Festivals of the Seasons
GA 165
1 January 1916, Dornach
18. Meditations on the New Year: On the Duty of Clear, Sound Thinking
It seemed well yesterday, on the last night of the year, to enter deeply into many of the secrets of existence connected with the great supersensible mysteries, such as the annual passing of one year into another—and of the great cosmic New Year’s Eve and New Year. It seemed good to enter yesterday into those things which speak to the depths of our souls, mysteries far removed from the outer world; so, at the beginning of a New Year, it may perhaps be important to let a few at least of our great and important duties be brought before our souls.
These duties are connected above all with that which is made known to us in the course of human evolution, through Spiritual Science. They are associated with the knowledge of the road humanity must travel as it advances towards its future. A man cannot recognise the duties here mentioned, if he does not, in his own way, keep an open view in many directions. We have again and again endeavoured to do this in the course of our studies. To call up a few only of such duties before our souls may perhaps be fitting at this time, at the opening of a New Year.
It is true, that in view of this material age and all that it brings in its train, we recognise that Spiritual Science must form the basis from which we can work in a higher way for the progress of mankind. It is true, that all that seems to us necessary is so enormous, so incisive—there is (to put it mildly) so much to do at the present time, that we cannot believe that with our feeble powers we should ever be in a position to do much of what has to be done. One thing at least is important, that we should connect our interest with what has to be done, that we should acquire ever more and more interest in those things of which humanity in our time has need.
As a beginning, a group of people, however small, must be interested in that of which humanity has need, and gain a clear insight into those forces which in the evolution of time have a downward tendency, those that are harmful forces. At the opening of a New Year it is specially good to turn the interest of our circle somewhat from our own personal concerns and to direct them to the great objective interests of the whole of humanity.
To do this requires, as I have said, clear insight into that which is moving along the downward path in the human evolution of today. We need only carry those very thoughts which have been ours during the last few days over into the realm of the actual, there to find many of the things of which the men of the present day have need.
Wo have seen how at a certain moment of evolution, a far-reaching wisdom was actually lost to man; how this wisdom of the Gnostics perished; and how it is now necessary to work, so that an understanding of spiritual things may again be established, though of course in accordance with the progress of the time.
During the past autumn we have considered the deeper causes of the flood tide of materialism which took place in the nineteenth century, and I have again and again emphasised that the view of Spiritual Science in regard to this flood of materialism, in no way tends to a lack of appreciation, or want of understanding of the great progress of external, material science. This has always been recognised by us. But what we must keep specially before us is this, that the great progress made in the materialistic realms of natural science during the nineteenth century and on into the present time, has been accomplished with a falling off in the power of thought—of clear, precise thinking.
This decline in the power of thinking has taken place more especially in the domain of science. There—however much people may disbelieve it—the faith in authority has never been so strong as in our day, so that want of confidence as regards the certainty of thinking has spread widely through all the realms of popular thought. We live in an age of the most careless thinking and at the same time it is an age of the blindest trust in authority. People live today entirely under the impression that they must believe in, they must recognise authority, that they must have the sanction of outside powers. They desire a warrant for this or that. For the most part men do not consider today that it is an individual concern, that they will eventually have to take up the matter for themselves I So, they go to whom ‘right and law is bequeathed like a hereditary sickness’ and accept conclusions without weighing how those conclusions were reached; for they consider it right to accept authority blindly.
A man is ill—he takes not the least trouble to learn the simplest thing about the illness. Why should he? We have recognised and certified physicians whose business it is to look after our bodies; we need not trouble in the least about them!
If information on any subject be desired, people go to those who ought to know, to the theologian, to the philosopher, to this one or to that.
Any one following up this line of thought for himself, will find that on numberless points he himself is sunk in blindest belief in authority. If he cannot find them—do not take it ill of me, if I say—that the less he finds of this belief in authority in himself, the larger the dose he must have swallowed!
But I would now like, to show how a narrow, cramped and impoverishing mode of thought has slipped even into the finest domain of spiritual life, all the world over—without distinction of nation, race or colour; that a certain element of cramped thinking is to be found where the life of spiritual culture exists in its finest form. Let us take a philosophical idea and watch how it has developed. Who is not convinced today, on the grounds of a belief in an authority which has come down to him through very many channels—who is not convinced that one cannot by any means arrive at ‘the thing in itself,’ but can only catch the outward phenomena, the impression on the senses, the impression made on the soul by the thing. Man can but arrive at the ‘results’ of things, but not at ‘the thing in itself.’ This is indeed the fundamental type of the thought of the nineteenth century. I have described the whole wretched business in that chapter in my book The Riddles of Philosophy, which is called ‘The World of Illusion.’ Anyone who studies this chapter will find a resume of the whole matter. Man can only perceive ‘effects,’ he cannot attain to ‘the thing in itself;’ this remains unknown.
The most capable thinkers of the nineteenth century, if we can speak of them as capable in this connection, are infected by this necessary ignorance regarding the ‘thing in itself.’
If we now turn to the trend of thought which is at the base of what I have just described, it presents itself thus: It is wrongly insisted on, that the eye can only reflect that which it can evoke within itself by means of its nervous or other activities. When an external impression comes, it responds to it in its own specific way. One only gets as far as the impression—not to that which causes the impression on the eye. Through his ear a man only gets as far as the impression made on the ear—not to the thing that makes the impression, and so on.
It is, therefore, only the impressions of the outer world that act on the senses of the soul. That which was at first established as regards a certain realm, that of colour, tone and the like, has now for a long time been extended to the whole thinking world—that can receive only the impression or effects of what is in the world. Is this incorrect? Certainly it is not incorrect, but the point—as has often been said—is not in the least whether a matter is correct or not, quite other things come into consideration. Is it correct that only pictures, only impressions of things, are called forth by our senses? Certainly it is correct, that cannot be doubted; but something very different is connected with this. This I will explain by means of a comparison.
If someone stands before a mirror and another person also stands there beside him, it cannot be denied that what is seen in the mirror is the image of the one man and also of the other. What is seen in the mirror is without doubt images—merely images. From this point of view all our sense perceptions are in fact mere images: for the object must first make an impression on us and our impression—the reaction as one might say—evokes consciousness. We can quite correctly compare this with the images which we see in the mirror; for the impressions are also images.
Thus in the Lange and Kant train of thought we have a quite correct assertion—that man is concerned with images and that therefore, he cannot come into touch with anything real, with any actual ‘thing in itself.’ Why is this? It is solely because man cannot think things out further than one assumption, he remains at one correct assumption. The thought is not incorrect, but as such it is frozen in—it can go no further—it is really frozen in. Just consider; The images that we see in the mirror are true images, but suppose the other person who stands beside me and looks into the mirror too, gives me a box on the ear, would I then say (as these are but images I see in the mirror) that one reflection has given the other reflection a box on the ear? The action points to something real behind the images I And so it is. When our thoughts are alive and not frozen, when they are connected with realities, we know that the Lange-Kantian hypothesis is correct, that we have everywhere to do with images; but when the images come in touch with living conditions, these living conditions reveal what first leads us to tho thing in itself. It is not so much the case here that certain gentlemen who have thus led thoughts astray, have started from a wrong hypothesis; the whole matter hangs on the fact that we have to reckon with thoughts that were frozen, with thoughts which when at last they are reached, make people say: true, true, true—and get no further. This unworthy thinking of the nineteenth century is wanting in flexibility, in vitality. It is frozen in, truly ice-bound.
Let us take another example. During the past year I have often communicated certain things to you from a celebrated thinker—Mauthner, the great critic of language. Kant occupies himself with Critique of Idea. Mauthner went further, (things that follow must always go further)—he wrote a Critique of Speech. You will remember that during the autumn I gave you examples from the Critique of Speech. Such a man has many followers at the present day. Before he took up philosophy he was a journalist. There is an old saw which says: ‘One crow does not peck out the eyes of another.’ Not only do they not peck out each other’s eyes, but the others even give eyes to the crows that are blind, especially when these are journalists! And thus this critic of language—but as I said I wish in no way to raise any question as regards the honesty of such a thinker, even as regards his solidity and depth, for I must always insist again and again that it is incorrect to say that criticism of natural or of any other science is practised here, its characteristics are only defined. So I say expressly, that Mauthner is an honourable man, ‘so are they all honourable men’—but just let us consider one process of thought which is along the lines of this Critique of Language. For example it is stated there: Human knowledge is limited. Limited—why limited according to Mauthner? Well, because all that man experiences of the world enters his soul by way of his senses. Certainly there is nothing very profound in this thought, but yet it is an undeniable fact. Everything comes to us from the outer world through the senses. But now the thought came to Mauthner that these senses are merely accidental-senses, which means that supposing that we had not our eyes and ears and other senses, we might have other senses instead, then the world around us would appear quite different. An exceedingly popular thought, especially among many philosophers of our day! So it is actually by chance that we have these particular senses, and therewith our conception of the world about us. Had we different senses we should have a different world! Accidental senses!
One of the followers of Fritz Mauthner has said roughly as follows: ‘The world is infinite; but how can man know anything of this infinite world? He can but gain impressions through his accidental senses. Through the door of these chance senses many things enter our souls and group themselves, while without, the infinite world goes on, and man can learn nothing of the laws in accordance with which it progresses. How can man believe, that what he experiences through these chance-senses of his, can have any connection with the great cosmic mysteries beyond? So speaks a follower of Mauthner, who did not, however, look upon himself as an adherent of his, but as a clever man of his day. Yes, so he said. But you can transpose this line of thought into another. I will absolutely retain the form and character of the thought, but translate it into another. I will now state this other thought.
One cannot form any idea of what such a genius as Goethe really has given to mankind, for he has no other means of expressing what he had to say to men, than by the use of twenty-two or twenty-three chance letters of our alphabet which must be grouped in accordance with their own laws and set down on paper. This goes still further. How is it possible to learn anything of the genius of Goethe, through the chance grouping of letters on paper?
Clever such a man might be who believes that because Goethe had to express his whole genius by means of twenty-three letters, A.B.C. and so on—we could learn nothing of his genius or of his ideas,—clever he might be who used such an excuse and still maintained that he had before him nothing but the twenty-three chance letters grouped in various ways! ‘Away with your explanations,’ he would say, ‘they are but fancy, I see nothing before me but letters!’ Clever, in the same way, is he who says: The world beyond is infinite, we cannot learn anything of it, for we know only what comes to us through our chance-senses. The fact is that such inaccurate thinking does not only exist in the domain of which I am speaking, where it comes very crudely into evidence, it is present everywhere. It is active in the profoundly unhappy events of the present day, for these would not be what they are if the thinking of all humanity was not permeated with what has been pointed out in a somewhat crude form.
People will never be able to take the right interest in such things, I mean the things concerned with the true efforts of man for his real progress—true effort in the sense of Spiritual Science—if they have not the will really to enter into such matters, if they have not the desire to recognise the things of which man stands in need. Objections are ever being raised from this side and from that, to the teaching of Spiritual Science, that it is only accessible to those who have clairvoyant perception of the spiritual worlds. People will not believe that this is not true, that what is required is, that by thought they should really be able to attain understanding of that which the seer is able to bring forth out of the spiritual world. It is not to be wondered at that people cannot today grasp with their thought what the seer derives from the spiritual world, when thought is built up in this way I have described. This kind of thought is ‘trumps’ and rules life in every department.
It is not because man is unable to understand with his thoughts all that Spiritual Science teaches, that it fails to be understood, but because he permits himself to be infected with the slip-shod thinking of the present day. Spiritual Science should stimulate us to intensive, courageous thinking; that is what matters: and it is well able to do this.
Of course, as long as we take Spiritual Science in such a way that we only talk about the things with which it is concerned, we shall not advance very much in the establishing of the thought for the future of humanity, which is exactly the mission of our movement to establish. When, however, we take the trouble really to understand—really to grasp the things, the matter taught—we shall certainly make progress.
Even the conceptions of Spiritual Science are affected by the careless thinking of the present day. I have explained to you how this careless thinking acts; I quoted: ‘results only do we have in the external world, so we cannot attain to the thing in itself.’ This thought is as it were immediately frozen in; people do not wish to go any further, the thought is frozen in, they no longer see that the living interchanging activity of the reflected images leads further than to the mere image-character. This method is then applied to the conceptions of Spiritual Science. Because people are fully infected by such kind of thoughts, they say: Yes, what Spiritual Science tells on page a,b,c, are facts of Spiritual Science; these facts we cannot have before us, if we have not acquired the seer’s gift. Therefore, they do not go on to think whether in their present attitude to what Spiritual Science teaches they are not making the same mistake that the whole world makes today. The worst of it is, that this fundamental failing of contemporary thought is so little recognised. It is dreadful how little it is recognised. It enters into our everyday thinking, and makes itself felt there, just as in the more advanced thinking of the philosophers and scientists. It is but seldom that people recognise what a really tremendous duty springs from an insight into this fact, how important it is to be interested in such things, how lacking in responsibility to permit our interest in them to be blunted.
The fact is now apparent, that in the course of the last century purely external sense-observation obtained and gave its tone to science; people laid the greatest value on the results of observation in the laboratory, or in the clinic, in the Zoological Gardens and the like, (the value of which observation must be recognised, as I have often remarked) but they desired to hold to these only and go no further. It is true that extraordinary progress has been made by these methods of natural science, quite extraordinary progress; but it is just through this progress that thought has become quite unreliable. Therefore it becomes a duty not to allow those persons to attain power in the world, who exercise this power from the standpoint of a purely materialistic experimental knowledge,—and it is power that such people want. At the present day we have reached the point, when all that is non-materialistic learning is to be driven out of the world by the brutal language of force which is used in materialistic erudition. It has already become a question of force. Among those who appeal most eagerly to the external powers to gain their external privileges, we have to recognise those who stand on the foundation of material science alone. Therefore, it is our duty to understand that force rules in the world. It is not enough that we should be interested only in what concerns ourselves personally, we must develop interest in the great concerns of the whole of humanity. It is true that as individuals and even as a small society we cannot do much today, but from small germs like these a beginning must be made. What is the use of people saying today that they have no faith in doctors; that they have no confidence in the system, and seek by every other means, something in which they can feel confidence? Nothing is affected by this, all that is but personal effort for their own advantage. We should be interested in establishing, alongside the material medicine of today, something in which we can have confidence. Otherwise things will get worse from day to day. This does not only mean that those who have no faith in the medical science of the day should seek out someone whom they can trust; for this would put the latter in a false position, unless he interests himself in seeing that he too should be suitably qualified to interest himself in the progress of the general condition of humanity. It is true that today and to-morrow we cannot perhaps be more than interested in the matter, but we must bear in our souls such interest for the affairs of humanity if we wish to understand in their true meaning the teaching of Spiritual Science. We still often think that we understand the great interests of humanity, because we frequently interpret our personal interests as if they were the greatest interests of mankind.
We must search deeply, within the profoundest depths of our soul, if we wish to discover in ourselves how dependent we are on the blind faith in authority of the present day—how profoundly we are dependent on it. It is our indolence, our love of ease that withholds us from being inwardly kindled, and set aflame by the great needs of humanity.
The best New Year greeting that we can inscribe in our souls is that we may be enkindled and inspired by the great interests of the progress of mankind—of the true freedom of humanity. So long as we allow ourselves to believe that he who blows his trumpet before the world must also be able to think correctly,—so long as we hold beliefs derived from the carelessly organised thinking of the present day,—we have not developed within ourselves true interests in the great universal cause of mankind.
What I have just said is in no way directed against any great man in particular; I know that when such things are said especially in a public lecture, there are many who say: Natural Science and the authorities of the day were attacked by Spiritual Science; and the like. I specially quote instances from those of whom I can say, on the other hand, that they are great authorities of the present day, that they are great men,—to show that they support things which Spiritual Science has to extirpate, root and branch. Even without being a great man, one can recognise the careless thinking of great men, which has been so greatly enhanced just because of the brilliant advance in the experimental science of the day. One example, one among many,—I choose a book written by one of the best known men of the day and which is translated into German. No one can say that greatness is unrecognised by me. I repeat, I choose a book by a celebrated man of the day, in the domain of experimental Natural Science. I look up a passage in the introduction to the second volume, which deals specially with the question of the cosmology of the day; in which the great man goes into the history of the development of cosmo-conception. It runs somewhat as follows: In the times of the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans, men tried to form a picture of the world in such and such a way; then in the last four hundred years there arose the Natural Science of today, which has at last drawn the great prize, which has swept all previous ideas aside and has attained to actual truth, which now has but to be further built up.
I have often laid stress on the fact that it is not so much the individual assertions that people make, it is the Ahrimanic or Luciferic characteristics which at once lay hold on people, so that they become Ahrimanic or Luciferic. Thus at the close of this introduction we read the following, which is in the highest degree noteworthy. Take a special note of what is presented to us by one who is without doubt a great and celebrated man of the day. After remarking how grand the knowledge of Natural Science is today, he says: ‘The time of sad decline endured until the awakening of humanity at the beginning of the new age. The new age placed the art of printing at the service of learning, and contempt of experimental work disappeared from the minds of educated people. Opposition to old opinions as expressed in the writings of various investigators, advanced at first but slowly. These hindering conditions have since disappeared, and immediately the number of workers and the means of furthering Natural Science increased in rapid succession. Hence the extraordinary progress of recent years.’
There then follows the last sentence of this introduction—‘We sometimes hear it said that we live in the best of all possible worlds: there might be some objection raised to this, but we scientists at least can assert with all certainty, that we live in the best of times. And we can look forward with confidence to a still better future...’ Now follows what really is astounding! This author attaches to himself, and to his age, that which great men have discovered and thought, regarding nature and the world. Therefore he says: ‘In the firm hope that the future may be better, we can say with Goethe—the great authority on man and nature:
‘Es ist ein gross Ergötzen
Sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu versetzen,
Zu schauen, wie vor uns ein weiser Mann gedacht,
Und wie wir's dann zuletzt so herrlich weit gebracht.’
[It is a great delight, to enter into the spirit of the age, to see how wise men thought before our time, and how splendidly we have advanced things.]
In all seriousness a great man closes his remarks with these words, the pronouncement of Goethe, the great authority on nature and on man; words to which Faust replies—for it is Wagner who says:
‘By your leave it is a great delight,
To enter into the spirit of the age, etc.’
But Faust answers: (and perhaps we may accept what Faust says as the thought of Goethe, the great authority on nature and on man.)
‘O yes! As far as to the stars!’
This is exactly fitted for a man who can reach as far as to the stars, thus:
‘O yes! As far as to the stars!
The ages that are past, my Friend,
Are for us a book with seven seals;
What we call the spirit of the age,
Is in fact the spirit of ourselves
In which the times are mirrored.
This is in truth, often but a wail!
Men fly from the first glance of it.
A rubbish heap, a lumber room,
At most some act or state of law
With excellent pragmatic maxims
Such as are put in puppets’ mouths!’
And so on...
Thus in 1907 wrote one of the greatest men of the day who had surely got ‘as far as to the stars,’ and who looking back on all those who had worked before him had also got so far as to make use of the saying ‘of Goethe, the great authority on man and nature.’
It is a great delight
To enter into the spirit of the age.
You smile! One could wish that this smile always might be directed against those who are capable at the present day of making such carelessness valid; for the example I have given shows that it is those who are firmly established on the ground of the scientific outlook of the day, and who are associated with progress in this domain, who are able to put forth such negligent thinking. It just proves that what is called Natural Science today by no means excludes the most superficial thinking. A man may be a thoroughly careless thinker today, and yet be held to be a great man in the realm of natural science. This has to be recognised, and in this sense we must approach it. It is a sign of our time. If this were to continue; if any one is labelled as a great man, and given out as a great authority and if people put forward what he says in this or that domain without proof, as of something of great worth—then we should never surmount the great misery of our time. I am fully convinced that countless people pass over the sentence I read out to you today, without a smile, although it shows forth in the most eminent degree, where the greatest faults of our day lie, which are bringing about the decline of the evolution of humanity.
We must see clearly where to make a beginning with those things necessary for man; and also see that in spite of the immense advance in external natural science, the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century, even down to our own day, have shown themselves the worst dilettantists in regard to all questions of world-outlook. The great fault of our day is, that this is not recognised—that people do not recognise that the greatest investigators in natural science in the nineteenth century proved themselves the worst of dilettantists in the question of world-outlook, when they entirely left out that which as spirit rules in the realm of natural science. People blindly followed after these great persons, not only when they gave out the results of investigations in the laboratory, or of clinical research, but also when they asserted things regarding the secrets of the universe.
So, parallel with the popularising of science which is useful and beneficial in the highest degree, we have at the same time a deterioration as regards all questions of wide import and a heedlessness of thought which is infectious and very harmful, because it is founded on the very worst kind of dilettantism of great men.
Here are to be found the tasks with which our interests must be closely associated, even if we ourselves are not able to produce anything. We must at least look things in the face, we must see clearly that it will above all lead to far, far more unhappy times than we are at present passing through, if mankind does not realise what has been here pointed out;—if, in place of careless, inexact thinking, a clear and genuine method of thought be not established again among men. Everything can be traced back to this careless thinking. All those external, often very unhappy phenomena which we encounter would not exist if this inexact, negligent thought were not there.
It seems to me specially necessary to speak of these matters at the beginning of a New Year, for they are connected with the character and attitude of our whole task. For when we accustom ourselves to consider without prejudice the method and nature of modern thought, and see how powerful it is in all the varied conditions of life, we can then form some picture of what we have to do and of what mankind stands in need. We must in the first place overcome all tendency to slackness, all love of sloth and laziness, we must see clearly that a spiritual-scientific movement has duties other than that of merely listening to lectures or reading books.
I must continually remind you to make yourselves acquainted with the necessary ideas. It is clear to all that as a few individuals,—as a small society—we cannot do much. But our own thought must move in the right direction; we must know what is in question, we must not ourselves be exposed to the danger (to put it trivially) of succumbing to the different conceptions of the world, of those who are the great men of the day in the external sciences. Great men, but dilettante thinkers as regards questions of universal import, found numerous associations of monistic or other nature without the opposition that would arise if at least it were realised that, when such societies are founded, it is as if one said: ‘I am letting this man make a coat, because he is a celebrated cobbler!’
This is foolishness, is it not? but it is just as foolish when a great chemist or a great psychologist is accepted as an authority on a conception of the world. We cannot blame them if they claim it for themselves, for naturally they cannot know how inadequate they are; but that they are so accepted is connected with the great evils of the present day. To me it seems as if a thought for New Year’s Eve must ever be associated with our feelings; whereas it seems to me that that which faces us as the more immediate duty of the day, must be directly associated with our reflections on New Year’s Day; I thought therefore, that the tone of what has been said today might, be fitly associated with what was said yesterday.
Neujahrsbetrachtungen II
Konnte es gestern zu Silvester gut sein, sich in mancherlei Geheimnisse des Daseins zu vertiefen in solchen Dingen, die mit großen übersinnlichen Geheimnissen zusammenhängen, wie das alljährliche Übergehen des einen Jahres in das andere, und das große Weltensilvester und Weltenneujahr, konnte es, wie gesagt, gestern gut sein, sich in diese, zu den Tiefen unserer Seele sprechenden, von der äußeren Welt weit abliegenden Geheimnisse zu vertiefen, so müßte es vielleicht, gerade im Beginne eines Jahres, von besonderer Bedeutung sein, wenigstens einiges von unseren großen, bedeutsamen Pflichten vor die Seele ziehen zu lassen. Diese Pflichten hängen allerdings mit dem zusammen, was uns über den Entwickelungsgang der Menschheit durch die Geisteswissenschaft bekanntwerden kann. Sie hängen zusammen mit den Erkenntnissen über den Weg, den die Menschheit machen muß, indem sie ihrer Zukunft entgegenschreitet. Man kann die Pflichten, von denen da die Rede ist, nicht erkennen, wenn man nicht versucht, einen offenen Blick in seine Zeit auf den verschiedensten Gebieten zu werfen. Wir haben das auch im Laufe unserer Betrachtungen immer wieder getan. Allein einiges von dem, was uns da geläufig sein könnte, uns schon heute vor die Seele zu rufen, ziemt sich vielleicht beim Eintritt in ein neues Jahr.
Gewiß, meine lieben Freunde, alles dasjenige, was uns angesichts der materialistischen Zeitlage mit allen ihren Folgen vor die Seele tritt, so daß wir wissen: Geisteswissenschaft muß die Unterlagen liefern, um in einer höheren Weise einzutreten für den richtigen Fortschritt der Menschheit, gewiß, alles dasjenige, was da uns erscheint als zu tun notwendig, es ist so ungeheuer, es ist so einschneidend, es ist so bedeutsam, es wäre, trivial gesprochen, in der Gegenwart so viel zu tun, daß nicht daran gedacht werden kann, daß wir mit unseren schwachen Kräften in die Lage kommen könnten, viel von dem zu tun, was getan werden muß. Allein eines ist wichtig: daß wir mit dem zu 'Tuenden unsere Interessen verbinden, daß wir immer mehr Interesse bekommen für dasjenige, was der Menschheit gerade in unserer Zeit not tut. Denn davon muß es ausgehen, daß ein, wenn auch noch so kleiner Kreis Interesse bekommt für dasjenige, was der Menschheit not tut; daß, sei es ein noch so kleiner Kreis, klare Einsicht bekommt in dasjenige, was in der Entwickelung der Zeit nach abwärts führende Kräfte, schädigende Kräfte sind. Gerade am Beginne eines neuen Jahres könnte es gut sein, unseren Interessenkreis ein wenig auf die objektiven, von unseren persönlichen Angelegenheiten ganz absehenden großen Menschheitsinteressen zu lenken.
Dazu, wie gesagt, bedarf es klarer Einsichten in dasjenige, was sich namentlich auf der abschüssigen Bahn in der Menschheitsentwickelung bewegt. Wir brauchen nur Gedanken, die uns gerade in den letzten Tagen wiederum vor die Seele getreten sind, ins Aktuelle herüber zu versetzen, so werden wir vieles von dem finden, oder wenigstens manches von dem, was gerade in der Gegenwart der Menschheit besonders not tut. Wir haben gesehen, wie geradezu eine weitgehende Weisheit in einem gewissen Entwickelungsmoment der Menschheit verschwunden ist, wie diese gnostische Weisheit versunken ist, und wie jetzt darauf hingearbeitet werden muß, damit, allerdings entsprechend der fortgeschrittenen Zeit, das Wissen über das Geistige wiederum heraufkommt. Wir haben auch im Laufe dieses Herbstes geradezu darauf aufmerksam gemacht, welches die tieferen Gründe dafür sind, daß gerade im 19. Jahrhundert die Welle des Materialismus so hoch gegangen ist, und ich mußte immer wieder betonen, daß die geisteswissenschaftliche Einsicht in dieses Hochgehen der Welle des Materialismus durchaus nicht dazu führt, die großen Fortschritte der äußeren materialistischen Naturwissenschaft zu verkennen oder mißzuverstehen. Die sollen durchaus anerkannt werden, und immer wieder wird es betont, daß diese materialistischen Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft von uns anerkannt werden müssen. Aber das obliegt uns insbesondere, zu durchschauen, daß im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts und bis in unsere Tage herein der große Fortschritt auf dem äußeren materiellen Gebiete verbunden war mit einem Zurückgehen der Denkkraft, des klaren, sicheren Denkens. Das klare, sichere Denken, das ist zurückgegangen insbesondere in der Wissenschaft. Wo Wissenschaft getrieben wird, ist insbesondere das klare, und namentlich das sichere, das inhalterfüllte Denken zurückgegangen. Und da der Autoritätsglaube, trotzdem es die Menschen nicht glauben, in keiner Zeit so stark ist wie in unserer Zeit, so hat sich mitgeteilt jene Trostlosigkeit in bezug auf die Denksicherheit auch den weitesten Kreisen, dem ganzen populären Denken. Wir leben geradezu in dem Zeitalter des verwahrlosten Denkens, und zu gleicher Zeit in dem Zeitalter des blindesten Autoritätsglaubens. Wie steht doch der Mensch heute durchaus unter dem Eindruck: er müsse glauben, er müsse die Autoritäten anerkennen, die von den äußeren Mächten sanktioniert sind. Man will wissen, ob man zu diesem oder jenem berechtigt ist. Man denkt heute zumeist gar nicht darüber nach, daß das eine individuelle Angelegenheit sein könnte, daß man sich damit eventuell beschäftigen könnte! Nein, man geht zu denjenigen, bei denen sich «Recht und Gesetz wie eine ewige Krankheit forterben», und läßt sich Aufschluß geben, ohne daß man den Anspruch darauf macht, über die Dinge, über die man Aufschluß bekommt, irgendwie selber nachzudenken. Denn man hält es so für richtig, die Autorität blindlings anzuerkennen. Man wird krank, man überhebt sich ganz und gar der Mühe, dabei irgendwie auch über die einfachsten Dinge etwas zu wissen. Wozu? Dazu haben wir ja die staatsabgestempelten Mediziner, und die haben sich mit unserem Leib zu beschäftigen. Uns geht dieser unser Leib eigentlich nicht das geringste an! Man will über irgendeine andere Frage entscheiden, man geht zu denen, die es wissen sollen: zu den Theologen, zu den Philosophen, zu dem oder jenem.
Wer diesen Gedankengang bei sich selber weiter fortsetzt, wird wirklich bei sich selbst noch Unzähliges finden, das aufgeht in dem allerallerblindesten Autoritätsglauben. Und kann er nichts finden, meine lieben Freunde, dann, nehmen Sie es mir nicht übel, wenn ich ihm gerade dann sage, daß er von diesem Autoritätsglauben eine um so größere Dosis hat, je weniger er bei sich davon findet! Ich möchte zunächst aber zeigen, wie ein unzureichendes, unzulängliches Denken gerade in die feinsten Gebiete des Geisteslebens in aller Welt - ohne Unterschied von Nation, Rasse und Farbe - sich eingeschlichen hat, wie ein gewisses Element von unzulänglichem Denken gerade in den feinsten Gebieten des geistigen Kulturlebens vorhanden ist. Nehmen wir ein Stück Philosophie, wie es sich entwickelt hat. Wer würde nicht heute auf Grundlage eines durch viele, viele Kanäle gehenden Autoritätsglaubens davon überzeugt sein, daß die Menschen eben nicht irgendwie an «das Ding an sich» herankommen können, sondern nur die äußeren Erscheinungen, die Eindrücke auf die Sinne, die Eindrücke auf die Seele von den Dingen empfangen können. «Wirkungen» von den Dingen kann man nur haben, man kann an «das Ding an sich» nicht heran. Das ist etwas, was geradezu Grundtypus geworden ist im Denken des 19. Jahrhunderts. Ich habe die ganze Misere geschildert in dem Kapitel meiner «Rätsel der Philosophie», das ich überschrieben habe «Die Welt als Illusion». Wer dieses Kapitel studiert, wird eine Überschau über diese ganze Misere finden können. Wirkungen könnte der Mensch nur haben, er kann nicht an das Ding an sich heran, das Ding an sich bleibt unbekannt. Infiziert von diesem unbekannt bleiben müssenden Ding an sich sind gerade eben die feinsten Denker des 19. Jahrhunderts —- wenn man da von fein sprechen kann.
Wenn man nun die Gedankengänge ansieht, die dem, was ich eben gesagt habe, zugrunde liegen, so stellt sich das in der folgenden Weise heraus. Es wird bewiesen, streng bewiesen: Das Auge kann nur dasjenige wiedergeben, was es vermöge seines Nervenprozesses und seines sonstigen Prozesses aus sich hervorrufen kann. Wenn also ein äußerer Eindruck kommt, so antwortet es in seiner spezifischen Weise. Man kann nur zu dem Eindrucke kommen, nicht zu dem, was auf das Auge einen Eindruck macht. Man kann durch das Ohr nur zu dem Gehöreindrucke kommen, nicht zu dem, was den Eindruck macht und so weiter. Und so wirken nur die Eindrücke der Außenwelt auf die Sinne der Seele. Seit Lange, der glaubte, es zunächst für ein bestimmtes Gebiet, für Farben und Töne und dergleichen festgestellt zu haben, geht das nun durch das Gesamtdenken der Menschen, daß der Mensch nur die Eindrücke der Welt bekommen kann, Wirkungen nur bekommen kann. Ist das unrecht? Gewiß ist es nicht unrecht, denn, wie ich oftmals betont habe, handelt es sich gar nicht darum, ob eine Sache recht oder unrecht ist, sondern ganz andere Dinge kommen noch in Betracht. Ist das richtig, daß nur Bilder, nur Eindrücke auf unsere Sinne von den Dingen hervorgerufen werden können? Gewiß ist das richtig. Es ist gar nicht zu bezweifeln. Aber etwas ganz anderes liegt da vor.
Das will ich durch einen Vergleich klarmachen. Wenn wir vor einem Spiegel stehen und ein zweiter Mensch auch noch vor einem Spiegel steht, so ist ganz und gar nicht zu leugnen, daß dasjenige, was man darin sieht, das Bild von einem selber und das Bild von dem andern Menschen ist. Bilder sind das, was man im Spiegel sieht, ganz zweifellos. Und insoweit sind wirklich auch alle unsere Sinnenwahrnehmungen Bilder, denn der Gegenstand muß zunächst auf uns einen Eindruck machen, und unser Eindruck, die Reaktion, würde man sagen, kommt zum Bewußtsein. Wir können das also ganz richtig vergleichen mit den Bildern, die wir da im Spiegel drinnen haben, denn das sind eben auch Bilder. Wir haben es bei diesem Lange-Kantschen Gedankengang mit einer ganz richtigen Behauptung zu tun, daß es der Mensch mit Bildern zu tun hat. Wir haben es dann mit der Schlußfolgerung zu tun, daß der Mensch deshalb, weil er es nur mit Bildern zu tun hat, nicht mit irgend etwas Realerem wirklich an etwas «Dingliches an sich» herankommen könne. Worauf beruht das? Es beruht lediglich darauf, daß man nicht weiterdenken kann von einer Voraussetzung aus, daß man bei einer richtigen Voraussetzung bleibt. Nicht unrichtig ist das Denken; aber richtig eingefroren ist es. Denn es sind richtige Bilder, die wir da im Spiegel darin haben. Aber der Betreffende, der neben mir steht, mit dem ich in den Spiegel hineinschaue, der gibt mir nun da im Spiegel eine Ohrfeige. Werde ich dann sagen, obwohl das alles nur Bilder sind: Das eine Spiegelbild hat dem andern Spiegelbild eine Ohrfeige gegeben? -— Da deutet mir dasjenige, was unter den Bildern geschieht, auf etwas sehr Reales hin. Wenn man kein eingefrorenes Denken, sondern ein lebendiges Denken hat, das wirklich mit den Dingen verbunden ist, mit Realitäten verbunden ist, so weiß man, daß die Lange-Kantsche Voraussetzung richtig ist, daß wir es überall mit Bildern zu tun haben. Wenn aber diese Bilder in lebendige Verhältnisse kommen, dann drükken diese lebendigen Verhältnisse wirklich das aus, was erst hineinführt in das Dingliche an sich. Also nicht darum handelt es sich, daß die betreffenden Herren, die da das Denken irregeführt haben, von unrichtigen Voraussetzungen ausgegangen sind, sondern darauf beruht die ganze Sache, daß man es mit einem eingefrorenen Denken zu tun hat, mit einem Denken, mit dem man nun dasteht und sagt: Richtig, richtig, richtig — und nicht mehr weiter kann. Es fehlt diesem verwahrlosten Denken des 19. Jahrhunderts die Beweglichkeit, die Lebendigkeit. Es ist das Denken im 19. Jahrhundert eingefroren, richtig eingefroren.
Nehmen wir ein anderes Beispiel. Ich habe Ihnen im Laufe dieses verflossenen Jahres öfter einzelne Dinge mitgeteilt von einem ehrlichen Denker, Mauthner, dem großen Sprachkritiker. Bei Kant war es eine «Kritik der Begriffe». Mauthner geht weiter, immer muß ja das Spätere weitergehen: er macht eine «Kritik der Sprache». Ich habe Ihnen einige Pröbchen aus dieser «Kritik der Sprache» im Laufe des Herbstes, überhaupt im Laufe des Jahres, mitgeteilt, Sie werden sich erinnern. Heute hat ein solcher Mann viele Anhänger. Er war Journalist, bevor er unter die Philosophen gegangen ist. Ein altes Sprichwort sagt: Eine Krähe hackt der andern kein Auge aus. — Sie hackt ihr nicht nur kein Auge aus, sondern blinden Krähen werden dann sogar von den andern Krähen, wenn die Krähen Journalisten sind, noch Augen eingesetzt! Wie gesagt, ich will durchaus nicht irgend etwas gegen die Ehrlichkeit, ja sogar gegen die Gründlichkeit und Tiefe - im Sinne unserer Zeit «Tiefe» — solcher Denker einwenden, denn ich muß immer wieder betonen, daß es unrichtig ist, zu sagen, daß hier Kritik geübt wird etwa an der Naturwissenschaft oder irgendwelchen andern Bestrebungen - nur charakterisiert soll werden. Darum sage ich ausdrücklich: Mauthner ist ein ehrenwerter Mann - und «ehrenwerte Männer sind sie alle» —, aber fassen wir einmal einen Gedankengang, der so im Sinne der Sprachkritik ist, ins Auge. Da wird zum Beispiel gesagt: Die menschliche Erkenntnis ist beschränkt - so sagt Mauthner. Beschränkt - warum beschränkt in seinem Sinne? Nun, weil dasjenige, was der Mensch von der Welt erfährt, durch seine Sinne in seine Seele hereinkommt. Gewiß keine sehr tiefsinnige, aber auch eine unbezweifelbare Wahrheit. Von der Außenwelt, von der sinnlichen Welt kommt alles durch die Sinne herein. Nun ist aber Mauthner zu dem Gedanken gekommen, daß diese Sinne Zufallssinne wären, das heißt, daß der Mensch statt der Augen und Ohren und der Sinne, die er schon einmal hat, diese vielleicht auch nicht haben könnte und andere Sinne haben könnte. Dann würde diese Welt da draußen ganz anders aussehen. Ein sehr beliebter Gedanke überhaupt bei manchen Philosophen unserer Zeit! Und so ist es eigentlich zufällig, daß wir gerade diese Sinne haben, und damit auch diese Welt. Hätten wir andere Sinne, so hätten wir eine andere Welt. Zufallssinne! - Einer, der dem Fritz Mauthner nachgebeter hat, sagt zum Beispiel ungefähr folgenden Satz: Die Welt ist unermeßlich, aber wie kann der Mensch etwas wissen von dieser unermeßlichen Welt? Er hat ja nur Eindrücke durch seine Zufallssinne. Durch diese Zufallssinne, durch die Tore dieser Zufallssinne fällt manches in unsere Seele herein, und da gruppiert es sich, während draußen die unermeßliche Welt weitergeht, und der Mensch nichts wissen kann von den Gesetzen, nach denen diese unermeßliche Welt weitergeht. Wie kann der Mensch ‚glauben, daß dasjenige, was er durch seine Zufallssinne von der Welt erfährt, irgend etwas zu tun habe mit den großen Weltengeheimnissen draußen? — So sagt ein Nachbeter von Fritz Mauthner, der sich aber für keinen Nachbeter, sondern für einen der gescheitesten Menschen der Gegenwart hält. Man kann diesen Gedankengang in einen andern übersetzen. Ich will ganz bei dem Charakter der Gedankenform bleiben, nur den Gedanken in einen andern übersetzen.
Man kann eigentlich niemals irgendeinen Begriff bekommen von demjenigen, was eigentlich solch ein Genius wie Goethe der Menschheit gegeben hat, denn solch ein Genius wie Goethe kann doch eigentlich nichts anderes, als das, was er der Menschheit zu geben hatte, so auszudrücken, daß er es gewissermaßen in die zweiundzwanzig oder dreiundzwanzig Zufallsbuchstaben gruppiert, die wir haben und die sich nach ihren eigenen Gesetzen auf dem Papier gruppieren. Wie kann man aber aus dem, was da durch die dreiundzwanzig Zufallsbuchstaben auf dem Papier gruppiert ist, jemals irgend etwas von dem Inhalt des Genius Goethe bekommen? So gescheit derjenige wäre, der glaubte: Weil Goethe seine ganze Genialität durch die dreiundzwanzig Buchstaben A, B und so weiter ausdrücken mußte, kann man dadurch nichts von dem Genius und seinen Ergebnissen bekommen -, so gescheit wäre derjenige, der sagt: Da draußen die Welt ist unermeßlich, man kann sie nicht erkennen, denn wir haben nichts in uns, als dasjenige, was durch unsere Zufallssinne hereinkommt.
Aber es ist so, daß dieses verwahrloste Denken nicht allein etwa auf den Gebieten vorhanden ist, von denen ich jetzt spreche. Da tritt es nur besonders kraß zutage, vorhanden ist es überüberall. Es wirkt in unserem ganzen menschlichen Zusammenleben. Es wirkt in den tieftraurigen Ereignissen der Gegenwart, denn die wären nicht so, wie sie sind, wenn nicht alles Denken der Menschen durchdrungen wäre von dem, was sich auf einem solchen Gebiete, wie es angedeutet ist, eben nur ganz kraß ausspricht. Man wird niemals das richtige Interesse fassen können auf diesem Gebiete - ich meine: auf dem Gebiete des richtig im Sinne der Geisteswissenschaft gehaltenen menschlichen Wirkens zu einem wahren Fortschritte —, wenn man nicht den Willen hat, auf diese Dinge einzugehen, wenn man nicht schauen will, was der Menschheit not tut. Immer wieder hören wir von da oder dort den Einwand gegen die Ergebnisse der Geisteswissenschaft: Diese sind nur denen zugänglich, die hellseherisch in die geistigen Welten hineinschauen. — Und niemals wird man glauben, daß das nicht wahr ist, sondern daß es sich darum handelt, daß man durch das Denken wirklich hineinkommen kann in das Verstehen desjenigen, was der Seher aus der geistigen Welt herausholt. Man sollte sich aber nicht wundern, daß man heute nicht durch das Denken begreifen kann, was der Seher aus der geistigen Welt herausholt, wenn dieses Denken so beschaffen ist, wie es charakterisiert worden ist. Dieses Denken ist Trumpf. Dieses Denken ist eingeflossen auf allen Gebieten. Und nicht deshalb, weil man nicht durch Denken verstehen könnte alles dasjenige, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft verkündet wird, wird es nicht verstanden, sondern weil man sich infizieren läßt von dem schwachmütigen, von dem verwahrlosten Denken der Gegenwart. Daß uns Geisteswissenschaft anrege zu intensivem, zu starkmütigem Denken, darauf kommt es an! Und Geisteswissenschaft ist ganz dazu geeignet, meine lieben Freunde. Natürlich, solange wir Geisteswissenschaft so aufnehmen, daß wir uns nur sagen lassen dasjenige, um was es sich handelt, werden wir es in dem Denken, das wir gerade, ich möchte sagen, stiften sollten für die Menschheitszukunft, nicht sehr weit bringen. Wenn wir uns aber bemühen, die Dinge wirklich zu verstehen, wirklich zu erfassen, dann werden wir schon weiterkommen.
Aber gerade in die Auffassung der Geisteswissenschaft wirkt etwas hinein von dem verwahrlosten Denken der Gegenwart. Ich habe Ihnen vorgeführt, wie dieses verwahrloste Denken eigentlich wirkt. Ich sagte: Wirkungen haben wir nur von der Außenwelt, also kann man nicht an das Ding an sich kommen. Jetzt gefriert gleich der Gedanke ein. Weiter wollen die Leute nicht gehen. Jetzt sehen sie nicht mehr, daß dasjenige, was die Bilder im lebendigen Zusammenwirken sind, weiterführt als zum bloßen Bildcharakter. Das wird nun übertragen auf die Auffassung der Geisteswissenschaft. Weil die Menschen ganz infiziert sind von einem solchen Denken, so sagen sie sich: Was der Geisteswissenschafter auf der Seite a, b, c erzählt, sind geisteswissenschaftliche Tatsachen. Die kann man nicht vor sich haben, wenn man eben nicht die Sehergabe erreicht hat. Und da denken sie nicht mehr nach, ob sie nicht auch in dem gegenseitigen Sich-Aufeinanderbeziehen dessen, was der Geisteswissenschafter sagt, hineinkommen könnten, machen denselben Fehler, den heute alle Welt macht. Das Schlimme ist, daß dieser Grundfehler des zeitgenössischen Denkens so wenig eingesehen, so wenig durchschaut wird. Und er wird wirklich furchtbar wenig durchschaut. Er greift hinein in unser alleralltäglichstes Denken, macht sich da ebenso geltend wie bei dem vorgeschobenen Posten des philosophischen oder wissenschaftlichen Denkens. Und man macht sich nur selten klar, was für eine ungeheure Pflicht eigentlich aus der Einsicht in diesen Tatbestand erwächst, wie bedeutsam es ist, für diese Dinge Interesse zu haben, wie unverantwortlich es ist, sein Interesse für diese Dinge abzustumpfen.
Nun liegt die Tatsache vor, daß im Laufe der letzten Jahrhunderte die rein äußere Sinnesbeobachtung in der Wissenschaft tonangebend geworden ist, daß die Leute den Hauptwert allein auf dasjenige legen welcher Wert dem zuzuerkennen ist, habe ich oftmals betont -, was sie im Laboratorium oder in der Klinik oder im zoologischen Garten beobachten; daß sie bei dem stehenbleiben wollen. Gewiß, durch diese naturwissenschaftliche Methode sind ganz ungeheure Fortschritte gemacht worden, aber gerade unter diesem Fortschritte ist das Denken vollständig verwahrlost. Und daraus erwächst die Pflicht: nicht zur Macht kommen zu lassen in der Welt diejenigen, die diese Macht anstreben auf Grundlage eines bloßen materialistischen Experimentalwissens — und um Macht ist es diesen Leuten zu tun, und heute sind wir schon so weit, daß durch die brutalsten Machtsprüche der materialistischen Gelehrsamkeit aus der Welt geschafft werden solle alles dasjenige, was nicht materialistische Gelehrsamkeit ist. Eine Machtfrage ist es bereits geworden. Und unter denjenigen, die heute am schroffesten auch an die äußeren Mächte appellieren, um ihren äußeren Materialismus privilegiert und patentiert zu bekommen, sehen wir gerade diejenigen, die auf dem Boden der materialistischen Wissenschaft allein stehen. Darum handelt es sich, einzusehen, wie die Machtverhältnisse in der Welt walten. Es genügt nicht, daß wir uns bloß für unsere persönlichen Verhältnisse interessieren, sondern daß wir für die großen Menschheitsangelegenheiten Interesse entwickeln. Gewiß, wir werden als einzelne und auch als kleine Gesellschaft heute nicht besonders viel machen können, allein von solch kleinen Keimen muß die Sache ausgehen. Was nützt es, wenn heute viele sind, die über die offizielle Medizin sagen, sie haben kein Vertrauen zu ihr, und suchen auf allen andern Wegen dasjenige, zu dem sie Vertrauen haben. Darum handelt es sich zunächst nicht. Das alles ist nur persönliches Betreiben seiner eigenen Angelegenheiten. Worum es sich handelt, ist: ein Interesse dafür zu haben, daß neben der heutigen materialistischen Medizin berechtigt wird dasjenige, wozu man Vertrauen hat. Sonst hieße es, die Sache von Tag zu Tag schlimmer machen. Nicht darum kann es sich bloß handeln, daß derjenige, der zur heutigen sogenannten wissenschaftlichen Medizin kein Vertrauen hat, sich nun jemand andern aufsucht. Dadurch bringt er den andern gerade in eine mißlicheLage, wenn er sich nicht dafür interessiert, daß der andere auch gesetzmäßig berechtigt ist, sich für den allgemeinen menschheitlichen Gang der Angelegenheiten der Menschheit zu interessieren. Gewiß, wir können vielleicht heute und morgen noch nicht mehr tun, als Interesse für die Sache haben. Aber dieses Interesse für die großen Menschheitsangelegenheiten, das müssen wir in unseren Seelen tragen, wenn wir im wahren Sinne des Wortes die geisteswissenschaftliche Bewegung verstehen wollen. Wir glauben noch vielfach, wir verstünden die großen Interessen der Menschheit, weil wir uns unsere persönlichsten Interessen oftmals so interpretieren, als wären sie gerade große Menschheitsinteressen.
Wir müssen bis tief, tief in die Untergründe unserer Seele suchen, wenn wir bei uns selber auffinden wollen, wie wir eigentlich abhängig sind von dem blinden Autoritätsglauben der Gegenwart, wie gründlich wir abhängig davon sind. Unser Schlendern, unsere Bequemlichkeit, das ist es, was uns verhindert, für die großen Interessen der Menschheit wenigstens zunächst innerlich entzündet und entflammt zu sein. Das ist es aber, was wir uns als besten Neujahrsgruß in die eigene Seele schreiben können: entflammt zu werden, begeistert zu werden für die großen Interessen des menschlichen Fortschritts, der wahren menschlichen Freiheit. Solange wir auf dem Boden stehen, daß uns doch noch immer irgendwo etwas sitzt, was uns glauben läßt: derjenige, der von der Welt als ein großer Mann ausposaunt wird, müsse über irgend etwas auch etwas Richtiges denken können - solange wir diesen Glauben, der namentlich mit dem verwahrlosten Denkorganismus der Gegenwart zusammenhängt und von diesem großgezogen wird, nicht gründlich aus unserer Seele herausgerissen haben, so lange haben wir uns noch nicht diese Interessen für die allgemeinen großen Angelegenheiten der Menschheit erworben.
Was ich spreche, ist nicht in irgendeiner Weise gegen einzelne große Männer gerichtet. Ich weiß, daß es viele gibt, namentlich wenn in öffentlichen Vorträgen von solchen Sachen die Rede ist, die da sagen: Da wird von der Geisteswissenschaft die gegenwärtige Naturwissenschaft angegriffen, da werden Autoritäten angegriffen. — Ich wähle gerade solche Autoritäten, von denen ich auf der andern Seite sagen kann: sie sind bedeutende Autoritäten für die Gegenwart, sie sind große Männer -, um gerade zu zeigen, wie sich in den großen Persönlichkeiten der Gegenwart dasjenige geltend macht, was die Geisteswissenschaft mit Stumpf und Stiel auszurotten hat. Und man kann schon ein wenig ein Auge darauf haben, auch wenn man kein großer Mann ist, bei großen Männern das verwahrloste Denken zu sehen, das gerade durch die Fortschritte, durch die Licht- und Glanzseiten der gegenwärtigen Experimentalwissenschaft großgezogen wird.
Ein Beispiel, aber wahrhaftig ein Beispiel für viele: Ich nehme ein Buch, das von einem der bedeutendsten Männer der Gegenwart herrührt — es ist auch ins Deutsche übersetzt -, also wie gesagt, es soll niemand sagen, daß ich irgendwie jemanden in seiner Größe nicht anerkennen will. Ich sage ausdrücklich: Das Buch rührt von einem bedeutenden Menschen der Gegenwart auf dem Gebiete der Experimentalnaturforschung her. Ich schlage eine Seite auf, die Einleitung zu dem zweiten Bande, der, nachdem spezielle Fragen der gegenwärtigen Kosmologie von diesem großen Manne behandelt sind, auf die EntwickeJung der Weltanschauungen eingeht, auf die Geschichte der Weltanschauungsentwickelung, und ungefähr ausspricht: Da haben die Menschen in den Zeiten des alten Ägyptertums, in den Zeiten des alten Griechentums, des Römertums auf diese oder jene Weise sich ein Bild der Welt, eine Weltanschauung zu machen gesucht, aber dann ist die Naturwissenschaft der Gegenwart gekommen in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten; die hat alles Frühere weggeräumt, die hat nun endlich das große Los gezogen und ist zu der wirklichen Wahrheit gekommen, die jetzt nur ausgebaut zu werden braucht.
Ich habe schon öfter betont: nicht so sehr ist es dasjenige, was die Leute im einzelnen behaupten, als daß sie dann gleich der dämonische luziferische oder ahrimanische Charakter packt, sie gleich luziferisch oder ahrimanisch werden. Und so lesen wir denn am Schlusse dieser Einleitung das Folgende, höchst Merkwürdige. Geben Sie jetzt recht acht auf das, was sich uns darbieten kann bei einem ganz zweifellos großen, bedeutenden Mann der Gegenwart, der sagt, nachdem er also sich ungefähr so ausgesprochen hat, wie großartig die naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis sei: «Die Zeiten des traurigen Verfalls währten bis zu dem Wiedererwachen der Menschheit im Anfang der neuen Zeit. Diese stellte die Buchdruckerkunst in den Dienst der Gelehrsamkeit, und die Verachtung der experimentellen Arbeit verschwand aus den Anschauungen der Gebildeten. Aber langsam ging es anfangs bei dem Widerstand der alten vorgefaßten Meinungen und dem Mangel an Zusammenwirken unter den verschiedenen Forschern. Diese hindernden Umstände sind seither geschwunden, und zugleich vermehrte sich die Anzahl der Arbeiter und ihrer Hilfsmittel im Dienst der Naturwissenschaft in rascher Folge. Daher der großartige Fortschritt der letzten Zeiten.»
Und jetzt die letzten Sätze dieser Einleitung: «Zuweilen hört man sagen, daß wir in der «besten der Welten» leben; darüber läßt sich schwer etwas Wohlbegründetes aussagen, aber wir — wenigstens die Naturforscher - können mit aller Sicherheit behaupten, daß wir in der besten der Zeiten leben. Wir können in der festen Hoffnung, daß die Zukunft nur noch besser werden wird...», und jetzt kommt dasjenige, wo man — verzeihen Sie den harten Ausdruck! - entweder vom Stengel fallen kann, wenn man es liest, oder auf die Wände heraufkriechen sollte! Der Betreffende will ja dasjenige, was über die Natur und die Welt gedacht worden ist in den Forschungen großer Männer, jetzt, in diesen Zeiten, an seinem Geist vorüberziehen lassen. Deshalb sagt er: «Wir können in der festen Hoffnung, daß die Zukunft nur noch besser werden wird, mit dem großen Natur- und Menschenkenner Goethe sagen:
... Es ist ein groß Ergetzen,
Sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu versetzen.
Zu schauen, wie vor uns ein weiser Mann gedacht,
Und wie wir’s dann zuletzt so herrlich weit gebracht.»
In vollem Ernste, meine lieben Freunde, ein großer Mann weist da in seinen Betrachtungen auf den Ausspruch des «großen Natur- und Menschenkenners Goethe» hin, also auf die Worte Wagners, den Goethe bekanntlich im «Faust» sagen läßt:
Verzeiht, es ist ein groß Ergetzen,
Sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu versetzen,
Zu schauen, wie vor uns ein weiser Mann gedacht,
Und wie wir’s dann zuletzt so herrlich weit gebracht.
Wagner sagt es! Aber Faust erwidert ihm — und vielleicht darf er das, was Faust sagt, im Sinne des «großen Natur- und Menschenkenners» Goethe sagen:
O ja! Bis an die Sterne weit!
Es paßt gerade auf den Mann, der es auch «bis an die Sterne weit» gebracht hat! Nämlich:
O ja! Bis an die Sterne weit!
Mein Freund, die Zeiten der Vergangenheit
Sind uns ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln;
Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,
Das ist im Grund der Herren eigner Geist,
In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln.
Da ist’s denn wahrlich oft ein Jammer!
Man läuft euch bei dem ersten Blick davon.
Ein Kehrichtfaß und eine Rumpelkammer,
Und höchstens eine Haupt- und Staatsaktion
Mit trefflichen pragmatischen Maximen,
Wie sie den Puppen wohl im Munde ziemen!
und so weiter. «Sei er kein schellenlauter Tor» heißt es vorher auch noch. So schreibt 1907 einer der «größten Männer der Gegenwart», der es allerdings «bis zu den Sternen weit» gebracht hat, und der es auch dazu gebracht hat, indem er zurückblickt auf all die andern, die vor ihm gewirkt haben, als Ausspruch des «großen Natur- und Menschenkenners Goethe» die Worte zu gebrauchen:
Es ist ein groß Ergetzen,
Sich in den Geist der Zeiten zu versetzen.
Sie haben gelacht. Aber man wünschte nur, daß dieses Lachen wirklich auch immer angewendet würde, wo innerhalb desjenigen, was heute gerade die Macht hat, solches verwahrloste Denken geltend gemacht wird. Denn das ist ein Beispiel, das uns so recht beweist, wie gerade diejenigen, die fest stehen, sicher stehen auf dem Boden der heutigen wissenschaftlichen Weltanschauungen, die sogar verbunden sind mit "großen Fortschritten auf diesem Gebiete, die selber große Fortschritte gemacht haben, wie sie verwahrlostes Denken produzieren können. Und das beweist, daß das, was man heute materialistische Naturwissenschaft nennt, durchaus nicht ausschließt das alleroberflächlichste Denken. Man kann ein ganz verwahrlostes Denken haben und heute ein großer Mann auf dem Gebiete der äußeren Naturwissenschaft sein. Das muß man aber wissen, und in diesem Sinne muß man sich verhalten können. Das ist eine Signatur unserer Zeit. Wenn es aber so fortdauert, daß jemand, wenn er einmal als großer Mann abgestempelt wird, eben als eine große Autorität gilt, und man dasjenige, was er auf diesem oder jenem Gebiete zu sagen hat, ungeprüft anführt als irgend etwas, was Geltung haben dürfte, dann wird man niemals über die große Misere unserer Zeit hinauskommen. Ich bin überzeugt davon, daß über die Stelle, die ich Ihnen vorgelesen habe, unzählige Menschen heute hinweglesen, gar nicht darüber lachen, wenn sie sie lesen, trotzdem diese Stelle gerade eine solche ist, die uns im eminentesten Sinne darauf hinweist, wo die tiefsten Schäden unserer Zeit liegen, die die Entwickelung der Menschheit in der Gegenwart in den Niedergang hineinführt. Und wo anzusetzen ist mit demjenigen, was der Menschheit not tut, das muß man einsehen; und daß trotz der unermeßlich großen Fortschritte der äußeren Naturwissenschaft das möglich geworden ist, daß gerade die größten Naturforscher des 19. Jahrhunderts, und bis in unsere Tage herein, die schlimmsten Dilettanten geworden sind in bezug auf alle Weltanschauungsfragen, und daß das der große Schaden der Zeit ist, daß unsere gegenwärtigen Menschen das nicht durchschauen — nicht durchschauen, daß die größten Naturforscher des 19. Jahrhunderts gerade die schlimmsten Dilettanten in Weltanschauungsfragen sein müssen, wenn sie sich ganz demjenigen überlassen, was als Geist in der materialistischen Naturanschauung waltet -, und daß die Menschen jenen großen Persönlichkeiten auch dann nachlaufen, wenn diese großen Persönlichkeiten nicht nur die Ergebnisse ihrer Laboratoriumsversuche und ihrer Klinikenuntersuchungen von sich geben, sondern wenn sie dies oder jenes von den Weltengeheimnissen sagen.
Daher haben wir parallelgehend mit einer Popularisierung der Wissenschaft, die im höchsten Sinne nützlich ist, im höchsten Sinne vorteilhaft ist, zu gleicher Zeit ein Herunterkommen in allen Weltanschauungsfragen, ein verwahrlostes Denken, das epidemienartig, seuchenartig überhand nimmt, weil es sich in alles, alles hineinfrißt, und weil es zuletzt zurückgeht auf die schlimmen Dilettantentume gerade derjenigen, die große Männer sind.
Hier liegen die Aufgaben, mit denen sich zunächst wenigstens, wenn wir auch nichts ausführen können, meine lieben Freunde, unsere Interessen verbinden müssen. Wir müssen wenigstens durchschauen, wie die Dinge liegen, und wir müssen uns eine klare Vorstellung davon machen, daß es vor allen Dingen zu viel, viel traurigeren Zeiten führen würde, als wir in der Gegenwart haben, wenn dasjenige, was hier angedeutet worden ist, von den Menschen nicht durchschaut würde, wenn nicht an die Stelle des verwahrlosten Denkens wiederum ein klares und gediegenes Denken in die Menschheit hineingebracht werden könnte. Alles geht zurück auf dieses verwahrloste Denken. Dasjenige, was uns als äußere, oftmals höchst traurige Erscheinung entgegentritt, das wäre nicht da, wenn dieses verwahrloste Denken nicht da wäre.
Es schien mir, als müßte man am Neujahrsbeginn gerade über diese Dinge sprechen, die mit dem Gesinnungscharakter unserer ganzen Aufgabe zusammenhängen müssen. Denn wenn wir uns angewöhnen, mit einem unbefangenen Blicke hinzuschauen auf die Art und Weise, wie heute gedacht wird, und wie dieses Denken in alle, alle Verhältnisse hinein mächtig ist, dann wird man erst ein Bild von dem bekommen, was zu tun ist und was der Menschheit besonders not tut. Da müssen wir allerdings manche Sehnsucht nach Schlendrian, manche Sehnsucht nach Faulheit und Trägheit überwinden, müssen uns wirklich wenigstens zunächst vorstellen können, daß einer geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung Aufgabe auch noch eine andere ist, als bloß Vorträge anzuhören oder zu lesen. Sich mit entsprechenden Vorstellungen bekanntmachen - ich muß es immer wieder betonen! Selbstverständlich können wir zunächst als einzelne und als kleine Gesellschaft nicht viel tun. Aber unser eigenes Denken muß sich in der richtigen Richtung bewegen, muß wissen, um was es sich handelt, muß nicht selber der Gefahr ausgesetzt sein, wenn ich den trivialen Ausdruck gebrauchen darf, hineinzufallen auf den Weltanschauungsdilettantismus gerade derjenigen, die die größten Männer der Zeit sind in bezug auf die äußeren Wissenschaften. Große Männer, die aber Dilettanten in Weltanschauungsfragen sind, begründen allerlei Weltanschauungsgesellschaften, monistische und weiß Gott was für Gesellschaften, ohne daß der richtige Widerspruch sich erhebt, der darinnen bestehen würde, daß man sich wenigstens darüber klar ist, daß, wenn solche Menschen Weltanschauungsgesellschaften begründen, es eben so ist, als wenn man sagen würde: Ich lasse mir bei dem Manne meinen Rock anmessen, denn es hat sich gezeigt, daß das ein vorzüglicher Schuster ist! — Es ist ein Unsinn, aber eben solch ein Unsinn ist es, wenn ein großer Chemiker oder ein großer Psychologe als Weltanschauungsautoritäten hingenommen werden. Daß sie es selber tun, das kann man ihnen nicht verübeln, denn sie können selbstverständlich nicht wissen, wie unzulänglich sie sind. Aber daß sie hingenommen werden, das hängt zusammen mit den großen Schäden unserer Zeit.
Es scheint mir so, meine lieben Freunde, als wenn mit unseren Gefühlen ins Ewige hinein eine Silvesterbetrachtung zusammenhängen könnte, und als ob mit demjenigen, was unmittelbar obliegt in bezug auf die Aufgabe des Tages, mit dem, was uns obliegt in bezug auf die unmittelbare Verpflichtung, eine Neujahrsbetrachtung zusammenhängen könnte. So scheint mir schon, daß sich der Ton einer Neujahrsbetrachtung zu dem Ton einer Silvesterbetrachtung so verhalten darf, wie sich die Worte, die ich heute gesprochen habe, zu den Worten verhalten, die ich gestern gesprochen habe.
New Year's Reflections II
Yesterday, on New Year's Eve, it was fitting to delve into some of the mysteries of existence, into things that are connected with great supernatural mysteries, such as the annual transition from one year to another, and the great New Year's Eve and New Year's Day of the world, it was good, as I said, to delve into these mysteries that speak to the depths of our soul and are far removed from the outer world. So, especially at the beginning of a new year, it should perhaps be of particular importance to allow at least some of our great and significant duties to come to the fore in our souls. These duties are, of course, connected with what we can learn about the course of human development through spiritual science. They are connected with the knowledge of the path that humanity must take as it moves toward its future. One cannot recognize the duties of which we are speaking unless one tries to take an open look at one's own time in its most diverse areas. We have done this repeatedly in the course of our reflections. But some of what we might already be familiar with is perhaps appropriate to bring to mind at the beginning of a new year.
Certainly, my dear friends, everything that strikes us in the face of the materialistic state of affairs with all its consequences, so that we know: Spiritual science must provide the foundation for entering in a higher way into the right progress of humanity, certainly, everything that appears to us as necessary to do is so enormous, so incisive, it is so significant that, to put it trivially, there is so much to do in the present that it is impossible to imagine that we could ever, with our weak powers, be in a position to do much of what needs to be done. But one thing is important: that we connect our interests with what needs to be done, that we become more and more interested in what humanity needs at this particular time. For it must start from the fact that a circle, however small, becomes interested in what humanity needs; that, however small the circle may be, it gains a clear insight into what are the forces leading downward in the development of time, what are the destructive forces. Especially at the beginning of a new year, it would be good to direct our interests a little toward the objective interests of humanity, which are quite separate from our personal affairs.
As I said, this requires clear insight into what is happening, especially on the downward path of human development. We need only transfer the thoughts that have come to our minds again in recent days to the present situation, and we will find much, or at least some, of what is particularly needed by humanity at the present time. We have seen how a far-reaching wisdom disappeared at a certain moment in human development, how this Gnostic wisdom sank into oblivion, and how we must now work toward bringing knowledge of the spiritual back to the surface, in keeping with the advanced state of our times. In the course of this autumn, we have also drawn attention to the deeper reasons why the wave of materialism rose so high in the 19th century, and I have had to emphasize again and again that spiritual scientific insight into this rise of materialism does not in any way lead to a misjudgment or misunderstanding of the great advances of external materialistic natural science. These advances must be acknowledged, and it is repeatedly emphasized that we must recognize these materialistic advances in natural science. But it is our particular responsibility to see that, in the course of the 19th century and up to the present day, the great progress in the external material realm has been accompanied by a decline in the power of thinking, in clear and sure thinking. Clear, confident thinking has declined, especially in science. Wherever science is pursued, clear thinking, and especially confident, content-filled thinking, has declined. And since belief in authority, despite what people may think, has never been as strong as it is today, this despondency with regard to certainty of thought has spread to the widest circles, to all popular thinking. We are living in an age of neglected thinking and, at the same time, in an age of blind belief in authority. How is it that people today are so thoroughly under the impression that they must believe, that they must recognize the authorities sanctioned by external powers? People want to know whether they are entitled to this or that. Today, most people do not even think about the fact that this could be an individual matter, that it is something they could possibly concern themselves with! No, people go to those in whom “law and order are perpetuated like an eternal disease” and allow themselves to be informed without claiming any right to think for themselves about the things they are being told. For they consider it right to blindly recognize authority. People become ill, they completely abandon any effort to know anything about even the simplest things. Why bother? We have state-approved doctors for that, and they are responsible for taking care of our bodies. Our bodies are really none of our business! When you want to decide on some other question, you go to those who are supposed to know: to the theologians, to the philosophers, to this one or that one.
Anyone who continues this line of thought will find countless examples within themselves that boil down to the most blind belief in authority. And if they can't find any, my dear friends, then don't hold it against me if I tell them that the less they find within themselves, the greater their belief in authority! But first I would like to show how inadequate, insufficient thinking has crept into the finest areas of intellectual life throughout the world—regardless of nation, race, or color—and how a certain element of inadequate thinking is present precisely in the finest areas of intellectual cultural life. Let us take a piece of philosophy as it has developed. Who today, on the basis of a belief in authority that has spread through many, many channels, would not be convinced that human beings cannot somehow attain “the thing in itself,” but can only receive the external appearances, the impressions on the senses, the impressions on the soul from things? One can only have “effects” from things; one cannot attain “the thing in itself.” This is something that has become a basic tenet of 19th-century thinking. I have described the whole mess in the chapter of my book Rätsel der Philosophie (The Riddles of Philosophy) entitled “Die Welt als Illusion” (The World as Illusion). Anyone who studies this chapter will find an overview of the whole mess. Human beings can only have effects; they cannot approach the thing in itself, which remains unknown. Infected by this thing in itself, which must remain unknown, are precisely the finest thinkers of the 19th century — if one can speak of “fine” in this context.
If we now look at the train of thought underlying what I have just said, the following emerges. It is proven, strictly proven: The eye can only reproduce what it is capable of producing from within itself through its nervous processes and other processes. So when an external impression comes, it responds in its own specific way. One can only arrive at the impression, not at what makes an impression on the eye. Through the ear, one can only arrive at the auditory impression, not at what makes the impression, and so on. And so only the impressions of the external world affect the senses of the soul. Since Lange, who believed he had first established this for a specific area, for colors and sounds and the like, it has now become accepted through the collective thinking of humanity that humans can only receive impressions of the world, can only receive effects. Is that wrong? Certainly not, for, as I have often emphasized, it is not a question of whether something is right or wrong, but of entirely different considerations. Is it true that only images, only impressions, can be produced in our senses by things? Certainly it is true. There is no doubt about that. But something entirely different is at work here.
I will clarify this with a comparison. If we stand in front of a mirror and a second person also stands in front of a mirror, it cannot be denied that what we see in it is the image of ourselves and the image of the other person. Images are what we see in the mirror, without a doubt. And in this respect, all our sensory perceptions are really images, because the object must first make an impression on us, and our impression, our reaction, one might say, comes to consciousness. We can therefore quite correctly compare this with the images we see in the mirror, because these are also images. In this Lange-Kantian line of thought, we are dealing with a completely correct assertion that human beings deal with images. We are then faced with the conclusion that, because human beings deal only with images, they cannot really approach anything more real, anything “thing-in-itself.” What is this based on? It is based solely on the fact that one cannot think beyond a premise, that one remains with a correct premise. The thinking is not incorrect, but it is frozen in place. For the images we see in the mirror are correct. But the person standing next to me, with whom I am looking into the mirror, now slaps me in the face in the mirror. Will I then say, even though these are all just images: One mirror image has slapped the other mirror image? — What happens between the images points to something very real. If you have living thinking rather than frozen thinking, thinking that is truly connected to things, connected to realities, then you know that Lange's Kantian premise is correct, that we are dealing with images everywhere. But when these images enter into living relationships, then these living relationships truly express what first leads us into the thing itself. So it is not a question of the gentlemen in question, who have misled thinking, having started from incorrect premises, but the whole thing is based on the fact that we are dealing with frozen thinking, with a kind of thinking that leaves you standing there saying: Right, right, right — and then you can't go any further. This neglected thinking of the 19th century lacks flexibility and vitality. Thinking in the 19th century is frozen, truly frozen.
Let us take another example. Over the course of this past year, I have often shared with you individual thoughts from an honest thinker, Mauthner, the great language critic. With Kant, it was a “critique of concepts.” Mauthner goes further, because what comes later must always go further: he produces a “critique of language.” I shared a few samples from this “critique of language” with you over the course of the fall, and indeed over the course of the year; you will remember. Today, such a man has many followers. He was a journalist before he became a philosopher. An old proverb says: One crow does not peck out the eyes of another. Not only does it not peck out its eyes, but blind crows are even given eyes by the other crows, if the crows are journalists! As I said, I do not wish to object in any way to the honesty, or even the thoroughness and depth—in the sense of our time—of such thinkers, for I must emphasize again and again that it is incorrect to say that criticism is being levelled here at natural science or any other endeavour—only characterization is intended. That is why I say explicitly: Mauthner is an honorable man—and “they are all honorable men”—but let us consider a train of thought that is in line with linguistic criticism. For example, it is said: Human knowledge is limited, according to Mauthner. Limited—why limited in his sense? Well, because what humans experience of the world enters their soul through their senses. Certainly not a very profound truth, but also an undeniable one. Everything comes in from the outside world, from the sensory world, through the senses. But Mauthner has come to the conclusion that these senses are random senses, that is, that instead of the eyes and ears and senses that we already have, we could perhaps not have them and could have other senses. Then the world out there would look completely different. This is a very popular idea among some philosophers of our time! And so it is actually by chance that we have these particular senses, and thus also this world. If we had other senses, we would have a different world. Random senses! Someone who has echoed Fritz Mauthner says, for example, something like this: The world is immeasurable, but how can humans know anything about this immeasurable world? They only have impressions through their random senses. Through these random senses, through the gates of these random senses, many things fall into our soul, where they group themselves, while outside the immeasurable world continues, and man can know nothing of the laws according to which this immeasurable world continues. How can man believe that what he experiences of the world through his accidental senses has anything to do with the great mysteries of the world outside? — So says a follower of Fritz Mauthner, who, however, does not consider himself a follower, but one of the most intelligent people of the present day. This train of thought can be translated into another. I want to stay completely within the character of the thought form, only translating the thought into another.
One can never really grasp what a genius like Goethe gave to humanity, because a genius like Goethe can do nothing else but express what he had to give to humanity by grouping it, as it were, into the twenty-two or twenty-three random letters that we have and that group themselves on paper according to their own laws. But how can one ever get anything of the content of Goethe's genius from what is grouped on paper by the twenty-three random letters? No matter how clever one might be to believe that Because Goethe had to express all his genius through the twenty-three letters A, B, and so on, we cannot gain any insight into his genius and his achievements—how clever would be the person who says: The world out there is immeasurable, we cannot know it, because we have nothing within us except what comes in through our random senses.
But the fact is that this neglected way of thinking is not only found in the areas I am talking about now. It is only particularly evident there; it is present everywhere. It affects our entire human coexistence. It affects the deeply sad events of the present, for they would not be as they are if all human thinking were not permeated by what is only expressed in such a crude form in the field I have mentioned. One will never be able to take a proper interest in this field — I mean, in the field of human activity in the true sense of spiritual science, aimed at genuine progress — if one does not have the will to engage with these things, if one does not want to see what humanity needs. Again and again we hear objections to the results of spiritual science: they are only accessible to those who can see clairvoyantly into the spiritual worlds. And no one will ever believe that this is not true, but rather that it is a matter of being able to really understand, through thinking, what the seer brings out of the spiritual world. But we should not be surprised that today we cannot understand through thinking what the seer brings out of the spiritual world, if our thinking is of the nature that has been described. This thinking is trump. This thinking has flowed into all areas. And it is not because one cannot understand everything that is proclaimed by spiritual science through thinking that it is not understood, but because one allows oneself to be infected by the weak-minded, neglected thinking of the present. What matters is that spiritual science stimulates us to think intensively and vigorously! And spiritual science is perfectly suited to this, my dear friends. Of course, as long as we accept spiritual science in such a way that we only allow ourselves to be told what it is about, we will not get very far in the thinking that we should, I would say, establish for the future of humanity. But if we strive to really understand things, to really grasp them, then we will make progress.
But something of the neglected thinking of the present day is influencing the view of spiritual science. I have shown you how this neglected thinking actually works. I said: we only experience effects from the external world, so we cannot get to the thing itself. Now the thought immediately freezes. People do not want to go any further. Now they no longer see that what the images are in their living interaction leads further than to their mere pictorial character. This is now transferred to the view of spiritual science. Because people are completely infected by such thinking, they say to themselves: What the spiritual scientist says on pages a, b, and c are spiritual scientific facts. You can't have them in front of you if you haven't attained the gift of vision. And so they no longer think about whether they might also be able to enter into the mutual interrelationship of what the spiritual scientist says, and they make the same mistake that everyone makes today. The terrible thing is that this fundamental error of contemporary thinking is so little understood, so little seen through. And it is really understood very little. It reaches into our most everyday thinking, asserting itself there just as much as in the advanced realm of philosophical or scientific thinking. And people rarely realize what an enormous duty arises from the insight into this fact, how important it is to take an interest in these things, how irresponsible it is to dull one's interest in them.
Now, the fact is that over the last few centuries, purely external sensory observation has become the dominant approach in science, that people place the main value solely on what they observe in the laboratory or in the clinic or in the zoological garden—I have often emphasized this—and that they want to stick with that. Certainly, tremendous progress has been made through this scientific method, but precisely in the midst of this progress, thinking has completely fallen into disrepair. And from this arises the duty not to allow those who strive for power on the basis of mere materialistic experimental knowledge to come to power in the world—for it is power that these people are after, and today we have already reached the point where the most brutal dictates of materialistic scholarship are intended to eliminate from the world everything that is not materialistic scholarship. It has already become a question of power. And among those who today most vehemently appeal to external powers to obtain privileges and patents for their external materialism, we see precisely those who stand solely on the ground of materialistic science. That is why it is important to understand how power relations work in the world. It is not enough for us to be interested only in our personal circumstances; we must develop an interest in the great issues of humanity. Certainly, as individuals and as a small society, we cannot do very much today, but it is from such small seeds that the cause must spring. What good does it do if many people today say they have no confidence in official medicine and seek what they do have confidence in by other means? That is not the point. All that is just personal pursuit of one's own affairs. What is important is to have an interest in ensuring that, alongside today's materialistic medicine, there is room for what one has confidence in. Otherwise, it would mean making things worse day by day. It cannot be a matter of those who have no confidence in today's so-called scientific medicine simply seeking someone else. By doing so, they put the other person in a difficult position if they are not interested in the other person's legitimate right to be interested in the general course of human affairs. Certainly, we may not be able to do more today or tomorrow than take an interest in the matter. But we must carry this interest in the great affairs of humanity in our souls if we want to understand the spiritual-scientific movement in the true sense of the word. We still often believe that we understand the great interests of humanity because we often interpret our most personal interests as if they were precisely the great interests of humanity.
We must search deep, deep into the depths of our souls if we want to find within ourselves how dependent we actually are on the blind belief in authority of the present, how thoroughly dependent we are on it. Our dawdling, our complacency, is what prevents us from being at least initially inspired and inflamed within ourselves for the great interests of humanity. But that is what we can write in our own souls as the best New Year's greeting: to be inflamed, to be inspired by the great interests of human progress, of true human freedom. As long as we stand on the ground that there is still something somewhere that makes us believe that someone who is trumpeted by the world as a great man must also be capable of thinking something right about something—as long as we have not thoroughly torn this belief, which is connected with and nurtured by the degenerate thinking organism of the present, out of our souls, we have not yet acquired this interest in the great general affairs of humanity.
What I am saying is not directed in any way against individual great men. I know that there are many, especially when such things are discussed in public lectures, who say: Spiritual science is attacking contemporary natural science; authorities are being attacked. I choose precisely those authorities of whom I can say, on the other hand, that they are important authorities for the present, that they are great men, in order to show how what spiritual science has to eradicate root and branch is asserting itself in the great personalities of the present. And even if you are not a great man, you can keep an eye out for the neglected thinking that is being nurtured by the progress, the bright and shiny side of contemporary experimental science.
One example, but truly an example of many: I take a book written by one of the most important men of our time—it has also been translated into German—so, as I said, no one should say that I somehow do not want to acknowledge someone's greatness. I say explicitly: The book comes from an important contemporary figure in the field of experimental natural science. I open a page, the introduction to the second volume, which, after this great man has dealt with specific questions of contemporary cosmology, goes into the development of worldviews, the history of the development of worldviews, and says something like this: In the times of ancient Egypt, in the times of ancient Greece and Rome, sought in this or that way to form a picture of the world, a worldview, but then modern science came along in the last four centuries; it swept away everything that had gone before, finally hit the jackpot, and arrived at the real truth, which now only needs to be developed further.
I have often emphasized that it is not so much what people claim in detail, but rather that they are immediately seized by the demonic, Luciferic, or Ahrimanic character and immediately become Luciferic or Ahrimanic. And so, at the end of this introduction, we read the following highly remarkable passage. Pay close attention now to what we find in the words of an undoubtedly great and important man of our time, who, after expressing his admiration for the greatness of scientific knowledge, goes on to say: “The times of sad decline lasted until the reawakening of humanity at the beginning of the new era. This placed the art of printing at the service of scholarship, and contempt for experimental work disappeared from the views of the educated. But at first, progress was slow due to resistance from old preconceived opinions and a lack of cooperation among the various researchers. These hindering circumstances have since disappeared, and at the same time the number of workers and their tools in the service of natural science has increased rapidly. Hence the great progress of recent times.”
And now the last sentences of this introduction: “Sometimes we hear people say that we live in the ‘best of all worlds’; it is difficult to say anything well-founded about this, but we—at least natural scientists—can say with certainty that we live in the best of times. We can live in the firm hope that the future will only get better...”, and now comes the part where – forgive the harsh expression! – you either fall off your chair when you read it, or want to crawl up the walls! The person in question wants to let what has been thought about nature and the world in the research of great men pass through his mind, now, in these times. That is why he says: “We can, in the firm hope that the future will only get better, say with Goethe, the great connoisseur of nature and humanity:
... It is a great pleasure
To put oneself in the spirit of the times.
To see how a wise man thought before us,
And how we have finally brought it so far."
In all seriousness, my dear friends, a great man refers in his reflections to the words of the “great connoisseur of nature and humanity, Goethe,” that is, to the words of Wagner, which Goethe famously has Faust say in “Faust”:
Forgive me, it is a great delight
To put oneself in the spirit of the times
To see how a wise man thought before us
And how we have finally come so far.
Wagner says it! But Faust replies — and perhaps he is allowed to say what Faust says in the spirit of Goethe, the “great connoisseur of nature and humanity”:
Oh yes! As far as the stars!
It fits perfectly with the man who has also made it “as far as the stars”! Namely:
Oh yes! As far as the stars!
My friend, the times of the past
Are a book sealed with seven seals;
What you call the spirit of the times
Is basically the spirit of the masters themselves,
In which the times are reflected.
There it is truly often a pity!
One runs away from you at first glance.
A dustbin and a junk room,
And at most a major public event
With excellent pragmatic maxims,
As befits the mouths of puppets!
and so on. “Let him not be a loud fool,” it says earlier. So writes one of the ‘greatest men of the present day’ in 1907, who has, however, made it ‘far to the stars’ and who has also achieved this by looking back on all those who came before him and using the words of the ‘great connoisseur of nature and humanity, Goethe’ as a saying:
It is a great pleasure
to put oneself in the spirit of the times.
You laughed. But one only wishes that this laughter would always be applied where, within those who currently hold power, such neglected thinking is being asserted. For this is an example that proves to us how precisely those who stand firm, who stand securely on the ground of today's scientific worldview, who are even connected with “great advances in this field,” who themselves have made great advances, can produce degenerate thinking. And this proves that what we call materialistic natural science today does not in any way exclude the most superficial thinking. One can have completely degenerate thinking and still be a great man in the field of external natural science today. But one must be aware of this and be able to behave accordingly. This is a hallmark of our time. But if it continues to be the case that once someone is labeled a great man, he is regarded as a great authority, and whatever he has to say in this or that field is accepted unquestioningly as something that must be valid, then we will never overcome the great misery of our time. I am convinced that countless people today read over the passage I have read to you without even laughing when they read it, even though this passage is precisely one that points out to us in the most eminent sense where the deepest damage of our time lies, which is leading the development of humanity in the present into decline. And we must realize where to begin with what humanity needs; and that despite the immeasurable progress of the external natural sciences, it has become possible that precisely the greatest natural scientists of the 19th century, and up to the present day, have become the worst dilettantes in relation to all questions of worldview, and that it is the great harm of the time that our present-day people do not see through this — do not see through that the greatest natural scientists of the 19th century must be the worst dilettantes in questions of worldview if they abandon themselves completely to what prevails as spirit in the materialistic view of nature — and that people follow these great personalities even then when these great personalities not only present the results of their laboratory experiments and their clinical investigations, but when they say this or that about the secrets of the world.
Therefore, parallel to a popularization of science, which is useful in the highest sense, beneficial in the highest sense, we have at the same time a decline in all questions of worldview, a neglected way of thinking that is spreading like an epidemic, like a plague, because it eats away at everything, and because it ultimately goes back to the terrible amateurism of precisely those who are great men.
Here lie the tasks with which we must first at least concern ourselves, my dear friends, even if we cannot accomplish anything. We must at least see how things stand, and we must form a clear idea that, above all, it would lead to much, much sadder times than we are experiencing at present if what has been indicated here were not understood by people, if clear and sound thinking could not be brought back into humanity in place of this neglected thinking. Everything goes back to this degenerate thinking. What we encounter as an external, often highly sad phenomenon would not exist if this degenerate thinking did not exist.
It seemed to me that at the beginning of the new year, we should talk about these things, which must be connected with the character of our entire task. For if we accustom ourselves to looking with an unbiased eye at the way people think today and how this thinking is powerful in all, all circumstances, then we will begin to get a picture of what needs to be done and what humanity particularly needs. To do this, however, we must overcome a certain longing for routine, a certain longing for laziness and inertia, and we must at least be able to imagine that the task of a spiritual-scientific movement is something other than merely listening to lectures or reading books. We must familiarize ourselves with the relevant ideas—I cannot emphasize this enough! Of course, as individuals and as a small society, we cannot do much at first. But our own thinking must move in the right direction, must know what is at stake, must not expose itself to the danger, if I may use the trivial expression, of falling into the worldview amateurism of precisely those who are the greatest men of the age in the external sciences. Great men who are amateurs in matters of worldview establish all kinds of worldview societies, monistic societies and God knows what other societies, without the proper objection being raised, which would be to at least realize that when such people establish worldview societies, it is just as if one were to say: I'll let that man measure my coat, because he has proven himself to be an excellent tailor! — It's nonsense, but it's just as much nonsense when a great chemist or a great psychologist is accepted as an authority on worldview. You can't blame them for doing it themselves, because they obviously can't know how inadequate they are. But the fact that they are accepted has to do with the great damage of our time.
It seems to me, my dear friends, that our feelings about eternity could be connected with a New Year's reflection, and that what is immediately incumbent upon us in relation to the task of the day, what is incumbent upon us in relation to our immediate obligations, could be connected with a New Year's reflection. It seems to me that the tone of a New Year's reflection should be to the tone of a New Year's Eve reflection as the words I have spoken today are to the words I spoke yesterday.