The Rudolf Steiner Archive

7. The Epistemological Foundations of Theosophy III

[ 1 ] In my previous lectures, I have attempted to outline the fundamental ideas of contemporary epistemology as it is taught at our universities and as it is also pursued by those philosophers and thoughtful researchers who draw on Schopenhauer, Kant, and other great German thinkers. At the same time, I attempted to suggest how the entire scientific development of the 19th century—be it in physics, physiology, or psychology—has, in essence, accepted and found valid Kant’s theory of knowledge or its elaboration as presented by Schopenhauer and Eduard von Hartmann. We have thus shown that, fundamentally, that type of epistemology which we may call illusionism—which reduces us entirely to our own consciousness and makes the whole world a world of representation—appears to be the only correct one. This seems so self-evident that today one is virtually regarded as philosophically immature if one were to doubt the statement: “The world is my representation.”

[ 2 ] You will now also allow me to speak about the spiritual, since I have presented to you almost all the reasons that have led to this illusionistic theory of knowledge. I have shown you the reasons that lead to the realization: The world is our conception—; I have shown you how, from the perspective of sensory physiology, everything that surrounds us is annihilated, be it the world of temperature perception, that of the sense of touch, and so on. These perceptions, ideas, and concepts ultimately appear to be born from the human soul as a self-creation of the human being. The insight that seeks to justify this from all sides corresponds to Schopenhauer’s doctrine: The world is our idea—according to which there is no heaven, but only an eye that sees it; no sounds, but only an ear that hears them.

[ 3 ] You might have thought that I intended to refute these various epistemological viewpoints. I have shown where they lead, but do not take this as a refutation of the various viewpoints. The theosophist knows no refutation. He does not know what is called taking only one standpoint in philosophy. Those who have surrendered themselves to a philosophical system believe that this one is absolutely the correct one. Thus, from this perspective, we can see Schopenhauer, Hartmann, the Hegelianists, and the Kantianists fighting one another. But this can never be the perspective of the theosophist. The theosophist sees it differently. Viewed in a broader sense, there is no conflict between the various religious systems for him, since he realizes that a core of truth underlies them all and that the conflict between Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians is unjustified. Thus, the Theosophist also knows that there is a core of knowledge in every philosophical system, that in each, so to speak, a stage of human cognition is hidden.

[ 4 ] The point is not to refute Kant, nor to refute Schopenhauer. Anyone who strives honestly may be mistaken, but the next best person cannot simply come along to refute him. We must realize that all these thinkers have sought the truth from their own perspective, and that it is precisely the core of truth that we will find in the various philosophical systems. Nor can it be a matter for us of who is right or wrong. Whoever stands firmly only on his own standpoint, then compares the standpoints with one another and says that he can accept only this one or that one, is, with regard to philosophical knowledge, on no other standpoint than that of a stamp collector. Not even the most exalted knower has climbed to the highest level of insight. We are all on the ladder of development. Even the highest cannot determine anything absolute about the truth or the world spirit. And even when we have ascended to a higher level of knowledge, we still have only a relative judgment—one that will, however, continue to expand as we climb to an even higher summit.

[ 5 ] Once we have grasped the foundations of the theosophical system, it seems presumptuous to us to speak about a philosopher unless we can tentatively adopt his point of view, so that we can prove the truth of his ideas just as he himself could. One can always be mistaken, but one must not adopt the sophistical position that it is impossible to comprehend another point of view. I will provide you with proof from the development of German thought that it is possible to comprehend it in the way I have described.

[ 6 ] In the 1860s, the dawn of Darwinism had broken, and it was immediately interpreted in materialistic terms. The materialistic interpretation is one-sided. But those who interpreted it that way considered themselves infallible; the materialists of the 1860s considered themselves infallible in their conclusions. Then Eduard von Hartmann’s *Philosophy of the Unconscious* appeared. I do not wish to defend it. While it may have its one-sidednesses, I nevertheless acknowledge that this standpoint is far superior to that of Vogt, Haeckel, and Büchner. That is why the materialists regarded it as a rehash of Schopenhauerianism. Then a new book appeared that offered a compelling refutation of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious,” refuting everything. It was believed that it could only have come from the ranks of the natural scientists. “Let him reveal himself to us,” wrote Haeckel, “and we shall call him one of our own.” Then the second edition appeared, and the author revealed himself: it was Eduard von Hartmann himself. He has shown that he can fully adopt the standpoint of the natural scientists. Had he put his name on it right away, the work would not have achieved its purpose. You see that the one standing higher can also take the subordinate standpoint and is capable of raising all the arguments that can be raised against the higher standpoint. No one, therefore, should presume—especially not from the theosophical standpoint—to speak about a philosophical system unless he is conscious of having understood that philosophical system from within.

[ 7 ] This is therefore not a refutation of Kantianism and Schopenhauerianism. We must move beyond these infantile forms of refutation. We must show how they lead beyond themselves when pursued to their true core. Let us therefore tentatively adopt once more the standpoint of subjectivist epistemology, which leads to the principle: The world is my representation. — It seeks to overcome naive realism, according to which what stands before me is the truth, whereas epistemologists have found that everything surrounding me is nothing but my representations.

[ 8 ] If we were forced to remain at this stage of epistemology, any foundation for a theosophical framework of a worldview would be in vain. We know that what we perceive of the world is not merely our own ideas. If they were merely subjective constructs of our ego, we could not transcend them. We could not determine the truth value of what we perceive. In the theosophical worldview, we would never be able to regard things as essential, but only as subjective constructs of our ego. Consequently, we would always be reduced to our ego. We could never say that a message comes to us from some higher world if what we draw up from the depths of our imaginative life were only for ourselves alone, but only if, within our subjective world, we also have the manifestations of a true and real world. This is the foundation of what we must conceive of as Theosophy. Therefore, theosophy can never be satisfied with the statement: “The world is my imagination.”

[ 9 ] Even in Schopenhauer, we can see that he goes beyond the statement: “The world is my idea.” Schopenhauer also offers another statement intended to complement the first: “The world is will.” — Schopenhauer arrives at this in no other way than the theosophist. He says: Everything in the starry sky is merely my representation, but one thing—my own existence—I do not recognize as a representation. I act, I do, I will; this is a force in the world in which I am and within me, so that I know from myself what underlies my representation. Therefore, even if everything else that surrounds me is an idea, I myself am my will. — With this, Schopenhauer sought to secure a firm foothold, which he, however, was never truly able to attain. For this statement is a self-defeating one, which need only be thought through to its logical conclusion to reveal that it is what the mathematician calls a reductio ad absurdum.

[ 10 ] Not a single brick can be removed from the edifice that Schopenhauer has constructed for us. If we have sensations of touch, heat, and cold, then we know that we have only ideas of our self. Let us be consistent. How do we recognize ourselves? We do not see any real color, but we only know that there is an eye that sees color. But how do we know that an eye sees, that there is a hand that feels? Only by perceiving them, just as we perceive any other thing, a sensory sensation, when we wish to recognize the external world. Thus, our self-knowledge is also bound by the same laws and rules to which the laws of the external world are bound. And just as my world is my idea, so it must be true that I myself, with everything that is within me, am my idea. This leads us to regard the entire Schopenhauerian philosophy—everything thought about the entire subjective and objective world—as a mere idea. Be clear that this alone can be the true and genuine consequence of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. But then he must also admit that everything he has established about himself is merely his own conception. And with that, we have arrived at what the mathematician calls a reductio ad absurdum, the act of pulling oneself up by one’s own hair. We are completely suspended in the air. We no longer have a fixed point. We have destroyed naive realism, but at the same time have shown that this leads us into nihilism. We must therefore seek another point if this conclusion leads to absurdity.

[ 11 ] Schopenhauer did this himself. He said: If I want to arrive at the real, I must not stop at the realm of ideas, but must proceed to the will. In this way, Schopenhauer became a realist, though in a different way than Herbart. Herbart says: We must seek the real in that which is free from contradiction. — That is why he established his many realities. And Schopenhauer likewise establishes such realities.

[ 12 ] Now it is true, truly true, that the world around me is an illusion. But just as smoke points to fire, so does the illusion point to the being that underlies it. Herbart seeks to solve the problem in a monadological manner, as does Leibniz; in Herbart, however, it is colored by Kantianism. Leibniz lived before Kant; he was still free from Kantian influence. Schopenhauer takes the position: I myself know myself as a willer. This will to exist guarantees my being. I am will, and I reveal myself in the world as a representation. Just as I am will and manifest myself, so too are all other things, and they manifest themselves externally. Just as the self lies within me, so too does the will lie within me, and in external things lies the will of those things. — Schopenhauer thus showed the path to self-knowledge, and in doing so he implicitly admitted that one can truly know things only by being within them.

[ 13 ] Certainly, if naive realism is correct—that things exist outside of us, have nothing to do with our ego, and we know of things outside of us solely through our imagination; in other words, if their essence remains outside of us—then there is no escaping Schopenhauerianism. But the second part is the least justifiable: The world is my will.

[ 14 ] You will understand this in a moment. When you form a concept, it can be compared to a seal and its impression. The “thing-in-itself” is like the seal; the concept is like the impression. Everything about the seal remains outside the substance that receives the impression. The impression, the idea, is entirely subjective. I have nothing within me of the “thing-in-itself,” just as the seal itself never enters into the substance of the seal impression. Therein lies the fundamental idea of the subjectivist view. Schopenhauer, however, says: I can only recognize a thing by being inside it. — Julius Baumann says the same thing; he also holds, albeit in a suggestive way, the doctrine of reincarnation, even though he is not a theosophist. But this way of thinking led Julius Baumann to apply it also with regard to the epistemological foundation. Even if this form of thinking has remained at the elementary level for him, he is nevertheless on the path.

[ 15 ] In fact, there is no way to know a thing except by entering into it. And that is not possible if we say that the thing is outside of us and we have only knowledge of it; then nothing can enter into us. But if we could enter into the thing itself, then we could recognize the essence of things. To a contemporary epistemologist, this seems to be the most absurd idea. But it only seems that way. Admittedly, under the premises of Western epistemology, it appears that way. But it did not always appear that way, especially not to those whose minds were not clouded by the principles of this epistemology.

[ 16 ] But one thing might be possible: perhaps we have never truly stepped outside of things. Perhaps we have never erected that strict partition, never torn open that abyss which, according to Kant, is supposed to strictly separate us from things. Then the thought occurs to us that we might be within things. And that is the fundamental idea of theosophy. It holds that our ego does not belong to us, is not enclosed within the tightly sealed structure that our organization appears to be, but rather that the individual human being is merely a manifestation of the divine Self of the world. He is, as it were, merely a reflection, an emanation, a spark of the Universal Self. This is a perspective that dominated minds for centuries before Kantian philosophy existed. The greatest minds have never thought otherwise than in this sense.

[ 17 ] Johannes Kepler revealed to us the structure of the planetary system and conceived the idea that the planets orbit the Sun in elliptical paths. This is an idea that gives us insight into the nature of the cosmos. I would now like to quote his words so that you may see how he felt: “Several years ago, the first dawn appeared to me; several weeks ago, the day dawned for me; and a few hours ago, the sun rose. I wrote a book. Those who read and understand the book are right in my eyes; the others—I care nothing for them . . .” A thought that waited a long time before it could shine forth again in a human mind. This is spoken from the realization that what lies within our spirit and what we perceive of the world is the very same thing that the world has brought forth; that it is no coincidence that the planets describe elliptical orbits, but that they must have been placed into these by the creative spirit itself; that we are not mere bystanders who merely ponder the universe, but that what constitutes the content of our mind is itself creatively active out there. For this reason, Kepler was convinced that, with regard to what he had identified as the fundamental idea of the cosmic universe, he himself was merely the human stage upon which this idea—living in the cosmos and permeating it—had appeared in order to be recognized.

[ 18 ] It would never have occurred to Kepler to say that what he had come to know about the universe was merely his imagination; rather, he would have said: What I have come to know tells me what truly exists out there in space. — If someone had told Kepler that this was merely a conception and not objectively out there, he would have said: Do you really believe that what brings me a message from the other exists only when I receive the message? — Consequently, anyone who stands on the ground of subjectivist epistemology would have to tell himself, when standing in front of a telephone: “The gentleman in Hamburg who is calling me now is merely my imagination; I perceive him only as my imagination.”

[ 19 ] This line of thought thus leads us to ask: How is it possible to truly acknowledge the principle that we can only recognize the essence of things when we enter into the essence of things themselves, when we can identify with that essence? This is the theory of knowledge of those who wish to adopt a deeper and clearer perspective in contrast to the modern view.

[ 20 ] Hamerling has written a good book: *The Atomism of the Will*. He is a serious thinker and has serious thoughts. They are written in the Schopenhauerian sense, but they are thoughts that strive to get to the essence of things. Hamerling says: One thing is absolutely certain: No human being will want to deny their own existence; no human being will admit that they themselves have only an imagined existence, that their existence ceases when they no longer think. Schiller, too, once said: Yes, Descartes claims: I think, therefore I am. But I have often not been thinking and yet I have been there.

[ 21 ] Hamerling seeks to regain a mindset similar to Schopenhauer’s: I must acknowledge that all other beings also possess a sense of existence. For him, the self and the atoms are the two poles. — It’s all a bit sparse, including Hamerling’s book. To escape into illusionism, he tries to elaborate on this by saying: We can only realize that being within which we ourselves stand. — With all his acumen, Hamerling tries to elaborate on this. Fechner attempts to substitute feeling in general for the sense of existence. Herbart—so he said—made the mistake of wanting to arrive at real reality through mere thinking. But that does not lead us to the self. Rather, the self rises up from the depths of feeling. He could have written, much like Schopenhauer: The World as Feeling and Representation. — Hamerling could have written: The World as Atom, Will, and Representation. — And Frohschammer wrote about imagination as the creation of the world, guaranteeing true being, just as Schopenhauer wrote about the will. He sought to portray all of nature outside as a product of the imagination. — They all seek to escape the absurdity of Kant’s philosophy.

[ 22 ] A subtle line of reasoning is now required, but anyone who wishes to join the discussion must have followed it: How do we even come to formulate any statement about what our knowledge is? What makes us feel compelled to say that the world is our conception, our will, or our imagination, or the like? Something must give us the possibility and ability to relate ourselves, our cognitive faculties, and our powers of imagination to the world.

[ 23 ] Imagine the contrast between the self and the rest of the world; that is, you are to describe how you perceive your self and the rest of the world. Consider two opposing roles: a prosecutor and a defense attorney. One judges from one perspective, the other from the opposite. Neither of them can claim to be fully objective. Only the judge, who stands objectively above them, can render a verdict. Imagine what the two present, and also the judge, who objectively weighs both sides. No one can ever decide alone, and just as little can the self alone decide what its relationship to the world is. The individual self is subjective; it could never decide alone on its relationship to the world. A theory of knowledge would never be possible if there were only the self on one side and the world on the other. I must attain an objective standpoint in my thinking and thereby transcend myself and the world. If I am completely immersed in my thinking, this is impossible, just as it is impossible for the thinking of the Kantians and Schopenhauerians. Imagine Kant sitting at his desk, judging solely from within himself. In this way, it is not possible to arrive at an objective judgment. It is possible for me to make my thinking about myself and the world, as it were, a judge only under one condition: if it is something that transcends me.

[ 24 ] Even the slightest self-reflection will show you that your thinking is something that extends beyond you. It is not true that it is merely an illusion, merely an appearance, that two plus two equals four, that all truths which appear with absolute validity are valid only in your consciousness. You recognize that their objectivity extends beyond their subjective validity; you acknowledge their validity. The fact that two times two equals four has nothing to do with your ego. Nothing in the realm of wisdom has anything to do with your ego. Because you are capable of rising to objective, self-contained thinking, you can also judge the world objectively. All thinkers already presuppose this principle; otherwise, they could not even sit down and reflect on the world. And if there were only these two thoughts, namely: I am in the world — and: The world is in me — then neither Kantianism nor Schopenhauerianism could be justified. You must admit that you are authorized to judge truth. For within our thinking there is something that lies above our ego. All philosophers who are not bound by Kantianism, who think monadologically without bias, have admitted this. All those who have conceived of the true realities of the world in this sense have conceived of them as spiritual. They have conceived of them spiritually. If we go back to Giordano Bruno, to Leibniz, to those who endeavored to ascribe properties to the realities, you will find that they thought monadologically, that they recognized thought as arising from the primal source, from the spirit. But if spirit is what constitutes the essence of things, then even Kantian and Schopenhauerian epistemology stands, in contrast to this view, on the standpoint of a naive realism.

[ 25 ] I’ll return to my parable. Suppose nothing from the material of the seal were to appear on the seal impression, but what mattered was the writing, your name inscribed on the seal, the spirit. Then you could say that while nothing from the material may pass over, what does pass over is your name inscribed on the seal; it passes over from the world of the spirit. It passes over despite all the dividing walls we have erected. Then there is no need to deny that Schopenhauer’s theory of knowledge is partly correct, but we step over the dividing walls. All those materialistic considerations—let them stand! Admit that nothing from the substance of the seal migrates into the seal impression, but that the spirit passes over, for it enters us in its true form, because in truth we have come forth from it. Because we are a spark of this world spirit, that is why we live in it and recognize it again. We know quite clearly that when the world spirit knocks at our eye, our ear, this is not merely our subjective perception, but we see who is out there. Thus we are aware that the spirit out there seeks the mediators whom we have designated as the spiritual mediators. If it is established that the world is spirit in its fundamental essence, then we can fully adopt the standpoint taken by Kant and Schopenhauer. All of this is correct, but it is not far-reaching enough. It is easy to align oneself with Kant and Schopenhauer. But one must go beyond them, for it is true that it is the Spirit that lives in all things and that the Spirit turns to us, knocking, to give us its essence. Thus, in the theosophical sense, what Baumann demands for a true understanding of things is indeed fulfilled: namely, we must be immersed in the essence of things. We are also immersed in the world spirit and are merely a manifestation of it.

[ 26 ] Today I have expressed the fundamental idea of this philosophy in images. You will find a philosophical treatise on this subject in my *Philosophy of Freedom*, and you will also find the opposing viewpoints there. I have explained that Schopenhauer, Kant, and the Neo-Kantians take the position that we cannot go beyond the concept, and then how they have overcome naive realism halfway through. But since they start from the “thing-in-itself” and show that one cannot escape from oneself, they remain stuck in naive realism because they seek the truth in the material world. And all modern epistemologists, too, no matter how much they believe they have moved beyond naive realism, still have one foot in naive realism, because they have not departed from the practice of grounding everything in the material.

[ 27 ] Only theosophy can lead us to the gateway of knowledge. If we wish to discover the object of knowledge, it leads us to the realization that the true nature of the world is Spirit. From the moment we reach this gateway, the path ahead is Spirit. Spirit underlies the entire world.

[ 28 ] I wanted to elaborate on this at some point. I have done so only briefly and in outline form. Man is certainly an imprint of the world. But his essence does not lie in the material realm. We can, however, recognize this essence at every moment, for it lies in the spirit. The spirit flows into matter, into us, just as the name on the seal passes into the seal impression.

[ 29 ] I believe I have shown that one can adopt the standpoint of academic philosophy, provided that one understands it better than the academic philosophers themselves. Then everyone among us will find the path to Theosophy, even if they hold an opposing viewpoint. You can hold any viewpoint, as long as you do not allow Scheuleder to influence you. From any philosophical perspective, you will be able to find the path to Theosophy.

[ 30 ] The best way to move beyond Schopenhauer is to get to know him thoroughly. Most people know him only a little. But one must also delve into the essence of things, namely, take his point of view. There are twelve volumes of Schopenhauer that I have edited from a textual-critical perspective. So I have also been engaged with Schopenhauer for several years. That is why I believe I know him reasonably well. But when one truly recognizes and grasps him, one arrives at the theosophical standpoint. Not through half-knowledge, for that leads away from theosophy. Half-knowledge in the West initially leads away from theosophy, leading to subjectivism, to idealism, and so on. But let that become complete knowledge, and then the West, too, will find the path to Theosophy.

[ 31 ] I have already cited Julius Baumann. He knows what true knowledge is, even if he has not yet arrived at the greatness of theosophy, which I believe I have shown in a faint hint. For true knowledge in no way contradicts theosophy. It is precisely that perspective which brings peace and tolerance everywhere. All these truths I have cited are steps toward the true truth. Kant has climbed the steps a good distance, Schopenhauer as well. One more so, the other less so. They are on the path. But the question is always how far they have pursued this path. Theosophy does not presume to be at the summit either. The right path is the path itself, above all the one inscribed above the Greek temples: “Know thyself.” We are one with the World Spirit. Just as we come to know our own nature, so shall we come to know the nature of the World Spirit. “The ascent of our spirit to the Universal Spirit”—that is Theosophy.