Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I
GA 215
16 September 1921, Dornach
IX. Synopsis of a Lecture from the “French Course”
Today is the time of intellectualism. The intellect is the faculty of soul, in the exercise of which our inner being participates least. We speak with some justification of the coldness of intellect, and we need only consider its effect on artistic perception or works of art. The intellect destroys or hinders. Artists dread the possibility that their creations might be conceptually or symbolically explained by clever reasoning. They would like their work to be understood with feeling, not with understanding. The soul warmth that gave their creations life disappears in such clarity; it no longer is communicated to the beholder. This warmth is repelled by an intellectual explanation.
In social life, intellectualism separates people from one another. We cannot work rightly within the community unless we are able to imbue our deeds, which always involve the weal or woe of our fellow human beings with a soul quality. Deeds alone, lacking soul, are not enough. In a deed springing from intellectualism, we withhold our soul nature, preventing it from flowing over to our neighbor.
It has often been said that intellectualism has a crippling effect in the teaching and training of children. In saying this, one is thinking, in the first place, only of the child’s intelligence, not the teacher’s. One would like to fashion the methods of teaching in such a way that not only the child’s cold powers of reasoning are developed, but that warmth of heart may be engendered in the child as well.
The anthroposophical world-view is in full agreement with this. It accepts fully the excellent educational principles that have grown from this demand. But it realizes that warmth can be imparted only from soul to soul. Hence, it is of the opinion that, above all, pedagogy itself must become ensouled and thereby the teacher’s whole activity too.
In recent times, indirectly influenced by modern science, teacher training has been strongly permeated by intellectualism. Parents have allowed science to dictate what is beneficial for a child’s body, soul, and spirit; and so teachers, during their training, have received from science the spirit of their educational methods.
But science has achieved its triumphs precisely through intellectualism. It tries to keep its thoughts free from anything emanating from human soul life. Everything must come from sensory observation and experimentation. Such science could amass the excellent knowledge of nature in our times, but it cannot found a true pedagogy.
A true pedagogy must be based on a knowledge comprising the human body, soul, and spirit. Intellectualism grasps only the physical aspect of the human being, for only what is physical is revealed to observation and experiments. True knowledge of human beings is necessary before a true pedagogy can be founded. This is what anthroposophy seeks to attain.
One cannot come to knowledge of human beings by first forming an idea of the bodily nature with the help of a science founded merely on what can be grasped by the senses, and then asking whether that bodily nature is ensouled, and whether a spiritual element is active within it. In dealing with a child, such an attitude is harmful; for here, far more than in the adult, body, soul, and spirit form a unity. One cannot care first for the health of a child from the point of view of a merely natural science, and then want to give to the healthy organism what one regards as proper from the point of view of soul and spirit. In all that one does to and with the child, one either benefits or injures his bodily life. In earthly life, the human soul and spirit express themselves through the body. A bodily process is a revelation of soul and spirit.
Material science is necessarily concerned with the body as a physical organism. It does not reach an understanding of whole human beings. Many people feel the truth of this but, in regard to pedagogy, they fail to see what is actually needed today. They do not say: pedagogy cannot thrive on material science; let us therefore found our teaching methods on pedagogical instincts, not on material science. But they are half-consciously of this opinion.
We can admit this in theory but, in practice, because modern humanity has mostly lost the spontaneity of the life of instinct, it leads to nothing. It would be groping in the dark to try to construct a pedagogy on instincts that are no longer present in humanity in their original force. We come to see this through anthroposophical knowledge. We learn to know that the intellectualistic trend in science owes its existence to a necessary phase in the evolution of humanity. In recent times, people passed beyond the period of instinctive life. The intellect then became of predominant significance. Human beings had to advance along the evolutionary path in the right way. Just as an individual must acquire particular capabilities at a particular period of life, the evolutionary path led human beings to the level of consciousness that had to be attained in a certain epoch. The instincts are now crippled under the influence of the intellect, and yet one cannot try to return to the instinctive life without working against human evolution. We must accept the significance of the enhanced consciousness we attained through intellectualism, and give human beings—in full consciousness—what instinctive life can no longer give them.
To this end, knowledge of soul and spirit is needed, founded as firmly on spiritual reality as material, intellectualistic science is founded on physical reality. Anthroposophy strives for just this, yet it is just this that many people shrink from accepting. They learn to know how modern science tries to understand human nature. They feel that the modern scientific way is impossible, but they will not accept that, in order to attain knowledge of soul and spirit, it is possible to cultivate a new mode of cognition that is as clear in consciousness as that with which we penetrate physical phenomena. This being so, they want to return to the instincts as a way of understanding and training children.
But we must move forward; and there is no other way than to extend anthropology by knowledge of anthroposophy—to extend sensory knowledge by acquiring spiritual knowledge. We must learn all over again. People are terrified at the complete change of thought required for this. Out of unconscious fear, they attack anthroposophy as fantastic, yet anthroposophy wants only to proceed in the spiritual domain as soberly and as carefully as material science does in the physical.
Let us consider the child. At about the seventh year of life, a child develops his or her second teeth. This is not merely the work of the period of time immediately preceding this change. It is a process that begins with embryonic development and only concludes with the second teeth. These forces, which produce the second teeth at a certain stage of development, were always active in the child’s organism. But they do not reveal themselves in this way in subsequent periods of life. Further tooth formations do not occur. And yet the forces concerned have not been lost, they continue to work, they have merely been transformed. They have undergone a metamorphosis (there are other forces, too, in the child’s organism that undergo a similar metamorphosis).
If we study the development of the child’s organism in this way, we discover how these forces (leading to the change of teeth) were previously active in the processes of nourishment and growth. They lived in undivided unity with the child’s body, freeing themselves from it only around the seventh year. After the change of teeth, then, they live on as soul forces, active in older children in feeling and thinking.
Anthroposophy reveals that an etheric organism permeates the physical organism of the human being. Up to the age of seven, the whole of this etheric organism is active in the physical body. But a portion of it is now freed from direct activity in the physical body and acquires a certain independence as a vehicle for a soul life that is relatively free of the physical organism.
In earthly life, however, soul experience can develop only with the help of the etheric organism. Before the age of seven years, the soul is quite embedded in the physical body and expresses itself actively only through the body. The child can enter into relationship with the outer world only when this relationship takes the form of a stimulus that runs its course within the body. This can happen only when the child imitates. Before the change of teeth, the child is, in the widest sense, a purely imitative being. The aim of education at this stage can therefore be expressed thus: the conduct of those around the child should be worthy of imitation.
A child’s educators should experience within themselves what it is to have the whole etheric organism within the physical. This gives them knowledge of the child. One can do nothing with abstract principles alone. Educational practice requires an anthroposophical art of education to work out in detail how, through childhood, a human being gradually emerges. Just as the etheric organism is embedded in the physical organism until the change of teeth, so, from the change of teeth until puberty, a soul organism, called by anthroposophy the astral organism, is embedded in the physical and etheric organism. As a result, the child develops a life that no longer expends itself in imitation. However, children of this age cannot govern their relation to others in accordance with fully conscious thoughts, regulated by intellectual judgment. This becomes possible only when, at puberty, a part of the soul organism frees itself from the corresponding part of the etheric organism. From the age of seven to the age of fourteen, the child’s relationship is not determined by independent judgment. It is the relationship effected through authority that is important now.
This means that, during these years, children should look up to someone whose authority they can accept as a matter of course. The whole education must be fashioned with reference to this. One cannot build on children’s powers of intellectual judgment at this age. One should perceive clearly that children want to accept what is put before them as true, good, and beautiful because their teachers, whom they take as their models, regard it as true, good, and beautiful.
Moreover, teachers must work in such a way that they do not merely put before the child the true, the good, and the beautiful, but, in a sense, they themselves must be these. Not so much what they teach but what the teachers are is what passes over into the children. Everything that is taught should be presented to the children not as a matter of theory but as a realizable ideal, as a work of art.
Ein Vortrag Über Pädagogik Während des «Französischen Kurses» am Goetheanum
Die Gegenwart ist die Zeit des Intellektualismus. Der Intellekt ist diejenige Seelenkraft, bei deren Betätigung der Mensch am wenigsten mit dem Inneren seines Wesens beteiligt ist. Man spricht nicht mit Unrecht von dem kalten intellektuellen Wesen. Man braucht nur daran zu denken, wie der Intellekt auf die künstlerische Anschauung und Betätigung wirkt. Er vertreibt oder beeinträchtigt sie. Künstler fürchten sich auch davor, daß ihre Schöpfungen von der Intelligenz begrifflich oder symbolisch erklärt werden. In dieser Klarheit verschwindet die Seelenwärme, die im Schaffen den Werken das Leben gegeben hat. Der Künstler möchte sein Werk von dem Gefühle, nicht von dem Verstande, ergriffen wissen. Denn dann geht die Wärme, in der er es erlebt hat, in den Betrachter hinüber. Von der intellektuellen Erklärung aber wird diese Wärme zurückgestoßen.
Im sozialen Leben ist es so, daß der Intellektualismus die Menschen voneinander absondert. Sie können in der Gemeinschaft nur recht wirken, wenn sie ihren Handlungen, die stets auch Wohl und Wehe der Mitmenschen bedeuten, etwas von ihrer Seele mitgeben können. Ein Mensch muß an dem anderen nicht nur dessen Betätigung erleben, sondern etwas von dessen Seele. In einer Handlung aber, die dem Intellektualismus entspringt, hält der Mensch sein Seelisches zurück. Er läßt es nicht in den anderen Menschen hinüberfließen.
Man spricht schon lange davon, daß in Unterricht und Erziehung der Intellektualismus lähmend wirkt. Man denkt dabei zunächst nur an die Intelligenz des Kindes, nicht an die des Erziehenden. Man will die Erziehungs- und Unterrichtsmethoden so gestalten, daß in dem Kinde nicht bloß der kalte Verstand in Wirksamkeit tritt und zur Entwickelung kommt, sondern daß in ihm auch die Wärme des Herzens entfaltet wird.
Die anthroposophische Weltanschauung ist damit vollkommen einverstanden. Sie anerkennt im vollsten Maße die vorzüglichen Erziehungsmaximen, welche durch diese Forderung Leben gewonnen haben. Aber sie ist sich klar darüber, daß Seele nur von Seele mit Wärme erfüllt werden kann. Deshalb meint sie, daß vor allem die Pädagogik selbst und dadurch die ganze pädagogische Tätigkeit der Erziehenden beseelt werden müsse.
In die Unterrichts- und Erziehungsmethoden ist im Laufe der neueren Zeit stark der Intellektualismus eingezogen. Es ist ihm dieses auf dem Umwege durch das moderne wissenschaftliche Leben gelungen. Die Eltern lassen sich von der Wissenschaft sagen, was dem Leiblichen, Seelischen und Geistigen des Kindes gut ist. Die Lehrer empfangen in ihrer eigenen Ausbildung von der Wissenschaft den Geist ihrer Erziehungsmethoden.
Aber diese Wissenschaft ist zu ihren Triumphen eben durch den Intellektualismus gekommen. Sie will ihren Gedanken gar nicht etwas von dem eigenen Seelenleben des Menschen mitgeben. Sie will ihnen alles geben lassen von der sinnlichen Beobachtung und dem Experiment.
Eine solche Wissenschaft kann die ausgezeichnete Naturerkenntnis ausbilden, die in der neueren Zeit entstanden ist. Sie kann aber nicht eine wahre Pädagogik begründen.
Eine solche aber muß auf einem Wissen ruhen, das den Menschen nach Leib, Seele und Geist umfaßt. Der Intellektualismus erfaßt den Menschen nur nach dem Leibe. Denn der Beobachtung und dem Experiment offenbart sich nur das Leibliche.
Es ist erst eine wahre Menschenerkenntnis notwendig, bevor eine wahre Pädagogik begründet werden kann. Und eine wahre Menschenerkenntnis möchte die Anthroposophie erringen.
Man kann den Menschen nicht so erkennen, daß man erst seine leibliche Wesenheit durch eine bloß auf das sinnlich Erfaßbare begründete Wissenschaft in der Vorstellung aufbaut und dann frägt, ob diese Wesenheit auch beseelt ist, und ob in ihr ein Geistiges tätig ist.
Für die Behandlung des Kindes ist eine solche Stellung zur Menschenerkenntnis schädlich. Denn weit mehr als beim Erwachsenen sind im Kinde Leib, Seele und Geist eine Lebenseinheit. Man kann nicht erst nach Gesichtspunkten einer bloßen Sinneswissenschaft für die Gesundheit des Kindes sorgen, und dann dem gesunden Organismus das beibringen wollen, was man für es seelisch und geistig angemessen hält. In jedem einzelnen, das man seelisch-geistig an dem Kinde und mit dem Kinde vollbringt, greift man gesundend oder schädlich in sein Leibesleben ein. Seele und Geist wirken sich im Erdendasein des Menschen leiblich aus. Der leibliche Vorgang ist eine Offenbarung des Seelischen und Geistigen.
Die Sinneswissenschaft kann nur auf den Leib als Wesen mit körperhaften Vorgängen gerichtet sein; sie kommt nicht zu einer Erfassung des ganzen Menschen.
Man fühlt dieses, indem man auf die Pädagogik hinsieht. Aber man verkennt dabei, was in dieser Beziehung der Gegenwart not tut. Man sagt es nicht deutlich, aber man meint es in einer halben Bewußtheit: Durch Sinneswissenschaft kann die Pädagogik nicht gedeihen, also begründe man nicht aus dieser Wissenschaft, sondern aus den Erziehungsinstinkten heraus die pädagogischen Methoden.
Das wäre in der Theorie anzuerkennen. Aber in der Praxis führt es zu nichts. Denn die moderne Mensghheit hat die Ursprünglichkeit des Instinktlebens verloren. Es bleibt ein Tappen im dunkeln, wenn man aus heute nicht mehr elementar im Menschen vorhandenen Instinkten eine instinktive Pädagogik aufbauen will.
Das wird durch die anthroposophische Erkenntnis eingesehen. Durch sie kann man wissen, daß die intellektualistische Orientierung in der Wissenschaft einer notwendigen Phase in der Entwickelung der Menschheit ihr Dasein verdankt. Die Menschheit der neueren Zeit ist aus der. Periode des Instinktlebens herausgetreten. Der Intellekt hat seine hervorragende Bedeutung erhalten. Die Menschheit brauchte ihn, um auf ihrer Entwickelungsbahn in der rechten Weise fortzuschreiten. Er führt sie zu demjenigen Grade der Bewußtheit, den sie in einem gewissen Zeitalter erklimmen muß, wie der einzelne Mensch in einem Lebensalter gewisse Fähigkeiten erringen muß. Aber unter dem Einflusse des Intellektes werden die Instinkte abgelähmt. Man kann nicht, ohne gegen die Entwickelung der Menschheit zu arbeiten, zu dem Instinktleben wieder zurückkehren wollen. Man muß die Bedeutung der Vollbewußtheit anerkennen, die durch den Intellektualismus errungen ist. Und man muß dem Menschen in dieser Vollbewußtheit das auch vollbewußt wieder geben, was ihm kein Instinktleben heute mehr geben kann.
Dazu braucht man eine Erkenntnis des Geistigen und Seelischen, die ebenso auf Wirklichkeit begründet ist wie die im Intellektualismus begründete Sinneswissenschaft. Eine solche strebt die Anthroposophie an. Dies anzuerkennen, davor schrecken viele Menschen heute noch zurück. Sie lernen die Art kennen, wie die moderne Wissenschaft den Menschen verstehen will. Ste fühlen, so kann man ihn nicht erkennen. Daß aber eine neue Art weiter ausgebildet werden könne, um in ebensolcher Bewußtheit zu Seele und Geist vorzudringen wie zum Körperhaften, dazu will man sich nicht bekennen. Deshalb will man für die Erfassung und erziehliche Behandlung des Menschlichen wieder zu den Instinkten zurückkehren.
Aber man muß vorwärtsgehen; und dazu hilft nichts als zu der Anthropologie eine Anthroposophie, zu der Sinneserkenntnis vom Menschen eine Geisteserkenntnis hinzugewinnen. Das völlige Umlernen und Umdenken, das dazu nötig ist, erschreckt die Menschen. Und aus einem unbewußten Schreck heraus klagen sie die Anthroposophie als phantastisch an, während sie nur auf dem Geistgebiete so besonnen vorgehen will wie die Sinneswissenschaft auf dem physischen.
Man sehe auf das Kind hin. Es entwickelt um das siebente Lebensjahr herum seine zweiten Zähne. Diese Entwickelung ist nicht das Werk bloß des Zeitabschnittes um das siebente Jahr herum. Sie ist ein Geschehen, das mit der Embryonalentwickelung beginnt und im zweiten Zahnen nur den Abschluß findet. Es waren immer schon Kräfte in dem kindlichen Organismus tätig, welche auf einer gewissen Stufe der Entwickelung die zweiten Zähne zur Entwickelung bringen. Diese Kräfte offenbaren sich in dieser Art in den folgenden Lebensabschnitten nicht mehr. Weitere Zahnbildungen finden nicht statt. Aber die entsprechenden Kräfte haben sich nicht verloren; sie wirken weiter; sie haben sich bloß umgewandelt. Sie haben eine Metamorphose durchgemacht. Es finden sich noch andere Kräfte im kindlichen Organismus, die in ähnlicher Art eine Metamorphose durchmachen.
Betrachtet man in dieser Art den kindlichen Organismus in seiner Entfaltung, so kommt man darauf, daß die Kräfte, um die es sich da handelt, vor dem Zahnwechsel in dem physischen Organismus tätig sind. Sie sind untergetaucht in die Ernährungs- und Wachstumsprozesse. Sie leben in ungetrennter Einheit mit dem Körperlichen. Um das siebente Lebensjahr herum machen sie sich von dem Körper unabhängig. Sie leben als seelische Kräfte weiter. Wir finden sie in dem älteren Kinde tätig im Fühlen, im Denken.
Die Anthroposophie zeigt, wie dem physischen Organismus des Menschen ein ätherischer eingegliedert ist. Dieser ätherische Organismus ist bis zum siebenten Lebensjahre in seiner ganzen Ausdehnung im physischen Organismus tätig. In diesem Lebensabschnitte wird ein Teil des ätherischen Organismus frei von der unmittelbaren Betätigung am physischen Organismus. Er erlangt eine gewisse Selbständigkeit. Mit dieser wird er auch ein selbständiger, von dem physischen Organismus relativ unabhängiger Träger des seelischen Lebens.
Da sich aber das seelische Erleben nur mit Hilfe dieses ätherischen Organismus im Erdendasein entfalten kann, so steckt das Seelische vor dem siebenten Lebensjahre ganz in dem Körperlichen darinnen. Soll in diesem Lebensalter Seelisches wirksam werden, so muß die Wirksamkeit körperlich sich offenbaren. Das Kind kann nur mit der Außenwelt in ein Verhältnis kommen, wenn dieses Verhältnis einen Reiz darstellt, der körperlich sich ausleben kann. Das ist nur dann der Fall, wenn das Kind nachahmt. Vor dem Zahnwechsel ist das Kind ein rein nachahmendes Wesen im umfassendsten Sinne. Seine Erziehung kann nur darinnen bestehen, daß die Menschen seiner Umgebung ihm das vormachen, was es nachahmen soll.
Der Erzieher soll in sich selbst erleben, wie der menschliche physische Organismus ist, wenn dieser noch seinen ganzen ätherischen Organismus in sich hat. Das gibt die Menschenkenntnis des Kindes. Mit dem abstrakten Prinzip allein ist nichts anzufangen. Für die Erziehungspraxis ist notwendig, daß eine anthroposophische Erziehungskunst im einzelnen entwickelt, wie sich der Mensch als Kind offenbart.
Zwischen dem Zahnwechsel und der Geschlechtsreife steckt nun im physischen und im ätherischen Organismus ein seelischer Organismus darinnen - der von der Anthroposophie astralisch genannte — wie bis zum Zahnwechsel der ätherische im physischen.
Das bedingt, daß für dieses Lebensalter das Kind ein Leben entwikkelt, das sich nicht mehr in der Nachahmung erschöpft. Aber es kann auch noch nicht nach vollbewußten, vom intellektuellen Urteil geregelten Gedanken, sein Verhältnis zu anderen Menschen bestimmen. Das ist erst möglich, wenn ein Teil des Seelenorganismus mit der Geschlechtsreife sich von dem entsprechenden Teile des ätherischen Organismus zur Selbständigkeit loslöst. Vom siebenten bis zum vierzehnten oder fünfzehnten Lebensjahre ist das Bestimmende für das Kind nicht diejenige Orientierung an den Menschen seiner Umgebung, die durch die Urteilskraft, sondern diejenige, die durch die Autorität bewirkt wird.
Das aber hat zur Folge, daß die Erziehung für diese Lebensjahre ganz im Sinne der Entwickelung einer selbstverständlichen Autorität gestaltet werden muß. Man kann nicht auf die Verstandesbeurteilung des Kindes bauen, sondern man muß durchschauen, wie das Kind annehmen will, was ihm als wahr, gut, schön entgegentritt, weil es sieht, daß sein vorbildlicher Erzieher dies für wahr, gut, schön hält.
Dazu muß dieser Erzieher so wirken, daß er gewissermaßen das Wahre, Gute und Schöne dem Kinde nicht bloß darstellt, sondern es ist. Was er ist, geht auf das Kind über, nicht, was er ihm lehrt. Alle Lehre muß wesenhaft im Vorbilde vor das Kind hingestellt werden. Das Lehren selbst muß ein Kunstwerk, kein theoretischer Inhalt sein.
A Lecture on Education During the “French Course” at the Goetheanum
The present is the age of intellectualism. The intellect is the soul force whose activity involves the human being least in the inner life of his being. It is not without reason that people speak of the cold intellectual being. One need only think of how the intellect affects artistic perception and activity. It drives it away or impairs it. Artists also fear that their creations will be explained conceptually or symbolically by the intellect. In this clarity, the warmth of the soul that gave life to the works in the creative process disappears. The artist wants his work to be touched by emotion, not by reason. For then the warmth in which he experienced it is transferred to the viewer. But intellectual explanation repels this warmth.
In social life, intellectualism separates people from one another. They can only function properly in the community if they can impart something of their soul to their actions, which always affect the welfare and misfortune of their fellow human beings. A person must experience not only the actions of another, but also something of their soul. In an action that springs from intellectualism, however, the person holds back their soul. They do not allow it to flow over into other people.
It has long been said that intellectualism has a paralyzing effect in teaching and education. At first, one thinks only of the intelligence of the child, not that of the educator. The aim is to design educational and teaching methods in such a way that not only the cold intellect comes into play and develops in the child, but also the warmth of the heart.
The anthroposophical worldview is in complete agreement with this. It fully recognizes the excellent educational principles that have come to life through this demand. But it is clear that the soul can only be filled with warmth by the soul. Therefore, it believes that pedagogy itself and, through it, the entire educational activity of educators must be inspired.
In recent times, intellectualism has strongly influenced teaching and educational methods. It has achieved this indirectly through modern scientific life. Parents allow science to tell them what is good for their child's physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Teachers receive the spirit of their educational methods from science in their own training.
But this science has achieved its triumphs precisely through intellectualism. It does not want to impart anything of the human soul to its ideas. It wants to let them be based entirely on sensory observation and experimentation.
Such science can develop the excellent knowledge of nature that has emerged in recent times. But it cannot establish a true pedagogy.
Such a pedagogy must be based on knowledge that encompasses the human being in body, soul, and spirit. Intellectualism grasps the human being only in terms of the body. For only the physical reveals itself to observation and experiment.
A true understanding of the human being is necessary before a true pedagogy can be established. And anthroposophy seeks to achieve a true understanding of the human being.
One cannot understand human beings by first constructing an image of their physical being based on a science founded solely on what can be perceived by the senses, and then asking whether this being is also animated and whether a spiritual force is at work within it.
Such an approach to understanding human beings is harmful when it comes to treating children. For in children, far more than in adults, body, soul, and spirit form a single living entity. One cannot first care for a child's health according to the principles of a science based solely on the senses, and then try to teach the healthy organism what one considers appropriate for its soul and spirit. In everything that is done spiritually and psychologically to and with the child, one intervenes in its physical life in a healing or harmful way. The soul and spirit have a physical effect on human existence on earth. The physical process is a revelation of the soul and spirit.
The science of the senses can only be directed toward the body as a being with physical processes; it cannot comprehend the whole human being.
One senses this when looking at pedagogy. But in doing so, one fails to recognize what is needed in this regard at present. It is not said explicitly, but it is implied in a half-conscious awareness: Pedagogy cannot flourish through sensory science, so pedagogical methods should not be based on this science, but on educational instincts.
This would be acceptable in theory. But in practice it leads nowhere. For modern humanity has lost the originality of instinctive life. It remains a matter of groping in the dark if one wants to build an instinctive pedagogy on instincts that are no longer elemental in human beings today.
This is understood through anthroposophical knowledge. Through it, one can know that the intellectualistic orientation in science owes its existence to a necessary phase in the development of humanity. Modern humanity has emerged from the period of instinctive life. The intellect has gained outstanding importance. Humanity needed it in order to progress along its path of development in the right way. It leads humanity to the level of consciousness that it must attain in a certain age, just as the individual human being must acquire certain abilities at a certain age. But under the influence of the intellect, the instincts become dulled. One cannot want to return to instinctive life without working against the development of humanity. One must recognize the importance of full consciousness, which has been achieved through intellectualism. And in this full consciousness, we must consciously give back to human beings what instinctive life can no longer give them today.
This requires a knowledge of the spiritual and the soul that is just as grounded in reality as the sensory science based on intellectualism. Anthroposophy strives for this. Many people today still shy away from recognizing this. They learn about the way modern science wants to understand human beings. They feel that this is not the way to understand them. But they do not want to admit that a new way could be developed to penetrate the soul and spirit with the same consciousness as the physical body. Therefore, people want to return to instincts in order to understand and educate human beings.
But we must move forward, and the only way to do this is to add anthroposophy to anthropology, to add spiritual knowledge to sensory knowledge of human beings. The complete re-learning and rethinking that this requires frightens people. And out of an unconscious fear, they accuse anthroposophy of being fantastical, when it only seeks to proceed in the spiritual realm as prudently as sensory science does in the physical realm.
Consider the child. Around the age of seven, it develops its second set of teeth. This development is not merely the work of the period around the age of seven. It is a process that begins with embryonic development and only reaches its conclusion with the second set of teeth. Forces have always been at work in the child's organism, which at a certain stage of development bring about the development of the second set of teeth. These forces no longer manifest themselves in this way in the following stages of life. No further teeth are formed. But the corresponding forces have not been lost; they continue to work; they have merely been transformed. They have undergone a metamorphosis. There are other forces in the child's organism that undergo a similar metamorphosis.
If we consider the child's organism in this way as it develops, we come to the conclusion that the forces in question are active in the physical organism before the teeth change. They are submerged in the processes of nutrition and growth. They live in inseparable unity with the physical. Around the age of seven, they become independent of the body. They continue to live as soul forces. We find them active in the older child in feeling and thinking.
Anthroposophy shows how an etheric organism is integrated into the physical organism of the human being. This etheric organism is active in its entirety in the physical organism until the age of seven. During this phase of life, part of the etheric organism becomes free from its direct activity in the physical organism. It gains a certain independence. With this, it also becomes an independent carrier of soul life, relatively independent of the physical organism.
However, since spiritual experience can only unfold in earthly existence with the help of this etheric organism, the spiritual is completely contained within the physical before the age of seven. If the spiritual is to become effective at this age, its effectiveness must manifest itself physically. The child can only enter into a relationship with the outside world if this relationship represents a stimulus that can be acted out physically. This is only the case when the child imitates. Before the change of teeth, the child is a purely imitative being in the broadest sense. Its education can only consist of the people around it showing it what it should imitate.
The educator should experience within themselves what the human physical organism is like when it still has its entire etheric organism within it. This provides an understanding of the child's nature. The abstract principle alone is of no use. For educational practice, it is necessary that an anthroposophical art of education be developed in detail, showing how the human being reveals itself as a child.
Between the change of teeth and sexual maturity, there is now a soul organism within the physical and etheric organism – called astral by anthroposophy – just as the etheric organism was within the physical organism until the change of teeth.
This means that at this age, the child develops a life that is no longer limited to imitation. However, it is not yet able to determine its relationship to other people based on fully conscious thoughts governed by intellectual judgment. This is only possible when, with sexual maturity, part of the soul organism detaches itself from the corresponding part of the etheric organism and becomes independent. From the age of seven to fourteen or fifteen, what determines the child's behavior is not the orientation toward the people around them that is brought about by their power of judgment, but that which is brought about by authority.
The consequence of this is that education during these years must be designed entirely with a view to developing a natural authority. One cannot rely on the child's intellectual judgment, but must understand how the child is willing to accept what it encounters as true, good, and beautiful because it sees that its exemplary educator considers it to be true, good, and beautiful.
To this end, the educator must act in such a way that he or she not only presents the true, good, and beautiful to the child, but also embodies it. What the educator is is transferred to the child, not what he or she teaches. All teaching must be presented to the child in an exemplary manner. Teaching itself must be a work of art, not theoretical content.