Occult Science
GA 13
Preface, First Edition
[ 1 ] In offering to the public a book like the present one, its author should be able to anticipate, with utter calmness, any kind of criticism that is possible in our time. Someone, for example, might begin to read the presentation given here of this or that matter, about which he has thought in accordance with the results of research in science, and he might come to the following conclusion: It is astonishing how such assertions are at all possible in our age. The author treats the simplest scientific concepts in a manner that shows the most inconceivable ignorance concerning even the most elementary facts of scientific knowledge. For example, he treats concepts, such as “heat,” in a way only possible for someone who has permitted the whole modern mode of thinking in physics to pass over his head without having the least effect. Anyone who knows even the elementary facts of this science could show him that what he says here does not even deserve the designation “amateurishness,” but can only be called “absolute ignorance.” Many sentences could be quoted that express this kind of possible criticism. One could imagine that someone might arrive at the following conclusion: “Whoever has read a few pages of this book will, according to his temperament, lay it aside either with a smile or with indignation, and say to himself, ‘It is certainly queer what eccentricities can be brought forth by a wrong trend of thought in the present day. It is best that such expositions be laid aside with many other freaks of the human mind.’ ”—What, however, does the author of this book say if he really experienced such criticism? Must he not, from his standpoint, simply regard the critic as a reader lacking the faculty of judgment or as someone who has not the goodwill to form an appreciative opinion?—The answer to that is emphatically, No! the author does not do that in every case. He is able to imagine that his critic may be a very clever person and also a trained scientist, someone who forms his judgments in quite a conscientious way. For the author of this book is able to enter with his thinking into the soul of such a person and into the reasons that can lead the latter to such a judgment. A certain necessity arises to clarify what the author really says. Although in general he considers it highly improper to discuss anything of a personal nature, it seems essential to do so in regard to this book. To be sure, nothing will be brought forward that is not concerned with the decision to write this book. What is said in such a book would certainly have no reason for existence were it to bear only a personal character. It must contain views that every human being may acquire, and these must be expressed without any personal coloring as far as this is humanly possible . The introduction of the personal element is only to make clear how the author is able to comprehend the above-mentioned criticism of his expositions, yet nevertheless was still able to write this book. There would be one way, to be sure, of avoiding mention of the personal element: that of presenting, explicitly, every detail that proves that the statements in this book really agree, with every forward step of modern science. This would necessitate, however, the writing of many volumes of introductory matter. Since this at present is out of the question, it seems necessary for the author to describe the personal circumstances through which he feels justified in believing himself in agreement with modern science.—Never, for example, would he have undertaken to publish all that is said in this book about heat phenomena were he not able to affirm that, thirty years ago, he was in the position to make a thorough study of physics, which had ramifications into the various fields of that science.
The expositions belonging to the so-called “Mechanical Theory of Heat” (“Theory of Thermodynamics”) occupied at that time the central point of his studies in the field of heat phenomena. This theory was of special interest to him. The historical development of the interpretations associated with such names as Julius Robert Mayer, Helmholtz, Joule, Clausius, and others, formed a part of his continuous studies. He thus, laid the proper foundation and created the possibility of being able to follow—right up to the present—all the advances of science in the domain of the physical theory of heat. Hence there are no difficulties to overcome when he investigates what modern science has achieved in this field. His confession of inability to do this would have been sufficient reason for leaving the matter advanced in this book unsaid and unwritten. He has truly made it a principle to speak or write only about those subjects in the field of spiritual science about which he would be sufficiently able to say what modern science knows about them. This statement, however, is not meant as a general prerequisite for everyone. Others may, with justice, feel impelled to communicate and publish what their judgment, healthy sense of truth, and feelings indicate, although they may not know the point of view of contemporary science in such matters. The author of this book, however, intends to hold to the above expressed principle for himself. He would not, for example, write about the human glandular or nervous system as he does, were he not at the same time in the position also to discuss these matters from the point of view of natural science. Thus in spite of the fact that it is possible to conclude that anyone who discusses “heat” in the manner of this book knows nothing about the fundamental laws of modern physics, the author believes himself fully justified in what he has done, because he is striving really to know modern research, and he would have refrained from speaking in this way were the results of this research unknown to him. He knows that the motive for stating such a principle might easily be confused with lack of modesty. In regard to this book it is necessary, however, to state such things, in order that the author's true motives be not mistaken still further. This further mistaking might be far worse than to be accused of immodesty.
[ 2 ] Criticism could also be possible from a philosophical standpoint. It might occur in the following way. A philosopher who reads this book might ask himself, “Has the author entirely neglected to study the present day achievements in the field of epistemology? Has he never heard of the existence of a man named Kant, according to whom it is simply philosophically inadmissible to advance such views?” Again, we could continue in this direction. The following critical conclusion, however, might also be drawn: “For the philosopher, such uncritical, naive, amateurish stuff is unbearable and to deal with it further would be nothing but a waste of time.”—From the same motive indicated above, in spite of all the misunderstandings that might arise from it, the author would again like to advance something personal here. His study of Kant began in his sixteenth year, and today he believes himself truly capable of judging quite objectively—from the Kantian standpoint—what has been advanced in the present book. From this aspect also, he would have had a reason for leaving this book unwritten did he not know what moves a philosopher to find naive what is written here if he applies the measuring rod of modern criticism. It is, however, possible really to know how, in the sense of Kant, we pass here beyond the limits of possible knowledge. It can also be known how Herbart might discover in this book a “naive realism” that has not yet attained to the “elaboration of concepts,” and so forth. It is even possible to know how the modern pragmatism of James, Schiller, and others would find that this book has gone beyond the bounds of “true representations” which “we are able to make our own, to assert, to put into action, and to verify.”1This includes an earnest consideration and study of the philosophy of the “As If,” the Bergsonian philosophy, and the Critique of Speech. All of this may be realized and in spite of that realization, indeed because of it, one may feel justified in writing the expositions presented here. The author has dealt with philosophical trends of thought in his writings: The Theory of Knowledge Based on Goethe's World Conception (Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung); Truth and Science (Wahrheit und Wissenschaft); Philosophy of Freedom (Philosophie der Freiheit); Goethe's Conception of the World (Goethe's Weltanschauung); Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century (Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert); Riddles of Philosophy (Die Raetsel der Philosophie).
[ 3 ] Many kinds of possible criticism could still be cited. There might be critics who have read the earlier writings of the author, for example, Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century, or perhaps the brochure on Haeckel and His Opponents. Some such critic might say, “It is incomprehensible how one and the same man can write these books and then, besides the already published book, Theosophy, also write this present book. How is it possible that someone can defend Haeckel and then turn around and discredit what results from Haeckel's research as healthy, monism? It might be comprehensible had the author of this Occult Science combated Haeckel ‘with fire and sword,’ but, that he has defended him, indeed, has even dedicated Views of the World and Life in the Nineteenth Century to him, is the most monstrous thing imaginable. Haeckel would have unmistakably declined this dedication had he been conscious of the fact that the dedicator might some day write such stuff as this Occult Science with its exposition of a more than crude dualism.”—The author of this book, however, is of the opinion that while it is possible to understand Haeckel very well, it is, nevertheless, not necessary to believe that he is only to be understood by one who considers nonsensical everything that is not derived from Haeckel's own concepts and hypotheses. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that it is possible to come to an understanding of Haeckel only by entering upon what he has achieved for science and not be combating him “with fire and sword.” Least of all does the author believe that Haeckel's opponents are right, against whom, for example in his brochure, Haeckel and His Opponents, he has defended the great natural philosopher. Indeed, if the writer of this brochure goes far beyond Haeckel's hypotheses and places the spiritual point of view of the world alongside Haeckel's merely naturalistic one, his opinion need not therefore coincide with the opinion of the latter's opponents. If the facts are looked at correctly, it will be discovered that the author's present day writings are in complete accord with his earlier ones.
[ 4 ] The author also understands quite well the critic who generally regards the descriptions in this book as an outpouring of wild fancy or a dreamlike play of thoughts. All that is to be said in this regard, however, is contained in the book itself. It is shown there how, in full measure, thought based on reason can and must become the touchstone of what is presented. Only the one who applies to this book the test of reason in the same way he would apply it, for example, to the facts of natural science, will be able to determine what reason proves in such a test.
[ 5 ] After saying so much about personalities who from the outset refute this book, a word may also be spared for those who have reason to agree with it. For them the most essential is to be found in the first chapter, The Character of Occult Science. Something more, however, is to be said here. Although the book deals with the results of research that lie beyond the power of the intellect bound to the sense world, yet nothing is offered that cannot be comprehended by anyone possessing an unprejudiced reason, a healthy sense of truth, and the wish to employ these human faculties. The author says without hesitation that he would like, above all, to have readers who are not willing to accept on blind faith what is offered here, but who endeavor to examine what is offered by means of the knowledge of their own soul and through the2Here is not only meant the spiritual scientific test by supersensible methods of research, but primarily the test that is possible by healthy, unprejudiced thought and common sense. He would like to have above all cautious readers who only accept what can be logically justified. The author knows his book would have no value, were it dependent only on blind faith; it is only useful to the degree it can be vindicated before unbiased reason. Blind faith can so easily mistake the foolish and superstitious for the true. Many who are gladly satisfied with a mere belief in a “supersensible world” will perhaps find that this book makes too great a demand on the powers of thought. Yet concerning the communications given here, it is not merely a question of communicating something, but that the communication be in conformity with a conscientious view of the sphere of life in question. For it is indeed the sphere in which the highest things and the most unscrupulous charlatanry, in which knowledge and crass superstition so easily meet in actual life, and where, above all, they can be so easily confused with one another.
[ 6 ] Anyone acquainted with supersensible research will, in reading this book, notice that it has been the endeavor of its author sharply to mark the limits between what can and ought to be communicated from the sphere of supersensible knowledge at present and that which is to be presented at a later period, or at least in another form.
RUDOLF STEINER
December 1909
Vorbemerkungen zur 1 Auflage
[ 1 ] Wer ein Buch wie das vorliegende der Öffentlichkeit übergibt, der soll mit Gelassenheit jede Art von Beurteilung seiner Ausführungen sich vorstellen können, welche in der Gegenwart möglich ist. Da könnte zum Beispiel jemand die hier gegebene Darstellung dieses oder jenes Dinges zu lesen beginnen, welcher sich Gedanken über diese Dinge gemäß den Forschungsergebnissen der Wissenschaft gemacht hat. Und er könnte zu dem folgenden Urteil kommen: «Man ist erstaunt, wie dergleichen Behauptungen in unserer Zeit nur überhaupt möglich sind. Mit den einfachsten naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffen wird in einer Weise umgesprungen, die auf eine geradezu unbegreifliche Unbekanntschaft mit selbst elementaren Erkenntnissen schließen lässt. Der Verfasser gebraucht Begriffe, wie zum Beispiel ‹Wärme›, in einer Art, wie es nur jemand vermag, an dem die ganze moderne Denkweise der Physik spurlos vorübergegangen ist. Jeder, der auch nur die Anfangsgründe dieser Wissenschaft kennt, könnte ihm zeigen, dass, was er da redet, nicht einmal die Bezeichnung Dilettantismus verdient, sondern nur mit dem Ausdruck: absolute Ignoranz belegt werden kann...» Es könnten nun noch viele solche Sätze einer derartigen, durchaus möglichen Beurteilung hingeschrieben werden. Man könnte sich aber nach den obigen Aussprüchen auch etwa folgenden Schluss denken: «Wer ein paar Seiten dieses Buches gelesen hat, wird es, je nach seinem Temperament, lächelnd oder entrüstet weglegen und sich sagen: ‹Es ist doch sonderbar, was für Auswüchse eine verkehrte Gedankenrichtung in gegenwärtiger Zeit treiben kann. Man legt diese Ausführungen am besten zu mancherlei anderem Kuriosen, was einem jetzt begegnet›.» — Was sagt aber nun der Verfasser dieses Buches, wenn er etwa wirklich eine solche Beurteilung erfahren würde? Muss er nicht einfach, von seinem Standpunkte aus, den Beurteiler für einen urteilsunfähigen Leser halten oder für einen solchen, der nicht den guten Willen hat, um zu einem verständnisvollen Urteile zu kommen? — Darauf soll geantwortet werden: Nein, dieser Verfasser tut das durchaus nicht immer. Er vermag sich vorzustellen, dass sein Beurteiler eine sehr kluge Persönlichkeit, auch ein tüchtiger Wissenschafter und jemand sein kann, der sich ein Urteil auf ganz gewissenhafte Art bildet. Denn dieser Verfasser ist in der Lage, sich hineinzudenken in die Seele einer solchen Persönlichkeit und in die Gründe, welche diese zu einem solchen Urteil führen können. Um nun kenntlich zu machen, was der Verfasser wirklich sagt, ist etwas notwendig, was ihm selbst im allgemeinen oft unpassend scheint, wozu aber gerade bei diesem Buche eine dringende Veranlassung ist: nämlich über einiges Persönliche zu reden. Allerdings soll in dieser Richtung nichts vorgebracht werden, was nicht mit dem Entschlusse zusammenhängt, dieses Buch zu schreiben. Was in einem solchen Buche gesagt wird, hätte gewiss kein Daseinsrecht, wenn es nur einen persönlichen Charakter trüge. Es muss Darstellungen enthalten, zu denen jeder Mensch kommen kann, und es muss so gesagt werden, dass keinerlei persönliche Färbung zu bemerken ist, soweit dies überhaupt möglich ist. In dieser Beziehung soll also das Persönliche nicht gemeint sein. Es soll sich nur darauf beziehen, verständlich zu machen, wie der Verfasser die oben gekennzeichnete Beurteilung seiner Ausführungen begreiflich finden kann und dennoch dieses Buch schreiben konnte. Es gäbe ja allerdings etwas, was die Vorbringung eines solchen Persönlichen überflüssig machen könnte: wenn man, in ausführlicher Art, alle Einzelheiten geltend machte, welche zeigen, wie die Darstellung dieses Buches in Wirklichkeit doch mit allen Fortschritten gegenwärtiger Wissenschaft übereinstimmt. Dazu wären nun aber allerdings viele Bände als Einleitung zu dem Buche notwendig. Da diese augenblicklich nicht geliefert werden können, so scheint es dem Verfasser notwendig, zu sagen, durch welche persönlichen Verhältnisse er sich berechtigt glaubt, eine solche Übereinstimmung in befriedigender Art für möglich zu halten. — Er hätte ganz gewiss alles dasjenige niemals zu veröffentlichen unternommen, was in diesem Buche zum Beispiel mit Bezug auf Wärmevorgänge gesagt wird, wenn er sich nicht das Folgende gestehen dürfte: Er war vor nunmehr dreißig Jahren in der Lage, ein Studium der Physik durchzumachen, welches sich in die verschiedenen Gebiete dieser Wissenschaft verzweigte. Auf dem Felde der Wärmeerscheinungen standen damals die Erklärungen im Mittelpunkte des Studiums, welche der sogenannten «mechanischen Wärmetheorie» angehören. Und diese «mechanische Wärmetheorie» interessierte ihn sogar ganz besonders. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der entsprechenden Erklärungen, die sich an Namen wie Jul. Robert Mayer, Helmholtz, Joule, Clausius und so weiter damals knüpfte, gehörte zu seinen fortwährenden Studien. Dadurch hat er sich in der Zeit seiner Studien die hinreichende Grundlage und Möglichkeit geschaffen, bis heute alle die tatsächlichen Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der physikalischen Wärmelehre verfolgen zu können und keine Hindernisse zu finden, wenn er versucht, einzudringen in alles das, was die Wissenschaft auf diesem Felde leistet. Müsste sich der Verfasser sagen: er kann das nicht, so wäre dies für ihn ein Grund, die in dem Buche vorgebrachten Dinge ungesagt und ungeschrieben zu lassen. Er hat es sich wirklich zum Grundsatz gemacht, nur über solches auf dem Gebiete der Geisteswissenschaft zu reden oder zu schreiben, bei dem er in einer ihm genügend erscheinenden Art auch zu sagen wüsste, was die gegenwärtige Wissenschaft darüber weiß. Damit will er durchaus nicht etwas aussprechen, was eine allgemeine Anforderung an alle Menschen sein soll. Es kann jedermann sich mit Recht gedrängt fühlen, dasjenige mitzuteilen und zu veröffentlichen, wozu ihn seine Urteilskraft, sein gesunder Wahrheitssinn und sein Gefühl treiben, auch wenn er nicht weiß, was über die betreffenden Dinge vom Gesichtspunkt zeitgenössischer Wissenschaft aus zu sagen ist. Nur der Verfasser dieses Buches möchte sich für sich an das oben Ausgesprochene halten. Er möchte zum Beispiel nicht die paar Sätze über das menschliche Drüsensystem oder das menschliche Nervensystem machen, welche in diesem Buche sich finden, wenn er nicht in der Lage wäre, über diese Dinge auch den Versuch zu machen, in den Formen zu sprechen, in denen ein gegenwärtiger Naturgelehrter vom Standpunkte der Wissenschaft aus über das Drüsenoder Nervensystem spricht. — Trotzdem also das Urteil möglich ist, derjenige, welcher so, wie es hier geschieht, über «Wärme» spricht, wisse nichts von den Anfangsgründen der gegenwärtigen Physik, ist doch richtig, dass sich der Verfasser dieses Buches vollberechtigt glaubt zu dem, was er getan hat, weil er die gegenwärtige Forschung wirklich zu kennen bestrebt ist, und dass er es unterlassen würde, so zu sprechen, wenn sie ihm fremd wäre. Er weiß, wie das Motiv, aus dem heraus ein solcher Grundsatz ausgesprochen wird, recht leicht mit Unbescheidenheit verwechselt werden kann. Es ist aber doch nötig, gegenüber diesem Buche solches auszusprechen, damit des Verfassers wahre Motive nicht mit noch ganz anderen verwechselt werden. Und diese Verwechslung könnte eben noch weit schlimmer sein als diejenige mit der Unbescheidenheit.
[ 2 ] Nun wäre aber auch eine Beurteilung von einem philosophischen Standpunkte aus möglich. Sie könnte sich folgendermaßen gestalten. Wer als Philosoph dieses Buch liest, der frägt sich: «Hat der Verfasser die ganze erkenntnistheoretische Arbeit der Gegenwart verschlafen? Hat er nie etwas davon erfahren, dass ein Kant gelebt hat und dass, nach diesem, es einfach philosophisch unstatthaft ist, derlei Dinge vorzubringen?» — Wieder könnte in dieser Richtung fortgeschritten werden. Aber auch so könnte die Beurteilung schließen: «Für den Philosophen ist derlei unkritisches, naives, laienhaftes Zeug unerträglich, und ein weiteres Eingehen darauf wäre Zeitverlust.» — Aus demselben Motiv, das oben gekennzeichnet worden ist, möchte trotz aller Missverständnisse, die sich daran schließen können, der Verfasser auch hier wieder Persönliches vorbringen. Sein Kantstudium begann in seinem sechzehnten Lebensjahre; und heute glaubt er wahrhaftig, ganz objektiv alles das, was in dem vorliegenden Buch vorgebracht wird, vom Kantschen Standpunkte aus beurteilen zu dürfen. Er würde auch von dieser Seite her einen Grund gehabt haben, das Buch ungeschrieben zu lassen, wüsste er nicht, was einen Philosophen dazu bewegen kann, es naiv zu finden, wenn der kritische Maßstab der Gegenwart angelegt wird. Man kann aber wirklich wissen, wie im Sinne Kants hier die Grenzen einer möglichen Erkenntnis überschritten werden; man kann wissen, wie Herbart «naiven Realismus» finden würde, der es nicht zur «Bearbeitung der Begriffe» gebracht hat usw. usw.; man kann sogar wissen, wie der moderne Pragmatismus James, Schillers und so weiter das Maß dessen überschritten finden würde, was «wahre Vorstellungen» sind, welche «wir uns aneignen, die wir geltend machen, in Kraft setzen und verifizieren können». 1Man kann sogar die Philosophie des «Als ob», den Bergsonismus und die «Kritik der Sprache» in ernste Erwägung gezogen und studiert haben. (Anmerkung bei der vierten Auflage, 1913 hinzugefügt.) Man kann dies alles wissen und trotzdem, ja eben deshalb sich berechtigt finden, diese hier vorliegenden Ausführungen zu schreiben. Der Verfasser dieses Buches hat sich mit philosophischen Gedankenrichtungen auseinandergesetzt in seinen Schriften «Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung», «Wahrheit und Wissenschaft», «Philosophie der Freiheit», «Goethes Weltanschauung», «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert», «Die Rätsel der Philosophie.» 2Dieses Werk wird von der siebenten Auflage, 1920, an erwähnt.
[ 3 ] Viele Arten von möglichen Beurteilungen könnten noch angeführt werden. Es könnte auch jemanden geben, welcher eine der früheren Schriften des Verfassers gelesen hat, zum Beispiel «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert» oder etwa dessen kleines Schriftchen: «Haeckel und seine Gegner». Ein solcher konnte sagen: «Es ist geradezu unerfindlich, wie ein und derselbe Mensch diese Schriften und auch, neben der bereits von ihm erschienenen ‹Theosophie›, dieses hier vorliegende Buch schreiben kann. Wie kann man einmal so für Haeckel eintreten und dann wieder allem ins Gesicht schlagen, was als gesunder ‹Monismus› aus Haeckels Forschungen folgt? Man könnte begreifen, dass der Verfasser dieser ‹Geheimwissenschaft› mit ‹Feuer und Schwert› gegen Haeckel zu Felde ziehe; dass er ihn verteidigt hat, ja dass er ihm sogar ‹Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert› gewidmet hat, das ist wohl das Ungeheuerlichste, was sich denken lässt. Haeckel hätte sich für diese Widmung wohl ‹mit nicht mitzuverstehender Ablehnung› bedankt, wenn er gewusst hätte, dass der Widmer einmal solches Zeug schreiben werde, wie es diese ‹Geheimwissenschaft› mit ihrem mehr als plumpen Dualismus enthält.» — Der Verfasser dieses Buches ist nun der Ansicht, dass man ganz gut Haeckel verstehen kann, und doch nicht zu glauben braucht, man verstünde ihn nur dann, wenn man alles für Unsinn hält, was nicht aus Haeckel eigenen Vorstellungen und Voraussetzungen fließt. Er ist aber ferner der Ansicht, dass man zum Verständnis Haeckel nicht kommt, wenn man ihn mit «Feuer und Schwert» bekämpft, sondern wenn man auf dasjenige eingeht, was er der Wissenschaft geleistet hat. Und am allerwenigsten glaubt der Verfasser, dass die Gegner Haeckels im Rechte sind, gegen welche er zum Beispiel in seiner Schrift «Haeckel und seine Gegner» den großen Naturdenker verteidigt hat. Wahrhaftig, wenn der Verfasser dieser Schrift weit über Haeckels Voraussetzungen hinausgeht und die geistige Ansicht über die Welt neben die bloß natürliche Haeckels setzt, so braucht er deshalb mit des letzteren Gegnern nicht einer Meinung zu sein. Wer sich bemüht, die Sache richtig anzusehen, wird den Einklang von des Verfassers gegenwärtigen Schriften mit seinen früheren schon bemerken können.
[ 4 ] Auch ein solcher Beurteiler ist dem Verfasser völlig verständlich, der ganz im allgemeinen ohne weiteres die Ausführungen dieses Buches als Ergüsse einer wild gewordenen Phantastik oder eines träumerischen Gedankenspiels ansieht. Doch ist alles, was in dieser Beziehung zu sagen ist, in dem Buche selbst enthalten. Es ist da gezeigt, wie in vollem Maße das vernunftgemäße Denken zum Probierstein des Dargestellten werden kann und soll. Wer auf dieses Dargestellte die vernunftgemäße Prüfung ebenso anwendet, wie sie sachgemäß zum Beispiel auf die Tatsachen der Naturwissenschaft angewendet wird, der erst wird entscheiden können, was die Vernunft bei solcher Prüfung sagt.
[ 5 ] Nachdem so viel über solche Persönlichkeiten gesagt ist, welche dieses Buch zunächst ablehnen können, darf auch ein Wort an diejenigen fallen, welche sich zu demselben zustimmend zu verhalten Anlass haben. Für sie ist jedoch das Wesentlichste in dem ersten Kapitel «Charakter der Geheimwissenschaft» enthalten. Ein weniges aber soll noch hier gesagt werden. Obwohl das Buch sich mit Forschungen befasst, welche dem an die Sinnenwelt gebundenen Verstand nicht erforschbar sind, so ist doch nichts vorgebracht, was nicht verständlich sein kann unbefangener Vernunft und gesundem Wahrheitssinn einer jeden Persönlichkeit, welche diese Gaben des Menschen anwenden will. Der Verfasser sagt es unumwunden: er möchte vor allem Leser, welche nicht gewillt sind, auf blinden Glauben hin die vorgebrachten Dinge anzunehmen, sondern welche sich bemühen, das Mitgeteilte an den Erkenntnissen der eigenen Seele und an den Erfahrungen des eigenen Lebens zu prüfen. 3Gemeint ist hier nicht etwa nur die geisteswissenschaftliche Prüfung durch die übersinnlichen Forschungsmethoden, sondern vor allemdiedurchaus mögliche vom gesunden, vorurteilslosen Denken und Menschenverstand aus. (Anmerkung bei der vierten Auflage, 1913, hinzugefügt.) Er möchte vor allem vorsichtige Leser, welche nur das logisch zu Rechtfertigende gelten lassen. Der Verfasser weiß, sein Buch wäre nichts wert, wenn es nur auf blinden Glauben angewiesen wäre; es ist nur in dem Maße tauglich, als es sich vor der unbefangenen Vernunft rechtfertigen kann. Der blinde Glaube kann so leicht das Törichte und Abergläubische mit dem Wahren verwechseln. Mancher, der sich mit dem bloßen Glauben an «Übersinnliches» gerne begnügt, wird finden, dass in diesem Buche dem Denken zu viel zugemutet wird. Doch es handelt sich wahrlich bei den hier gegebenen Mitteilungen nicht bloß darum, dass etwas mitgeteilt werde, sondern darum, dass die Darstellung so ist, wie es einer gewissenhaften Anschauung auf dem entsprechenden Gebiete des Lebens angemessen ist. Es ist ja das Gebiet, wo sich die höchsten Dinge mit gewissenloser Charlatanerie, wo sich auch Erkenntnis und Aberglaube im wirklichen Leben so leicht berühren und wo sie, vor allem, auch so leicht verwechselt werden können.
[ 6 ] Wer mit übersinnlicher Forschung bekannt ist, wird beim Lesen des Buches wohl merken, dass versucht worden ist, die Grenzen scharf einzuhalten zwischen dem, was aus dem Gebiete der übersinnlichen Erkenntnisse gegenwärtig mitgeteilt werden kann und soll, und dem, was zu einer späteren Zeit oder wenigstens in anderer Form dargestellt werden soll.
Geschrieben im Dezember 1909
Rudolf Steiner
Preliminary remarks on the 1st edition
[ 1 ] Whoever hands over a book such as the present one to the public should be able to imagine with composure any kind of evaluation of its statements that is possible in the present. For example, someone who has thought about these things in accordance with the results of scientific research might begin to read the account given here of this or that thing. And he might come to the following conclusion: "It is astonishing how such assertions are even possible in our time. The simplest scientific concepts are handled in a way that suggests an almost incomprehensible unfamiliarity with even elementary knowledge. The author uses terms such as 'heat' in a way that can only be done by someone who has not been exposed to the entire modern way of thinking in physics. Anyone who knows even the basics of this science could show him that what he is saying does not even deserve to be called dilettantism, but can only be described as absolute ignorance..." Many more such sentences could be added to such a possible assessment. But one could also think of the following conclusion after the above statements: "Anyone who has read a few pages of this book will, depending on his temperament, put it down with a smile or indignation and say to himself: 'It is strange what excesses a wrong direction of thought can drive in the present time. It is best to place these remarks alongside many other curious things that one now encounters'." - But what would the author of this book say if he were really to experience such an assessment? Must he not simply, from his point of view, consider the assessor to be a reader incapable of judgment or one who does not have the good will to come to an understanding judgment? - Let us answer this question: No, this author does not always do this. He is able to imagine that his evaluator can be a very clever person, a capable scientist and someone who forms a judgment in a very conscientious manner. For this author is able to think his way into the soul of such a personality and into the reasons which can lead him to such a judgment. In order to make clear what the author is really saying, it is necessary to do something that often seems inappropriate to him, but which is an urgent necessity in this book: namely, to talk about some personal matters. However, nothing should be said in this regard that is not connected with the decision to write this book. What is said in such a book would certainly have no right to exist if it had only a personal character. It must contain statements that any person can come to, and it must be said in such a way that no personal coloring is noticeable, as far as this is at all possible. In this respect, therefore, the personal is not meant. It should only refer to making it understandable how the author can find the above-mentioned assessment of his statements comprehensible and still be able to write this book. There would, however, be something that could make the presentation of such a personal statement superfluous: if one were to assert, in a detailed manner, all the details that show how the presentation of this book in reality corresponds to all the advances of contemporary science. However, this would require many volumes as an introduction to the book. Since these cannot be supplied at the moment, it seems necessary for the author to say by what personal circumstances he believes himself entitled to consider such a correspondence possible in a satisfactory manner. - He would certainly never have undertaken to publish anything that is said in this book, for example with regard to heat processes, if he had not been allowed to confess the following: Thirty years ago he was in a position to study physics, which branched out into the various fields of this science. In the field of thermal phenomena, the explanations belonging to the so-called "mechanical theory of heat" were at the center of his studies. And he was particularly interested in this "mechanical theory of heat". The historical development of the corresponding explanations, which at the time were linked to names such as Jul. Robert Mayer, Helmholtz, Joule, Clausius and so on, were part of his ongoing studies. As a result, during the period of his studies he created a sufficient basis and opportunity to be able to follow all the actual progress in the field of physical thermodynamics up to the present day and to find no obstacles when he tries to penetrate everything that science has achieved in this field. If the author had to say to himself: he cannot do this, this would be a reason for him to leave the things presented in the book unsaid and unwritten. He has really made it his principle to speak or write only about those things in the field of spiritual science where he would also be able to say, in a way that seems sufficient to him, what current science knows about them. He does not mean to say something that should be a general requirement for all people. Anyone can rightly feel compelled to communicate and publish what his powers of judgment, his healthy sense of truth and his feelings lead him to do, even if he does not know what can be said about the matters in question from the point of view of contemporary science. Only the author of this book wishes to adhere to what has been said above. He would not, for example, make the few sentences about the human glandular system or the human nervous system which are found in this book, if he were not in a position to make an attempt to speak about these things in the forms in which a contemporary natural scientist speaks about the glandular or nervous system from the standpoint of science. - Although, therefore, it is possible to judge that he who speaks, as he does here, of "heat" knows nothing of the beginnings of contemporary physics, it is nevertheless true that the author of this book believes himself fully justified in what he has done, because he really endeavors to know contemporary research, and that he would refrain from speaking thus if it were foreign to him. He knows how the motive behind such a principle can easily be mistaken for immodesty. It is, however, necessary to say so in relation to this book, so that the author's true motives are not confused with quite different ones. And this confusion could be far worse than the one with immodesty.
[ 2 ] Now, however, an assessment from a philosophical point of view would also be possible. It could take the following form. Anyone who reads this book as a philosopher will ask himself: "Has the author slept through all the epistemological work of the present? Has he never learned that a Kant lived and that, according to him, it is simply philosophically inadmissible to say such things?" - Again, we could proceed in this direction. But the assessment could also conclude: "For the philosopher, such uncritical, naïve, amateurish stuff is intolerable, and to go into it further would be a waste of time." - Despite all the misunderstandings that can arise from this, the author would like to make a personal statement here too, for the same reason as described above. His study of Kant began in his sixteenth year; and today he truly believes that he can judge everything that is presented in this book quite objectively from a Kantian point of view. From this point of view, too, he would have had a reason to leave the book unwritten if he did not know what could induce a philosopher to find it naive when the critical standard of the present is applied. But one can really know how, in Kant's sense, the limits of possible knowledge are transgressed here; one can know how Herbart would find "naive realism" that has not brought it to the "working out of concepts" etc. etc.; one can even know how the modern pragmatism of James, Schiller and so on would find the measure of what "true ideas" are, which "we appropriate, which we can assert, put into effect and verify", transgressed. 1One may even have seriously considered and studied the philosophy of "as if", Bergsonism and the "Critique of Language". (Note added in the fourth edition, 1913.) One can know all this and still, indeed for this very reason, feel justified in writing these remarks. The author of this book has dealt with philosophical schools of thought in his writings "Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung", "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft", "Philosophie der Freiheit", "Goethes Weltanschauung", "Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert", "Die Rätsel der Philosophie." 2This work is mentioned from the seventh edition, 1920 onwards.
[ 3 ] Many types of possible assessments could still be cited. There could also be someone who has read one of the author's earlier writings, for example "Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert" or his little pamphlet: "Haeckel und seine Gegner". One such person could say: "It is almost incomprehensible how one and the same person can write these writings and also, in addition to his already published 'Theosophy', this book. How can one advocate Haeckel in this way and then again slap everything in the face that follows as healthy 'monism' from Haeckel's research? One could understand that the author of this 'Secret Science' would take up arms against Haeckel with 'fire and sword'; the fact that he defended him, indeed that he even dedicated 'Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert' to him, is probably the most monstrous thing imaginable. Haeckel would probably have thanked him for this dedication 'with incomprehensible rejection' if he had known that Widmer would one day write the kind of stuff contained in this 'secret science' with its more than clumsy dualism." - The author of this book is now of the opinion that one can understand Haeckel quite well and yet need not believe that one only understands him if one considers everything to be nonsense that does not flow from Haeckel's own ideas and presuppositions. He is also of the opinion, however, that Haeckel cannot be understood by fighting him with "fire and sword", but rather by considering what he has done for science. And least of all does the author believe that Haeckel's opponents are in the right, against whom he defended the great natural thinker, for example in his essay "Haeckel and his opponents". Truly, if the author of this work goes far beyond Haeckel's premises and places the spiritual view of the world alongside Haeckel's purely natural one, he need not therefore agree with the latter's opponents. Anyone who makes an effort to look at the matter properly will already be able to notice the harmony of the author's present writings with his earlier ones.
[ 4 ] Even such an assessor is completely understandable to the author, who generally regards the remarks in this book without further ado as outpourings of a wildly imaginative or dreamy mind game. But everything that needs to be said in this respect is contained in the book itself. It is shown there how rational thinking can and should become the touchstone of what is depicted. Only those who apply the rational test to this representation in the same way as it is applied appropriately to the facts of natural science, for example, will be able to decide what reason says in such a test.
[ 5 ] After so much has been said about those personalities who may initially reject this book, a word may also be said to those who have reason to agree with it. For them, however, the most essential information is contained in the first chapter "Character of Secret Science". But a few things should be said here. Although the book deals with research which cannot be investigated by the intellect bound to the world of the senses, there is nothing in it which cannot be understood by the unbiased reason and healthy sense of truth of every personality who wants to use these gifts of man. The author says it bluntly: he wants above all readers who are not willing to accept the things put forward on blind faith, but who endeavor to test what is communicated against the insights of their own souls and the experiences of their own lives. 3What is meant here is not only the spiritual-scientific examination by means of supersensible research methods, but above all the possible examination from healthy, unprejudiced thinking and common sense. (Note added in the fourth edition, 1913.) Above all, he wants cautious readers who only accept what is logically justifiable. The author knows that his book would be worth nothing if it relied only on blind faith; it is only useful to the extent that it can justify itself to unbiased reason. Blind faith can so easily confuse the foolish and superstitious with the true. Some who are content with mere belief in the "supernatural" will find that too much is expected of the mind in this book. However, the information given here is not merely a matter of communicating something, but of presenting it in a way that is appropriate to a conscientious view of the relevant area of life. After all, this is the area where the highest things meet with unscrupulous charlatanry, where knowledge and superstition so easily come into contact in real life and where, above all, they can also be so easily confused.
[ 6 ] Whoever is familiar with supersensible research will probably notice when reading the book that an attempt has been made to keep the boundaries sharply between what can and should be communicated from the field of supersensible knowledge at present and what should be presented at a later time or at least in a different form.
Written in December 1909
Rudolf Steiner