The Riddle of Man
Foreword and Introduction
GA 20
Thought-World, Personality, Peoples
[ 1 ] During these fateful times, in central European cities, I have had to give lectures based on some of the views developing in me for thirty-five years about the thought-worlds of a series of German and Austrian personalities. I wanted to speak about personalities in whose thoughts urgent life questions were striving for a solution, and in whose spiritual struggles the essential nature of the German people (Volkheit) also revealed itself. I would like to take what I expressed there as the leading thoughts for this book. This book is meant to speak about the striving of the human spirit for knowledge of its own being, in connection with seekers who pursued neither their own personal infatuations in knowledge nor arbitrary aesthetic inclinations, but rather thoughts that arise from an irresistible, healthy urge of human nature and are native to the heart's needs of a people, in spite of the spiritual heights toward which those seekers were striving. We will be speaking, to be sure, about personalities whose sense for the realities of life is often denied by those who do not want to acknowledge that the human being is confused and incapacitated by the surface of reality if he cannot confront it with understanding for the spirit holding sway in the depths. Thoughts struggling for a knowledge of the spirit are often repellent to that attitude of soul which is far too eager to cite Goethe in opposing such thoughts: “Gray, dear friend, is all theory—and green the golden tree of life.” That attitude of soul disregards the fact that these words come from Goethe's sense of humor and are put into the devil's mouth as a teaching the devil considers good for a pupil of his.
It does not affect a life-sustaining thought to be called gray by a view catering to comfortableness in thinking; this view regards the grayness of its own theory as the golden radiance of the green tree of life.
[ 2 ] It goes against the feeling of many to speak about the effects of a people upon the world views of personalities who spring from this people. To do so, they believe, contradicts the obvious truth that knowledge of the true is a treasure of life possessed by all men in the same way. This is really just as valid for the highest thoughts of a world view as it is for the commonplace truth that two times two is four. But just because this is so obvious, one should not suppose without going further into the matter, that this obvious fact has been overlooked by someone seeking, within the being of the thinkers of a people, the roots of the people from which these thinkers stem. The human spirit, after all, lives not only in the abstract formation of certain concepts; it also draws its life from forces which souls, out of their most intimate experiences, allow to sound along with the insights born from these experiences. Goethe felt this when he wrote to a friend: “To judge by the plants and fish I have seen in Naples and Sicily, I would, if I were ten years younger, be very tempted to make a trip to India, not in order to discover something new, but rather to contemplate in my own way what has already been discovered.” Goethe in fact knows how something already discovered can be seen in a new light when it is regarded in a new way. And what humanity develops in the way of thoughts for its spiritual life about questions of knowledge speaks not only about what people are seeking, but also about how they seek. Someone receptive to such thoughts feels in them the soul pulse that heralds the life from which they shine into our reason. Just as it is true that in a thought one also learns to know its thinker, it is evident that in a thinker one can behold the people from which the thinker has arisen.
As to the content of truth dwelling in a thought and as to whether a mental picture (Vorstellung) has grown from the roots of genuine reality: these can certainly be determined only by powers of knowledge that are independent of place and time. Still, as to whether a particular thought, as to whether an idea leading the human spirit in a certain direction, arises within a certain people: this does depend upon the sources from which the spirit of this people can draw. Karl Rosenkranz certainly did not want to prove anything about the truth of Hegel's thought from the fact that he brought these thoughts into connection with the German folk spirit, when in 1870 he wrote his book Hegel as the German National Philosopher. He held the view he had already expressed in his description of Hegel's life: “A true philosophy is the deed of a people ... But at the same time, for philosophy, insofar as it is philosophy, the particularities of its folk origins are of no importance at all. There, the universality and necessity of its content and the perfection of its proof are alone of significance. Whether the true is recognized and expressed by a Greek or German, by a Frenchman or an Englishman, carries no weight for the true itself, as true. Every true philosophy, therefore, as a national philosophy is at the same time a universally human one and, in the larger course of humanity, an indispensable part. It has the power to spread absolutely through all peoples, and for every people there comes the time when that people must acquire for itself the true philosophy of the other peoples, if it wants in other ways to further and assure its own progress.”
[ 3 ] One's antipathy to the folk aspect of the thoughts in a world view can also assume other forms. Out of a recognition of the folk aspect of such thoughts one can raise an objection against their cognitive value. One might believe that such thoughts are thrust thereby into the realm of imagination, and that one must speak of them in the same way as of a German poetry, for example, whereas it would be inadmissible to speak in the same sense of a German mathematics or a German physics. There are people who see every world view—every philosophy—as a poetic work in concepts (Begriffsdichtung). Such people do not need to concern themselves with the objection that arises out of the feeling described above. But what this book presents is not written from that point of view. This book takes the position that no one can speak seriously about a world view who does not ascribe a cognitive value to it, who does not presuppose that its thoughts stem from realities common to all people. One can also say: “That is correct, in general; but a world view valid and common to all people is an ideal that has nowhere been realized as yet; all existing world views still carry with them what has been imposed upon them by the imperfection of human nature.” But we can dispense with any discussion here of imperfections existing in world views because of that human factor. For, it is certainly not our intention, in the folk characteristics of the thoughts in world views, to seek excuses for the weakness of such thoughts, but rather grounds for their strength. Therefore, we can leave out of our considerations here the assertion that thinkers, in fact, just as they are dependent upon their personal standpoints, are also dependent upon what adheres to them from their people; and that, just because of this, they cannot win through to a universally human world view. This book speaks about a series of personalities in such a way that their thoughts are acknowledged as really having universal human validity. What are characterized as errors or as one-sided views are spoken of only insofar as one can see in them roundabout ways to the truth. If an unconditionally valid objection could spring from the feeling mentioned above, such an objection would be justified with respect to the way in which the thoughts in world views are brought into connection, in this book, with the essential being of the German people.
But one can understand the reply that must be made to this feeling only if one can free oneself from a belief which also causes serious misapprehensions in other ways. This belief is that the diverse thought-configurations of thinkers who are searching into questions of how to view the world are in fact just so many different, mutually incompatible world views.
[ 4 ] Out of this belief the natural-scientifically minded person often opposes the mystic, and the mystic often opposes the natural-scientifically minded person. The scientist believes that natural-scientific knowledge alone is the true result of research into reality; it is from this knowledge that one must gain thoughts able to bring understanding of the world and of life, so far as this understanding is attainable to man. The mystic adheres to the view that the true being of the world reveals itself only to mystical experience, and that the thoughts of the natural-scientifically minded person cannot lay hold of genuine reality. The “monist” is content only when he pictures the existence of a unified foundation for the material and the spiritual world. One kind of monist sees this foundation consisting in the material elements and their effects, in such a way that spiritual phenomena become for him manifestations of the material world. Other monists ascribe true being only to the spirit, and believe that everything material is only a kind of spirituality. The dualist sees in any such unification a misunderstanding both of the essential being of matter and of the spirit. In his view, both must be regarded as regions of the world that are more or less independent in themselves.
A long list would result if one wanted to characterize even just the most outstanding of these supposed world views. Now there are in fact many people who believe they have gone beyond all talk of world views. They say: “I guide myself in knowledge according to what I find within reality; what some world view or other considers reality to be does not concern me.” Such people do indeed believe this; but their behavior shows something totally different. They do, in fact, more or less consciously, or even unconsciously, adhere in the most definite manner to one or another world view. Even though they do not express or think this world view directly, they do develop their picture of the world along its lines and oppose, reject, or treat the mental pictures of other people in a way corresponding to this “world view.”
[ 5 ] A misapprehension of the relationship of man to the world outside him underlies the conscious or unconscious belief in any such supposed world views. The person who is caught up in this misapprehension does not distinguish rightly between what man receives from the outer world for the formation of his thoughts, and what he brings up out of himself when he forms thoughts.
[ 6 ] When one notices that two thinkers express different thoughts about the questions of life, one all too readily has the feeling: If both were bringing true reality to expression in their thoughts, they would have to say the same thing, not something different. And one thinks that the difference cannot have its basis in reality but must lie only in the personal (subjective) way thinkers grasp things. Even though this is not always openly acknowledged by those who speak about world views, this opinion does underlie—more or less consciously, or even unconsciously—the spirit and style of their words. In fact, the thinkers themselves for the most part live in just such a preconception. They express their thoughts on what they consider reality to be, regard these thoughts as their “system” and rightful world view, and believe that any other direction in thought is based on the personal peculiarities of the thinker.
The presentation in this book has a different view as its background. (This view, to be sure, can at first be presented here only as an assertion. I hope the reader will be able to find in the book itself some substantiation for this assertion. In many of my other books I have made every effort to bring much more of this substantiation.) Two divergent directions in thought, in their essential nature, can often be understood only by regarding their differences to be like those between two photographs of one tree taken from two different sides. The pictures are different; their differences, however, are not based upon the nature of the camera, but rather upon the position of the tree relative to the camera. And this position is something lying just as much outside the camera as the tree itself. The pictures are both true views of the tree. The divergent elements of two world views do not prevent them both from bringing true reality to expression.
The confusion in ideas arises when people do not understand this, when they make themselves—or are made by other people—into materialists, idealists, monists, dualists, spiritualists, mystics, or even into Theosophists, and when they mean to express by this that one arrives at a true view about life's sources only if one's whole way of thinking is in tune with one of these concepts. But it is reality itself that one wants to know from one side through materialistic ideas, from another side through spiritual ideas, from a third side as a unity (monon), from a fourth as a duality. The thinking person would like to encompass the essential being of reality through one way of picturing things. And when he notices that he undertakes this in vain, he gets around this fact by saying: All our mental pictures about the roots of real life have a personal (subjective) form, and the essential being of the “thing-in-itself” remains unknowable.
So much confusion in our thought life could be cleared up by realizing that many a person, in speaking of a world view different from his own, is like someone who—knowing a picture of a tree taken from one side, and being presented with a picture taken from another side—does not want to admit that it is a “correct” picture of the same tree! [ 7 ] Many “practical” people, to be sure, seek refuge from such tormenting philosophical questions by saying: “Let those fight about these things who have the leisure and the desire for it; that doesn't affect reallife; real life does not have to bother about that,” But only those can speak in this way, after all, who have absolutely no inkling of how far removed their thoughts are from the real driving powers of life. It is such people whose picture stood before the soul of Johann Gottlieb Fichte when he spoke the words: “Although, within the sphere that ordinary experience has drawn around us, people themselves are thinking more universally and judging more correctly, perhaps, than ever, still the majority of them are totally confused and blinded as soon as they are supposed to go even a short distance outside that sphere. If it is impossible to rekindle in them the spark of higher genius once that has been extinguished, then one must let them remain peacefully within that sphere, and, insofar as they are useful and indispensable within that sphere, let their value, in and for that sphere, remain undiminished. But when they themselves now demand that everything to which they cannot lift themselves be brought down to their level, when they demand, for example, that all printed matter should be like cookbooks, arithmetic books, or service regulations, and when they decry everything that cannot be used in this way, then they themselves are in error in a major way.—We others know, perhaps as well, perhaps even better than they, that ideals as such cannot appear in outer reality. We only assert that reality must be judged according to ideals and, by those who feel the strength within them to do so, must even be changed according to ideals. When people cannot convince themselves of this fact, very little is lost to them, given that they already are who they are; and mankind loses nothing. It merely becomes clear that such people cannot be counted upon in any plan to ennoble mankind. Mankind will doubtless proceed on its way; and may benevolent nature hold sway over such people and bring them rain and sunshine at the right time, wholesome nourishment and undisturbed circulation of their juices, and also clever thoughts!”
It is actually a disaster when the ideas, fruitful for life, of the individual world views are kept at a distance from this life by the belief that their differences prove them all to be subjectively colored by the thinkers' ways of picturing things. Through this a semblance of justification is given to the talk of those opponents of ideas just characterized. It is not the content of thinkers' world views that condemns these world views to fruitlessness for life, but rather the belief, following in their wake, that a particular direction in thought must reveal all of reality or else these are all views with a merely personal coloring.
This book would like to show the extent to which the truth—and not just personally colored views—lives in the ideas of individual thinkers, in spite of their differences.
[ 8 ] Only by trying to know how far reality reveals itself in its relation to man through different ways of picturing things does one also struggle through to a sound judgment about what originates in the being of the thinker who is observing the world. One sees how the nature of one thinker is moved toward one relationship between extrahuman (objective) reality and man, and how that of another thinker is moved more toward a different relationship. First of all one sees the sharply marked, personal direction of a personality's thought. Because one notices how his world view is based upon a personal tendency in thought, one is tempted to believe that his world view is therefore only a personal (subjective) way of picturing things. But if one recognizes how a personal tendency in thought, in fact, moves the thinker to adopt a particular viewpoint through which extrahuman (objective) reality can place itself in a particular relationship to him, then one wrests oneself from the confusion into which one can fall by looking at the different world views.
[ 9 ] Many people will perhaps reply to this: Yes, from a certain point of view, all that is completely obvious and does not need to be stated beforehand. But the person who says this is often precisely the one who, in his judgments and actions, violates this view of truth and reality everywhere.
[ 10 ] But the view we have presented is not meant to justify every human opinion that regards itself as a world view. Actual errors, faultiness in the sources of knowledge, viewpoints from which only a beclouded fantasy would want to create thoughts for a world view: all this will in fact reveal itself in the light toward which our view is pressing. By seeking to experience the extent to which the one reality manifests itself in divergent human thoughts, our view can also hope to see where a human opinion is rejected by reality itself.
[ 11 ] If one senses how the forces of a people work in the thinkers of a people, then this sense stands in complete harmony with the view presented here. A people does not want to decide how a thinker is to shape his thoughts; but, together with other forces determining his viewpoint, his people affects the relationship to existence through which reality, in one direction or another, manifests itself to him. His people need not cloud his power of vision; it can prove particularly able to put the thinker belonging to it in a place where he can develop a certain way of picturing the truth common to all mankind. His people does not want to judge his knowledge; but it can be a faithfully supportive adviser on the way to truth. Indications about the extent to which this can be sensed with respect to the German people are meant to be given in this book by portraying a series of personalities who have arisen out of this people. The author of this book hopes that one will recognize his sense that a loving, thoughtful penetration into the particular soul nature of one people does not necessarily lead to a non-recognition and disregard for the being and worth of other peoples. At another time it would be unnecessary to state this specifically. It is necessary today in view of the feelings that are expressed from many sides about what is German.
[ 12 ] It is completely natural for the author of this book to speak about the part played in spiritual life by both German and German-Austrian personalities; he is, after all, a German-Austrian by birth and education, who lived his first three decades of life in Austria, and then a period of time—which will soon be just as long—in Germany.
In his book The Riddles of Philosophy he has expressed his thinking on the place held by most of the personalities discussed in this present book within the general spiritual life. It was not his intention to repeat here what he said there. He can readily understand that someone could hold a different view than he does about the choice of the personalities portrayed. But, without striving for completeness in anyone direction, he wanted simply to portray some things that have become perception and life experience for him.
Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, May 1916
Addition, for the Second Edition of 1918
[ 13 ] If, as an observer, one confronts the “thinking, observations, and contemplations” of a personality, one can sense that one is observing forces at work in the soul of such a personality which give the direction and particular characteristics to his way of picturing things, but which he himself does not make into a content of his thinking. This sense must not lead to the vain opinion that one can place oneself as observer above the personality observed. The fact that, as an observer, one has a different viewpoint than the observed personality makes it possible for one to say many things that the other has not said—that he has indeed not confronted in his own thinking, but has left within his unconscious soul life—because through his not saying certain things, what he did say attained its full significance. The more significant what a man has to say is, the more extensive is that which holds sway unconsciously in the depths of his soul. What is unconscious in this way, however, sounds forth in the souls of those who penetrate into the thinking and contemplations of such a personality. And they may also raise it into consciousness, because for them it can no longer hinder what they want to say.
[ 14 ] The personalities with whom this book is concerned seem, to a particularly strong degree, to be of the kind that stimulate one to press on through what they have said to what they have left unsaid. Therefore the author of this book, from the viewpoint he has taken, believed he could make his presentation a complete one only by adding the final chapter, “New Perspectives.” He believes that in doing so he has not introduced something into the views of these personalities that does not belong there, but rather has sought the source from which these views, in the true sense of their thought content, have flowed. In this case what was left unsaid is a rich seed bed from which what has been said grew as individual fruits. If, in observing these fruits, one also becomes aware of the seed-bearing ground from which they have sprung, then precisely through this one will realize how—with respect to what the soul must experience in dealing with the most significant riddles of man—one can find in the personalities portrayed in this book a profound stimulus, powerful indications in sure directions, and strengthening forces in gaining fruitful insights. By looking at things in this way one can overcome the aversion to the seeming abstraction of the thoughts of these personalities that prevents many people from approaching them at all. One will see that these thoughts, regarded in the right way, are filled with a boundless warmth of life—a warmth that the human being must seek if he really understands himself rightly.
Gedankenwelt, Persönlichkeit, Volkheit
[ 1 ] Aus Anschauungen, die sich im Laufe von fünfunddreißig Jahren in mir über Gedankenwelten einer Reihe deutscher und österreichischer Persönlichkeiten gebildet haben, legte ich einiges Vorträgen zum Grunde, die ich in dieser schicksaltragenden Zeit in mitteleuropäischen Städten zu halten hatte. Von solchen Persönlichkeiten wollte ich reden, in deren Gedanken die drängenden Lebensfragen nach Lösung suchen und in deren geistigem Ringen zugleich das Wesen der deutschen Volkheit sich offenbart. Was ich so aussprach, möchte ich auch zu den Leitgedanken dieser Schrift machen. Sie soll vom Suchen des Menschengeistes nach Erkenntnis seines Wesens sprechen in Anknüpfung an solche Suchende, die nicht persönlichen Erkenntnis-Liebhabereien oder aus der Willkür geborenen ästhetisierenden Neigungen nachgingen, sondern Gedanken, die aus einem unwiderstehlichen gesunden Drang der Menschennatur erstehen und die bodenständig sind in den Gemütsbedürfnissen der Volkheit trotz der Geisteshöhe, nach der sie streben. Allerdings wird von Persönlichkeiten die Rede sein, denen oft der Sinn abgesprochen wird für die Wirklichkeiten des Lebens von denjenigen, die nicht anerkennen wollen, daß der Mensch von der Wirklichkeitsoberfläche verwirrt und lebensuntüchtig gemacht wird, wenn er ihr nicht gegenübertreten kann mit Anschauungen über den Geist, der in Wirklichkeitstiefen waltet. Nach Erkenntnis des Geistes ringende Gedanken stoßen oft eine Seelenverfassung ab, die gar zu gerne sich auf Goethe berufen möchte, indem sie solchen Gedanken gegenüberhält: «Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, - und grün des Lebens goldner Baum.» Sie achtet dabei nicht darauf, daß Goethes Humor diese Worte gebraucht, um dem Teufel eine Belehrung in den Mund zu legen, welche dieser für einen Schüler gut findet. - Ein lebentragender Gedanke wird dadurch nicht betroffen, daß ihn eine der menschlichen Denkbequemlichkeit schmeichelnde Ansicht für grau hält, weil sie die Grauheit ihrer eigenen Theorie für goldigen Glanz des grünen Lebensbaumes hinnimmt.
[ 2 ] Es widerstrebt der Empfindung mancher Menschen, von der Einwirkung einer Volkheit auf die Weltanschauungen der aus dieser Volkheit entsprossenen Persönlichkeiten zu sprechen. Denn sie meinen, das widerspräche doch der selbstverständlichen Wahrheit, daß Erkenntnis des Wahren ein bei allen Menschen in gleicher Art vorhandenes Lebensgut sei. Daß dies sich so verhält, ist wirklich so selbstverständlich, wie daß der Sonnenschein und der Mondenschein allen Menschen der Erde gleich erstrahlen. Und unbestreitbar gilt es ebenso für die höchsten Gedanken der Weltanschauung wie für das «Zweimal zwei ist vier» der Alltäglichkeit, daß die Wahrheit nicht nach Menschen- und Völkerart verschieden sich gestalten könne. Aber eben weil dies so selbstverständlich ist, sollte nicht vorausgesetzt werden - ohne weiteres Hinsehen auf das, was gemeint ist -, daß jemand dies Selbstverständliche außer acht läßt, der im Wesen der Denker eines Volkes sucht nach den Wurzeln der Volkheit, aus der sie entstammen. Der Menschengeist lebt doch nicht nur in der abstrakten Prägung gewisser Begriffe; er schöpft sein Leben auch aus den Kräften, welche die Seelen aus ihren vertraulichsten Erfahrungen heraus mit den aus ihnen geborenen Einsichten mittönen lassen. Goethe empfand so, als er an einen Freund schrieb: «Nach dem, was ich bei Neapel, in Sizilien von Pflanzen und Fischen gesehen habe, würde ich, wenn ich zehn Jahre jünger wäre, sehr versucht sein, eine Reise nach Indien zu machen, nicht um Neues zu entdecken, sondern um das Entdeckte nach meiner Art anzusehen.» Goethe weiß, wie sogar das schon Entdeckte in neuem Lichte wiedergefunden werden kann, wenn es in einer neuen Art geschaut wird. Und was die Menschheit an Gedanken für ihr geistiges Leben über die Erkenntnisfragen entwickelt, das spricht nicht nur von dem, was Menschen suchen, sondern auch davon, wie sie suchen. In solchen Gedanken fühlt der dafür Empfängliche den Seelenpuls, der von dem Leben kündet, aus dem sie in die Vernunft hineinstrahlen. So wahr es ist, daß man in einem Gedanken auch seinen Denker kennenlernt, so einleuchtend ist, daß man in einem Denker die Volkheit schauen kann, aus der der Denker aufgestiegen ist. - Welch ein Wahrheitsgehalt einem Gedanken innewohnt und ob eine Vorstellung aus den Wurzeln echter Wirklichkeit erwachsen ist: darüber können sicherlich nur die von Ort und Zeit unabhängigen Erkenntniskräfte entscheiden. Doch ob ein bestimmter Gedanke, ob eine den Menschengeist in eine gewisse Richtung lenkende Idee innerhalb einer Volkheit auftaucht, das liegt an den Quellen, aus denen der Geist dieser Volkheit schöpfen darf. Karl Rosenkranz wollte über die Wahrheit der Gedanken Hegels gewiß nichts aus der Tatsache beweisen, daß er diese Gedanken in Zusammenhang brachte mit dem deutschen Volksgeist, als er 1870 sein Buch schrieb: «Hegel als deutscher Nationalphilosoph». Er hatte die Ansicht, die er schon in seiner Beschreibung des Lebens Hegels ausgesprochen hat: «Eine wahre Philosophie ist die Tat eines Volkes... Aber für die Philosophie, insofern sie Philosophie ist, kommt es zugleich auf die Eigenheit des volkstümlichen Ursprungs gar nicht an. Hier hat die Allgemeinheit und Notwendigkeit ihres Inhaltes und die Vollendung seines Beweises allein Bedeutung. Ob das Wahre von einem Griechen oder Germanen, von einem Franzosen oder Engländer erkannt und ausgesprochen wird, hat für es selbst, als Wahres, kein Gewicht. Jede wahre Philosophie ist daher als nationale zugleich eine allgemeine menschliche und im großen Gang der Menschheit ein unentbehrliches Glied. Sie hat das Vermögen der absoluten Verbreitungsfähigkeit durch alle Völker, und es kommt für ein jedes die Zeit, wo es die wahrhafte Philosophie der andern Völker sich aneignen muß, will es anders seinen eigenen Fortschritt sichern und fördern.»
[ 3 ] Es kann die Empfindung, die man gegen das Volkstümliche von Weltanschauungsgedanken hat, auch noch anders geartet sein. Man kann aus der Anerkennung der Volkstümlichkeit solcher Gedanken einen Einwand gegen ihren Erkenntniswert bilden. Man kann meinen, daß sie dadurch auf das Feld der Phantasie gedrängt werden und man von ihnen sprechen müsse wie etwa von deutscher Dichtung, während es unzulässig sei, von deutscher Mathematik oder deutscher Physik in demselben Sinne zu reden. Es gibt Menschen, die in jeder Weltanschauung - jeder Philosophie - eine Begriffsdichtung sehen. Diese brauchen sich mit dem Einwand, der aus der angedeuteten Empfindung ersteht, nicht zu beschäftigen. Doch die Ausführungen dieser Schrift sind nicht von solchem Gesichtspunkte aus geschrieben. Sie stellt sich auf den andern, daß im Ernste niemand von einer Weltanschauung sprechen kann, der ihr nicht einen Erkenntniswert zuerkennt, der nicht voraussetzt, daß ihre Gedanken aus Wirklichkeiten stammen, die allen Menschen gemeinsam sind. Man kann auch sagen, das sei im allgemeinen richtig; aber eine allen Menschen gemeinsam geltende Weltanschauung sei ein Ideal, das noch nirgends verwirklicht ist; alle bestehenden Weltanschauungen tragen an sich, was aus der Unvollkommenheit der Menschennatur ihnen aufgedrückt ist. Auf eine Besprechung der aus solchem Grunde bestehenden Unvollkommenheit der Weltanschauungen kann hier verzichtet werden. Denn es sollen nicht etwa aus der Volkstümlichkeit von Weltanschauungsgedanken Entschuldigungen für deren Schwäche, sondern Gründe für deren Stärke gesucht werden. Daher kann die Behauptung hier außer Betracht bleiben, daß eben die Denker wie von ihren persönlichen Standpunkten, so auch von dem abhängig sind, was ihnen aus ihrer Volkheit anhaftet; und daß sie eben deshalb nicht zu einer allgemein-menschlichen Weltanschauung durchdringen können. Diese Schrift spricht von einer Reihe von Persönlichkeiten in dem Sinne, daß deren Gedanken wirklich allgemein-menschliche Geltung zuerkannt wird. Von dem, was als Irrtümer oder einseitige Ansichten gekennzeichnet wird, nur insofern, als man darin Umwege zur Wahrheit sehen kann. Könnte aus der erwähnten Empfindung heraus ein unbedingt geltender Einwand entspringen, so hätte er Berechtigung gegenüber der Art, wie in dieser Schrift Weltanschauungsgedanken mit dem Wesen der deutschen Volkheit in Verbindung gebracht werden. Was dieser Empfindung aber entgegengehalten werden muß, durchschaut man nur, wenn man sich von einem Glauben abbringen kann, der auch in anderer Richtung schwerwiegende Täuschungen hervorruft. Es ist der Glaube, die vielartigen Gedankengestaltungen der in Weltanschauungsfragen forschenden Denker seien wirklich ebenso viele verschiedene Weltanschauungen, die miteinander nicht bestehen können.
[ 4 ] Aus diesem Glauben heraus bekämpft oft der naturwissenschaftlich Gesinnte den Mystiker, der Mystiker den naturwissenschaftlich Gesinnten. Der eine meint, die naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse seien allein wahre Ergebnisse der Wirklichkeitsforschung; aus ihnen müsse man die Gedanken gewinnen, welche für Welt und Leben Verständnis bringen können, so weit dieses Verständnis von dem Menschen erreichbar ist. Der andere bekennt sich zu der Ansicht, das wahre Wesen der Welt erschließe sich nur dem mystischen Erleben, und die Gedanken des naturwissenschaftlich Gesinnten können an die echte Wirklichkeit nicht herankommen. Der «Monist» ist nur zufrieden, wenn eine einheitliche Grundlage für die stoffliche und die geistige Welt vorgestellt wird. Entweder es erblickt die eine Art der Monisten diese Grundlage in den Stoffen und ihren Wirkungen, so daß ihnen die geistigen Erscheinungen zu Offenbarungen der stofflichen Welt werden. Oder andere Monisten gestehen nur dem Geiste wahres Sein zu und glauben, alles Stoffliche sei nur eine Art des Geistigen. Der Dualist sieht in einer solchen Vereinheitlichung ein Verkennen sowohl des Wesens des Stoffes wie auch des Geistes. Nach seiner Ansicht müssen die beiden als für sich mehr oder weniger selbständige Weltgebiete betrachtet werden. - Es käme eine lange Reihe zustande, wenn man auch nur die hervorragendsten dieser vermeintlichen Weltanschauungen kennzeichnen wollte. Nun gibt es ja viele Menschen, die meinen, über alles Reden von Weltanschauung hinausgekommen zu sein. Diese sagen: ich richte mich in der Erkenntnis nach dem, was ich in der Wirklichkeit finde; was eine Weltanschauung davon hält, darum kümmere ich mich nicht. Das glauben sie zwar; allein ihr Verhalten zeigt etwas völlig anderes. Sie bekennen sich mehr oder weniger bewußt, oder auch unbewußt, doch in der allerentschiedensten Art zu einer solchen Weltanschauung. Wenn sie diese auch nicht unmittelbar aussprechen oder denken, so entwickeln sie ihre Vorstellungen in deren Richtung und bekämpfen, lehnen ab oder behandeln die Vorstellungen anderer Menschen so, wie es einer solchen «Weltanschauung» entspricht.
[ 5 ] Dem bewußten oder unbewußten Glauben an solche vermeintliche Weltanschauungen liegt eine Täuschung zum Grunde über das Verhältnis des Menschen zur außermenschlichen Welt. Der in dieser Täuschung Befangene hält nicht recht auseinander, was der Mensch von der Außenwelt für die Gestaltung der Gedanken empfängt, und was er aus sich selbst herausholt, wenn er Gedanken bildet.
[ 6 ] Bemerkt man, daß zwei Denker verschiedene Gedanken über die Fragen des Lebens aussprechen, so hat man allzuleicht das Gefühl: wenn die beiden mit ihren Gedanken die wahre Wirklichkeit zum Ausdrucke brächten, so müßten sie ein Gleiches, nicht Verschiedenes sagen. Und man denkt, die Verschiedenheit könne nicht in der Wirklichkeit, sondern nur in der persönlichen (subjektiven) Auffassungsart der Denker ihre Gründe haben. Wenn dies auch nicht immer offen bekannt wird von den Menschen, die über Weltanschauungen sprechen, so liegt diese Meinung dem Geiste und der Haltung ihres Redens doch mehr oder weniger bewußt oder auch unbewußt zum Grunde. Ja, die Denker selbst leben zumeist in einer solchen Befangenheit. Sie sprechen ihre Gedanken über das aus, was sie für Wirklichkeit halten, sehen diese Gedanken für ihr «System»einer rechten Weltanschauung an und glauben, eine andere Gedankenrichtung beruhe auf der persönlichen Eigenart des Denkers. - Die Darstellung dieser Schrift hat eine andere Ansicht zu ihrem Hintergrunde. (Diese Ansicht kann an dieser Stelle zunächst allerdings nur wie eine Behauptung vorgebracht werden. Ich hoffe, daß man in der Schrift selbst einiges zu ihrer Begründung werde finden können. In einem großen Teile meiner andern Schriften habe ich mich bemüht, manches weitere zu dieser Begründung beizutragen.) Zwei voneinander abweichende Gedankenrichtungen können ihrem Wesen nach oftmals nur dadurch begriffen werden, daß man ihre Verschiedenheit so ansieht wie die Verschiedenheit zum Beispiele zweier Bilder eines Baumes, die von zwei Richtungen her durch einen Photographierapparat aufgenommen sind. Die Bilder sind verschieden; aber ihre Verschiedenheit beruht nicht auf dem Wesen des Apparates, sondern auf der Stellung des Baumes zum Apparat. Und diese ist etwas ebenso außerhalb des Apparates Liegendes wie der Baum selbst. Die Bilder sind beide wahre Ansichten von dem Baume. Das Abweichende zweier Weltanschauungen hindert nicht, daß beide die wahre Wirklichkeit zum Ausdrucke bringen. - Die Wirrnis der Ideen entsteht, wenn die Menschen dieses nicht durchschauen. Wenn sie sich zu Materialisten, Idealisten, Monisten, Dualisten, Spiritualisten, Mystikern oder gar Theosophen machen, oder von anderen gemacht werden, und damit ausgedrückt werden soll: man käme nur zu einer wahren Ansicht über die Quellen des Lebens, wenn man seine ganze Denkweise im Sinne eines dieser Begriffe abstimmt. Aber es ist die Wirklichkeit selbst, die von der einen Seite her durch materialistische Ideen erkannt sein will; von einer anderen durch geistgemäße, von einer dritten als Einheit (Monon), von einer weiteren als Zweiheit. Der denkende Mensch möchte durch eine Vorstellungsart das Wesen der Wirklichkeit umfassen. Und wenn er bemerkt, daß er dieses umsonst unternimmt, so behilft er sich damit, daß er sagt: alle Vorstellungen über die Wurzeln des wirklichen Lebens sind persönlich (subjektiv) gestaltet, und das Wesen des «Dinges an sich» bleibt unerkennbar. - Aus wie vielen Verwirrungen des Gedankenlebens heraus führte doch die Erkenntnis, daß gar mancher Mensch über eine von der seinigen abweichende Weltanschauung so spricht, wie einer, der das von einer Seite her aufgenommene Bild eines Baumes kennt, und der, gestellt vor ein von anderer Seite her erhaltenes, nicht zugeben will, daß dies ein «richtiges» Bild desselben Baumes ist!
[ 7 ] Viele, die sich Lebenspraktiker dünken, trösten sich über solch quälende Weltanschauungsfragen allerdings dadurch hinweg, daß sie sagen: lasset diejenigen über diese Dinge streiten, die dazu Muße und Lust haben; dem wahren Leben schadet dies nichts; das braucht sich darum nicht zu bekümmern. Aber so sprechen können doch nur diejenigen Menschen, welche gar nicht ahnen, wie weit ihre Vorstellungen von den wirklichen Triebkräften des Lebens entfernt sind. Es sind dies diejenigen Menschen, deren Bild Johann Gottlieb Fichte vor der Seele stand, als er die Worte sprach: «Indes man in demjenigen Umkreise, den die gewöhnliche Erfahrung um uns gezogen, allgemeiner selbst denkt und richtiger urteilt, als vielleicht je, sind die mehrsten völlig irre und geblendet, sobald sie auch nur eine Spanne über denselben hinausgehen sollen. Wenn es unmöglich ist, in diesen den einmal ausgelöschten Funken des höheren Genius wieder anzufachen, muß man sie ruhig in jenem Kreise bleiben, und insofern sie in demselben nützlich und unentbehrlich sind, ihnen ihren Wert in und für denselben ungeschmälert lassen. Aber wenn sie darum nun selbst verlangen, alles zu sich herabzuziehen, wozu sie sich nicht erheben können, wenn sie zum Beispiel fordern, daß alles Gedruckte sich als ein Kochbuch, oder als ein Rechenbuch, oder als ein Dienstreglement solle gebrauchen lassen, und alles verschreien, was sich so nicht brauchen läßt, so haben sie selbst um ein Großes Unrecht. - Daß Ideale in der wirklichen Welt sich nicht darstellen lassen, wissen wir andern vielleicht so gut als sie, vielleicht besser. Wir behaupten nur, daß nach ihnen die Wirklichkeit beurteilt, und von denen, die dazu Kraft in sich fühlen, modifiziert werden müsse. Gesetzt, sie könnten auch davon sich nicht überzeugen, so verlieren sie dabei, nachdem sie einmal sind, was sie sind, sehr wenig; und die Menschheit verliert nichts dabei. Es wird dadurch bloß das klar, daß nur auf sie nicht im Plane der Veredlung der Menschheit gerechnet ist. Diese wird ihren Weg ohne Zweifel fortsetzen; über jene wolle die gütige Natur walten und ihnen zu rechter Zeit Regen und Sonnenschein, zuträgliche Nahrung und ungestörten Umlauf der Säfte, und dabei - kluge Gedanken verleihen!» - Ein Verhängnisvolles liegt gerade darin, daß die das Leben befruchtenden Ideen einzelner Weltanschauungen von diesem Leben ferngehalten werden durch den Glauben, ihre Verschiedenheit beweise, daß sie insgesamt subjektiv gefärbt seien durch die Vorstellungsarten ihrer Denker. Dadurch wird auf die Reden der charakterisierten Ideen-Gegner ein Schein des Rechtes geworfen. Nicht, was sie enthalten, verurteilt die Weltanschauungen der Denker zur Unfruchtbarkeit für das Leben, sondern der zumeist in ihrem Gefolge auftretende Glaube, entweder müsse eine Gedankenrichtung die ganze Wirklichkeit offenbaren, oder sie seien alle nur persönlich gefärbte Ansichten. - Diese Schrift möchte zeigen, inwiefern in den Ideen einzelner Denker trotz deren Verschiedenheit die Wahrheit lebt, und nicht bloß persönlich gefärbte Ansichten.
[ 8 ] Nur dadurch, daß man versucht zu erkennen, inwiefern die Wirklichkeit selbst in ihrem Verhältnis zum Menschen durch verschiedene Vorstellungsarten sich offenbart, ringt man sich auch zu einem begründeten Urteile hindurch über dasjenige, was aus dem Wesen des die Welt beobachtenden Denkers stammt. Man durchschaut, wie des einen Denkers Wesenheit mehr nach dem einen, die des andern mehr nach dem anderen Verhältnis der außermenschlichen (objektiven) Wirklichkeit zum Menschen hindrängt. Man sieht zunächst die scharf ausgeprägte persönliche Denkungsrichtung einer Persönlichkeit. Man ist versucht, zu glauben, deren Weltanschauung sei deshalb auch nur eine persönliche (subjektive) Vorstellungsart, weil man bemerkt, wie sie ihre Grundlagen in der persönlichen Denkrichtung hat. Erkennt man aber, wie diese persönliche Denkrichtung gerade bewirkt, daß der Denker sich auf einen bestimmten Gesichtspunkt stellt, durch den sich die außermenschliche (objektive) Wirklichkeit in ein besonderes Verhältnis zu ihm stellen kann, so entwindet man sich der Verwirrung, in die man durch den Anblick der verschiedenen Weltanschauungen gebracht werden kann.
[ 9 ] Gar mancher wird zu dem Vorgebrachten vielleicht sagen: ja, aber das ist doch alles von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte aus ganz selbstverständlich, und deshalb ist es überflüssig, es erst vorzubringen. Aber der so sagt, wird oftmals gerade ein solcher sein, der in seinem Urteilen und Handeln überall gegen diese Anschauung von Wahrheit und Wirklichkeit verstößt.
[ 10 ] Mit der dargestellten Ansicht soll aber nicht eine Rechtfertigung gegeben sein jeder menschlichen Meinung, die sich als Weltanschauung ansieht. Wirkliche Irrtümer, Fehlerhaftigkeit der Erkenntnisquellen, Gesichtspunkte, von denen aus nur eine umnebelte Einbildung Weltanschauungsgedanken schaffen will: alles dieses wird sich gerade in dem Lichte zeigen, zu dem diese Ansicht dringt. Indem sie zu erfahren sucht, inwiefern in voneinander abweichenden menschlichen Gedanken die eine Wirklichkeit sich offenbart, darf sie auch hoffen, einen Blick dafür zu gewinnen, wo eine menschliche Meinung von der Wirklichkeit selbst zurückgewiesen wird.
[ 11 ] Empfindet man, wie die Kräfte der Volkheit in den Denkern eines Volkes wirken, so steht diese Empfindung mit der hier ausgesprochenen Ansicht in vollem Einklange. Die Volkheit will nicht darüber entscheiden, wie ein Denker seine Gedanken gestaltet; aber sie wirkt, zusammen mit andern seinen Gesichtspunkt bestimmenden Kräften, auf das Verhältnis zum Dasein, durch das die Wirklichkeit nach der einen oder der anderen Richtung sich ihm offenbart. Sie braucht nicht sein Anschauungsvermögen zu trüben; aber sie kann sich als besonders geeignet erweisen, den ihr angehörigen Denker auf einen Platz zu stellen, auf dem er eine gewisse Vorstellungsart der für die Menschheit gemeinsamen Wahrheit entwickeln kann. Sie will ihm nicht Richter sein über die Erkenntnis; aber sie kann ihm treufördernder Berater sein auf dem Wege zur Wahrheit. Inwiefern dies von deutscher Volkheit empfunden werden kann, dafür sollten in dieser Schrift Andeutungen gegeben werden durch Schilderung einer Reihe von Persönlichkeiten, die aus dieser Volkheit aufgestiegen sind. Der Verfasser dieser Schrift hofft, man werde aus ihr seine Empfindung erkennen, daß liebevolles erkennendes Vertiefen in die seelische Eigenart einer Volkheit nicht führen müsse zur Verkennung und Mißachtung des Wesens und Wertes anderer Volkheiten. Unnötig wäre zu anderer Zeit, dies besonders zu sagen. Heute ist es nötig angesichts der Gefühle, die von vielen Seiten deutschem Wesen entgegengebracht werden.
[ 12 ] Von dem Anteil sowohl deutscher wie auch deutsch-österreichischer Persönlichkeiten am Geistesleben zu sprechen, liegt dem Verfasser dieser Schrift besonders nahe; ist er doch durch Geburt und Erziehung Deutschösterreicher, der seine ersten drei Lebensjahrzehnte in Österreich, und dann eine - bald ebenso lange - Zeit in Deutschland verlebt hat. - Wie er über die Stellung der meisten in dieser Schrift behandelten Persönlichkeiten im allgemeinen Geistesleben denkt, darüber hat er sich in seinem Buche «Die Rätsel der Philosophie» ausgesprochen. Dort Gesagtes hier zu wiederholen, lag nicht in seiner Absicht. Er kann gut verstehen, daß jemand über die Auswahl der geschilderten Persönlichkeiten anderer Ansicht sein kann als er. Aber er wollte, ohne nach irgendeiner Richtung Vollständigkeit anzustreben, einfach einiges schildern, was ihm Anschauung und Lebenserfahrung geworden ist.
Berlin im Mai 1916
Rudolf Steiner
Zusatz zu dem in voran gehendem Vorwort Gesagten für die Neu-Ausgabe von 1918
[ 13 ] Steht man als Betrachter dem «Denken, Schauen und Sinnen» einer Persönlichkeit gegenüber, so kann man die Empfindung haben, man beobachte in der Seele einer solchen Persönlichkeit wirksame Kräfte, die ihrer Vorstellungsart die Richtung und die besondere Kennzeichnung geben, die aber von ihr selbst nicht zum Inhalte ihres Denkens gemacht werden. Mit einer solchen Empfindung muß durchaus nicht die eitle Meinung verknüpft sein, man könne sich als Betrachter über die betrachtete Persönlichkeit stellen. Die Tatsache, daß man als Betrachter einen anderen Gesichtspunkt hat als der Betrachtete, macht möglich, daß man dies aussprechen kann, was der andere nicht ausgesprochen hat. Was er deshalb nicht ausgesprochen, ja, was er vor das eigene Denken nicht gebracht, sondern im unbewußten Seelenleben gelassen hat, weil durch dieses Nicht-Aussprechen das von ihm Gesagte seine volle Bedeutung erlangt hat. Je bedeutender dasjenige ist, was ein Mensch zu sagen hat, desto umfangreicher ist das, was in seinen Seelentiefen unbewußt waltet. In den Seelen derer, die sich in das Denken, das Sinnen einer solchen Persönlichkeit versenken, klingt aber dieses Unbewußte an. Und sie dürfen es auch ins Bewußtsein heraufholen, weil es bei ihnen ja nicht mehr zum Hemmnis für das Auszusprechende werden kann.
[ 14 ] Die Persönlichkeiten, von welchen in dieser Schrift die Rede ist, sich einen in besonders starkem Maße solche zu sein, die Anlaß geben, von ihrem Ausgesprochenen zu dem vorzudringen, was sie unausgesprochen gelassen haben. Deshalb glaubte der Verfasser dieses Buches dessen Darstellung mit den «Ausblicken», die den Abschluß bilden, erst von dem eingenommenen Gesichtspunkte aus zu einer vollständigen zu machen. Er ist der Ansicht, daß er dadurch in die Anschauungen der betrachteten Persönlichkeiten nicht etwas Unberechtigtes hineingetragen hat, sondern das gesucht hat, aus dem sie in wahrem Sinne des Gedankens herausgeflossen sind. Das Unausgesprochene ist in diesem Falle ein reich mit Samen besetzter Boden, aus dem das Ausgesprochene als einzelne Früchte hervorgesproßt ist. Beobachtet man diese Früchte so, daß man sich bewußt wird des samentragenden Bodens, auf dem sie gereift sind, dann wird man gerade dadurch gewahr, wie dasjenige, was die Seele mit den bedeutsamsten Menschenrätseln erleben muß, bei den in dieser Schrift geschilderten Persönlichkeiten tiefgehende Anregungen, mächtige Hinweise in zielsichere Richtungen und stärkende Kräfte für fruchtbare Einsichten finden kann. Durch eine solche Betrachtung wird man hinwegkommen über die Scheu vor der scheinbaren Abstraktheit gegenüber den Gedanken dieser Persönlichkeiten, die viele gar nicht an sie herankommen läßt. Man wird ersehen, daß diese Gedanken, recht angesehen, von unbegrenzter Lebenswärme voll sind, einer Wärme, welche der Mensch suchen muß, wenn er sich nur wirklich selbst recht versteht.
World of thought, personality, people
[ 1 ] From views that have formed in me over the course of thirty-five years about the worlds of thought of a number of German and Austrian personalities, I based some of the lectures that I had to give in Central European cities during this fateful time. I wanted to talk about such personalities, in whose thoughts the pressing questions of life seek a solution and in whose spiritual struggle the essence of the German nation is revealed at the same time. I would like to make what I have said in this way the guiding principle of this publication. It is intended to speak of the human spirit's search for knowledge of its essence in connection with such seekers, who do not pursue personal knowledge hobbies or aestheticizing inclinations born of arbitrariness, but thoughts that arise from an irresistible healthy urge of human nature and that are grounded in the emotional needs of the people despite the spiritual height to which they aspire. However, we will be talking about personalities who are often denied a sense of the realities of life by those who do not want to recognize that man is confused by the surface of reality and made unfit for life if he cannot face it with views of the spirit that reigns in the depths of reality. Thoughts that struggle for knowledge of the spirit often repel a state of mind that would all too gladly invoke Goethe by countering such thoughts with: "Gray, dear friend, is all theory, - and green the golden tree of life." She pays no attention to the fact that Goethe's humor uses these words to put a lesson into the devil's mouth, which he finds good for a pupil. - A life-bearing thought is not affected by the fact that a view that flatters the comfort of human thought regards it as gray, because it accepts the grayness of its own theory for the golden splendor of the green tree of life.
[ 2 ] It is contrary to the feelings of some people to speak of the influence of a people on the world views of the personalities who have sprung from this people. For they think that this would contradict the self-evident truth that knowledge of the true is a life-good present in the same way in all people. That this is so is really as self-evident as that the sunshine and the moonlight shine equally on all men on earth. And it is as indisputably true of the highest thoughts of the world view as it is of the "two times two is four" of everyday life that truth cannot be different according to the nature of men and nations. But precisely because this is so self-evident, it should not be taken for granted - without further consideration of what is meant - that someone would disregard this self-evident fact if he were to search in the nature of the thinkers of a people for the roots of the ethnicity from which they originate. The human spirit does not only live in the abstract coinage of certain concepts; it also draws its life from the forces that souls allow to resonate from their most intimate experiences with the insights born of them. Goethe felt this way when he wrote to a friend: "After what I have seen of plants and fish near Naples and in Sicily, if I were ten years younger, I would be very tempted to make a journey to India, not to discover new things, but to see what I have discovered in my own way." Goethe knows how even what has already been discovered can be rediscovered in a new light if it is seen in a new way. And the thoughts that humanity develops for its spiritual life about questions of knowledge speak not only of what people are searching for, but also of how they are searching. In such thoughts, the receptive person feels the pulse of the soul that announces the life from which they radiate into reason. As true as it is that in a thought one also gets to know its thinker, it is equally plausible that in a thinker one can see the people from whom the thinker has arisen. - What truth content is inherent in a thought and whether an idea has grown out of the roots of genuine reality: surely only the powers of cognition independent of time and place can decide this. But whether a certain thought, whether an idea that steers the human spirit in a certain direction emerges within a nation, depends on the sources from which the spirit of this nation may draw. Karl Rosenkranz certainly did not want to prove anything about the truth of Hegel's thoughts from the fact that he connected these thoughts with the German national spirit when he wrote his book "Hegel as a German National Philosopher" in 1870. He held the view that he had already expressed in his description of Hegel's life: "A true philosophy is the act of a people... But for philosophy, in so far as it is philosophy, the peculiarity of its popular origin is not at all important. Here only the generality and necessity of its content and the perfection of its proof are important. Whether the true is recognized and expressed by a Greek or a Germanic, by a Frenchman or an Englishman, has no weight for it as true. Every true philosophy is therefore, as a national philosophy, at the same time a general human philosophy and an indispensable link in the great course of humanity. It has the capacity of absolute dissemination through all peoples, and the time will come for each one when it must appropriate the true philosophy of other peoples if it wishes otherwise to secure and promote its own progress."
[ 3 ] The feeling that one has against the popular aspects of worldview ideas can also be of a different nature. One can form an objection to the cognitive value of such thoughts by recognizing their popular nature. One may think that this relegates them to the realm of fantasy and that one must speak of them as one would speak of German poetry, while it is inadmissible to speak of German mathematics or German physics in the same sense. There are people who see in every world view - every philosophy - a conceptual poetry. They do not need to concern themselves with the objection that arises from the implied sentiment. But the remarks in this paper are not written from such a point of view. It is based on the other, that no one can seriously speak of a world-view who does not ascribe to it an epistemological value which does not presuppose that its thoughts originate in realities common to all men. It may also be said that this is generally true; but a world-view common to all men is an ideal which has not yet been realized anywhere; all existing world-views bear in themselves what is imposed upon them by the imperfection of human nature. A discussion of the imperfection of worldviews for this reason can be dispensed with here. This is because we are not seeking excuses for the weakness of worldviews from their popular nature, but rather reasons for their strength. Therefore, the assertion that thinkers are dependent not only on their personal standpoints, but also on what is attached to them from their nationality, and that for this very reason they cannot penetrate to a general human worldview, can be disregarded here. This paper speaks of a number of personalities in the sense that their thoughts are really recognized as having general human validity. Of what is characterized as errors or one-sided views, only insofar as one can see detours to the truth in them. If an absolutely valid objection could arise from the aforementioned sentiment, it would be justified with regard to the way in which worldview ideas are associated with the nature of the German people in this writing. However, one can only see through the objection to this sentiment if one can dissuade oneself from a belief that also gives rise to serious deceptions in other directions. It is the belief that the many different thought forms of thinkers researching worldview issues are really just as many different worldviews that cannot exist together.
[ 4 ] From this belief, the scientifically-minded often fight the mystic, the mystic fights the scientifically-minded. The one believes that scientific findings are the only true results of research into reality; from them one must gain the thoughts that can bring understanding of the world and life, as far as this understanding can be attained by man. The other professes the view that the true nature of the world is only accessible to mystical experience, and that the thoughts of the scientifically minded cannot approach true reality. The "monist" is only satisfied if a unified basis for the material and spiritual world is presented. Either one type of monist sees this basis in the substances and their effects, so that the spiritual phenomena become revelations of the material world for them. Or other monists concede true existence only to the spirit and believe that everything material is only a kind of the spiritual. The dualist sees such a unification as a misunderstanding of the nature of both matter and spirit. In his view, the two must be regarded as more or less independent realms. - It would be a long series if one wanted to characterize even the most outstanding of these supposed world views. Now there are many people who believe that they have moved beyond all talk of worldviews. They say: I base my knowledge on what I find in reality; I don't care what a worldview thinks of it. They believe this, but their behavior shows something completely different. More or less consciously, or even unconsciously, they profess such a world-view in the most differentiated way. Even if they do not express or think it directly, they develop their ideas in its direction and fight, reject or treat the ideas of other people in a way that corresponds to such a "world view".
[ 5 ] The conscious or unconscious belief in such supposed worldviews is based on a deception about the relationship between humans and the non-human world. The person caught up in this delusion does not quite distinguish between what man receives from the outside world for the formation of thoughts and what he extracts from himself when he forms thoughts.
[ 6 ] If one notices that two thinkers express different thoughts about the questions of life, one all too easily has the feeling that if the two were expressing true reality with their thoughts, they would have to be saying the same thing, not different things. And one thinks that the difference cannot have its reasons in reality, but only in the personal (subjective) way of understanding of the thinkers. Even if this is not always openly acknowledged by people who talk about world views, this opinion is more or less consciously or unconsciously at the basis of the spirit and attitude of their speech. Indeed, the thinkers themselves usually live in such a bias. They express their thoughts about what they consider to be reality, regard these thoughts as their "system" of a correct world view and believe that a different direction of thought is based on the personal idiosyncrasy of the thinker. - The presentation of this writing is based on a different view. (At this point, however, this view can only be put forward as an assertion. I hope that one will be able to find some justification for it in the writing itself. In a large part of my other writings I have endeavored to contribute much more to this justification). Two different schools of thought can often only be understood in their essence by looking at their difference in the same way as the difference between, for example, two pictures of a tree taken from two directions by a photographic apparatus. The pictures are different; but their difference is not due to the nature of the apparatus, but to the position of the tree in relation to the apparatus. And this is something just as external to the apparatus as the tree itself. The pictures are both true views of the tree. The divergence of two world views does not prevent both from expressing the true reality. - The confusion of ideas arises when people do not see through this. When they make themselves materialists, idealists, monists, dualists, spiritualists, mystics or even theosophists, or are made so by others, and thus express that one would only arrive at a true view of the sources of life if one attunes one's whole way of thinking in the sense of one of these concepts. But it is reality itself that wants to be recognized from one side by materialistic ideas, from another by spiritual ones, from a third as unity (Monon), from yet another as duality. The thinking person wants to grasp the essence of reality through a mode of conception. And if he realizes that he undertakes this in vain, he helps himself by saying: all ideas about the roots of real life are personally (subjectively) formed, and the essence of the "thing in itself" remains unrecognizable. - How many confusions in the life of thought have led to the realization that many a person speaks about a world view that differs from his own in the same way as someone who knows the image of a tree taken from one side and who, when placed in front of an image received from another side, does not want to admit that this is a "correct" image of the same tree!
[ 7 ] Many who consider themselves practitioners of life comfort themselves over such agonizing questions of worldview by saying: let those argue about these things who have the leisure and desire to do so; true life is not harmed by this; it need not worry about it. But only those people who have no idea how far removed their ideas are from the real driving forces of life can speak like this. These are the people whose image stood before Johann Gottlieb Fichte's soul when he spoke the words: "While in the circle which ordinary experience has drawn around us, one thinks more generally and judges more correctly than perhaps ever before, most people are completely deluded and blinded as soon as they are supposed to go even a little beyond it. If it is impossible to rekindle in them the once extinguished spark of the higher genius, they must remain quietly in that circle, and in so far as they are useful and indispensable in it, their value in and for it must be left undiminished. But if they therefore demand that everything should be brought down to them to which they cannot rise, if, for example, they demand that everything printed should be usable as a cook-book, or as a book of arithmetic, or as a set of official regulations, and denounce everything that cannot be so used, they themselves are greatly mistaken. - That ideals cannot be represented in the real world, we others know perhaps as well as they do, perhaps better. We only maintain that reality must be judged by them, and modified by those who feel the power to do so. Supposing they could not convince themselves of this either, they lose very little by it, once they are what they are; and mankind loses nothing by it. This merely makes it clear that they alone are not reckoned with in the plan for the ennoblement of mankind. The latter will undoubtedly continue on their path; may kind nature rule over them and give them rain and sunshine at the right time, beneficial nourishment and undisturbed circulation of the juices, and at the same time - wise thoughts!" - A disastrous thing lies precisely in the fact that the ideas of individual world views that fertilize life are kept away from this life by the belief that their diversity proves that they are altogether subjectively colored by the conceptions of their thinkers. Thus a semblance of right is cast on the speeches of the characterized opponents of ideas. It is not what they contain that condemns the world-views of the thinkers to unfruitfulness for life, but the belief, usually appearing in their wake, that either one school of thought must reveal the whole of reality, or that they are all merely personally colored views. - This paper aims to show to what extent truth lives in the ideas of individual thinkers despite their differences, and not merely personally colored views.
[ 8 ] Only by trying to recognize the extent to which reality itself reveals itself in its relationship to man through different types of conception does one also struggle through to a well-founded judgment of that which comes from the nature of the thinker observing the world. One sees through how one thinker's essence pushes more towards the one, the other's more towards the other relationship of extra-human (objective) reality to man. First of all, one sees the sharply defined personal direction of a personality's thinking. One is tempted to believe that their world view is also only a personal (subjective) way of thinking because one notices how it has its foundations in the personal direction of thought. But if one recognizes how this personal way of thinking causes the thinker to place himself on a certain point of view, through which the extra-human (objective) reality can place itself in a special relationship to him, then one escapes the confusion into which one can be brought by the sight of the different world views.
[ 9 ] Some will perhaps say to what has been said: yes, but from a certain point of view it is all quite self-evident, and therefore it is superfluous to put it forward first. But those who say this will often be precisely those who, in their judgments and actions, violate this view of truth and reality everywhere.
[ 10 ] This view, however, is not intended to justify every human opinion that regards itself as a world view. Real errors, falsity of the sources of knowledge, points of view from which only a clouded imagination wants to create worldview thoughts: all this will show itself precisely in the light to which this view penetrates. By seeking to discover the extent to which the one reality is revealed in divergent human thoughts, it can also hope to gain an insight into where a human opinion is rejected by reality itself.
[ 11 ] If one perceives how the forces of the people work in the thinkers of a nation, this perception is in full agreement with the view expressed here. The people do not want to decide how a thinker shapes his thoughts; but together with other forces that determine his point of view, they influence the relationship to existence through which reality reveals itself to him in one direction or the other. It need not cloud his faculty of vision; but it may prove particularly suitable for placing the thinker who belongs to it in a place where he can develop a certain way of conceiving the truth common to mankind. It does not want to be his judge of knowledge; but it can be his faith-promoting advisor on the path to truth. The extent to which this can be felt by the German people should be indicated in this writing by describing a number of personalities who have risen from this people. The author of this writing hopes that one will recognize from it his feeling that a loving, recognizing immersion in the spiritual character of a people need not lead to the misjudgment and disregard of the nature and value of other peoples. It would be unnecessary to say this in particular at another time. Today it is necessary in view of the feelings that many people have towards the German character.
[ 12 ] To speak of the contribution of both German and German-Austrian personalities to intellectual life is particularly appropriate for the author of this essay, as he is a German-Austrian by birth and upbringing, having spent the first three decades of his life in Austria and then a period - soon to be just as long - in Germany. - In his book "Die Rätsel der Philosophie" (The Riddles of Philosophy) he has expressed his opinion on the position of most of the personalities discussed in this book in the general intellectual life. It was not his intention to repeat what he said there here. He can well understand that someone may disagree with him on the selection of the personalities described. But, without aiming for completeness in any direction, he simply wanted to describe some of what has become his view and life experience.
Berlin in May 1916
Rudolf Steiner
Addition to the foregoing preface for the new edition of 1918
[ 13 ] If, as an observer, one is confronted with the "thinking, seeing and sensing" of a personality, one may have the impression that one is observing active forces in the soul of such a personality which give direction and particular characterization to its way of thinking, but which are not made the content of its thinking by the personality itself. Such a feeling need not be connected with the vain opinion that as an observer one can place oneself above the observed personality. The fact that the observer has a different point of view from the person being observed makes it possible to express what the other person has not expressed. What he has therefore not expressed, indeed, what he has not brought before his own thinking, but has left in the unconscious life of the soul, because through this non-expression what he has said has attained its full meaning. The more significant what a person has to say is, the more extensive is that which is unconsciously active in the depths of his soul. In the souls of those who immerse themselves in the thinking, the sensing of such a personality, however, this unconsciousness resounds. And they may also bring it up into consciousness, because it can no longer become an obstacle to what is to be expressed.
[ 14 ] The personalities referred to in this book are particularly likely to be those who give rise to the need to penetrate from what they have expressed to what they have left unexpressed. For this reason, the author of this book believed that the "outlooks" which form the conclusion of the book would only make its presentation complete from the point of view adopted. He is of the opinion that he has not thereby introduced something unauthorized into the views of the personalities under consideration, but has sought that from which they have flowed out in the true sense of the thought. In this case, the unexpressed is a soil rich with seeds from which the expressed has sprouted as individual fruits. If one observes these fruits in such a way that one becomes aware of the seed-bearing soil on which they have ripened, then one becomes aware of precisely how that which the soul must experience with the most significant human riddles can find profound stimuli, powerful pointers in unerring directions and strengthening forces for fruitful insights in the personalities described in this writing. Through such contemplation one will get over the shyness of the apparent abstractness of the thoughts of these personalities, which prevents many from approaching them at all. It will be seen that these thoughts, properly considered, are full of unlimited warmth of life, a warmth which man must seek if only he really understands himself properly.