The Rudolf Steiner Archive

4.8 An Objection Often Raised Against Anthroposophy

[ 1 ] An objection is often raised against anthroposophy which is just as understandable from the mood of soul of the personalities from whom it comes as it is unjustified in relation to the spirit from which anthroposophical research is undertaken. To me it seems quite insignificant because its refutation is obvious to anyone who follows with real understanding the explanations given from the anthroposophical point of view. It is only because it appears again and again that I say something about it here, as I already did in the 6th edition of my "Theosophy", at the end, 1914. - In order to raise this objection, it is demanded that the spiritual observational results put forward by anthroposophy should be "proved" in the sense of the purely scientific method of experimentation. Imagine, for example, that some people who claim to be able to arrive at such results are contrasted with a number of other people in a properly arranged experiment, and the "spiritual researchers" then have to state what they "saw" in the people to be examined. Their statements would then have to agree, or at least be similar in a sufficiently large percentage. It is understandable that those who only know anthroposophy without having understood it would repeatedly make such a demand, for its fulfillment would save them from having to work their way through to the correct path of proof, which consists in acquiring the own seeing that is available to everyone. But he who has really understood anthroposophy also has the insight that an experiment carried out in the manner indicated is about as suitable for obtaining truly spiritual results of perception as the stopping of the hands is for observing the time on a clock. For the way to bring about the conditions under which spiritual things can be seen is by means that must result from the conditions of the soul's life itself. External events, such as those leading to a scientific experiment, are not formed out of such conditions. Within these conditions it must be, for example, that the impulse of will that leads to seeing arises only from the intrinsic inner impulse of the one who is to see. And that something is not given in artificial external measures which flows formatively into this inner impulse - it is actually surprising that so little consideration is given to the fact that anyone can obtain the evidence for anthroposophy directly through their own corresponding state of soul; that these "proofs" are therefore accessible to everyone. As little as one will want to admit this, the reason for the desire for "external proofs" lies only in the fact that these latter could be obtained in a more comfortable way than in the laborious, uncomfortable, but truly spiritual-scientific way.

[ 2 ] What Brentano wanted, in that he repeatedly strove to be able to work in a psychological laboratory, lies in a completely different field from this demand for convenient experimental evidence for anthroposophical truths. The longing to have such a laboratory at his disposal is often evident in his writings. Circumstances tragically intervened in his life that denied him such a laboratory. Precisely because of his position on psychological questions, he would have achieved the most important things through such a laboratory. If one wants to create the best basis for anthropological-psychological results that reach the "cognitive boundaries" where anthropology and anthroposophy must meet, then this can be done through a psychological laboratory, such as Brentano had in mind. In order to bring about the facts of "seeing consciousness", no experimental methods need be sought in such a laboratory; but through those experimental methods that are sought, it would be revealed how the human being is predisposed to this seeing, and how seeing consciousness is demanded of the ordinary. Everyone who stands on the anthroposophical point of view longs, like Brentano, to be able to work in a genuine psychological laboratory, which is impossible because of the prejudices that still prevail today against anthroposophy.