Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness
GA 177

13 October 1917, Dornach

8. Abstraction and Reality

You will have gathered, from what I said yesterday, that at the present time we must come to realize the distinction between abstract and purely intellectual thinking, and thinking which is based on reality, in order to relate our thinking to the reality. The natural tendency is to make our thinking incontrovertible, as free from contradictions as we can make it. But the world is full of contradictions, and if we really want to grasp reality, we cannot throw a general, standard form of thinking like a net over everything in order to understand it. We have to consider everything on an individual basis.

The greatest defect and deficiency in our time is that people are literally inclined to think in abstractions. This takes them further away from reality.

We now come to the application of this to reality itself. Please, consider this carefully! I am going to say something rather strange, for I have to apply unrealistic thinking to reality. Unrealistic thinking is, of course, also part of reality. The unrealistic thinking which has developed over the last three or four centuries, and the fact that as such it has become part of reality in human life, has resulted in an unreal structure which is always self-contradictory. People are doing alright, one might say, with regard to the physical and material world, for the physical world ignores them, and they can therefore have as many wrong ideas as they like. This makes them—forgive the paradoxical way of putting this—into billy-goats who keep butting against the brick wall of reality with their horns in their insistence on thinking about the physical world in abstract terms. We can see this with many ideologies; they keep coming up against the brick wall of reality. And they are sometimes just as stubborn as goats, these ideologies.

The situation is different, however, when it comes to social and political life. Here the human thoughts of every individual enter into the social structure. We do not come up against a reality that will not yield; in this case we create the reality. And if this goes on for a few hundred years the reality will be what you may expect it to be; it will be full of contradictions. Reality itself comes to realization in structures which do not have the power of reality in them; as a result there are upheavals such as the present catastrophic war.

Here you have the connection between the inner life of people who lived in a particular age and the outer physical events of a time which comes a little later. It is always the situation that anything which emerges in the physical world has first lived in the spirit, and this also applies where humanity is concerned, with things living first in human thoughts and then in human actions. And we can see how abstract thinking has penetrated into reality if we look at the present time where this shows itself in its true form—that is, in this case in its untrue form, which is its true form. The reality is in many ways seen in an abstract way. People look at it as if they were watching the conjuror I spoke of yesterday and the weights which have no weight, with the conjuror behaving as if they weighed many kilograms.

The most significant characteristic of many of the concepts held today is their poverty. People like to take things easy today—as I have said so many times—and they want their concepts to be as straightforward as possible. This, however, makes them rather limited. Now, limited concepts do prove adequate when one is dealing with the superficial aspects of the physical world, the mere surface of that world, which is the only thing modern people want to consider, in spite of all the advances. Magnificent discoveries have been made in recent times about physical phenomena, but the concepts used to explore them are relatively limited. The desire for limited concepts, or concepts of limited content, has also crept into all philosophical and ideological thinking. We see philosophers today who are literally craving such limited concepts. The most limited concepts, with practically no content, are tossed about over and over again. They are often quite pretentious, but they do not contain anything which has real weight. Widely used ideas today are ‘the eternal’, ‘infinity’, ‘unity’, the ‘significant’ compared to the ‘insignificant’, ‘general’, ‘particular’, and so on. People like bandying these about—the more abstract the better.

This creates a peculiar situation with regard to reality. People no longer see the living reality in anything and lose all feeling for what reality really has to offer. Merely observe the present situation and you will find this everywhere.

Let me tell you about something that is really worrying. A present-day philosopher1Henri Lichtenberger (1864–1941). has been considering the question as to whether it is possible to have an opinion regarding the length of time for which this war will continue. It is a vital question, I think you will agree, but it is a question which needs to be decided by using real concepts which have content and are full of life; it cannot be decided by using generalized abstract ideas of world and temporality, general and particular, and so on. This kind of generalized philosophizing will get us nowhere with regard to the concrete issues. The philosopher concerned found, as many people find, that it does not matter if the war continues for any length of time, for this will the only way of achieving ‘permanent peace’, as they call it, and let us have paradise on earth. You will remember, I compared this with the idea that the best way of making sure no more crockery is broken in the home is to break all the crockery in the first place. This is more or less the conclusion reached by people who say the war must continue until there is a prospect of permanent peace.

The philosopher therefore applied his ideology to the question, an ideology which in his opinion deals with the most sublime—which in our time means the most abstract—ideas. And what did he say? Believe it or not, he said: ‘Compared to the eternity it takes to create satisfactory conditions for humanity, what does it matter if a few more tons of organic matter perish in the Fields of battle! What are a few tons of organic matter compared to life eternal, to human evolution!’

Those are the achievements of abstract thinking when it is addressing itself to reality. And we have to draw people's attention to how horrific this is, for they do not feel it on their own. We can only be in constant amazement at how these things escape attention and fail to give much cause for thought. Fundamentally speaking, such ideas are part of the present-day desire for ideologies. This has given rise to the most abstract of abstract ideas which, however, can only be applied to the dead, inorganic mineral world. If philosophers apply such ideas not only to the sphere of life, but also to that of the soul and spirit, it is only to be expected that they come to this kind of conclusion. In the realm of dead matter, human beings do, of course, have to apply the principle: ‘What are so and so many hundredweight of material compared to what will be the end result?’ It would be impossible to do any building, for instance, if we were obliged to leave everything untouched. Yet we must not apply to human life what applies only in the lifeless, inorganic world. The concepts developed in modern science apply only to the inorganic world, but people are all the time applying them elsewhere, and the problem is that no one notices. Opinions of the kind that the war should not be brought to an end until the above-mentioned prospect is there, are saying exactly what the philosopher put so brutally, although it would seem to him that he put it in a very superior way. Others simply feel embarrassed about saying such things, but the philosopher hides the brutality behind beautiful words. Yes, he puts things in a very superior way, juggling with ideas like eternity and temporality, the human being forever evolving, the transient, temporal reality of so and so many tons of organic matter; but he ignores the fact that eternity, infinity, lives in every human being, and that every single human being is worth as much as the whole inorganic world taken together!

These things also provide the background to the forms we are now seeking to develop here on this hill. For art, too, has gradually been caught up in an ideology which is without weight and without reality. We have to come to the true nature of things again, and this is only possible if we come to the spirit. We therefore need different forms from those one generally sees in the world of art today. In other words, our age must once again become creative and do so out of the spirit. This goes against the grain with many people today. But try and understand the enormous extent to which our whole ideology has gradually entered more and more into the lifeless sphere, because it has only been considering that sphere. Look at the buildings and at the other works of art produced in the nineteenth century. Really, all one gets is old styles rehashed over and over again. People have built in the classical style, the Renaissance and the Gothic styles—always something which is no longer alive. They have not been able to work with the elements which live in the present. This is what we must achieve; it will create a completely new spirit. It will involve many sacrifices. But2Duldeck House, built opposite the Goetheanum according to a model made by Rudolf Steiner. which has new forms created out of the concrete itself, is a pioneering effort. And it matters not only that these forms have been thought, but also that the opportunity was made to produce such a building. These things must be considered and given their full weight, otherwise there can be no comprehension of what we intend to create on this hill. The nature of the whole is such that the forms now coming into existence here contradict and are in utter conflict with the forms created in the rest of the world today.

‘To understand the present time’—this phrase has been like a thread running through everything I have been saying to you since my return. It does, however, mean that rather than take it easy, we have to put in a lot of effort—effort of thought, effort of feeling, effort of will to experiment, in the desire to understand the present time. And we must have the courage to make a complete break with some of the things that belong to the past. Fundamentally speaking, the people who are considered to be most enlightened today are often working with old ideas, without really knowing how to use them to good purpose.

Let me give you an example. I am sure that here in Switzerland, too, you will have heard and read a lot about a book which was no doubt also given pride of place in local bookshop windows, for it has made a profound impression in the present time. I am especially pleased to be able to speak of something that comes from our friends and not only our enemies, so that no one should think there is a personal bias. The book, on the State as a life form, was written by the Scandinavian writer Rudolf Kjellen,3Rudolf Kjellen (1864–1922), Swedish political scientist who first conceived the idea of geopolitics, which was later taken up by Haiford Mackinder in England and Karl Haushofer in Germany (who coined the term Lebensraum) and finally by the Nazis. The German title of Kjellen's book was Der Staat als Lebensform, Leipzig 1916. one of the few who have shown an interest in my writings and commented on them in a positive way. So I think it will be obvious that there is no personal bias in what I am going to say about this book, but I believe it is something which has to be said.

The book is a good example of the inappropriate ideas people have in the present time. An attempt is made to see the State as an organism. This is the kind of thing people do when they use the ideas current in our time to grasp anything that needs to be grasped in mind and spirit. It is good to be able to say this is an erudite, scholarly and truly profound individual, someone we really cannot praise enough, but at the same time we are going to show the true nature of the completely inappropriate idea on which the book is based. This is the kind of contradiction in which we find ourselves all the time. Life is full of contradictions. Abstract and incontrovertible ideas will not do if we want to take hold of life. We should not immediately think that someone whom we have to fight is an idiot; it is also possible to see someone whom we have to fight as a most erudite and thoroughgoing scholar, as indeed is the case with the author about whose work I am speaking.

What Kjellen is doing is rather similar to what the Swabian—now I do not know what to call him, the Swabian scholar or the Austrian Minister of State, for he was both—Schaeffle.4Albert Schaeffle (1831–1903), sociologist and politician, minister of trade for Austria. His works include Bau und Leben des sozialen Koerpers (translates as ‘Anatomy and life of the body social’), 4 vols, Tübingen 1875–8, and Die Aussichtslosigkeit der Sozialdemokratie (translates as ‘Social democracy—Outlook Schaeffle in his day made a thorough attempt to see the State as an organism and individual citizens as the cells in this organism. Hermann Bahr—I have spoken of him before5Hermann Bahr, see Note 3 of lecture 3. Die Einsichtslosigkeit des Herrn Schaeffle, Zurich 1886.—wrote a refutation of Schaeffle's book. The title of the book was: Die Aussichtslosigkeit der Sozialdemokratie (translates as ‘Social democracy—Outlook nil’); the refutation was entitled: Die Einsichtslosigkeit des Herrn Schaeffle (translates as ‘Mr. Schaeffle—Insight nil’), a brilliant little book. He called it a bit of naughtiness in a recent lecture. It is still quite a brilliant piece of work, written in his youth.

Schaeffle, therefore, did something rather like Kjellen is doing now. Kjellen, too, is trying to present every State as an organism, with the individual citizens as its cells. We do, of course, know quite a few things about the way in which cells function in an organism, and about the laws which pertain in an organism, and this transfers quite prettily to a State. People like to use such comparisons in areas which their minds are unable to penetrate. Well, the method of comparison can be applied to anything. If you like, I can easily develop a complete little science based on the comparison between a swarm of locusts and a double bass. You can compare anything to anything in the world, and comparisons will always prove fruitful. But the fact that we are able to make comparisons certainly does not mean that we are dealing with reality in making them. It is especially important to have a tremendous sense of reality when creating analogies, otherwise they will not work. When we create an analogy we are apt to find ourselves in the situation which some people experience as a harsh destiny in the days of their youth, when—forgive me—we instantly fall in love with the analogy we have created. Analogies which come to mind and really are obvious do have the drawback that we fall in love with them. This has its consequence, however, for we grow blind to any argument against the conclusions which may be drawn from the analogy.

And I must say, when I had read Kjellen's book, I realized, as soon as I considered it in the light of reality, that it has been written right now, during this war. To write such a book about the State as an organism did seem entirely unrealistic to me. You only need to look around you a little and you realize—even if it may not be literally so—that wars are fought in such a way that bits are cut off from the States which are in combat, and one bit is put here and another there; bits are cut off and put somewhere else. This aspect of war does matter, at least to a lot of people.

Now, if we were to compare States to organisms, we should at least try and take the analogy so far that one would also be able to cut bits off one organism and give them to a neighbouring organism. This is something people should realize, but they do not, because they have fallen in love with the analogy. There are many other examples I could give, and these would probably amuse you a great deal and make you laugh heartily, and you would then no longer consider the individual concerned to be as erudite as I do consider him to be. I do indeed consider him to be most erudite and truly profound.

How can it happen that someone may be erudite and a real scholar and nevertheless build a whole system on a completely inappropriate idea? Well, you see, the reason is that the analogy created by Kjellen is correct. You will now say that you no longer know which way to turn; first I tell you the analogy is utterly inappropriate and then I tell you it is correct. Well, in saying that it is correct I meant that it can certainly be made; what matters, however, is what we are comparing. You always have two things in an analogy, in Kjellen's case the State and the organism. Things must always be presented in accord with their true nature. The State exists, and the organism, too, exists. Neither of them can be wrong—only the way they are brought together is wrong. The point is that what is happening on earth can certainly be compared to an organism. The political events on earth can be compared to an organism; but we must not compare the State to an organism. If we compare the State to an organism, this makes individual human beings into cells, which is simply nonsense, for it will get us nowhere. It is, however, possible to compare political and social life on earth to an organism, but it is the whole earth which must be compared to the organism. As soon as we compare the whole earth, that is human events all over the earth, to an organism, and the different States—not the people—to different kinds of cells, the analogy is true and it is valid.

If you take this as your basis and then observe how individual States relate to each other, you will have something similar to the cells which make up the different systems in the organism. What matters, therefore, is that we apply any analogy we have chosen to create at the right level. Kjellen's—and also Schaeffle's—mistake was to compare an individual State to the whole organism, when in fact it can only be compared to a cell, a fully developed cell. Life on the earth as a whole can be compared to an organism, and then the comparison will prove fruitful. I think you will agree that the cells of the organism do not walk past each other in the way individual people do in a country. Cells adjoin, they are neighbours, and this also holds true for individual States, which are indeed like cells in the total organism of life on earth.

You may well feel that something is missing in what I have been saying. If your sense for pedantic accuracy—and this, too, has its justification—begins to stir in your hearts as I say these things, you will no doubt say I ought to give you proof that the life of the whole earth must be compared to the organism and an individual State to a cell. Well, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating; it does not lie in the abstract deliberations which we can always go into, but in taking the thought to its conclusion. If you do so with regard to Kjellen's idea, you will always find that it cannot be taken to its conclusion. You will keep running into a brick wall, and you will have to turn into a goat; otherwise you cannot take it to its conclusion. Yet if you take the thought to its conclusion for the life of the whole earth, you will find that it works, that you gain useful insights and it makes a good regulative principle. You will come to understand many things, even more than I have already indicated.

People are abstractionists today, and one feels like saying that if you have a dozen people, thirteen of them would think as follows—I know the figures do not fit, but the real situation is such today that it is practically true. If you take the case where Kjellen compares the individual State to an organism—and if we are countering this by saying that in reality one must compare political and social life all over the globe to an organism—these thirteen people out of a dozen will believe the analogy to be valid for all times. For if someone establishes a theory about the State, then this theory must apply in the present time, in Roman times, and even in Egyptian and Babylonian times; for a State is a State. People base themselves on concepts today, not on the reality.

But truly this is not how things are. In this respect, too, humanity is going through a process of evolution. The analogy I have given is only valid from the sixteenth century onwards; before then the globe was not a coherent whole; it has only come to be a coherent political whole from then onwards. America, the western hemisphere, simply did not exist for any political life which might have been a coherent whole. By creating a proper analogy, you immediately also see the tremendous break that exists between more recent life and life in the past. Insights based on reality always bear fruit, compared to concepts not based on reality, which are sterile and do not bear fruit. Every insight based on reality takes us a step further. We gain more than its immediate content and it takes us forward in the real world. This is what is so important; it is what we must concentrate on. Abstract concepts are like this: we have them, but the reality is outside and does not care a hoot about this abstract concept. Concepts based on reality hold within them the whole active inner life which is also there outside, life that chumbles and churns6Rudolf Steiner used two made-up words, durchwurlt und durchwirlt, that were sufficiently close to existing German words to paint a lively picture in his listeners' minds. (Translator) in every part of the real world out there. People are made uncomfortable by this. They want their concepts to be as quiet and colourless as possible and are afraid they will get giddy if their concepts have inner life.

Concepts without inner life do, however, have the disadvantage that the reality can be there in front of our eyes and yet we do not see the most important element in it. Reality is also full of concepts and ideas. It is really true what I said here a few days ago: elemental life goes on out there, and it is full of concepts and ideas. I also said that abstract ideas are mere corpses of ideas. It can happen that people who only like corpses of ideas will speak and think in them, whereas reality comes to quite different conclusions; it lets events take quite a different course from anything human minds are liable to come up with.

For three years now we have been caught up in terrible events which can teach us a great deal; we must be awake in following events, however, and not asleep. It is really something to marvel at, negatively speaking, that so many people are still asleep to the reality of these terrible events and still have not come to the realization that events which have never happened before in the world evolution of humanity demand that we develop new ideas, which also have not existed before. Let me put this more accurately in symbolic form. We may certainly say that some individuals had a notion that this war was coming and they may have had it for many years. Generally speaking, it can be said, however, that with the exception of certain groups in the Anglo-American world, the war was completely unexpected. With those who had an idea of its coming, the idea sometimes took a very odd form. One idea, which could be found again and again, came from economists and politicians who were deep thinkers—I assure you, I am not being ironical, I am completely serious about this—and was based on careful deductions made with reference to certain events. These people proceeded in a very scientific way, combining, abstracting and making all kinds of syntheses, and finally arrived at an idea which one really did come across for a long time, even at the time when war broke out. It was that in the light of the present world situation, of economic factors and the trade situation, this war could not possibly go on for more than four or six months. This was a truth fully supported by factual evidence. And the reasons given were far from stupid; they were perfectly good reasons.

But how does reality compare to the whole tissue of reasons put together by those clever economists? Well, you can see what is happening in reality! What is the point, ask you, when such a situation arises? The point is that we must draw the right conclusions from such a situation, so that the war actually teaches us something. What is the only possible conclusion from what I have given as a symbol? You see, I have merely given one glaringly obvious instance; I could tell you of many other and similar views which have also fallen foul—to put it mildly—of the real events which have occurred in the last three years. What, then, is the only real conclusion? It is that everything from which the wrong conclusions were drawn must be thrown overboard and we must say to ourselves: Our thinking has been divorced from reality; we have developed a system of ideas and then applied this abstract, unrealistic system to reality, which made reality become untrue. We must therefore break with the premises on which our apparent conclusion was based, for this conclusion destroys the real world!

One can make a strong point of saying these things to people today, but whether they will also take it as a strong point is another question. Something that was just as intelligent as the politicians' idea of the potential duration of the war—again I am not being ironical—were the reasons given by an enlightened group of medical men when the first railways were being built in Central Europe. Speaking on the basis of medical knowledge at the time, not just a single eccentric but a whole group of medical men—I have spoken of this before—said that the railways should not be built because the human nervous system would not be able to cope with them. This is on historical record; it happened in 1838. Not so long ago, therefore, the professional opinion was that railways should not be built. If, however, people were to build railways after all—so the document says—high board fences should be put on either side of the tracks, so that the farmers would not see the trains passing by and suffer concussion as a result. Yes, it is easy to laugh afterwards, when reality has ignored such arguments. People laugh about it afterwards, but there are some elemental spirits who laugh about human folly when it is being committed, or indeed even before scientists come up with such foolish notions.

We must break with anything where the opposite has proved true. Reality is contradicting theory, and the life of the last three years, as it has been all over the world, is contradiction come to realization. We must take a new look at events, for the present time is challenging us to make a radical revision of our views. It is actually difficult to take such a train of thought through to its conclusion once it has been started. Humanity is not sufficiently free-thinking today to allow these thoughts to reach their conclusion. Anyone who has a sense for reality, for what really happens all around us, can of course see that the conclusions are being drawn in the real world outside. It is just that people will not get this into their heads.

There is an enormous difference in this respect between the West and the East. Last year I discussed the profound difference between West and East with you from all kinds of different points of view,7See the lecture of 24 September 1916 in Inner Impulses of Human Evolution (GA 171), translation revised by G. Church, F. Kozlik and S. C. Easton. Anthroposophie Press, Hudson NY 1984. pointing out, for example, that the West is mainly talking of birth and of claiming rights. Look at Western views: birth and origin is the principal idea in science. It has given rise to Darwin's theory on the origin of species. We might also say: in ideological terms the theory of birth and origin, in practical terms the idea of human rights.

In the East, in Russian life, which is little known to us, we find reflections on death, on the human goal extending into the world of the Spirit, and on the concept of guilt and of sin in terms of practical ethics—read Soloviev,8Vladimir Soloviev (1853–1900), Russian philosopher and poet. His selected works were translated into German by Harry Koehler, with the first volume published in Jena in 1914. His Justification of Good was first translated into English in 1918. his works are now readily available. Such contrasts may be found in most areas, and we do not grasp reality unless we take full note of them. Emotions, sympathies and antipathies prevent people from considering the things which matter. As soon as sympathies and antipathies are aroused, people will not even let the truth get near them; in the same way people who have fallen in love with a particular analogy fail to see the contradictions. People hold anything they love for the absolute truth; they cannot even imagine that the opposite may also be true, though from a different point of view.

Let us consider the West, and specifically the Anglo-American West, for the rest are mostly repeating what they are saying. Which point of view—or ideal, as people also like to call it—is all-pervading, particularly in Wilsonianism? It is that the whole world should be the same as these Western nations have been in recent centuries. They developed their own ideal system—calling it by different names, such as ‘democracy’ and the like—and other nations are very much at fault because they have not developed the same system! It is only right and proper that the whole world should adopt their system. The Anglo-American view is this: ‘What we have developed, what we have become, is right for all nations, great and small; it creates the right political situation and makes the people happy. This is how things should be everywhere.’

We hear it being proclaimed; it is the gospel of the West. No one even considers that such things are only relative and that they develop mainly on the basis of emotions and not, as people believe, of pure sense and reason.

Take care, of course, not to squeeze these words too much, for squeezing the last out of a word is something which often leads to misunderstanding today. People might think, for instance, that I want to hit out at the American people, or the Anglo-American peoples, when I speak of Wilsonianism or Lloyd-Georgianism. This is not at all the case. I am deliberately calling it ‘Wilsonianism’ because I mean something quite specific. But far be it from me to mean something which you could simply call ‘Americanism’. This is another case where one has to concentrate on the real situation. Some of the tirades to have come from Mr Wilson9See Note 2 of lecture 3. in recent times did not even originate on American soil. We cannot even do Mr Wilson the honour of calling his tirades original. They are worthless and untrue and they are not even entirely original. The strange thing is that a writer in Berlin, someone with considerable acumen, has written articles which were Wilsonian without being Wilson's. They did rather well, these articles, though not in Germany. They did well in the American Congress and you find them included, page by page, in the Proceedings of Congress, because they were read out at Congress meetings. Some of Wilson's more recent tirades may be found in those pages. Some of the fabrications Wilson produces against Central Europe have their origin there. So they are not even original. It should be rather interesting, quite a joke in fact, when future historians look at the Proceedings of the American Congress and find there was a time when those gentlemen decided not to present their own brilliant ideas but to read out the articles by the writer in Berlin, and those pages were then included in their Proceedings, with ‘Proceedings of the American Congress’ written on the cover.

What really interests us, however, is the reason why the Americans liked those articles. Well, it is because they really say that one can feel perfectly comfortable on a chair which one has occupied for centuries and where one is now able to sit and tell the world: ‘You should all sit on chairs like this, and everything will be fine.’ This is what you get in the West.

The East, Russia, has also come to a conclusion, but not by way of a concept; the people there are not yet theorists, for they have their reality. The conclusion they have drawn is a different one. They never dreamt of saying: ‘What we have been doing for centuries must now be the salvation of the whole world. We want people to be the same as we have been.’ It would have been possible to find a pretty word for what has been going on for centuries in Russia. Pretty words can always be found, even if the reality is about as horrible as you can imagine. If you pay for it with American money, it will just cost so and so many dollars and you can reinterpret the most golden of ideas as ethical ideals. This, however, is not what happened in the East, for there a real conclusion was reached. People did not say: ‘The world should now accept what we have had so far.’ Instead, the real conclusion which I touched on earlier was drawn: that the premises do not have to be correct. Something has been set in motion, though it is as yet far from what it will be one day. But this does not concern us; I do not want to express an opinion on the one or the other, I merely want to show how great the contrast is. If you consider the contrast, you get a colossal picture of the reality between the West, where people swear on anything which has to do with their past, and the East, where people have broken with everything that was their past.

If you consider this, you are not at all far away from the real causes of the present conflict; neither will you be far away from something else to which I have drawn attention before:10After the war had broken out, Rudolf Steiner spoke on various occasions about the centrast between East and West. Examples are two lectures given in Stuttgart on 13 and 14 February 1915 (GA 174b), available in manuscript translation by M. Cotterell (“The Christ Impulse as Bearer of the Union of the Spiritual and the Bodily”—Z 270) at Rudolf Steiner House Library in London, and a lecture given in Leipzig on 7 March 1915 (in GA 159) which is not available in English. The war is actually a war between West and East. The middle is simply being ground to dust between the two, merely because West and East cannot come to terms; the middle is suffering because of disagreement between West and East.

But does anyone want to pay heed to such a colossal truth? Did the events of March 191711The February Revolution in Russia; on 12 March 1917 (February by the Gregorian calendar) the Duma chose a Provincial Government. cast a light on the enormous contrast between West and East? Last year we had the ideologies of the West and the East written up on this blackboard.12See Note 3 of lecture 1. World history has been teaching us from March this year. And humanity will have to learn, and come to understand; if they do not, quite different, even harder, times will come. It is not a question of knowing things in an abstract sense but above all of calling for a changing of ways, for an effort to be made; the old easy ways must go, and a spiritual approach must be seen to be the right way. And the effort must be made to find energies through spiritual science, not the kind of mere satisfaction where people say: Wasn't that nice! I feel really good!’—and float around in Cloud-cuckoo-land where they gradually go to sleep in their satisfaction at the harmony which exists in the world and the love of humanity which is so widespread. This was very much to the fore in the society endeavour headed by Mrs Besant.13Annie Besant (1847–1933), President of the Theosophical Society. Many of you will remember the many protests I made against the precious sweetness and light that was particularly to be found in the Theosophical Society. High ideals were dished up liberally and internationally in the sweetest tones. All you heard was ‘general brotherhood’, ‘love of humanity’. I could not go along with this. We were seeking real, concrete knowledge about what went on in the world. You will remember the analogy I have often used, that this sweetness and general love seemed to me like someone who keeps on encouraging the stove which is supposed to heat the room: ‘Dear stove, it is your general stove duty to get the room warm; so please make it warm.’ All the male and female aunts, it seemed to me, were presenting the sum total of theosophy in those days in sweet words of love for humanity. My answer at the time was: ‘You have to put coal in the stove, and put in wood and light the fire.’ And if you are involved in a spiritual movement you must bring in real, concrete ideas; otherwise you will go on year after year with sweet nothings about general love of humanity. This ‘general love of humanity’ has really shown itself in a very pretty light in Mrs Besant, the leading figure in the theosophical movement.

It is, of course, more of an effort to deal with reality than to waffle in general terms about world harmony, about the individual soul being in harmony with the world, about harmony in the general love of humanity.

Anthroposophy does not exist to send people off to sleep, but to make them really wide awake. We are living at a time when it is necessary for people to wake up.

Achter Vortrag

Sie werden aus den gestrigen Betrachtungen entnommen haben, daß man sich in der Gegenwart immer mehr und mehr bekanntmachen muß mit dem Gegensatz zwischen dem abstrakten, dem rein intellektuellen Denken und dem wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denken, dem Sich-Hineinstellen mit seinem Denken in die Wirklichkeit. Mit Bezug auf unser Denken streben wir ja ganz selbstverständlich immer nach einer gewissen Widerspruchslosigkeit. Aber die Welt ist voller Widersprüche, so daß wir, wenn wir wirklich die Wirklichkeit erfassen wollen, nicht eine allgemeine Denkschablone gewissermaßen wie ein Netz über alles werfen können, um es zu verstehen. Wir müssen individualisieren, wir müssen auf das einzelne eingehen. Das ist der größte Mangel und auch der größte Schaden unserer Zeit, daß die Menschen in Abstraktheit geradezu aufgehen. Dadurch entfernen sie sich von der wahren Wirklichkeit.

Aber nun kommt die Anwendung dieser Sache auf die Wirklichkeit selbst. Bitte, fassen Sie das ins Auge! Ich muß jetzt etwas Merkwürdiges sagen: Ich muß die Anwendung des unwirklichen Denkens auf die Wirklichkeit machen, denn selbstverständlich steht ja auch das unwirkliche Denken in der Wirklichkeit drinnen. Und so hat sich allmählich durch das unwirkliche Denken, das sich im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte herausgebildet hat, durch das Einleben dieses unwirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkens in die Wirklichkeit, im menschlichen Zusammenleben selber eine unwirkliche Struktur ergeben, eine in sich fortwährend widerspruchsvolle Struktur ergeben. Der Natur gegenüber, könnte man sagen, hat es der Mensch gut, denn er mag noch so verkehrt denken - die Natur richtet sich nicht nach ihm. Und so wird er - verzeihen Sie den paradoxen Ausspruch -, wenn er sich starr, abstrakt in seinem Denken der Natur gegenüber verhalten will, zum Bock, der immer mit seinen Hörnern sich stößt an der Wirklichkeit. Das sehen wir ja auch in vielen sogenannten Weltauffassungen, die sich mit ihren Hörneransätzen stoßen an der Wirklichkeit. Die sind auch zuweilen so eigensinnig wie die Böcke, diese Weltanschauungen.

Aber etwas anderes ist es gegenüber dem gesellschaftlichen, dem sozialen, dem politischen Zusammenleben. Da geht das menschliche Denken durch jeden einzelnen in die gesellschaftliche Struktur hinein. Da stößt man sich nicht an einer Wirklichkeit, die sich nichts gefallen läßt, sondern da macht man die Wirklichkeit. Und wenn das ein paar Jahrhunderte dauert, so wird die Wirklichkeit auch danach; das heißt, sie lebt sich in Widersprüchen aus. Es lebt die wahre Wirklichkeit sich selber in Gebilden aus, die in sich selber nicht die Kraft der Wirklichkeit haben und sich dann in solchen Kataklysmen entladen wie die jetzige Kriegskatastrophe.

Da haben Sie den Zusammenhang zwischen dem menschlichen Seelenleben in einer vorhergehenden Zeit und dem äußeren physischen Geschehen in einer etwas späteren Zeit. Denn immer ist es so, daß dasjenige, was auf dem physischen Plan herauskommt, zuerst geistig lebt, und auch mit Bezug auf die Menschen zuerst geistig lebt, zuerst in den menschlichen Gedanken und dann erst in den menschlichen Handlungen lebt. Und so können wir sehen, wenn wir die Gegenwart nur beobachten wollen, da, wo sie sich uns zeigt in ihrer wahren, das heißt in diesem Falle unwahren Gestalt — denn die unwahre Gestalt ist ihre wahre Gestalt —, wie sich die Abstraktheit hineingelebt hat in die Wirklichkeit. Die Menschen sehen vielfach die Wirklichkeit abstrakt an. Sie sehen sie so an wie derjenige, der den gestern erwähnten Prestidigitateuren zuschaut und die Gewichte ansieht, die keine Schwere haben, aber denen gegenüber der Prestidigitateur sich so verhält, als ob sie viele Kilogramm schwer wären.

Das bedeutsamste Charakteristikon vieler Begriffe der Gegenwart ist die Armut dieser Begriffe. Die Menschen sind heute - ich habe das ja oft hervorgehoben - bequem, sie wollen möglichst überschauliche Begriffe. Dadurch aber werden diese Begriffe auch furchtbar arm. Ja, mit solchen armen Begriffen kommt man aus gegenüber jener oberflächlichen Natur oder jener Naturoberfläche, welche die Gegenwart, trotz aller Fortschritte, allein ins Auge faßt. Trotzdem so Großartiges in bezug auf die Naturerscheinungen in den letzten Zeiten zutagegetreten ist — die Begriffe, mit denen man diese Naturerscheinungen zu verstehen sucht, sind verhältnismäßig arm. Aber diese Sehnsucht nach armen Begriffen, nach Begriffen von geringem Inhalt, hat sich auch übertragen auf alle Weltanschauungen. So sehen wir heute Philosophen auftauchen, welche eine förmliche Sehnsucht haben nach armen Begriffen. Da werden immer wiederum die ärmsten Begriffe, das heißt die inhaltsärmsten Begriffe herumgekollert. Diese Begriffe sind manchmal recht anspruchsvoll, aber sie werden nicht ausgefüllt mit einem schwergewichtigen Inhalt. Besonders reich ist ja unsere Gegenwartsphilosophie immer an solchen Begriffen wie das «Ewige», das «Unendliche», die «Einheit», das «Bedeutungsvolle» gegenüber dem Unbedeutenden, das «Allgemeine», das «Individuelle» und so weiter. Mit solchen Begriffen wirtschaftet man ganz besonders gern, mit Begriffen, die möglichst abstrakt sind.

Das führt zu einer eigentümlichen Stellung der Menschen gegenüber der Wirklichkeit. Sie hören auf, das lebensvoll Inhaltliche der Wirklichkeit zu sehen, verlieren auch die Empfindung, das Gefühl von dem, was sie eigentlich gegenüber der Wirklichkeit haben. Man muß nur die Gegenwart beobachten auf diese Dinge hin, dann findet man das allüberall.

Ich will Ihnen eine Erscheinung vorführen, die geradezu erschreckend ist: Ein Philosoph der Gegenwart hat sich ausgesprochen darüber, wie man eine Ansicht haben könne, ob dieser Krieg mehr oder weniger lange noch dauern soll. Nicht wahr, eine heute im eminenten Sinne wichtige Frage, aber eine Frage, die entschieden werden muß nach inhaltsvollen, realen, nach lebensvollen Begriffen, die man nicht entscheiden kann mit allgemeinen Abstraktionen von Welt und Zeitlichkeit, von Allgemeinem und Individuellem und so weiter. Mit diesen allgemeinen Philosophierereien läßt sich über solche konkrete Fragen gar nichts ausmachen. Der betreffende Philosoph hat gefunden, wie so viele finden: Es schadet nichts, wenn der Krieg möglichst lange fortgesetzt wird, wenn nur dann, wie man sagt, ein dauernder Friede zustandekommt, wenn nur dann das Paradies auf Erden da ist. — Ich habe das ja verglichen damit, daß man am besten dafür sorgen würde, daß in einem Haushalt kein Geschirr mehr zerschlagen wird, wenn man zuerst alles zerschlägt. So ungefähr ist die Schlußfolgerung derjenigen, die da sagen: Der Krieg muß so lange fortgesetzt werden, bis Aussicht vorhanden ist, daß der Friede ein dauernder ist. — Der betreffende Philosoph hat also seine Philosophie auf diese Frage angewendet, seine Philosophie, die nach seiner Ansicht sich mit den höchsten, das heißt in unserer Zeit abstraktesten Begriffen befaßt. Was hat er da gesagt? Nun denken Sie, er hat gesagt: Was ist es schließlich der Ewigkeit gegenüber, in der ein befriedigender Zustand für die Menschheit hergestellt wird, ob ein paar Tonnen mehr oder weniger organischer Substanz noch auf den Schlachtfeldern zugrundegehen! Was sind ein paar Tonnen organischer Substanz gegenüber dem ewigen Leben, der Menschheitsentwickelung!

Zu solchen Errungenschaften bringt es das abstrakte Denken, wenn es sich mit der Wirklichkeit abgibt. Man muß heute den Menschen erst darauf aufmerksam machen, wie schauderhaft so etwas ist, wenn er es empfinden soll. Und man muß sich immer wieder nur wundern, daß diese Dinge eigentlich an der Menschheit vorbeigehen, ohne daß sie sich viel Gedanken darüber macht. Natürlich ist im Grunde genommen ein solcher Gedanke aus dem Weltanschauungsstreben der Gegenwart herausgeholt. Denn, wozu hat es dieses Weltanschauungsstreben gebracht? Eben zu den allerabstraktesten Begriffen; die sind aber nur auf das Tote anwendbar, auf das Mineralische, auf das Unorganische. Wenn nun der Philosoph kommt und wendet das, was nur auf das Tote anzuwenden ist, nicht nur auf das Lebendige, sondern sogar auf das Geistig-Seelische an, so ist es ganz natürlich, daß er zu solchen Dingen kommt. Denn gegenüber dem Toten muß ja der Mensch fortwährend nach dem Grundsatz handeln: Was ist schließlich so und so viel Zentner Substanz gegenüber dem, was man aus der Sache macht? - Man könnte nicht bauen, wenn einem die Verpflichtung auferlegt wäre, gegenüber jedem toten Stein das Bestandsrecht geltend zu machen; selbstverständlich, man könnte das nicht. Aber man darf eben nicht auf das Menschenleben übertragen, was nur für das Unorganische, für das Leblose gilt. Und nur für das Unorganische, für das Leblose gelten die Begriffe, die sich die Naturwissenschaft heute herausgebildet hat. Es wird aber heute fortwährend übertragen, man merkt es nur nicht. Und solche Urteile, die immer wieder nach der Richtung gehen, daß man zu einem Ende dieses Krieges nicht kommen soll, bevor die schon charakterisierte Aussicht vorhanden ist, solche Urteile schließen nichts anderes ein als das, was der Philosoph nur in einer brutalen, aber wie ihm scheint außerordentlich erhabenen Redeweise zum Ausdruck gebracht hat; nur daß die andern sich schämen, so zu reden wie der Philosoph, weil der Philosoph die Brutalität hinter der Schönheit der Worte verbirgt. Er sagt natürlich allerlei sehr Erhabenes, indem er jongliert mit den Begriffen Ewigkeit und Zeitlichkeit, ewiges menschliches Werden, vergängliches zeitliches Sein von so und so viel Tonnen organischer Substanz, aber nicht achtend der Tatsache, daß in jedem einzelnen Menschen die Ewigkeit, die Unendlichkeit lebt und daß jeder einzelne Mensch so viel wert ist wie die ganze unorganische Welt zusammen!

Diese Dinge, die jetzt besprochen worden sind, liegen auch den künstlerischen Formen zugrunde, die hier auf diesem Hügel sich entfalten wollen. Denn auch die Kunst ist allmählich hineingekommen in die, ich möchte sagen, gewichtslose, wesenlose Weltauffassung. Unsere Weltauffassung muß wiederum an das Wesen der Dinge herankommen. An das Wesen der Dinge kommt man nur heran, wenn man an den Geist herankommt. Daher müssen wir andere Formen haben, als was heute überall in der Kunst an Formen erscheint. Unsere Zeit muß, mit andern Worten, wiederum etwas aus dem Geiste heraus Schöpferisches bekommen. Das ist selbstverständlich vielen Leuten heute unbequem. Aber machen Sie sich nur klar, in welch starkem Maße unsere ganze Weltauffassung nach und nach in das Tote hineingekommen ist, indem sie auch nur noch mit dem Toten gearbeitet hat. Sehen Sie sich einmal die Bauten, und sehen Sie sich schließlich die andern «Kunstwerke» des 19. Jahrhunderts an: Was sind sie schließlich, als ein immer wieder und wieder Aufwärmen alter Baustile und dergleichen. Man hat im antiken, im Renaissance-, im gotischen Stile gebaut, das heißt immer in etwas Abgestorbenem. Man ist nicht zum Ergreifen des unmittelbar Lebendigen gekommen. Dazu muß man wieder kommen. Das wird einen ganz neuen Geist bilden. Dazu sind schon einzelne Opfer notwendig, die auch reichlich gebracht werden müssen. Aber so etwas, wie das da draußen stehende Haus, das aus dem Betonmaterial heraus mit neuen Formen geschaffen worden ist, ist eine Pionierarbeit. Und nicht allein die Tatsache, daß diese Formen gedacht worden sind, kommt in Betracht, sondern die Tatsache, daß die Möglichkeit herbeigeführt worden ist, so etwas einmal in die Welt hineinzustellen, kommt schon in Betracht. Diese Dinge muß man ins Auge fassen in ihrer ganzen Gewichtigkeit, sonst wird man auch nicht verstehen, was hier auf diesem Hügel geschaffen werden soll. Der ganzen Natur der Sache nach muß ja das, was auf diesem Hügel geschaffen wird, in Widerspruch und in Widerstreit stehen mit dem, was in der übrigen Welt heute geschaffen wird.

Die Gegenwart verstehen — meine lieben Freunde, dieser Satz ging Ja wie ein roter Faden durch alles, was ich seit meiner Zurückkunft zu Ihnen gesprochen habe, hindurch. Aber man muß geneigt sein, die Unbequemlichkeit auf sich zu nehmen, viel, viel Kraft aufzuwenden: Denkkraft, Empfindungskraft, experimentierende Willenskraft, um die Gegenwart zu verstehen; und man muß den Mut haben, wirklich zu brechen mit manchem, das hereinragt aus der alten Zeit. Denn im Grunde genommen arbeiten diejenigen Menschen, die man heute für die erleuchtetsten Menschen hält, vielfach mit lauter alten Begriffen, von denen sie nicht recht wissen, wie sie eigentlich anzuwenden sind.

Lassen Sie mich auch dafür ein Beispiel anführen: Sie konnten durch einige Zeit hindurch gewiß auch hier in der Schweiz überall ein Buch besprochen finden und namentlich in den Schaufenstern prangen sehen, das gründlich Eindruck gemacht hat in der Gegenwart. Ich bespreche gern gerade solche Dinge, die nicht von feindlicher Seite, sondern die sogar von freundlicher Seite her kommen, damit man nicht glaubt, daß irgendwelches persönliche Verhalten dabei im Spiele ist. Der nordische Schriftsteller Kjellén, er war und ist ja unter den wenigen, die gerade meinen Schriften Interesse entgegengebracht haben, die sich wohlwollend ausgesprochen haben. Daher wird man es nicht als persönlich auffassen, wenn ich von dem Buche «Der Staat als Lebensform», das solch starken Eindruck gemacht hat, die Charakteristik gebe, die ich eben nach meiner Auffassung geben muß.

Dieses Buch ist so recht ein Beispiel für die verfehlten Begriffe der Gegenwart. Es ist in diesem Buch der Versuch gemacht, den Staat als einen Organismus aufzufassen. Das ist eine jener Bestrebungen, die die Menschen der Gegenwart haben, wenn sie irgend etwas, was eigentlich geistig begriffen werden soll, mit den Vorstellungen der Gegenwart umfassen wollen. Und es ist gut, daß man Bezug nehmen kann auf einen geistreichen, sehr gelehrten, tiefgründigen Menschen, den man eigentlich nicht genug loben kann, wenn man den ganz verfehlten Gedanken, der seinem Buche zugrunde liegt, ins rechte Licht stellen will. Ja, in solche Widersprüche kommt man ja fortwährend. Aber das Leben ist eben voller Widersprüche. Man darf nicht nach abstrakter Widerspruchslosigkeit streben, wenn man das Leben erfassen will; man darf nicht gleich jeden für einen Dummkopf halten, den man bekämpfen will, sondern man kann auch jemanden, den man bekämpfen will, für einen sehr geistreichen, gründlichen Gelehrten halten, wie das in diesem Falle ist, von dem ich jetzt spreche.

Kjellén macht eigentlich etwas Ähnliches, wie vor Jahrzehnten schon der schwäbische - ich weiß nicht, soll ich sagen schwäbische Gelehrte oder österreichische Minister, denn beides war er - Schäffle gemacht hat. Schäffle hat schon damals in umfassender Weise den Versuch gemacht, den Staat als einen Organismus aufzufassen und die einzelnen Menschen als die Zellen von diesem Organismus. Hermann Bahr, von dem ich Ihnen auch schon öfter gesprochen habe, hat damals eine Widerlegung des Schäffleschen Buches über die organische Wirksamkeit im Staate geschrieben. Als Schäffle dann ein Buch geschrieben hat über «Die Aussichtslosigkeit der Sozialdemokratie», schrieb Hermann Bahr eine Widerlegung dieses Buches und betitelte diese Widerlegung «Die Einsichtslosigkeit des Herrn Schäffle». Es ist ein geistreiches Büchelchen von Hermann Bahr. Hermann Bahr hat es neulich selber in einem Vortrag, den er gehalten hat, eine Ungezogenheit genannt. Nun, aber trotzdem bleibt es ein ganz geistreiches Jugendbüchelchen von Hermann Bahr, dieses Büchelchen «Die Einsichtslosigkeit des Herrn Schäffle».

Also Schäffle hat schon dazumal etwas ähnliches gemacht wie Kjellén jetzt. Kjellén sucht es auch wiederum so darzustellen, als ob jeder Staat ein Organismus wäre, die einzelnen Menschen darinnen die Zellen. Man weiß ja allerlei über die Wirksamkeit der Zellen im Organismus, über die Gesetze, die im Organismus walten, und kann das so hübsch übertragen auf den Staat. Mit solchen Vergleichen wirtschaftet man ja gern in den Gebieten, die man nicht geistig beherrschen kann. Nun, methodisch kann man alles mit allem vergleichen. Ich kann Ihnen ganz gut, wenn Sie wollen, eine kleine Wissenschaft aufbauen auf einem Vergleich zwischen einem Heuschrekkenschwarm und einer Baßgeige. Man kann alles mit allem vergleichen in der Welt, und bei allen Vergleichen kann etwas herauskommen. Aber daß man einen Vergleich anstellen kann, das ist noch durchaus nicht irgendwie maßgebend dafür, daß man mit solchen Vergleichen in der Wirklichkeit lebt. Gerade wenn man Vergleiche anstellt, muß man einen eindringlichen Sinn für die Wirklichkeit haben, sonst wird der Vergleich niemals stimmen. Denn stellt man einen Vergleich an, so ist man sehr bald in dem Fall, in dem zu ihrem herben Schicksal manche Menschen in ihrer Jugend sind - verzeihen Sie -: Man verliebt sich sogleich in seinen Vergleich, wie sich manche Menschen sogleich in einen anderen Menschen verlieben. Vergleiche, die einem einfallen oder die sogar auf der Straße liegen, wie der zwischen Staat und Organismus, die haben schon den Nachteil, daß man sich sogleich in die Sache verliebt. Aber dies Verlieben in einen solchen Vergleich, das hat eine Folge. Das hat die Folge, daß man blind wird gegen alles das, was gegen die Sache spricht, die man dann aus dem Vergleich heraus vorbringt.

So muß ich sagen: Als ich das Buch von Kjellén gelesen hatte, war mir schon aufgefallen vom Gesichtspunkte eines wirklichkeitsgemäßen Denkens aus, daß dieses Buch just jetzt im Kriege geschrieben ist. Dieses Buch schreiben vom Staat als Organismus, das kam mir schon ganz als unwirklichkeitsgemäß vor, denn schließlich, wer ein bißchen Umschau hält, der weiß ja— wenn das auch manchmal mit den Worten nicht stimmt -, Kriege werden doch so geführt, daß von den Staaten, wenn sie zusammenstoßen, entweder das eine Stück hierhin oder dorthin kommt, daß man von Staaten Stücke abschneidet und dahin oder dorthin bringt. Es kommt ja doch, wenigstens bei sehr vielen Menschen, auf solche Dinge im Krieg an.

Ja, vergleicht man nun die Staaten mit Organismen, so müßte man mindestens auch den Vergleich dahin ausdehnen, daß man dann von dem Organismus auch immer Stücke abschneiden und dem Nachbarorganismus zuteilen könnte. Aber solche Dinge, die man merken müßte, die merkt man nicht, wenn man sich in seinen Vergleich verliebt hat. Man könnte noch vieles andere anführen. Ich könnte Ihnen vieles anführen für einen solchen Vergleich, was Sie wahrscheinlich in die lustigste Stimmung versetzen würde, die Sie dann dazu veranlassen würde, recht herzlich zu lachen und den betreffenden Mann durchaus nicht für so geistreich zu halten, wie ich ihn selber halte. Ich halte ihn wirklich für sehr geistreich und sehr tiefgründig.

Woher kommt denn so etwas, daß einer nun gelehrt, geistvoll sein kann und doch auf einem ganz verfehlten Vergleich ein ganzes System aufbauen kann? Ja, sehen Sie, das kommt davon her, daß der Vergleich, den Kjellén macht, ein richtiger Vergleich ist. Nun werden Sie sagen, jetzt wissen Sie schon gar nicht mehr, was Sie anfangen sollen mit dem, was ich Ihnen sage: erst erkläre ich Ihnen, daß der Vergleich ein total verfehlter ist, und nun erkläre ich Ihnen, daß der Vergleich ein richtiger ist. Nun, wenn ich sage, daß der Vergleich ein richtiger ist, so meine ich, der Vergleich kann durchaus gemacht werden; nur handelt es sich darum, womit man vergleicht. Wenn man vergleicht, handelt es sich ja immer um zwei Dinge, wie im Falle von Kjellén: um den Staat und um den Organismus. Eine Sache muß ja immer stimmen für sich. Der Staat auf der einen Seite ist da, der Organismus auf der andern Seite ist da. Beides kann ja nicht falsch sein; nur das Zusammenbringen ist falsch. Es handelt sich nämlich darum, daß man wirklich dasjenige, was auf der Erde geschieht, schon mit einem Organismus vergleichen kann. Man kann das politische Geschehen auf der Erde mit einem Organismus vergleichen; nur darf man den Staat nicht mit einem Organismus vergleichen. Vergleicht man den Staat mit dem Organismus, in dem die einzelnen Menschen Zellen sind, so kommt ein völliger Nonsens heraus. Das ist einfach Unsinn, denn da kommt man auf gar nichts. Aber man kann das politische, soziale Leben der Erde mit einem Organismus vergleichen, nur muß man dann die ganze Erde mit einem Organismus vergleichen. Sobald man die ganze Erde, das heißt das Menschengeschehen über die ganze Erde hin, mit dem Organismus vergleicht und die einzelnen Staaten - nicht die Menschen, sondern die einzelnen Staaten - mit verschieden geformten Zellen, dann ist der Vergleich richtig, dann ist es ein gültiger Vergleich.

Wenn Sie diesen Vergleich zugrundelegen und nun das gegenseitige Verhältnis der Staaten selber ins Auge fassen, so bekommen Sie schon etwas, was sich so ähnlich verhält wie die Zellen der verschiedenen Systeme im Organismus. Also es kommt darauf an, wenn man einen Vergleich wählt, daß man diesen Vergleich auf das Richtige anwendet. Der Fehler bei Kjellén besteht darin - und auch bei Schäffle hat er darin bestanden -, daß der einzelne Staat, der nur mit einer Zelle, mit einer ausgewachsenen Zelle, verglichen werden kann, mit dem ganzen Organismus verglichen wird, während das Leben über die ganze Erde hin mit einem Organismus zu vergleichen ist. Dann kommt man an das Fruchtbare dieses Vergleiches. Nicht wahr, Zellen, die so aneinander vorbeiwandern wie die Menschen im Staat, das gibt es nicht im Organismus. Zellen stoßen aneinander, grenzen aneinander. So ist es mit den einzelnen Staaten, die Zellen sind im Gesamtorganismus des Lebens der Erde.

Meine lieben Freunde, Sie vermissen vielleicht etwas in der Auseinandersetzung, die ich jetzt gegeben habe. Wenn in einer gewissen berechtigten Weise — denn solch eine Sache ist auch berechtigt - Ihr philiströs-pedantischer Sinn sich in Ihrem Herzen regt, während ich hier spreche, so werden Sie sagen: Ich müßte Ihnen doch beweisen, daß man das Leben der ganzen Erde mit dem Organismus vergleichen muß und den einzelnen Staat mit der Zelle. - Nun, der Beweis liegt in der Anschauung, der Beweis liegt in der Durchführung des Gedankens, der Beweis liegt nicht in den abstrakten Erwägungen, die man gewöhnlich anstellen kann, sondern darin, daß Sie nun den Gedanken durchführen. Führen Sie ihn im Kjellénschen Sinne durch, dann werden Sie überall finden: Er läßt sich nicht durchführen. Sie müssen sich mit den Hörnern stoßen; Sie müssen zum Bock werden, sonst können Sie ihn nicht durchführen. Führen Sie aber den Gedanken für das Leben der ganzen Erde durch, dann taugt der Begriff, dann kommen Sie zu ganz fruchtbaren Einsichten, dann wird Ihnen das ein sehr gutes regulatives Prinzip sein. Sie werden sehr vieles verstehen, und Sie werden noch mehr verstehen, als was ich jetzt schon angedeutet habe.

Die Menschen sind heute einmal Abstraktlinge, und man möchte sagen: Von einem Dutzend wird man bei dreizehn - ja, das geht nicht, aber bei den wirklichen Verhältnissen würde es heute schon fast stimmen -, von einem Dutzend wird man bei dreizehn finden, daß sie in einem solchen Falle, wo also Kjellén den einzelnen Staat mit einem Organismus vergleicht und hier ihm entgegengehalten wird: Das politische, soziale Leben über die ganze Erde hin, das ist in Wahrheit mit einem Organismus zu vergleichen -, daß diese dreizehn von dem Dutzend heute der Ansicht sein werden, dieser Vergleich müsse nun durch alle Zeiten hindurch gelten. Denn stellt heute einer eine Staatstheorie auf, so muß diese Staatstheorie nicht nur für die Gegenwart gelten, sondern auch für die Römer, sogar für die Ägypter und die Babylonier; denn Staat ist Staat. Man geht heute von den Begriffen aus, nicht von der Wirklichkeit.

Aber so ist es nicht, so ist es wirklich nicht. Die Menschheit macht auch da eine Entwickelung durch. Und was ich jetzt über die Gültigkeit des Vergleiches gesagt habe, gilt eigentlich nur für die Zeit seit dem 16. Jahrhundert, denn vor dem 16. Jahrhundert war ja die Erde kein politisch zusammenhängendes Ganzes; das heißt, seit jener Zeit hat sie sich erst als ein zusammenhängendes politisches Ganzes ausgebildet. Amerika, die westliche Halbkugel, war ja gar nicht da für ein politisches Leben, das in sich zusammenhängend gewesen wäre. Und so bekommen Sie gleich, indem Sie diesen Vergleich in der richtigen Weise anstellen, auch einen Hinblick auf jenen bedeutungsvollen Einschnitt, der da ist zwischen dem neueren Leben und dem alten Leben. Kommt man mit wirklichkeitsgemäßen Einsichten, dann sind diese Einsichten immer fruchtbar, während die nicht wirklichkeitsgemäßen Begriffe steril und unfruchtbar sind. Jede wirklichkeitsgemäße Einsicht führt einen eben weiter. Man erfährt noch mehr durch sie, als sie selbst enthält; sie trägt einen durch die Wirklichkeit. Das ist das Wichtige, das muß man durchaus ins Auge fassen. Denn abstrakte Begriffe, die sind so, daß wir sie fassen; aber draußen ist die Wirklichkeit, die kümmert sich gar nicht um diesen abstrakten Begriff. Faßt man einen wirklichkeitsgemäßen Begriff, so hat man in dem Begriff drinnen das ganze innere rege Leben, das draußen auch ist, das draußen die Wirklichkeit durchwurlt und durchwirlt. Das ist den Leuten unbequem in der Gegenwart. Sie möchten möglichst farblose, ruhige Begriffe haben. Sie fürchten, den Drehkater zu bekommen, wenn ihre Begriffe innerliches Leben haben. Aber diese innerlich leblosen Begriffe haben den Nachteil, daß die Wirklichkeit ringsherum vor uns ablaufen kann, ohne daß man eigentlich das Wesentlichste an dieser Wirklichkeit sieht. Die Wirklichkeit ist nämlich auch voller Begriffe, auch voller Ideen. Das ist wahr, was ich vor einigen Tagen hier gesagt habe: daß draußen das elementarische Leben fließt und dieses elementarische Leben von Begriffen, von Vorstellungen durchsetzt ist — das ist wahr. Aber die abstrakten Begriffe sind bloß Begriffsleichen, habe ich gesagt. Und dann kann es vorkommen, wenn man bloß Begriffsleichen liebt, daß man in diesen Begriffsleichen redet und denkt, und die Wirklichkeit zieht ganz andere Schlußfolgerungen; ganz andere Geschehnisse läßt sie ablaufen als diejenigen, in die unsere Begriffe hineinkommen können.

Seit drei Jahren stehen wir in furchtbaren Ereignissen, die jeden Menschen viel lehren könnten; nur muß man sie nicht schlafend, sondern wachend verfolgen. Es ist eigentlich bewundernswert im negativen Sinne, wie viele Menschen gegenüber diesen furchtbaren Ereignissen der Gegenwart noch immer schlafen, noch immer nicht dazu gekommen sind, sich einmal zu überlegen, daß Ereignisse, die noch nie da waren in der Weltentwickelung der Menschen, auch fordern, daß man zu neuen Begriffen kommt, die auch noch nie dagewesen sind. Die Wirklichkeit urteilt da anders. Lassen Sie mich, ich möchte sagen, symbolisch das noch genauer ausdrücken, was ich eigentlich meine. Man kann schon sagen: Einige Leute haben sich ja schon seit Jahren Begriffe gemacht davon, daß dieser Krieg kommen werde. Im allgemeinen kann man sagen, daß mit Ausnahme gewisser Kreise der anglo-amerikanischen Bevölkerung die Welt von diesem Kriege überrascht worden ist in gewissem Sinne. Aber immerhin, einzelne Leute haben sich Vorstellungen gemacht, daß der Krieg kommen werde, allerdings manchmal ganz merkwürdige Vorstellungen. Eine Vorstellung namentlich konnte man immer wieder und wiederum finden, eine Vorstellung, welche von tiefgründigen - ich meine das wirklich nicht ironisch, ich spreche in vollem Ernst Nationalökonomen, Nationalpolitikern ausgegangen ist, welche auf einer sorgfältigen Abstraktion aus diesen oder jenen Vorgängen beruhte. Die Leute haben viel wissenschaftlich gearbeitet, kombiniert, abstrahiert, allerlei Synthesen gemacht und sind dann dazu gekommen, eine Vorstellung auszubilden, die man wirklich lange Zeit hindurch, auch noch beim Ausbruch des Krieges - da ist sie besonders viel wiederholt worden -, vielfach getroffen hat: die Vorstellung, daß nach den gegenwärtigen Weltverhältnissen, nach den wirtschaftlichen, den kommerziellen Zusammenhängen dieser Krieg unmöglich länger als vier bis sechs Monate dauern kann. Es war streng bewiesen, eine streng bewiesene Wahrheit. Und es sind wahrhaftig nicht dumme Gründe, die man angewendet hat; es waren ganz gescheite Gründe.

Ja aber die Wirklichkeit, nun, wie verhält sie sich denn zu all dem Gründe-Gewebe, das da die gescheiten Nationalökonomen zusammengestellt haben? Wie verhält sich die Wirklichkeit? Nun, Sie sehen es ja, wie sich die Wirklichkeit verhält! Um was handelt es sich aber dann, wenn die Sache so steht? Es handelt sich darum, daß man aus einer solchen Sache auch die Konsequenzen ziehe, die wirklichen Konsequenzen ziehe. Dann wird dieser Krieg eine Lehre, wenn man die Konsequenzen zieht. Was kann die einzige Konsequenz nur sein von dem, was ich symbolisch angedeutet habe? Denn ich habe ja nur einen krassen Fall angeführt, ich könnte Ihnen ja zahlreiche andere, ähnliche Ansichten anführen, die ebenso - um es glimpflich auszudrücken - Schiffbruch erlitten haben durch die Wirklichkeit der Ereignisse der letzten drei Jahre. Was kann die einzige wirkliche Konsequenz sein? Die, daß man alles das, woraus man solche Folgerungen gezogen hat, über Bord wirft, daß man sich sagt: Wir haben also in einer nicht wirklichkeitsgemäßen Weise gedacht, wir haben ein Denksystem entwickelt und dieses abstrakte, unwirklichkeitsgemäße System selber in die Wirklichkeit einfließen lassen, so daß die Wirklichkeit unwahr geworden ist; also brechen wir mit den Voraussetzungen selbst zunächst, die zugrunde gelegen haben solch einer angeblichen Erkenntnis, die eben die Wirklichkeit vernichtet!

Man kann, was ich jetzt sage, heute zu den Menschen ganz gewiß eindringlich sagen. Ob es eindringlich aufgenommen wird, das ist aber eine andere Frage. Denn geradeso geistreich wie das war, was die Nationalpolitiker vorgebracht haben für die mögliche Dauer des Krieges von vier bis sechs Monaten, ebenso geistreich, wirklich geistreich — ich meine es jetzt wieder nicht ironisch — waren die Gründe, welche jenes aufgeklärte Medizinalkollegium beim Bau der ersten Eisenbahn in Mitteleuropa geltend machte, aus der damaligen medizinischen Wissenschaft heraus. Sie haben damals gesagt, nicht ein einzelner Querkopf, sondern ein erleuchtetes Kollegium - ich habe es öfter angeführt —, man solle keine Eisenbahnen bauen, denn das menschliche Nervensystem könne Eisenbahnen nicht aushalten. Das ist ein aufgeschriebenes Dokument aus dem Jahre 1838. Also nicht lange hinter uns liegt die Zeit, die das Urteil fällte, man solle nur ja keine Eisenbahnen bauen; wenn aber schon solche Menschen sich finden sollten - das steht in diesem Dokument -, die Eisenbahnen bauen lassen wollen, so müsse man wenigstens zu beiden Seiten hohe Bretterwände aufführen, damit die Bauern die Züge, welche vorbeifahren, nicht sehen und etwa Gehirnerschütterung dadurch kriegen. — Ja, über solche Dinge lachen die Menschen, wenn es sich hinterher herausstellt, wie die Wirklichkeit über solche angebliche Gründe hinweggeht. Nachher lachen die Menschen. Aber gewisse Elementargeister, die lachen auch gleichzeitig, ja sie lachten sogar schon in der Zeit, bevor solche wissenschaftlichen Dinge gemacht wurden, über die menschlichen Torheiten.

Brechen wir mit demjenigen, was in den Widerspruch geführt hat! Der Widerspruch ist real da, ist wirklich da, denn das Leben der letzten drei Jahre über die Erde hin ist ein realisierter Widerspruch. Man muß also andere Ansichten gewinnen über das, was vorgeht, als man sie gehabt hat. Radikale Revision der Anschauungen, das fordert die Zeit von uns. Es ist sogar schwierig, wenn man einen solchen Gedankengang angefangen hat, ihn in der Gegenwart bis zu seinem völligen Ende zu führen, denn die Menschheit ist heute nicht freidenkerisch genug, diese Gedanken zu Ende kommen zu lassen. Wer Sinn hat für Wirklichkeit, für das wirkliche Geschehen um uns herum, der nämlich kann in der Wirklichkeit draußen sehen, daß dort diese Konsequenzen schon gezogen werden. Nur in die menschlichen Köpfe wollen sie noch nicht hinein. In dieser Beziehung herrscht ein ungeheurer Gegensatz zwischen Westen und Osten. Ich habe Ihnen über den gründlichen Gegensatz zwischen Westen und Osten im vorigen Jahre von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus gesprochen, habe Sie zum Beispiel aufmerksam darauf gemacht, wie der Westen über das Geburtsproblem und die Forderung nach Menschenrechten spricht. Sehen Sie sich die westlichen Weltanschauungen an: Herkommen, Geburt, das ist der hauptsächlichste naturwissenschaftliche Begriff, der dort herrscht. Daher entstand im Westen die Herkommenslehre, die Darwinsche Lehre. Man könnte auch sagen: die Geburten- und Vererbungslehre auf philosophischem Gebiete, auf praktischem Gebiete, ist die Anschauung von den Rechten der Menschen.

Im wenig gekannten Osten, im russischen Leben, da finden wir Betrachtungen über Tod, über geistige Ziele des menschlichen Lebens - lesen Sie Solowjow, der ja jetzt bequem gelesen werden kann -, den Schuldbegriff, den Sündenbegriff auf ethisch-praktischem Gebiet. Ja, solcher Gegensatz ist auf den meisten Gebieten vorhanden. Und man begreift die Realität, die Wirklichkeit nicht, wenn man nicht solchen Gegensatz gehörig ins Auge fassen kann. Die Emotionen, die Sympathien und Antipathien, die hindern den Menschen, die in Betracht kommenden Dinge wirklich ins Auge zu fassen. Wenn sich diese Emotionen, diese Sympathien und Antipathien regen, dann lassen die Menschen die Wirklichkeit schon gar nicht an sich herankommen; ebensowenig wie die widerstreitenden Dinge an denjenigen herankommen, der sich in einen gewissen Vergleich verliebt hat, weil die Menschen das, was sie lieben, für absolute Wahrheit halten und sich gar keine Vorstellung davon machen, daß das Entgegengesetzte, nur von einem andern Gesichtspunkt aus, auch wahr sein kann.

Betrachten wir den Westen, namentlich den anglo-amerikanischen Westen, denn die andern sprechen zum großen Teil nur nach. Was ist da, namentlich in dem Wilsonianismus, durchgängiger Gesichtspunkt — Ideale nennt man es ja auch vielfach -, was ist da durchgängiger Gesichtspunkt? Durchgängiger Gesichtspunkt ist der, daß die ganze Welt so werden soll, wie diese Völker in den letzten Jahrhunderten waren. Die Völker haben sich ideale soziale Zustände herausgebildet - man gibt ihnen verschiedene Namen, man nennt es «Demokratie» und dergleichen -, und andere Völker haben die große Schuld, daß sie nicht solche Zustände herausgebildet haben! Richtig wird es sein, wenn die ganze Welt diese Zustände annimmt. Das ist die anglo-amerikanische Ansicht: Was wir herausgebildet haben, was wir geworden sind, das gibt den großen und kleinen Nationen ihr Recht, das stellt sie in die richtigen Verhältnisse, das macht den Menschen glücklich innerhalb des Staatskreises. So muß es überall aussehen. Wir hören es deklamieren; es ist das Evangelium des Westens. Man denkt gar nicht daran, daß so etwas immer nur relative Bedeutung hat, daß so etwas vor allen Dingen aus den Emotionen herauskommt, nicht, wie man glaubt, aus der bloßen Vernunft und aus dem bloßen Verstand.

Man darf natürlich nicht zu stark die Worte pressen, denn dieses Pressen der Worte schon führt heute zu vielen Mißverständnissen. Man könnte zum Beispiel glauben, daß ich das amerikanische Volk oder die anglo-amerikanische Rasse treffen wollte, wenn ich von Wilsonianismus oder Lloyd-Georgeanismus spreche. Das ist aber ganz und gar nicht der Fall. Ich sage absichtlich Wilsonianismus, weil damit etwas ganz Spezifisches gemeint ist. Aber ich bin weit davon entfernt, damit etwas zu meinen, wofür Sie ohne weiteres den Begriff Amerikanismus brauchen können. Da muß man wiederum ein bißchen stark die Wirklichkeit ins Auge fassen. Ein Teil der Tiraden, die in der letzten Zeit von Mr. Wilson gekommen sind, sind gar nicht einmal auf amerikanischem Boden gewachsen. Man kann gar nicht einmal Wilson das Lob zuerkennen, daß seine Tiraden ganz originell sind. Sie sind ja nichts wert, sie sind unwahr; aber sie sind nicht einmal ganz originell. Denn es liegt die merkwürdige Tatsache vor, daß von einem Berliner Schriftsteller geistreiche Artikel geschrieben worden sind, nur just nicht Artikel, die im Sinne der deutschen Weltauffassung sind, Artikel, die Wilsonianismus ohne Wilson waren, sehr scharfsinnige Artikel. Diese Artikel haben Glück gemacht, allerdings nicht gerade in Deutschland, aber im amerikanischen Kongreß, denn sie sind gesammelt worden, und Sie finden sie eingeheftet durch viele Seiten hindurch in den Kongreßakten des amerikanischen Kongresses; sie sind nämlich in den Verhandlungen des amerikanischen Kongresses verlesen worden, und manche von den neueren Tiraden des Herrn Wilson sind diesen Seiten entnommen. Manches von dem, was Herr Wilson fabriziert gegen Mitteleuropa, hat diesen Ursprung. Es ist also nicht einmal originell. Es wird immerhin eine ganz interessante, humoristische Tatsache der zukünftigen Geschichtsschreibung sein, wenn man in den Akten über die Verhandlungen des amerikanischen Kongresses findet: Die Herren haben eine Zeitlang verzichtet, ihre eigenen erleuchteten Ideen vorzubringen, und vorgelesen die Artikel eines Berliner Schriftstellers, diese dann eingeheftet in die Kongreßakten und darauf «amerikanische Kongreßakten» geschrieben.

Was uns aber vorzugsweise interessiert, das ist, warum diese Artikel den Leuten gefallen haben. Nun, weil sie eben gerade zum Ausdruck bringen, daß man sich so recht wohlig fühlen kann auf dem Stuhl, auf den man sich seit Jahrhunderten gesetzt hat, und nun der Welt mitteilen kann: Wenn ihr euch alle auf solche Stühle setzt, dann wird alles gut sein. — Das ist der Westen.

Der Osten, Rußland, hat auch eine Konsequenz gezogen - nicht eine begriffliche; begrifflich sind die Leute noch nicht dort, wo sie ihre Realität haben. Die haben eine andere Konsequenz gezogen. Denen ist gar nicht eingefallen zu sagen: Was wir seit Jahrhunderten getrieben haben, das muß jetzt das Heil der ganzen Welt werden. Wir wollen, daß alle Leute so werden, wie wir waren. - Man hätte ja auch für das, was in Rußland seit Jahrhunderten geschehen ist, ein schönes Wort finden können, denn schöne Worte finden sich für alles, schöne Worte finden sich ja auch dann, wenn die Wirklichkeit noch so gräßlich ist. Heute kostet das ja nur, wenn man es mit amerikanischem Geld bezahlt, soundsoviel Dollar; dann kann man sehr, sehr goldige Ideale in ethische Ideale umdeuten. Aber das ist ja im Osten nicht geschehen, da ist eine reale Konsequenz gezogen worden. Da hat man nicht gesagt: Die Welt muß jetzt übernehmen, was wir gehabt haben. Da hat man was anderes gesagt; da hat man wirklich den Schluß gezogen, daß die Voraussetzungen nicht stimmen — und hat daher etwas in Bewegung gesetzt, was allerdings auch noch lange nicht das ist, was es einstmals sein wird. Aber das macht nichts; ich will jetzt gar nicht über das eine oder das andere irgendwie ein Urteil fällen, ich will nur auf den großen Gegensatz hinweisen. Wenn Sie diesen Gegensatz ins Auge fassen, dann werden Sie ein Kolossalbild der Wirklichkeit vor sich haben zwischen dem Westen, der auf alles schwört, was seine Vergangenheit betrifft, und dem Osten, der gebrochen hat mit allem, was seine Vergangenheit war.

Wenn Sie das ins Auge fassen, dann sind Sie den realen Ursachen des gegenwärtigen Weltenkonfliktes gar nicht so ferne; und dann werden Sie nicht so fern sein dem, worauf ich vor längerer Zeit auch schon hier aufmerksam gemacht habe: Der Krieg spielt sich eigentlich ab zwischen dem Westen und dem Osten. Was in der Mitte drinnen ist, wird bloß zerrieben, muß bloß, weil der Westen und der Osten nicht einig sind, leiden unter der Uneinigkeit des Westens und des Ostens.

Aber will man denn heute auf so etwas Kolossales sein Augenmerk richten? Hat denn dieser März 1917 den Menschen dieses Licht aufgesteckt von dem großen Gegensatz des Westens und des Ostens? Da stand im vorigen Jahre hier auf der Tafel, was dem Westen und dem Osten in der Weltanschauung zugehört! Die Weltgeschichte lehrt es seit dem März dieses Jahres. Und die Menschen müssen lernen und müssen verstehen lernen, sonst werden noch ganz andere schwere Zeiten kommen. Nicht darum handelt es sich, im Abstrakten dieses oder jenes zu wissen, sondern hauptsächlich darum, überall die Forderung zu stellen zur Umkehr, zur Anstrengung, zur Überwindung des bequemen Schlendrians und in einer geistigen Weltauffassung das Richtige zu sehen. Und im geisteswissenschaftlichen Streben müssen Energien gesucht werden, nicht bloß Befriedigung, um zu sagen: Was war das wieder schön; ich bin so recht befriedigt! - und in einem Wolkenkuckucksheim zu schweben, so daß man allmählich einschläft in der Befriedigung über die Harmonie in der Welt und über die allgemeine Menschenliebe. Innerhalb jenes gesellschaftlichen Strebens, dem ja Mrs. Besant vorgestanden hat, hat sich das so recht zum Ausdruck gebracht. Viele von Ihnen werden sich noch erinnern an die vielen Proteste, die ich gegen all das edle Gesäusel vorgebracht habe, das man gerade auf dem Boden der Theosophischen Gesellschaft finden konnte. Hohe Ideale von wunderbarem Gesäusel wurden ja international-liberal verzapft. Allgemeine Brüderlichkeit, allgemeine Menschenliebe: so tönte es überall. Da konnte man nicht mitmachen. Wir suchten wirkliches, konkretes Wissen über die Vorgänge der Welt. Und Sie erinnern sich des Vergleiches, den ich oft gebraucht habe, daß mir dieses Gesäusel von allgemeiner Menschenliebe vorkommt, wie wenn einer einem Ofen, der das Zimmer heizen soll, immerfort zuredet: Lieber Ofen, es ist deine allgemeine Ofenpflicht, das Zimmer warm zu machen; also mache das Zimmer warm. — So kamen mir alle männlichen und weiblichen Tanten vor, welche dazumal die Summe der Theosophie in diesem Gesäusel von der allgemeinen Menschenliebe zum Ausdruck brachten. Ich habe dazumal gesagt: Man muß in die Öfen eben Kohlen tun, Holz hineinbringen und es anzünden. Und so muß man, wenn man es mit einer geistigen Bewegung zu tun hat, wirkliche, konkrete Begriffe in diese geistige Bewegung hineinbringen, sonst säuselt man jahrelang von allgemeiner Menschenliebe. Diese «allgemeine Menschenliebe» hat sich ja gerade bei der Führerin der theosophischen Bewegung, bei Mrs. Besant, in holdem Lichte gezeigt.

Natürlich ist es unbequemer, sich auf die Wirklichkeit einzulassen, als im Allgemeinen herumzureden über die Harmonie der Welt, über die Harmonie der einzelnen Seele mit der ganzen Welt, über die Harmonie in der allgemeinen Menschenliebe. Aber Anthroposophie soll nicht da sein, die Menschen einzuschläfern, sondern sie aufzuwecken, richtig aufzuwecken. Wir leben in einer Zeit, die es nötig macht, daß die Menschen erwachen.

Eighth lecture

You will have gathered from yesterday's reflections that in the present day we must become increasingly familiar with the contrast between abstract, purely intellectual thinking and realistic thinking, which involves placing oneself in reality with one's thinking. With regard to our thinking, we naturally always strive for a certain consistency. But the world is full of contradictions, so that if we really want to grasp reality, we cannot throw a general template of thinking over everything like a net in order to understand it. We must individualize, we must respond to the individual. The greatest deficiency and also the greatest harm of our time is that people are completely absorbed in abstractions. In doing so, they distance themselves from true reality.

But now comes the application of this to reality itself. Please consider this carefully! I must now say something strange: I must apply unreal thinking to reality, because unreal thinking is, of course, also part of reality. And so, through unreal thinking, which has developed over the last three to four centuries, through the establishment of this unreal way of thinking in reality, an unreal structure has gradually emerged in human coexistence itself, a structure that is fundamentally contradictory. One could say that humans are fortunate in relation to nature, because no matter how wrong their thinking may be, nature does not conform to them. And so, if they want to behave rigidly and abstractly in their thinking about nature, they become, forgive the paradoxical expression, like a goat that always butts its horns against reality. We see this in many so-called worldviews, which butt their horns against reality. These worldviews are sometimes as stubborn as goats.

But it is different when it comes to social and political coexistence. Here, human thinking enters the social structure through each individual. Here, one does not butt heads with a reality that will not tolerate anything, but rather one creates reality. And if that takes a few centuries, then reality becomes that; that is, it lives out its contradictions. True reality lives itself out in structures that do not have the power of reality within themselves and then discharge themselves in cataclysms such as the current catastrophe of war.

There you have the connection between the human soul life in a previous time and the external physical events in a somewhat later time. For it is always the case that what emerges on the physical plane first lives spiritually, and also lives spiritually first in relation to human beings, first in human thoughts and only then in human actions. And so, if we want to observe the present only as it appears to us in its true, that is, in this case, untrue form — for the untrue form is its true form — we can see how abstraction has lived its way into reality. People often view reality abstractly. They view it like someone watching the conjurers mentioned yesterday, looking at the weights that have no weight, but toward which the conjurer behaves as if they weighed many kilograms.

The most significant characteristic of many contemporary concepts is their poverty. People today—as I have often emphasized—are comfortable; they want concepts that are as straightforward as possible. But this also makes these concepts terribly poor. Yes, such poor concepts are sufficient for dealing with the superficial nature or the surface of nature that the present, despite all its progress, sees alone. Despite the great things that have come to light in recent times with regard to natural phenomena, the concepts used to understand these natural phenomena are relatively poor. But this longing for poor concepts, for concepts with little content, has also spread to all worldviews. Thus, we see philosophers emerging today who have a formal longing for poor concepts. The poorest concepts, that is, those with the least content, are constantly being bandied about. These concepts are sometimes quite sophisticated, but they are not filled with any substantial content. Our contemporary philosophy is particularly rich in such concepts as the “eternal,” the “infinite,” “unity,” the “meaningful” as opposed to the meaningless, the “general,” the “individual,” and so on. People are particularly fond of using such concepts, concepts that are as abstract as possible.

This leads to a peculiar attitude of people toward reality. They cease to see the life-giving content of reality and also lose the sense of what they actually feel toward reality. One only has to observe the present with an eye for these things, and one finds them everywhere.

I want to show you a phenomenon that is downright frightening: a contemporary philosopher has spoken out about how one can have an opinion on whether this war should last longer or shorter. This is indeed an important question in the eminent sense, but it is a question that must be decided on the basis of meaningful, real, and vital concepts that cannot be decided with general abstractions about the world and temporality, about the general and the individual, and so on. With such general philosophizing, nothing can be decided about such concrete questions. The philosopher in question has come to the same conclusion as so many others: it does no harm if the war continues for as long as possible, as long as, as they say, lasting peace is achieved, as long as paradise on earth is established. I have compared this to saying that the best way to ensure that no more dishes are broken in a household is to break all the dishes first. That is roughly the conclusion of those who say: War must be continued until there is a prospect of lasting peace. — The philosopher in question has thus applied his philosophy to this question, his philosophy, which in his view deals with the highest, that is, in our time, the most abstract concepts. What did he say? Well, think about it: he said, what does it matter, in the face of eternity, in which a satisfactory state for humanity is being established, whether a few tons more or less of organic matter are destroyed on the battlefields! What are a few tons of organic matter compared to eternal life, to the development of humanity!

This is what abstract thinking leads to when it deals with reality. Today, people must first be made aware of how appalling such a thing is if they are to feel it. And one can only wonder again and again that these things actually pass humanity by without it giving them much thought. Of course, such a thought is basically derived from the contemporary striving for a worldview. For what has this striving for a worldview brought about? Precisely the most abstract concepts, which are only applicable to the dead, to the mineral, to the inorganic. When the philosopher comes along and applies what is only applicable to the dead, not only to the living, but even to the spiritual and soul-like, it is only natural that he arrives at such things. For in relation to the dead, human beings must constantly act according to the principle: What is, after all, so and so many hundredweight of substance in relation to what one makes of it? One could not build if one were obliged to assert the right of existence for every dead stone; of course one could not. But one must not transfer to human life what applies only to the inorganic, to the lifeless. And the concepts that natural science has developed today apply only to the inorganic, to the lifeless. But today this is constantly being transferred, one just does not notice it. And such judgments, which always tend in the direction that this war should not come to an end before the prospect already described is in sight, imply nothing other than what the philosopher has expressed in a brutal but, in his view, extraordinarily sublime manner; only that others are ashamed to speak as the philosopher does because the philosopher conceals the brutality behind the beauty of his words. He says all sorts of very sublime things, of course, juggling with the concepts of eternity and temporality, eternal human becoming, the transitory temporal existence of so many tons of organic substance, but without regard for the fact that eternity and infinity live in every single human being and that every single human being is worth as much as the entire inorganic world put together!

These things that have now been discussed also underlie the artistic forms that are seeking to unfold here on this hill. For art, too, has gradually entered into what I would call a weightless, insubstantial view of the world. Our view of the world must once again approach the essence of things. One can only approach the essence of things by approaching the spirit. Therefore, we must have forms other than those that appear everywhere in art today. In other words, our time must once again acquire something creative from the spirit. This is, of course, uncomfortable for many people today. But just consider to what extent our entire worldview has gradually become dead by working only with the dead. Take a look at the buildings, and finally at the other “works of art” of the 19th century: what are they, after all, but a constant rehashing of old architectural styles and the like? People built in the ancient, Renaissance, and Gothic styles, which means always in something dead. They did not arrive at grasping the immediately living. We must return to this. This will form a completely new spirit. This will require individual sacrifices, which must be made in abundance. But something like the house standing out there, created from concrete in new forms, is pioneering work. And it is not only the fact that these forms were conceived that is important, but also the fact that the possibility of putting something like this into the world has been brought about. These things must be considered in all their significance, otherwise one will not understand what is to be created here on this hill. By its very nature, what is being created on this hill must be in contradiction and conflict with what is being created in the rest of the world today.

Understanding the present — my dear friends, this sentence has been a recurring theme in everything I have said since my return to you. But one must be willing to accept the inconvenience and expend a great deal of energy: the power of thought, the power of feeling, the experimental power of will, in order to understand the present; and one must have the courage to truly break with many things that protrude from the old days. For, when all is said and done, those people who are considered the most enlightened today often work with nothing but old concepts, without really knowing how to apply them.

Let me give you an example of this: for some time now, you have certainly been able to find a book discussed everywhere here in Switzerland, and see it displayed prominently in shop windows, which has made a profound impression on the present day. I like to discuss precisely such things, which do not come from hostile quarters, but even from friendly ones, so that one does not think that any personal behavior is involved. The Nordic writer Kjellén was and is one of the few who have shown interest in my writings and expressed themselves favorably. Therefore, it will not be taken personally if I characterize the book “The State as a Form of Life,” which has made such a strong impression, in the way that I feel I must.

This book is a prime example of the flawed concepts of the present day. It attempts to view the state as an organism. This is one of the endeavors of people today when they want to comprehend something that should actually be understood intellectually using contemporary ideas. And it is good that one can refer to a witty, very learned, profound man, whom one cannot praise enough, if one wants to put the completely misguided idea underlying his book in the right light. Yes, one constantly encounters such contradictions. But life is full of contradictions. One must not strive for abstract consistency if one wants to understand life; one must not immediately consider everyone one wants to fight to be a fool, but one can also consider someone one wants to fight to be a very intelligent, thorough scholar, as is the case here, of which I am now speaking.

Kjellén is actually doing something similar to what the Swabian—I don't know whether I should say Swabian scholar or Austrian minister, because he was both—Schäffle did decades ago. Even back then, Schäffle made a comprehensive attempt to conceive of the state as an organism and the individual human beings as the cells of this organism. Hermann Bahr, whom I have mentioned to you several times before, wrote a refutation of Schäffle's book on organic effectiveness in the state. When Schäffle then wrote a book on “The Futility of Social Democracy,” Hermann Bahr wrote a refutation of this book and titled it “The Insightlessness of Mr. Schäffle.” It is a witty little book by Hermann Bahr. Hermann Bahr himself recently called it impertinent in a lecture he gave. Nevertheless, it remains a very witty little book by Hermann Bahr, this little book “The Lack of Insight of Mr. Schäffle.”

So Schäffle did something similar to what Kjellén is doing now. Kjellén also seeks to portray every state as an organism, with the individual people as its cells. We know all sorts of things about the effectiveness of cells in organisms, about the laws that govern organisms, and we can transfer this knowledge nicely to the state. People like to use such comparisons in areas that they cannot grasp intellectually. Well, methodologically, you can compare anything with anything. If you like, I can easily construct a whole little science based on a comparison between a swarm of locusts and a bass violin. You can compare everything in the world with everything else, and you can find something in every comparison. But the fact that you can make a comparison does not in any way mean that you can live with such comparisons in reality. When you make comparisons, you have to have a keen sense of reality, otherwise the comparison will never be accurate. Because when you make a comparison, you very quickly find yourself in the situation that some people find themselves in in their youth – forgive me –: you immediately fall in love with your comparison, just as some people immediately fall in love with another person. Comparisons that come to mind or that are even lying on the street, such as that between the state and an organism, have the disadvantage that one immediately falls in love with the subject. But falling in love with such a comparison has a consequence. It has the consequence that one becomes blind to everything that speaks against the subject that one then brings up from the comparison.

So I have to say: when I read Kjellén's book, it struck me, from the point of view of realistic thinking, that this book was written right now, during the war. Writing this book about the state as an organism seemed completely unrealistic to me, because after all, anyone who looks around a little knows—even if they can't always put it into words—that wars are waged in such a way that when states clash, either one piece ends up here or there, that pieces are cut off from states and taken here or there. At least for many people, such things are what matter in war.

Yes, if one compares states to organisms, one would have to extend the comparison at least to the point where one could always cut off pieces of the organism and assign them to the neighboring organism. But such things, which one should notice, are not noticed when one has fallen in love with one's comparison. One could cite many other examples. I could cite many examples of such comparisons, which would probably put you in the most amusing mood, causing you to laugh heartily and not consider the man in question as witty as I myself do. I really consider him to be very witty and very profound.

Where does it come from that someone can be learned and witty and yet build an entire system on a completely flawed comparison? Well, you see, it comes from the fact that the comparison Kjellén makes is a correct comparison. Now you will say that you no longer know what to make of what I am saying: first I explain that the comparison is completely misguided, and now I explain that the comparison is correct. Well, when I say that the comparison is correct, I mean that the comparison can certainly be made; it is just a question of what you are comparing. When you compare, you are always comparing two things, as in Kjellén's case: the state and the organism. One thing must always be true in itself. The state is there on the one hand, and the organism is there on the other. Neither can be wrong; it is only the combination that is wrong. The point is that what happens on earth can indeed be compared to an organism. Political events on earth can be compared to an organism; only the state cannot be compared to an organism. If you compare the state to an organism in which individual human beings are cells, you end up with complete nonsense. It is simply absurd, because it leads nowhere. But one can compare the political and social life of the earth with an organism, only then must one compare the whole earth with an organism. As soon as one compares the whole earth, that is, human activity across the whole earth, with an organism, and the individual states—not the people, but the individual states—with differently formed cells, then the comparison is correct, then it is a valid comparison.

If you take this comparison as a basis and now consider the mutual relationship of the states themselves, you already get something that behaves in a similar way to the cells of the different systems in the organism. So when choosing a comparison, it is important to apply it to the right thing. The mistake Kjellén made – and Schäffle also made – is that the individual state, which can only be compared to a cell, a fully developed cell, is compared to the entire organism, whereas life across the entire Earth can be compared to an organism. Then we arrive at the fruitfulness of this comparison. Cells that pass each other by like people in a state do not exist in an organism. Cells collide with each other, they border on each other. So it is with individual states; the cells are in the overall organism of life on earth.

My dear friends, you may feel that something is missing in the discussion I have just given. If, in a certain justified way — for such a thing is also justified — your philistine, pedantic sense stirs in your heart while I am speaking here, you will say: I must prove to you that the life of the whole earth must be compared to an organism and the individual state to a cell. Well, the proof lies in observation, the proof lies in the implementation of the idea, the proof does not lie in the abstract considerations that one can usually make, but in the fact that you now carry out the idea. Carry it out in the Kjellén sense, and you will find everywhere that it cannot be carried out. You will have to butt heads; you will have to become a goat, otherwise you will not be able to carry it out. But carry out the idea for the life of the whole earth, then the concept will be valid, then you will come to very fruitful insights, then it will be a very good regulative principle for you. You will understand a great deal, and you will understand even more than I have already indicated.

People today are abstract beings, and one would like to say: out of a dozen, thirteen will be found—yes, that is not possible, but in the real circumstances it would almost be true today—out of a dozen, thirteen will be found who, in such a case, where Kjellén compares the individual state to an organism and is countered here with: Political and social life throughout the world is in truth comparable to an organism—that these thirteen out of the dozen will be of the opinion today that this comparison must now apply throughout all ages. For if someone today puts forward a theory of the state, this theory must apply not only to the present, but also to the Romans, even to the Egyptians and Babylonians; for a state is a state. Today, we start from concepts, not from reality.

But that is not the case, that is really not the case. Humanity is also undergoing a development in this respect. And what I have now said about the validity of the comparison actually applies only to the period since the 16th century, because before the 16th century the earth was not a politically coherent whole; that is to say, it has only developed into a coherent political whole since that time. America, the western hemisphere, did not exist for a political life that was coherent in itself. And so, by making this comparison in the right way, you immediately gain an insight into the significant break that exists between the newer life and the older life. If you arrive at insights that are true to reality, then these insights are always fruitful, whereas concepts that are not true to reality are sterile and unfruitful. Every insight that is true to reality takes you further. You learn more through it than it contains; it carries you through reality. That is the important thing, and you must keep that in mind. For abstract concepts are such that we grasp them; but outside is reality, which does not care about these abstract concepts. If one grasps a concept that is true to reality, then one has within that concept the whole inner, active life that also exists outside, that stirs and stirs reality outside. This is uncomfortable for people today. They want concepts that are as colorless and calm as possible. They are afraid of getting dizzy if their concepts have an inner life. But these innerly lifeless concepts have the disadvantage that reality can pass us by without us actually seeing the most essential aspects of it. Reality is also full of concepts, full of ideas. What I said here a few days ago is true: that elementary life flows outside, and this elementary life is permeated by concepts, by ideas—that is true. But abstract concepts are merely conceptual corpses, I said. And then it can happen, if one loves only conceptual corpses, that one talks and thinks in these conceptual corpses, and reality draws completely different conclusions; it allows completely different events to take place than those into which our concepts can fit.

For three years now, we have been caught up in terrible events that could teach every human being a great deal; but one must follow them not asleep, but awake. It is actually admirable in a negative sense how many people are still asleep in the face of these terrible events of the present, have still not come to consider that events that have never before occurred in the development of humankind also demand that we arrive at new concepts that have never before existed. Reality judges differently. Let me express what I actually mean more precisely in symbolic terms. One can already say that some people have been forming ideas for years that this war would come. In general, one can say that, with the exception of certain circles of the Anglo-American population, the world has been taken by surprise by this war in a certain sense. But at least some people had formed ideas that the war would come, albeit sometimes very strange ideas. One idea in particular could be found again and again, an idea that originated from profound—I really do not mean this ironically, I speak in all seriousness—national economists and national politicians, which was based on a careful abstraction from this or that process. People worked hard scientifically, combining, abstracting, making all kinds of syntheses, and then came up with an idea that was widely held for a long time, even at the outbreak of the war—when it was repeated particularly often: the idea that, given the current world situation, given the economic and commercial circumstances, this war could not possibly last longer than four to six months. It was rigorously proven, a rigorously proven truth. And the reasons given were certainly not stupid; they were very clever reasons.

Yes, but what about reality? How does it relate to all the web of reasons that the clever economists have woven together? How does reality relate to this? Well, you can see for yourselves how reality relates to this! But what then, if this is the case? The point is that one must draw the consequences from such a situation, the real consequences. Then this war will be a lesson, if one draws the consequences. What can be the only consequence of what I have symbolically indicated? For I have only cited one extreme case; I could cite numerous other similar views that have likewise—to put it mildly—been shipwrecked by the reality of the events of the last three years. What can the only real consequence be? That we throw everything that led us to such conclusions overboard and say to ourselves: We have thought in an unrealistic way, we have developed a system of thought and allowed this abstract, unrealistic system to flow into reality itself, so that reality has become untrue; so let us break with the very premises that underlie such supposed knowledge, which destroys reality!

What I am about to say can certainly be said emphatically to people today. Whether it will be taken emphatically is another question. For just as ingenious as the national politicians were in predicting that the war would last four to six months, just as ingenious, truly ingenious—and I do not mean this ironically—were the reasons given by that enlightened medical council, based on the medical science of the time, against the construction of the first railroad in Central Europe. At that time, they said, not a single contrarian, but an enlightened council—I have quoted this often—that railroads should not be built because the human nervous system could not withstand them. This is a written document from 1838. So it was not long ago that the verdict was passed that railroads should not be built under any circumstances; but if such people were to be found—as it says in this document—who wanted to have railroads built, then at least high wooden walls should be erected on both sides so that the farmers would not see the trains passing by and suffer concussions. Yes, people laugh at such things when it turns out later how reality has overtaken such supposed reasons. Afterwards, people laugh. But certain elemental spirits laugh at the same time; indeed, they were already laughing in the time before such scientific things were done, laughing at human folly.

Let us break with what has led to contradiction! The contradiction is real, it is truly there, because the life of the last three years on earth is a realized contradiction. We must therefore gain different views of what is happening than we have had before. A radical revision of our views is what the times demand of us. It is even difficult, once one has begun such a train of thought, to carry it through to its complete end in the present, because humanity today is not free-thinking enough to allow these thoughts to come to fruition. Anyone who has a sense of reality, of the real events around us, can see in reality outside that these consequences are already being drawn. They just do not want to enter people's minds yet. In this respect, there is a tremendous contrast between the West and the East. Last year, I spoke to you about the fundamental contrast between the West and the East from a variety of perspectives. For example, I drew your attention to how the West talks about the problem of birth and the demand for human rights. Look at Western worldviews: origin, birth—these are the main scientific concepts that prevail there. This is why the doctrine of origin, Darwin's doctrine, arose in the West. One could also say that the doctrine of birth and heredity in the philosophical and practical realms is the view of human rights.

In the little-known East, in Russian life, we find reflections on death, on the spiritual goals of human life – read Solovyov, who is now easy to read – the concept of guilt, the concept of sin in the ethical-practical sphere. Yes, such a contrast exists in most areas. And one cannot understand reality, the truth, if one cannot properly grasp such a contrast. Emotions, sympathies, and antipathies prevent people from really seeing the things that are under consideration. When these emotions, these sympathies and antipathies are stirred up, people do not allow reality to come close to them at all; any more than conflicting things can get close to someone who has fallen in love with a certain comparison, because people consider what they love to be absolute truth and cannot imagine that the opposite, from a different point of view, can also be true.

Let us consider the West, particularly the Anglo-American West, for the others are largely just parrots. What is the consistent point of view there, particularly in Wilsonianism—it is often called ideals—what is the consistent point of view? The consistent point of view is that the whole world should become what these peoples have been in the last few centuries. These peoples have developed ideal social conditions—they are given various names, such as “democracy” and the like—and other peoples are greatly to blame for not having developed such conditions! It will be right when the whole world accepts these conditions. That is the Anglo-American view: what we have developed, what we have become, gives the great and small nations their rights, puts them in the right relationships, and makes people happy within the state. That is how it must be everywhere. We hear it proclaimed; it is the gospel of the West. No one thinks that such a thing always has only relative significance, that such a thing comes above all from emotions, not, as one believes, from mere reason and mere intellect.

Of course, one must not press the words too strongly, because pressing words too strongly leads to many misunderstandings today. One might think, for example, that I am attacking the American people or the Anglo-American race when I speak of Wilsonianism or Lloyd-Georgeanism. But that is not the case at all. I deliberately say Wilsonianism because it means something very specific. But I am far from meaning anything for which you can readily use the term Americanism. Here again, one must take a hard look at reality. Some of the tirades that have come from Mr. Wilson lately did not even originate on American soil. You can't even give Wilson credit for his tirades being original. They are worthless, they are untrue; but they are not even entirely original. For there is the curious fact that a Berlin writer has written witty articles, just not articles that are in line with the German view of the world, articles that were Wilsonianism without Wilson, very astute articles. These articles have been successful, though not exactly in Germany, but in the American Congress, because they have been collected, and you will find them bound in many pages of the records of the American Congress; they have been read out in the proceedings of the American Congress, and some of Mr. Wilson's more recent tirades are taken from these pages. Much of what Mr. Wilson is fabricating against Central Europe has its origin there. So it is not even original. It will be an interesting and humorous fact in future historiography when one finds in the records of the proceedings of the American Congress: The gentlemen refrained for a while from presenting their own enlightened ideas and read aloud the articles of a Berlin writer, which they then filed in the congressional records and labeled “American congressional records.”

But what interests us most is why people liked these articles. Well, because they express the idea that one can feel quite comfortable sitting in the chair one has been sitting in for centuries and now tell the world: If you all sit in chairs like this, everything will be fine. — That is the West.

The East, Russia, has also drawn a conclusion—not a conceptual one; conceptually, people are not yet where their reality lies. They have drawn a different conclusion. It did not occur to them to say: What we have been doing for centuries must now become the salvation of the whole world. We want everyone to become like we were. One could have found a nice word for what has been happening in Russia for centuries, because nice words can be found for everything, even when reality is as gruesome as it is. Today, it only costs so many dollars if you pay with American money; then you can reinterpret very, very golden ideals as ethical ideals. But that did not happen in the East; there, a real conclusion was drawn. They did not say: The world must now take over what we had. They said something else; they really came to the conclusion that the conditions were not right — and so they set something in motion, which, admittedly, is still a long way from what it will one day be. But that doesn't matter; I don't want to pass judgment on one thing or the other, I just want to point out the great contrast. If you consider this contrast, you will see a colossal picture of reality between the West, which swears by everything that concerns its past, and the East, which has broken with everything that was its past.

If you consider this, then you are not so far removed from the real causes of the current world conflict; and then you will not be so far removed from what I pointed out here some time ago: The war is actually being fought between the West and the East. What lies in between is merely being crushed, merely suffering from the disunity of the West and the East because the West and the East are not united.

But does anyone want to focus their attention on something so colossal today? Did March 1917 really shed light on the great contrast between the West and the East? Last year, what belongs to the West and the East in terms of worldview was written here on the board! World history has been teaching this since March of this year. And people must learn and must learn to understand, otherwise even more difficult times will come. It is not a matter of knowing this or that in the abstract, but mainly of demanding everywhere a change of direction, an effort to overcome complacency and to see what is right in a spiritual worldview. And in the pursuit of spiritual science, energies must be sought, not mere satisfaction, so that one can say: How wonderful that was; I am so satisfied! — and float in a cloud cuckoo land, so that one gradually falls asleep in satisfaction with the harmony in the world and with universal love for humanity. This was clearly expressed within the social striving that Mrs. Besant stood for. Many of you will still remember the many protests I made against all the noble babbling that could be found in the Theosophical Society. High ideals of wonderful babbling were spouted in an international-liberal manner. Universal brotherhood, universal love for humanity: that was the refrain everywhere. It was impossible to go along with that. We were looking for real, concrete knowledge about the workings of the world. And you will remember the comparison I often used, that this babbling about universal love for humanity seemed to me like someone constantly talking to a stove that is supposed to heat the room: Dear stove, it is your general duty as a stove to heat the room; so heat the room. — That's how all the male and female aunts seemed to me at the time, who expressed the sum of theosophy in this babbling about universal human love. I said at the time: You have to put coal in the stoves, bring in wood and light it. And so, when dealing with a spiritual movement, one must introduce real, concrete concepts into this spiritual movement, otherwise one will spend years murmuring about universal human love. This “universal human love” has shown itself in a particularly charming light in the leader of the theosophical movement, Mrs. Besant.

Of course, it is more uncomfortable to engage with reality than to talk in general terms about the harmony of the world, about the harmony of the individual soul with the whole world, about the harmony in universal love for humanity. But anthroposophy is not there to lull people to sleep, but to wake them up, to wake them up properly. We live in a time that makes it necessary for people to awaken.