Human Values in Education
GA 310
17 July 1924, Arnheim
I. Anthroposophical Education Based on a Knowledge of Man
For quite a number of years now Education has been one of those branches of civilised, cultural activity which we foster within the Anthroposophical Movement, and, as will appear from these lectures, we may perhaps just in this sphere look back with a certain satisfaction on what we have been able to do. Our schools have existed only a few years, so I cannot speak of an achievement, but only of the beginning of something which, even outside the Anthroposophical Movement, has already made a certain impression on circles interested in the spiritual life of the cultural world of today. Looking back on our educational activity it gives me real joy, particularly here in Holland, where many years ago I had the opportunity of lecturing on subjects connected with anthroposophical spiritual science, to speak once more on this closely related theme.
Anthroposophical education and teaching is based on that knowledge of man which is only to be gained on the basis of spiritual science; it works out of a knowledge of the whole human being, body, soul and spirit. At first such a statement may be regarded as obvious. It will be said that of course the whole man must be taken into consideration when it is a question of educational practice, of education as an art; that neither should the spiritual be neglected in favour of the physical, nor the physical in favour of the spiritual. But it will very soon be seen how the matter stands when we become aware of the practical results which ensue when any branch of human activity is based on anthroposophical spiritual science. Here in Holland, in the Hague, a small school has been founded on the basis of an anthroposophical knowledge of man, a daughter school, if I may call it so, of our Waldorf School in Stuttgart. And I believe that whoever gets to know such a school, whether from merely hearing about the way it is run, or through a more intimate knowledge, will find in the actual way it deals with teaching and education, something arising from its anthroposophical foundation which differs essentially from the usual run of schools in our present civilisation. The reason for this is that wherever we look today we find a gulf between what people think, or devise theoretically, and what they actually carry out in practice. For in our present civilisation theory and practice have become two widely separated spheres. However paradoxical it may sound, the separation may be observed, perhaps most of all in the most practical of all occupations in life, in the business world, in the economic sphere. Here all sorts of things are learnt theoretically. For instance, people think out details of administration in economic affairs. They form intentions. But these intentions cannot be carried out in actual practice. However carefully they are thought out, they do not meet the actual conditions of life. I should like to express myself still more clearly, so that we may understand one another. For example, a man who wishes to set up a business concern thinks out some sort of business project. He thinks over all that is connected with this business and organises it according to his intentions.
His theories and abstract thoughts are then put into effect, but, when actually carried out, they everywhere come up against reality. Certainly things are done, thought-out ideas are even put into practice, but these thoughts do not fit into real life. In actual fact something is carried over into real life which does not correspond with what is real. Now a business that is conducted in this way can continue for some time and its inaugurator will consider himself to be a tremendously practical fellow. For whoever goes into business and from the outset has learnt absolutely nothing outside customary practice will consider himself a “practical” man.
Today we can hear how really practical people speak about such a theorist. He enters into business life and with a heavy hand introduces his thought-out ideas. If sufficient capital is available, he may even be able to carry on for a time, after a while, however, the concern collapses, or it may be absorbed into some more established business. Usually when this happens very little heed is paid to how much genuine, vital effort has been wasted, how many lives ruined, how many people injured or impaired in their way of life. It has come about solely because something has been thought out—thought out by a so-called “practical” man. In such a case however the person in question is not practical through his insight but by the use of his elbows. He has introduced something into reality without considering the conditions of reality.
Few people notice it, but this kind of thing has become rampant in the cultural life of today. At the present time the only sphere where such things are understood, where it is recognised that such a procedure does not work, is in the application of mechanical natural science to life. When the decision is made to build a bridge it is essential to make use of a knowledge of mechanics to ensure that the bridge will stand up to what is required of it; otherwise the first train that passes over it will be plunged into the water. Such things have already happened, and even at the present time we have seen the results of faulty mechanical construction. Speaking generally, however, this sphere is the only one in practical life in which it can be stated unequivocally that the conditions of reality have or have not been foreseen.
If we take the sphere of medicine we shall see at once that it is not so evident whether or not the conditions of reality have been taken into account. Here too the procedure is the same; something is thought out theoretically and then applied as a means of healing. Whether in this case there has been a cure, whether it was somebody's destiny to die, or whether perhaps he has been “cured to death,” this indeed is difficult to perceive. The bridge collapses when there are faults in its construction; but whether the sick person gets worse, whether he has been cured by the treatment, or has died of it, is not so easy to discover.
In the same way, in the sphere of education it is not always possible to see whether the growing child is being educated in accordance with his needs, or whether fanciful methods are being used which can certainly be worked out by experimental psychology. In this latter case the child is examined by external means and the following questions arise: what sort of memory has he, what are his intellectual capacities, his ability to form judgments and so on? Educational aims are frequently found in this way. But how are they carried into life? They sit firmly in the head, that is where they are. In his head the teacher knows that a child must be taught arithmetic like this, geography like that, and so it goes on. Now the intentions are to be put into practice. The teacher considers all he has learnt, and remembers that according to the precepts of scientific educational method he must set about things in such and such a way. He is now faced with putting his knowledge into practice, he remembers these theoretical principles and applies them quite externally. Whoever has the gift for observing such things can experience how sometimes teachers who have thoroughly mastered educational theories, who can recount admirably everything they had to know for their examination, or had to learn in practice class-teaching, nevertheless remain utterly removed from life when they come face to face with the children they have to teach. What has happened to such a teacher is what, daily and hourly, we are forced to observe with sorrowing heart, the fact that people pass one another by in life, that they have no sense for getting to know one another. This is a common state of affairs. It is the fundamental evil which underlies all social disturbances which are so widespread in the cultural life of today: the lack of paying heed to others, the lack of interest which every man should have for others. In everyday civilised life we must perforce accept such a state of affairs; it is the destiny of modern humanity at the present time. But the peak of such aloofness is reached when the teacher of the child or the educator of the youth stands at a distance from his pupil, quite separated from him, and employs in a completely external way methods obtained by external science. We can see that the laws of mechanics have been wrongly applied when a bridge collapses, but wrong educational methods are not so obvious. A clear proof of the fact that human beings today are only at home when it comes to a mechanical way of thinking, which can always determine whether things have been rightly or wrongly thought out, and which has produced the most brilliant triumphs in the life of modern civilisation—a proof of this is that humanity today has confidence only in mechanical thought. And if this mechanical thinking is carried into education, if, for instance, the child is asked to write down disconnected words and then repeat them quickly, so that a record can be made of his power of assimilation, if this is the procedure in education it is a sign that there is no longer any natural gift for approaching the child himself. We experiment with the child because we can no longer approach his heart and soul.
In saying all this it might seem as though one had the inclination or desire only to criticise and reprove in a superior sort of way. It is of course always easier to criticise than to build something up constructively. But as a matter of fact what I have said does not arise out of any such inclination or desire; it arises out of a direct observation of life. This direct observation of life must proceed from something which is usually completely excluded from knowledge today. What sort of person must one be today if one wishes to pursue some calling based on knowledge—for instance on the knowledge of man? One must be objective! This is to be heard all over the place today, in every hole and corner. Of course one must be objective, but the question is whether or not this objectivity is based on a lack of paying due heed to what is essential in any particular situation.
Now for the most part people have the idea that love is far more subjective than anything else in life, and that it would be utterly impossible for anyone who loves to be objective. For this reason when knowledge is spoken about today love is never mentioned seriously. True, it is deemed fitting, when a young man is applying himself to acquire knowledge, to exhort him to do so with love, but this mostly happens when the whole way in which knowledge is presented is not at all likely to develop love in anybody But the essence of love, the giving of oneself to the world and its phenomena, is in any case not regarded as knowledge. Nevertheless for real life love is the greatest power of knowledge. And without this love it is utterly impossible to attain to a knowledge of man which could form the basis of a true art of education. Let us try to picture this love, and see how it can work in the special sphere of an education founded on a knowledge of man drawn from spiritual science, from anthroposophy.
The child is entrusted to us to be educated, to be taught. If our thinking in regard to education is founded on anthroposophy we do not represent the child to ourselves as something we must help to develop so that he approaches nearer and nearer to some social human ideal, or whatever it may be. For this human ideal can be completely abstract. And today such a human ideal has already become something which can assume as many forms as there are political, social and other parties. Human ideals change according to whether one swears by liberalism, conservatism, or by some other programme, and so the child is led slowly in some particular direction in order to become what is held to be right for mankind. This is carried to extreme lengths in present-day Russia. Generally speaking, however, it is more or less how people think today, though perhaps somewhat less radically.
This is no starting point for the teacher who wants to educate and teach on the basis of anthroposophy. He does not make an “idol” of his opinions. For an abstract picture of man, towards which the child shall be led, is an idol, it is in no sense a reality. The only reality which could exist in this field would be at most if the teacher were to consider himself as an ideal and were to say that every child must become like him. Then one would at least have touched on some sort of reality, but the absurdity of saying such a thing would at once be obvious.
What we really have before us in this young child is a being who has not yet begun his physical existence, but has brought down his spirit and soul from pre-earthly worlds, and has plunged into a physical body bestowed on him by parents and ancestors. We look upon this child as he lies there before us in the first days of his life with indeterminate features and with unorganised, undirected movements. We follow day by day, week by week how the features grow more and more defined, and become the expression of what is working to the surface from the inner life of soul. We observe further how the whole life and movements of the child become more consequent and directed, how something of the nature of spirit and soul is working its way to the surface from the inmost depths of his being. Then, filled with holy awe and reverence, we ask: “What is it that is here working its way to the surface?” And so with heart and mind we are led back to the human being himself, when as soul and spirit he dwelt in the soul-spiritual pre-earthly world from which he has descended into the physical world, and we say: “Little child, now that you have entered through birth into earthly existence you are among human beings, but previously you were among spiritual, divine beings.” What once lived among spiritual-divine beings has descended in order to live among men. We see the divine made manifest in the child. We feel as though standing before an altar. There is however one difference. In religious communities it is customary for human beings to bring their sacrificial offerings to the altars, so that these offerings may ascend into the spiritual world; now we feel ourselves standing as it were before an altar turned the other way; now the gods allow their grace to stream down in the form of divine-spiritual beings, so that these beings, acting as messengers of the gods, may unfold what is essentially human on the altar of physical life. We behold in every child the unfolding of cosmic laws of a divine-spiritual nature; we see how God creates in the world. In its highest, most significant form this is revealed in the child. Hence every single child becomes for us a sacred riddle, for every single child embodies this great question—not, how is he to be educated so that he approaches some “idol” which has been thought out.—But, how shall we foster what the gods have sent down to us into the earthly world. We learn to know ourselves as helpers of the divine-spiritual world, and above all we learn to ask: What may be the result if we approach education with this attitude of mind?
Education in the true sense proceeds out of just such an attitude. What matters is that we should develop our education and teaching on the basis of such thoughts as these. Knowledge of man can only be won if love for mankind—in this case love for the child—becomes the mainspring of our work. If this is so, then the teacher's calling becomes a priestly calling, for then the educator becomes the steward of what it is the will of the gods to carry out with man.
Here again it might appear as though something obvious is being said in rather different words. But it is not so. As a matter of fact in today's unsocial world-order, which only wears an outer semblance of being social, the very opposite occurs. Educationists pursue an “idol” for mankind, not seeing themselves as nurturers of something they must first learn to know when actually face to face with the child.
An attitude of mind such as I have described cannot work in an abstract way, it must work spiritually, while always keeping the practical in view. Such an attitude however can never be acquired by accepting theories quite unrelated and alien to life, it can only be gained if one has a feeling, a sense for every expression of life, and can enter with love into all its manifestations.
Today there is a great deal of talk about educational reform. Since the war there has been talk of a revolution in education. We have experienced this. Every possible approach to a new education is thought out, and pretty well everybody is concerned in some way or other with how this reform is to be brought about. Either one approaches some institution about to be founded with one's proposals or at the very least one suggests this or that as one's idea of how education should take shape. And so it goes on. There is a great deal of talk about methods of education; but do you see what kind of impression all this makes when one surveys, quite without prejudice, what the various societies for the reform of education, down to the most radical, put forward today in their educational programmes? I do not know whether many people take into account what kind of impression is made when one is faced with so many programmes issuing from associations and societies for educational reform. One gets the impression: Good heavens, how clever people are today! For indeed everything which comes about like this is frightfully clever. I do not mean this ironically, but quite seriously. There has never been a time when there was so much cleverness as there is in our era.
There we have it, all set out. Paragraph 1. How shall we educate so that the forces of the child may be developed naturally? Paragraph 2 ... Paragraph 3 ... and so on. People today of any profession or occupation, and of any social class can sit down together and work out such programmes; everything we get in this way in paragraphs 1 to 30 will be delightfully clever, for today one knows just how to formulate everything theoretically. People have never been so skilful in formulating things as they are today. Then such a programme, a number of programmes can be submitted to a committee or to Parliament. This again is very clever. Now something may perhaps be deleted or added according to party opinion, and something extremely clever emerges, even if at times strongly coloured by “party.” Nothing can be done with it, however, for all this is quite beside the point.
Waldorf School education never started off with such a programme. I have no wish to boast, but naturally, had this been our purpose, we could also have produced some kind of programme no less clever than those of many an association for educational reform. The fact that we should have to reckon with reality might perhaps prove a hindrance and then the result would be more stupid. With us however there was never any question of a programme. From the outset we were never interested in principles of educational method which might later on be somehow incorporated in a legalised educational system. What did interest us was reality, absolute true reality. What was this reality? To begin with here were children, a number of child-individualities with varying characteristics. One had to learn what these were, one had to get to know what was inherent in these children, what they had brought down with them, what was expressed through their physical bodies. First and foremost then there were the children. And then there were teachers. You can stand up as strongly as you like for the principle that the child must be educated in accordance with his individuality—that stands in all the programmes of reform—but nothing whatever will come of it. For on the other hand, besides the children, there are a number of teachers, and the point is to know what these teachers can accomplish in relation to these children. The school must be run in such a way that one does not set up an abstract ideal, but allows the school to develop out of the teachers and out of the pupils. And these teachers and pupils are not present in an abstract kind of way, but are quite concrete, individual human beings. That is the gist of the matter. Then we are led by virtue of necessity to build up a true education based on a real knowledge of man. We cease to be theoretical and become practical in every detail.
Waldorf School education, the first manifestation of an education based on anthroposophy, is actually the practice of education as an art, and is therefore able to give only indications of what can be done in this or that case. We have no great interest in general theories, but so much the greater is our interest in impulses coming from anthroposophy which can give us a true knowledge of man, beginning, as here of course it must do, with the child. But today our crude observation completely ignores what is most characteristic in the progressive stages of life. I would say that some measure of inspiration must be drawn from spiritual science if today we are to develop a right sense for what should be brought to the child.
At the present time people know extraordinarily little about man and mankind. They imagine that our present state of existence is the same as it was in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, and indeed as it has always been. They picture the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians as being very similar to the man of today. And if we go back still further, according to the views of present-day natural science, history becomes enveloped in mist until those beings emerge which are half ape, half man. No interest is taken, however, in penetrating into the great differences which exist between the historical and pre-historical epochs of mankind.
Let us study the human being as he appears to us today, beginning with the child up to the change of teeth. We see quite clearly that his physical development runs parallel with his development of soul and spirit. Everything that manifests as soul and spirit has its exact counterpart in the physical—both appear together, both develop out of the child together. Then, when the child has come through the change of teeth, we see how the soul is already freeing itself from the body. On the one side we shall be able to follow a development of soul and spirit in the child, and on the other side his physical development. The two sides however are not as yet clearly separated. If we continue to follow the development further into the time between puberty and about the 21st year the separation becomes much more defined and then when we come to the 27th or 28th year—speaking now of present-day humanity—nothing more can be seen of the way in which the soul-spiritual is connected with the physical body. What a man does at this age can be perceived on the one hand in the soul-spiritual life and on the other hand in the physical life, but the two cannot be brought into any sort of connection. At the end of the twenties, man in his soul and spirit has separated himself completely from what is physical, and so it goes on up to the end of his life.
Yet it was not always so. One only believes it to have been so. Spiritual science, studied anthroposophically, shows us clearly and distinctly that what we see in the child today, at the present stage of human evolution—namely, that in his being of soul and spirit the child is completely dependent on his physical bodily nature and his physical bodily nature is completely dependent on his being of soul and spirit—this condition persisted right on into extreme old age—a fact that has simply not been noticed. If we go very far back into those times which gave rise to the conception of the patriarchs and ask ourselves what kind of a man such a patriarch really was, the answer must be somewhat as follows: Such a man, in growing old, changed in respect of his bodily nature, but right into extreme old age he continued to feel as only quite young people can feel today. Even in old age he felt his being of soul and spirit to be dependent on his physical body.
Today we no longer feel our physical body to be dependent upon what we think and feel. A dependence of this kind was however felt in the more ancient epochs of civilisation. But people also felt after a certain age of life that their bones became harder and their muscles contained certain foreign substances which brought about a sclerotic condition. They felt the waning of their life forces, but they also felt with this physical decline an increase of spiritual forces, actually brought about by the breaking up of the physical. “The soul is becoming free from the physical body.” So they said when this process of physical decline began. At the age of the patriarchs, when the body was already breaking up, the soul was most able to wrest itself free from the body, so that it was no longer within it. This is why people looked up to the patriarchs with such devotion and reverence, saying: “O, how will it be with me one day, when I am so old? For in old age one can know things, understand things, penetrate into the heart of things in a way that I cannot do now, because I am still building up my physical body.” At that time man could still look into a world order that was both physical and spiritual. This however was in a very remote past. Then came a time when man felt this interdependence of the physical and the soul-spiritual only until about the 50th year. The Greek age followed. What gives the Greek epoch its special value rests on the fact that the Greeks were still able to feel the harmony between the soul-spiritual and the physical-bodily. The Greek still felt this harmony until the 30th or 40th year. He still experienced in the circulation of the blood what brought the soul into a unity with the physical. The wonderful culture and art of the Greeks was founded on this unity, which transformed everything theoretical into art, and at the same time enfilled art with wisdom.
In those times the sculptor worked in such a way that he needed no model, for in his own organisation he was aware of the forces permeating the arm or the leg, giving them their form. This was learned, for instance, in the festival games; but today when such games are imitated they have no meaning whatever.
If however we have such a sense for the development of mankind then we know what has actually taken place in human evolution. We know too that today we only have a parallelism between the physical-bodily and the soul-spiritual until about the 27th or 28th year, to give a quite exact description. (Most people observe this parallelism only up to the age of puberty.) And so we know how the divine-spiritual springs up and grows out of the developing human being. Then we feel the necessary reverence for our task of developing what comes to meet us in the child, that is to say, of developing what is given to us and not developing those abstract ideas that have been thought out.
Thus our thoughts are directed to a knowledge of man based on what is individual in the soul. And if we have absorbed such universal, great historical aspects, we shall also be able to approach every educational task in an appropriate manner. Then quite another life will be brought into the class when the teacher enters it, for he will carry the world into it, the physical world and the world of soul and spirit. Then he will be surrounded by an atmosphere of reality, of a real and actual conception of the world, not one which is merely thought out and intellectual. Then he will be surrounded by a world imbued with feeling. Now if we consider what has just been put forward we shall realise a remarkable fact. We shall see that we are founding an education which, by degrees, will come to represent in many respects the very opposite of the characteristic impulse in education at the present time. All manner of humorists with some aptitude for caricature often choose the so-called “schoolmaster” as an object which can serve their purpose well and on whom they can let loose their derision. Well, if a schoolmaster is endowed with the necessary humour he can turn the tables on those who have caricatured him before the world. But the real point is something altogether different; for if the teacher, versed in present-day educational methods, carries these into school with him, and has therefore no means of learning to know the child, while nevertheless having to deal with the child, how can he be anything other than a stranger to the world? With the school system as it is today, he cannot become anything else; he is torn right out of the world. So we are faced with a truly remarkable situation. Teachers who are strangers to the world are expected to train human beings so that they may get on and prosper in the world.
Let us imagine however that the things about which we have been speaking today become an accepted point of view. Then the relation of the teacher to the children is such that in each individual child a whole world is revealed to him, and not only a human world, but a divine-spiritual world manifested on earth. In other words the teacher perceives as many aspects of the world as he has children in his charge. Through every child he looks into the wide world. His education becomes art. It is imbued with the consciousness that what is done has a direct effect on the evolution of the world. Teaching in the sense meant here leads the teacher, in his task of educating, of developing human beings, to a lofty conception of the world. Such a teacher is one who becomes able to play a leading part in the great questions that face civilisation. The pupil will never outgrow such a teacher, as is so often the case today. The following situation may arise in a school. Let us suppose that the teacher has to educate according to some idea, some picture of man which he can set before himself. Let us think that he might have 30 children in his class, and among these, led by destiny, were two, who in their inborn capacity, were far more gifted than the teacher himself. What would he want to do in such a case? He would want to form them in accordance with his educational ideal; nothing else would be possible. But how does this work out? Reality does not permit it, and the pupils then outgrow their teacher.
If on the other hand we educate in accordance with reality, if we foster all that manifests in the child as qualities of soul and spirit, we are in the same situation as the gardener is in relation to his plants. Do you think that the gardener knows all these secrets of the plants which he tends? O, these plants contain many, many more secrets than the gardener understands; but he can tend them, and perhaps succeed best in caring for those which he does not yet know. His knowledge rests on practical experience, he has “green fingers.” In the same way it is possible for a teacher who practises an art of education based on reality to stand as educator before children who have genius, even though he himself is certainly no genius. For he knows that he has not to lead his pupils towards some abstract ideal, but that in the child the Divine is working in man, is working right through his physical-bodily nature. If the teacher has this attitude of mind he can actually achieve what has just been said. He achieves it by an outpouring love which permeates his work as educator. It is his attitude of mind which is so essential.
With these words, offered as a kind of greeting, I wanted to give you today some idea of what is to be the content of this course of lectures. They will deal with the educational value of a knowledge of man and the cultural value of education.
Erster Vortrag
Meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, es ist mir leider nicht möglich, auf die Eröffnungsrede, die heute morgen hier gehalten worden ist, die Antwort zu finden, da ich bei dieser Eröffnungsrede nicht dabei sein konnte. Dennoch aber darf ich für die freundlichen Begrüßungsworte, welche soeben Herr Dr. Zeylmans van Emmichoven ausgesprochen hat, meinen herzlichsten Dank sagen und vor allen Dingen meine tiefe Befriedigung darüber, daß es hat ermöglicht werden können, über die uns als Anthroposophische Gesellschaft so sehr auf dem Herzen liegende Pädagogik eine Reihe von Vorträgen halten zu können.
Die Pädagogik ist ja nun schon seit einer ganzen Reihe von Jahren einer derjenigen Zweige der Kultur- und Zivilisationstätigkeit, die wir innerhalb der anthroposophischen Bewegung pflegen, und wir dürfen vielleicht gerade, wie es ja auch aus den Vorträgen hervorgehen wird, auf diesem Gebiete mit einer gewissen Befriedigung auf dasjenige zurückblicken, was möglich geworden ist - ich kann nach den wenigen Jahren, in denen unsere Schulen bestehen, nicht sagen: möglich geworden ist zu leisten, aber was möglich geworden ist zu inaugurieren, einzuleiten, und was ja auch weit über die Kreise der anthroposophischen Bewegung hinaus einen gewissen Eindruck auf die für das Geistesleben interessierten Kreise der heutigen Kulturwelt gemacht hat. Zurückblickend auf diese unsere pädagogische Tätigkeit, erfüllt es mich mit wahrer Freude, gerade hier in Holland, wo ich vor vielen Jahren schon vortragen durfte über Gegenstände der anthroposophischen Geisteswissenschaft, nunmehr zusammenhängend über dieses Thema sprechen zu können.
Anthroposophische Pädagogik will ja aus derjenigen Menschenerkenntnis heraus wirken, die nur auf dem Boden geisteswissenschaftlicher Anthroposophie zu erringen ist; sie will wirken aus einer Menschenerkenntnis heraus, welche den ganzen Menschen umfaßt nach Leib, Seele und Geist. Nun wird man zunächst einen solchen Ausspruch für eine Selbstverständlichkeit halten. Man wird sagen, das sei ganz selbstverständlich, daß der ganze Mensch berücksichtigt werden müsse, wenn es sich um pädagogische Betätigung, um pädagogische Kunst handelt, und daß dabei auf der einen Seite das Geistige eigentlich nicht vernachlässigt werden dürfe über dem Leiblichen, auf der andern Seite das Leibliche nicht über dem Geistigen und so weiter. Aber wie es sich damit verhält, das wird man sehr bald sehen, wenn man die praktische Ausführung gewahr wird, die aus irgendeinem Zweige menschlicher Betätigung hervorgeht, der auf anthroposophische Geisteswissenschaft hin begründet ist. Hier in Holland ist, zunächst im Haag, eine kleine Schule begründet worden auf der Grundlage anthroposophischer Menschenerkenntnis, gewissermaßen eine Tochterschule unserer Stuttgarter Waldorfschule. Und ich glaube, wer sich bekannt macht, sei es durch das, was man von außen her über den Betrieb einer solchen Schule erfahren kann, sei es dadurch, daß er in irgendeiner Weise Gelegenheit hat, das Innere dieser Schule kennenzulernen, der wird sehen, daß doch in der praktischen Betätigung, in der praktischen Handhabung des Unterrichts und der Erziehung sogleich etwas hervortritt, was diejenigen Dinge, die auf Anthroposophie begründet sind, wesentlich von dem unterscheidet, was heute sonst aus unserer gegenwärtigen Zivilisation und Kultur hervorgehen kann. Dies schon aus dem Grunde, weil überall, wo wir heute hinblicken, in der Auswirkung des Kulturlebens im praktischen Leben eine Kluft besteht, eine Kluft zwischen dem, was die Menschen theoretisch denken, theoretisch ersinnen, und zwischen dem, was sie praktisch wirklich ausführen. Theorie und Praxis sind heute in unserem Zivilisationsleben zwei weit voneinander abstehende Gebiete geworden. Man kann, so paradox das klingt, dies beobachten, vielleicht besonders kraß beobachten in den allerpraktischsten Lebensbetätigungen, sagen wir im kaufmännischen, im wirtschaftlichen Leben. Da lernt man theoretisch allerlei Dinge: man denkt zum Beispiel über Wirtschaftszusammenhänge nach, man hat Absichten. Aber diese Absichten sind nicht imstande, unmittelbar in die Handhabung desjenigen einzugreifen, was man dann praktisch zu tun hat, weil man auf der einen Seite über etwas denkt, meinetwillen nur ein Geschäft ausdenkt, auf der anderen Seite jedoch handelt man, muß man handeln nach den Bedingungen der Wirklichkeit. Ich möchte mich noch deutlicher ausdrücken, damit wir uns verstehen.
Man denkt heute zum Beispiel an irgendeine geschäftliche Verrichtung, die man vollziehen will, damit man irgendein Geschäft macht. Man denkt dieses Geschäft durch, man richtet es ein aus seinen Absichten heraus; dann tut man natürlich auch das, was man aus der Theorie, aus den abstrakten Gedanken heraus vollziehen will. Aber wenn das dann in die Wirklichkeit hinausgeht, spießt es sich überall an der Wirklichkeit. Man führt allerdings etwas aus, man führt sogar seine Gedanken aus, aber diese Gedanken passen nicht zum wirklichen Leben. So daß man tatsächlich etwas ins wirkliche Leben hineinträgt, was zu diesem wirklichen Leben nicht paßt. Nun kann man eine Zeitlang ein solches Geschäft fortführen, das auf diese Weise eingeleitet ist; da wird dann der, der es eingeleitet hat, sich für einen furchtbar praktischen Menschen halten. Denn, wer von vornherein in ein Geschäft hineingeht, möglichst nichts anderes gelernt hat, als was heute Usus ist, der hält sich für einen «praktischen» Menschen. Man kann ja diese Redensarten heute hören, welche praktische Menschen führen gegenüber einem Theoretiker. Er stellt dies Geschäft also ins Leben, richtet mit brutaler Hand ein, was er sich ausgedacht hat, kann es vielleicht auch eine Zeitlang durchführen, wenn Grundkapital da ist. Dann, nach einiger Zeit, geht dieses Unternehmen zugrunde, oder es wird in etwas anderes hinübergeleitet, von einer älteren Unternehmung aufgesogen und dergleichen. Man faßt dabei gewöhnlich nicht ins Auge, wieviel von gutem, gediegenem Lebensgang davon beeinträchtigt ist, daß man dies gemacht hat, wieviel Existenzen vielleicht dabei vernichtet worden sind, wieviele Leute geschädigt, wieviele aufgehalten worden sind und so weiter. Das ist lediglich dadurch gekommen, daß man sich etwas ausgedacht hat — ausgedacht hat als praktischer Mensch. Aber man ist ja in solchem Falle praktisch nicht durch seine Einsichten, sondern durch seine Ellenbogen. Man hat etwas in die Wirklichkeit eingeführt, aber ohne die Bedingungen der Wirklichkeit.
Das ist es, was heute im Kulturleben verborgen wuchert und was die meisten Menschen nicht sehen können. Das einzige Gebiet, wo man heute solche Dinge einsieht, wo man sieht, daß es nicht geht, das ist das Gebiet der mechanischen Naturwissenschaft und ihre Anwendung im Leben. Wenn man eine Brücke bauen will, muß man eine solche Mechanik kennen, die nun wirklich eine Brücke zu bauen imstande ist, die den Anforderungen entspricht, die an sie gestellt werden; denn andernfalls wird der erste Eisenbahnzug, der über die Brücke fährt, ins Wasser stürzen. Solche Dinge sind ja schon passiert und man hat auch in der heutigen Zeit solche Auswirkungen einer verdrehten Mechanik gesehen. Aber im ganzen ist dieses Gebiet das einzige, wo man unmittelbar im praktischen Leben sagen kann: etwas ist nach den Bedingungen der Wirklichkeit gedacht oder ist es nicht.
Wenn Sie ein anderes Gebiet nehmen, werden Sie sogleich sehen, daß es nicht so evident ist, ob jemand den Bedingungen der Wirklichkeit nach denkt oder nicht. Nehmen Sie das Gebiet der Heilkunde. Da wird auch in der Weise heute verfahren, daß man sich theoretisch etwas zurecht legt und danach heilen will. Ob man wirklich geheilt hat in einem bestimmten Falle, ob ein Mensch sterben mußte durch sein Schicksal oder vielleicht zu Tode geheilt worden ist, das ist ja schwerer zu übersehen. Die Brücke stürzt ein, wenn sie falsch gebaut ist; aber ob der Kranke noch kränker gemacht, ob er durch die Behandlung gesund geworden oder durch sie gestorben ist, das läßt sich nicht so leicht übersehen.
Ebenso läßt sich auf dem Gebiete der Pädagogik nicht immer übersehen, ob man aus den Bedingungen des heranwachsenden Kindes heraus erzieht, oder ob man nach Schrullen erzieht, nach Schrullen, die man sich ja auch dadurch ausbilden kann, daß man Experimentalpsychologie treibt, äußerlich das Kind untersucht und fragt: Wie ist sein Gedächtnis beschaffen, wie die Begriffsfähigkeit, wie die Urteilsfähigkeit und so weiter? — Man bildet sich da zunächst pädagogische Ansichten aus. Aber wie werden diese ins Leben übergeführt? Man hat sie in seinem Kopfe, da sitzen sie drinnen. Da weiß man, ein Kind hat man im Rechnen so zu führen, in der Geographie so zu führen und so weiter; jetzt soll man an die praktische Ausführung gehen. Man denkt nach und erinnert sich: Da ist der Grundsatz in der wissenschaftlichen Pädagogik enthalten, man muß es so und so machen. — Nun steht man der Praxis gegenüber, erinnert sich an diesen theoretischen Grundsatz und wendet ihn ganz äußerlich an. Wer Talent hat, so etwas zu beobachten, wie zuweilen Pädagogen, die ausgezeichnet sind in der Beherrschung der pädagogischen Theorien, dann an die Anwendung des Gelernten gehen, der kann die Erfahrung machen, daß ein solcher Pädagoge in ausgezeichneter Weise das angeben kann, was er einmal im Examen wissen mußte oder was er in der Übungsklasse gelernt hat; aber er bleibt so fremd wie nur möglich im Leben, wenn er in der Erziehung dem Kinde gegenübersteht. Bei ihm vollzieht sich das, was wir alltäglich und allstündlich beobachten müssen zu unserem Herzschmerz, daß die Menschen im Leben aneinander vorbeigehen, daß sie keinen Sinn haben, einander kennenzulernen. Die Menschen lernen sich heute nicht gegenseitig kennen. Das ist eine allgemeine Erscheinung. Das ist auch das Grundübel für alle die sozialen Störungen, die sich heute über das Zivilisationsleben ergießen: die mangelnde Aufmerksamkeit und das mangelnde Interesse, das ein Mensch für den andern haben sollte. In der allgemeinen Zivilisation muß man so etwas zunächst hinnehmen; es ist das zunächst einmal das Gegenwartsschicksal der Menschheit.
Aber den Gipfel erreicht dann ein solches Fremdsein und Fernstehen des einen Menschen gegenüber dem andern, wenn der Lehrer dem Kinde oder der Erzieher dem Zögling fremd gegenübersteht und nur äußerlich, ganz fremd, aus der äußeren Wissenschaft gewonnene Erziehungsmethoden anwendet und man nicht so sehen kann wie bei der Brücke, die bei der Anwendung einer falschen Mechanik zugrunde geht, daß hier eine falsche Pädagogik angewendet ist. Ein deutliches Zeichen dafür, daß die Menschen heute nur mit der mechanischen Denkweise zurechtkommen, die ihre glänzendsten Triumphe im Zivilisationsleben der Gegenwart feiert, die überall nachforschen kann, ob man richtig oder nicht richtig gedacht hat - ein Zeugnis dafür ist dies, daß die Menschheit heute nur noch Vertrauen hat zum mechanischen Denken. Man hat nur noch Vertrauen zu demjenigen Denken, das sich sogleich in seiner Unsinnigkeit erweist, wenn es auf andern Gebieten als in der Mechanik an die Wirklichkeit herantreten will. Alles, das Weltgebäude und die Organismen, sollen heute mechanisch begriffen werden, weil man nur noch zum mechanischen Denken Vertrauen hat. Und wenn nun dieses mechanische Denken hineingetragen wird in die Pädagogik, wenn man zum Beispiel das Kind unzusammenhängende Worte aufschreiben läßt, die es schnell hersagen muß, damit man dann notieren kann, wieviel und wie rasch ein Kind auffassen kann, wenn man in dieser Weise in der Pädagogik vorgeht, so zeigt man dadurch, daß man kein Talent mehr hat, an das Kind selbst heranzukommen. Wir experimentieren an dem Kinde herum, weil wir nicht mehr an Herz und Seele des Kindes herankommen.
Wenn man so etwas ausspricht, dann scheint es, als ob man den Hang, die Sehnsucht hätte, nur zu kritisieren und abzukanzeln. Kritisieren ist ja immer leichter als aufbauen. Aber was ich ausgesprochen habe, ergibt wahrhaftig nicht ein Hang, ein Begehren nach Kritik, sondern das ergibt eben gerade die unmittelbare Beobachtung des Lebens. Diese unmittelbare Beobachtung des Lebens muß von etwas ausgehen, was heute in der Erkenntnis gewöhnlich ganz ausgeschlossen wird. Wie muß man denn sein, wenn man heute irgend etwas betreiben will, was auf Erkenntnis gebaut ist, zum Beispiel auf Menschenerkenntnis? Objektiv muß man sein! Das wird an allen Orten, allen Ecken und Enden wiederholt. Selbstverständlich muß man objektiv sein. Aber es frägt sich, ob jemand auch objektiv ist mit einer eigentlichen Interesselosigkeit und einer Unaufmerksamkeit in bezug auf das Wesentliche einer Sache.
Nun stellt man sich gewöhnlich vor, daß das Allersubjektivste im Leben die Liebe ist, und von dem, der liebt, stellt man sich schon nicht vor, daß er irgendwie objektiv sein könnte. Daher wird heute nirgends, wo von Erkenntnis gesprochen wird, im Ernste von der Liebe gesprochen. Man denkt zwar, wer sich als junger Mensch Erkenntnis aneignen soll, der müsse ermahnt werden, daß er dies in Liebe tue. Das geschieht ja meistens dann, wenn die Art und Weise, wie man diese Erkenntnis an die Menschen heranbringt, gar nicht danach geeignet ist, daß man dafür Liebe entfalten könnte. Aber die Liebe selber, das Sich-Hingeben an die Welt und ihre Erscheinungen betrachtet man jedenfalls nicht als eine Erkenntnis. Für das Leben aber ist die Liebe die erste Erkenntniskraft. Und ohne diese Liebe ist es vor allen Dingen unmöglich, zu einer Menschenerkenntnis zu kommen, welche die Grundlage für eine wirkliche pädagogische Kunst sein könnte. Stellen wir nun einmal diese Liebe einigermaßen so hin, wie sie gerade aus einer auf geisteswissenschaftliche Anthroposophie begründeten Menschenerkenntnis wirken kann auf diesem speziellen Gebiete der Pädagogik.
Das Kind wird uns übergeben zur Erziehung, zum Unterricht. Wir betrachten, wenn wir auf anthroposophischem Boden pädagogisch denken, das Kind nicht so, daß wir uns vorstellen: da gibt es irgendein soziales oder sonstiges Menschenideal, und wir müssen nun das Kind so entwickeln, daß es diesem Ideal immer ähnlicher wird. Denn dieses Menschenideal kann ja ganz abstrakt sein. Und ein derartiges Menschenideal ist heute schon etwas, was einem in so vielen Formen entgegentreten kann, als es politische, soziale und andere Parteien gibt. Je nachdem einer auf den Liberalismus, auf den Konservativismus, auf dieses oder jenes Programm schwört, hat er ein anderes Menschenideal. Dahin möchte er dann das Kind langsam führen, daß es so werde, wie er sich denkt, daß das für den Menschen richtig sei. Seinen Gipfelpunkt erreicht das ja im heutigen Rußland. Aber so denkt man im Grunde genommen, wenn auch nicht in dieser radikalen Art, doch mehr oder weniger heute überall.
Das ist für den, der erziehen und unterrichten will auf anthroposophischem Boden, durchaus kein Ausgangspunkt. Er geht nicht vom Idol aus. Denn ein abstraktes Menschenbild, zu dem man irgendein Kind hinleiten will, ist ein Idol, ist etwas Ausgedachtes, ist keine Wirklichkeit. Die einzige Wirklichkeit, die es auf diesem Felde gäbe, wäre höchstens die, wenn man sich selber als ein Ideal betrachtete und sagte: Jedes Kind muß so werden, wie man selber ist. - Da hätte man wenigstens irgendeine Wirklichkeit gestreift. Es würde aber sogleich absurd, wenn man es ausspräche.
Was einem wirklich vorliegt, ist das kindliche Wesen, das sein Dasein nicht begonnen hat mit seinem physischen Dasein, sondern das aus vorirdischen Welten sein Geistig-Seelisches heruntergebracht hat und untergetaucht ist in das, was ihm an physischer Leiblichkeit von Eltern und Voreltern überbracht worden ist. Da schaut man hin auf dieses Kind, wie es mit ganz unbestimmter Physiognomie einem in den ersten Lebenstagen entgegentritt, mit ganz unorganisierten, unorientierten Bewegungen. Da verfolgt man von Tag zu Tag, von Woche zu Woche, wie die Physiognomie immer bestimmter und bestimmter der Ausdruck desjenigen wird, was vom inneren Seelischen her sich an die Oberfläche arbeitet. Da verfolgt man, wie die Bewegungen, wie das ganze Leben des Kindes immer orientierter und orientierter werden, wie ein GeistigSeelisches im tiefsten Innern sich an die Oberfläche heranarbeitet. Da fragt man sich mit heiliger Ehrfurcht und Andacht: Was arbeitet sich denn da an die Oberfläche? - Da wird Herz und Sinn zurückgeführt zu dem, was vom Menschen selbst an Geistig-Seelischem da war in der geistig-seelischen, vorirdischen Welt, was aus dieser Welt heruntergestiegen ist in die physische, und man sagt sich: Du Kind, jetzt, nachdem du durch die Geburt ins irdische Dasein eingetreten bist, bist du unter Menschen; vorher warst du unter geistig-göttlichen Wesenheiten. — Was gelebt hat unter geistig-göttlichen Wesenheiten, das ist heruntergestiegen, um unter Menschen zu sein! Man sieht das Göttliche im Kinde werden. Man fühlt sich wie vor einem Altar. Nur daß auf den Altären, die man in den Religionsgemeinschaften gewohnt ist, die Menschen den Göttern opfern, damit ihre Opfergaben hinaufsteigen in die geistige Welt; jetzt fühlt man sich gewissermaßen vor dem umgekehrten Altar, die Götter lassen ihre Gnadenströme heruntersteigen als göttlich-geistige Wesenheiten, damit diese sich hier auf dem Altar des physischen Lebens als Göttersendlinge menschlich entfalten! Man schaut in jedem Kinde die göttlich-geistige Weltenordnungsentfaltung: wie Gott schafft in der Welt. Am höchsten, am bedeutendsten erscheint es einem, wenn man es anschaut im werdenden Kinde. Dann aber wird einem jedes einzelne Menschenkind zu einem heiligen Rätsel. Denn dann bildet jedes einzelne Kind die große Frage - nicht: Wie soll man es erziehen, daß es, wie man es sich ausgedacht hat, sich einem Idol nähert -, sondern: Wie soll man das pflegen, was einem die Götter heruntergeschickt haben in die irdische Welt? — Man lernt sich erkennen zu einem Helfer der göttlich-geistigen Welt, und man lernt vor allem die Frage aufwerfen: Was kann werden, wenn man mit einer solchen Gesinnung an den Unterricht und an die Erziehung herangeht?
Wahre Pädagogik geht vor allen Dingen von dieser Gesinnung aus. Auf diese Gesinnung, die Pädagogik, den Unterricht zu pflegen, darauf kommt es an! Menschenerkenntnis kann nur erworben werden, wenn die Menschenliebe - also hier die Liebe zum Kinde - zur werktätigen Gesinnung wird. Entsteht eine solche Gesinnung, dann wird der Erzieherberuf zum Priesterberuf; denn dann wird der Erzieher zum Verwalter dessen, was die Götter mit den Menschen ausführen wollen.
Wiederum könnte es scheinen, als ob wieder nur mit etwas andern Worten etwas Selbstverständliches ausgesagt wird. Aber so ist es wieder nicht. Wir sehen ja immer mehr und mehr in der heutigen unsozialen Weltenordnung, die sich nur als sozial drapiert, das andere herauskommen: mit der Erziehung einem Menschheitsidol nachjagen, nicht sich wissen als Pfleger desjenigen, was man erst kennenzulernen hat, wenn es einem im Kinde gegenübergestellt ist.
Solche Gesinnung, wie ich sie charakterisiert habe, kann nicht abstrakt arbeiten, sie muß geistig arbeiten — aber für das Praktische arbeiten. Solche Gesinnung erwirbt man sich auch nicht dadurch, daß man sich Theorien aneignet, die lebensfremd und lebensfern sind; sondern man erwirbt sie sich nur, wenn man einen Sinn hat für jede Lebensäußerung, wenn man auf jede Lebensäußerung mit Liebe einzugehen vermag.
Es wird heute viel geredet von Reformpädagogik. Wir haben es sogar nach dem Kriege erlebt, daß von Revolutionspädagogik gesprochen worden ist. Alle möglichen Arten einer neuen Erziehung werden ausgedacht, und eigentlich beteiligt sich ja jeder daran, irgendwie die Erziehung zu reformieren; entweder er trägt das eine oder andere bei zu diesem oder jenem Institut, das gegründet werden soll, oder er beteiligt sich wenigstens mit dem Munde dabei, indem er sagt: So stelle ich mir vor, daß die Erziehung gestaltet werden muß und so weiter. — Viel wird geredet von der Art und Weise, wie erzogen werden soll. Aber wissen Sie, was das für einen Eindruck macht, wenn man mit unbefangenem Sinn überblickt, was heute die verschiedenen Reformerziehungsvereine, meinetwillen auch die radikalen, sagen, was sie als Programm entwickeln? Ich weiß nicht, ob sich viele darüber Rechenschaft gegeben haben, was man für einen Eindruck bekommt, wenn man so recht viele Programme von Reformerziehungsvereinen und -gesellschaften vor sich liegen hat; man bekommt den Eindruck: Donnerwetter, wie gescheit sind heute die Menschen! Denn alles, was auf diese Weise zustande kommt, ist nämlich furchtbar gescheit. Ich meine das gar nicht ironisch, sondern ganz im Ernste. Wir haben nie ein Zeitalter gehabt, das so gescheit war wie das unsrige.
Da wird aufgestellt: Paragraph 1. Wie soll erzogen werden, wenn die Kräfte des Kindes naturgemäß entwickelt werden? Paragraph 2... Paragraph 3... und so weiter. Es können sich heute Menschen beliebiger Berufs- und Gesellschaftsklassen zusammensetzen und solche Programme ausarbeiten: die Dinge werden entzückend gescheit sein, die man als Paragraphen 1 bis 30 auf diese Weise bekommt. Denn man weiß ja heute alles theoretisch zu formulieren. Man ist nie so geschickt gewesen, die Dinge zu formulieren, wie heute. Und dann kann man ein solches Programm oder eine Anzahl von Programmen einer Kommission, einem Parlamente vorlegen. Das ist wieder sehr gescheit. Da wird nun vielleicht nach Parteirücksichten dieses oder jenes gestrichen oder zugesetzt, und es kommt etwas furchtbar Gescheites, wenn auch manchmal recht parteimäßig Gefärbtes zum Vorschein. Aber anzufangen ist damit gar nichts, denn es kommt auf alles dies nicht an.
Die Waldorfschul-Pädagogik ist nie von einem solchen Programm ausgegangen, denn - ich will gar nicht renommieren, aber so gescheit wie mancher Erziehungsreformverein hätten wir natürlich auch sein können, wenn es sich um das Zustandekommen irgendeines Programmes gehandelt hätte - es hätte uns das vielleicht gehindert, daß wir die Wirklichkeit berücksichtigen müssen, und dann wäre etwas Dümmeres herausgekommen. Aber es hat sich bei uns nie um ein Programm gehandelt. Grundsätze, wie man erziehen soll, Grundlagen, die dann irgendwie in die Gesetzgebung übergehen könnten, haben uns von Anfang an nicht interessiert. Was uns interessiert hat, war die Wirklichkeit, die ganz wahre Wirklichkeit. Was war diese? Kinder sind es zunächst gewesen, eine Anzahl von Kinderindividualitäten mit diesem oder jenem Wesenhaften. Man muß das kennengelernt haben, um zu wissen, was in diesen Kindern steckt durch das, was in sie heruntergestiegen ist und was sie durch ihre Körperlichkeit zum Ausdruck bringen. Kinder also waren das erste. Und dann Lehrer. Sie können noch so schön den Grundsatz verfechten, das Kind müsse nach seiner Individualität erzogen werden - das steht ja auch heute in allen Reformprogrammen -, aber es wird so nie etwas dabei herauskommen; sondern man hat neben den Kindern eine bestimmte Anzahl von Lehrern, und man muß wissen, was diese leisten können im Verhältnis zu diesen Kindern. Man muß die Schule so einrichten, daß man nicht ein abstraktes Ideal hinstellt, sondern daß man die Schule herausarbeitet aus der Lehrerschaft und aus der Schülerschaft, und die sind nicht vorhanden in abstrakter Weise, sondern in ganz konkreten einzelnen Wesenheiten. Darum also handelt es sich. Und dann wird man durchaus auf die Notwendigkeit geführt: wahre Pädagogik, wirklichkeitsgemäße Pädagogik auf Menschenerkenntnis zu bauen; in jeder Einzelheit nicht theoretisch zu sein, sondern in jeder Einzelheit praktisch zu sein.
Waldorfschul-Pädagogik, die ja zuerst die anthroposophische Pädagogik ins Leben eingeführt hat, ist daher künstlerische Erziehungspraxis, und die kann im Grunde genommen nur reden von Angaben, wie man es in diesem oder jenem Falle macht. Man hat kein starkes Interesse für allgemeine Theorien, aber ein um so stärkeres für Impulse, die aus der Anthroposophie heraus kommen können für wirkliche Menschenerkenntnis, die eben schon beim Kinde beginnen muß. Aber unser grobschlächtiges Beobachten von heute verwischt ja gerade das Charakteristische in den aufeinanderfolgenden Lebensaltern. Man muß schon ein wenig, ich möchte sagen, inspiriert sein von demjenigen, was einem die Geisteswissenschaft heute über das geschichtliche Werden der Menschheit sagen kann, wenn man den richtigen Sinn entwickeln will, der dem Kinde entgegengebracht werden soll. Man weiß ja heute so außerordentlich wenig über den Menschen und die Menschheit. Man stellt sich vor, so wie wir heute sind, wenn wir unser Leben vollbringen, so hat man es seit dem 14.,15.,16. Jahrhundert vollbracht, und so war es eigentlich immer. Man stellt sich auch die alten Griechen oder die alten Ägypter noch so ähnlich vor wie die heutigen Menschen. Und geht man noch weiter zurück, dann verschwimmt die Geschichte, bis jene Wesen auftauchen, die halb Affen, halb Menschen sind, so wie sie sich die heutige Naturwissenschaft denkt. Aber auf die großen Unterschiede einzugehen, die zwischen der geschichtlichen und der vorgeschichtlichen Periode der Menschheit bestehen, dafür hat man kein Interesse.
Betrachten wir den Menschen, wie er heute vor uns steht: das Kind, zunächst bis zum Zahnwechsel. Wir sehen ganz deutlich, die physische Entwickelung geht parallel der geistig-seelischen Entwickelung. Alles was geistig-seelisch hervortritt, hat sein genaues Gegenbild in dem Leiblichen; beides drückt sich zusammen aus, kommt zusammen aus dem Kinde heraus. Dann, wenn das Kind den Zahnwechsel überstanden hat, sehen wir, wie das Seelische sich schon mehr emanzipiert vom Leiblichen. Wir werden auf der einen Seite eine geistig-seelische Entwickelung beim Kinde verfolgen können, auf der andern Seite eine leibliche. Beide Seiten aber sind noch nicht stark getrennt. Gehen wir aber dann in der Entwickelung weiter in die Zeit von der Geschlechtsreife bis zum 21.Lebensjahre etwa, so wird diese Trennung noch stärker. Und kommen wir in die Zeit, wo der Mensch 27, 28 Jahre alt wird, dann kann man heute, in der gegenwärtigen Menschheit, gar nicht mehr auf die Art hinsehen, wie das Geistig-Seelische mit der physisch-leiblichen Entwickelung zusammenhängt. Was der Mensch da treibt, das sieht man auf der einen Seite im Geistig-Seelischen, auf der andern Seite im Physisch-Leiblichen; aber man bringt keinen Zusammenhang in beides hinein. Der Mensch hat sich am Ende der Zwanzigerjahre ganz und gar im Geistig-Seelischen emanzipiert vom Physisch-Leiblichen. Und so geht es dann bis an das Lebensende.
Doch so war es nicht immer. Man glaubt das nur. Geisteswissenschaft, anthroposophisch getrieben, zeigt uns klar und deutlich: Was wir heute, in unserem gegenwärtigen Stadium der Menschheitsentwikkelung sehen, daß das Kind in seinem Geistig-Seelischen ganz abhängig ist vom Physisch-Leiblichen und wieder in seinem Physisch-Leiblichen vom Geistig-Seelischen, das ging — man beachtet es nur nicht - in den alten Zeiten fort bis in das höchste Lebensalter hinauf. Wenn man sehr weit zurückgeht, bis in jene Zeiten, aus denen die Anschauung stammt, daß es Patriarchen gegeben hat und sich fragt, was war so ein Mensch, ein Patriarch?, so muß man sich sagen: Ein solcher Mensch, der alt geworden war, er hat sich in seiner Leiblichkeit verändert, aber er hat sich bis ins höchste Alter so gefühlt, wie sich heute nur der ganz junge Mensch fühlen kann, er hat, selbst im Alter, sein Geistig-Seelisches abhängig gefühlt von seinem Physisch-Leiblichen. — Wir fühlen uns heute mit unserem Physisch-Leiblichen nicht mehr abhängig von dem, was wir denken oder fühlen. Eine solche Abhängigkeit hat man aber einst in den älteren Kulturzeitaltern gefühlt; und man fühlte auch, wenn man über ein bestimmtes Lebensalter hinaus war, wie die Knochen härter werden, wie die Muskeln Einschlüsse von nicht zu ihnen gehörigen Stoffen haben, wenn man sklerotisch wird. Man hat den Abbau des Lebens gefühlt. Und man hat auch gefühlt, indem das Körperliche zurückgeht, steigt das Geistige — eben durch das Zurückgehen des Körperlichen - gerade herauf. Die Seele wird frei von der Körperlichkeit, so sagte man sich, indem der Körper abzubauen beginnt. Und gänzlich frei ist die Seele im Patriarchenalter, wo der Körper sozusagen dann schon vollständig am Abbau ist; da entringt sich das Seelisch-Geistige am meisten dem Körperlichen, da sitzt es nicht mehr darinnen. Deshalb sah man mit solcher Andacht und Ehrfurcht zum Patriarchen auf und sagte sich: Oh, wie wird es mit mir sein, wenn ich einmal so alt bin? Da kann man etwas wissen, etwas erkennen, kann etwas durchschauen, was ich jetzt noch nicht erkennen und durchschauen kann, weil ich noch im Aufbau des Körperlichen bin. —- Da sah man noch hinein in eine physisch-geistige, physisch-spirituelle Weltenordnung. Das war die älteste Zeit. Dann kam eine Zeit, wo man diese Abhängigkeit zwischen Leiblichem und Geistig-Seelischem nur noch bis etwa zum 50. Jahre hin fühlte; in einer noch späteren Zeit nur noch bis zum 40. Jahre. Und dann kam die griechische Zeit. Was einem am Griechenzeitalter besonders wert ist, das beruht darauf, daß die Griechen gerade noch fühlten den Zusammenklang des Geistig-Seelischen mit dem Physisch-Leiblichen. Der Grieche fühlte diesen Zusammenklang noch bis zum 30., 40. Jahre. Da fühlte er noch im Blutkreislauf, was die Seele in eine Einheit mit dem Physisch-Leiblichen versetzt. Darauf beruhte die Einheit dieser wunderbaren, dieser alles Theoretische in Künstlerisches und alles Künstlerische zugleich in Weisheitsvolles umsetzenden griechischen Kunst und Kultur. Da wirkte der Bildhauer so, daß er nicht ein Modell brauchte, sondern er spürte es in seiner Organisation noch, wie der Arm oder das Bein durchsetzt ist von den Kräften, welche den Arm oder das Bein formen. Man hatte es gelernt bei den Festspielen zum Beispiel, die aber heute, wenn sie nachgeahmt werden, nicht den geringsten Sinn haben.
Hat man aber einen solchen Sinn für die Entwickelung der Menschheit, so weiß man, was eigentlich in der Menschheitsentwickelung vor sich gegangen ist, und man weiß auch, daß wir heute einen Parallelismus zwischen dem Physisch-Leiblichen und dem Geistig-Seelischen nur noch etwa bis zum 27., 28. Lebensjahre hin haben, wenn man ganz genau schildert; die meisten Menschen bemerken diesen Parallelismus nur noch bis zur Geschlechtsreife. Und so weiß man dann, wie in dem sich entwickelnden Menschen heraussprießt das Göttlich-Geistige. Und dann bekommt man die nötige Ehrfurcht davor, das, was einem im Kinde entgegentritt, zu entwickeln; das heißt, das zu entwickeln, was für uns dann das Gegebene ist und nicht jene abstrakten Ideale zu entwickeln, die man sich ausgedacht hat.
So wird man verwiesen auf eine Menschenerkenntnis, die im einzelnen individuell-seelisch ist. Und hat man sich durchdrungen mit solchen allgemeinen, großen historischen Gesichtspunkten, dann geht man auch an die einzelnen Erziehungsaufgaben in einer entsprechenden Weise heran. Dann entsteht schon ein ganz anderes Leben, wenn der Erzieher in seine Klasse hineingeht; denn dann trägt er Welt, geistig-seelisch-physisch Welt hinein in die Klasse. Dann ist er umgeben von der Atmosphäre einer wirklichkeitsgemäßen, nicht einer theoretisch ausgedachten Weltanschauung. Dann ist er umgeben von einem Weltenfühlen. Und dann werden wir das Merkwürdige erleben können, wenn wir auf das hinschauen, was jetzt angedeutet worden ist, daß wir eine Pädagogik begründen, die nach und nach das Gegenbild von dem darstellen wird, was auf manchem, gerade charakteristischen Gebiete der pädagogische Betrieb heute ist. Allerlei gut veranlagte Humoristen wählen sich ja den sogenannten Schulmeister oftmals zu einem Objekt, das ihnen gut dienen kann, an dem sie ihren Humor auslassen können. Nun, wenn ein Schulmeister mit dem nötigen Humor veranlagt ist, kann er sich auch schon gegen diejenigen auslassen, die so sein Bild karikiert in die Welt hineinstellen. Aber worauf es ankommt, das ist ja etwas ganz anderes. Denn wenn der Lehrer, wie es die heutige theoretisierende Pädagogik tut, so in die Schule hineingestellt wird, daß er gar nicht das Kind kennenlernen kann, aber doch mit dem Kinde beschäftigt sein muß — wie kann er da etwas anderes werden als weltfremd! Beim heutigen Schulsystem kann man gar nichts anderes werden als weltfremd; man wird ja ganz herausgerissen aus der Welt. Und dann tritt sogar das Merkwürdige ein, daß die weltfremden Pädagogen den Menschen für sein Gedeihen in der Welt entwickeln sollen.
Stellen wir uns aber nun vor, die Dinge werden Gesinnung, von denen heute gesprochen worden ist. Dann steht der Lehrer den Kindern so gegenüber, daß sich ihm in dem einzelnen Kinde eine ganze Welt, und nicht nur eine menschliche, sondern eine göttlich-geistige Welt im Irdischen offenbart. Und man möchte sagen: In so vielfacher Anschauungsweise, als er Kinder zur Pflege bekommt, offenbart sich dem Erzieher die Welt. - Er schaut durch jedes Kind in die große Welt hinein. Seine Erziehung wird zur Kunst. Seine Erziehung wird von dem Bewußtsein getragen: was getan wird, das wird unmittelbar an der Weltenentwickelung getan. Diese Pädagogik, die hier gemeint ist, führt auch den Lehrenden in dem Erziehen, in dem Entwickeln des Menschen hinauf auf das Niveau der großen Weltanschauung. Dann wird der Lehrer derjenige, der nun auch führend sein kann in den großen zivilisatorischen Fragen. Und dann entwächst der Schüler niemals dem Lehrer, wie es heute so sehr häufig der Fall ist. - Denn wir können auch noch folgendes in der Schule haben. Nehmen wir einmal an, der Lehrer müßte wirklich erziehen nach einem Ideale, nach einem Menschenbilde, das er sich vorsetzen kann. Denken wir uns, er hätte dann eine Schulklasse von 30 Kindern; unter diesen säßen schicksalsmäßig zwei, die schon nach ihren Anlagen viel genialer sind als der Lehrer selbst. Was müßte er denn in diesem Falle machen wollen? Er müßte sie zu seinem Erziehungsideal machen wollen; etwas anderes könnte ja niemals herauskommen. Aber geht es auch? Die Wirklichkeit gestattet es nicht, die Schüler wachsen dann über den Lehrer hinaus.
Erziehen wir dagegen wirklichkeitsgemäß, sind wir Pfleger dessen, was sich geistig-seelisch im Kinde offenbart, dann sind wir ja in der gleichen Lage wie der Gärtner gegenüber seinen Pflanzen. Glauben Sie, daß der Gärtner alle Geheimnisse der Pflanzen kennt, die er pflegt? Oh, die enthalten an solchen Geheimnissen noch viel mehr, als der Gärtner kennt; aber er kann die Pflanzen pflegen und vielleicht gerade am besten auch diejenigen pflegen, die er noch nicht kennt. Denn er kennt die Praxis, er hat sie sozusagen im «geistigen Griff». So wird es auch möglich für eine wirklichkeitsgemäße Erziehungskunst, daß man, wenn man nicht selber gerade ein Genie ist, als Erzieher Genies gegenübersteht. Denn man weiß, man hat nicht hinzuführen zu einem abstrakten Ideal, sondern da im Kinde drinnen wirkt der Gott im Menschen, wirkt durch das Leiblich-Physische hindurch. Hat man diese Gesinnung, dann bringt man dies auch zustande. Die sich ausbreitende, über die Erziehung sich ergießende Liebe bringt es zustande. Aber diese Gesinnung muß vorhanden sein.
Damit wollte ich heute nur, wie zur Begrüßung der verehrten Zuhörer, andeuten, was der Inhalt dieser Vorträge sein soll, die handeln sollen von dem pädagogischen Wert der Menschenerkenntnis und von dem Kulturwert der Pädagogik.
First lecture
Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, I am unable to respond to the opening speech given here this morning, as I was unable to attend. Nevertheless, I would like to express my sincere thanks for the kind words of welcome just spoken by Dr. Zeylmans van Emmichoven and, above all, my deep satisfaction that it has been made possible to give a series of lectures on education, a subject so close to the hearts of the Anthroposophical Society.
For a number of years now, education has been one of the branches of cultural and civilizational activity that we cultivate within the anthroposophical movement, and perhaps we can look back with a certain satisfaction on what has become possible in this field, as will become clear from the lectures. — after the few years that our schools have been in existence, I cannot say what has been possible to achieve, but what has been possible to inaugurate, to initiate, and what has made a certain impression on circles interested in spiritual life in today's cultural world, far beyond the circles of the anthroposophical movement. Looking back on our educational work, it fills me with real joy to be able to speak coherently on this subject here in Holland, where I was allowed to give lectures on subjects of anthroposophical spiritual science many years ago.
Anthroposophical education aims to work from an understanding of the human being that can only be gained on the basis of spiritual science anthroposophy; it aims to work from an understanding of the human being that encompasses the whole person, body, soul, and spirit. At first glance, one might consider such a statement to be self-evident. One might say that it is quite natural that the whole human being must be taken into account when it comes to educational activity, to the art of education, and that, on the one hand, the spiritual should not be neglected in favor of the physical, and, on the other hand, the physical should not be neglected in favor of the spiritual, and so on. But how this works in practice will soon become apparent when one observes the practical implementation of any branch of human activity based on anthroposophical spiritual science. Here in Holland, initially in The Hague, a small school has been established on the basis of anthroposophical knowledge of the human being, a kind of sister school to our Waldorf School in Stuttgart. And I believe that anyone who familiarizes themselves with it, whether through what can be learned from the outside about the operation of such a school, or by having the opportunity in some way to get to know the inner workings of this school, will see that in the practical activities, in the practical handling of teaching and education, something immediately emerges that distinguishes those things based on anthroposophy from what else can emerge from our current civilization and culture today. This is simply because, wherever we look today, there is a gap between the effects of cultural life and practical life, a gap between what people think and conceive theoretically and what they actually do in practice. Theory and practice have become two areas that are far apart in our civilized life today. Paradoxical as it may sound, this can be observed, perhaps most strikingly in the most practical activities of life, for example in commercial and economic life. There, one learns all kinds of things theoretically: for example, one thinks about economic relationships, one has intentions. But these intentions are not able to directly influence the handling of what one then has to do in practice, because on the one hand one thinks about something, for my part only thinks up a business deal, but on the other hand one acts, one has to act according to the conditions of reality. I would like to express myself even more clearly so that we understand each other.
Today, for example, you think about some business transaction you want to carry out in order to do some business. You think this business through, you organize it according to your intentions; then, of course, you do what you want to do based on theory, on abstract thoughts. But when this then enters reality, it gets stuck everywhere in reality. You do carry something out, you even carry out your thoughts, but these thoughts do not fit into real life. So you actually bring something into real life that does not fit into this real life. Now, one can continue such a business for a while, which has been initiated in this way; then the person who initiated it will consider himself a terribly practical person. For anyone who goes into a business from the outset, having learned nothing else but what is customary today, considers himself a “practical” person. One can hear these expressions today, which practical people use in contrast to a theorist. So he sets up this business, brutally implements what he has thought up, and may even be able to run it for a while if there is sufficient capital. Then, after some time, this enterprise goes under, or it is transformed into something else, absorbed by an older enterprise, and so on. People usually don't consider how much of a good, solid life has been compromised by doing this, how many livelihoods may have been destroyed in the process, how many people have been harmed, how many have been held back, and so on. This has come about simply because someone came up with an idea — an idea conceived as a practical person. But in such cases, one is practical not through one's insights, but through one's elbows. One has introduced something into reality, but without the conditions of reality.
This is what is hidden and proliferating in cultural life today, and what most people cannot see. The only area where such things are recognized today, where it is seen that they do not work, is the field of mechanical science and its application in life. If one wants to build a bridge, one must know the mechanics that are truly capable of building a bridge that meets the requirements placed on it; otherwise, the first train that crosses the bridge will plunge into the water. Such things have already happened, and even today we have seen the effects of distorted mechanics. But on the whole, this field is the only one where one can say directly in practical life: something is conceived according to the conditions of reality, or it is not.
If you take another field, you will immediately see that it is not so obvious whether someone is thinking according to the conditions of reality or not. Take the field of medicine. Today, the approach is to come up with a theory and then try to heal according to it. Whether one has really healed in a particular case, whether a person had to die because of fate or perhaps was healed to death, is more difficult to overlook. A bridge collapses if it is built incorrectly, but whether the patient has been made even sicker, whether he has been healed by the treatment or has died as a result of it, is not so easy to overlook.
Similarly, in the field of education, it is not always easy to see whether one is educating a child based on its individual circumstances, or whether one is educating it according to idiosyncrasies, idiosyncrasies that can be developed by practicing experimental psychology, examining the child externally and asking: What is the nature of its memory, its comprehension, its judgment, and so on? — First, one forms pedagogical views. But how are these translated into life? One has them in one's head, there they sit. One knows that a child should be taught arithmetic this way, geography that way, and so on; now one must proceed to the practical implementation. You think and remember: there is a principle in scientific pedagogy that says you have to do it this way or that way. Now you are faced with the practical situation, you remember this theoretical principle and apply it in a very superficial way. Anyone who has a talent for observing this, as sometimes educators who are excellent in their mastery of educational theories do when they apply what they have learned, can see that such an educator is excellent at explaining what he once had to know for his exams or what he learned in the training class; but they remain as alien as possible in life when they face the child in education. What we observe every day and every hour to our heartbreak is that people pass each other by in life, that they have no desire to get to know each other. People today do not get to know each other. This is a general phenomenon. It is also the root cause of all the social disorders that are pouring over civilized life today: the lack of attention and interest that one person should have for another. In general civilization, one must accept this at first; it is, for the time being, the present fate of humanity.
But such estrangement and distance between one person and another reaches its peak when the teacher is estranged from the child or the educator from the pupil and only applies educational methods that are outwardly completely alien, applying educational methods derived from external science, and one cannot see, as with the bridge that collapses when the wrong mechanics are applied, that a false pedagogy is being applied here. A clear sign that people today can only cope with the mechanical way of thinking that celebrates its most brilliant triumphs in contemporary civilization, which can investigate everywhere whether one has thought correctly or not, is that humanity today only has confidence in mechanical thinking. People only have confidence in thinking that immediately proves itself to be nonsensical when it attempts to approach reality in areas other than mechanics. Everything, the structure of the world and organisms, should be understood mechanically today because people only have confidence in mechanical thinking. And when this mechanical thinking is carried over into education, when, for example, children are made to write down unrelated words that they have to repeat quickly so that it can be noted how much and how quickly a child can grasp, when education proceeds in this way, it shows that there is no longer any talent for approaching the child itself. We experiment on the child because we can no longer reach the child's heart and soul.
When you say something like this, it seems as if you have a tendency, a desire, to only criticize and rebuke. Criticizing is always easier than building up. But what I have said is truly not a tendency or a desire to criticize, but rather the result of direct observation of life. This direct observation of life must proceed from something that is usually completely excluded from today's understanding. How must one be if one wants to pursue something today that is based on knowledge, for example, knowledge of human nature? One must be objective! This is repeated everywhere, in every corner. Of course one must be objective. But the question is whether someone is also objective with a genuine lack of interest and inattention to the essence of a matter.
Now, people usually imagine that the most subjective thing in life is love, and they certainly do not imagine that someone who loves could be objective in any way. That is why, nowadays, nowhere where knowledge is discussed is love seriously discussed. It is thought that young people who are to acquire knowledge must be exhorted to do so in love. This usually happens when the way in which this knowledge is brought to people is not at all conducive to the development of love. But love itself, the devotion to the world and its phenomena, is not regarded as knowledge. But for life, love is the primary power of knowledge. And without this love, it is impossible above all to arrive at a knowledge of human beings that could form the basis for a true art of education. Let us now consider this love in terms of how it can work in this particular field of education, based on a knowledge of human beings founded on spiritual science anthroposophy.
The child is entrusted to us for education and instruction. When we think pedagogically on anthroposophical grounds, we do not view the child in such a way that we imagine there is some social or other human ideal, and we must now develop the child so that it becomes more and more like this ideal. For this human ideal can be quite abstract. And such a human ideal is already something that can be encountered in as many forms as there are political, social, and other parties. Depending on whether one swears by liberalism, conservatism, or this or that program, one has a different human ideal. One then wants to slowly guide the child to become what one thinks is right for human beings. This reaches its peak in today's Russia. But this is basically how people think today, even if not in such a radical way, more or less everywhere.
For those who want to educate and teach on anthroposophical grounds, this is by no means a starting point. They do not start from an idol. For an abstract image of humanity, towards which one wants to guide any child, is an idol, something imagined, not reality. The only reality that would exist in this field would be, at most, if one regarded oneself as an ideal and said: Every child must become like oneself. Then at least one would have touched on some reality. But it would immediately become absurd if one were to say it aloud.
What one really has before one is the childlike being, which did not begin its existence with its physical existence, but which brought its spiritual-soul nature down from pre-earthly worlds and immersed itself in what was handed down to it in physical form by its parents and ancestors. One looks at this child, how it approaches one in the first days of life with a completely undefined physiognomy, with completely unorganized, unoriented movements. One follows from day to day, from week to week, how the physiognomy becomes more and more definite, the expression of what is working its way to the surface from the inner soul. You observe how the movements, how the whole life of the child, become more and more oriented, how something spiritual and soulful in the deepest inner being works its way to the surface. You ask yourself with holy reverence and devotion: What is working its way to the surface? The heart and mind are led back to what was present in the spiritual-soul realm of the human being in the spiritual-soul world before earthly life, what has descended from this world into the physical world, and one says to oneself: Child, now that you have entered earthly existence through birth, you are among human beings; before, you were among spiritual-divine beings. — What lived among spiritual-divine beings has descended to be among humans! One sees the divine becoming in the child. One feels as if standing before an altar. Except that on the altars one is accustomed to in religious communities, humans make sacrifices to the gods so that their offerings may ascend into the spiritual world; now one feels, as it were, before the reverse altar, the gods sending down their streams of grace as divine-spiritual beings, so that these may unfold themselves here on the altar of physical life as human messengers of the gods! One sees in every child the divine-spiritual unfolding of the world order: how God creates in the world. It seems highest and most significant when one looks at it in the developing child. But then every single human child becomes a sacred mystery. For then every single child poses the great question—not: How should one educate it so that it approaches an idol, as one has imagined—but: How should one nurture what the gods have sent down to the earthly world? — One learns to recognize oneself as a helper of the divine-spiritual world, and above all, one learns to ask the question: What can become of one when one approaches teaching and education with such an attitude?
True pedagogy proceeds above all from this attitude. This attitude, this pedagogy, this cultivation of teaching, is what matters! Knowledge of human nature can only be acquired when love for humanity – in this case, love for children – becomes a working attitude. When such an attitude arises, the teaching profession becomes a priestly profession, for then the teacher becomes the administrator of what the gods want to accomplish with human beings.
Again, it might seem as if something self-evident is being stated in different words. But that is not the case. In today's antisocial world order, which only pretends to be social, we see more and more of the opposite happening: education is used to chase after an idol of humanity, rather than to nurture what one must first learn to know when confronted with it in the child.
Such an attitude, as I have characterized it, cannot work abstractly; it must work spiritually—but for practical purposes. Such an attitude is not acquired by learning theories that are alien to life and far removed from it; it can only be acquired if one has a sense for every expression of life, if one is able to respond to every expression of life with love.
There is a lot of talk today about progressive education. We even experienced talk of revolutionary pedagogy after the war. All kinds of new forms of education are being devised, and everyone is actually involved in reforming education in some way; either they contribute one thing or another to this or that institute that is to be founded, or they at least participate verbally by saying: This is how I imagine education should be structured, and so on. There is a lot of talk about how education should be carried out. But do you know what impression it makes when you take an unbiased look at what the various reform education associations, including the radical ones, are saying today, what they are developing as their program? I don't know if many people have considered the impression one gets when one has a lot of programs from reform education associations and societies in front of one; one gets the impression: Wow, how clever people are today! Because everything that comes about in this way is terribly clever. I don't mean that ironically, but quite seriously. We have never had an age as clever as ours.
It states: Paragraph 1. How should children be educated if their natural abilities are to be developed? Paragraph 2... Paragraph 3... and so on. Today, people from any profession or social class can get together and work out such programs: the things that result in paragraphs 1 to 30 will be delightfully clever. Because today we know how to formulate everything theoretically. We have never been as skilled at formulating things as we are today. And then we can present such a program or a number of programs to a commission or a parliament. That is again very clever. Now, depending on party considerations, this or that may be deleted or added, and something terribly clever, albeit sometimes quite party-colored, may emerge. But that is not the place to start, because none of this matters.
Waldorf education has never been based on such a program, because – I don't want to boast, but we could of course have been as clever as some educational reform associations when it came to drawing up a program – it might have prevented us from taking reality into account, and then something more stupid would have come out of it. But for us it was never about a program. From the very beginning, we were not interested in principles of how to educate, in foundations that could then somehow be incorporated into legislation. What interested us was reality, the whole truth. What was that? First and foremost, it was children, a number of individual children with this or that essential nature. You had to get to know them in order to understand what was inside these children, through what had descended into them and what they expressed through their physicality. So children were the first thing. And then teachers. You can advocate the principle that children must be educated according to their individuality – which is also included in all reform programs today – but nothing will ever come of it; instead, you have a certain number of teachers alongside the children, and you have to know what they can achieve in relation to these children. Schools must be organized in such a way that they do not present an abstract ideal, but rather that they are developed from the teaching staff and the student body, which do not exist in an abstract way, but as very concrete individual beings. That is what it is all about. And then one is led to the necessity of basing true pedagogy, realistic pedagogy, on knowledge of human nature; not to be theoretical in every detail, but to be practical in every detail.
Waldorf education, which was the first to introduce anthroposophical education, is therefore an artistic educational practice, and can basically only talk about how to do things in this or that case. There is no strong interest in general theories, but all the more interest in impulses that can come from anthroposophy for real knowledge of human nature, which must begin with the child. But our crude observation today obscures precisely what is characteristic of the successive stages of life. One must be somewhat inspired, I would say, by what spiritual science can tell us today about the historical development of humanity if one wants to develop the right attitude toward children. Today, we know so little about human beings and humanity. We imagine that the way we are today, as we live our lives, is the way people have lived since the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, and that this has always been the case. People also imagine the ancient Greeks or the ancient Egyptians to be similar to people today. And if we go back even further, history becomes blurred until we come to beings that are half ape, half human, as modern science imagines them to be. But there is no interest in addressing the great differences that exist between the historical and prehistoric periods of humanity.
Let us consider the human being as he stands before us today: the child, initially up to the age of tooth replacement. We see very clearly that physical development runs parallel to mental and spiritual development. Everything that emerges mentally and spiritually has its exact counterpart in the physical; both are expressed together, coming out of the child together. Then, when the child has gone through the change of teeth, we see how the spiritual is already becoming more emancipated from the physical. On the one hand, we will be able to observe the child's spiritual and emotional development, and on the other hand, their physical development. However, the two sides are not yet strongly separated. But if we then continue in the development from puberty to around the age of 21, this separation becomes even stronger. And when we come to the period when a person reaches the age of 27 or 28, then today, in the present human race, it is no longer possible to see the way in which the spiritual-soul aspect is connected with physical-bodily development. What a person does at this stage can be seen on the one hand in the spiritual-soul aspect and on the other in the physical-bodily aspect; but no connection is made between the two. By the end of their twenties, human beings have completely emancipated themselves spiritually and psychologically from the physical and bodily. And so it continues until the end of life.
But it was not always so. That is only what people believe. Spiritual science, driven by anthroposophy, shows us clearly and distinctly: What we see today, in our present stage of human development, that the child is completely dependent in its spiritual-soul life on the physical-bodily life, and again in its physical-bodily life on the spiritual-soul life, continued in ancient times, up to the highest age, but we simply do not notice it. If we go back very far, to the times from which the idea of patriarchs originated, and ask ourselves what such a person, a patriarch, was like, we must say to ourselves: Such a person, who had grown old, had changed in his physicality, but even in his old age he felt as only a very young person can feel today; even in old age, he felt his spiritual-soul life to be dependent on his physical-bodily life. Today, we no longer feel that our physical-bodily life is dependent on what we think or feel. But in earlier cultural epochs, people felt this dependence; and when they passed a certain age, they also felt how their bones became harder, how their muscles contained inclusions of substances that did not belong to them, how they became sclerotic. People felt the deterioration of life. And they also felt that as the physical declined, the spiritual rose — precisely because of the decline of the physical. The soul becomes free from physicality, they said, as the body begins to deteriorate. And the soul is completely free in the patriarchal age, when the body is, so to speak, already in complete decline; then the soul-spiritual escapes the physical most, it no longer sits inside it. That is why people looked up to the patriarch with such devotion and reverence and said to themselves: Oh, what will it be like for me when I am that old? Then you can know something, recognize something, see through something that I cannot yet recognize and see through because I am still in the process of building up the physical. —- Back then, people could still see into a physical-mental, physical-spiritual world order. That was the oldest time. Then came a time when people only felt this dependence between the physical and the mental-spiritual until about the age of 50; in an even later time, only until the age of 40. And then came the Greek era. What is particularly valuable about the Greek era is based on the fact that the Greeks still felt the harmony between the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily. The Greeks still felt this harmony up to the age of 30 or 40. They still felt in their blood circulation what unites the soul with the physical-bodily. This was the basis of the unity of Greek art and culture, which transformed everything theoretical into art and everything artistic into wisdom. The sculptor worked in such a way that he did not need a model, but still felt in his own body how the arm or leg was permeated by the forces that shape the arm or leg. This was learned at the festivals, for example, but today, when they are imitated, they have not the slightest meaning.
But if one has such a sense of the development of humanity, one knows what has actually taken place in human development, and one also knows that today we only have a parallelism between the physical-bodily and the spiritual-soul until about the age of 27 or 28, if one describes it very precisely; Most people only notice this parallelism up to sexual maturity. And so one then knows how the divine-spiritual sprouts forth in the developing human being. And then one gains the necessary reverence for developing what one encounters in the child; that is, developing what is given to us and not developing those abstract ideals that one has thought up.
In this way, one is directed to a knowledge of human beings that is individual and spiritual in nature. And once one has imbued oneself with such general, broad historical perspectives, one also approaches the individual tasks of education in a corresponding manner. Then a completely different life emerges when the educator enters his class; for then he brings the world, the spiritual, soul, and physical world, into the class. Then he is surrounded by the atmosphere of a realistic, not a theoretically conceived worldview. Then he is surrounded by a feeling for the world. And then we will be able to experience something remarkable when we look at what has now been suggested, that we are establishing a pedagogy that will gradually become the antithesis of what educational practice is today in many characteristic areas. All kinds of talented humorists often choose the so-called schoolmaster as an object that serves them well, on which they can vent their humor. Well, if a schoolmaster is endowed with the necessary humor, he can also vent his anger on those who caricature his image and put it out into the world. But what matters is something else entirely. For if the teacher, as today's theoretical pedagogy does, is placed in the school in such a way that he cannot get to know the child at all, but must nevertheless be occupied with the child—how can he become anything other than unworldly! In today's school system, one cannot become anything other than unworldly; one is completely torn out of the world. And then the strange thing happens that unworldly educators are supposed to develop people for their prosperity in the world.
But let us now imagine that the things we have been talking about today become reality. Then the teacher faces the children in such a way that a whole world is revealed to him in each individual child, and not only a human world, but a divine-spiritual world in the earthly realm. And one might say: in as many ways as he is given children to care for, the world is revealed to the educator. He looks into the great world through each child. His education becomes an art. His education is carried by the consciousness: what is done is done directly to the development of the world. This pedagogy, which is meant here, also leads the teacher in educating and developing the human being up to the level of the great world view. Then the teacher becomes the one who can now also be a leader in the great questions of civilization. And then the student never outgrows the teacher, as is so often the case today. - For we can also have the following in school. Let us assume that the teacher really has to educate according to an ideal, according to an image of humanity that he can set for himself. Let us imagine that he has a class of 30 children, among whom there are two who, by fate, are already much more gifted than the teacher himself. What would he have to do in this case? He would have to make them his educational ideal; nothing else could ever come of it. But is that possible? Reality does not allow it; the pupils then outgrow the teacher.
If, on the other hand, we educate in a realistic manner, if we nurture what is revealed in the child's mind and soul, then we are in the same position as the gardener with his plants. Do you believe that the gardener knows all the secrets of the plants he tends? Oh, they contain many more secrets than the gardener knows; but he can care for the plants and perhaps best of all care for those he does not yet know. For he knows the practice, he has it, so to speak, in his “spiritual grasp.” Thus it also becomes possible for a realistic art of education that, even if one is not a genius oneself, one can face geniuses as an educator. For one knows that one does not have to lead to an abstract ideal, but that within the child the God in man is at work, working through the physical body. If one has this attitude, then one can also achieve this. The love that spreads and pours out through education brings it about. But this attitude must be present.
With this, I simply wanted to indicate today, as a greeting to my esteemed audience, what the content of these lectures will be, which will deal with the pedagogical value of human knowledge and the cultural value of pedagogy.