alone can that spirit come into the world. In this respect also we must be true. We must not allow the falsehood to ring through the world, that the spirit must come. The truth must be proclaimed that the spirit will not appear until there are places in which not only the materialistic study of outer nature will be carried on, but in which a spiritual conception of life will be striven after.

Out of that spiritual conception of the world must proceed a real social understanding of the habits of life of all humanity in the present and the near future. Everything depends on the fact that people become true with regard to the spirit and to their spiritual endeavor. For the spirit can only be found on the path of truth. It is no excuse, or, rather, it is only an excuse, to say that people are ignorant. In spiritual striving it is important to know that a lie, unconsciously persisted in, causes just as much harm as a lie, consciously repeated. For it is the duty of man at the present day to elevate his subconsciousness, in order to root out falsehood in every realm, even in that of the subconscious. For this reason I should like to conclude with words that are, indeed, truly and earnestly meant. I can well imagine that even after I have attempted to describe the structure of the social organism from the most varied points of view, as it must appear to the eye of the spiritual scientist in its relation to its threefoldness, I can well imagine that there may still be people who will say: ‘these are only ideas.’ How is it possible, they ask, that people can now rise to such ideas? A gulf yawns between these ideas and those generally understood at the present day. I would only remark that, with regard to such opinions, our answer must be: It need not concern us how advanced or otherwise people are. We need only speak out over and over again what we hold to be the truth, and what we think is likely to bear fruit, and then wait till they have understood. If we do so, if we never tire of repeating this again and again, then people will advance more rapidly than if they are continually told of their individuality. I believe that the world may very soon be ready for such things. I would, therefore, never tire of repeating over and over again that which I believe would hasten the advancement of humanity to maturity.

• *. The truth of this is to be found in the fact that in the Balkan States the blood tie is often not the thing that makes a man a Greek, a Bulgarian, or a Serbian, but his church-affiliation. Greek Church, Bulgarian Church, Serbian Church. (Ed.)

Among the somewhat authoritative judgments that have been made in the present day about today's chaotic world situation, one of the most significant is undoubtedly that of the Englishman John Maynard Keynes, who, in his book The Economic Consequences of the Versailles Peace, offers such an assessment of the current general world situation. Keynes was undoubtedly led to such a judgment by his external circumstances. During the war, he was assigned to the English Treasury and was in a position to form a basis for such a judgment from the underlying facts that presented themselves to him there. On the other hand, he was among the envoys, among the collaborators of the Versailles Peace Treaty itself. However, he resigned from this position as early as June 1919. And this resignation, like the conclusions he reaches in his book on the economic consequences of the peace treaty, are precisely what sheds significant light on the way this personality relates to the current world situation. Keynes, too, was one of those who, when they first went to Versailles, probably still saw something of a prophet and organizer of the current world situation in the personality of Woodrow Wilson, who had come over from America and was received with such great glory. He has thoroughly changed his mind. And those of us who, even at a time when Woodrow Wilson was being declared a world liberator by an enormous crowd, including from this place here in Switzerland, has given his opinion that the empty and abstract arguments of Woodrow Wilson and his manifestos cannot contribute anything to the real reconstruction of the destroyed civilization, may well point to such an authoritative judgment today. In his book, Keynes describes, as far as personality is concerned, with an intense vividness — one might say. He describes how Woodrow Wilson arrives in Versailles, how he participates in the meetings, how slow his thinking is, how he, so to speak, always lags behind. While the others are already well ahead with their assessment of the situation, he is still far behind with something that was said five, six or ten sentences ago. He is a man who suffers from the slowness of his thinking. Much else is vividly described in relation to the personality of this alleged liberator of the world.

But Keynes also speaks about the other leading figures who were involved in this peace agreement, and speaks urgently. He describes how Clemenceau is a man who has actually slept through the whole development of European humanity since the 1770s, who actually wanted nothing more from this peace settlement than to reduce the world, in a sense, to what was available in Europe in the 1770s. And he then describes no less vividly and graphically how Lloyd George is actually superior to everyone else, how he has a certain instinct for sensing what is being thought and done and wanted by the personalities around him. And from all this one can see how difficult it is today, even for an astute observer like Keynes, to gradually arrive at a judgment through the force of the facts. That is what contributes more and more to the increasing chaos in the world today: that the leading personalities, the affairs that public life has brought to the surface in recent decades, are not at all up to the great demands of the present time. This is precisely what emerges from the book and its assessment. It shows that all the destructive forces at work in the world cannot be brought under any kind of judgment by those who have been called to leadership by public life. And since Keynes saw that nothing could come out of this conference that would lead to a healthy and prosperous further development of European civilization, he resigned from office right at the beginning of the negotiations. And the way he constructs his judgment is extraordinarily significant. In the present situation, one really only needs to construct something real on judgments that are based on such foundations. Keynes' judgment is, I would say, calculated. Only those personalities who have a certain sense and instinct for calculating the future with all sobriety from still existing forces in a certain way can really have a say in the present. They should be listened to with special attention, because the great majority of judgments made today are based on some kind of nationalistic or other prejudices, while only a few people are able to form objective judgments from the facts themselves. Keynes is one of them. He considers what might follow from what the three leading figures at Versailles have cooked up, especially in economic terms, and what would have to happen to the economic life of European civilization if nothing else occurred but the forces that were brought to bear at Versailles. And Keynes calculates – I say explicitly and I emphasize it very strongly – Keynes calculates that nothing other than the economic ruin of Europe can follow from this peace agreement. Of course, the intellectual and political ruin of Europe must be connected with the economic ruin.

Thus the book about the economic consequences of the Versailles Peace Treaty is interesting enough just because of its content. But in some respects it becomes even more interesting because of its conclusion. In this conclusion Keynes openly admits that he has no idea what should be done or wanted to get out of the chaos into which we are entering. And in making this confession, he says something that is actually extraordinarily significant, which he summarizes in a single sentence. He says that one can only hope that some salvation for European civilization will come from the combination of all the forces involved in a new state of mind and new imaginations.

My dear attendees, this is said by a man who has been immersed in the circumstances, who was called upon to participate, who, through his analysis, shows that he is a person who can calculate soberly in the broadest sense. A new state of mind, a gathering of all forces for a new view of the powers at work in the public life of humanity, where can these be found? How can we arrive at such a view?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it will not take much impartiality to convince you that the first step in this direction is to examine the essentials of contemporary public life without any prejudice and to ask ourselves: What are the actual forces at work in contemporary public life? In earlier lectures, which I had the honor of giving here, I pointed out what kind of historical considerations should be used to arrive at the truly effective forces in human life. Above all, one must look for certain symptoms that vividly illustrate what is at work in the depths of human development. And so I would like to point out something that is perhaps one of the most outstanding forces that has worked with the forces of destruction. I would like to point out the basis of the world view of the present day, but in the way it has developed over the last three to four centuries. I do not wish to give the impression that a Weltanschhauung, founded in the solitude of a thinker, can now go out and influence every single soul, and that public affairs can, as it were, come into being out of such a Weltanschhauung. That is certainly not the case. But just as public affairs grow out of the will, out of feeling, out of the emotional life, out of the thoughts of the overall state of the human being, so too does the world view grow out of this overall state of human life, especially of the human soul. And one can see, as in a symptom, what the people of an age are like in their whole work and in their whole activity, when one, so to speak, considers the symptom of the world view, insofar as one wants to point to the world views that are decisive and have come into their own in the present. This determining factor is characterized, in particular, by the fact that everything that has not entered our world view through tradition from ancient times has developed out of the soil of natural science, which seeks to base its knowledge on external material observation alone. What does this natural scientific world view show, when looked at more deeply?

Perhaps only someone who can admire it can judge it correctly. And in earlier lectures, I have certainly expressed my admiration for the scientific world view strongly enough. These remarks, which I am developing here, are not meant to be a criticism of this scientific world view, which is certainly justified in its field. This scientific view, especially in its technical and economic consequences, has led to great fruits of civilization for humanity. But suppose there were some spirit today — it is hardly possible, firstly, given the vast field of scientific knowledge and, secondly, given its specialization — but suppose there were some spirit today that embraced the whole revolution of the scientific view from mathematics and from mechanics up to biology and up to what can be gained from biology for the science of the human soul: such a mind would undoubtedly be able to gain significant insights into certain areas of nature and being. But if such a mind were to ask itself with complete clarity the great and comprehensive human question: What is man in his own essence and in his whole relationship to the world? then the one who stands firmly on the ground of natural science, who is able to correctly assess the scope of scientific knowledge, would have to say: the scientific world view cannot answer these questions about the human being and about the relationship of the human being to the rest of the cosmos. This question remains unanswered, even by the latest physical scientific knowledge. There are already some great insights into how man has emerged in outward physical development from lower, animal-like forms to his present human form. But these insights have led man far away from what man is in his relationship to spiritual worlds. Those who cannot admit this to themselves without prejudice will also be unable to form an opinion about the inner impulses from which present-day humanity acts, whether it is organizing public affairs or destroying public organizations. For even if we are not always conscious of how we think consciously about the nature of man and his position in the world, even if we are not always conscious of the thoughts we entertain in this position, these thoughts, however unconsciously or instinctively they may be, they work in our feelings and in our decisions of will. They therefore become the creators of all public, spiritual, political and economic life. Anyone who wants to see things correctly will realize that economic interrelationships, since they are made by people, but since people in turn act out of their soul impulses, the economic interrelationships of the world are also a reflection of what people are able to feel about themselves and about their relationship to the world. Now we have to say: the scientific world view has grown large over all that is non-human. It cannot provide any answers about the human being itself. It is extensive when information is required about the sub-human realms. But how does the information that we, as human beings, acquire relate to what we should allow to flow into social life from our ideas and from our inner soul impulses, and in particular into the way we live together with other people and groups of people? Can we receive any impulses for human activity and human coexistence from those areas that lie outside of the human being? This is best shown by observing the relationship between the human being and language.

Language is basically the medium through which everything that leads from person to person comes to life. Through language, we also control economic life. Through language, we inaugurate external political and spiritual conditions. Now there is something most remarkable, which unfortunately is not often considered thoroughly enough. When we try to apply our language to scientific knowledge, we can never do anything other than extend the words, the phrases, and everything we use to express natural laws, those natural laws that we today so admire as the great progress of modern humanity, we can do nothing but extend to nature what we have formed in words as an expression of inner soul conditions or of conditions in man. Such subtle minds as Goethe's noticed this. That is why Goethe said: Man does not realize how anthropomorphic he is. -— When we say: an elastic ball pushes the other -, and we derive from it the laws of elastic' push in physics, then we basically start from what we have in the word meaning for the push that we carry out in our own organism. And anyone who really wants to investigate will see that everything that can be applied from language to natural science, which deals with the non-human, must be taken from the human being.

How did our language come to have content? It would have come to very little content if we could only imitate the mooing of a cow and other animal sounds. How did our language come to have such content? Those who can look impartially at the course of human development will find that all the content of language comes from the fact that, in times that were indeed behind our civilization, humanity had a certain instinctive-spiritual knowledge, I say: an instinctive-spiritual knowledge with the natural elementary empathy that arises in the human soul. With the impulses of the will, with pictorial imagination, which found expression in myth and mythology, spiritual insights came to man, and out of these spiritual insights he formed the content of the soul , which then became the content of his language in modern times, which is great in that it looked in a certain disdainful way at what instinctive spiritual abilities gave to man in an earlier time. In this modern time, in which one has become great primarily in relation to natural science, in this modern time our words have not been given any new content. And one thing is historically significant in the last two to four centuries: our language, all languages of our civilized world, have lost their old content. No new content could be poured into them because that which cannot provide such content, mere knowledge of nature, is that which has been developed in this very time. And in this time, which we must otherwise admire so much, there took place what may be called the emptying of civilized languages of their old spiritual content.

What did the civilized languages become as a result of losing their old instinctive content and natural science being unable to give them a new one? — They became that which has now reached a certain climax in the present day. They became that which developed into a phrase, and truly nothing that would only have a meaning in a limited area, but what is practiced today by those who exercise world domination is called a phrase. And the four to five years of horror that we have behind us have shown the world domination of the phrase at its peak. Today we live under the world domination of the phrase. What is the remedy for this world domination of the phrase? Only the acquisition of a new spiritual content, a conscious spiritual content. The old spiritual content, acquired by earlier humanity through instinct, which made language the sum of words, not phrases, is gone. Humanity that is truly attached to the present can no longer believe in it. A new conscious spiritual content must be conquered.

That, dear attendees, is what the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which has its representatives in the Dornach building, is consciously striving for: to conquer conscious spiritual knowledge in addition to scientific knowledge, which provides such great insights into everything gives such wonderful insights into everything outside of the human being, to conquer with the same clarity of thought, logical rigor, and scientific conscientiousness, spiritual knowledge that can now provide information about the great question of the nature of the human being and the human being's place in the rest of the cosmos. However, before one can proceed to such knowledge, one must admit that, although the external scientific method must be imitated in its conscientiousness today by all knowledge, it cannot itself lead to spiritual knowledge. In order to arrive at spiritual knowledge, it is necessary that the human being of today, above all, brings to bear those inner abilities that are to arise precisely on the soil of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science meant here. I have shown how man can come to such knowledge through his own soul life, for example in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds' and in the second part of my 'Occult Science'. However, one thing is necessary - I have emphasized it here often enough - one thing is necessary for man, to which he now only surrenders with the greatest reluctance. It is necessary to have what I would call intellectual modesty. Modern man is so proud of his intellectual development. Intellectual modesty only asserts itself when, for example, one says to oneself: Suppose you give a five-year-old child a volume of Goethe's poetry. What will the child do with a volume of Goethe's lyric poems? It would probably tear it up or play with it. It certainly would not get from the volume of Goethe's lyric poems what an adult can get and what the volume of Goethe's lyric poetry is actually meant for. The abilities that can determine it, that can make it possible for him to let the volume of Goethean poetry take effect on him in the right way, must first be cultivated in the child bit by bit. For this development of childlike abilities, one surrenders a lot in human life today. But that a person, when he has grown up and is equipped only with the abilities that one can acquire in normal, external, sensual human life today, that he could then stand before the world itself as the five-year-old child stands before the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems, that he must first develop by taking his soul abilities into his own hands in order to extract from what what is presented to him in the world, something that can be compared to what the child first draws from the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems when he has grown up, in other words, what he does with the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems at the age of twenty-five – yes, to admit that, in his intellectual arrogance, the man of the present does not want to do that. But this must be asserted above all, that in order to truly know oneself, to finally fulfill the Apollonian saying “Know thyself,” it is necessary to take hold of the human soul faculties. How this is possible in detail will be the subject of tomorrow's lecture.

Today I would just like to emphasize in general terms that it is indeed possible for the human being to strengthen their thinking through a certain treatment of their thinking, which I will describe tomorrow. This enables their thinking to no longer passively , but that it is inwardly seized as by a will, becomes active, that it becomes more intense, that it occurs in such a way that the person knows through inner experience in direct perception: now thinking has become a spiritual-soul seeing. While in ordinary thinking one is dependent on one's thinking apparatus, on one's body, on the nervous system, and while, just when one develops thinking a little, one sees through this dependence, one also knows that when thinking is strengthened in the appropriate ways, which are described in the books mentioned, it becomes free from the body, it becomes an activity that is no longer guided by the instrument of the body. Certain meditations, to which one devotes oneself with the same objectivity with which one conducts an experiment in a chemical laboratory or observes the stars in an observatory, empower this thinking and free it from the tool of the body. It is only when this thinking is to be used for a real world-view that self-discipline of the will must be applied. When self-discipline of the will, together with inner meditation, develops into will-imbued thinking that is independent of the body, only then does spiritual knowledge arise, conscious spiritual knowledge, which in turn can give man what instinctive spiritual knowledge once gave him: content for speech, content for language. The moment man ceased to feel within himself the impulse to give content to his speech out of himself, the moment instinctive spiritual perception ceased and was replaced by external natural perception, which cannot give content to speech, the development of man in a certain respect came to a standstill. But man must recognize from the signs of the present that he must acquire self-knowledge and knowledge of humanity through conscious inner soul work, through the development of his thinking to soul-vision, and that only through this can arise what in turn gives content to our language, what can eliminate the world domination of the phrase.

But such knowledge also gives us the insight that the external world, as we observe it with our senses, is something we grow into in the course of our lives between birth and death, that these external observations cannot give us the actual spiritual, that this, the actual spiritual content, is brought into the world by us, that we bring it with us, in that we descend from spiritual worlds — as I said, we will talk about these things in more detail tomorrow — through birth into this physical world, that when we speak of the spiritual content, we must look at what people carry within, what they develop only through the instrument of their body, little by little, from year to year. It is not the ever-increasing wealth of the world's experience that brings the spirit into reality, but what we, as human individuals, bring into the world through our birth. Today people are only afraid of what man himself brings into the world. They are afraid because they believe that if he asserts it, it would lead to fantasy. But there are ways to avoid this fantasy. But anyone who realizes that, fundamentally, all spiritual content must come from human individuality will readily admit that a fruitful development of this spiritual life can only come about if the human being is given the full opportunity for human development, if he is not dependent in his spiritual development and in the expression and revelation of his spirit on any external powers that serve only here in the physical world. For with the rise of pure scientific knowledge, that knowledge which only provides information about what is non-human, there has also arisen, as organically connected with it, the dependence of spiritual life not on what the human being carries into the world through birth, but on what the external state life establishes, on what the economic life makes of the human being. At the same time as the natural sciences were coming of age, we saw the omnipotence of the state develop to the highest degree, with the state stretching its tentacles over everything that is intellectual life; it began to organize school life, and economic life, on the other hand, became decisive for the lives of those personalities who were able to enter precisely this intellectual field. But this has gone hand in hand with the fact that the human being has lost the ability to give birth out of himself a spiritual content, to give his words a spiritual content. Therefore, in the age of natural science, the dependence of spiritual life on political and economic powers has developed, and under this influence the world domination of phrase has developed.

This is the first link in the chain of present-day organizations that are working towards destruction: the world domination of phrase, of empty talk. If a person is incapable of investing words with the spiritual substance that he draws directly from his connection with the spiritual world, then words must become empty phrases; words must gradually become so ingrained in a person that he is, as it were, merely carried away by the mechanisms of language. And unfortunately we see this all too clearly emerging in modern times: that which breaks out with elemental force from the spiritual and soul inner being of the human being, which, as it were, only discharges into language, disappears. Life in the mechanisms of language becomes more and more intense, and it has reached its climax in recent years. Because people, by talking to each other about the civilized world, were talking directly or indirectly through the print of nothing, and by the words only taking place in their mechanism, that which was driven by chaotic forces to destruction developed.

I know very well that there is little inclination in the present day to go into these intimacies of human life when the causes of the present chaos are to be discussed. But no one will gain clear ideas and clear judgments about these causes if they do not want to go into these intimacies of the human soul. Not until this happens will harmony replace chaos in public affairs; not until spiritual deepening, through genuine spiritual science, gives rise in man to the urge to give his words full content. For that which certainly first appears in the scientific field, that which is born in the scientific field, it pushes its way into the other habits of life, it becomes the one that sets the tone in public life. And anyone who has an eye for observing life sees how, in the end, only the final consequences of what is ultimately present as the characteristic feature play out in everyday life, where worldviews are formed. Indeed, people have not wanted to properly survey the connections that arise there for a long time. Here in Switzerland, a blustering spirit once worked, I explicitly call him a blustering spirit so that you can see that I am not overestimating him, Johannes Scherr. He spoiled a lot with his blustering tone and his blustering judgment, which was also in the healthy thoughts that he had in what he said publicly. In the 1960s and 1970s, he made a very significant judgment based on a truly penetrating observation of historical and social life. He said: If the materialistic demon, which now only relies on that which man sees and experiences in the external world, continues to prevail, it will also enter into everything that man does in external public affairs; it will enter into economic and financial life, and a social structure will develop that will finally lead to the fact that one must say: Nonsense, you triumphed!

My dear audience! We don't like to listen to such people. This judgment of Johannes Scherr has also been ignored. But now, fifty years later, it must be said for those who look at everything connected with the so-called world catastrophe: the words of this world observer Johannes Scherr, which culminated in the sentence: You will have to say: Nonsense, you triumphed – the words have been fulfilled! For Johannes Scherr saw well how that which is spirit has gradually been squeezed out of human life, how the materialistic un-spirit has taken the place of the spirit, and he was able to turn this observation into a true prophecy. The world simply does not know that what is initially only a worldview, only a theory, that basically after two generations becomes moral, public action, becomes deed. Oh, the world should be much, much better at noticing certain connections! It should form a much more thorough judgment, a real judgment about certain things!

A philosopher, Avenarius, also worked here for a time. He is a kindred spirit of Mach, who in turn had a student work here in Zurich quite recently. These people have drawn the consequences in the field of world view from the current materialistic lack of spirit – I call it a lack of spirit because mere knowledge of nature cannot infuse our language with substantial content. They, the philosophers, Avenarius and so on, have drawn the consequences for their world view from the materialistic lack of spirit of the time. The philosophy they have gained, and the whole way in which people like Avenarius live, is good bourgeois. Of course no one will recognize in these people anything other than good citizens. But today something else should be recognized. Today, we should study the question based on the facts: What has become of the state philosophy of Lenin and Trotsky? What is the state philosophy of the Bolsheviks? It is the Avenarius-Mach school of thought! It is not just a matter of the temporal connection that a number of these people studied here in Zurich; it is the inner factual connection that what lives in the human soul as a world-view thought in one generation becomes action in the third generation. And in these deeds one can see the causes as they play out in the world. But today's humanity only wants abstract logical judgments and does not understand that something that is logically deduced is not yet a judgment of fact, that one must look with real spiritual insight into the real context, into the context of reality, and then seemingly most dissimilar, the bourgeois world view of Avenarius, which, however, emerged from a materialistic lack of spirit, is revived deep in that which fundamentally destroys all human society, which leads to the gravediggers of all European civilization.

At the same time, this indicates that this world domination of the phrase is not something that applies only to a narrow field. It is something that permeates our entire public life as a fundamental force, especially in the field of the spirit. And there will be no salvation until the spiritual life emancipates itself from that which has emerged as the basis for this phraseology, until the spiritual life emancipates itself from the external political or legal life, from the economic life, and to build only on what the spirit itself brings forth from itself, that is, what the individual human being produces from what he carries into the sensual world through birth from the spiritual world. To arrive at spiritual content is the only way to overcome the world domination of phrase. And there is something else closely associated with phrase. Because the phrase does not connect the context of the word with the content, the word very easily becomes a carrier of lies in the age of the phrase. And it is a straight path from the phrase to the lie. Hence the domination, the triumph of lies in the last four to five years, which in turn is so much a part of the process of destruction we are heading for if spirit is not called into the place of the un-spirit!

So much for the one area of public life, the area of intellectual life. But there are other areas as well. But all of them are dependent on the intellectual life to a certain extent. If the intellectual life is dominated by empty phrases and meaningless talk, then the feelings and perceptions cannot be given full expression. But that which develops in the feelings and perceptions in social life, that which is kindled in the interaction from person to person, as one person sympathizes with another, that is custom, that is what emerges from the social community into the realm of custom. And it is only from this customary practice that law can develop historically. But this law can only develop if the sentiments that arise in the interaction between people do not become imbued with empty phrases, if these sentiments are linked to words that are full of substance and to speech that is supported by thought. And in the age of empty phrases, the feeling between human beings cannot be kindled in the appropriate way either; only an external relationship between human beings can arise. The consequence is that in the age in which empty phrases develop in the field of social intellectual life, conventions develop in the field of social feeling instead of the direct substantial relationship between human beings. of man to man, which can at most be regulated by external treaties, that even between nations one raves about treaties because one does not come to the elementary living out of that which can be revealed from person to person. This age of convention makes a second area of our public life so empty of content: it deserts human coexistence, as the phrase deserts the spiritual life, the life of the soul.

This is what leads to the mere external man, not to the right born from within the man. For this right can only be ignited when the word borne by thought flows from the head to the heart. Just as real right, which can flourish in social life alone, belongs to the real spiritual life, which is filled with substantial spirit, so convention belongs to the spiritual life that lives in phrase. Thus we have characterized two areas of our public life in the present.

The third area from which public life emerges is human volition. A conscious will, a will that places a person in human society in such a way that this person brings something into society that flows from his or her own human nature, cannot come about unless it is driven by real, substantial, spiritual content. The phrase is unsuitable for evoking a real conscious will. Just as spiritual life becomes a mere phrase when it becomes dependent on the external life of the state or of the law, or on the external life of economics; just as the life of the law itself is absorbed in convention when it can only be nourished by empty phrases, so the sphere of economic life, the sphere of external human coexistence, is supported, not by the practice of real life but by mere routine, when the will is not inspired by the spirit. Therefore, alongside convention and empty phrases, we see the emergence in the age from which our present age has developed, in the sphere of life and in the outward expression of life, in the sphere of economic life, of routine everywhere.

What is meant by this: our economic life is dominated by routine – it may become clear from this if I say: a realistic consideration of our public life has shown that in the field of economic life, that chaos must end, which is prevalent in the present, where everyone only wants to acquire out of their own selfishness and no one is aware of the context in which their own production is placed in relation to the production of the whole. Only when we realize that this economic life, which has gradually descended into chaos, can only be healed by associating the most diverse professional and life spheres with one another, by people who belong together in different occupations really integrating with one another, so that associations arise from occupation to occupation, that associations arise between the consumers of a profession and the producers of the profession, in short, that our economic life acquires a structure so that the producers, by organizing themselves internally, join forces with their consumers, so that the individual who is a consumer or producer in a profession can see how his consumption and production into some economic cycle - only when the person lives in such an organization, when our economic life is based on association, only then does the individual see how he contributes to the economic process through what he produces or how he participates through what he consumes. Then the individual human being not only knows how to handle this or that in some routine of life, but he also knows that what he does belongs to the overall process of the economic life of humanity. Then he acts out of other impulses. Then what he does is not dominated by a superficial routine, but by a life practice that is only possible if one can connect an idea to it, if one places oneself economically within the overall organism of humanity. Because life has become dominated by empty phrases and because human interaction has become dominated by convention, people have not found the opportunity to associate with each other in this way. They have been turned away from the tasks they face and have become mere routine workers. And routine spread from the individual mechanical action to the mechanism of our entire organization and our entire financial system. The phrase-filled time became the time of the routiniers. And the routiniers brought about that catastrophe, which shows this or that on the surface, but which in its depths shows the causes that lie in the area that has just been characterized.

If we examine the things that dominate contemporary life with an open mind, without sympathy or antipathy, we have to say: in the field of intellectual life, empty phrases; in the field of legal life, conventions; and in the field of economic life, routine. Only the forces that I will describe tomorrow can lead to salvation. This is when the phrase is replaced by speech that is filled with a substantial spirit, with a spirit that has been contemplated, and that can only come about in an independent spiritual life that brings forth what man has to bring into the outer life, which does not want to dominate this spiritual life like the laws of nature, which are gained through outer experience. The conventions of what is externally established must give way to the living interplay that can arise when, on a strictly democratic basis, all mature human beings enter into that which is generally human affairs, which the human being does not bring in through his birth, but which can only develop in the human coexistence of mature human beings. Only when man arrives at such a world-view from the phrase-free, thought-filled word, can the true practice of life develop out of the routine that clings to ephemeral economic objects. that testify and reveal that what is achieved on the ground of economic life is more than what is accomplished by the machine, that it is a link in the overall process of human development on earth. We will not stop at this if we stand as a routine worker at our machine, in our factory, in our bank or anywhere else; we will only stop if the threads of association go from one person to the next, if one person learns from another how he or she is connected to the social organization closest to him or her through his or her consumption and production. What these people achieve together through their combined efforts and associations will be something more than what the human being can achieve in economic life. Man must work, but through his economic activity his whole human being rises out of the transitory and into the eternal. And he will experience from his economic life that precisely by becoming a practitioner in this life, he has a school of practice, the results of which he can carry even through death.

Thus it follows from an observation of the present life, which is more directed towards the spirit, from the three most characteristic domains, that of phrase, that of convention, that of routine, the necessity to work according to a threefold structure of social life, according to a recovery of our spiritual life through its independence, through a recovery of our legal life, which can only be freed from convention when living democratic interaction occurs between all mature human beings, and through a recovery of economic life in which the independence of economic life abolishes routine in favor of a real life practice. But this can only happen when people associate with each other, because it is only through this social interaction that something arises out of what the individual can produce, something that leads all of humanity beyond itself, from mere matter to spirit. Phrase means unspiritualness in the realm of spiritual life; convention means unspiritualness in the realm of the state and of the law; routine means unspiritualness in the realm of economic life. In place of unspiritualness, spirit must come. How it can, and with what forces it can, is what I will attempt to describe tomorrow. For only when, in place of empty phrases, there is again speech that is borne by thought, and only through this, when in place of convention there is the legal life that is imbued with human social feeling, and only through this, when in place of economic routine there is spiritualized economy , an economy ordered by the spirit and steeped in associations, only in this way will our entire public life be healed from what ails it in the present, one must say: what would destroy it if no healing process were to occur.

In the present, unfortunately, we only notice too much the phrase, the convention, the routine. We see the result: chaos. For the future we need the thought-borne word, the spirit filled with substance, the living law that results from the interaction of all mature human beings. That is spirit instead of un-spirit at this point. In the field of economic life we need the associations that arise from the spirit, we need the replacement of routine with the true, spirit-filled economy. In the economic field this means replacing the unspiritual spirit of the present with the spirit of the future. And only by doing so can we rise from pessimistic moods, which are all too justified today when we look at the world around us, to a certain hope for the future. We do not build on what could be thrown at us somewhere today as hope for the future, but that we build on our own human will, which wants to stake its power, its endurance, its fire, out of the present for the future, the victory of the spirit over the un-spirit.

[There follows a brief discussion).

Closing remarks

The first speaker in the discussion initially concluded his remarks by pointing out that an international language serves as a unifying element in humanity. I do not want to go into the pros and cons that can be asserted against such an international language, because this can only be decided through extensive discussion. But I will assume that those who strive to establish such an international language have a certain right. We know what has been tried and done in this direction. Well, it is not enough with the associative way in which such a language has been pursued so far, because such a language would still have to find completely different ways to people than it has found so far if it is to have a truly practical significance. But I do not want to speak out against such a language. Because, you see, on the one hand I know that what arises artificially in our time also bears the characteristic properties of all that our time can produce: a certain intellectualism, a certain intellectualism. And I cannot help but confess that it seems to me that precisely that which has brought us down today, intellectualism, the anti-elemental, was also essentially active in the construction of today's attempted international language. I can very well appreciate the view of those who say: what will ultimately become of that originality of human self-revelation in poetry, in speech, which is truly connected with the innermost being of man, if we pour an abstract language over all mankind? On the other hand, I have also heard some truly wonderful poems in Esperanto, and I must say that I have already tried to achieve a certain objectivity in this matter.

However, what I have presented today, ladies and gentlemen, is not at all affected by the question of such a language. Because, hypothetically speaking, if such a language were to be poured out on humanity, it would be unable to contain anything other than empty phrases if we did not come to a new revival of the substantial spirit. Whether we ultimately turn phrases in Esperanto or in English or in German or French or in Russian is irrelevant. What matters is that we find a way to bring substantial spirit into Russian, German, English, French and Esperanto. And that is one of the questions I have addressed today.

So, as I said, I do not want to say anything against the efforts of those who go for such an abstract language. I believe that perhaps the one point of view could be not entirely unfruitful if it were possible to have an international language for that which really lives in international economic life, for example, that then perhaps the possibility would be given for the actual spiritual life, which after all must always must always arise from individuality, to liberate the other languages. This can only happen if they can develop individually, just as the spirit must develop individually, if their development is not to be disturbed by the lust for conquest and domination on the part of political powers. I believe, however, that the hopes of the Esperantists and similar people are still on much weaker ground than the hopes of those who believe that if only a sufficiently large number of people can come together today to work towards a renewal of our intellectual life from the real spirit, then a better time could dawn, even if it is not perfect. Those who see reality as it is cannot belong to the group that hopes for an earthly paradise. I believe that the latter type of person is still more in touch with reality than those who hope for an international language.

What was said by the second speaker was essentially an interpretation of what I said in part of my lecture, and I would just like to note that when discussing such talking about such things, that it is necessary not to regard human beings as if one could simply approach them and make them better by teaching them. In public life I have often used the image for the pure teaching method: If I have a stove in front of me, then I can say: it is your stove duty to warm the room, it is your categorical imperative to warm the room. I can now preach on and on, with all Kant's insight I can preach on and on, it will not get warm. If I remain silent and just put wood in the stove and light it, the stove will warm the room without any preaching. It is the same with people. If the whole human being is in question, if not only that is in question which can, for example, provide a theoretical echo in the human being, if the whole human being is in question, preaching is of little use, because then one is dealing above all with the human being standing within a social totality. And the human being in a social totality is something different from the individual, unique human being. If we demand of the individual human being that he should somehow contribute to the betterment of humanity through a concentrated life of thought, then it must first be possible for such a concentrated life of thought to develop in a fruitful way. Ultimately, this is only possible in a free spiritual life. Further explanations can be found in the “Key Points of the Social Question”. The question today is not so much to examine what is good for the individual, but what must be brought about in the human social organism so that the individual can truly develop.

In 1894, during the nineties, I published for the first time my “Philosophy of Freedom”. In it, as a consequence of a spiritual world view, there is also a certain ethic that is built precisely on the individual human being. But there is a prerequisite, and this prerequisite must be made by everyone who grasps the problem of freedom in a serious and realistic sense: that, if it is possible to have intuitions that establish human freedom, then it must also be possible for that individual human being to bring forth something that can be built upon in social coexistence. But our attention must constantly be directed to this social life. Therefore I may say that in a certain sense my Philosophy of Freedom is supplemented by my Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage (Key Points in the Social Question). Just as my Philosophy of Freedom investigates the source of the forces that lead to freedom in the individual human being, so my Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage investigates how the social organism must be constructed so that the individual human being can develop freely. And these are basically the two great questions that must occupy us in contemporary public life. A real answer to this question will at the same time be able to shed some light into the chaos.

I would like to note that I have organized today's and tomorrow's lectures in such a way that today's lecture should, so to speak, be more of a critique of the times, pointing out what has been in the present so far, that this present has become what we see it as, drifting into chaos, equipped with tremendous destructive powers. Tomorrow I would like to explain what needs to be done to enable national life in the broadest sense and the life of civilized humanity in general to emerge from the chaos. I would like to show how the forces that already lie within man, and that lie particularly in human coexistence, can be unleashed, but how they are fettered today. Therefore, the positive, to which the last speaker obviously wanted to point, will be more in my tomorrow's lecture than in my today's. But it had to be pointed out, what we are suffering from, so that a knowledge of the will can be built on this knowledge of the present, which is necessary for a prosperous development in the future.

But I would like to mention one more thing in conclusion. Those who are serious about the great issues of the present must not think in a traditional sense, they must not be followers of something similar to a “thousand-year Reich” or the like, they must not think that we can establish a paradise on earth here, but they must think that every reality can only develop in accordance with its own conditions of existence, that within the life between birth and death one can only come to a 'yes' in this life if one is able to constantly supplement the imperfections of physical life with the prospect of a spiritual life: One of the greatest mistakes of our time is that a large number of people gradually want everything that makes life worth living to come from the mere external life. And this is how social questions are formulated today: How must the external life be designed to give people everything they imagine a paradise would offer? Those who ask the question in this way will never come to an answer. You can only come to a true, genuine answer if you are imbued with a sense of reality. And I will take the liberty of speaking tomorrow about what such a sense of reality can give as an answer to the great question of the present.

Yesterday I took the liberty of explaining how three destructive forces are at work in the decline of our time: the world domination of phrase, the world domination of convention, the world domination of routine. And yesterday I tried to suggest how the phrase should be replaced by thought-filled speech, by thoughts imbued with spiritual substance, which can express themselves through language in the social life of people. And in this connection I tried to suggest how the revival of spiritual life must take the place of convention, which can only arise from the living interaction of mature people living together in the democratic sense. And I tried to suggest how the practice of spiritualized life must take the place of mere routine, of spiritless routine.

If we initially characterize all these things only from the outside, they actually only seem to touch on the surface facts of our present life. But in truth, they push straight to that which, on the one hand, is rooted in the innermost part of human existence, but which, on the other hand, is also lived out in the most significant, most far-reaching and decisive social facts of life.

Yesterday I already hinted at how one of the fundamental causes of our present civilization, which is permeated by so many destructive forces, must be sought in a particular symptom. I pointed out that for three to four centuries it has essentially been scientific knowledge that has provided the basis of our world view, the one that seeks to establish

What is otherwise present in our social life are the traditional impulses for a worldview. What has been bearing fruit in a new way, what has really moved people for three to four centuries, is the question: in what way can a worldview flow from the scientific foundations of human knowledge? It is no wonder that, under the urge to found a world view in this way, precisely those forces of the human soul have been developed that are capable of bringing such a world view into being. A very specific kind of thinking and a very specific kind of will has emerged in these last centuries and has reached a certain peak of activity in our present time. Natural science, after all, emphasizes time and again that its conscientious method depends on investigating the world of facts, so that nothing is introduced into what is determined about the facts themselves, that nothing is introduced from the human being, from the human personality itself. In vain have minds such as Goethe's, who realized the one-sidedness to which mere knowledge of nature, separated from man, must lead, pointed out how real knowledge, useful for a comprehensive world view, must not be separated from man, how even the external physical fact must be considered in connection with the man standing in the world. On the other hand, it can be said that this approach, separated from the human being, has in turn celebrated its great triumphs by bringing the world of technology to what it is today. But all this could only come about under the influence of a certain kind of thinking; that thinking which devotes itself either to what nature presents through itself to observation, or to that which we can present in experiment. To understand the language of facts itself, that is the ideal of this thinking.

In this thinking, little flows in from that — the one who, in addition to spiritual science, has also conscientiously and methodically dealt with natural science knows what human will is, from what impulsates us as we carry out our task in the outer life, as we come into contact and relationship with other people, as we, in other words, place ourselves in the social being. Yes, the great triumphs of science and technology have only been possible because, to a certain extent, man has learned to think in such a way that his will influences his thinking as little as possible. One could say that a kind of thinking habit has developed under the influence of this fact over the last three to four centuries.

Now, with such thinking, one can recognize great things in the mineral world, the plant world, but less so in the animal world, and — as I already hinted at yesterday — nothing at all with regard to the true nature of man. And the reason why no other thinking has been developed alongside this, I might say, unwilled thinking, is to be found in a certain fear of everything that enters our thinking when man, of his own accord, gives this thinking its structure and organization. In this way, fantasy and arbitrariness can enter into thinking through human volition. And again and again it is pointed out how fantastic the worldviews of certain philosophers appear, who have indeed introduced human volition into their thinking, in contrast to the certain results that natural scientists have arrived at, who allowed only what nature itself or the experiment told them.

It was simply not known that it is possible to permeate human thinking with the will in such a way that in this well-trained, will-borne thinking, arbitrariness disappears just as it disappears in relation to that thinking which is only concerned with external facts or with experiments. In order to discover such thinking, which is permeated by the will, it requires, however, spiritual exercises performed with energy, care and patience. To this end, a person who wants to become a spiritual researcher, who really wants to penetrate into the spiritual world, from which alone knowledge of man can flow, must repeatedly and repeatedly over long periods of time and with inner soul methodology, hold thoughts in which he develops nothing but inner volition. He must develop such volition in these thoughts as one otherwise only develops in the outer world. In the outer world one loves, one hates, one takes up this or that activity, rejects this or that activity. In the outer world one has to deal with something about which one can only have opinions. One has to deal with something that contains crises. Whatever one recognizes in the outer world through one's will, or against which one is fought, must be carried into the world of one's thoughts if one wants to become a spiritual researcher, and one will gradually notice that these thoughts really become powers carried by the will, imbued with inner conformity to law. You must accept what I have just said in apparent abstraction in such a way that the work that is characterized by it, the inner soul work, is one that takes a long time and is carried out just as methodically, albeit in the spiritual realm, as everything we do with the most precise instruments for our chemical or physical experiments. Just as the chemist or the physicist carries out his experiments with exactitude, so the spiritual researcher carries out that which is the weighing of one thought against another, the effect of one thought upon another. In this way, abstract thinking, which has developed under the influence of natural scientific research in the course of the last three to four hundred years, rises to become an inwardly living thinking, a thinking that is more an image-gazing of a spiritual nature than ordinary abstract thinking. This is one side of it, which must be developed into real knowledge of the human being, because it is impossible to use that abstract thinking for this knowledge of the human being, which must be a spiritual knowledge, a spiritual vision, that celebrates its great triumphs in natural science. But this thinking, which is fully at home in natural science, has certain, I would say impossible results, especially in social life in the broadest sense. The more abstract our thinking becomes, the more dogmatic it becomes in the individual. Certainly, one becomes very critical, conscientious, and methodical when applying the thinking cultivated in the last three to four centuries. But one does become opinionated with regard to one's social integration into all of humanity or into a part of humanity. Just do some research and you will see when you stick to the thinking that has made science great: you get used to always being right — and the other person is right too! And people, that would be the extreme, basically couldn't communicate with each other at all.

Are we not living in the midst of this state of affairs? Today, anyone who has gone through a life of trials and tribulations and has struggled with problems for decades, who is compelled by today's education of humanity to present these problems in the accessible, conventional forms of spiritual-scientific concepts, he does not find young people everywhere who come and say, with their one-and-a-half decades of experience at most: This is my point of view, this is what I think, this is what I counter with my rich life experiences. And finally, taken in the abstract, one cannot even disagree with these beginners in life, who can think just as logically as the aged with life experience. scientific knowledge is basically not bound to human development. It is something that one achieves, wherever one finds oneself, and which one finally attains when one has reached a certain degree of adulthood. And so we can say: this abstract thinking, this intellectualism, which has today reached a high degree of perfection, gives everyone something that they actually want to communicate to everyone else, but which the other person already knows from within themselves. They want to communicate in social life. They cannot communicate because the other person is not inclined to receive the message, but at most to counter it with their point of view.

What makes science great is inapplicable in social life, because in it man gives, would like to give, something that no one else really wants to receive because he already believes he has it. Whoever really thinks through what the real basic direction of our entire present-day soul life is, will have to see much of what is present in our social life today in terms of destructive forces, which drive people apart instead of bringing them together. He will have to see it partly in what I have now characterized as a peculiarity and social consequence of abstract thinking, which is useful precisely for natural science.

Spiritual science will lead beyond this thinking because it cultivates that which remains unconscious in today's thinking, because it pushes the will – that is precisely what remains unconscious – into this thinking, because it develops deliberate thinking. And from deliberate thinking, real knowledge of human nature can follow. But that is only one element.

The other element is that, under the influence of this way of thinking, as it has emerged in the scientific world view, man has also come to contrast volition-barren thinking with thought-barren willing. Today's human being basically consists of this duality, of that soul element that cannot be described other than as volition-devoid thinking, and of the other soul element that must be described as thought-devoid willing. Spiritual scientific knowledge, in the same way that it attempts to integrate the will into thinking, seeks to bring the person who wants to become a spiritual researcher to face his own actions, the results of his own will, with an objectivity that is otherwise only applied to external facts. When he sets out on the path of spiritual research, man must become a faithful observer of what he himself does and what he himself wills. In a sense, he must first of all lift himself up ideationally and walk beside himself as in a higher self. And this higher self must observe the human being in everything he does, as one would otherwise only observe when observing external natural facts or conducting experiments. For then one learns to develop thoughts from something that, especially in the last three to four centuries, has been dominated and impulsed by the most personal emotions, particularly in certain radical, extreme circles. One learns to recognize that in thoughts which one otherwise does not see at all, whose thoughts otherwise remain completely unconscious.

And because the human being breaks down into these two elements, today we see, on the one hand, abstract scientific knowledge that only deals with the non-human, and social impulses that are only effective as personal instincts. We see how natural science has risen to certain heights, how, for example, in the East — and it will not remain with the East, unfortunately — education, which has been gained from this natural scientific thinking, now wants to gain principles from it for social coexistence , as can be seen in the East, that with scientific social policy one can do nothing but organize the most savage human instincts, organize them in such a way that the organization must drive humanity to its downfall.

These things are connected with what has come to prominence in the last few centuries, and must be considered in this context. Only when one cultivates the will in thinking, as I have indicated, then cultivates thinking in willing - the exact description can be found in my books “How to Know Higher Worlds?” and in the second part of my “Secret Science”, and in similar books – only then, when one has founded a spiritual science in this way, which can penetrate into the real being of man, will such a science not stand powerless in the face of the whole human personality. Yes, our present-day science is powerless in the face of the whole human personality, because thinking that is not pulsating with will is an activity of the human head alone; it is intellectualism that has no communicative power for life. Spiritual knowledge, as it gradually forms into a worldview from such foundations, as I could only hint at here, spiritual science is something that not only takes hold of human thoughts, the human intellect, but the whole human personality. Because it has emerged from the will, from volitional thinking, it places this human thinking in the social community, and because it carries thought into the will, it can also inspire thoughts in people that bring forth true life practice, not just routine, but life practice that can only be based on ideas, on spirit-borne will.

This spiritual-scientific world view is needed today above all in the field of that spiritual life which is most important for the public, we need it in the field of the art of education. And it is precisely in the art of education that one can explore the inner truth of what I have just characterized as the principles of a spiritual science. In the already mentioned “Waldorf School”, which was established in Stuttgart under the aegis of our friend, Mr. Molt, an attempt has been made to found education as an art on a spiritual-scientific basis. This Waldorf School does not want to be a school of world view. Those people who say that it wants to be a school in which, instead of old worldviews, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is already brought into the child are not telling the truth. That is not the case with this school, but rather the fact that what is meant here as spiritual science can grasp the will of the human being, can permeate his actions, and that what remains only a thought, an idea, in other worldviews can be methodically formulated in the anthroposophically oriented spiritual-scientific worldview. Therefore, the question at the Steiner Waldorf School in Stuttgart is not what content we want to convey to the children, but rather that our spiritual science becomes method in it, becomes that which provides the basis for the teacher's work, for teaching, for educating, for acting, for willing.

However, this does mean that this pedagogy, this art of education, is built on a real knowledge of human nature. A true knowledge of human nature can only be gained through the methods that I have briefly outlined today. Through these methods, one learns to recognize how, above all, certain epochs can be distinguished in the developing human being, based on the inner soul-spiritual. These epochs are often superficially overlooked today, even in science, which thinks it is very exact. Of course, certain processes can be seen in the child when the teeth change around the age of seven. But those who look deeper into human nature also see how, during this time of changing teeth, a complete metamorphosis of the entire soul life takes place in the child. While in the first period, from birth to seven years, everything the child does, everything the child feels inclined and capable of doing, stems from the principle of imitation, from a feeling one's way into everything that those around the child do, the change of teeth marks the beginning of the epoch when, around the age of seven, the child's inner abilities are oriented towards authority. Up to the age of seven, the child will, as a matter of course, imitate the elementary life around him, even in the movements of his hands and the way he forms his speech, doing what the adults around him do. He will completely interweave himself into what emanates even from the imponderables of the directions of thoughts and ideas in his environment. From the seventh year onwards, the child needs to believe in those around him: they know, in a certain sense, what is right; they need authority. No matter how much one may rail against authority today, one should bear in mind that from the seventh year onwards, until around the year when sexual maturity occurs, authority is something that a person must be influenced by if they are to develop healthily. For a second epoch in human childhood is that from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, to about the age of fourteen. About, I say; it is not some kind of number game that is at issue here, but the important stages, the transformations of the life metamorphoses, that are at issue. At about the age of fourteen, the human being becomes sexually mature. A complete transformation of his soul life occurs, and that which inwardly enables him to judge independently occurs, to confront the world with what arises as judgment in his inner being, while from the seventh to the fourteenth year he can thrive if he has the authority to look up to.

Now it is precisely the years from the change of teeth to sexual maturity that the child has to be cared for in teaching and education during his so-called primary school years. But even during this time, certain epochs and sub-epochs can still be distinguished. The imitative impulse, which stems from the innermost being of the human being and prevails until the seventh year, extends, in a weakened but clearly recognizable form, beyond the seventh year into the ninth year. And anyone who, through spiritual science, acquires a living sense of how this interplay of imitative ability and need for authority comes to expression in every single child in all their learning and in relation to all education, will be able to see a unique educational problem in every child, even if they have the largest class in front of them. For such a person, as an educator and teacher, cannot be devoted to some standardised pedagogy, not to a pedagogy that in turn sets up abstract principles out of intellectualism: this is how one must educate, or this is how one must educate. No, the person who has become a teacher through spiritual science sees in the developing child something that the artist sees in each individual work that he creates: always something new and ever new. There are no abstract pedagogical principles here, only a living process of finding one's way into the child, of bringing something out of the child, of solving the riddle of what is hidden in the child, what wants to come out through the body as a spiritual-soul element. For it is the peculiarity of spiritual knowledge, which must above all be applied in the art of education, that it leads the human being back to the direct life of the soul. This is not the case with intellectualism, with abstract knowledge. When I have grasped something in the abstract, I have grasped it, and then I carry it further into life. At most, I remember what I have already learned. This is not the case with spiritual knowledge. Anyone who has taken just a few steps in this spiritual knowledge knows that spiritual knowledge does not give you something that you can merely remember. Nor does spiritual knowledge give you something that you can merely remember, like what I ate and drank today can give me something that I can merely remember tomorrow and the following days; you are not satisfied as a person if you are only supposed to remember what you ate four weeks ago. But one is satisfied as a human being who has absorbed an abstract realization when one remembers what one has learned or acquired four weeks ago. It is not the same with spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is interwoven with the human being, goes down, is digested and must always be revived, thus going into the phenomena of life.

If someone were a great spiritual researcher in his forties and did not continue to cultivate a living relationship with what can be known, he would starve in relation to the soul-spiritual content, as someone would starve who stopped eating when he turned forty. Abstract knowledge, as magnified by science, can be satisfied with appearances. It is a one-time conclusion. Spiritual knowledge brings people into a living connection with their environment, and must be constantly renewed if it is not to die away. In life, it becomes similar to eating and drinking in a lower realm.

By saying something like this, the world should recognize how radically different this spiritual knowledge is from the one that is believed to be the only possible one today. But imagine that this knowledge of the spirit permeates everything the teacher wants to do, permeating his actions and thoughts when he enters the classroom, just as iron invigorates our blood. Imagine an attitude that comes from a spiritual realization and that knows: you have to approach each individual in a special way, you cannot memorize anything, you have to face each child as a new riddle — only that gives a real pedagogy, a pedagogy full of life. Today there is much talk of educating the individuality. All kinds of fine, abstract principles are also given about it, but nothing will be achieved by this. We will only achieve something in our demanding time by founding a pedagogy as art. This pedagogy as art, which looks into the human being anew each time, forgets the science of knowledge, just as the artist discards all aesthetics and everything when he wants to create positively. What use are all the principles of beauty when we want to shape the clay! Anyone who knows what artistic creation is will agree with me. What use are all pedagogical rules when we begin to unravel and develop what is soul and spiritual in the child? It is a matter of us as educators becoming artists. We can become such artists when spiritual science penetrates our civilization as a living component. Then we will also see how we have to educate the will during the period between the seventh and ninth year, when the sense of imitation balances with the sense of authority. Above all, we must not approach the child in an inartistic way with what is determined by human convention. We must not present to the child as convention that which speaks only to the intellect. This includes the letter forms, and it also includes writing and reading. All of this is based on human convention, as we have it today, because we are no longer in the time of the old pictographic writing. We have to get away from that. That is why we try to develop reading and writing – writing first – from an artistic point of view. We try to draw or paint such forms first, from which the letter forms can then be built; first the artistic, then the intellectual. But in order for what the child's nature actually desires in this age to flourish in the right way, everything must be based on this artistic teaching. And now that we have been teaching at the Waldorf School for only a few months, we can see how it is possible to work from the artistic, how it is possible, above all in music, in song, in eurythmy, in inspired musical art – for that is what eurythmy for the child — how it is possible to give the child something in all of this that his nature demands, that his nature wants, but which at the same time makes the artistic sense pliable, makes the artistic sense inclined to receive the whole world in an artistic way. Then, when the ninth year approaches, when the human being can establish a relationship between the self and the outside world, then one can experimentally steer towards what nature description is, then one can evoke science from the artistic.

However, it must always be taken into account – however strange, however trivial it may sound, it must be said – that the human being is human. The so-called timetable, as we often have it today, does not take into account the fact that the human being is human. There is nothing less educational than teaching the child three quarters of an hour of one subject and then three quarters of an hour of something completely opposite. Three quarters of an hour of religion, three quarters of an hour of arithmetic, three quarters of an hour of writing and so on. In the Waldorf school, we try to get everything out of the laws that express themselves in the soul and spirit of the child. It is certainly necessary to do something, for example, arithmetic, for three, four, five to six weeks, without a timetable, and only when a certain amount of work has been done, you move on to something else. This is the concentration of teaching. At the end of the school year, everything that comes into consideration can be summarized by repetition. But the timetable is actually the enemy of every true art of education.

And in this way, not only can we achieve something in terms of the educational and teaching guidance of the child, but we can also deduce the necessities of the curriculum from the development of the child itself. When I held the pedagogical course for the teachers of the Waldorf School, which prepared them for their task, I was primarily concerned with developing a curriculum that is actually the mere result of what the child demands . from the sixth, seventh to the eighth, ninth year, from the ninth year to the twelfth year, from the twelfth year to sexual maturity. From what is elementary in the development of human nature, from what should be done, one can see, if one has a sense and understanding of the human being through spiritual science, from year to year, and one can see, when one enters the classroom, with a deep pedagogical sense, from what the faces of the children sitting in front of you tell you. In this way, an attempt is made – I can only sketch it out for you, I cannot describe these things in detail – to bring direct life into one of the most important social areas, into the art of education, through spiritual science. |

All abstractions, everything that makes technology great, is not fruitful where it is about bringing people together. The true art of education will have to seek its sources in spiritual science. It will only be able to do so when, in the sense of the threefold social organism, spiritual life is liberated from the state and economic life. It was only because there was still a gap in the Württemberg Education Act that it was possible to bring the Waldorf school into this gap as an independent school in which pedagogical and artistic principles can really be applied. To accept spiritual science, one does not have to become a spiritual scientist. Just as one can accept modern astronomy or modern chemistry and does not have to become an astronomer or a chemist, but only needs common sense, so one also only needs common sense, if one does not allow oneself to be influenced by prejudices, to accept what the spiritual scientific researcher brings from the depths of the soul to the surface. But when one becomes imbued with what is recognized out of will-borne thoughts and out of thought-borne volition, then one also acquires the necessary enthusiasm for life, which today's sleeping humanity lacks and which must come if things are to improve.

Until a sufficiently large number of people energetically demand what is necessary for a new beginning, it will not come of its own accord from some corner. Today's development of humanity is predisposed to demand the great goals in life out of will, out of conscious will. We have pursued that policy long enough, which always looks diplomatically at what is there and according to which one says: it will work out again. Today people see how things get worse every day; every day they believe that what has just happened will not happen again. They have not the slightest sense that in decline the power of the rising must be recognized. And so, as in the art of education, we must also look for the forces that can lead to the new building in the life of the nation. There too, only those forces can arise that come from the spirit, from the knowledge of the spirit, from the contemplation of the spirit. How those two soul elements that I have pointed out stand in relation to each other in our social life and in the life of our nation today! Abstract thinking, which every human being actually has – it is quite irrelevant whether one has outgrown the cobbler's workshop, is the son of the cobbler or [gap], if one has brought it to a level of thinking. This thinking is independent of the personal; from this thinking one has one's standpoint. But these standpoints are actually not necessary at all, for every person actually has the right to his own standpoint, and he could actually go through the world as a loner with this standpoint. There is no need to live together at all if everyone has “their standpoint” and no one has anything to say to the other.

But the peculiar thing about spiritual knowledge is that it frees us completely from these “points of view”, from this standing on points of view, that it actually becomes something that makes people receptive to life, to a true school. For anyone who becomes acquainted with spiritual science in the sense in which it is meant here as anthroposophically oriented, as it is represented by the Dornach building, every single person they meet in life becomes an interesting problem. The child itself, that is important for the art of education; the child becomes an interesting problem. And just as one feels hunger in relation to the outer nature in physical life, and how one must connect with the outer nature, so as a spiritual scientist one feels the need to constantly engage with what other people mean, what other people think, feel and want. In the broadest sense, spiritual science brings us together with people.

Today, the humanities scholar can say, above all, that when he reads other worldviews, he lets them affect him differently than other people. He is less concerned with what is error or truth, because that is usually only one's own point of view that decides this, and I have just expressed my own point of view. But however great the supposed error may be that is produced by this or that person, thinking or acting, what the person presents to us is the complement of our own being if we imbue ourselves with spiritual science. Just as the natural scientist has the need to deal with the experiment, so the spiritual scientist has the need to deal with everything human. If he establishes a world view, it becomes a social impulse because it does not divide people, but brings them together; because it brings individual life into that which is otherwise only an abstract point of view that anyone can have towards anyone else. The spiritual researcher encounters the small child, who perhaps can only babble, perhaps cannot even babble, who can reveal secrets to him through the still completely childlike eye. He receives revelations from all humanity. Through this, what spiritual science has to say, if it is only taken up into human life, becomes an impulse for social togetherness of people. Just as scientific knowledge has extracted the content of thought from human language, just as it has created the phrase, so spiritual science will bring secrets into our language, living spiritual substantiality, and our language will become, through the fact that spiritual science leads man to man, the most important social remedy for the coming time.

And precisely because knowledge has become so abstract on the one hand, the will has become dependent on mere emotions, on mere personal instincts, as I have also explained today. By creating its content out of the will borne by thoughts, spiritual science can give people a basis for more far-reaching interests than mere personal feelings or personal egoism can. What has become the decisive factor in social life in the last three to four centuries? The decisive factor has become selfishness. If we cannot rise through knowledge to the human, if the human cannot penetrate us, then we can only assert selfishness in social life. But in the moment when we have spiritual life in its independence, and thereby found that independence in the art of education, which I have outlined today, and in the moment when we permeate our will with ideas, we can find the way in our economic life from person to person, we can form associations out of the various professions and out of the coming together of consumers and producers, and we can build an economic structure into the social organism that is built precisely on what one person can learn from another, what one person can experience from another. As a result, the routine of life will be transformed into the practice of life. The more inwardly one looks at human life, the more one looks at human life itself, the more the necessity of the threefold social organism emerges from every corner. And just as economic life is fertilized by a will imbued with ideas, on the other hand, spiritual life [gap], so that which takes place between human beings - in today's world it actually only takes place as convention, and so that one also wants convention in the form of the League of Nations between peoples - to become a living element in the legal life of the state, which, as an independent link in the threefold social organism, should stand in relation to the other independent links, the independent spiritual life, the independent economic life. But at the same time, you can see from the example of the art of education how spiritual science reaches into the life of the people, into social life, how it must be this spiritual science, on the foundations of which the structure of the threefold social organism must be built. Oh, to what extremes has man come in recent times under the influence of the two soul elements described! On the one hand, we have abstract thinking, which, I might say, reaches beyond all human individuality and is the same in all people who have developed the ability for this logical, abstract, intellectual thinking. Because it is the same, it is also necessary that what man cannot attain as an abstract man, what he wants to acquire in the social community, is built on the subhuman, on mere instincts, on selfish instincts. And so we see how, in the age of Darwinism, when it was noticed that the struggle for existence, which is only valid to a limited extent in the animal kingdom, had come about, natural scientists wanted to become social politicians, social scientists, and now also wanted to establish the struggle for existence as the natural thing in human life. Yes, it is even true that the struggle for existence would rage in human life if only the instincts of egoism could be active in social life. And Lenin and Trotsky also want to stage this struggle for existence; they will only organize egoism. This is known to everyone who can see through human life today. Everything else will be a mask. We can already see the inner falsity of Leninism, which promises people the moon, shorter working hours, and has already arrived at the point of imposing twelve-hour working hours because this turns out to be a necessity within the mechanism that is to be introduced.

But never in human life will what is present in him as abstract thinking, what is the same in all people, be able to say yes to this struggle for existence; it will always be dissatisfied with this struggle for existence, it will always strive for harmony, for overcoming the struggle for existence. But if we do not succeed in pouring real spirituality into abstract intellectualism, the world of abstraction will be too weak to eliminate egoism from social life. And on the other hand, egoism will remain brutal if it is not infused with that which only spiritual knowledge, spiritual insight, can bring to man. That which appears dualistically in man today, on the one hand abstract intellectualism, on the other hand the mere rule of instincts, can only find its balance through the fact that both can be permeated by the spirit. When thoughts are spiritualized, they are brought to the individual human being and make this individual human being not only someone who wants to be right, who can give only that which others do not want, but someone who must constantly engage with other people, must constantly engage with other people, so to speak, using the language of thoughts instead of the language of phrases. But this can only be done out of a spiritual life that is not merely built on memory, but that, like hunger and thirst, is built on the daily renewal, on the metamorphosis of life, which must constantly renew itself, even if it has already reached the highest level. This can only happen if the instincts are imbued with those thoughts that arise in the way I have described today. Then, within his economic associations, man will be able to want what goes beyond the individual human being. Then economic life can be spiritualized. It is already the case that wherever one looks into real life today, the necessity for what one can demand as the threefold social order arises. This is not a utopia. Only those who have no sense of reality, who are utopians themselves, describe the threefold social order as utopian, and therefore declare everything that does not fit into their utopias to be utopian.

What is offered to the world as the impulse of the threefold social order is taken from the fullness of life. But it also shows that this full life demands today a permeation with what can be grasped in a living vision. This vision is necessary for the human being. And until it is recognized that the human being is not a mere creature of nature, it will not be possible to arrive at a solution to the social problems that are so pressing today. Years ago, when theoretical materialism was at its height, people who could already see through it were indignant against this materialism. But one cannot help saying that after all, the people who became theoretical materialists, like Haeckel and the like, were not clever people. We are confronted with the peculiar phenomenon that truly bright minds have become materialists. Why? They have become materialists because thinking, which over the last three to four centuries has developed as abstract thinking - this is particularly clear to the spiritual researcher - must be explained in materialistic terms. The thinking that makes science great is bound to the tools of the brain, to the tools of the human body. Thought ceases with death. But when we infuse our thought processes with will, when we are not only guided by observation of nature and experiment, when we permeate thought with that which arises out of the will, then something arises that can become free of the body, that is truly soul-spiritual. Materialism was right for the kind of thinking that has become prominent in the last three to four centuries and has reached its peak in the present. This must be explained in materialistic terms. That is why the cleverest people in the second half of the 19th century became materialists, because they were ultimately faced with the great mystery: what about ordinary thinking, which has reached such heights in natural science? This must be explained in materialistic terms. Materialism in its own way is fully justified, and no one can be a spiritualist in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science who does not know that materialism has a right to exist in its limited field. Anyone who now asks the question: either materialism or spiritualism? — is barking up the wrong tree. For materialism has its domain, and it must be clearly understood that if man wishes to save the soul-spiritual, he must also go beyond the thinking of which he is so proud today. And in the same way, a truly desirable social order will never be able to come about if man wishes to found these social orders only on the basis of ordinary egoistic emotions, for these can only found the struggle for existence, not a social dream à la Lenin. Man can only found a real social order if he incorporates the spiritual and soul aspects, as described today and as it is inspired in him by that world view that comes from spiritual insight, into this social life. Then man will be able to recognize and verify through life what was in Goethe's mind when he turned his gaze to the nature of man and asked himself: What is man's actual relationship to nature? — Goethe said to himself: When we survey everything from the wonderful stars above to all that presents itself in the various realms of nature around us, we must look at man, standing in front of this nature, how he absorbs this nature , how he transforms it, how he gives rise to it as something new within himself, creating a higher nature through the human being in the human being, a higher nature that is spiritual-soul, soul-spiritual. Goethe expresses this so beautifully when he says:

Out of such an attitude, which leads man through nature, beyond nature, to himself, to the soul-spiritual, only that which is to build up our social life can arise. But it will only arise if man, through his will, directs his gaze to that which the study of spiritual life itself can give him.

Therefore, it must be said: It is not in external institutions and their transformation that we should see what can lead us forward. However we may reshape external institutions, it will not lead to a new structure. This can only lead to a new structure if man himself seeks out in his own inner being that which is currently inclined towards destruction within him. For everything external that arises in a person's life is done by the person himself, by the innermost being of the person. Only by relearning, only by rethinking can we make progress. Therefore, it cannot get better sooner than until a sufficiently large number of people muster the courage to rethink, to relearn. And finally, that which may once again come upon humanity as constructive forces must arise out of the courage to elevate the real spirit, so that, as I said yesterday in conclusion, the real spirit may gradually but effectively eliminate the un-spirit.

[There follows a discussion.]

Closing words

Dear attendees! I actually have no particular point of reference from Mr. B.'s remarks to say anything significant in this closing word, because he has provided the example of how to judge from the abstract thinking of the present that which would like to be said from spirit-fertilized thinking. And so I would like to say a few words for those of the honored audience who might have misunderstood, perhaps even with justification, what I said about the curriculum.

What I said about the curriculum is that it should work towards concentration. I did not say that there should be no variety. Apart from the fact that one could argue whether this variety should be created after three to five weeks for arithmetic, or whether this is better or that, this is a purely didactic question that cannot be treated agitatorially, but only factually. But apart from that, one has to work on concentration in class, so that a certain workload is processed in such a way that the timetable is not a hindrance. One really works through a workload for three to six weeks, as long as it is necessary, without being interrupted by anything else. Naturally, the child's nature is fully taken into account. So that you do not misunderstand me, I would like to explain to you how it is in some classes at the Waldorf School. Let's take the fifth grade. I could just as easily mention the first. There, the lessons begin a few minutes after eight o'clock in the morning. In the first two hours, the children are taught to concentrate, which is otherwise decentered and scattered throughout the school day by the usual school subjects and the timetable. So in these first two hours, until a few minutes after ten o'clock, the children work in a concentrated way towards what is otherwise viewed as the content of the school subjects. So that, let's say, in a sufficient number of weeks, arithmetic is taught, then language teaching is taught for a number of weeks, and so on. Then comes what makes concentration possible by doing it in a certain way; we teach foreign languages, French and English, to even the youngest children, so that the first classes receive foreign language teaching. And it makes a great impression when you see the little sponges coming to their lessons and see how they have actually made progress with great joy in the few weeks of foreign language lessons. There they are actually working towards using the language. So for five to six weeks in the first class it is already the case; then French is taught until 11 a.m. and English until 12 noon. Then the children go home. And on some afternoons – the children have enough free time, and it is also part of the change that they now come out again – on some afternoons, when they come back, they have singing, music and eurythmy, soulful gymnastics, soulful movement art. In this soulful movement art, the children not only have physiological gymnastics, which is also practiced, but spiritualized movement. They have, as it were, given a mute language in eurythmy. The children find their way into this extraordinarily well. And when there are eurythmy performances on days when the children are called together for special festivities, the children crowd around it, and you can see how it all comes to life. So there can be no question of there being no variety or no consideration for what suits the child's nature. But if it is said: if the children get too bored, something else has to come along – yes, my dear audience, that is precisely the task: to never let the children get too bored! At most, the children may become unruly because something is bothering them, but they would never want the lesson to end because they were bored. And in this short time, since I have attended school for long periods twice and actually always take the lead in teaching, I have been able to see for myself how, in this way, life is actually brought into the whole teaching.

My dear attendees, if you want to establish equal rights for all, not through talk but through action, then you really don't have to get worked up in a talkative way about the difference between entrepreneurs and workers, which despite all the talk is still there today; it simply exists as a fact, and if you talk today, you really can't wipe away this difference for the time being. The fact is that in the Waldorf school, the child of the proletarian sits next to the child of the entrepreneur. The children are educated in complete unity, and this is where equal rights for all are established in practice! While all the talk and agitating is going on, the “entrepreneurs” and “workers” do not have to be there, nothing will be achieved, but they must have equal rights. In short, the question cannot be solved with talk; the only way to solve it is to create goals and, above all, to envisage the real solution of the social question. By always interfering with inflammatory phrases when action is required, not a single step towards improvement can ever be taken! That is what matters today: to distinguish between action and talk. If we do not make this distinction between the talkers and those who want to do something, we will not get anywhere. The talkers will talk all social order to death. With fine talk, nothing can be achieved in our time, no matter how much this talk is based on equality. Equality must be established; mere talk of equality achieves nothing.

Another question, esteemed attendees: Must not the materially precondition be created for the economically oppressed today, so that the possibility is offered to him to absorb spiritual? I have just written an article in the last or next-to-last issue of the journal for “Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” (Threefolding of the Social Organism), which appears in Stuttgart: “Ideas and Bread” - to counter the popular prejudice that, when on the part of the satiated and even today those who can still satiate themselves repeatedly point out: All that is needed to solve the social question is for people to work. That is easy to say! The point is for people to see a goal, a meaning in their work! But on the other hand, it is also not enough to always hear from the other side: First bread must be created for the people, then they will rise spiritually, or then one can ensure that they rise spiritually. It is spiritual work that leads to bread being earned. You have to organize, you have to bring what is being worked on into some kind of structure, into a social one, otherwise the bread cannot be created. If a terrible wave of famine is now spreading across Central Europe, this wave of famine has not come about because bread has suddenly been withdrawn from people, but because people have entered into a social order as a result of the war catastrophe, within which no bread is being earned and within which no ideas are working that earn bread. that bread has suddenly been withdrawn from people, but that people have come into a social order through the catastrophe of war, within which no bread is earned, within which no ideas are at work that make bread earned. The ideas that were worshipped by people until 1914, who were the leaders, have been reduced to absurdity by the last five to six years, they have been dismissed. We need new ideas! And if we do not decide to say to ourselves, “We need new ideas,” then these new ideas will organize the social order, they will create the necessary bread; if we do not decide to do so, then we will not be able to move forward into the future in a healthy way. It is very strange how, I would say, it shows in individual cases that people do not want to admit to themselves how the truth actually lies and works. Until 1914, Prince Krapotkin was certainly one of the most radical. When he went back to Russia, people soon began saying: Yes, if we only get bread from the West, things will get better! — And then they heard that he was writing an 'ethics'. You see, that is what has destroyed us, that people have material life on the one hand, and an abstract spiritual life on the other, and that nothing of the abstract spiritual life spills over into the real material life. The spirit does not show itself by being worshipped; the spirit shows itself by becoming capable of dominating and organizing matter as well. That is precisely the problem: our creeds have come to mean that man has only beautiful things to look forward to when he has finished working, or at most a directive on the first white page of the ledger that says, “With God.” Even if what is processed there in debit and credit does not always justify the statement, “With God!” But therein lie the symptoms of the decline of our time, that we have lost the power to find the transition from what we profess spiritually to material life, that the prevailing attitude is: Oh yes, do not link material life with the spirit! The spirit is something very sublime, it must be kept free from material life! No, the spirit is not there for that, so that it can be kept free from material life, so that when you leave the factory you can only have it as a Sunday afternoon sensation, no matter how noble it may be. The spirit is there for that, so that you can carry it through the factory gate, so that the machines go after the spirit, so that the workers are organized after the spirit. That is what the spirit is for, to permeate material life! And that is what has destroyed us, that this is not the case, that we have an abstract spiritual life alongside a spiritless material life ruled by mere routine. It will not get better until the spirit becomes so powerful that it can rule matter. It is not the spirit that is alien to matter and the world that spiritual science wants to lead to, but the spirit that can rule man, which one finds not only when one is glad to leave the factory, but which one carries gladly and joyfully into the factory, so that every single action is done in the light of this spiritual life.

Those who want the spirit in the sense in which it is meant here, they truly do not want an impractical spirit, they want the spirit that really has something to say in the world, not just something to chat about, something that can give pleasure in free hours, but a spirit that, by dominating matter, organizing life thoroughly, can connect intimately with life. Whether we want to continue to drift deeper and deeper into misfortune by denying this spirit or not depends on this spirit and our acceptance of it. Today we must decide on this either/or. The more people who decide to embrace this active spirit, the better it will be for the future of humanity.

That is what I wanted to add to what I said today.

Today, an endless number of what could be called social programs or the like are buzzing through the air, truly challenged more than at any other time by all the forces at work in the present that are leading to destruction. There is no lack of proposals as to how a new structure might be developed out of this destruction. Nevertheless, when the idea of the threefold social order, urged on by the needs of the time, seeks to assert itself among these various proposals, it is primarily because of the realization that that the idea of the threefold social organism has something to offer which, if one grasps its inner essence, cannot be equated with programmatic proposals or social ideals in the abstract sense. What I would like to present to you here is thoroughly imbued with the realization that today there is a great danger for all such things to fall into utopianism. One need only think of how, basically, even if it is not yet sufficiently noticed here or there in the European world, everything that was thought to be established in the traditional economic, legal, and intellectual order is subject to a certain process of destruction, and how this process of destruction has become all too clear in the course of the last four to five years of horror for European civilization.

In such times, one cannot build on this or that that is already there and has retained its reality. After all, the most firmly established institutions have, so to speak, been reduced to absurdity by recent years. And so it is obvious that we have to build on a completely new foundation. Man can only do this by building from the foundation of thought, and it soon becomes apparent that the foundations that make a solid structure possible are not easy to find. For at first one seems to have no point of reference at all as to whether what one wants to translate into reality from one's thoughts can somehow be justified in this reality. And anything that cannot show and prove from the outset, through its content, that it can be fully realized, is utopian.

The idea of the threefold social order seeks to avoid the danger of utopianism by not actually setting up anything that could be called a social philosophy , what is called a social program, but that it wants to point to a special way in which people can work together in public life so that the forces of destruction can be countered by forces of new construction, of new development.

I would like to say that what the others indicate should happen, according to the idea of threefolding, should only arise when such cooperation between people and groups of people can take place, which is what the idea of threefolding of the social organism seeks to express. When one stands on this ground, one does not take the standpoint that one is somehow omniscient, that one is a prophet who can indicate how this or that institution should turn out in the future for the benefit of humanity, but one only wants to call upon the judgment of those who have something to say in such a way that, through the cooperation of people, this judgment can also become objective reality.

The inspiration for this idea of the threefold social organism actually goes back a long way for the person speaking to you today. It is rooted in decades of life experience relating to the social conditions in the most diverse areas of Europe, but especially in Central Europe and those parts of Central Europe that, through their fate in the last great war catastrophe, show how what had previously been the social structure of humanity, of civilized humanity in Europe, is striving towards something new, and is unable to cope with the forces that, I would say, are moving from the depths of humanity to the surface today. If one looks impartially at historical life, especially in the last third of the 19th century, in the years of the 20th century that preceded 1914, one can clearly see how that to which one adheres so dogmatically, which one still regards today, even though it has been shaken in many areas of Europe, as something that should not be shaken, such as the unified state, which has gradually taken hold of all areas of public life for three to four centuries, is no longer up to its task in the face of certain great demands of humanity, how it is not capable of simultaneously encompassing intellectual life, state-political or legal life in the narrower or even in the broader sense, and economic life. Therefore, for those who were last concerned with the idea of the threefold order, the idea arose to start precisely there and raise the question: what form must the state, which has so far been regarded as a necessary unity, take in relation to the three main spheres of human life, in relation to the spiritual sphere, to the legal-political sphere and to the economic sphere? And now, before I proceed to a kind of justification, I would first like to take the liberty of presenting to you a brief sketch of how the cooperation of people should be conceived so that the tasks that arise for people from these three main areas of life can now really be mastered from within the social structure.

In summary, the life of these three areas has only taken place in the last three to four centuries. You only need to remember — to cite one example — how, with the “development of medieval conditions into modern ones, schools, up to the universities, were not founded by the state, but by church communities or other communities, which had their development alongside the beginnings of state life. It was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the view arose that the unified state must also extend its power, for example, to schools, universities and the like. Likewise, one can say that economic life was also supported by corporations founded on economic impulses; it was led by those personalities who formed associations only out of economic motives. And it was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the state extended its power over economic life, so that this combination of spiritual, legal and economic life is something that has only come about in its full significance in modern times, although it has of course shown itself earlier here and there, because everything in the historical life of mankind announces itself in advance.

In contrast to this, the idea of the threefold social order seeks to place each of these three fields on its own ground. It starts from the assumption that a certain impulse has, in the course of modern history, risen with an inner necessity, I would say again, from the depths of human feeling and sensing to the surface of historical becoming. And that is – one cannot deny it, I believe, even if one is still so biased – that in public life, despite everything that is emerging today, the most powerful impulse is after democracy. This impulse occurs as something elementary in the development of humanity. One can say: just as in the individual human being of a certain epoch of his life, let us say, sexual maturity occurs, so in the development of European humanity, preparing since the 15th century, the tendency towards democracy emerges.

If we try to identify the essential element in the various forms demanded for the democratic coexistence of people, it ultimately turns out to be this – at least it emerges as the only reasonable possibility – that the affairs of the state should be managed by the cooperation and joint judgment of all people of legal age , who in this cooperation and in this joint judgment are regarded as equals, so that everyone stands as an equal in relation to the other, with equal rights in his judgment, with equal rights in the contribution he has to make to social life, and also equal in everything he has to demand from this social life. This is the abstract democratic demand. In the modern history of humanity, it becomes concrete through the fact that it is connected with the most important feelings and impulses. One can also say that this democratic tendency has found its way into the state structures of Europe in the most diverse ways, fighting against that which has emerged from feudal and other social orders. The democratic tendency has more or less pushed its way into the old-established forms. But the urge to do so has left its mark on modern history. Since the States could not avoid adding the democratic force to their former powers in some way, even if some, I might say, only did so for the sake of appearances, they also extended this democratic principle to the fields of intellectual and economic life.

But now, as a result, a significant contradiction in public life as a whole has emerged in the development of modern humanity. The one who is serious and honest about realizing the democratic impulse must actually notice this inner contradiction in modern public life. It is the contradiction that I would like to characterize in the following way: spiritual life, up to its most important part, school life, cannot develop out of anything other than the abilities of human beings, which are quite individually different from one another. The moment one wants to extend the levelling influence of democracy to that which wants to flourish and thrive in the individual form of the adult, the moment spiritual life must always suffer in some way, must always feel oppressed in some way. Therefore, I believe that anyone who is truly serious about the democratic tendency, who says that democracy must be everywhere in public life, must say: Then one must exclude from all that all mature people decide upon as equals that which truly not all mature people as equals can have an appropriate judgment about. By pursuing this thought to its ultimate consequences, by also checking whether you have really taken into account everything that comes into question, you will come to the conclusion that, precisely when you strive for the democratization of modern state life, you have to extract the whole intellectual life from this state life, from the political-legal life.

The spiritual life must be placed on its own ground. It must be placed so firmly on its own ground that those who teach, for example, from the lowest school to the highest levels of education, are at the same time the administrators of the education and teaching system, and that the administration of the education and teaching system is connected with the entire spiritual life of a social organism, whatever it may be. Only when one — and I would like to speak specifically here — makes the person who teaches at school responsible for both tasks, and only when one creates institutions in such a way that the person who works in the spiritual life , especially if he is teaching and educating, has nothing to do with anyone other than other teachers and educators. If the entire spiritual organism is an independent unit built upon itself, then all the forces inherent in humanity can truly be unleashed in the realm of spiritual life, and spiritual life can develop to its full fruition. This seems to indicate, at least in some kind of abstract form, the necessity of separating intellectual life, which must be built on its own principles and impulses, from everything that is absorbed in democracy.

But just as intellectual life must be separated from mere state life, economic life must also be separated from it. Admittedly, this is an area in which one finds fewer opponents today than in intellectual life. In the sphere of intellectual life, especially in the field of education, it has become customary during the last three or four hundred years to regard as enlightened only those who recognize the superiority of the State over education, and who cannot imagine that it would be possible to restore the independence of intellectual life without lapsing into clericalism or something of that kind.

In the economic sphere the situation is basically similar. While spiritual life is concerned with that which is inherent in man as an ability, which must be developed freely, which, so to speak, man carries into this physical existence through his birth, economic life is concerned with that which must be built on experience, which must be built from that into which one grows by being absorbed in a particular economic field with one's professional activity. Therefore, what comes from democratic life cannot be decisive in economic life, but only what comes from professional and factual foundations.

How can these professional and factual foundations be given to economic life? Actually, not through any kind of corporation, through any kind of organization that is so beloved today, but solely through what I would like to call associations. So that associations are formed by people who immerse themselves in their professions and become truly knowledgeable and skilled in the field of economic life. Not that people are organized, but that they join together according to objective criteria, as they arise from the individual economic sectors, from the relationship between producers and consumers, from the relationship between professional and economic sectors. A certain law even emerges here – you can read about the details in my writings – as to how large such associations may be, how they should be organized, and how they become harmful when they become too large, and how they become harmful when they become too small. It is perfectly possible to found an economic life by building it on such associations, by basing everything that is achieved in the social structure through the purely economic impulse of such associations on the purely material and technical. In a sense, everyone knows whom to turn to for this or that, if they know that they are linked to the other in one way or another through the social structure of associations, and that they have to guide their product through a chain of associations in such and such a way.

Of course, since I have to speak briefly here, I can only sketch out the principles of the matter. And so, I would like to say, the spiritual life must develop independently out of its own forces, in that those who achieve it are at the same time the administrators; likewise, the economic life must develop out of its own perspectives, in that those who are active in the economic life join together according to the principles of the economic life. If economic life is independent, then that which can only be based on the equal judgment of all mature human beings will arise as the content of the third link in the social organism, the actual state community.

I know very well that many people are truly frightened when one speaks to them of this threefold social organism, which is said to be necessary for the future. But this is only because people usually think that the state should be split into three parts. How should these three parts then work together? The truth is that unity is maintained precisely because these three parts are brought to their full development in the way I have only been able to sketch out, because the human being as a unity is present in all three parts. He participates in some way in the spiritual organism. If he has children, he is interested in the spiritual organism through the school. With his spiritual interests, he is somehow involved in the spiritual organism. He carries what he has received from the spiritual organism into this democratic state, since he is a participating adult in the democratic state, in his deeds, in his life. But what public law, public security, public welfare and so on is, which concerns every adult, is developed on the basis of the unified state. And with the constitutions of the soul, which are developed there in the direct interrelationship from person to person, one enters again into economic life in one's special field, in which one is linked through various associations in which one is active. One carries what one has gained from spiritual life, from public life, into this economic life, fertilizes it through it, maintains it, brings justice and spiritual fertilization into this economic life. The human being himself forms the unity between what is not the division into estates.

I have often been told that this would be a return to what in ancient Greece included the nourishing, defending and teaching classes. Such an objection only shows how superficially such things are often viewed today. For it is not a matter of a division of people themselves, not of a division into classes, but of the external life being divided into three in its institutions. It is precisely because man is part of such a tripartite social organism that all estates can cease to exist and true democracy can come about. I would say that the development of modern states points to this with an inner necessity for anyone who is unprejudiced.

Do we not see that, on the one hand, they have to take account of the necessary impulse towards democracy, but then, on the other hand, allow democracy to be corrupted by the fact that, as a matter of course, the able will always have more weight in the democratic life of the state than the less able? In matters where ability is important, this is entirely justified, for example in the intellectual sphere. On the other hand, the actual democratic state must be kept free and pure from such overpowering influences of particularly capable personalities, because there must be an area according to the basic demand of modern humanity in which only that which is equally valid for all people who have come of age is asserted.

The economic field shows particularly well how impossible it is to allow what man acquires through his special development as an ability in economic life to have an effect. He may acquire economic supremacy through it. But it must not become a social supremacy. It will not become one only because that which is economic power, which remains within economic life, cannot possibly become a political or legal supremacy. All the factors that have led to the caricature of the so-called social question would be overcome if people were willing to accept that economic life would be placed on its own ground and that democratic state life could, in turn, be placed honestly and sincerely on its own ground. The development of newer states shows how necessary it is for humanity to turn to such principles. And so, in addition to the historical impulses that one must take up in order to be pointed to this idea of the threefold social order, allow me to characterize the two subjective sources from which this impulse has arisen for me over many years.

The first source is that, with spiritual-scientific knowledge, which I have chosen to represent my view of life, one can inform oneself about certain developmental conditions of humanity differently than from the currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview. This currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview cannot actually lead to a real understanding of the historical development of humanity, because what we call “history” today is basically more or less a fable convenante. We make history today - and then want to learn something from this history for the social and political tasks of the present - in such a way that we imagine that what follows in human development is always the effect of the preceding, this preceding in turn the effect of a preceding and so on. A truly appropriate comparison of the whole development of humanity with the development of the individual human being, one that is not based merely on analogies, could heal one from this error.

When I see the individual develop, I have to say: What occurs in the first years of life, in the middle years of life, at the end of life, that does not present itself in such a way that I can speak of cause and effect. I cannot truly say that a person who turns thirty-five only experiences organically what is the effect of what he experienced at twenty or twenty-five, but we see as man develops, we see certain developmental impulses and developmental forces arise from his organism, from his entire organic being and nature, which show themselves to be particularly effective at certain periods of time.

Thus, for each individual, there are life epochs: When the second dentition appears, at around seven years of age, we find that the child's entire soul life changes. Before, the child imitated; now it becomes one who needs to come under a certain authority and to follow the judgments of people. Again, at puberty, a transformation of the soul life clearly begins. This transformation of the soul life can also be observed in later epochs, if only we have an organ for it.

For the individual human being, it is not just a matter of cause and effect, but of developmental forces shooting up from the depths of his being. And if you study history properly, you will find – to cite just one example – such a turning point in the development of all civilized modern humanity around the middle of the 14th or 15th century. There we find precisely that transition which, out of the elementary necessity of development, actually gave rise to modern humanity with its demands. Oh, there is a great difference between what man has regarded as the right way for himself to live a dignified life since that fifteenth century and what the man of the Middle Ages regarded as such.

The story of the soul – which we have not actually pursued – as it can arise from spiritual science, of which our building in Dornach is a representation, leads one to see what I have called the democratic principle as something that occurs in modern humanity in the same way as one sees the qualities that occur in the individual human being, say, at the age of sexual maturity. By taking into account the fact that modern humanity is quite different and that the developmental principles of the whole of humanity, as well as of the individual, must be taken into account, it becomes clear that democracy is something that cannot be opposed. , but that, because democracy is something that springs from the most elementary human nature, the social organism must be tripartite so that what can be democratically ordered comes into its own in the development of humanity. That is one thing, this spiritual-scientific view of the developmental impulses of humanity. The other is the observation of the facts of the life of nations.

I can only give you a few examples here. But it is still interesting to see from individual examples the impossibility of the newer unitary state structures coming out of their unity to form a truly viable social structure. It is only necessary to refer to a few examples to show this. You will understand that, as a non-Swiss, I do not mention Switzerland as an obvious example. I need only mention that what has already occurred to such a high degree in some European states will also gradually occur in the others, and that it is quite a short-sighted attitude to keep relying on the thought: Oh, it's different for us, we don't need to worry about what's happening elsewhere.

Now, I have chosen as an example the East of Europe, Russia, not only because Russia, with her tragic destiny, is particularly significant for our study of humanity, but also because, according to the practical political judgments of the leading English politicians, Russia is also the country in which, most vividly, I might say, as in an experiment taking place in the life of nations, what needs and what impossibilities prevail in modern national life must show. Let me highlight just a few aspects of this Russian national character.

There, placed in the middle of the Russian absolutism of the 1860s, which you know only too well, we encounter the curious institution of the zemstvo. These are assemblies of representatives of the rural population, those people who are involved in economic life or other areas of life in individual rural areas, who come together in certain assemblies to discuss these matters, I would say in the manner of a council or the like, a cantonal council. From the 1860s onwards, Russia was full of such zemstvos. They actually do fruitful work; they work together with something else that is traditional in Russia: the Mir organizations of the individual village communities, a kind of compulsory organization for the economic life of the village. There we have, on the one hand, old democratic customs in the Russian peasant organization, but in the appearance of the Zemstvos we have something newer that definitely tends towards the democratic. But something very strange is emerging. And this strangeness becomes even more striking when we look at another phenomenon that has emerged in Russia before the world catastrophe destroyed everything or cast it in a different light.

In Russia, it has been found that people from the most diverse individual professions have associated with each other, and in turn that associations have arisen from profession to profession, bank cashiers and bank cashiers have formed associations. These associations have in turn joined together to form more comprehensive associations. Those who came to Russia actually held their meetings not with individuals, but encountered such associations wherever they had anything to do with.

All of this was incorporated into the other state life of absolutism. Now, if you study these zemstvos, if you study the associations, if you study the Mir organization itself, you notice one thing. Of course, these organizations also extend to many other areas of life, such as school institutions and the like, but they do not do anything special there. Anyone who engages in an unbiased study of these associations – after all, the Semstwos did not develop into corporations either, but actually into associations, with farmers joining those at the forefront of industrial life, and so on. Even if it all took on the character of a public institution, in reality one was dealing with associations, and they all did good. But what they did, they actually only did on the basis of economic life. And we can say: In this Russia, the strange thing is that an organic system based on associations is emerging. Furthermore, it is proving that the Russian state is incapable of dealing with what is emerging there. So we can say: as the necessity of the early capitalist development, as it occurs in Russia, leads to economic organizations, these must, out of an inner necessity, take their place alongside the political institutions.

Now, something else peculiar occurs in Russia in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, of course, absolutism founds its schools; but these schools are nothing more than, I would say, a reflection of the needs of absolutist state life. Now, a spiritual life is developing in Russia, a more intense spiritual life than the West of Europe assumes. But how must this spiritual life develop? Absolutely in opposition, yes, in revolutionary turmoil against everything that is Russian statehood. One sees that this tightly and uniformly organized state is splitting apart into three parts, but really only wants to split apart. But it cannot. It shows us, precisely through what it is experiencing, how impossible it is to compress these three most excellent spheres of human life into a unified state.

I can only sketch this out for you. If you study in detail how these three elements in Russian state life then develop into the world war, how out of the world war first the really insubstantial rule of Miliukov develops, but then under Kerensky something develops that can be called the transformation of absolutism into a democratic state, but still entirely with a belief in the omnipotence of the unitary state, then can be seen precisely from what Kerensky's short reign must fail, how this Russian state, which wants to become democratic, is unable to address the most important issues, an economic issue, the agrarian issue, because the associations of Russian life are such that anything democratic that is tried out of the old absolutism breaks down on them.

Of course, everything is also showing itself in a certain concrete way. You can't see everything in it right away. But anyone who looks at it impartially, at this becoming Russia, its steering into an impossible social-democratic structure, because the unified state is fragmented at the impossibility of combining the three areas of life, will see that this example of Eastern Europe is a very significant one and that the far-sighted English politicians are right to look at Russia as the field in which, as in a world experiment, the course of human development is being demonstrated.

One could survey the whole of Europe from such points of view, one would see everywhere how the unified state is gradually disintegrating. Even if it still appears firmly established in some areas, it will dissolve because it cannot cope with the proper interaction of the three human spheres of life. Just see how, in more recent times, where, for example, the political sense, the political attitude completely fills the innermost being of the human being, how there the political attitude cannot become master over economic life.

In this respect, France is a good example. France has saved from its revolution in the 18th century what is now a truly inner democratic spirit, even if this democratic spirit is coupled with a great conservatism in relation to family life. Even if much of the democratic reminds one of the philistine and patriarchal, the tendency towards democracy is perhaps, if not purest, then at least most pronounced in the Frenchman's deepest convictions among the peoples of Europe. This democratic spirit first sought to express itself in the life of the state. It was precisely through this expression of the democratic spirit in French state life that the state was, on the one hand, abstractly dissected into its departments; but these departments were, in turn, combined into a single unit. All this was the fruit of the French Revolution.

One has only to consider one thing in this structure of the French state: the position of the departmental prefect, and one will see how inorganically the political-legal, the state element, is linked to the economic element. The prefect is actually nothing more than the executive organ of the Paris government from a certain point of view. I might say that the Paris government has the various departmental prefects as it has its many hands. But the departmental prefect, in turn, must be in contact with the economic interest groups in his department. So that when there is an election in France, the prefect will certainly direct that election, but it will not turn out differently than it can turn out from what the prefect concedes to the economic interest groups.

Thus we see how parties exist in France, parties with party slogans, and party watchwords too, but how these party watchwords signify much less reality than that which grows out of the economic interests of the department. In this respect, the study of the individual facts of French life is extraordinarily interesting. In France, in particular, one can see how a proper interaction of the legal-state and the economic can never be transformed into a certain public truth, because the state element cannot control the economic element.

I myself have, I would like to say, studied for decades from direct observation what was bound to lead to the downfall, let us say, of Austria. There was no way for Austria to avoid going to the dogs, one way or another. For as the newer democratic life emerged, it also had to bring something like democracy into its state life, into this state life, which above all had its intellectual structure from such a diversity of peoples that there were actually thirteen official languages in Austria, which on the other hand had a complicated economic life, leaning on the Orient on the one hand, on Germany and Western Europe on the other, on Italy and so on. When something democratic was to be introduced into this Austrian state life, it was formed in such a way that a Reichsrat was created. Four different sections were elected to this Reichsrat: the curia of the chambers of commerce, the curia of the large landowners, the curia of the cities, markets and industrial centers, and the curia of the rural communities. If you look more closely at the reason: nothing but representatives of economic interests were elected to the Austrian parliament to shape the state. Of course, they achieved nothing, except that they transformed economic interests into state interests, and nothing of a real state emerged at all, but rather a conglomeration of economic interests, against which the spiritual life of the various nations then rebelled, something that was bound to move towards fragmentation for internal reasons.

We can observe something else, however, that is much more international and universal, and we will see how everything that is considered impartially in the modern life of humanity tends towards this threefoldness. Take the most striking thing that has emerged: I am not talking explicitly about the social question, but about the social-democratic question. In Russia, because the old state life, when it wanted to democratize itself, fragmented due to the impossibility of unifying the three areas of life in such a way as to a resulted in something completely alien being imposed on Russian culture, and that what is now unfolding in Russia is, of course, nothing other than something that must necessarily lead the social life it affects into ruin. What Social Democracy, the Socialist trend that swears by Marxism, can practically achieve, especially in terms of democracy, which is truly demanded by the innermost human being, can be seen from the sad state of present-day Russia, where it can already be reported that the ideals of the gullible workers are being fulfilled in such a way that now, under the necessity of the circumstances, is compelled to transform the eight-hour day into a twelve-hour day, and that instead of the usual organization, in which the worker thinks he will find his freedom, a military labor regiment is being set up that promises to be much more tyrannical than the Prussian military regiment ever was. These are the fruits of Leninism, of Trotskyism!

They cannot be otherwise. They only show, in the most radical form, how the social-democratic current developed out of the proletariat – because today's Russian rule over the many millions of the Russian people includes only a few million industrial workers, and basically there is a tyranny of the few million industrial workers today – how the social-democratic current developed. How did it develop? Yes, we can say: this social democracy, which is particularly characterized by the fact that it derives all human life only from economic production, that it regards all spiritual life only as an ideology, as something that rises like a smoke from economic production, this social democracy, how could it arise?

This social democracy, which is under Marxist influence – I do not mean healthy socialism, of course – is actually the sin of bourgeois currents that have arisen in modern times, the result of the sin of bourgeois currents, I might say. For if you look everywhere, you would see, as I have shown with two examples, France and Russia, that the whole civilized world has gone through this in its development in modern times. You would see everywhere that economic life has become one that has been stamped by technology , which has taken man away from his former connection with his occupation, and placed him in the abstract, indifferent machine, in the indifferent factory – and the proletariat, basically, has known nothing but economic life.

In more recent times, it would have been necessary to place this ever-growing proletariat in a social structure. From what historical development has brought forth in humanity, nothing could be gained by which one could, as it were, have devised a unified structure for those who are the leaders in economic life, in intellectual life, and so on, and those who have to work by hand. To a certain extent, the old powers had not been developed into new forces. The old princely states did not give rise to real institutions that would have been supported by democracy. So it has to be said that what modern social democracy actually is came about because the leading classes, the leading people in modern history, could not cope with what economic life had brought about. They have left the states so organized that they could not encompass the ever more massive and massive economic life. And so it is precisely the failure to come to terms with what was brought about by the emergence of the proletarian in human souls that shows that nothing fruitful for a possible structure of the social organism could arise from what could be imagined by the state.

And so I could cite many more examples that would show you that it is indeed necessary, on the basis of what can be observed, to place the three most important spheres of human and human existence on their own ground.

This necessity could truly have been discussed before this terrible catastrophe befell the world and so clearly revealed the destructive forces in the last four to five years. But I do not believe that humanity in the period before 1914, when people only lived in illusions about what they felt was a great, powerful upsurge in modern humanity, could somehow have been won over to an understanding of this necessity. Now, however, the time has come when it is no longer enough to prove theoretically that such a necessity exists. Instead, states that have been particularly exposed to the dangers of the unitary state have been swept away in their old form and are faced with the necessity of rebuilding themselves from scratch.

We see the eastern former Russian state fragmented, faced with the necessity of rebuilding itself, but also with the powerlessness to rebuild itself in a way that will flourish, having to accept something is being imposed on it that never grows out of its own nationality, but is imposed on it like a general socialist template that can be applied to everything. And we see, for example, in Germany, where a failed revolution, the revolution of November 1918, really shows a lot of how only chaos, real chaos, results from the circumstances. And the most striking, I would say heartbreaking, thing in the life of present-day Germany is that wherever you meet people and talk to them about public affairs, they appear at a loss. Why are they at a loss? For the simple reason that the dogma of the unified state is deeply rooted in the souls and because the terrible lessons of the last four to five years have truly not been enough for people to erase this dogma from them. I have asked many individuals where it comes from that they are so lethargic that they cannot be won over to rallying for anything positive in the direction of reconstruction. The people confessed calmly: Yes, we were in the trenches for so long, we didn't know if we would still be alive in eight days, it had to gradually become indifferent to us whether we would still be alive in eight days; shouldn't it be indifferent to us now what social institutions are made in eight days? One accommodates oneself to the mood of the soul. Many a person, truly not just one, has said this.

Of course, the circumstances of the time make many things understandable, but something greater, something more significant is the historical, the purely human necessity. There is only either-or. And I believe that here too it could be realized – since the conditions are truly not far away that are likely to throw their waves into the whole of Europe – what should be realized: that it is impossible to bring the three spheres of life, intellectual life, state life, economic life, into a unity. The necessity should be realized to place each of these three spheres on its own ground.

I am well aware of the many objections that can be raised from the old point of view against this threefold ordering of the social organism. But anyone who considers the present world situation, as I have tried to describe it with a few examples, will say to himself: this proposal differs from all the other, more utopian proposals for the reorganization of the social organism in that it does not present a program, that it does not come with the pretension of knowing everything, but that it says: if people organize themselves socially in such a way that their best that their best comes about independently in a free, emancipated spiritual life, that in which all mature people are equal, in an independent democratic state life, that in which everything must develop from economic foundations, in an independent economic life, then the fact that people are called upon to work socially will bring about something like the solution of the social question.

For I do not believe that anyone who knows life can go along with the superficial view that the social question arose yesterday, and that one only needs to have some ideas or draw some conclusions from life in order to hammer out a program that will solve the social question. There are many such concoctions. But the impulse for the threefold social order is not based on this ground of omniscience. It is permeated by the conviction that the social question has indeed arisen, that it cannot be solved overnight or with any single measure: it will always be there in the future, it will permeate our lives, and the solution can only consist in being continuously under such institutions, so that the daily new difficulties can be overcome little by little. The whole of life in the future will consist in being a kind of solution to the social question.

The impulse for threefolding hopes that the social question can be resolved through the work and judgment of individuals in the threefold social organism. It does not seek to solve the social question theoretically; it seeks to give people the opportunity to solve the social question through collaboration and joint reflection. But even what can be proposed – today I have only been able to give you a rough sketch – these characteristics of the three areas of the social organism, even that is by no means regarded by the bearers of this idea as something that could be any kind of dogma. That is all I ask: that it be discussed, that as many people as possible be imbued with what the needs of the present time teach, that out of the best forces of the human being, that which can lead to a new structure be done.

When good will from all sides works together, a fruitful discussion can arise. And it is this fruitful discussion that is really important to those who are the bearers of the idea of the threefold social organism. If they had to believe that they could not have emerged before the distress of the world catastrophe occurred, they now have some optimism; although, I would say, a sad optimism: that the ever-widening spread of distress must become the great teacher, that it is precisely out of distress that people will have to recognize that something like what is being said today — I do not want to say in the content that we are able to give to the idea of the threefold social order, but in the impulse that we would like to give to the public discussion through this idea — that something like this must somehow be taken seriously. Much will depend on whether such things can be taken seriously. A kind of spiritual drowsiness still hangs over European humanity, and indeed over modern civilized humanity. Even if those who are already working today in the movement for the threefold social order have done this or that out of their convictions, they know that the right thing will only come when a sufficiently large number of people engage with the details of the matter.

We have already had the opportunity to found a free school in the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, where children between the ages of six or seven and fourteen or fifteen are taught in an eight-year primary school according to the principles of a free spiritual life, so that they grow into a social order from a free spiritual life. We have tried many different things in this area, and economic matters are also being considered, where we want to try to place the most diverse branches of economic life under the aspects of the threefold order, to organize them, to finance them according to these aspects; for it will perhaps be particularly necessary, in order to be convincing, that the model, that the example, is there. But in order for this example to have a sufficient impact, in order to put it into practice at all, it is necessary, above all, that a sufficiently large number of people take part in the discussion of what the impulse for the threefold order of the social organism actually wants.

I would like to have stimulated a little thought on this point, and on this alone, with the very sketchy remarks that I have been able to make in the short time available to me this evening.

A discussion then followed in which various questions and objections to the remarks made in the lecture were raised.

Final Word

Actually, I have to admit that no real objections have been raised. I understand very well that, based on what I have said tonight, a wide range of questions can be asked, and I believe that it is impossible to cover such a question so exhaustively in a one-hour lecture that hundreds and thousands and perhaps even more questions cannot be asked afterwards. I would therefore just like to make a few comments, which may at least provide some insights instead of an answer to the various questions, which would really take several days. First of all, with regard to what the Chairman said last, that there are no clear formulations of what threefolding actually wants. You see, I have tried, as well as it is possible for such a movement, which is basically only at the beginning of its work, to discuss some of these problems in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question', for example, the problem of the circulation of the means of production, which I have put in the place of the unworkable socialization of the means of production, and so on. You will find more such details in the Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage than one might perhaps expect. I must emphasize again and again that my attempts to grasp this impulse of threefolding are actually drawn from the whole of life, and that the whole of life actually has dimensions not only in two directions, but always also in the depths. I would ask you to bear in mind that the movement is in its infancy and that at the end of my presentation today, if I may call it that, I actually called for a discussion. I believe that only a discussion will produce the right results.

Now I would like to at least touch on some individual questions. An important misunderstanding between Dr. S. and me will have arisen precisely because I do not speak at all, as the doctor understood it, of three parliaments. I do not see the essence of this threefold structure as being that the unified parliament is divided into three parliaments, but rather that we only have a parliament in the modern sense for that which can be democratically administered or oriented, but that the other two areas are not administered by parliament, but are administered from what arises from within themselves. It is very difficult for me to discuss these concrete things in abstract terms. I would therefore like to build the answer, so to speak.

When setting up the Waldorf School, I once again had to deal in detail with what I would call a cross-section of the state administration for the school system. Right? I had to constitute the Waldorf School from two sides. On the one hand, I had to base it on what I believed the spiritual life itself would demand as an impulse for the Waldorf School. On the other hand, I could not build castles in the air. That is, I had to create a school where it is possible for students to leave, for example, at the age of fourteen or, if you like, in between, and then be able to join another school later on. Naturally, I had to deal with the curricula. Now, I first came across – please excuse me for having to go into very specific details, but I believe this is the best way for me to communicate – I came across the curricula. The curricula are state-defined descriptions of the subject matter, the teaching objective and so on. It is quite another matter if one, as a pedagogical and didactic artist, can study purely from the essence of the human being how, from the age of seven to fourteen, what is to be brought to the human being takes place. I am convinced that the teaching objectives for each year can be read from the developing human being.

Now I want those who are immersed in the living teaching to set the teaching goals, and not those who are torn out of it and become state officials, who thus pass over from the living teaching to democracy. So I want what comprises the spiritual life to be administered by those who are still immersed in it, who are building this spiritual life. So it is important that the whole structure of the administration is built on the structure of a spiritual life itself. Isn't it true that today, for example, I still had to make the decision that children, after completing three classes, can join again — in order to have freedom in between — after another three years, at the age of twelve, they can join again. So I had to do justice to an external aspect.

That is the essence of the threefold social order. It has a real basis everywhere and must also work from a real basis. But if you have a real basis, you do not have something vague. Spiritual life is there, it has an administration simply because one person is in one position and another in another. In this separation of the spiritual body from the state body, I would simply like the administration to be hierarchical, and I believe – of course this is something that cannot be explained quickly – that the hierarchical administration will have all imperfections. I know what the lecturers in particular will object, but perhaps even major imperfections are sometimes necessary in such transitions in order to arrive at something perfect. But the point is that, little by little, a purely didactic body of intellectual life, which, if administered in a way that is justified by the facts, only slightly echoes Klopstock's “Republic of Scholars”. And that something like this is actually possible in the field of intellectual life if one only has the good will to found it.

I think that it will then become very clear – let me mention something specific, pick out an example – that pedagogy, when practised at university level, has been one of the worst disciplines so far, at least in the whole of Central Europe. As a rule, it has been saddled on some pedagogue who has practised it as a secondary subject. In such a republic of scholars, the one who proves to be capable can be called upon for three years, can teach education, and then return to the teaching profession.

But as far as the external structure is concerned, I must say that, on a small scale, things have gone excellently so far with our teaching staff at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. The question arose right at the beginning: Who will be the director? – Of course, nobody; we simply have teachers with equal rights in all classes, and one of this teaching staff, who has slightly fewer hours than the others, takes care of the administrative matters. In this way, it can already be seen that the capable teachers also have a certain authority over the others, a natural authority, and a certain hierarchical system emerges. However, this does not need to be an answer to the question, as the senior judge L. meant: Who commands? — but it happens automatically. Naturally I will refrain from mentioning names, but it does happen. And in the intellectual field....

What about the parents' say in the choice of teachers? That's dictatorship!

Professional and objective! Of course, call it a dictatorship for my sake, the name doesn't bother me. It is a dictatorship in the sense that it is not the individual who decides. Since you are a scientist, you will easily understand when I say: when it comes to the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem, it does no harm if a “dictatorship” decides, because a certain necessity lies in the matter.

And religious education?

The point here is that some theoretical questions now become didactic questions. In the religious instruction as it is organized in the Waldorf School, although I do not want to say that it is always organized in this way, because there may be developments here too, it is important that it is appropriate for me, for example, that what I was able to give as a pedagogical and didactic teaching course is expressed only in the methodology, not in the world view, but in the way the lessons are taught. The Waldorf school is not meant to be a school of world view in any direction. This could only be achieved by the fact that my institutions all relate to the pedagogical-didactic and work from that. The children who come from Catholic parents have their Catholic religious education, the children who come from Protestant parents have their Protestant religious education from the respective Catholic and Protestant pastor. Now, there were a large number of proletarian children and also anthroposophist children, and there was a demand for free religious education. And the children whose parents demand free religious education receive free religious education from us, based on our convictions. So in this question, an emotional truth, combined with certain social driving forces, decides.

Things naturally look different in the process of becoming than after some time. But it is precisely in practice that it can be seen that one can make progress if one does not want a parliament for spiritual matters. That is why I cannot go along with the “three parliaments”, nor can I answer the question, “if Kerensky had had three parliaments. . .»; that is just it, that he should have solved the agrarian question in his one and failed because of it. I see no causal nexus between threefolding and what came before, for example; I just wanted to point out that what came before failed because of the three spheres of life, which I cannot take as two or four or even more, because there are only three.

Dr. S.: I didn't seriously consider that objection.

Dr. Steiner: I did not understand it any other way! Now I am wondering, since the state has failed in its establishment of the three parliaments, how one can make progress through a new beginning, not through a causal nexus, although what is good must remain. You see, the elements of the answer to your questions lie in what you said. I do not want a parliament in the economic field either; heaven forbid, no democracy in the economic field! But an order that does not arise hierarchically, but from the thing itself.

Now, these areas are not simply juxtaposed. If you read my “key points,” you will find that the circulation of the means of production is essentially determined by what is determined in the intellectual sphere, so that the intellectual sphere has a direct effect on the economic sphere. And so much of economic life is determined by the organization in relation to one's position. What I want to say is that the spiritual organization will also be concerned with determining whether a person is capable of doing this or that and will be trained for it; the economic position in which he can be placed depends on this. Of course, this must now be done jointly by the economic and spiritual aspects. The fact that he is qualified for this or that will already place him in a different position from another person. Nothing hierarchical develops from this, but in a certain sense nothing bureaucratic either. Every bureaucratic parliament for the economic system only leads to the disintegration of the economic system. So the essential thing for me is the way the three elements are organized, and you can't say that everyone will be in three parliaments; it is only one parliament in which everyone can be, but only based on the judgment of each mature human being. So let's say, to highlight the most important area: all legal matters. The legal issues are actually such that they are at least in the interest of every person who has come of age, and I would like to say, of course, that every person who has come of age is not ideally equally capable with every other person who has come of age. But a certain arithmetic mean does yield the appropriate result in relation to legal issues. At this point, one should now turn to the theory of the basis of law in general. Law is not really based on judgment, but on perception, on the habits that arise from the interaction of people living together. This can be judged when people who belong together judge it. I do not believe, Doctor $., that the individual human being therefore needs to find the right law, but together they will find it. That is what democracy does. I see much more of importance in the interplay than in the details. I would like to see people who have come of age in the democratic parliament and have them decide there mainly on legal matters, but also, and rightly so, on welfare issues, because every person who has come of age can decide there; of course, in many things not on the

objective and technical.

Now, the eight-hour day is something that cannot seriously be considered at all for the threefold social organism, because what does an eight-hour day actually mean? I must confess that I do not, but for the greater part of the year I work much more than eight hours and do not find it in any way excessive. I do not believe that it is possible to establish such an eight-hour day without undermining our real social life. In my “Key Points of the Social Question” you will therefore find that everything that relates to the time of work is determined within the democratic state, and on this basis, the contracts for the distribution of the proceeds are then concluded, not labor contracts, but contracts for the distribution of the proceeds between what I call the labor manager and between what I must call the worker.

So that in the right-wing parliament?

In the right-wing parliament, the time and nature of the work is determined. In this respect, the manual laborer is on an equal footing with the intellectual laborer, because the intellectual laborer cannot assert his interests. You can come to an understanding with goodwill, but you cannot make any demands that relate to economic life itself, you cannot regulate export and import according to parliamentary laws; rather, that must be studied from the economic conditions, from factual and technical knowledge. The fact that I have been working in a company for twenty years also gives me a different moral authority with my fellow human beings than if I have only been there for a year. In democratic life, it is not a matter of whether I am a cheeky young badger of twenty-one years old passing judgment on something. In economic life, it simply depends on whether life experience is taken into account. This is simply necessary for the good of humanity.

I deliberately raised the question of the eight-hour day. Now, if there were a four-hour day, what could the manager do? I don't care about the eight-hour day. I also work more. I am talking about the regulation of working hours.

All right. The matter is this: if the democratic parliament decides on a four-hour day, then this four-hour day will either be sufficient to run the economy within the economy, or it will not be sufficient. If that is not the case, then it will be a matter of everyone, in turn, realizing from their mature reason — for the change must also be carried out democratically — that the change must come about democratically, not in any other way, not by the economically more powerful being able to exert pressure. So what exists as the legal basis of economic life belongs in the democratic parliament. But what is the economic question? Isn't everything an economic question? One might ask: can spiritual life be separated from economic life at all? The objection has been raised that this costs money. In economic life, I see associations emerging from the individual branches of economic life, which interweave, from related and unrelated branches, production, consumption and so on. To describe this in detail would be going too far.

What is important is this: the various members of the spiritual life, who are in their administration of the spiritual life what I have described for the spiritual life; as participants in economic life, they form economic consumers and are members, associations that belong to the economic body. What I separate is life; it is not an abstract separation into three bodies, but it is life that is structured. It is true that spiritual life is indeed administered hierarchically, but the economic life of all those who work spiritually is part of the economic life of the associations. So in their economic activity, teachers and so on are also economic entities and economic organizations. And so the various people actually work together. And this can only be followed in detail; just as, after all, when one wants to present chemistry, not everything can be presented in one hour, but one must refer to what can then be done in detail.

But to answer a question from Judge L., it is easier to discuss and answer certain questions with people who have simply come of age than factual questions, I think that is obvious in the end.

Basically, socialist agitators usually have no understanding of economic life and even less of the conditions of economic life. And so the most diverse utopias have been put forward as to how one thing or another can be organized. For example, I would like to mention how industrial sectors that are based on a fine, meticulous interlocking of very different things are supposed to cope with their exports if they are to be organized according to a Möllendorff planned economy or something similar. It depends on certain things that can only be administered from within an economic organism, not by government, but from within.

It is characteristic, for example, when it is said: You cannot take school out of the state today; people will not put up with it, and it is not necessary in a socialist state. Those who do not know the conditions that really exist in humanity, but which haunt the minds of political agitators, must say to themselves: in the socialist state it would be even more necessary! Above all, for the good of the people, it would be even more necessary to at least take the school out of what is intended for humanity in the socialist state, as it is imagined by Marxism.

So I believe that if the good will exists to respond to the individual – I have already been repeatedly confronted with the objection of the three parliaments – I want to have the threefold structure for its own sake, not just to have three groups of people, three houses next to each other; there really won't be three houses. If I am understood correctly, it will probably be found that we can meet in the concrete solutions that I have already given for individual questions, and for others, if I still have some time to live, will still give - I would prefer if you will give others - I think we will get along quite well.

I would like to emphasize again here: it is not a matter of omniscience, but rather of trying to determine, without utopia, what should happen in detail, starting from the assumption that the three areas of life different conditions of life, and that only when people from the three areas of life work together in a qualitatively different way, not just in a parliamentary, quantitative way, but in a qualitative way, will the concrete findings emerge in the right way.

I must also say that for me, this threefold social order is so firmly established that I would compare this certainty, of course cum grano salis, with the certainty of the Pythagorean theorem. You cannot prove it everywhere, in all cases, but you can prove that you can use it. The threefold social order does not have to be abstracted from all particulars, but it can be applied in all details, in this case practically applied, in that in the threefold organism precisely the state life, economic life and spiritual life are organized in such a way that a practical result is achieved.

I believe that answering the very extensive questions of Mr. Chief Justice L. would take too long this evening; but it may be seen that the point here is to start from the concrete shaping of reality, and that it is therefore extremely difficult with abstract answers, because one wants to remain in the full reality.

I would just like to come back to this: I also find it extremely interesting that within French folklore, syndicalism has emerged, and I believe that this question is best solved by studying socialization. It is very interesting to study the different nuances of English and French socialism. English socialism is basically a watered-down form of capitalism. It is actually entirely what works in capitalism. So the purely economic element in the English labor question is actually only sharpened to the interests of the worker in the big picture; but it has not gone away completely, so that English socialism has an economically opportunistic coloring.

German socialism has taken up Marxism with military efficiency and military organizational spirit, and it has acquired a tight military organization. And those like me who have worked in a workers' educational school that had grown entirely out of social democracy, but was also thrown out by its non-Marxist orthodoxy, that is, by its non-Marxism, by saying: Not freedom, but a reasonable compulsion can judge that. German socialism is basically something that is entirely in line with the same spirit that produced Prussian militarism.

Without wishing to say anything favorable about the nature of the people or to accuse the Germans of anything, French syndicalism is, after all, — through its associative character, I must see it as the best beginning for precisely what I must think of as the association in economic life. And especially when I compare it with English and German socialism, I see that it arises from the same thing that I have tried to characterize, from the democratic spirit. These are two sides; one side has shown itself among the bourgeoisie, the other among the workers. And what is more capitalist and more profit-oriented in the bourgeoisie is syndicalism among the workers. It is only the obverse and reverse sides.

So I believe that these three different nuances, the English, French and German nuances of socialism, are related to the qualities of nationality.

And this brings us to a question that I consider to be extremely important. We should not start from a general socialism and we should not believe that there is such a thing as an abstract socialism. Instead, we should ask: How should each national culture be treated based on its own characteristics? And anyone who comes from Western Europe, has observed and reflected on Swiss social conditions, goes to Russia and imposes something completely alien on the Russian people, actually destroys what the Russian people could have formed out of themselves. — But, as I said, not all social issues can be resolved today.

Die Raetsel des geschichtlichen Lebens der Menschheit nach Ergebnissen der Geisteswissenschaft. (The Historical Evolution of Humanity and the Science of Spirit. Lecture given at Stuttgart, Germany, April 25, 1918)

No person with real inner sensitivity would find it any longer necessary to have to speak about a mystery when dealing with human soul life, than he would have to speak about the presence of hunger when dealing with the life of the body.

In the way it functions the life process must be so regulated that it induces hunger. It is possible to disregard hunger by the use of certain drugs and to believe that we can get away from it for a time, but in the long run this cannot be done without injury to the body. Similarly, any attempt to conceal the fact that there is a mystery in human life is bound to lead to injury in the soul. Those who disregard the mystery of the human being, either because of their condition in life or a lack of interest, very easily fall prey to a kind of soul hunger and to what happens as a result of this—a sort of atrophy in the life of the soul, an uncertainty and powerlessness, an inability to find one's way in the world.

Although no really sensitive person would find it necessary to have to speak about a human mystery in general, he would probably find more reason to consider that the great questions of life take on a new character in each succeeding period of time. As our time is so short, it is not possible to do more than indicate this fact. We can see how the outer conditions of life change from epoch to epoch, how new needs, new questions arise about the way we live. This also happens within the soul, which in its search for a solution to the mystery of man, changes its own finer qualities from epoch to epoch in order to make it possible for man to find such a solution. In this age that has been with us for three or four centuries, and particularly in the 19th century and our own day, which has culminated in the controlling of the world by means of steam, electricity, modern economic and social conditions, in this age there are also questions about the world in which the human being is placed that are of a different kind from those of earlier times. The science of spirit or anthroposophy seeks to approach the solution of the mystery of man out of the needs of modern times.

It is a mistake to regard the science of spirit, or anthroposophy, as a renewal of the views of the old mystics. Those who level this sort of criticism, from whatever viewpoint it happens to come, usually construct their own picture of the science of spirit and then criticize this picture, which actually has very little to do with what the science of spirit really is. It is only a caricature of the science of spirit that is criticized.

It is of course not possible within the framework of an evening's lecture to mention everything that would be necessary even to provide an outline of the science of spirit. Only a few further points can be added to what I have been saying about this for many years now, even in this city. It is particularly important to remember that the science of spirit does not take its origin from religion or mystical movements—although we should not conclude that it is necessarily opposed to these, as we shall see later—but it arises out of the life of the modern scientific outlook, out of a scientific approach to the world, connected with what is happening in the evolution of present-day natural science.

I do not think that anyone who despises the modern scientific outlook can penetrate the mysteries of the world as is done in the science of spirit, even if it is not the results of science that matter so much as the method of approach in conscientiously applying one's thinking to the phenomena of the world. The science of spirit must be well versed in the ways natural science investigates and thinks, and in the way in which it disciplines the inner life of the soul in the art of acquiring knowledge. The science of spirit must absorb this and reckon with it, if it is to keep abreast of the times.

It is just in connection with such an approach that the question arises: How is it at all possible for modern science and the outlook which results from it, to arrive at a view of the mysteries of the human being that really satisfies us deep down? If we are really positive thinkers we cannot permit ourselves an answer derived from preconceived opinions, or from one form of belief or another, but only from the facts of present-day scientific development and its method of thought. And so you will allow me to start with the course of scientific thought and research in more recent times. This will be regarded very much from the viewpoint of an admirer of the enormous progress made by the scientific approach in the 19th century, a viewpoint which enables one to realize that the hopes placed in natural science, particularly in the 19th century, for a solution to the great mysteries of man were absolutely honest and genuine.

To take one aspect of this, let us look at the rise of the physical and chemical sciences, along with the hopes and aspirations which came with it. We see how people steeped in the scientific outlook began to believe (around the middle of the 19th century) that the inmost being of man can be explained in terms of the physical body just as the working of the forces and forms of nature can be explained in terms of the wonderfully advanced laws of physics and chemistry. The great progress made by physics and chemistry no doubt justified such hopes for a while, and this progress led to the formulation of particular ideas about the world of the smallest particles: atoms and molecules. Even if people think differently about such matters today, nevertheless what I have to say about the atom and the molecule holds good for the whole of the scientific development. The idea was to investigate them and to explain how the substances and physical forces worked in terms of the constitution of the material molecules and atoms, and of the forces and mutual relationships brought about by this constitution. It was thought that if it was possible to explain a process in terms of the smallest particles, it would not be long before the way would be found to understand even the most complicated process, which was seen as a natural process: the process of human thinking and feeling.

Now let us examine where this approach with its great hopes has led. Anyone having studied the achievements of physics and chemistry during the past decades can only be filled with admiration for what has been achieved. I cannot go into details, but I will mention the views of a representative scientist, who sought his views in physics and chemistry in investigating the nature of the smallest physical particle, the atom,—Adolf Roland, who specialized in spectral analysis. He formulated his views on the basis of everything that is possible to know about the smallest particles that can be imagined as effective in the material world.—And how remarkable his views are! And how justified they are must be recognized by anyone who has some understanding of the subject. Adolf Roland says: According to everything that can be known today, an atom of iron must be imagined as being more complicated than a Steinway piano.

Now this is a significant statement, coming from one so familiar with the methods of modern science. Years ago it was believed that one could investigate the tiniest lifeless beings, or at least produce provisional hypotheses about them, in order to find out something about the world that constitutes the immediate surroundings of our ordinary consciousness. And what, in fact, does one find out? The scientist has to admit that having penetrated this smallest of worlds, he finds nothing that is any more explicable than a Steinway piano. So it becomes quite clear that however far we are able to go by this process of division into the very smallest particles, the world becomes no more explicable than it already is to our ordinary, everyday consciousness.—This is one of the ways of approach, with its great hopes. We see as it were, these great hopes disappearing into the world of the smallest particles. And honest scientific progress will show more and more by penetrating into the smallest particles of space that we can add nothing toward answering the great human mystery to what can be known to our ordinary consciousness.

In another sphere there have been just as great hopes, and understandably so, in view of the condition of the times. Just think of the great hopes people had with the advent of the Darwinian theory, with its materialistic bias! People thought they could survey the whole range of living beings, of plants and animals, right up to man. It was thought possible to understand man through having seen how he arose out of the species below him. And in following the transformation of the different species, from the simplest living being right up to man, it was thought possible to find material which would help solve the mystery of man.

Once again, anyone initiated into the ways of modern research can only be filled with admiration for the wonderful work that has been done on this subject even to this day. It was thought that we would find the single egg cell, out of which man had evolved, in the appropriate simplest living being, and would then be able to explain the origin of man out of this egg cell, which would be similar to what would be discovered as the simplest animal form in the world. Once again the path was taken to the smallest, this time the smallest living beings. And what has been found there? It is interesting to hear what a conscientious and important scientist of the 80's, Naegeli, had to say. He expressed his view, which has become famous, in the following way: Exact research on the individual species of plants and animals shows that even the tiniest cells of each single species have the most varied differentiation. The egg cell of a hen is just as fully differentiated from that of a frog as a hen itself is different from a frog.—In descending to the simplest living cells, by means of which it was hoped to explain the complications facing our normal consciousness, we do not arrive at anything simpler—as for instance when we study the iron atom—and in the end have to admit that it is just as complicated as a Steinway piano. Thus we have to imagine that the difference between the individual egg cells is as great as is the difference between the various species we see in nature with our ordinary consciousness.

Naegeli therefore proves by means of his own scientific conscientiousness that the approach of Darwinism with its materialistic bias is of no value.

But now there is another interesting fact. We could, of course, think that Naegeli, the great botanist, was really a one-sided personality, and in any case what he said was spoken in the 80's and that science has progressed and that his views are out of date. But we can also study the very latest developments on this subject, which have been well summed up by a most significant person, one of the most eminent pupils of Ernst Haeckel:—Oskar Hertwig. In the last week or two there has been published his summing up of what he has to offer as a result of his research on—as he calls his book,—Das Werden der Organismen. Eine Widerlegung von Darwins Zufalls theorie.

Just imagine, we are confronted by the fact that one of the great pupils of Haeckel, the most radical exponent of materialistic Darwinism, has in the course of his life come to refute this materialistic Darwinism in the most thorough and complete way. I myself often heard from Haeckel's own lips that Oskar Hertwig was the one from whom he expected the most, and whom he expected to be his successor. And now we find today that it is Oskar Hertwig who refutes what he had absorbed as scientific Darwinism from his teacher, Haeckel! And he does it thoroughly, for his work—if I may use the expression—has a certain completeness.

This is what I wanted to say, to start with. I shall come back to the question later. I would only like to add that Oskar Hertwig makes use of everything that even the most recent research has brought to light in order to prove that what Naegeli said was absolutely true, so that one can say that the present-day position of biological research shows that a study of the smallest living entities does not tell us any more than does a study of the various species that we can perceive quite normally. For these smallest living entities, the cells, are, according to Naegeli and Hertwig, just as different as are the species themselves. A study of them only teaches us that nothing can be discovered in this way that cannot also be discovered by our normal perception in looking at the ordinary world.

Nor is it much different when—I can only mention this briefly—instead of looking at the very small, we look at the very large, the world of astronomy. For here too there has been the most wonderful progress in more recent times, for instance, in the study of the way the heavenly bodies move, which surprised everyone so much in 1859, and which has had such tremendous consequences in astronomy and especially in astrophysics.—And what has been the result? A thing one hears frequently from those who are at home in this subject is: Wherever we look in the world, whether we discover one or the other substance, this is not the main thing, for we find exactly the same substances with exactly the same forces in the universe, in the relatively large, as we find working here on the earth, so that when instead of looking into the very small, we examine the very large we only find what we know from our ordinary experience of space and time in everyday life. It is just in deepening what can be achieved by natural science and in particular in feeling deep admiration for what natural science has achieved that the way for a modern science of spirit or anthroposophy is prepared. But the latter is also well aware that however admirable these achievements of natural science are, however significant they may be for particular purposes, however necessary they may be for sound human progress, they can never penetrate the real mystery of man. This they themselves have proved until now.

The science of spirit or anthroposophy therefore takes its cue from natural science and tries to go quite a different way, and this way is not connected with trying to explain what we experience with our normal consciousness by means of a study of the very small or the very large, nor with methods using microscopes, telescopes or anything that can be attained by our senses or instruments which help them, nor by any scientific methods used in the sense world, nor by studying anything other than what we experience in our normal consciousness, but the science of spirit seeks to approach a solution to the mystery of man by a quite different kind of perception, as far as it is possible for human beings to do this.

In giving an outline of how one can imagine this other way of looking at the things that surround us, and at the events that happen around us in the world, I will make use of a comparison which will help to make the matter clearer.

In ordinary life we are familiar with two states of consciousness, the state of our normal consciousness which we have from the time we awaken in the morning to the time we go to sleep in the evening—this is our normal day consciousness. We are also familiar with the state of our so-called dream consciousness, in which pictures rise chaotically out of depths of the organism that are not accessible to human consciousness, and these pictures appear to be completely without any form of order. It is our experience that makes us aware of the difference between this chaotic dream consciousness and our orderly day consciousness which is encompassed by the real world.

The science of spirit or anthroposophy shows us that just as we awaken out of the chaotic dream consciousness into our ordinary day consciousness there is also a further awakening out of our day consciousness to—as I have called it in my book, Riddles of Man—a perceptive consciousness. The science of spirit does not deal with a reversion into a world of dreams, visions or hallucinations, but with something that can enter into human consciousness, into ordinary day consciousness in the same way that this day consciousness replaces our dream consciousness when we awaken. The science of spirit or anthroposophy is therefore concerned with a perceptive consciousness, with a real awakening out of our ordinary day consciousness, with a higher consciousness, if I may use such an expression. And its content is derived from the results of this perceptive, higher consciousness.—Just as the human being awakens from his dream world, where pictures move chaotically to and fro, into the world of the senses, so now as a scientist of spirit he awakens from the normal day consciousness into a perceptive consciousness, where he becomes a part of a real, spiritual world.

Now, first of all, I must give an idea of what this perceptive consciousness is. It is not acquired by means of any particular fantastic, arbitrary act or fantastic arbitrary decision, but it is acquired by a person working as a scientist of spirit, work which takes a long time, that is no less toilsome than work in the laboratory or observatory, which is pieced together out of the smallest fragments, perhaps even with only small results, but which are necessary for the progress of science as a whole. But everything that the scientist of spirit has to do is not done as in the laboratory or observatory with ordinary methods and appliances, but is done with the only apparatus that is of any use to the science of spirit, the human soul. It consists of inner processes of the human soul, which, as we shall now see, have nothing to do with vague or chaotic mysticism, but which demand systematic and methodical work on the human soul.

How does one acquire the wish to pursue such spiritual work, such an inner development, such a higher self training? It is possible to do it by taking our ordinary conscious life as a starting point, and gradually coming to a particular kind of conviction that becomes more compelling as one immerses one's mind in the modern scientific outlook. For several hundred years already there have been some personalities with this attitude of mind, and today this is increasingly the case. I cannot mention individual names now, but this inner experience, which gradually emerges under the influence of the scientific way of thinking as a distinct and necessary inner outlook and attitude, will affect increasingly wider circles of people and will become a common conviction with all the consequences that such a conviction is bound to entail.

There are two things that we are concerned with here. The first is that we have to acquire a certain view of the human ego, or what we call our self, by means of true and intimate observation, carried out willingly and with discipline. We address this self, we express it in one word, when after a certain point in our childhood development, we begin to use the word “I.” In our honest self-observation based on self-training we ask: What is this ego really like? Where is it to be found in us? Is it possible to find it or, if we are honest and conscientious, do we not have to admit as the great thinker Hume did, who did not arrive at his convictions arbitrarily, but by honest, self-observation, that however much I look into myself, I find feelings, ideas, joy and sorrow, I find what I have experienced in the world, but I do not find an ego anywhere? And how can I in any case—as he quite rightly says—find this ego? If it could be found so easily it would also have to be present when I sleep. But when I sleep, I know nothing about this ego. Can I assume that it is extinguished in the evening and revives again in the morning? Without actually being grasped by the mind, it must be present even when the mind is not working in sleep.

This is absolutely clear. And all those who are familiar with present-day literature on this subject will increasingly find this clear and obvious, that this will become more and more the case.

How are we to understand this? I would have to speak for hours if I were to go into details to prove what I am now saying.—I can only just mention the one fact that the ego of which we are speaking is present in the same way in our day consciousness as it is in the deepest, dreamless sleep. The ego always sleeps. It sleeps when we are asleep, and it sleeps when we are awake, and we know only about a sleeping ego when we are awake, about what lives, even as far as our waking consciousness is concerned, in a hardly conscious sphere of our soul life. Even when we are wide awake in our ordinary consciousness the ego is still only present as it is when we sleep. The reason we cannot imagine anything like an ego in us is because the rest of our soul life is present and, like the black spot in our eyes, cannot see.—The ego is made dark in our souls in a way, and can only be perceived as something we cannot imagine. The ego is always asleep and there is no difference between the way the ego should be imagined in sleep and when we are awake.

It is the same when we consider our minds; for if we train our self-observation properly we realize that our mental images have exactly the same existence in our waking day life as they do in the night in the chaotic mental images of our dreams. In our minds we dream, even when we are awake.

These truths that our ego sleeps and that we dream in our minds and imagination, even when we are awake—these truths, it is true, are washed away by our active life in the day. But for anyone able to observe the human soul they prove to be great and shattering truths which stand at the start of every spiritually scientific investigation.

And if we were then to ask, to ask one's self-observation: This is all very well, but how do we actually distinguish our ordinary waking life of the day from our dream life and our sleeping life? What happens at the moment when we wake up?—As I have said, I cannot go into details—you can find all the details necessary to understand more completely what I am now saying in outline in my book Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its Attainment.—The question arises: What actually happens when we wake up, if our ego really remains asleep and our ideas and images, even in waking life, are like dream pictures? What is the difference between the waking and the sleeping human being?

Trained self-observation provides the answer: It is solely the penetration of the will into the soul life which differentiates waking life from sleeping and dreaming. The fact that we are awake and do not dream is due solely to the will pouring into us. It is because of this that we do not have dream pictures rising up without any direction of will, that we unite ourselves to the outer world with our will and with our will become a part of the outer world. It is what awakens the dream pictures to the substance of real-ness that they are images of an outer world, that brings it about that after waking up we are able to incorporate ourselves into the world through our will.

However paradoxical this may sound to many people today, it will have to become a basic conviction of a future outlook and will indeed become so, because it is bound to follow from a science based on true self-observation.

It is the flashing of the will into our minds that gives us our real connection with the outer world, which we experience with our ordinary consciousness. It is this that provides us with real self-observation in our ordinary consciousness. But we cannot remain in this consciousness if we really wish to fathom the actual nature of the things that surround us and the connection of human beings with the world. There has to be a similar transformation in our soul life, in the ordinary soul life we have in the day, in relation to the transformation that happens in our sleeping and dreaming life when we wake up. And a transformation can come about by working arduously towards a change, firstly in the life of our minds, and secondly, in the life of our will.

And I would like to point out at the start that what we call the science of spirit or anthroposophy is not based on anything metaphysical, spiritualistic or anything vaguely mystical, but that it is a true continuation of the well-founded and human scientific way of thinking. And so we can, for instance, link on to the sound beginnings that are to be found in the Goethean outlook upon nature and the world.

Allow me this personal remark, because it has something to do with what I have to say. That I am linking on to this Goethean outlook upon nature and the world is due to the fact that my destiny led me to immerse myself in it and to take from it what leads, as we shall see, to real perception into the spiritual world that surrounds us, surrounds us in the same way that the sense world does. What is so noteworthy with Goethe—and which is still not appreciated today—is that for instance he is able to bring physical phenomena that normally are only considered quite apart from the soul being, right into the life of the human soul. It is really quite wonderful to see how Goethe treats the physical aspects in his Theory of Color, which is still looked down upon by most people today, how he starts with the physical and physiological aspects and leads from them to what he expresses so beautifully in the section, “The Physical and Moral Effect of Color.” Naturally, one compromises oneself in many respects if one speaks about Goethe's Theory of Color. It cannot be spoken about as a matter of course because in its present form physics does not allow for any possibilities of discussing a justification of Goethe's theory. But the time will come when Goethe's Theory of Color will be vindicated by a more advanced kind of physics.

I can refer to what I have said about the artistic side of this in my book Goethe's Conception of the World, and in my introduction to Goethe's scientific writings. (Published in English as Goethe the Scientist—Ed.) Today, however, I am not concerned with vindicating Goethe's Theory of Color, but only wish to deal with method, with how Goethe manages to evolve beyond purely physical considerations in the chapter “The Physical and Moral Effect of Colors.” Here he describes so beautifully what the human soul experiences when it perceives the color blue. Blue, says Goethe, pours into the soul the experience of coldness because it reminds us of shadow. Blue rooms bestow a feeling of sadness on all the objects in the rooms.—Or let us take what Goethe says about the experience of the color red. Red, says Goethe, produces an experience purely according to its own nature. It can produce the experience of seriousness and worthiness, or of devotion and grace—of seriousness and worthiness in its darker and thicker shades, of devotion and grace in its lighter and thinner shades.—So we see that Goethe does not only deal with the immediate physical nature of color, but he brings the soul into it, the experiences of sympathy and antipathy, as immediate experiences of the soul, as we have in life when we feel joy and sorrow. It may be that the intensity with which Goethe studied the colors is hardly noticeable, but nevertheless he goes through all the colors in a way that one can do if one allows one's soul life to pervade them,—that is, Goethe does not separate the physical from the soul experience. In doing this he laid the foundation for a kind of observation which even today is naturally only in its beginnings, but which will find a serious and worthy further development in the science of spirit. For the human being's relationship to color is exactly the same as exists with the rest of his senses. He is so fully taken up with the perception of something physical, with what works through his eyes and ears, that he does not perceive what radiates through and permeates the physical percept as an element of soul; he does not experience its full power and significance in his inner life. It is like not being able to see a weak light against a strong one. For it is above all the physical object that our eye normally perceives so strongly.

Now it is possible to take what is to be found in Goethe in its first beginnings—albeit instinctively with him because of his naturally sound outlook—a stage further. And it can also be looked at from another viewpoint. Goethe never deals with colors only as they exist in the world, but he also deals with the reaction they stimulate, their effect on the organism. How wonderful, even compared with the latest experiments in physics done by Hertwig, Hume and others, are the things that Goethe brought to light about the reaction of the eye, how the colors are not only perceived as long as one looks at them, but then they only gradually fade away. In all this there are in our ordinary perceptions weak beginnings which can be applied much more to the inner life of our mental images and can undergo further development. For in the conscientious and careful development of particular aspects of our cognitive and imaginative life there is to be found an aspect of science that belongs to the science of spirit or anthroposophy. Goethe's attitude to color has to be applied by those who wish to penetrate into the spiritual world by means of the science of spirit to the content of our minds, which for our normal consciousness is really only a world of dream pictures permeated by the will. The scientist of spirit also approaches the outer world in exactly the same way as our ordinary consciousness approaches the pictures in our minds, concepts and ideas. A sound thinking person does not become any different from anyone else. But if he is to receive a revelation of the spiritual world he has to effect a particular kind of perceptive consciousness. And he does this by inducing a certain metamorphosis in the life of his mind.

The details of what has to be done you can find in the book already mentioned. I only want to put before you now the main principles.

The scientist of spirit gradually manages to free his mental images from their normal task by a particular kind of methodical approach to the content of his mind. The normal function of our mental images is that they enable us to have pictures of the outer world. These pictures are the end result. But for the scientist of spirit they are a beginning, for whatever their significance, whatever kind of picture of the world they give, he immerses himself in its inner life, the inner effects of the picture, the image. And he does this in such a way that he does not look to its content, but to the forces that develop in it, and he does this when his consciousness has been completely brought to rest and becomes alive in the activity of his imagination and thinking.

Normally, a scientist starts with nature as it is in the world and ends up with his ideas. The scientist of spirit has to start with the inner activity of his ideas, with a kind of meditative activity, but which is not at all the same as the kind of meditation normally described and which is nothing more than brooding on something that is on one's mind—no, what we are concerned with here is that the soul is brought to rest, its activity is stilled, so that the life of the soul approaches certain ideas that can be grasped and surveyed like a calm sea. They should then become active in the life of the soul, active solely in the life of the mind. After a great amount of meditative work which is certainly not less than work done in the laboratory or observatory, we arrive at a stage where we perceive remarkable things happening, affecting the life of the soul in this inner life of the mind. One of the most important and significant faculties of the soul that we develop in our normal consciousness is our memory, our ability to remember. What is it that our memory, our ability to remember brings about? It enables us to call up at a later time mental images that we have formed at an earlier time. First of all, we have an experience and this is taken into the mind. The resulting image is like a shadow of the original experience. The experience disappears, but the fact of its existence continues.—We carry the image of the experience in us. Years later, or whenever it might be, we can recall it. What we recall out of the total organism of our spirit, soul and body as a memory image is a shadow-like copy of what was imprinted on the memory in the first place.

If we pursue the methods actively and energetically that are given and described in my books for the cultivation of the mind, we acquire a much stronger kind of activity in the soul working in the memory. However paradoxical it may appear, I have to describe it, because I do not want to speak about the generalities of the science of spirit, but to deal with the positive and concrete aspect of it, upon which it is based. The scientist of spirit experiences that a mental image is brought alive, and by bringing the peace of his consciousness constantly to bear upon this image he gets to the point where he knows: Now you have exercised the powers of your thinking to such an extent that you can continue no further.—Then something shattering happens. The moment arrives when we know that we cannot continue to use our thinking in the same controlled way, but have to let it go, just as we let an idea or image go that then sinks into forgetfulness and that later can be recalled out of this by our memory. But when an image that we have as a result of an energetic meditative life is let go, it enters into much greater depths of our life than an image that is taken into our memory. The scientist of spirit then experiences—this is only one example, other experiences have to be linked to this, but now I only wish to give a few examples—that he has strengthened an image by the powers of his thinking to such an extent that he can allow it to sink into his being so that it is no longer present. But then it appears later, according to the images we have—this has all to be regulated—these images remain present. We acquire views in the course of time in which these images have to remain present, deep down in the unconscious. Some images remain for a longer period in the subconscious, others a shorter period and we acquire the power to recall them again and again. We do not do this by exerting ourselves in trying to remember an image. Images are recalled by peaceful immersion in ourselves; It is not like the way our ordinary memory works, for here we are dependent upon a mood of expectancy that we bring about at the right moment. We become aware of this mood of expectancy by other things which cannot be described here. We have a mood or feeling of expectancy; we do not do anything to bring about an image or an experience. We simply have this peaceful expectancy, this purely selfless immersion in ourselves and only after hours, weeks or even only after years does there come back what we have perceived in the very depths of our being, as if in a kind of abyss. And then the opposite happens from what takes place in our normal consciousness.

With our normal consciousness the experience comes first in all its vividness and then the shadowlike image is produced. Here something quite different happens. We start with something which leads at the same time to self-discipline and self-education, and this is an image which we put before our souls and let it be present in the soul for weeks or months until the moment comes when it can be completely immersed. Then it emerges again—but how it emerges is the surprising thing, for it is not anything as shadowlike as the normal image.

This experience is brought about by working on the image in a certain way and we know full well, if we are familiar with things that lead to such results as these, that we are dealing here with something sound and not morbidly introspective. These are not the same forces that lead to hallucinations or visions, or that produce morbid or unsound states of any kind, but they are the forces that produce precisely the opposite and, in fact, have the effect of banishing everything in the nature of hallucinations and visions.—It is the opposite process. The soul, in undergoing this, is not as it is in everyday life with its normal, healthy understanding, but it has to be much healthier and sounder if the exercises which belong to this whole development and which have to be done regularly are to overcome everything that would lead one astray. What this leads up to is something we have not known before—something spiritual, something super-sensible, that we now perceive in ourselves. What is it that perceives? It is what Goethe called the eye or the ear of the spirit, of which he had an instinctive presentiment.

From the moment onward when we have had an experience such as I have just described, we know that we do not have only a physical body, but that we have a finer, more inward body that is in no way made up of physical substance. However paradoxical it may appear to many people today when in the science of spirit or anthroposophy we speak of a fine etheric body, a soul body, it is nevertheless a truth—but a truth that can really be investigated only in this way I have described. We now know that we have something in ourselves in which spiritual perception can arise, just as perception can arise in the physical organism in the physical eye. We know that the eye or the ear of the spirit, as Goethe called it, becomes something from which there springs something out of the etheric world, out of the super-sensible body. We cannot use this super-sensible body like a physical body, but we know that it exists and we know that there has to be a science of spirit for us to find it. It does not come into being by means of any arbitrary act of the will, but it comes into being with the help of the most recent philosophical thought.

Let me cite a few facts that are especially important in this connection for the formation of a judgment about anthroposophy. The philosophers of more recent times who inherited the work of their predecessors done around the turn of the 18th to the 19th century and in the first half of the 19th century, pointed out, albeit instinctively and not as a result of method, that man does not have only a physical body, which provides the basis for his being, but he also has what one can call an etheric, a soul body. Only the terminology for this fine body was different, a body which exists as a fact for the science of spirit.

This kind of assumption led Immanuel Hermann Fichte (1797-1879) to his conception of the process of death, which he expressed in the following way: “For we hardly have to ask how the human being acts in regard to himself” when “going through death ... With this concept of the continuing existence of the soul we are not therefore bypassing our experience and laying hold of an unknown sphere of merely illusory existence, but we find ourselves in the midst of a comprehensible reality accessible to our thinking.” And now Fichte says—and this is what is important—this consciousness points to something beyond itself. “... Anthroposophy produces results founded on the most varied evidence that according to the nature of his being as also in the real source of his consciousness man belongs to a super-sensible world. Our ordinary consciousness, however, which is based on our senses and on the picture of the world that arises through the use of sight, and which includes the whole life of the sense world, including the human sense world, all this is really only a place where the super-sensible life of the spirit is carried out in bringing the otherworldly spiritual content of ideas into the sense world by a conscious free act ... This fundamental conception of man's being raises `Anthropology' in its final result into `Anthroposophy'.”

Into an “anthroposophy!” He uses the expression, anthroposophy. We can see from this the longing for the science that today has to become a reality.

To cite another example—owing to lack of time I can only quote a few examples—I would like to bring in the important German thinker, Vital Troxler (1780-1866), who also did some important teaching in Switzerland. He speaks out of the same approach, but still instinctively, because the science of spirit or anthroposophy did not exist at that time: “Even in earlier times philosophers distinguished a fine, noble, soul body from the coarse body ... a soul, which contained within it a picture of the body which they called a model and which for them was the inner higher man ... More recently even Kant in his Dreams of a Spiritual Seer dreams seriously as a joke about a wholly inward soul man, that bears within its spirit-body all the limbs normally to be found outside ...”

And now Troxler says: “It is most gratifying that the most recent philosophy, which ... must be manifest ... in anthroposophy, climbs to greater heights, and it must be remembered that this idea cannot be the fruit of mere speculation ...”

I do not need to quote the rest. He means that there must be a science which leads to the super-sensible, to the qualities of this super-sensible body, just as anthropology leads to the physical qualities and forces of the physical human body.

I have dealt with characteristic thinkers on this subject in my book, The Riddles of Man. They did not work out these things as the present-day science of spirit can do, but they spoke out of instinctive longing for a future science of spirit that has now to become a reality through this present science of spirit. Thus also the son of the great Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the important philosopher, Immanuel Herman Fichte.

In his Anthropology, the second edition of which appeared in 1860, Fichte says that there can be nothing that persists in matter: “In the elements of matter it is not possible to find the unifying form principle of the body that is active during our whole life. We are therefore directed to a second, essentially different cause in the body. Insofar as this contains what persists in the digestion it is the true, inner, invisible body that is present in all visible matter. The outer manifestation of this, formed out of the never-ceasing digestion may henceforth be called `body' which neither persists nor is a unity and which is the mere effect or image of the inner bodily nature, which casts it into the changing world of substance in the same way that an apparent solid body is made out of the particles of iron filings by a magnetic force, but which is again reduced to dust as soon as the binding force is taken away.”

Thus we see that Immanuel Hermann Fichte instinctively finds himself in the position of having to accept a force-body which holds the material components together in a material body in a certain formal structure like a magnetic force.

You notice, too, that Fichte also longs for an anthroposophy when he deals with the super-sensible in man and draws our attention to it.

Anthroposophy does not appear at a particular time without reason, but it is something that has long been anticipated by the really deep core of our soul life. This can be seen quite clearly in the examples I have given.

Now I must turn to the other aspect of the development of our soul life, the development of the will. What I have said so far was concerned with the development of the mind. The will, too, can be led beyond the condition it has in our normal consciousness. If you imagine that someone—I only want to mention the most important things, the rest can be read in my books—that someone were to look at his inner life in the same way that we look at our ordinary life between human beings under normal conditions, the life of the human community, we can notice our reaction when a desire or impulse awakens when we say: Conditions allow this impulse, this desire to take its course; another time the conditions do not allow us, or we do not allow it. We see that we evolve a certain responsibility toward outer life that is rooted in our conscience. We develop quite definite feelings, a particular configuration of our soul life in our conscience, concerning what we do or do not do. Our normal consciousness is subject to our soul life in developing such inner demands or standards—we obey logic, but when it comes to thinking or not thinking, to whether thinking is clear or restricted, how cool and logical our relationship is to this as compared to our relationship to outer life! We accept the one because we can, as it were, grasp it in spirit, as a mental image; we reject the other. But one cannot experience the intensive life that we feel in our human responsibility when it comes to our purely logical and scientific thinking.

The second kind of exercise consists in pouring out a certain kind of inner responsibility over our thinking, over our mind, so that we reach the point of not only saying: This opinion is valid, this opinion is properly conceived, I can give it my assent and so on, but also that we manage to preserve a mental image in the same duty-bound consciousness as we have when we do not go through with the one or the other action. Morality—though quite a different kind of morality from the one we have in normal life—is poured out over our mind, over our mental images. Inner responsibility poured out over the life of our mental images results in attitudes where in dealing in certain experiences we allow ourselves some mental images and reject others, in the one case accepting them, in the other rejecting them by a justified but temperate antipathy. From this new aspect, sympathy and antipathy activate our inner life. This again has to be practiced for a long time. I will give an example of how this can be supported by accustoming ourselves to allowing a mental image to be present in our souls in as manifold a way as possible.

In ordinary life one person may be a monist, another a dualist, the third a materialist, the fourth a spiritualist and so on. If we learn to immerse ourselves in the life of our mental images our concepts take on a different aspect in the living inner experience of the world of our mental images so that we come to recognize: Of course, there are concepts of materialism, they can be used for a particular province, for a particular sphere of the world. In fact, they must be available, for one can only get something out of immersing oneself in a particular sphere of the world if one has grasped materialism in all its many aspects. For another sphere of the world spiritualistic concepts are needed, for a third, monistic, for a fourth, the concept of idealism and so on. Monistic, dualistic concepts—they enrich the life of our minds and we know that such concepts mean no more than do different photographs of a tree taken from different points. We learn now to immerse ourselves in an inner element, an inner tolerance, that once again is an outpouring of moral substances over our inner life. It is just like someone receiving a picture of a tree that he has actually seen, who would never say, if he received a picture of the tree taken from a different angle, that it was not the same tree. Just as we can have four or even eight pictures which all portray the same tree, so we learn to look at all sorts of ideas, which singly would represent a one sided picture of reality, and to learn about them, to look into them with great care and immerse ourselves in their manifoldness. This is normally underrated when it comes to doing the exercises which have now to be undertaken. This is something that is not much understood today, even by the best, but it does lead to the further development of the will in a way similar to the development of the mind that I have described. We then experience that the will liberates itself from being bound to the body.

Just as oxygen can be extracted from water, so the will is released by means of the energetic pursuit of these various exercises that are described, and it becomes freer and freer, and more and more spiritual. By these means we awaken a real, higher man in ourselves that is not just an image of an ideal nor something thought out. We make the discovery which is still a paradox to most people today, but which is quite real for the science of spirit, that a second, more subtle man lives in us, having a quite different consciousness from our normal consciousness. And this consciousness that we can awaken in this way shows us that it is a much more real man than the one that we live in the physical body and move around in. This man in us can make use of the eye of the spirit, as I called it earlier, in the etheric body, in the way I have described.

The acceptance of such another consciousness of another more all-embracing man—this has a far more intimate connection with nature and its beings and to the spiritual world than our normal consciousness.—The acceptance of this also was instinctively foreseen by the more penetrating scientists of the 19th century. Here, too, the science of spirit brings about a fulfillment. I would only like to point out how Eduard von Hartmann worked in this direction, though I do not wish to advocate his philosophy in detail in any way. In his really controvertible work, The Philosophy of the Unconscious, Hartmann referred to the fact that an unknown soul quality is to be found behind the normal consciousness of the human being that—as Eduard von Hartmann describes it—comes to expression painfully in a way, and which has a kind of underground telephone connection with the unconscious spiritual nature of the outer world, and which can work its way up, and does work its way up, through the astral nature and pours out of the unconscious or subconscious into our normal, everyday consciousness.

Eduard von Hartmann really pointed instinctively to what the science of spirit teaches as a fact. Only he believed that this other consciousness of the human being could only be arrived at by theoretical hypotheses, analytical concepts and inferences. This was what he was lacking because he never wanted to take the path which is appropriate to his time: not just to formulate the life of the soul theoretically, but to take it actively into training in the two ways that have been described.

It has been possible to see from this that the acceptance of this spiritual nature in everything is much more helped by the solution of the mystery of the human being—even from a philosophical viewpoint, if it really remains philosophical—than all that can be done by the rest of science in the ways described above. And this can be proved by what has happened. Just in these matters Eduard von Hartmann proves a remarkable figure.

In 1869 he published his Philosophy of the Unconscious. Here he discussed how the spiritual that lives in the soul, hidden, as it were, in the spiritual soul, also lives in nature, and how the materialist today has only a one-sided idea of how the spiritual that lives in the soul also permeates and invades nature. In was 1869 that The Philosophy of the Unconscious was first published. It was the time when people had the greatest hopes of gaining a new view of the world on the basis of the new Darwinian approach, the laws of natural selection and the struggle for existence. Hartmann energetically opposed everything connected with this approach from a spiritual viewpoint, and naturally enough the scientists who were full of materialistic interpretation of Darwinism reacted to what Hartmann said. They said: Well, of course, only a philosopher can speak like that who is not at home in real scientific research and who does not know how conscientiously science works!—And many works were published by various scientists attacking Hartmann's Philosophy of the Unconscious. They all wrote basically the same thing—Hartmann was a dilettante and one should not bother to listen to him any further. One only had to protect the layman who always fell for such things; that is why Hartmann's position should be exposed.

Among the many works that appeared there was also one which was anonymous. From start to finish everything was brilliantly refuted. It was shown how from the viewpoint which a scientist had to have, he understood nothing about how science works in its approach to the great mystery of the world!—The scientists were tremendously enthusiastic and were in full agreement with what the anonymous author had written, and it was soon necessary to reprint this ingenious, scientific work. Oskar Schmidt and Ernst Haeckel themselves were full of praise and said: It is a pity that this colleague of ours, this significant scientific thinker, does not say who he is. If he will only say who he is we will regard him as one of ourselves.—In fact, Ernst Haeckel even said: I myself could have said nothing better than what this anonymous author has marshaled from the scientific viewpoint against Hartmann.

And lo and behold, a second edition was needed just as the scientists had wished, But now in the second edition the author revealed himself. It was Eduard von Hartmann himself who had written the work! This was a lesson that could not have been executed more brilliantly for people who constantly believe that those who do not adopt their own attitude could not possibly understand anything about their learning and knowledge. It is a lesson from which we can still learn today, and particularly those could learn who, when it comes to opposing what the science of spirit teaches, approach it with a similar attitude.

The scientist of spirit or anthroposophist knows quite well the sort of things that can be leveled against anthroposophy, however well it may be presented. He is fully aware of what can be said against it, just as Eduard von Hartmann was able to present what the scientists found to be excellent and to their liking. Such lessons, it is true, are soon forgotten, and the old habits soon return. But we can recall them, and we should learn from them. It is not only with Eduard von Hartmann but also with others that an instinctive feeling has arisen that quite a different kind of consciousness is at work in the depths of the human soul.

I would remind you of Myers, the English scientist and editor of the reports of psychic experiments which were published in many volumes and which set out to show how there is something hidden in the human soul that exists alongside our ordinary experience,—what James, the American, called the year of the discovery of one of the most significant facts, namely the discovery of the unconscious in 1886. Today scientists on the whole know very little about such things. They know nothing of Eduard von Hartmann's arguments, nothing about James, nothing about 1886 when Myers discovered the unconscious, the part of us that is of a spirit-soul nature and is connected with the spirit-soul nature of the world, and that rises into and awakens our normal consciousness. It is the same as I have described as awakening as if out of our everyday consciousness, out of a dreaming state, and makes our ordinary consciousness into a perceptive consciousness.—But in Myers and James it is to be found in a chaotic and immature state, rather like a hope or promise.—It becomes a real fact for the first time with the science of spirit or anthroposophy.

And so we see—however paradoxical it may appear today—that the development of the inner powers of the soul emerges on two fronts. I can only indicate how what I have described in its first beginnings, when systematically carried out, eventually leads to our being increasingly able to learn to use the spiritual eye in the etheric body by means of the other man that lives in us, and we discover this world of inner processes in ourselves and are able to feel ourselves as belonging to it. How we then learn not only to overcome our conception of space, but also of time. We come to look at time in quite a different way. And, as I have said, we become able not only to carry ourselves back in our memories into the past, but also to gain experience of ourselves at earlier points of time and also to carry ourselves back beyond the time that we normally remember.

You all know that we can remember back only to a certain point in our childhood. This is as far as we can think back to. What we experienced in the first years of our childhood we can only be reminded of from outside. But now we can carry ourselves back to the time in our earliest childhood when as human beings we were not yet able to recognize or perceive our powers, to the time when the forces we need for our ordinary consciousness were needed for the initial growth of the body. That is to say, we learn to perceive not with the ego of our earliest childhood, but the ego that has brought our spiritual nature out of the spiritual world and united itself with what has been inherited in the way of physical forces and substances from our father, mother and ancestors. We go back to this spiritual human being. From the present moment we look back with an awakened consciousness and see through the sense world into the spiritual; we have a spiritual world before us. Similarly, when we carry ourselves back in time we then have a qualitative experience of the life that we live in the body and that comes to an end with death. On the one hand, our ordinary perception cuts us off in our normal consciousness from spiritual reality; on the other, our bodily experience cuts us off in our normal consciousness from what exists beyond the gate of death. The moment we reach the time which we can remember back to, we see on the other hand life bordered by death, and we see what death makes of us. What is beyond death is revealed, together with what is beyond birth, only divided, kept apart by our life in the body. The spiritual man, the eternal in us, is experienced in that we see our physical life as a river; the one bank is birth and the other bank is death. Death, however, is revealed together with what exists before birth.

We also see maturing in us what leads from this life to a further life on earth. For if we have gone through the gate of death we then see what lives in us. Just as we can say that there is something that lives in the plant which, having gone through the dark and cold time of year, develops into a new plant, so we see how our spirit-soul nature that is within us in this life goes through the spiritual world between death and birth and appears again in a new life on earth. All this becomes accessible to our perception when we develop the powers of the soul in the way that it has been described. Just as we grow accustomed to a physical world through our open eyes and open ears, so we accustom ourselves to a spiritual world, really become concretely aware of a spiritual world that exists around us. We live together with spiritual beings, spiritual forces. Just as we recognize our life, our body, as the expression of our spiritual being which begins at birth, or rather at conception, so we also come to know our physical life on the earth, our physical earth, as a further condition or state of something that has been preceded in planetary existence.

We come to see our earth as a metamorphosis, a transformation of an earlier planet, in which we existed as human beings at an earlier stage, not yet with the present-day physical body, but in a spiritual state and with the nature we have today in a spiritual form. The animals have undergone a downward evolution, the human being has evolved in such a way that the point at which man and animal meet is to be found in the spiritual and not in the physical. Man's evolution on the earth is a continuation of the life on an earlier planet, which has been transformed into the present earth, and which will similarly be transformed into the next stage and will enable the human being to take into himself an ego that today is still slumbering in him, but which will become more and more awake in the further course of evolution. The whole world will be spiritualized.

When we speak about nature we do not content ourselves with referring to a vague pantheism existing in the outer world, but in looking at the being of the earth we speak of rising stages that we get to know. Nor do we enter into a spiritual world with a vague pantheism, but as a concrete individual and real human being.

Today one is forgiven least of all for saying such a thing as this. Nevertheless it is true that a real, concretely spiritual world is opened up to us, the spiritual world that we belong to with our spiritual man, just as with our physical man we belong to ordinary physical reality.

And so in bringing about a methodical awakening of inner life the science of spirit or anthroposophy adds knowledge of spirit to natural knowledge and introduces a different picture of the world from the one we have in our ordinary consciousness. In this connection the science of spirit will gradually have to be taken into the hearts of those who are longing for it, but who for the most part do not know that this longing exists in their hidden feelings. But it is there, and it will come to be more and more recognized.

It is remarkable how even the most eminent thinkers of our time and of the immediate past have not yet been able to grasp the details of the kind of experience I have been describing. I wanted to cite the great philosopher Eduard von Hartmann who had an idea of what it was about, but who was only interested in reaching another consciousness in the human being theoretically, and who was unable to discover that one cannot find one's way into the spiritual by theories or hypotheses, but only by experience, by working upon one's thoughts in such a way that they are sent out as messengers into an unknown world, from which they return as experience, and that leads one into the spiritual world, as I have described. But the experience of it must be based on accepting the existence of a world of ideas and images as real.

Forgive me if I say something personal once more, but it is very much connected with this whole subject. I do not particularly wish to do so, but you will see why I refer to it.

In 1894 I attempted in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity to provide the world with just such a philosophical approach as a preparation for the science of spirit, where the individual human viewpoints, which sometimes have such remarkable names, could be understood, not as a choice of mutually exclusive views, but that they could be seen like photographs or different pictures of the same object and that these concepts could be allowed to speak for themselves so that one has a many-sided picture.

Eduard von Hartmann studied this Philosophy of Spiritual Activity in 1894, and he sent me his copy in which he had made notes. I would like to read a passage from the letter he sent me. It contains singular, philosophical expressions but what he means is quite clear even without going into what these expressions mean.

In the first place he says, for instance: “The title should be `Monism based on the theory of knowledge—ethical individualism,' and not `Philosophy of Spiritual Activity'.”

But he has an instinctive feeling for the fact that these two aspects are supposed to throw light on one and the same thing. He thinks, however, that they cannot be brought together. They are in fact brought together in the life of the soul and not by means of empty theories. This is what he meant. And similarly in other points.

Eduard von Hartmann therefore says: “In this book neither Hume's absolute phenomenalism nor Berkeley's phenomenalism based on God are reconciled, nor this more immanent or subjective, phenomenalism and the transcendental panlogism of Hegel, nor Hegel's panlogism and Goethean individualism. Between these two aspects there yawns an unbridgeable abyss.”

Because all these views exist in such a living way, they all testify to the same thing, they characterize one and the same thing from varying viewpoints!

Hartmann has an inkling of this, a feeling for it, but he does not see that what is important is not a hypothetical and theoretical way of putting them together in thought, but a living way of experiencing them as a unity.

He therefore goes on to say: “Above all, the fact is ignored that phenomenalism leads with absolute inevitability to soliphism [this may be a coined word, a `typo,' or the translator really meant solipsism - e.Ed] (that is, to a doctrine of being one, a doctrine of the ego), to illusionism and to agnosticism, and nothing is done to prevent this plunge into the abyss of un-philosophy, because the danger is not even recognized.”

This danger certainly has been recognized! And Eduard von Hartmann once again instinctively uses the right expression: “plunge into the abyss of un-philosophy.”

This is precisely what I have described today! Of course, this plunge into the abyss is not prevented by un-philosophy or by any hypotheses setting out to be philosophical, but only by our real life being led into the other existence, by the unconscious being made conscious, so that what is experienced objectively and independently in the soul can be guided back again into the conscious.

You can see here how the science of spirit or anthroposophy has gradually to get to grips with the longings and hopes for such a science, that exist at the present time, but which in themselves cannot get as far as what has to be achieved in the science of spirit, because for this to happen it is imperative to see that intimate work on the soul has to be done which does not remain mystically subjective, but is just as objective as ordinary science and knowledge.

What then has been done about this up to now? I have cited Oskar Hertwig to you. Oskar Hertwig is one of those who felt the significance of Eduard von Hartmann!

Ernst Haeckel is one of those who mocked most at what Eduard von Hartmann published in his Philosophy of the Unconscious.

Oskar Hertwig still cites Eduard von Hartmann continuously and does so in full agreement with what he says, even where Eduard von Hartmann says that the way in which the idea of natural selection is treated as a modern superstition is like a childhood disease, a scientific childhood disease of our times. This is cited by Oskar Hertwig, himself a pupil of Haeckel, as an appropriate statement about natural science by Eduard von Hartmann. And there is much more like this. It all adds up to a clear statement as to what science is unable to recognize and what it would really have to recognize. But what has happened is that the pupils of the great teachers of science of the 19th century have already started to refute everything that existed earlier in the nature of the hopes I have been talking about.

Oskar Hertwig is extraordinarily interesting because he shows that science today cannot have any objection to such a philosophy as Eduard von Hartmann's.

If the scientists find their way to Eduard von Hartmann, they will also find their way to the science of spirit. But then the general consciousness of humanity too will be able to find its way.

The science of spirit will encounter opposition enough from other directions as well. To conclude, I would like to mention briefly the objections that are constantly brought by the adherents of various religious organizations against the science of spirit. It is remarkable how it is just from the religious viewpoint that the science of spirit is attacked. It is said, for instance, that what the science of spirit has to say contradicts things in the Bible or that are held according to tradition.—But is this really what we should be concerned about? Could we think of not wanting to discover America because it cannot be found in the Bible or in Christian tradition?

If anyone believes that the power of the greatest thing in the world—Christianity—could be endangered because of some discovery, he cannot have much faith in it!

When I hear of how objections can be made by Christians, I recall a theologian, this time not Protestant, but Catholic, a teacher of Christian philosophy, member of a Catholic faculty of theology, who gave his inaugural lecture on Galileo—and we know how the church dealt with Galileo. This really genuinely Christian and Catholic priest, who up to the time of his death never denied that he was a true son of the church, said in his lecture on Galileo: It is with injustice that a really perceptive Christianity turns against the progress of natural science as brought about by such people as Galileo. It is with injustice that Christianity declares certain ideas which are falsely said to be derived from Christianity, to be irreconcilable with natural science. For modern science, thinks this priest and professor of theology, only appears to be irreconcilable with the more limited view of the world held by the ancient peoples, but not with the Christian view, for this Christian view, properly understood, is bound to confirm the discoveries of more and more wonders in the world, and is bound to confirm the glory of the Godhead and the glory of the Christian view; it is bound to confirm the wonders that divine grace has instituted upon the earth.

We can say the same about the science of spirit, for there is no contradiction between it and Christianity, properly understood. But contradiction exists only between it and a false teaching that unjustly purports to originate from Christianity. The only thing that the science of spirit cannot be reconciled with is a narrowly conceived scientific view of the world and not with a broadly based Christian view. And the discoveries of the science of spirit, the wonders that it finds in the spiritual world, will not mean an end to the wonders that Christianity teaches us about, but on the contrary will confirm them.

Laurenz Mueller, also a genuinely Christian theologian and professor, speaks in a similar vein: Christianity does not contradict and is not intended to contradict a doctrine of evolution properly understood, as long as it does not set out to be a purely causal evolution of the world and to place man only within the framework of a physical causality.

The science of spirit does not clash with Christianity, because it does not lead to the deadening of religious life and vision, but, on the contrary, it encourages and fires religious life and vision.

And those today who still believe that their Christianity would be endangered by the science of spirit will gradually have to realize that whereas wrongly understood science has driven away more and more souls, both outwardly and inwardly, anthroposophy or the science of spirit, because it kindles religious life, will bring even educated people back to the great mysteries, not only of Christian teaching, but also of Christian deeds and ceremonial services. This will largely be the work of the future, in fact, of the relatively near future.

Just in this connection one could wish that things would be better understood and that above all there were more willingness to understand the matter, that one would not formulate a picture without really going into it and then setting up this picture as something contradictory to Christianity.

I can only mention this very briefly. I would have to speak for a long time if I had to go into everything in detail—but this could be done—to show that Christianity has not the slightest grounds for turning against such ideas as repeated lives on earth.

To finish with, allow me to say a few words about the teachings of natural science.

Today natural science has arrived at the point of realizing what it cannot attain. Oskar Hertwig—to keep to our former example—hits upon something in a remarkable way in his book Das Werden der Organismen. Eine Widerlegung von Darwins Zufallstheorie.

In a remarkable way he comes to the conclusion that it is not any objective research, nor analytical research into scientific facts, that has led to the materialistic philosophy of Darwinism, but it arises from the fact that the people of this age have borne this materialistic outlook in themselves, have borne the belief in the unspiritual nature of the outer world in themselves, and have applied this to nature.

And here it is very interesting to feel the weight of Oskar Hertwig's own words to show the real nature of the situation.

Hertwig says: “The principle of utility, the conviction of the necessity of unrestricted commercial and social competition, materialistic tendencies in philosophy, are forces that would have played an important part, even without Darwin. Those who were already under their influence greeted Darwinism as a scientific confirmation of the ideas they already cherished. They could now look at themselves, as it were, in the mirror of science.”

“The interpretation of Darwin's teaching,” Oskar Hertwig continues, “which is so ambiguous in its uncertainties, also allows for a varied application in the other spheres of economic, social and political life. Each person can get what he wants from it, just as from the Delphic oracle, and can draw his own conclusions concerning social, hygienic, medical and other questions, and can call on the scientific learning of the new Darwinian biology with its unalterable laws of nature, to confirm his own views. If however these laws of nature are not what they are made out to be”—and Oskar Hertwig sets out to prove, and does prove, that they are not really laws of nature, “could there not also be social dangers when they are applied in various ways to other spheres? We surely do not believe that human society can use for fifty years such phrases as bitter struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, of the most useful, the most expedient, perfection by selection etc., without being deeply and substantially influenced in the whole direction of this kind of ideas.”

This is what a scientist is already saying today. He is not just saying that these materialistically formulated ideas of Darwinism are wrong, but that they are injurious, that they inevitably lead to difficulties in the soul life, and to social and political harm. Only the restricted and one-sided views of certain scientists could maintain otherwise. And sometimes this works out in the most terrible way.

A great scientist of the present day for whom I have great respect—and it is just because I have respect for him that I cite him now—hints in a remarkable way at how the scientist does not perhaps wish to be understood, but at how he must be understood on the basis of his attitude toward what can be expected of a purely naturalistic view of nature. The scientist, for whom I have the greatest respect, says at the end of a significant book—and these are now his own words that I am quoting: “We live today in the best period of time”—this is what he maintains, it cannot be proved with full validity, but he asserts: “we live today in the best period of time, at least we scientists, and we can even hope for better,” he says, “for in comparing the science of today with the achievements of earlier scientists we can say with Goethe who knew so much about nature and the world:

The pleasure ... is great, to cast

The mind into the spirit of the past,

And scan the former notions of the wise,

And see what marvelous heights we've reached at last.”

—Thus speaks a first class scientist at the end of an important book!

I do not know whether many people notice and think about the person whom Goethe makes say this. Is it really Goethe, the one who knew so much about the world and nature, who says this? No, he puts it into the mouth of Wagner

And Faust replies to Wagner:

“How strange, that he who cleaves to shallow things

Can keep his hopes alive on empty terms

And dig with greed for precious plunderings,

And find his happiness unearthing worms!”

This is the real view of the one who knew so much about the world and nature!

And if scientists today do not yet realize what can be built on the basis of the sound foundations to be found in a view of the world, such as also shone through Goethe, one can understand what Oskar Hertwig so rightly says: The materialistic conception of the world and Darwinism with its materialistic bias have arisen out of the general materialistic attitude of the times, their naturalistic methods, their materialistic impulses and feelings, and which have then been applied to nature. But the facts disprove this.

The scientist of spirit replies to this out of what he believes to be a deeper knowledge of the world and of man: No, it is not such a narrow view like the one prevalent around the middle of the 19th century that should affect our study of nature, but our views should be formulated according to the highest possible content that spirit and soul can attain, and they should then be applied to nature to see if nature really confirms them. We can then expect that the resultant view will not be anything like Darwinism. This latter believed the world to exist according to certain laws and, as we have seen, nature herself has disproved this belief.

The science of spirit strives to study the human soul in its depths, and to draw out of these depths the spirit that exists in the broadest and most embracing sense as the foundation of existence in spiritual beings and forces. It is not a one-sided but a many-sided path that it takes, for there is not only one path it follows, but it follows all the paths on which the human soul is led, from out of its own rich inner life. The science of spirit may be allowed to hope that the questions, the mysteries, which nature has put to it will not be refuted by nature, but that the spirit in nature will affirm them because the spirit that lives in nature also lives in man, and not, as in the other case, to deny what the science of spirit or anthroposophy envisages the real nature of the human mystery to be.