Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy II
GA 304a
25 March 1923, Stuttgart
III. Education and Art
Ladies and Gentlemen! From the time of Ancient Greece, a familiar and much discussed phrase has come to us like a warning cry to the depths of the human soul: “Human Being, know yourself!” These words, though rarely heeded as such, call us with power. They can be interpreted as asking us to become aware, not only of our true being in the most important activities of soul and spirit, but also of our significance as human beings in the world order.
Ordinarily, when such a call sounds forth from a culturally significant center at a particular time in history, it does not indicate something easily attainable, but rather to the lack of ability; it points toward something not easily fulfilled.
If we look back at earlier historical epochs, not superficially or theoretically but with a real feeling for history, we shall experience how such a call indicates a decrease rather than an increase in the power of human self-knowledge. In previous times of human evolution, religious experience, artistic sense, and the inner comprehension of ideals still worked together in harmony. One can feel how, at that time when religion, art, and science still formed a unity, human beings felt themselves, naturally, to be likenesses or images of the divine spirit, living within and permeating the world. They felt themselves to be God-sent entities on Earth. During those ancient days, it was self-evident that seeking knowledge of the human being was also part of seeking knowledge of the gods—divine knowledge—the spiritual foundations, experienced and thought of as the ground of the world, and felt to be working also in the human being.
In remote times, when human beings spoke the word that would represent the word I in our current language, it expressed for them both the essence of fundamental world forces and their inherent world-being. The word thus indicated that the human self resonated with something much greater than the individual self, something pointing at the creative working in the universe. During the course of evolution, it became more and more difficult to reach what had been accepted naturally at one time, just as perceptible as color is today to our eyes. If these earlier people had heard the call for self-knowledge (which could hardly have come from an earthly being), if they had perceived the call “Know yourself!” as coming from a supersensible being, they may well have answered, “Why is it necessary to make such an effort for self-knowledge?” For human beings saw and felt themselves as reflections of the divine spirit that shines, sounds, warms, and blesses throughout the world. They felt that if one knows what the wind carries through the trees, what the lightning sends through the air, what rolls in the thunder, what constantly changes in the cloud formations, what lives in a blade of grass, what blossoms in the flower, then one also knows the human self.
A time came when such knowledge of the world, which was simultaneously knowledge of the divine spirit, was no longer possible, due to humanity’s increasing spiritual independence; the phrase “Know yourself!” began to be heard in the depths of human consciousness. It indicated something that had been a natural gift until that point, but was now becoming an exertion.
There is an important epoch of human evolution between the earlier admonition “Know yourself!” and another phrase coined much later, in our own times, in the last third of the nineteenth century. The later saying, voiced by the eminent natural scientist Du Bois-Reymond, rang out like a negative answer to the Apollonian call “Know yourself!” with the word Ignorabimus—“we are fated to ignorance.” Ignorabimus expressed Du Bois-Reymond’s opinion that modern knowledge of nature, despite its immense progress, was fated to be arrested at the frontier of natural science. A significant stretch of human soul development exists between these two historically momentous utterances. In the meantime, enough inner human strength survived as a residue of ancient times that, what previously had been a matter of course—that is, to look for the essence of the human being in the outer appearance of divine existence—now meant that, in due time, by strength of inner effort, the human being would gradually attain self-knowledge again. But this force of self-knowledge became increasingly weaker. By the last third of the nineteenth century, it had become so weak that, after the sun of self-knowledge had set, the negative counterpart of the Apollonian positive was heard: “Human being, you will never know yourself.”
For contemporary natural history, attuned to the needs of our time, to confess it impossible to fathom the secrets of consciousness working in matter, amounts to admitting that knowledge of the human being is completely unattainable. At this point something else must be mentioned: When the call “Human Being, know yourself!” was heard, self-knowledge, which in earlier times had also been knowledge of God, was already passing through its twilight stages; and in just that way the renunciation of self-knowledge was in its twilight stages by the time we were told, “Resign yourself! There is no self-knowledge, no knowledge of the human being.”
Again the words indicate not so much what is said directly, as to its opposite, which is what present-day humanity is experiencing. Precisely because the power of self-knowledge has increasingly weakened, the urge for the knowledge of the human being has made itself felt, an urge that comes, not from the intellect, nor from any theoretical ideas, but from the realm of the heart, from the deepest recesses of the soul. It was felt generally that the methods of natural science could not discover humankind’s true nature, despite the brilliant successes of natural-scientific research that had benefited humanity to such a degree. At the same time there was a strong feeling that, somehow, paths must exist.
The birth of this new search for knowledge of the human being, as expressed by natural scientists, included, side by side with other fundamental branches of life, the pedagogical movement, the movement to evolve a proper relationship between the human being and the growing human being—between the adult and the child who needs to be educated and taught. This movement prompted the call most strongly for a renewal of knowledge of the human being, even if outwardly expressed in opposite terms—namely, that such knowledge was beyond human reach. At the very time that these sentiments were being expressed, there was a growing conviction among those who really cared for the education of the young, that intellectualism, knowledge based only on external sense observation and its consequent interpretation, was unsuitable to provide human beings with what they need to teach and educate young people, the growing young men and women. One therefore heard increasingly the call for changing priorities between the training of rational thinking, which has made such precious contributions to the modern world, and the education of the children’s feeling life and of the forces of human will. Children were not to be turned into “know-it-alls,” but overall capacities for practical life were to be nurtured and encouraged.
There is one strange omission in this general demand for a renewal of education, however: the necessity to base educational demands on a clear insight into the evolving human being, into the child, rather than to depend on the teachers’ vague subconscious instincts. The opinion is that, while nature can be known, it is impossible to penetrate human nature in depth and in full consciousness in a way that would help educators. Indeed, one particular trend of modern pedagogy renounces any attempt to develop a conscious, thoughtful understanding of the human being, depending instead on the teachers’ supposed educational instincts. Any unbiased judge of the current situation has to acknowledge the existence (among a wide range of very praiseworthy pedagogical movements) of a strong tendency to build educational aims on elementary and instinctual human nature. One depends on vague, instinctive impulses because of a conviction that it is impossible to gain conscious knowledge of the depths of the human being.
Only when one can see through such an attitude in the contemporary spiritual and cultural life with the human interest it deserves, can one appreciate the aims of the science of the spirit as it applies to the development of pedagogical sense and competence. This science of the spirit does not draw its substance from ancient forms of human knowledge; nevertheless, it offers new possibilities in the praiseworthy natural-scientific urge to penetrate into the depths of human nature, especially in the field of education. Knowledge of the human being can only be attained in full consciousness, for we have definitely passed the stage when human beings lived by instinct. We cannot, of course, jettison instinct or elemental-primeval forces altogether, yet we need to work toward a fully conscious penetration into all the beings that come to meet us in human life.
It may feel nice to hear that we should not depend too much on intellect and reason, and thus we should trust again in the mysterious working of instinctive impulses. But this nice feeling is inappropriate for the current time, because, due to our being human and thus caught in human evolution, we have lost the old certainty of instinctual experience. We need to conquer a new certainty that will be no less primeval and no less elementary than earlier forms of experience, one capable of allowing us to plunge into the sphere of consciousness.
The very people who rush enthusiastically toward knowledge using the approach and methods that are used quite justifiably today to explore nature, will also come to realize that this particular way of using the senses, this way of using instruments in the service of experimental research cannot lead to knowledge of the human being; nor will we find it in a certain way of making rational judgments about sensory knowledge, a particular way of investigating nature. The natural scientists themselves will have to concede that a knowledge of the human being must exist that flows from completely different sources than the ones we tap these days in an attempt to invade the being of external reality.
In my books How to Know Higher Worlds and An Outline of Occult Science, I have described the forces that the human being must extract from the depths of the self. I have shown that it is possible to awaken forces in the human soul so that one can recognize something purely spiritual behind outer appearances, and that, by allowing dormant forces to reveal themselves, one can recognize spirit working in, and permeating, all matter.
Two things must be understood fully about spiritual science: First, it is impossible to fathom the secrets of human nature by knowledge gained exclusively from natural science; second, it is possible to penetrate the spiritual world in the same fully conscious state that so-called empirical research uses in the sense world, and with the same clarity. However, I must quickly add that the importance of what has just been said can be appreciated and confirmed only through personal, practical experience in matters of spiritual knowledge.
People who try—and this has been done again and again—to apply the methods of experimental laboratory research to the investigation of the human being will not succeed, for the essence of human nature must be experienced in one’s own self to be experienced at all in a living way. It is well known that, in the absence of self-knowledge, one remains always at the periphery of the human being, and I would like to make the following paradoxical statement: If a researcher were to apply the natural-scientific research method to the study of the human being, and then to verify the findings, applied them to his or her own being, believing this to really be what true humanity is about, the following would happen. Precisely when such a person felt most enthusiastic, the following realization would jump up in front of the soul: When I experience myself through the natural-scientific method, applying all my senses and all my powers of knowledge, I still feel the way one would feel looking at one’s own skeleton. The experience of such natural- scientific investigation would in fact be devastating. Human beings would “skeletize” themselves. To experience this feeling is to touch on the impulse that gave rise to spiritual science. We must bring the essence of the human being out in ways other than through bringing forth lifeless nature.
What kind of human knowledge will lead to this goal? It certainly cannot be the kind that makes us feel as if in our soul and spirit we were mere skeletons; there must be a way of evoking different images. Let us look at our blood circulation and our breathing. Although we are not generally aware of them in any great detail, they form an essential part of our life. The way we normally experience our blood circulation and our breathing when in good health represents a wholeness, even without our being able to put this perception into so many words. We experience it simply as part of our feeling healthy. Something similar must surely exist with regard to our knowledge of the human being. It must be possible to form ideas and perceptions of the human being that can be worked through inwardly, so that one experiences them as a natural part of the human entity, comparable with experiencing one’s breathing and blood circulation as a natural part of health. But then the question arises: What will lead us to an understanding of the child’s nature, with which we, as educators and teachers, must work?
How do we learn to know external sensory nature? Through our senses. Through our eye we gain knowledge of the multiple world of light and color. In order to make any of the world phenomenon part of our soul content, we must have the appropriate sense experiences, and we need the relevant sense organs for what is to become part of our soul content. If we study the wonderful construction of the human eye and the way it is linked to the brain, we will experience deeply what Goethe felt when he repeated the verse of an ancient mystic:
Were not the eye alike the Sun,
How could we ever see the light?
Lived not in us God’s own great power,
How could the Divine ever bring delight?
This Sun-like element of the eye, working selflessly within the inner human being, enables us to receive the external light.
We must look at the sense organs themselves if we want to understand the human connection with the external world, or if we wish to make any soul experience our own. Now let us look at the specific organ that can lead us to a true knowledge of the human being. Which sense organ would lead us to such a knowledge? We get to know external nature through our eyes, our ears and the other senses. For knowledge of the spiritual world, it is the spiritually enlightened being, which can be attained by following the paths described in How to Know Higher Worlds. In that book I describe two polarities in human striving for knowledge: On the one side is the knowledge resulting from what the physical senses give us; on the other side is the knowledge of the spirit, which pervades and weaves through both outer nature and the inner realm of the human being. This spiritual knowledge can be gained whenever human beings make themselves into spiritual sense organs by somehow transmuting all the forces of their human nature.
The field of knowledge of the human being lies precisely between these two poles. If we restrict ourselves to knowing external nature as transmitted to us through the senses, we cannot reach the essence of the human being for the reasons already stated. If we are cognizant of the spiritual aspects only, we have to transport ourselves to such heights of soul and spirit that the immediacy of the human being standing before us in the world vanishes. (You can read about this aspect in Occult Science and in my other writings dealing with the spiritual science I am speaking of here.) We need something that gives us even more intimate access to the human being than the subtle sense allowing us to see human beings as a part of the spirit nature that permeates the whole world. Just as I need the eye to perceive color, so a particular sense is needed for unmediated perception of the human being. What could such a sense be like at the present stage of human evolution? How can we penetrate the nature of human beings as they exist in the world, in the same way that we can penetrate the multiplicity of colors through the wonderful organization of the eye or the multiplicity of sounds through that of the ear? Where do we find this sense for the perception of the human essence?
It is none other than the sense granted us for the appreciation of art; the artistic sense can transmit to us spirit shining in matter, and revealed as the beauty we appreciate in art. At the present stage of evolution, this artistic sense allows us to apprehend the essence of what is truly human so that it can enter practical spheres of life. I know very well how paradoxical such a statement must sound to the ears of our contemporaries. But if I have the courage to think, to their very end, the concepts and ideas by which we comprehend external nature, and if having felt my way into them with all my humanity, I can say to myself that my ideas, my concepts have really brought me very close to nature, then I will feel that something at that very boundary is pulling me free of the limitations of these concepts and ideas, allowing me to soar up toward an artistic formulation of them.
This was why in 1894 I wrote the following words in the introduction to The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity: “To fully understand the human being, an artistic appreciation of ideas is needed, not merely an abstract comprehension of ideas.”3A real enlivening is required to make the leap that transforms the abstraction of concepts we use to understand nature into artistic display. This is possible. It requires that knowledge be allowed to flow into art, which leads to the development of the artistic sense. As long as we remain within the boundaries of natural science, we have to acknowledge that we will never understand how consciousness is connected with matter; but the moment we allow anything to flow naturally from the realm of ideas into an artistic view, the scales fall from our eyes. Everything in the realm of idea and concept is transformed into an artistic seeing, and what we see in this way spreads over the essence of humanity, just as the colors conceived by the eye spread their hues over the outer appearance of plants or other natural phenomena. Just as the physical organ of the eye, in the process of conceiving color, merges with the essence of color phenomena in nature, so the artistic sense grows inwardly in conjunction with the nature of the human being as a whole. We need to have seen colors with our eyes before we can think them. Likewise, only after we have had a vision of the nature of the human being through this artistic sense, can our abstract concepts and ideas fully encompass it.
If science thus becomes an art, then all our knowledge of the human being, and all our deliberations about first forming an artistic picture of the human being, will not turn to a bag of bones in the soul; instead, we will be at one with our own concepts and artistic ideas about the human being, and they will flow into and through the soul just as blood and breath circulate through the body. Something will reside in us that is as full of life as our sensations are when our breathing and blood circulation function normally and give us a sense of health and well being.
A sense of wholeness then embraces the entire nature of the human being, similar to a general feeling of health with regard to our physical organization; this sense will include something that is possible only when the artistic sense has attained the intimate contemplation of the human being living here in the present, not the elevated human being of insufficiently grounded spiritual speculation.
If we consider what such knowledge will eventually yield—knowledge that, like our breathing and blood circulation, continuously and in each of its aspects becomes will and activity—we will find that this extended metaphor helps us even further; for it is more than a mere comparison, and it has not been picked out in the abstract, but grows out of reality itself. What is it that causes our feeling of health, emanating from our entire constitution? What happens in such a general feeling of health, which, by the way, can be a very subtle feeling? It is the recognition that I, the human being, am so organized that I can look at myself as a healthy person standing in the world. What does it mean to be a healthy human being?
The crown of human life, the power of love is expressed in the healthy human being. Ultimately health and all healthy soul forces stream together into a feeling permeated with love, enabling me to acknowledge the person next to me, because I acknowledge the healthy human being in myself. Thus, out of this knowledge of the healthy human being sprouts love for our neighbor, whom we recognize as being like us. Our own self is found in another human being. Such knowledge of human nature does not become the theoretical instruction given to a technician who then applies it mechanically; rather, it becomes a direct inner experience leading immediately into practical life. For in its transformation it flows into the power of love and becomes an active form of human knowledge. If as teacher and educator, I meet a child through my knowledge of what a human being is, then an understanding of the child will blossom within my unfolding soul and spiritual love. I no longer need instructions based on the example of natural science and on theories about child development. All I need is to experience the knowledge of the human being, in the same way that I experience healthy breathing and healthy blood circulation as bases of my general health. Then the proper form of knowledge, correctly stimulated and enlivened, will become a pedagogical art.
What must this knowledge of the human being become? The answer will be found in what has been already said. We must be able to allow this knowledge of the human being to fly out on the wings of love over all our surroundings, and especially upon the children. Our knowledge of the human being must be transformed into an inner attitude where it is alive in the form of love. This is the most important basis for teaching today. Education must be seen as a matter of one’s own inner attitude, not as a matter of thinking up various schemes, such as how to avoid training the child’s intellect exclusively. We could constantly reiterate this tenet, of course, and then go about it in a thoroughly intellectual way, taking it for granted, for example, that teachers should use their intellects to think up ways to protect their pupils from intellectualism! It goes without saying that our work must begin with the teachers. We must encourage them not to fall back entirely on the intellect, which, by itself, never has an artistic nature. Starting with the teachers, we will create the proper conditions for the theory and practice of education, based on our knowledge of the human being and given in a form suitable for nurturing the child. This will establish the necessary contact between teacher and child, and it will turn our knowledge of the human being, through the working of love, into right education and training.
Natural science alone cannot understand how consciousness works in the physical organization. Why is this? Because it cannot comprehend how the artistic experience occurs and how it is formed. Knowledge of the human being makes us realize that consciousness is an artist whose material is the material substance of the human being. As long as knowledge of the human being is not sought with an artistic sense, the state of ignorabimus will hold sway. We must first begin to realize that human consciousness is an artist working creatively with matter itself; if we want to comprehend the true nature of the human being, we must acknowledge the artistic creator in each individual. Only then will we get beyond the stage of ignorabimus. At the same time, knowledge of the human being cannot be theoretical, but must able to enter the sphere of will. It will directly enter the practical sphere of life and feel at home there.
If the evolving child is viewed from this perspective, with insight stemming from an artistic sense and carried on wings of love, we will see and understand very much. I should like to describe just one example: Let us look at the extraordinary phase when the child undergoes the transition from playing to working. All children play. They do so naturally. Adults, on the other hand, have to work to live. They find themselves in a situation that demands it. If we look at social life today, we could characterize the difference between the child at play and the adult at work in the following way: Compared to the activities of the adult, which are dictated by necessity, the child’s play is connected with an inner force of liberation, endowing the playing child with a feeling of well-being and happiness. You need only observe children at play. It is inconceivable that they are not in full inner accord with what they are doing. Why not? Because playing is a liberating experience to children, making them eager to release this activity from the organism. Freeing, joyful, and eager to be released—this is the character of the child’s play.
What about the adult’s work? Why does it often, if not usually, become an oppressive burden? (And this will be even more so in the future.) We could say that the child grows from an experience of liberation while playing into the experience of the oppressive burden of work, dictated to the adult by social conditions. Doesn’t this great contrast beg us to ask: How can we build a bridge from the child’s liberating play activity to the burdensome experience in the sphere of the adult workday?
If we follow the child’s development with the artistic understanding I spoke of just now, we will find such a bridge in the role art plays at school. If applied properly as an educational tool, art will lead from the child’s liberating play activity to the stage of adult work. With the help of art, this work no longer needs be an oppressive burden. Unless we can divest work of its oppressive character, we can never solve the social question. Unless the polarity between the young child’s playing and the adult’s burdensome daily work is balanced by the right education, the problem of labor will reappear again and again in different guises.
What does it mean to introduce the artistic element into education? One could easily form misconceptions about artistic activities, especially at school. Everyone agrees that it is essential to train the child’s intellect. This notion has become so deeply ingrained in modern consciousness that indifference toward training the intellect is very unlikely to spread. Everyone can see also that, without moral education, one cannot do justice to human dignity, and the human being cannot be considered fully developed. In general, there is still a certain feeling that an immoral person is not fully human, but is disabled, at least in regard to the human soul and spirit. And so, on the one hand people assume that the intellect must be trained, and, on the other, that genuine human dignity must also be cultivated at school, including the concepts of a sacred sense of duty and human virtues. But the same attention is not given to what the human being can be presented with in full freedom and love—that is, the artistic element.
The high esteem for what is human and an extraordinary love for the human being are needed during one’s evolving childhood days; this was the case for Schiller, whose (alas!) insufficiently known Letters on the Esthetic Education of the Human Being was based on those qualities. We find in them a genuine appreciation of the artistic element in education, rooted in German culture. We can begin with these letters, and spiritual science will deepen our understanding. Look, for example, at child’s play and how it flows forth simply because it is in a child’s nature to be active. See how children liberate from their organization something that takes the form of play; their humanity consists of something that takes the form of play. Observe how necessity forces us to perform work that does not flow directly from the wholeness of our human nature; it can never express all of our nature. This is how we can begin to understand human development from childhood to adulthood.
There is one thing, however, that we should never lose sight of; usually, when observing children at play, people do so from the perspective of an adult. If this were not so, one would not hear again and again the trifling exhortation that “children should learn through play.” The worst thing you could do is teach children that work is mere play, because when they grow up, they then will look at life as if it were only a game. Anyone who holds such a view must have observed children at play only with an adult’s eyes, believing that children bring the same attitude to play as adults do. Play is fun for an adult, an enjoyment, a pleasure, the spice of life. But for children, play is the very stuff of life. Children are absolutely earnest about play, and the very seriousness of their play is a salient feature of this activity. Only by realizing the earnest nature of child’s play can we understand this activity properly. And by watching how, in play, human nature pours itself in complete seriousness into the treatment of external objects, we can direct the child’s inborn energy, capacity and gift for play into artistic channels. These still permit a freedom of inner activity while at the same time forcing children to struggle with outer materials, as we have to do in adult work. Then we can see how precisely this artistic activity makes it possible to conduct education so that the joy of engaging in artistic activities can be combined with the seriousness of play, contributing in this way to the child’s character.
Particularly after the child enters school, until the ninth or tenth year, one may be in a position to use the artistic element, and this must be more than dallying in fairy tales; rather, whatever subject is being taught, the child’s inherent impulse to play, which is such an intrinsic part of its makeup, can be guided into artistic activities. And when children enter the first or second grade, they are perfectly able to make this transition. However clumsy children of six or seven may be when modeling, painting, or finding their way into music and poetry, if teachers know how to permeate their lessons with artistry, even small children, as miniature sculptors or painters, can begin to have the experience that human nature does not end at the fingertips, that is, at the periphery of the skin, but flows out into the world. The adult human being is growing in children whenever they put their being into handling clay, wood, or paints. In these very interactions with the materials, children grow, learning to perceive how closely the human being is interwoven with the fabric of the world. And when working with musical sounds and colors, or handling wood, children grow outward into the world. If children are introduced to these artistic activities properly—however clumsy their first efforts may appear—they will greatly benefit from what is received in this way from the world. When music and poetry are brought to children, they experience the musical and poetical element in their own being. Then it is as if a heavenly gift had been bestowed on young students, enabling them to experience a second being within. Through sounds of music and poetry, it is as if a grace-filled being were sinking down into us through sounds of music and poetry, making us aware even in childhood, that in each of us something lives, which has come from spiritual heights to take hold of our narrow human nature.
If one lives this way with children, with the eye and mind of an artist and teaching them with a sensitive and artistic touch, their responses will reveal qualities that the teacher must endeavor to cultivate, however clumsy the children’s first efforts may be when working with color, sound, or other artistic media. One learns to know children intimately, both their gifts and limitations; watching the artistic element of the sculpture as it flows from little hands, living in empathy with the child, one learns to recognize the strength with which the child directs every bit of attention and forces toward the spirit worlds, and then brings that back into the physical world of the senses. One learns to know the children’s entire relationship to a higher spiritual world. And if music and poetry are brought to the children, as a teacher, one gains a glimpse of the latent strength in them, ready to develop later in life.
Having brought the children into close contact with the plastic, poetic, and musical arts, and having brought eurythmic movements into their bodies, having awakened to life through eurythmy what would otherwise be the abstract element of language, we create in the human being an inner harmony between the spirit-winged musical and poetic elements, and the spirit-permeated material elements of modeling and painting. Human consciousness, spiritually illumined, weaves soulfully and artistically into the physical corporeal part of the human being. One learns to teach by awakening spirit and soul in children, in such a way that teaching becomes health-permeating, stimulating growth and strength for all of life. This brings to mind a beautiful and deeply meaningful Greek expression. The ancient Greeks spoke of Phidias’s statue of Zeus as “healing magic.” Genuine art will not only take hold of soul and spirit, but it will also enhance health and growth. Genuine art has always had healing powers.
Educators and teachers who have the proper love for art and the necessary respect for human nature will always be in a position to implant the artistic element as a magic healing into all their teaching. Then training the intellect, which is a necessary part of schooling, as well as religious teaching and training the heart forces, will be permeated by an element that is inextricably connected to human freedom and human love. If teachers themselves feel a strong bond with the artistic element and appeal to the artistic appreciation in their pupils, and if they create an artistic atmosphere in the classroom, the proper teaching methods and human influence will stream out into all other aspects of education. Then they will not “save” the artistic element for other subjects, but let it flow and permeate all their teaching. The attitude must not be: Here are the main subjects—this one will train the intellect, this one the feelings and the sense of duty, and over there, separate, more or less on a voluntary basis, is the art lesson. On the contrary, art is in its proper place only when all teaching is arranged so that, at the right moment, the students’ souls feel a need for the artistic; and art itself must be cultivated so that, in the artistic activities themselves, students feel the need for a rational understanding of, and dutiful concentration on, the things they have come to see as beautiful, as truly free, and thus as human. This is intended to indicate how art can pervade the entire field of education, how it can illumine and warm through the entire pedagogical and sermonizing realm of education. Art and the esthetic sense place knowledge of the human being at the meeting of purely spiritual knowledge on the one side, and external sensory knowledge on the other. It also helps lead us most beautifully into the practical aspects of education.
Through an art of teaching such as I have outlined, those who love art and respect humanity will assign art the proper place in the life of a school. They will do so from a feeling for human nature, condensed into a pedagogical attitude and a pedagogical life through daily contact with the students. They will not neglect the spiritual aspects nor those more connected with the physical world. If art occupies the proper place in school life it will also stimulate the correct approach to the students’ physical training, since wherever art is applied in life, it opens a person to the spiritual light necessary for inner development. By its very nature, art can become permeated with the light of the spirit, and when this has happened it retains this light. Then, wherever art radiates, it permeates whatever it touches with the light it received from the spiritual Sun. It also permeates matter with light so that, outwardly radiant and shining with the light of soul, it can express spirit. Art can collect in itself the light of the universe. It can also permeate all earthly and material substance with shining light. This is why art can carry secrets of the spiritual world into the school and give children the light of soul and spirit; the latter will allow children to enter life so that they do not need to experience work as just a negative and oppressive burden, and, in our social life, therefore, work may gradually divest its burdensome load. By bringing art into school properly, social life can become enriched and freed at the same time, although that may sound unbelievable.
I will address other aspects tomorrow, when I speak of the place of morality and ethical attitudes in education. Today I only want to show that the spirit needed in schools can be magically engendered through art. If done properly, this light-filled art can produce a radiance in children that allows the soul to integrate into the physical body, and thus into the world, for the person’s entire future life.
Pädagogik und Kunst
Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, ein vielbekannter und vielbesprochener Satz klingt aus dem grauen Altertume Griechenlands herauf zu der Menschheit wie ein in die Tiefen der Seele tönender Mahnspruch: «Mensch, erkenne dich selbst.» Eine oftmals nicht als gewaltig empfundene, doch gewaltige Forderung ist damit an den Menschen gestellt; man möchte sagen, die Forderung, der Mensch solle sich durch seine wertvollste seelische und geistige Tätigkeit mit seinem wahren, wirklichen Sein und seiner wahren, wirklichen Weltbedeutung bekanntmachen.
Nun, es ist in der Regel so, daß wenn eine solche Forderung innerhalb eines Zeitalters, von bedeutsamer Stelle ausgegeben, der Menschheit erklingt, dann weist sie gewöhnlich nicht auf etwas hin, das man leicht haben kann, das leicht erfüllt werden kann, sondern sie weist eher auf den besonderen Mangel eines Zeitalters hin, auf etwas, dessen Erfüllung schwierig ist. Und wer nicht äußerlich, theoretisch geschichtlich, sondern empfindend geschichtlich zurückblickt in alte Zeitepochen der Menschheit, der wird schon fühlen, daß das Auftreten dieser Forderung im alten Griechenland im Grunde bedeutet ein Abnehmen, nicht ein Zunehmen der Kraft menschlicher Selbsterkenntnis, der Kraft wirklicher, in die Tiefen gehender Menschenerkenntnis. Sieht man nämlich zurück in diejenigen Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung, in denen religiöses Empfinden, künstlerisches Anschauen, ideelles und ideales Erkennen noch in eins zusammenklangen, so fühlt man, wie in jenen Zeiten harmonischer Einheit von Religion, Kunst und Wissenschaft der Mensch sich wie selbstverständlich fühlte als das Abbild, als das Ebenbild des die Welt durchlebenden und durchwebenden göttlichen Geistes. Als gottgegebene Wesenheit auf der Erde fühlte sich der Mensch. Und im Grunde genommen war es selbstverständlich in alten, grauen Zeiten der Menschheit, daß menschliche Selbsterkenntnis in Gotteserkenntnis gesucht worden ist, in der Erkenntnis des göttlichen, im Menschen waltenden geistigen Urgrundes, der zu gleicher Zeit als der Weltengrund empfunden und gedacht worden ist. Wenn in recht alten Zeiten der Mensch dasjenige ausgesprochen hat, was etwa in unserer Sprache erklingen würde wie das «Ich», so sprach er damit zu gleicher Zeit aus die Summe aller Zentralkräfte des Weltenseins, und er ließ ertönen in jenem Worte, das auf sein eigenes Selbst hindeutete, zugleich die Bedeutung für dasjenige, was das schöpferisch Wirksame im Universum ist. Denn er fühlte sich selber in seinem innersten Wesen als eins mit diesem Universum. Dasjenige, was einstmals selbstverständlich war, was dem Menschen vor Augen trat, wie ihm die Farben der äußeren Natur vor das sinnliche Auge treten, das wurde in einer späteren Zeit etwas schwer Erringbares. Und hätte man etwa in der alten Zeit, wenn die Forderung nach Selbsterkenntnis hätte auftreten können, den Spruch gehört - von einem Erdenwesen hätte man ihn kaum hören können -, hätte man von einem außerirdischen Wesen gehört: «Erkenne dich selbst», so hätte man erwidert: Wozu die Anstrengung der Selbsterkenntnis? - Wir Menschen sind das Abbild des überall in der Welt leuchtenden und tönenden und wärmenden und segnenden Gottesgeistes. Erkennt man dasjenige, was der Wind durch die Bäume trägt, was der Blitz durch die Luft sender, was im Donner rollt, was in der Wolke sich wandelt, was im Grashalm lebt, was in der Blume blüht, dann erkennt man auch das menschliche Selbst.
Als solche Welterkenntnis, als göttliche Geist-Erkenntnis mit der fortschreitenden Entwickelung der menschlichen Selbständigkeit nicht mehr möglich war, da kam der Mensch darauf, aus den Tiefen seines Wesens das «Erkenne dich selbst» ertönen zu lassen, hindeutend auf etwas, was einstmals selbstverständlich eine Gegebenheit war des in der Welt webenden Menschen, was immer mehr und mehr eine Anstrengung wurde.
Zwischen dem Entstehen dieser Forderung «Erkenne dich selbst» und einem anderen Ausspruch, der erst in unserem Zeitalter, im letzten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts getan wurde, liegt eine wichtige Epoche der Menschheitsentwickelung. Dieser andere Spruch erklingt gewissermaßen wie eine Antwort auf den apollinischen Spruch «Erkenne dich selbst». Dieser andere Spruch erklang von einem ausgezeichneten Naturforscher im letzten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts: «Wir werden niemals erkennen - Ignorabimus!» Und eine Antwort auf das uralte apollinische Wort muß man dieses «Ignorabimus» nennen aus dem Grunde, weil derjenige, der den Ausspruch getan hat, Du Bois-Reymond, ja gemeint hat, daß die moderne Erkenntnis der Natur, die so ungeheure Fortschritte gemacht hat, stille stehen müsse an bestimmten Grenzen: auf der einen Seite an der Grenze des Bewußtseins des Menschen, auf der anderen Seite an der Grenze der Materie. Was zwischen Bewußtsein und Materie enthalten ist, die Menschheit wird es erkennen, so erklang es aus dem Munde des Naturforschers, der wohl verstand, was Naturforschung, gerade wenn sie groß wird, vermag. Aber was als Bewußtseinswelt in der menschlichen Leibesmaterie lebt, und wie dasjenige, was im menschlichen Leibe auf physische Art vorgeht, sich wandelt in das innere Erleben der Seele, das im Bewußtsein waltet, das sollte der Mensch nach dieser Meinung niemals erkennen können. Aber das Leben des Bewußtseins in der menschlichen Materie, das Durchgeistigen der menschlichen Leibesmaterie durch die Impulse des Bewußtseins, das ist gerade der Mensch. Und derjenige, der nicht zu einer Erkenntnis kommen kann, wie Bewußtsein die menschliche Leibesmaterie durchströmt, durchwellt, durchlebt, wie die Materie in sich selber zu jenem Licht aufgerufen werden kann, in dem das Bewußtsein erscheinen kann, der kann nicht daran denken, was immer für Anstrengungen er macht, die Forderung zu erfüllen: «Mensch, erkenne dich selbst.»
Zwischen diesen beiden welthistorischen Aussprüchen: «Mensch, erkenne dich selbst» und «Wir werden als Menschen niemals das Walten des Bewußtseins in der Materie erkennen», liegt ein bedeutungsvoller Zeitraum der menschlichen Seelenentwickelung. In jenem Zeitraum war noch so viel innere Menschenkraft aus alten Zeiten vorhanden, daß man dasjenige, was früher eine Selbstverständlichkeit war, die menschliche Wesenheit in der erscheinenden Gotteswesenheit zu suchen, so erfühlte: Nach und nach wird der Mensch, indem er durch innere Kraft sich anstrengt, Selbsterkenntnis erwerben. -— Aber immer schwächer und schwächer wurde diese selbsterkennende Kraft. Und sie war bis zum letzten Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts so schwach geworden, daß, nachdem die Sonne der Selbsterkenntnis eben untergegangen war, das Negativ jenes apollinischen Positivs ertönte: «Mensch, du kannst dich nicht selber erkennen.»
Nun, wenn das so ist, wenn Naturerkenntnis - und Naturerkenntnis, wie sie in der neueren Zeit getrieben worden ist, führt tatsächlich restlos auf jene Art in die Naturgeheimnisse hinein, die den modernen Menschheitsbedürfnissen entspricht -, wenn Naturerkenntnis zuletzt das Bekenntnis ablegen muß: man kann das Walten des Bewußtseins in der Materie nicht erkennen, dann ist es nur eine andere Fassung dieses Bekenntnisses, zu sagen: Menschenerkenntnis ist unmöglich. Allerdings muß man jetzt wiederum ein anderes sagen: gerade so wie die Selbsterkenntnis als Gotteserkenntnis bereits in der Abenddämmerung war, als der Spruch ertönte: «Mensch, erkenne dich selbst», so war der Verzicht auf Selbsterkenntnis, das heißt Menschenerkenntnis, bereits in der Abenddämmerung, als die Forderung erhoben wurde: Resigniere, o Mensch, auf jegliche Selbsterkenntnis, auf jegliche Menschenerkenntnis. - Wiederum deutet auch dieser Spruch nicht auf dasjenige hin, was in ihm enthalten ist, sondern auf das in der Menschheit erlebte Gegenteil. Denn schon war wiederum, weil die Kraft der Selbsterkenntnis immer schwächer und schwächer geworden war, jetzt nicht aus theoretischen Verstandesbedürfnissen, jetzt nicht aus irgendwelchen wissenschaftlichen Impulsen, aber aus den Impulsen des menschlichen Herzens, aus den tiefsten Impulsen der menschlichen Seele heraufgekommen der Drang, den Menschen zu erkennen. Denn man fühlte schon: dringt man noch so stark in die glänzende Art der Naturerkenntnis hinein, die der modernen Menschheit so viel gegeben hat, so dringt man eben mit dieser Naturerkenntnis in das Wesen des Menschen nicht ein. Es muß aber einen Weg geben, um in das Wesen des Menschen einzudringen.
Beteiligt an dem Entstehen dieser neuen Forderung nach Menschenerkenntnis, die von dem Naturerkennen ausgedrückt wurde, indem man das Gegenteil der Möglichkeit der Menschenerkenntnis aussprach, beteiligt ist im wesentlichen auch neben anderen menschlichen Lebenszweigen der pädagogische Drang der Menschheit, der Drang, ein richtiges Verhältnis des Menschen zum werdenden Menschen, zu dem Menschen, der erzogen und unterrichtet werden soll, zu entwickeln. Gerade in dem Zeitalter, das in der angedeuteten Weise den Verzicht auf jede Menschenerkenntnis aussprechen wollte - wenn man den Ausspruch nur in der richtigen Weise versteht, so liegt darin ein Verzicht auf jede Menschenerkenntnis -, gerade in diesem Zeitalter kam auch immer mehr und mehr herauf, aus um das Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen besorgten Menschenseelen die Überzeugung: der Intellektualismus, die äußere Sinnes- und Verstandeserkenntnis, die sich auch dem Menschen nähern will, sie ist ungeeignet dazu, dem Menschen etwas zu geben, wodurch er den werdenden Menschen, das Kind, den heranwachsenden Jüngling, die heranwachsende Jungfrau erzieherisch und unterrichtend behandeln kann. Daher vernehmen wir in diesem Zeitalter zugleich überall die Überzeugung: man muß von der Ausbildung des Verstandes, der so große Leistungen in bezug auf die in der neueren Zeit gewünschte Erkenntnis hinter sich hat, an die Empfindungs-, an die Gemüts- und Willenskräfte des Menschen appellieren; man muß am Kinde nicht das Intellektuelle vor allen Dingen pflegen, es nicht bloß zum Wissenden, sondern zum Könnenden machen.
Aber ein Merkwürdiges macht sich gerade in dieser pädagogischen Forderung geltend: man verzichtet auf ein wirkliches Hineinschauen in die menschliche Wesenheit, auch in die Wesenheit des werdenden Menschen, des Kindes, man zweifelt daran, daß in derselben Weise, wie die Natur erkannt wird, über den Menschen etwas erkannt werden kann, was einem dann hilft, ihn in der Erziehung und im Unterrichte auch in der rechten Weise zu behandeln. Und da macht sich ein besonderer Zug, eine besondere Strömung in der modernen Erziehungskunst geltend, innerhalb welcher man eigentlich nichts wissen will von dem besonnenen, bewußten Ausgehen von wirklicher Menschenerkenntnis. Man will viel mehr als auf bewußte Impulse sich auf die Erziehungsinstinkte verlassen, auf unbestimmte unterbewußte Impulse, die nun in dem Lehrer, in dem Erzieher wirken sollen. Derjenige, der solche Dinge beurteilen kann, wird finden, daß in den so vielen und so mannigfaltigen, zum Teil außerordentlich löblichen Bestrebungen auf dem Gebiete des Erziehungswesens in der Gegenwart gerade dieser Zug waltet, daß man aus dem Elementarischen der Menschennatur, aus dem bloß instinktiv Triebartigen heraus, überall die pädagogisch-didaktischen Ideale aufstellen will. Man ist eben heute der Meinung, eine in die Tiefen der Menschenwesenheit dringende, vollbewußte Erkenntnis sei doch nicht möglich, also muß man sich da, wo man an die Wesenheit des Menschen als Behandelnder selbst herantreten soll, auf unbestimmte, instinktive Impulse verlassen.
Nur wer in diesen also charakterisierten Zug des neuesten Geisteslebens mit innigem menschlichen Anteil hineinsieht, der wird die Bedeutung dessen ermessen, was gesucht wird durch jene Geisteswissenschaft, die hier gemeint ist, für die Pflege des pädagogischen Sinnes, der didaktischen Schaffenskraft in der Schule und überhaupt dem Kinde gegenüber. Denn diejenige Geisteswissenschaft, Geisteserkenntnis, welche auch allen den Bestrebungen zugrunde liegt, die ihren Ausdruck in dieser künstlerisch-pädagogischen Tagung finden sollen, sie geht aus Quellen hervor, die zwar nicht die alten sind, aus denen in den Zeiten geschöpft wurde, als Menschenerkenntnis noch unmittelbar Gotteserkenntnis war, aber sie geht aus Quellen hervor, welche den löblichen naturwissenschaftlichen Drang ins Geistige hinein so fortsetzen, daß eine wirkliche, wahre Geisteswissenschaft als Erkenntnis der Menschenwesenheit wiederum möglich wird. Und eine solche Erkenntnis der Menschenwesenheit ist notwendig, wenn man bewußt an die Unterrichts- und Erziehungsaufgaben herantreten will. Wir sind einmal innerhalb der Entwickelung der Menschheit über das bloß instinktive Leben hinausgeschritten. Wir müssen, ohne die Instinktivität, ohne das Elementarisch-Ursprüngliche zu verlieren, zum bewußten Eindringen in alle jene Wesenheiten kommen, mit denen wir als Menschen im Leben zu tun haben.
Man kann es als schön empfinden, wenn davon geredet wird, der Mensch solle nicht allzuviel auf dasjenige geben, was er klar erkennt, er solle sich den wunderbar wirkenden instinktiven Impulsen überlassen. Aber solches Schönempfinden taugt aus dem Grunde nicht für unser Zeitalter, weil wir einfach als Menschen innerhalb der Entwickelungsströmung der ganzen Menschheit die alte Sicherheit des instinktiven Erlebens, des Trieblebens verloren haben und uns eine neue Sicherheit erobern müssen, die nicht weniger ursprünglich, nicht weniger elementar ist als das frühere Erleben, die aber einzutauchen vermag in die Sphäre voller Bewußtheit.
Gerade derjenige, welcher sich, ich möchte sagen, mit dem Enthusiasmus der Erkenntnis auf die ganze Art und Weise einläßt, wie man heute in berechtigter Art die Natur erforscht, der kommt darauf, daß mit dieser besonderen Art, die Sinne zu gebrauchen, die Instrumente in den Dienst der Experimentalforschung zu stellen, und aus der Art der Verstandesurteile über die Sinneserkenntnis, daß aus dieser Eigenart, die Natur zu erkennen, Menschenerkenntnis nicht kommen kann. Er kommt dazu, einzusehen, daß es eine Menschenerkenntnis geben muß, welche aus ganz anderen Kräften fließt, als diejenigen sind, durch die man auf die heutige Art in das Wesen der äußeren Naturerscheinungen eindringt.
Zu welchen Kräften der Mensch dann vordringen muß in seinem eigenen Wesen, das habe ich geschildert in meinem Buche «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» und in meiner «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß». Ich habe darauf hingewiesen, wie der Mensch rege machen kann in seinem Seelenleben solche Kräfte, durch die er erkennen kann, auch durch die Naturerscheinungen hindurch, etwas, was ihm im reinen Geisteslichte erscheint, wie er, indem er seine in ihm schlummernden Kräfte sich offenbaren läßt, erkennen kann das rein Geistige, das alles Materielle durchwaltet. Diese zwei Dinge sind es, die heute innerhalb unserer Geisteswissenschaft voll verständlich sein müssen: erstens, daß man mit Naturerkenntnis an den Menschen nicht herankommt; zweitens, daß es eine besondere Geisteserkenntnis geben muß, die ebenso sicher in das Geistige der Welt eindringt, wie die sogenannt sinnlich-empirische Naturforschung in das rein Natürliche eindringt. Aber nur, ich möchte sagen, aus der Erkenntnispraxis heraus kann man die ganze Bedeutung des Gesagten wirklich empfindend einsehen.
Wer da versucht - und das ist ja immer wieder versucht worden, ist für viele Leute ein selbstverständlicher Versuch -, die Erkenntnismethoden, die wir als die heute sicheren in der Experimentalforschung, in der Beobachtungsforschung anwenden, diese besondere Art der Seelenverfassung auch anzuwenden, um den Menschen zu erkennen: er dringt nicht bis zum Wesen des Menschen, das man in sich selber lebend erfährt und erfühlend erlebt. Man weiß, man bleibt außerhalb des Menschen, und ich möchte den paradoxen Ausspruch tun: Wenn jemand die Art der Naturforschung auf den Menschen anwenden und dann nachschauen will, wie läßt sich als Mensch in sich selbst das erleben, wovon man jetzt glaubt, daß man es ist -, dann wird einem sehr bald, gerade wenn man Erkenntnisenthusiasmus hat, vor die Seele treten: Du erfühlst dich durch diese der Naturerkenntnis nachgebildete Menschenerkenntnis so, wie sich ein Mensch fühlen müßte, der von sich selber durch seine Sinne, durch alles das, was er an Erkenntniskräften an sich hat, nichts anderes bemerken könnte als sein eigenes Skelett. Das ist im Grunde genommen das Niederschmetternde, das innerlich Niederschmetternde, was als eine Art Ergebnis, als Gemüts- und Gefühlsergebnis gerade aus der ernsthaft empfundenen Naturerkenntnis herausquillt. Man skelettiert sich als Mensch durch diese Naturerkenntnis. Und erlebt man das Niederschmetternde dieser inneren Empfindung, dann hat man auch den Impuls in sich ergriffen, der wirklich heute zur Geisteswissenschaft treibt. Denn diese Geisteswissenschaft, sie sagt sich eben: du mußt auf eine andere Weise zum Wesen des Menschen vordringen, als diejenige ist, durch die du zu der leblosen Natur vordringst.
Und welcher Art muß denn diese Menschenerkenntnis sein, die uns wirklich ins menschliche Leben einführt? Sie darf eben nicht so sein, daß man, sich selbst bemerkend, sich vorkommt wie ein seelisch-geistiges Skelett; sie muß mit etwas anderem vergleichbar sein. Dasjenige, was wir als physischer Mensch etwa in der Blutzirkulation und in der Atmung sind, wir fühlen es, wir bemerken es nicht im einzelnen, aber wir haben es doch als unser Sein in uns. Die Art und Weise, wie wir im normalen Leben unsere Atmung, unsere Blutzirkulation erleben, die faßt sich zusammen, ohne daß wir es aussprechen, aber eben indem wir es erleben, darin, daß wir uns als gesunde Menschen erleben. So etwas muß es auch geben, daß man eine Menschenerkenntnis, daß man Ideen, Anschauungen über das Menschenwesen erringt, die man im InnerlichSeelischen so verarbeiten kann, daß man sie als das selbstverständliche menschliche Sein so erlebt, wie man seine Atmung und seine Blutzirkulation als seine Gesundheit erlebt. Da frägt es sich aber: Ja, welches kann der Weg zu einer solchen Menschenerkenntnis sein, zu einer Menschenerkenntnis, die uns dann auch in das Wesen des Kindes hineinführt, das wir als Erzieher und Unterrichtender zu behandeln haben?
Wodurch kommen wir denn an die äußere sinnliche Natur heran? Dadurch, daß wir Sinne haben. Unser Auge ist es, durch das wir in den Erkenntnisbesitz der mannigfaltigen Licht- und Farbenwelt kommen. Wir müssen das Organ haben, um in den Erkenntnisbesitz, in den inneren seelischen Besitz irgendeines Gebietes der Welt zu kommen. Wir müssen Sinne haben für dasjenige, was unser seelischer Besitz werden soll. Und derjenige, der solchen Dingen nachgehend, für die äußere Sinneserkenntnis, den Wunderbau des menschlichen Auges, seinen Zusammenhang mit dem menschlichen Gehirn studiert, der wird tief empfinden, was Goethe empfand, als er den Spruch eines alten Mystikers wiederholte:
Wär’ nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,
Wie könnten wir das Licht erblicken,
Läg’ nicht in uns des Gottes eigene Kraft,
Wie könnt’ uns Göttliches entzücken!
Dieses Sonnenhafte des Auges, das ist es, was im Inneren wirkt als ein schaffendes Licht, um das äußere Licht zu empfangen.
Auf das Organ muß man hinschauen, wenn man verstehen will, welches Verhältnis der Mensch zur Welt haben muß, wenn er irgendeinen seelischen Besitz sich zu eigen machen soll. Auf das Organ müssen wir hinschauen, welches uns zur wahren Menschenerkenntnis führt. Welcher Sinn führt zur wahren Menschenerkenntnis? Zur Erkenntnis der äußeren Natur führt uns unser Auge, unser Ohr, die anderen Sinne. Zu der Erkenntnis der geistigen Welt führt uns das innerlich geistig durchleuchtete Menschenwesen, wie es erworben werden kann auf den Wegen, die ich beschrieben habe in «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» Da finden wir gewissermaßen die beiden Gegensätze des menschlichen Erkenntnisstrebens: auf der einen Seite die Sinneserkenntnis, vermittelt durch die dem Leib des Menschen eingesetzten Organe; auf der anderen Seite die Erkenntnis jenes Geistes, der als ein Einheitliches die Natur und die Menschenwesenheit zugleich durchflutet und durchwebt, jene Geist-Erkenntnis, welche erworben wird, wenn wir uns als ganzer Mensch gewissermaßen zu einem geistigen Sinnesorgan machen, wenn wir alle unsere Kräfte, unsere Vollmenschheit zu einem erkennenden Organ für das Geistige der Welt machen.
Aber gerade zwischen diesen beiden Gegensätzen liegt die Menschenerkenntnis darinnen. Wenn wir bloß die äußere Natur durch unsere Sinne erkennen, kommen wir aus den schon angedeuteten Gründen nicht an den Menschen heran. Wenn wir bloß das Geistige erkennen Sie können das nachlesen in meinem Buche «Geheimwissenschaft» und in anderen Schriften aus dem Gebiete der Geisteswissenschaft, die ich hier meine —, so müssen wir gewissermaßen den Sinn hinaufführen in solche Geist- und seelischen Höhen, daß das Unmittelbare des Menschen, wie er vor uns in der Welt steht, dahinschwindet. Wir brauchen etwas, was uns noch intimer in den Menschen hineinführt als dasjenige, wodurch wir ihn als einen Angehörigen der die Welt durchwebenden Geistigkeit anzuschauen vermögen. Ein Sinn muß da sein, wie für die Farben das Auge, für das unmittelbare Erkennen der Menschenwesenheit. Welches ist dieser Sinn für das gegenwärtige Zeitalter der menschlichen Entwickelung? Wodurch dringen wir zur Menschenwesenheit, die unmittelbar vor uns in der Welt steht, ebenso vor, wie wir durch die wunderbare Einrichtung unseres Auges zu der Mannigfaltigkeit der Farben vordringen, wie wir durch unser Ohr vordringen zu der Mannigfaltigkeit der Töne? Wo ist der Sinn für die Menschenauffassung und Menschenerkenntnis?
Nun, kein anderer ist dieser Sinn als derjenige, der uns als Menschen auch verliehen ist für das Auffassen der Kunst, der künstlerische Sinn, der Sinn, der uns überliefern kann jenes Scheinen des Geistes in der Materie, das uns als Schönes sich offenbart, das uns in der Kunst entgegentritt. Dieser künstlerische Sinn ist zu gleicher Zeit der Sinn, der uns den Menschen unmittelbar in der Gegenwart in seiner Wesenheit erkennend ergreifen läßt, so daß diese Erkenntnis auch unmittelbare Lebenspraxis werden kann. Ich weiß, wie sehr paradox solch ein Ausspruch, wie ich ihn eben getan habe, für die gegenwärtige Menschheit noch klingt. Aber derjenige, der nun wirklich den Mut hat, jene Ideen und Begriffe, durch die wir das Äußere der Natur erfassen, zu Ende zu denken, und namentlich mit seiner ganzen menschlichen Wesenheit in diese Ideen und Begriffe der Naturerkenntnis sich hineinzufühlen, der wird da an der Grenze, wo er sich sagen kann: Da bist du durch deine Ideen, durch deine Begriffe der Natur besonders nahe gekommen -, der wird da fühlen, wie ihn etwas reißt an dieser Grenze, zu verlassen jene Konturen der Begriffe, der Ideen, durch die wir die Natur erfassen, und sich aufzuschwingen zu einem künstlerischen Gestalten dieser Ideen.
Das war der Grund, warum ich in der Einleitung der 1894 geschriebenen «Philosophie der Freiheit» gesagt habe: Um den Menschen zu begreifen, braucht man eine Kunst der Ideen, nicht bloß ein abstraktes Erfassen der Ideen. - Man muß sich hineinleben in diesen Ruck, die Abstraktheit der Begriffe, durch die man die Natur erfaßt, in lebendige künstlerische Schau umzugestalten. Das kann man. Man muß die Erkenntnis in die Kunst auslaufen lassen, dann langt man an beim Gebrauch des künstlerischen Sinnes. Und während man, wenn man bloß Naturerkenntnis walten läßt, sagen muß: Niemals wird man begreifen, wie Bewußtsein an die Materie gebunden ist -, fällt es einem plötzlich wie Schuppen von den Augen, wenn man auslaufen läßt die naturerkennenden Begriffe und Ideen in künstlerische Konzeption. Da geht alles vom Ideenhaften in inneres künstlerisches Schauen über, und das, was man da sieht, das deckt sich gewissermaßen über die Wesenheit des Menschen so darüber, wie die vom Auge konzipierten Farben sich über die Pflanzen, über die anderen Naturwesen hinüberdecken. Wie der Körpersinn des Auges in der Erfassung der Farben zusammenwächst mit dem Wesen der farbigen Naturerscheinungen, so wächst der künstlerische Sinn nach innen zusammen mit dem Wesen des Menschen. Und erst wenn wir die Farbe durch das Auge gesehen haben, können wir über die Farbe nachdenken. Erst wenn wir das Wesen des Menschen durch den künstlerischen Sinn angeschaut haben, erst dann können wir mit unseren abstrakten Begriffen und Ideen nachkommen.
Und wenn so Wissenschaft zur Kunst wird, dann wird alles Wissen, das wir von dem Menschen haben, dann wird alles dasjenige, was wir auch über das erst künstlerisch am Menschen angeschaute Außenbild nachdenken, nun nicht solch ein Eigenbesitz der Seele, durch den man sich wie als Skelett erfühlt; sondern mit dem, was man sich so an künstlerisch fortgesetzten Ideen und Begriffen über die Menschenwesenheit erwirbt, kann man eins werden, so daß es einem in die Seele sich so ergießt, wie der Blut- und Atemstrom sich in den Körper ergießt. . Und dann wird etwas leben in dem Menschen, was so lebensvoll ist, wie das lebensvoll ist, was man als Ausdruck des normalen Atmens, der normalen Blutzirkulation in dem Gefühl entwickelt: ich bin gesund. Eine Gesamtempfindung, in der die Menschenwesenheit enthalten ist wie die Gesundheit im physischen Leibe, zu der drängt sich hin dasjenige, was durch eine solche Menschenerkenntnis möglich ist, die durch den künstlerischen Sinn zuerst sich die Anschauung in intimer Weise von dem unmittelbar in der Gegenwart lebenden, nicht erst bis zum Geiste erhobenen Menschen erwirbt.
Und wenn man in dieser Weise sich überlegt, daß nun solch wahre Menschenerkenntnis, die in jeder ihrer Anschauungen zu gleicher Zeit Wille, Tätigkeit wird, wie der Atem in uns, die Blutzirkulation Wille und Tätigkeit werden, wenn man sich überlegt, was eine solche Menschenerkenntnis zuletzt ergeben muß - nun, man kommt auch hier durch den Vergleich weiter. Der Vergleich bedeutet in diesem Falle mehr als einen bloßen Vergleich; er ist nicht aus der Abstraktion herausgenommen, er ist aus der Wirklichkeit herausgenommen. Worinnen faßt sich denn das aus dem ganzen Wesen des Menschen hervorgehende Gesundsein zusammen? Was wird denn aus dem, was sich hereinlebt in die Grundempfindung, die gar nicht ausgesprochen, die nur dumpf erlebt zu werden braucht, was drückt sich aus in dieser Grundempfindung: Ich bin so organisiert, daß ich mich als in der Welt darin stehender gesunder Mensch ansehen darf -, was drückt sich denn aus in diesem gesunden Menschen?
Es drückt sich die Krone des menschlichen Lebens aus. Und diese Krone des menschlichen Lebens, das ist die Kraft der Liebe. Zuletzt strömt die Gesundheit, zuletzt strömen aber auch alle gesunden Seelenkräfte in jene Empfindung, in jenes Gefühl zusammen, das in Liebe den anderen Menschen, der neben uns steht, erfassen kann, weil wir den Menschen in uns gesund erkennen. So sprießt aus dieser gesunden Menschenerkenntnis die Liebe zum anderen Menschen, den wir als dasselbe erkennen, wie wir es sind. Wir finden uns wieder in dem anderen Menschen. Eine solche Menschenerkenntnis wird nicht eine theoretische Anweisung, wie sie etwa der Techniker hat, die man dann in äußerlicher Weise umwandeln muß: so soll dieses oder jenes geschehen; nein, eine solche Menschenerkenntnis wird unmittelbares inneres Erleben, wird unmittelbare Lebenspraxis. Denn in ihrer Verwandlung strömt sie ein in die Kraft der Liebe. Sie wird tätige Menschenerkenntnis. Stehe ich als Erzieher, als Unterrichtender dem Kinde gegenüber, so sprießt mir aus meiner Menschenerkenntnis in der sich entfaltenden seelisch-geistigen Liebe die Erkenntnis des Kindes. Ich brauche keine Anweisungen, theoretische Menschenanschauungen, wie sie etwa der Naturwissenschaft nachgebildet sind, erst in die Pädagogik hineinzutragen, ich brauche nur die Menschenerkenntnis zu fühlen, wie ich das gesunde Atmen, die gesunde Blutzirkulation als meine totale Gesundheit erlebe. Dann wird richtige Menschenerkenntnis, in richtiger Weise belebt, pädagogische Kunst.
Was muß diese Menschenerkenntnis werden? Das ergibt sich nun schon aus demjenigen, was dargestellt worden ist. Möglich muß es dem Menschen sein, seine Menschenerkenntnis auf den Flügeln der Liebe wirken zu lassen, auf die andere menschliche Umgebung, vor allen Dingen auf die menschliche Umgebung des Kindes. Übergehen muß können dasjenige, was als Menschenerkenntnis erworben wird in Gesinnung, in jene Gesinnung, in der diese Menschenerkenntnis als Liebe lebt. Das ist die wichtigste Grundlage heute für die Pädagogik, daß diese Pädagogik als eine Gesinnungssache des Lehrenden und Erziehenden angesehen wird, daß man nicht bloß darüber doziert, man solle nicht den Verstand allein ausbilden beim Kinde, und dann recht verständig damit zu Werke geht, nur ja nicht den Verstand auszubilden. Dem Lehrer gestattet man, recht verständig, nur den Verstand gebrauchend, zu Werke zu gehen, damit er das Kind nicht bloß verständig erziehe! Darum handelt es sich, daß wir die Fortbildung der Pädagogik beim Lehrer beginnen, daß beim Lehrer nicht der bloße Intellektualismus, der unkünstlerisch ist, wirkt, daß wir beim Lehrer beginnen, überzugehen aus der Menschenerkenntnis in künstlerisch-pädagogisch-didaktische Gesinnung, die unmittelbar in dem Kinde lebt, wodurch der Kontakt hergestellt wird zwischen Lehrer und Kind, zwischen Erziehendem und Kind, wodurch Menschenerkenntnis in waltender Liebe zu Unterricht, zu Erziehung unmittelbar wird.
Bloße Naturerkenntnis kann nicht einsehen, wie Bewußtsein in der Leibesmaterie wirkt. Warum nicht? Weil Naturerkenntnis nicht einsehen kann, was Künstlerisches formt, Künstlerisches gestaltet. Menschenerkenntnis führt uns eben dazu, daß das Bewußtsein ein Künstler ist, der an der menschlichen Leibesmaterie eben künstlerisch vorgeht. Solange man nicht Menschenerkenntnis durch den künstlerischen Sinn sucht, solange wird man beim Ignorabimus gegenüber dem Menschen stehenbleiben müssen. Erst wenn man beginnt zu erkennen, daß das Bewußtsein im Menschen in der Materie selber ein künstlerisch Schaffender ist, daß man einen künstlerisch Schaffenden ergreifen muß, wenn man die Menschenwesenheit ergreifen will, erst dann wird man über das Ignorabimus hinauskommen. Zugleich aber wird man zu einer Menschenerkenntnis kommen, die unmittelbar, indem man sie hat, nicht nur theoretische Erkenntnis, sondern das innerlich Wirkende, im Willen Tätige ist - zu einer Menschenerkenntnis, die Lebenspraxis ist, eins ist mit der Lebenspraxis.
Wer in dieser Weise dem heranreifenden Menschen, dem sich entwikkelnden Kinde gegenübersteht, der schaut dann hinein durch diese vom künstlerischen Sinn gewirkte, auf den Flügeln der Liebe getragene Menschenerkenntnis, in dasjenige, was im Kinde heranwächst; der sieht vieles. — Ich will eines besonders charakterisieren. Er sieht jene merkwürdige Entwickelung im Kinde heranreifen, die sozusagen sich bewegt vom Spiel zur Arbeit. Das Kind spielt; es spielt selbstverständlich. Der erwachsene Mensch muß arbeiten. Er ist in die Notwendigkeit des Arbeitens versetzt. Wenn wir heute im sozialen Leben uns umsehen, dann müssen wir den Gegensatz zwischen dem kindlichen Spiel und der sozial-notwendigen Arbeit für die meisten Menschen so charakterisieren, daß wir sagen: Wir sehen auf das Kind hin; was es im Spiel vollbringt, ist verbunden mit einem befreienden Frohsinn über die Entwickelung der im menschlichen Wesen notwendigen Tätigkeit. Man sehe sich das spielende Kind an. Man kann sich gar nicht vorstellen, daß es das nicht tun will, was es im Spiele tut. Warum? Weil das Spiel die Befreiung ist von einer Tätigkeit, die heraus will aus dem menschlichen Wesen. Befreiender Frohsinn im Ausleben einer im Menschen sitzenden menschlichen Tätigkeit, das ist das Spielen des Kindes.
Und was wird unter der heutigen Menschheitsentwickelung oftmals, ja, man darf schon sagen zumeist - und das wird gegen die Zukunft hin immer weiter und weiter um sich greifen, immer mehr und mehr der Fall sein -, was wird die Arbeit? Die Arbeit wird die erdrückende Last des Lebens. Es wächst das Kind aus dem befreienden Frohsinn des Spieles heraus in die erdrückende Last der Lebensarbeit. Wenn wir uns diesen Gegensatz so recht vor die Seele stellen, dann werden wir vor die große Frage geführt: Wie schaffen wir die Brücke zwischen dem befreienden Frohsinn des Spielens und der erdrückenden Last der Lebensarbeit? Und wer mit jener künstlerischen Menschenerkenntnis, von der ich eben gesprochen habe, das sich entwickelnde Kind verfolgt, der findet diese Brücke in der Anwendung des Künstlerischen in der Schule. Kunst, in richtiger Weise in der Schule betätigt, führt auch in richtiger Weise von dem befreienden Frohsinn des Spieles in die Arbeit hinein, die als eine Notwendigkeit des Lebens hingenommen wird, die aber dann, wenn die richtige Brücke geschaffen wird, nicht mehr als erdrückende Last empfunden zu werden braucht. Und ohne daß wir der Arbeit ihre erdrükkende Last nehmen, werden wir niemals die soziale Frage lösen. Sie wird immer in einer anderen Gestalt wieder auftreten, wenn der Gegensatz im Leben nicht durch Erziehung hinweggeschafft wird, der Gegensatz zwischen dem befreienden Frohsinn des Spieles und der erdrückenden Last der Lebensarbeit.
Was kann da gemeint sein mit dem Hineinstellen des Künstlerischen in das Pädagogische, in die Erziehungs- und Unterrichtspraxis? Man kann leicht zu ganz schiefen Anschauungen kommen gerade über die Verwendung des Künstlerischen, namentlich in der Schule. Daß der Verstand in einer gewissen Weise ausgebildet werden muß, das sieht jeder ein. Denn wie tief hat sich in unser modernes Bewußtsein die Notwendigkeit eingegraben, daß der Mensch sich eine gewisse Verstandesbildung zur Aufrechterhaltung des heutigen Lebens erwerben muß. Und so wird nicht leicht eine Gleichgültigkeit eintreten gegenüber der Notwendigkeit der Verstandesausbildung in der Schule. Daß die Menschenwürde, das heißt, überhaupt der ganze Vollmensch nicht erreicht werden kann ohne die moralische Erziehung, das sieht auch jeder ein. Denn jeder hat mehr oder weniger das Gefühl, daß ein nicht moralischer Mensch kein ganzer Mensch ist, daß er etwas ist wie ein seelisch-geistiger Krüppel. Und so liegt auf der einen Seite wohl die Aufmerksamkeit vor auf die Entwickelung der Verstandestätigkeit, auf der anderen Seite die Aufmerksamkeit auf die Pflege wirklicher Menschenwürde, die Aufmerksamkeit auf den heiligen Pflichtbegriff, den heiligen Tugendbegriff. Aber nicht in der gleichen Weise wird überall die Aufmerksamkeit auf dasjenige gewendet, was nur in voller Freiheit und in Liebe an den Menschen herangebracht werden kann, auf das Künstlerische.
Man muß jene hohe Achtung vor dem Menschenwesen und jene einzigartige Liebe zu dem Menschenwesen auch in seinem Heranreifen in der Kinderzeit haben, wie sie Schiller hatte, der diese Achtung diese Liebe in einer so wunderbaren Weise zur Grundlage seiner Darstellung in den leider viel zu wenig gewürdigten Briefen zur Förderung der ästhetischen Erziehung des Menschen gemacht hat. Da haben wir einmal gerade aus dem deutschen Geistesleben heraus eine echte Würdigung des Künstlerischen im Erziehungswesen. Davon kann schon der Ausgangspunkt genommen werden. Vertieft kann dann diese Schillersche Anschauung werden durch dasjenige, was aus Geisteswissenschaft gewonnen werden kann. Man sehe nur hin auf das kindliche Spiel, wie es herausquillt, weil die menschliche Natur nicht anders als tätig sein kann. Man sehe hin, wie das Kind aus seiner Organisation, aus seiner menschlichen Wesenheit das herausschafft, auf das sich sein Spiel erstreckt. Man sehe hin auf die Art, wie uns aus den äußeren Lebensnotwendigkeiten der Inhalt der Arbeit gegeben wird, wie wir an der Arbeit so angreifen müssen, daß dasjenige, was wir da vollbringen, nicht unmittelbar aus der menschlichen Natur heraus erfolgt, wenigstens nicht in seiner Ganzheit, bei keinem Menschen aus der vollen Natur heraus erfolgen kann. Und man wird sehen, wie die menschliche Entwickelung in dieser Beziehung von dem kindlichen Lebensalter zu dem erwachsenen Lebensalter ist.
Aber eines sollte man niemals aus dem Auge verlieren. Man sieht gewöhnlich dasjenige, was das Kind im Spiele vollbringt, so an, daß man dabei den Gesichtspunkt des Erwachsenen einnimmt. Ja, es ist so, man sieht das kindliche Spiel so an, daß man dabei den Gesichtspunkt des Erwachsenen einnimmt. Wenn das nicht der Fall wäre, würden wir niemals die dilettantische Redensart hören, die immer wiederholt, man solle es in der Schule dahin bringen, daß das Kind «spielend lernt». Man kann nichts Schlimmeres machen, als daß man es dahin bringt, daß das Kind spielend lernt. Wenn man es wirklich künstlich darauf anlegt, daß die Kinder spielend lernen, dann wird man nichts anderes erreichen, als ‚daß die Kinder als erwachsene Menschen zuletzt aus dem Leben doch ein Spiel machen. Derjenige, der in so dilettantischer Weise spricht, das Lernen solle nur eine Freude sein, das Lernen solle spielend geschehen, der schaut das Spielen des Kindes vom Gesichtspunkte des Erwachsenen an. Er glaubt, das Kind spielt in derselben Seelenverfassung, wie der Erwachsene spielt. Für den Erwachsenen ist das Spiel Spaß, eine Lust, die hinzukommt zum Leben. Für das Kind ist das Spiel der ernste Inhalt des Lebens. Das Kind meint es durchaus ernst mit seinem Spiele, und das ist die Wesenheit des kindlichen Spieles, daß dieses kindliche Spiel vom Ernst getragen ist. Nur derjenige, der den Ernst des Spieles begreift, der versteht das Spiel in der richtigen Weise. Derjenige aber, der hinschaut auf das kindliche Spiel, wie sich in vollem Ernst die menschliche Natur hinausgießt in die Behandlung der äußeren Gegenstände, in die Behandlung der äußeren Welt, der ist imstande, wenn das Kind in die Schule hereinkommt, überzuführen die Kraft, die Begabung, die Fähigkeit zum Spielen, namentlich in die Fähigkeit, in jeder möglichen Weise zu künstlerischer Betätigung überzugehen, wo wir noch die Freiheit der inneren Betätigung haben, aber zu gleicher Zeit wie bei der Arbeit kämpfen müssen mit dem äußeren Stoff. Dann werden wir sehen, wie gerade in jenem Künstlerischen, das wir an das Kind heranbringen, es durchaus möglich ist, die Erziehung so zu leiten, daß der Frohsinn in der Ausbildung vom Künstlerischen mit Ernst verbunden sein kann, daß selbst dasjenige, was in der Schule dem Kinde Lust, Freude machen darf, daß das verbunden sein kann mit Charaktervollheit.
Wenn man in der Lage ist, die Kunst namentlich in den ersten Schuljahren zwischen dem Schuleintritt und dem neunten, zehnten Lebensjahre nicht im Märchenerzählgetändel bloß, sondern in einer solchen Weise zu betreiben, daß man alles, was man treibt, aus der sich entwickelnden Menschennatur, die man erkennt, herausholt, dann leitet man die spielende Tätigkeit, die das Kind bisher ausgeübt hat, über in die künstlerische Tätigkeit, und zu einem solchen Überleiten ist auch das Kind, wenn es erst die Schule betritt, durchaus fähig. Es mag das Kind, das einem im sechsten, siebenten Lebensjahre in die Schule hereingebracht wird, noch so ungeschickt plastisch sich betätigen, noch so ungeschickt mit Farben auf dem Papier malen, mit noch so großen inneren Schwierigkeiten in Gesanglich-Musikalisches, in DichterischKünstlerisches sich einleben, wenn man - hinnehmend alles dasjenige, was aus den Anlagen des Kindes an Ungeschicklichkeiten kommt versteht, das Künstlerische in der richtigen Weise an das Kind heranzubringen, dann wird man finden, daß trotz aller Ungeschicklichkeiten im plastischen und im malerischen Elemente das ganz kleine Kind schon als kindlicher Plastiker, als kindlicher Maler fühlt, innig fühlt, wie ein tieferes menschliches Wesen nicht bei den Fingerspitzen, nicht an der Grenze der menschlichen Haut aufhört, sondern hinausfließt in die Welt. Der Mensch wächst schon als Kind, wenn er in die Behandlung des Tones, des Holzes, der Farben hineinwächst, so, daß er in die Welt hineinwächst. Er wird größer, er lernt eine Empfindung haben von dem intimen, innigen Verwobensein der Menschenwesenheit mit der Weltwesenheit. Man gewinnt als Mensch durch das von der Welt Empfangene schon als Kind, wenn man in der richtigen Weise zur plastischen, zur malerischen Tätigkeit, wenn sie auch noch so ungeschickt vorhanden ist, angeleitet wird, und wird das Kind in der richtigen Weise in die musikalische, in die dichterische Empfänglichkeit eingeführt, erlebt das Kind das Musikalisch-Poetische in seiner eigenen Wesenheit, dann ist es so, als ob das Kind eine himmlische Gabe empfinge, um einen zweiten Menschen in seinem gewöhnlichen Menschen zu ergreifen. Mit den Tönen, mit der dichterischen Sprachgestaltung haben wir ungefähr etwas, wie wenn sich ein Wesen zu uns senkte gnadenvoll, das uns aufmerksam macht schon als Kinder: in dir lebt etwas, was aus geistigen Höhen herunter deine enge Menschenwesenheit ergreift.
Lebt man so selber künstlerisch anschauend, künstlerisch empfindend und künstlerisch erziehend und unterrichtend mit dem Kinde, dann offenbart sich einem, wenn das Kind, ungeschickt meinetwillen, mit dem Tone, mit dem Holze, mit der Farbe hantiert, an der plastischen, an der malerischen Tätigkeit des Kindes, welche Anlagen aus dieser besonderen Lebens- und Seelenanlage herauszuholen sind. Man lernt das Kind intim kennen, man lernt seine Grenzen, man lernt seine Begabungen kennen, indem man sieht, wie aus seinen Händen das Künstlerische der bildenden Künste fließt, und man lernt erkennen, zusammenlebend mit dem Kinde, wie stark das Kind fähig ist, zu geistigen Welten hin seinen ganzen Sinn, seine ganze Kraft zu lenken, und damit auch wiederum Kräfte herunterzutragen aus den geistigen Welten in die physische Sinneswelt. Man lernt erkennen die ganze Beziehung des Menschenkindes zu einer höheren, zu einer geistigen Welt. Man lernt erkennen die Kraft, die einstmals das Kind im Leben haben wird, wenn man mit ihm als Erziehender und Unterrichtender zusammen lebt, indem man das Musikalisch-Dichterische an das Kind heranbringt.
Dann, wenn man diese Künste, die plastische, die dichterische, die musikalische Kunst unmittelbar an den Menschen herangezogen, in den eurythmischen Bewegungen an dem Kinde heranbildet, wenn man unmittelbar dasjenige, was sonst im Worte abstrakt erscheint, in dem Menschenleib lebendig erweckt durch die Eurythmie, dann bildet man in dem Menschen die innere Harmonie aus zwischen dem geistgetragenen Musikalisch-Dichterischen und dem vom Geiste durchdrungenen Materiellen des Plastisch-Malerischen. Das Bewußtsein des Menschen, das geistdurchleuchtet ist, webt sich seelenvoll künstlerisch in das LeiblichPhysische hinein. Man lernt unterrichten, indem man Geist und Seele in dem Kinde erweckt, man lernt unterrichten so, daß der Unterricht zu gleicher Zeit gesundheitfördernd, wachstumfördernd, gesunde Kraft befördernd für das ganze Leben ist. Man wird, indem man über solches nachdenkt, an einen schönen, für das Künstlerische verständnisvollen griechischen Ausspruch erinnert. Die alten Griechen nannten die Zeusstatue des Phidias ein heilbringendes Zaubermittel. Echte Kunst ist eben nicht etwas, was bloß an den Menschen herankommt so, daß er es in Seele und Geist ergreifen kann, echte Kunst ist etwas, was den Menschen wachsen, gesunden und gedeihen macht. Echte Kunst war immer ein heilbringendes Zaubermittel.
Derjenige, der so als Erzieher und Unterrichtender die Kunst zu lieben versteht, und der die nötige Achtung hat vor der menschlichen Wesenheit, der wird Kunst als ein heilbringendes Zaubermittel all seinem Unterrichte und seiner Erziehung einzupflanzen in der Lage sein. Dann wird wie von selber einfließen auch in dasjenige, was wir als Verstandesbildung in der Schule zu treiben haben, was wir an Herzensbildung, an religiöser Bildung heranzuentwickeln haben, es wird das eindringen, was auf der einen Seite getragen ist von der menschlichen Freiheit, auf der anderen Seite getragen ist von menschlicher Liebe. Es wird von der Kunst ausstrahlen, wenn der Lehrer selber künstlerisch ist und an das künstlerische Empfinden der Kinder appelliert, mit dem künstlerischen Empfinden der Kinder künstlerisch lehrend und unterrichtend lebt, es wird ausstrahlen von dem künstlerischen Sinn im Unterrichte und im Erziehen das richtige pädagogische, das richtige menschliche Wirken für alle übrige Erziehung, für allen übrigen Unterricht. Man wird nicht Künstlerisches sparen wollen für die anderen Lehrgegenstände, sondern man wird das Künstlerische einreihen in den Organismus des ganzen Unterrichtes und der ganzen Erziehung, so daß es nicht gewissermaßen nebenhergeht: da sind die Hauptgegenstände, das ist für den Verstand, das für Gemüt und Pflicht, und dann abgesondert im Stundenplan, so halb unobligatorisch ist dasjenige, was das Kind künstlerisch sich aneignen soll. Nein, richtig steht die Kunst in der Schule darinnen, wenn aller andere Unterricht, alle andere Erziehung so angelegt sind, daß im rechten Augenblicke das kindliche Gemüt aus dem übrigen Unterricht nach der Kunst verlangt, und wenn die Kunst so getrieben wird in der Schule, daß ihm in der künstlerischen Betätigung der Sinn aufgeht, dasjenige auch mit dem Verstande zu begreifen, das auch mit der Pflicht zu durchdringen, was es in der Kunst als das Schöne, als das rein frei Menschliche anschauen gelernt hat. Das sollte hindeuten darauf, wie die Kunst wirklich in den ganzen Organismus des Erziehens und des Unterrichtens eindringen kann, wie die Kunst durchleuchten und durchwärmen kann alles pädagogisch-didaktische Wesen. Kunst und der künstlerische Sinn sind dasjenige, was die Menschenerkenntnis hineinstellt zwischen die reine Geisteserkenntnis und die naturgemäße Sinneserkenntnis. Kunst ist auch dasjenige, was uns in die Erziehungslebenspraxis in der schönsten Weise hineinführen kann.
Derjenige, der Kunst liebt, der den Menschen achtet, wird aus solcher Gesinnungspädagogik, wie ich sie versuchte skizzenhaft anzudeuten, der Kunst in der Schule den richtigen Platz anweisen. Er wird der Kunst den richtigen Platz anweisen aus seiner ganzen, totalen Menschenempfindung heraus, die sich dann konzentriert durch den Umgang mit der Schülerschaft selber zur pädagogischen Gesinnung und zu pädagogischem Leben. Denn dasjenige, was er tut, das wird nicht auf der einen Seite vernachlässigen diejenige Bildung, die mehr nach dem Geiste hingeht, auch nicht diejenige Bildung, die mehr nach dem Körper hingeht. Indem die Kunst in der richtigen Weise in die Schule hineingestellt wird, empfängt die Schule auch den richtigen Geist für die richtige Leibesentwickelung der Kinder. Denn Kunst, wo sie hingestellt wird, wirkt so im Leben, daß sie auf der einen Seite empfänglich ist für das geistige Licht, das der Mensch zu seiner Entwickelung für seine eigene Wesenheit braucht. Kunst kann sich durchdringen durch ihre eigene Wesenheit mit dem geistigen Lichte, und Kunst, durchdrungen mit diesem geistigen Licht, bewahrt dieses Licht. Wo sie wieder ausströmt ihr Wesen, da durchtränkt sie dasjenige, in das sie sich ergießt, mit dem Lichte, das sie von der Geistessonne selbst empfangen hat, durchtränkt auch das Materielle mit dem Lichte, so daß das Materielle Geistiges ausdrücken darf, seelisch-glänzend, leuchtend an seiner Außenseite wird. Kunst ist imstande, das Licht des Weltenalls in sich zu versammeln. Kunst ist aber auch imstande, allem Irdisch-Materiellen Lichtglanz zu geben. Daher ist Kunst imstande, die Geheimnisse der geistigen Welt in die Schule hereinzuholen und der kindlichen Seele jenen geistig-seelischen Glanz zu verleihen, durch den dann diese kindliche Seele in das Leben so eintreten kann, daß es die Arbeit nicht mehr bloß als drückende Last zu empfinden braucht, sondern daß allmählich im sozialen Zusammenwirken der Menschheit die Arbeit ihres bloß Lastenden entkleidet werden kann. Und das soziale Leben, es kann gerade dadurch eine Vertiefung, zu gleicher Zeit eine Befreiung für die Menschheit erfahren, daß wir, so paradox das klingt, die Kunst in der richtigen Weise in die Schule hineinzustellen vermögen.
Die weiteren Ausführungen werden sich dann ergeben, wenn ich morgen vorzutragen habe über die Stellung der Moral, der sittlichen Anschauung und sittlichen Empfindung innerhalb des Schul- und Erziehungswesens. Heute wollte ich nur zeigen, daß der Geist, der für die Schule notwendig ist, durch die Kunst, durch das Zaubermittel Kunst hereingezaubert wird in die Schule, daß bei der richtigen Behandlung der Kunst diese lichtgeistdurchtränkte Kunst in den Seelen der Kinder jenen Glanz zu erzeugen vermag, durch den die Seele sich wiederum in den Leib und damit in die ganze Welt für das ganze folgende Leben in der richtigen Weise hineinstellen kann.
Education and Art
Ladies and gentlemen, a well-known and much-discussed phrase from ancient Greece resounds through the ages like a warning echoing in the depths of the soul: “Man, know thyself.” This places a demand on humanity that is often not perceived as enormous, but is nevertheless enormous; one might say that it is a demand that humanity should become acquainted with its true, real being and its true, real significance in the world through its most valuable mental and spiritual activity.
Now, it is usually the case that when such a demand is made within an age, issued from a significant position, it does not usually point to something that can be easily obtained, that can be easily fulfilled, but rÄther to the particular deficiency of an age, to something that is difficult to fulfill. And anyone who looks back on the ancient epochs of humanity not externally, theoretically, historically, but sensitively, historically, will already feel that the emergence of this demand in ancient Greece basically signifies a decline, not an increase, in the power of human self-knowledge, the power of real, deep human knowledge. If we look back to those times in human development when religious feeling, artistic perception, and ideal and idealistic knowledge still harmonized, we feel how, in those times of harmonious unity between religion, art, and science, human beings naturally felt themselves to be the image, the likeness, of the divine spirit that lived through and interwove the world. Human beings felt themselves to be God-given beings on earth. And basically, it was natural in the ancient, gray times of humanity that human self-knowledge was sought in the knowledge of God, in the knowledge of the divine, spiritual source reigning in human beings, which at the same time was felt and thought of as the source of the world. When, in very ancient times, man uttered what in our language would sound like “I,” he was at the same time expressing the sum of all the central forces of the world, and in that word, which referred to his own self, he also expressed the meaning of what is creatively active in the universe. For they felt themselves, in their innermost being, to be one with this universe. What was once self-evident, what appeared before human beings as the colors of external nature appear before the sensory eye, became something difficult to attain in later times. And if, in ancient times, when the demand for self-knowledge could have arisen, one had heard the saying – one could hardly have heard it from an earthly being – if one had heard it from an extraterrestrial being: “Know thyself,” one would have replied: Why make the effort to know oneself? We humans are the image of the divine spirit that shines and sounds and warms and blesses everywhere in the world. If you recognize what the wind carries through the trees, what the lightning sends through the air, what rolls in the thunder, what changes in the clouds, what lives in the blade of grass, what blooms in the flower, then you also recognize the human self.
When such knowledge of the world, such divine spiritual knowledge, was no longer possible with the progressive development of human independence, humans came up with the idea of letting the words “Know thyself” resound from the depths of their being, pointing to something that was once a matter of course for humans weaving their way through the world, but which became more and more of an effort.
Between the emergence of this demand to “know thyself” and another saying, which was first uttered in our own age, in the last third of the 19th century, lies an important epoch in human development. This other saying sounds, in a sense, like a response to the Apollonian saying “know thyself.” This other saying came from an eminent natural scientist in the last third of the 19th century: “We will never know — Ignorabimus!” And this “Ignorabimus” must be called a response to the ancient Apollonian saying, because the person who uttered it, Du Bois-Reymond, meant that modern knowledge of nature, which has made such enormous progress, must come to a standstill at certain limits: on the one hand, at the limits of human consciousness, and on the other, at the limits of matter. What lies between consciousness and matter, humanity will recognize, so said the natural scientist, who understood well what natural science is capable of, especially when it becomes great. But what lives as the world of consciousness in human bodily matter, and how that which proceeds physically in the human body is transformed into the inner experience of the soul, which reigns in consciousness, should, according to this opinion, never be known to human beings. But the life of consciousness in human matter, the spiritualization of human bodily matter through the impulses of consciousness, is precisely what constitutes the human being. And those who cannot come to an understanding of how consciousness flows through, permeates, and lives through human bodily matter, how matter itself can be called to that light in which consciousness can appear, cannot think, no matter how hard they try, of fulfilling the demand: “Man, know thyself.”
Between these two world-historical statements: “Man, know thyself” and “We as human beings will never recognize the reign of consciousness in matter,” lies a significant period of human soul development. During that period, there was still so much inner human power from ancient times that people felt what had previously been a matter of course, namely to seek the human essence in the apparent divinity: little by little, through inner effort, human beings will acquire self-knowledge. — But this power of self-knowledge grew weaker and weaker. And by the last third of the 19th century, it had become so weak that, after the sun of self-knowledge had just set, the negative of that Apollonian positive resounded: “Man, you cannot know yourself.”
Well, if that is the case, if knowledge of nature — and knowledge of nature as it has been pursued in recent times does indeed lead completely into the secrets of nature in a way that meets the needs of modern humanity — if knowledge of nature must ultimately confess: one cannot recognize the working of consciousness in matter, then it is only another version of this confession to say: knowledge of man is impossible. However, one must now say something else: just as self-knowledge as knowledge of God was already in twilight when the saying rang out: “Man, know thyself,” the renunciation of self-knowledge, that is, knowledge of man, was already in its twilight when the demand was made: Resign, O man, to all self-knowledge, to all knowledge of man. Again, this saying does not point to what it contains, but to the opposite experienced in humanity. For already, because the power of self-knowledge had become weaker and weaker, the urge to know man had arisen, not from theoretical intellectual needs, not from any scientific impulses, but from the impulses of the human heart, from the deepest impulses of the human soul. For people already felt that no matter how deeply they delved into the brilliant nature of the knowledge of nature that had given modern humanity so much, this knowledge of nature did not penetrate the essence of the human being. But there must be a way to penetrate the essence of the human being.
In addition to other branches of human life, the pedagogical urge of humanity, the urge to develop a proper relationship between human beings and those who are becoming human beings, those who are to be educated and taught, is also essentially involved in the emergence of this new demand for knowledge of human beings, which was expressed by knowledge of nature by stating the opposite of the possibility of knowledge of human beings. Precisely in the age that wanted to express the renunciation of all knowledge of human beings in the manner indicated – if one understands the statement correctly, it implies a renunciation of all knowledge of human beings – precisely in this age, the conviction arose more and more among people concerned with education and teaching: intellectualism, the external knowledge of the senses and the intellect, which also wants to approach the human being, is unsuitable for giving the human being something with which he can educate and teach the developing human being, the child, the growing youth, the growing maiden. Therefore, in this age, we hear everywhere the conviction that, in addition to training the intellect, which has achieved so much in terms of the knowledge desired in modern times, we must appeal to the powers of feeling, emotion, and will in human beings; we must not cultivate the intellectual above all else in children, but rÄther make them not merely knowledgeable, but capable.
But something strange is happening in this educational demand: one refrains from truly looking into the human being, including the being of the developing human being, the child; one doubts that, in the same way that nature is understood, something can be understood about the human being that will then help one to treat him or her in the right way in education and teaching. And here a particular trend, a particular current in modern educational art asserts itself, within which one actually wants to know nothing about the prudent, conscious departure from real human knowledge. One wants to rely much more on educational instincts than on conscious impulses, on indefinite subconscious impulses that are now supposed to work in the teacher, in the educator. Anyone who can judge such things will find that in the many and varied, and in some cases extremely commendable, endeavors in the field of education today, it is precisely this trend that prevails, namely that people want to establish pedagogical and didactic ideals everywhere on the basis of the elementary aspects of human nature, on the basis of mere instinctive drives. Today, people believe that a fully conscious understanding that penetrates the depths of human nature is not possible, so when dealing with the essence of the human being, one must rely on vague, instinctive impulses.
Only those who look into this characteristic feature of the latest spiritual life with heartfelt human sympathy will appreciate the significance of what is sought by the spiritual science referred to here, for the cultivation of the pedagogical sense, the didactic creative power in school and in general towards the child. For the spiritual science, the spiritual knowledge that underlies all the endeavors that are to find expression in this artistic-pedagogical conference does not come from the ancient sources that were drawn upon in times when knowledge of human nature was still directly knowledge of God, but from sources that continue the laudable scientific urge into the spiritual realm in such a way that a real, true spiritual science as knowledge of human nature becomes possible again. And such knowledge of human nature is necessary if one wants to consciously approach the tasks of teaching and education. We have once progressed beyond merely instinctive life in the development of humanity. Without losing our instinctiveness, without losing the elementary and original, we must consciously penetrate all those entities with which we as human beings have to deal in life.
It may seem appealing to say that human beings should not attach too much importance to what they clearly recognize, but should surrender to the wonderfully effective instinctive impulses. But such a beautiful feeling is not suitable for our age, because we as human beings, within the stream of development of the whole of humanity, have simply lost the old security of instinctive experience, of instinctual life, and must conquer a new security that is no less original, no less elemental than the former experience, but which is capable of immersing itself in the sphere of full consciousness.
It is precisely those who, I would say, engage with the enthusiasm of knowledge in the whole way in which nature is justifiably researched today who come to realize that with this particular way of using the senses, of placing instruments at the service of experimental research, and from the nature of intellectual judgments about sensory knowledge, that human knowledge cannot come from this peculiar way of knowing nature. They come to realize that there must be a knowledge of human beings that flows from forces quite different from those through which one penetrates the essence of external natural phenomena in the present-day manner.
I have described the forces that human beings must then penetrate in their own nature in my book “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds” and in my “Outline of Esoteric Science.” I have pointed out how human beings can activate forces in their soul life that enable them to perceive, even through natural phenomena, something that appears to them in pure spiritual light, just as, by allowing their dormant forces to reveal themselves, they can perceive the purely spiritual that permeates all material things. These are the two things that must be fully understood within our spiritual science today: first, that knowledge of nature does not bring us closer to human beings; second, that there must be a special spiritual knowledge that penetrates the spiritual world just as surely as so-called sensory-empirical natural science penetrates the purely natural world. But only, I would like to say, from the practice of knowledge can one truly understand the full meaning of what has been said.
Anyone who attempts — and this has been attempted time and again, and for many people it is a natural attempt — to apply the methods of knowledge that we consider reliable today in experimental research and observational research to this special state of mind in order to understand human beings: they do not penetrate to the essence of the human being, which one experiences and feels alive within oneself. One knows that one remains outside of the human being, and I would like to make the paradoxical statement: If someone wants to apply the methods of natural science to human beings and then see how a human being can experience within themselves what they now believe themselves to be, then very soon, especially if they are enthusiastic about knowledge, the following will come to mind: Through this knowledge of human nature modeled on knowledge of nature, you feel as a human being must feel who, through his senses, through all the powers of knowledge he possesses, can perceive nothing else but his own skeleton. This is basically the devastating, the inwardly devastating thing that springs forth as a kind of result, as a result of the mind and feelings, precisely from the seriously felt knowledge of nature. Through this knowledge of nature, one skeletonizes oneself as a human being. And when one experiences the devastating nature of this inner feeling, one is also seized by the impulse that truly drives spiritual science today. For this spiritual science says to itself: you must penetrate the essence of the human being in a different way than the one through which you penetrate lifeless nature.
And what kind of knowledge of human beings must this be that truly introduces us to human life? It must not be such that, when we observe ourselves, we feel like a spiritual skeleton; it must be comparable to something else. What we are as physical human beings, for example in terms of blood circulation and respiration, we feel it, we do not notice it in detail, but we do have it within us as our being. The way in which we experience our respiration and blood circulation in normal life can be summed up, without our expressing it in words, but precisely by experiencing it, in that we experience ourselves as healthy human beings. There must also be something like this, that one gains knowledge of the human being, that one gains ideas and insights about the human being, which one can process in one's inner soul in such a way that one experiences them as the natural human being, just as one experiences one's breathing and blood circulation as one's health. But then the question arises: What can be the path to such knowledge of human nature, to a knowledge of human nature that then also leads us into the nature of the child that we as educators and teachers have to deal with?
How do we approach the external sensory nature? Through our senses. It is through our eyes that we gain knowledge of the manifold world of light and color. We must have the organ in order to gain knowledge, to gain inner spiritual possession of any area of the world. We must have senses for that which is to become our spiritual possession. And those who pursue such things, who study the external sensory perception, the marvelous structure of the human eye, its connection to the human brain, will feel deeply what Goethe felt when he repeated the saying of an ancient mystic:
Were not the eye sunlike,
How could we see the light,
If God's own power did not lie within us,
How could the divine delight us!
This sun-like quality of the eye is what works within as a creative light to receive the external light.
We must look at the organ if we want to understand what relationship human beings must have to the world if they are to make any spiritual possession their own. We must look at the organ that leads us to true knowledge of human beings. Which sense leads to true knowledge of human beings? Our eyes, our ears, and our other senses lead us to knowledge of the outer world. The inner spiritually illuminated human being, as it can be acquired in the ways I have described in “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds,” leads us to knowledge of the spiritual world. Here we find, as it were, the two opposites of human striving for knowledge: on the one hand, sensory knowledge, mediated by the organs implanted in the human body; on the other hand, the knowledge of that spirit which, as a unified whole, permeates and interweaves nature and human beings at the same time, that spiritual knowledge which is acquired when we, as whole human beings, make ourselves, as it were, into a spiritual sense organ, when we make all our powers, our whole humanity, into a knowing organ for the spiritual world.
But it is precisely between these two opposites that human knowledge lies. If we only perceive external nature through our senses, we cannot approach the human being for the reasons already indicated. If we perceive only the spiritual — you can read about this in my book Occult Science and in other writings in the field of spiritual science that I am referring to here — then we must, as it were, raise our senses to such spiritual and soul heights that the immediacy of the human being as he stands before us in the world disappears. We need something that leads us even more intimately into the human being than that which enables us to see him as a member of the spirituality that permeates the world. There must be a sense, as there is for colors the eye, for the immediate recognition of human nature. What is this sense for the present age of human development? How do we penetrate human nature, which stands directly before us in the world, just as we penetrate the diversity of colors through the wonderful mechanism of our eyes, just as we penetrate the diversity of sounds through our ears? Where is the sense for understanding and knowing human beings?
Well, this sense is none other than the one that we as human beings have been given for the appreciation of art, the artistic sense, the sense that can convey to us that glimmer of spirit in matter that reveals itself to us as beauty, that confronts us in art. This artistic sense is at the same time the sense that allows us to grasp human beings directly in the present in their essence, so that this knowledge can also become direct life practice. I know how paradoxical such a statement as I have just made still sounds to contemporary humanity. But those who really have the courage to think through to the end those ideas and concepts through which we grasp the external aspects of nature, and in particular to empathize with these ideas and concepts of knowledge of nature with their whole human being, will feel something tearing at them at the boundary where they can say to themselves: Here you have come particularly close to nature through your ideas, through your concepts of nature — they will feel something pulling them at this boundary to leave behind the contours of the concepts and ideas through which we grasp nature and to soar to an artistic shaping of these ideas.
That was the reason why I said in the introduction to the Philosophy of Freedom, written in 1894: To understand human beings, one needs an art of ideas, not merely an abstract grasp of ideas. One must empathize with this impulse to transform the abstractness of the concepts through which we comprehend nature into a living artistic vision. This is possible. One must allow knowledge to flow into art, then one arrives at the use of the artistic sense. And while, if one allows only knowledge of nature to prevail, one must say: one will never understand how consciousness is bound to matter—it suddenly dawns on one when one allows the concepts and ideas of knowledge of nature to flow into artistic conception. Everything then transitions from the conceptual to inner artistic vision, and what one sees there covers, in a sense, the essence of the human being, just as the colors conceived by the eye cover the plants and other natural beings. Just as the physical sense of the eye grows together with the essence of colored natural phenomena in the perception of colors, so the artistic sense grows inwardly together with the essence of the human being. And only when we have seen color through the eye can we think about color. Only when we have looked at the essence of the human being through the artistic sense can we follow up with our abstract concepts and ideas.
And when science thus becomes art, then all the knowledge we have of human beings, then everything we think about, even the external image of human beings that we first perceive artistically, does not become the soul's own possession, through which one feels oneself as if one were a skeleton; Instead, with what one acquires in the way of artistically continued ideas and concepts about human nature, one can become one, so that it pours into one's soul like the flow of blood and breath pours into the body. And then something will live in the human being that is as full of life as that which one develops as an expression of normal breathing, normal blood circulation in the feeling: I am healthy. An overall feeling in which human nature is contained, like health in the physical body, is what is possible through such knowledge of human nature, which, through artistic sense, first acquires an intimate view of the human being living directly in the present, not yet elevated to the spirit.
And when one considers in this way that such true human knowledge, which in each of its perceptions becomes at the same time will and activity, just as the breath in us, the blood circulation, becomes will and activity, when one considers what such human knowledge must ultimately yield—well, here too, comparison helps us further. In this case, the comparison means more than a mere comparison; it is not taken from abstraction, it is taken from reality. What, then, is the essence of health that emerges from the whole being of the human being? What becomes of that which lives into the basic feeling, which does not need to be expressed, which only needs to be experienced dimly, what is expressed in this basic feeling: I am so organized that I can regard myself as a healthy human being standing in the world — what is expressed in this healthy human being?
It expresses the crown of human life. And this crown of human life is the power of love. Ultimately, health flows, but ultimately all healthy soul forces also flow into that feeling, into that emotion that can embrace the other person standing next to us in love, because we recognize the human being in us as healthy. Thus, from this healthy recognition of the human being springs love for the other person, whom we recognize as being the same as we are. We find ourselves again in the other person. Such knowledge of the human being does not become a theoretical instruction, as it does for the technician, for example, which then has to be transformed in an external way: this or that should happen; no, such knowledge of the human being becomes an immediate inner experience, becomes immediate life practice. For in its transformation it flows into the power of love. It becomes active knowledge of human beings. When I stand before a child as an educator, as a teacher, the knowledge of the child springs from my knowledge of human beings in the unfolding soul-spiritual love. I do not need to first bring instructions, theoretical views of human nature, such as those modeled on natural science, into pedagogy; I only need to feel the knowledge of human nature, just as I experience healthy breathing and healthy blood circulation as my total health. Then, true knowledge of human nature, enlivened in the right way, becomes the art of pedagogy.
What must this knowledge of human nature become? This is already evident from what has been described. It must be possible for human beings to let their knowledge of human nature work on the wings of love, on their human environment, above all on the human environment of the child. What is acquired as knowledge of human nature must be able to pass into attitude, into that attitude in which this knowledge of human nature lives as love. The most important basis for education today is that it should be regarded as a matter of the teacher's and educator's attitude, that one should not merely lecture on the fact that one should not train the child's intellect alone, and then proceed quite sensibly to avoid training the intellect. The teacher is allowed to proceed quite sensibly, using only the intellect, so that he does not merely educate the child intellectually! That is why we begin the further training of pedagogy with the teacher, so that the teacher is not influenced by mere intellectualism, which is unartistic, so that we begin with the teacher to move from knowledge of the human being to an artistic -pedagogical-didactic attitude that lives directly in the child, thereby establishing contact between teacher and child, between educator and child, whereby knowledge of human nature becomes direct in the formative love of teaching and education.
Mere knowledge of nature cannot understand how consciousness works in physical matter. Why not? Because knowledge of nature cannot understand what shapes and forms art. Knowledge of human nature leads us to the conclusion that consciousness is an artist who works artistically on human physical matter. As long as we do not seek knowledge of human nature through artistic sense, we will remain ignorant of human nature. Only when we begin to recognize that consciousness in human beings is itself an artistic creator in matter, that we must grasp an artistic creator if we want to grasp human nature, only then will we move beyond ignorabimus. At the same time, however, one will arrive at a knowledge of human beings that is not only theoretical knowledge, but something that is inwardly effective and active in the will – a knowledge of human beings that is life practice, that is one with life practice.
Those who approach the maturing human being, the developing child, in this way, then look through this knowledge of humanity, wrought by artistic sense and carried on the wings of love, into what is growing up in the child; they see many things. — I want to characterize one thing in particular. They see that remarkable development maturing in the child, which moves, so to speak, from play to work. The child plays; it plays naturally. The adult human being must work. He is placed in the necessity of working. When we look around at social life today, we must characterize the contrast between childlike play and socially necessary work for most people in such a way that we say: We look at the child; what it accomplishes in play is connected with a liberating joy about the development of the activity necessary in the human being. Look at the child at play. It is impossible to imagine that it does not want to do what it does in play. Why? Because play is the liberation from an activity that wants to come out of the human being. Liberating joy in living out a human activity that is inherent in the human being – that is the child's play.
And what will work become in the course of human development today, often, indeed, one might say in most cases – and this will become more and more widespread in the future, more and more the case? Work will become the oppressive burden of life. The child grows out of the liberating joy of play into the oppressive burden of life's work. When we really take this contrast to heart, we are confronted with the big question: How do we build a bridge between the liberating joy of play and the oppressive burden of life's work? And anyone who observes the developing child with the artistic insight into human nature that I have just mentioned will find this bridge in the application of art in school. Art, when used in the right way in school, also leads in the right way from the liberating joy of play into work, which is accepted as a necessity of life but which, when the right bridge is built, no longer needs to be felt as an oppressive burden. And without removing the oppressive burden from work, we will never solve the social question. It will always reappear in a different form if the contrast in life is not eliminated through education, the contrast between the liberating joy of play and the oppressive burden of life's work.
What can be meant by incorporating the artistic into pedagogy, into educational and teaching practice? It is easy to arrive at completely skewed views, especially about the use of art, particularly in school. Everyone understands that the mind must be trained in a certain way. For how deeply ingrained in our modern consciousness is the necessity that human beings must acquire a certain level of intellectual training in order to maintain today's way of life. And so it is not easy to be indifferent to the necessity of intellectual training in school. Everyone also understands that human dignity, that is, the whole human being, cannot be achieved without moral education. For everyone has the feeling, to a greater or lesser extent, that an immoral person is not a whole person, that he is something like a spiritual cripple. And so, on the one hand, attention is focused on the development of intellectual activity, and on the other hand, attention is focused on the cultivation of true human dignity, on the sacred concept of duty, on the sacred concept of virtue. But attention is not focused in the same way everywhere on that which can only be brought about in complete freedom and love for human beings, on the artistic.
One must have that high regard for the human being and that unique love for the human being even in its maturation during childhood, as Schiller had, who made this regard, this love, in such a wonderful way the basis of his presentation in the unfortunately far too little appreciated Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man. Here we have a genuine appreciation of the artistic in education, arising directly from German intellectual life. This can already be taken as a starting point. Schiller's view can then be deepened by what can be gained from spiritual science. Just look at children's play, how it springs forth because human nature cannot help but be active. Look at how children create from their own organization, from their own human essence, that which their play extends to. Look at the way in which the content of our work is given to us by the external necessities of life, how we have to approach our work in such a way that what we accomplish there does not arise directly from human nature, at least not in its entirety, and cannot arise from the full nature of any human being. And you will see how human development in this respect is from childhood to adulthood.
But one thing should never be lost sight of. We usually view what children accomplish in play from the perspective of adults. Yes, it is true that we view children's play from the adult perspective. If this were not the case, we would never hear the amateurish saying that is repeated over and over again, that children should be taught in school to “learn through play.” There is nothing worse than teaching children to learn through play. If you really try artificially to make children learn through play, you will achieve nothing other than children ultimately turning adult life into a game. Those who speak in such an amateurish way, saying that learning should only be a joy, that learning should be done through play, view children's play from an adult's perspective. They believe that children play in the same state of mind as adults. For adults, play is fun, a pleasure that adds to life. For children, play is the serious content of life. Children are completely serious about their play, and that is the essence of childlike play: that it is carried by seriousness. Only those who understand the seriousness of play understand play in the right way. But those who look at children's play, at how human nature pours itself out in all seriousness into the treatment of external objects, into the treatment of the external world, are able, when the child enters school, to transfer the power, the talent, the ability to play, namely the ability to engage in artistic activity in every possible way, where we still have the freedom of inner activity, but at the same time, as in work, we have to struggle with the external material. Then we will see how, precisely in the artistic activities we introduce to the child, it is entirely possible to guide education in such a way that cheerfulness in artistic training can be combined with seriousness, that even that which may give the child pleasure and joy in school can be combined with character development.
If one is able, especially in the first years of school between the start of school and the age of nine or ten, to pursue art not merely in the form of fairy tales, but in such a way that everything one does is drawn from the developing human nature that one recognizes, then you guide the playful activity that the child has practiced up to that point into artistic activity, and the child is quite capable of such a transition once it enters school. The child who is brought into school in the sixth or seventh year of life may be seventh year of life, may still be clumsy in their plastic arts, still clumsy in painting with colors on paper, still have great inner difficulties in settling into singing, music, poetry, and art, but if one accepts all that comes from the child's clumsiness and understands and introduce the child to the arts in the right way, then one will find that despite all the clumsiness in the plastic and painterly elements, the very young child already feels, as a childlike sculptor, as a childlike painter, feels deeply, how a deeper human being does not end at the fingertips, does not end at the boundary of human skin, but flows out into the world. Human beings grow even as children when they grow into working with clay, wood, and colors, so that they grow into the world. They become greater, they learn to have a feeling for the intimate, heartfelt interweaving of human beings with the world. As a human being, one gains from what one receives from the world even as a child, if one is guided in the right way to plastic and painterly activity, even if it is still clumsy, and if the child is introduced in the right way to musical and poetic receptivity, the child experiences the musical and poetic in its own being, then it is as if the child receives a heavenly gift to grasp a second human being in its ordinary human being. With sounds and poetic language, we have something like a being descending graciously upon us, making us aware even as children that something lives within us that descends from spiritual heights and takes hold of our narrow human nature.
If you live in this way, viewing, feeling, educating, and teaching artistically with the child, then when the child, clumsily for my sake, handles the sound, the wood, the color, it becomes clear to you what talents can be drawn out of this particular disposition of life and soul in the child's sculptural and painterly activity. You get to know the child intimately, you learn their limits, you get to know their talents by seeing how the artistic nature of the visual arts flows from their hands, and you learn to recognize, living together with the child, how strongly the child is able to direct their whole sense, their whole power, toward spiritual worlds, and thus also to bring forces down from the spiritual worlds into the physical sensory world. You learn to recognize the whole relationship of the human child to a higher, spiritual world. You learn to recognize the power that the child will one day have in life when you live with them as an educator and teacher, by introducing them to music and poetry.
Then, when one develops these arts—the plastic, poetic, and musical arts—directly in relation to the human being, in the eurythmic movements of the child, when one directly awakens in the human body through eurythmy that which otherwise appears abstract in words, then one develops in the human being the inner harmony between the spiritually inspired musical and poetic and the spiritually permeated material of the plastic and painterly. The consciousness of the human being, which is illuminated by the spirit, weaves itself soulfully and artistically into the physical body. One learns to teach by awakening the spirit and soul in the child; one learns to teach in such a way that the teaching is at the same time beneficial to health, promotes growth, and fosters healthy strength for the whole of life. When one thinks about this, one is reminded of a beautiful Greek saying that shows an understanding of the artistic. The ancient Greeks called Phidias' statue of Zeus a healing magic potion. True art is not something that merely touches people in such a way that they can grasp it in their soul and spirit; true art is something that makes people grow, become healthy, and flourish. True art has always been a healing magic potion.
Those who, as educators and teachers, understand how to love art and have the necessary respect for human nature will be able to instill art as a healing magic potion in all their teaching and education. Then what we have to do in school to develop the intellect, what we have to develop in terms of heart and religious education, will flow in by itself. It will be imbued with human freedom on the one hand and human love on the other. It will radiate from art if the teacher himself is artistic and appeals to the artistic sensibility of the children, lives artistically with the artistic sensibility of the children, teaching and instructing artistically. It will radiate from the artistic sense in teaching and education, the right pedagogical, the right human influence for all other education, for all other teaching. One will not want to save art for other subjects, but will incorporate art into the organism of the whole teaching and the whole education, so that it does not, as it were, run alongside: there are the main subjects, that is for the intellect, that for the mind and duty, and then, separated in the timetable, is that which the child is to acquire artistically, which is semi-optional. No, art is properly represented in school when all other teaching, all other education are designed in such a way that, at the right moment, the child's mind demands art from the rest of the lessons, and when art is taught in school in such a way that, in artistic activity, the child's mind opens up to understand with the intellect and to penetrate with duty what it has learned to see in art as beautiful, as purely and freely human. This should indicate how art can truly penetrate the entire organism of education and teaching, how art can illuminate and warm everything pedagogical and didactic. Art and artistic sensibility are what human knowledge places between pure intellectual knowledge and natural sensory knowledge. Art is also what can introduce us to the practice of education in the most beautiful way.
Those who love art and respect human beings will, based on the kind of educational philosophy I have attempted to outline, assign art its rightful place in schools. They will assign art its rightful place based on their entire, total human sensibility, which then concentrates itself through interaction with the students themselves into a pedagogical attitude and pedagogical life. For what they do will not neglect, on the one hand, the education that is more spiritual, nor, on the other hand, the education that is more physical. By placing art in the school in the right way, the school also receives the right spirit for the proper physical development of the children. For art, wherever it is placed, has such an effect in life that, on the one hand, it is receptive to the spiritual light that human beings need for their development and for their own being. Art can permeate its own essence with spiritual light, and art, permeated with this spiritual light, preserves this light. Where it flows out again, it saturates that into which it pours itself with the light it has received from the spiritual sun itself, saturating even the material with light, so that the material may express the spiritual, becoming soul-like, shining, luminous on its outer surface. Art is capable of gÄthering the light of the universe within itself. But art is also capable of giving light and brilliance to everything earthly and material. Therefore, art is capable of bringing the secrets of the spiritual world into the school and giving the child's soul that spiritual-soul brilliance through which this child's soul can then enter into life in such a way that it no longer needs to perceive work merely as an oppressive burden, but that gradually, in the social interaction of humanity, work can be stripped of its mere burden. And social life can experience a deepening and, at the same time, a liberation for humanity precisely because, paradoxical as it may sound, we are able to introduce art into schools in the right way.
Further explanations will follow tomorrow when I give a lecture on the position of morality, moral views, and moral sensibilities within the school and education system. Today, I just wanted to show that the spirit that is necessary for school is conjured into school through art, through the magic of art, and that when art is handled correctly, this light-filled art can create a radiance in the souls of children that allows the soul to re-enter the body and thus the whole world in the right way for the rest of their lives.