The Rudolf Steiner Archive

15. The Formation of Concepts and Hegel's Theory of Categories

[ 1 ] You should consider these lectures on philosophy, of which today's is one, merely as an episode, an interlude. They are intended to build a bridge, so to speak, between the anthroposophical view of the world and the purely philosophical view. I would like to structure today's lecture in such a way that, through individual comments added to the explanations, you will be able to see how the bridge between philosophy and anthroposophy can be built, and how certain philosophical insights and concepts can become important for the anthroposophist when he enters into practice. Let me begin with something that will be useful to us in order to relate the entire philosophical conceptual structure in a correct way to what comes to us through supersensible experience as a message on the path of anthroposophy.

[ 2 ] As a kind of preparation for today's remarks, you have been able to hear the lectures on elementary logic that I gave during the General Assembly, and many of you are well prepared by the course that our dear Mr. Walther gave on epistemology and philosophical thinking. There we recognized thinking as the ability to confront the world with a technique of concepts, and we characterized it in a certain way when we attempted to gain an idea of purely formal logic. We saw there that we can only speak of real thinking when it takes place in concepts, and we made a strict distinction between perception, representation, and concept. If such distinctions seem difficult to those who otherwise participate very willingly and devotedly in anthroposophical discussions, it should first be considered that on the basis of anthroposophy, what we must recognize as a commitment to rigorous spiritual work must mature, work that is not satisfied with randomly picked up concepts but wants to rise to sharp and energetic conceptual contours.

[ 3 ] We have come to understand the concept itself as something that is constructed purely within our own minds, and we have made it clear to ourselves that this conceptual construction is a reality, a truth, and that all philosophical discussions that see the concept as merely an abstraction, a shadow of what we gain as an idea, remain half-baked, perhaps even quarter-baked. The concept is something that is not gained from the imagination through abstraction, but rather the concept is something—and this has been made clear in mathematical figures, in the concept of the circle and that of the triangle—that is gained through internal construction.

[ 4 ] In order to gain an idea of the nature of the concept and the system of concepts, the organism of our concepts, let us imagine the relationship between this world of concepts on the one hand and, on the other hand, the world of sensory perception that surrounds us and the reality that comes to us through supersensible observation in anthroposophy. You can imagine the structure, the network of concepts that human beings have—from mathematical quantities and numerical concepts to the complex concepts with which Goethe began in his Metamorphosis, but which are still in their infancy in our Western culture—as a tablet forming the boundary between the sensory world on one side and the spiritual world on the other. Thus, it is precisely through the network of concepts that we can think of ourselves as limited: on the one hand, the sphere of the supersensible, and on the other, the sphere of sensory reality.

[ 5 ] If human beings, as sensory observers of things, were to direct their eyes or other organs of perception solely toward the external environment, they would experience only ideas. This was demonstrated by the example: if a person were to sail so far out to sea that he saw nothing but the surface of the sea and an apparent hemisphere of the sky supported by this surface, then he would have gained the circle that he sees around him as the horizon line through external perception; he would have formed the idea of the circle through external perception. If, on the other hand, he has no such external perception, but merely constructs in his mind the image that arises when all points on a line are equidistant from a fixed point, the center, then he has—in contrast to the idea—the concept of the circle. In this way, we could also construct other mathematical concepts internally, for example, the concept of the square, the triangle, the quadrangle, the ellipse, the hyperbola, and so on. We could go even further and finally rise to a real understanding of Goethe's morphology, to the concepts of organicism, the primordial animal, and the primordial plant, whose concepts arose in the same way as the concept of the circle and which, as Goethe says, can be applied in the same way as mathematical formulas.

[ 6 ] When human beings approach sensory reality in this way, they will find that this sensory reality corresponds to what they have constructed as a concept. For example, he may find that his internally constructed concept of the circle coincides with the circle that results from sensory observation when he looks out at the sea. He then begins to understand what is presented to him in perception in comparison with what he has formed for himself as a concept. Concepts are therefore not gained through perception. This is a prejudice that is very widespread today. Concepts are gained through inner construction. The concept is, so to speak, what man arrives at precisely when he disregards all external, sensory reality. And now he can allow what he has constructed internally to interact with what presents itself to him externally as sensory reality. This establishes the position of the network of concepts in relation to external, sensory reality. But now we must also ask ourselves: What is the position of our network of concepts in relation to supersensible reality? - At first glance, it is no different from sensory reality. If someone opens themselves up to supersensible reality through the methods of clairvoyance often discussed here and then approaches this reality with their concepts, they will find that this network of concepts coincides with supersensible reality. In exactly the same way, the supersensible facts and beings will act on his network of concepts, only from the other side, and he will find it coinciding with it. So we can say that, in a sense, the supersensible realities cast their rays onto the network of concepts, just as the sensory reality does on the other side. Sensory and supersensible reality meet in the network of concepts.

[ 7 ] This does not yet answer the question of where the conceptual network itself comes from in our soul. Let us leave this question aside for now, as a fact, so to speak, because the answer to this question can really only be found by patiently following the logical-metaphysical path that we may be able to walk together if we continue these lectures. We will then enter more and more into the supersensible reality. Today we want to use an image to clarify where this network of concepts, which human beings know they spin in their minds, so to speak — if you will allow the expression — where this network of concepts actually comes from. We can best clarify this by imagining the image of a shadow cast on a wall. When you see that your hand casts a shadow on the wall, you will say: if the hand were not there, the shadow would not appear. The shadow is similar to its original image, but it has a special characteristic: it is actually nothing! It is precisely because the hand blocks the light, so that non-light takes the place of light, that the shadow image is created. So it is through the extinction of light by the hand that the shadow image is created. Our concepts arise in exactly the same way in reality. We only think that we spin them out of ourselves. They arise because behind our thinking soul stands the supersensible reality, which casts its shadow images onto this soul. And the concept is actually nothing more than the extinction of the supersensible reality on the wall of our soul. And because our concepts are similar to the archetypes of the supersensible world—just as the shadow image is similar to its archetype—the concepts are something that can evoke in humans an inkling of the supersensible realities. The fact that humans believe they spin the web of concepts out of themselves comes from the fact that they initially have no perception of this supersensible world. But it is there and it is active, casting its shadow images. Where it encounters sensory perception, these shadow images arise, and concepts are nothing other than these shadow images. So we do not have a supersensible reality in concepts, any more than we have the hand itself in the shadow image of the hand, but we have, so to speak, shadow images of it. We have thus defined the network of concepts as the boundary between sensory and supersensible reality, but we have also recognized that concepts do not flow into the soul from the sensory world, but from the supersensible world. That is the fact.

[ 8 ] Now we must ask ourselves: How can human beings actually arrive at real concepts, even if they have no perception of supersensible reality? If they had only external sensory reality and were to perceive it, they would arrive only at ideas, never at concepts. Concepts must be constructed in the soul and added to the ideas provided by external, sensory reality. It is quite possible to live in concepts and yet not ascend to supersensible reality. However, the seer who can ascend to supersensible reality can indeed more easily arrive at a complete world of concepts, because he gets to know the forces that flow in and give rise to concepts. You will find the spiritual scientific basis for what I am now saying philosophically in my book Theosophy, where I speak of the Devachan and deal in detail with the Devachanic life of shadow images. Man arrives at the network of concepts by allowing the concepts to flow down upon him in a formal manner. For the seer, it is such that he can look up to the archetypal images, where reality is. How is it now possible for human beings to create a network of concepts when they cannot look up to the supersensible reality themselves? The majority of human beings have only arrived at pure concepts in mathematics. Most people believe that concepts can only be arrived at through perception, by deriving mental images from perception, subtracting perception from the mental image, and then finding the general, the concept, i.e., through abstraction. This is not, of course, how concepts arise. Even people who think for themselves are unclear about this process of concept formation.

[ 9 ] When I attempted to clarify the necessity of constructing concepts in my Philosophy of Freedom, I experienced something very peculiar. In my Philosophy of Freedom, in contrast to Spencer, I explain how it is a completely inadequate philosophical approach to try to form the concept of the concept solely on the basis of the external, sensory world of facts.

[ 10 ] “The concept cannot be gained from observation. This is evident from the fact that growing human beings slowly and gradually form concepts of the objects that surround them. Concepts are added to observation.”

[ 11 ] A widely read contemporary philosopher, Herbert Spencer, describes the mental process we undergo in relation to observation as follows:

[ 12 ] "If, on a September day, we are walking through the fields and hear a noise a few steps ahead of us and see the grass moving at the side of the ditch from which it seems to come, we will probably go to the spot to find out what caused the noise and movement. As we approach, a partridge flutters into the ditch, and our curiosity is satisfied: we have what we call an explanation of the phenomena. This explanation boils down to the following: because we have experienced countless times in our lives that a disturbance of the calm state of small bodies is accompanied by the movement of other bodies between them, and because we have therefore generalized the relationships between such disturbances and such movements, we consider this particular disturbance to be explained as soon as we find that it provides an example of this very relationship. On closer inspection, the matter appears quite different from how it is described here. When I hear a noise, I first look for the concept for this observation. Only this concept points me beyond the noise. Those who do not think further simply hear the noise and are satisfied with that. But my reflection makes it clear to me that I must understand a noise as an effect. So only when I connect the concept of effect with the perception of the noise am I prompted to go beyond the individual observation and search for the cause. The concept of effect evokes that of cause, and I then search for the causative object, which I find in the form of the partridge. However, I can never gain these concepts, cause and effect, through mere observation, no matter how many cases they extend to. Observation challenges thinking, and it is thinking that shows me the way to connect one individual experience to another.

[ 13 ] If one demands that a “strictly objective science” derive its content solely from observation, one must at the same time demand that it renounce all thinking. For thinking, by its very nature, goes beyond what is observed.“ [”Philosophy of Freedom,” p. 58/59 of the 14th edition, 1978]

[ 14 ] If one were to follow Spencer's train of thought, one would arrive at the conclusion that concepts arise only by crystallizing the general from the particulars of observations. As long as I relate to noise only in the way Spencer describes, I cannot arrive at any knowledge. Something else must be added.

[ 15 ] At that time, I also presented a copy of this book to a very important contemporary philosopher, who then wrote to me saying that he had so much to say about the content of the book that he did not want to write it in a letter, but had instead written all his comments in the margins. In the sentence in question, which deals with the concept of noise, he wrote in the margin: “The rabbit certainly doesn't do that!” – and sent the book back to me. However, such an investigation is not about the philosophy of rabbits, but about that of humans. [Gap in the transcript.]

[ 16 ] We must realize that our soul must be capable of acquiring the network of concepts even when it is not in a position to have it before it through immediate perception of the world. It cannot acquire it by relying on external perceptions and the ideas formed from them. The soul would never arrive at concepts if it merely directed its gaze outward to external perception and formed ideas from it. The methods, even if they are the most scientific methods used to form ideas about the world through external experience, cannot serve to construct the conceptual network within the human soul itself.

[ 17 ] There must therefore be a method that is, on the one hand, independent of external observation and, on the other hand, also independent of clairvoyant observation. For we assume that the human soul is already capable of forming concepts before it ascends to clairvoyance. [Gap in the transcription.]

[ 18 ] It thus moves from one concept to another, remaining within the field of concepts, and can now move from one concept to another within the network of concepts. For this to happen, for the soul to move from one concept to another, we must presuppose a method that has nothing to do with external sensory observation and nothing to do with clairvoyant observation, which is only intended to serve as verification.

[ 19 ] This movement in pure concepts is called the “dialectical method” in the sense of the great philosopher Hegel, whereby human beings live only in concepts and enable themselves to let one concept emerge from another, to grow out of it, as it were. Thus, humans live in a sphere in which they disregard the external, sensory world and disregard what lies behind it, the supersensible world. The soul moves from concept to concept, and the force that drives it from concept to concept causes one concept to emerge from another. This method is called the dialectical method, the method of the self-moving concept.

[ 20 ] We have thus pointed out what the soul does as it moves forward in its network of concepts. It spins concept after concept—we will soon be able to imagine this more precisely in terms of the dialectical method. This dialectical method leads the soul from concept to concept. We will see that we must start somewhere with these self-moving concepts, but then we will be led further from concept to concept. What would be the result? If the soul begins somewhere to single out a concept and then allows concepts to grow out of concepts, it would construct the sum of all concepts; it would form the sum of all concepts in the universe, adapted both downward to the sensory world and upward to the supersensible world.

[ 21 ] All such concepts, which are formed through self-movement, through the self-emergence of one concept from another, and which represent to us what is adapted both to the sensory world and to the supersensible world, are called “categories” in the broadest sense of the word. Categories are therefore those concepts which are obtained by the dialectical method, i.e., by the emergence of one concept from another. Thus, the entire network of concepts is basically composed of categories. One could just as well say that all concepts are categories, as one could say that all categories are concepts. Of course, we have become accustomed to applying the term “categories” to the main concepts, to the nodes, to the most important, the root concepts, mainly because formal logic has always followed Aristotle, who [was the first to speak of categories and specified ten such “nodes”]. In the strict sense, however, the words “concept” and “category” can be used interchangeably, so that we can call the sum of all our concepts—if we have correct concept constructions before us, that is, if the concepts are internally constructed and developed through self-movement, if the concepts have grown out of themselves—the “doctrine of categories.” And what Hegel calls the “science of logic” in the first part of his philosophy—logic, derived from logos, which also means concept—is actually a theory of categories. If we only form individual concepts, we do not have all the categories, but if we spin the web of concepts internally, placing each concept in its proper place in the overall organism of concepts, then we have all the categories. Now Hegel himself has already said: if one determines the entire scope of the network of concepts in this way, one has in it the content of the world as it is in the mind of the divine being before the creation of the world. Since we find the concepts in the world, they must have been placed there originally. When we pursue the concepts, we find in them the thoughts of the deity. When we think correctly in inner [construction] according to the dialectical method, we find the world in the content of the concepts, in the content of the categories.

[ 22 ] I cannot go into the historical development of the doctrine of categories as Aristotle developed it and Kant further developed it, but I would like to say something about how the great master of the doctrine of categories, Hegel, developed the doctrine of concepts. Hegel is perhaps the least understood philosopher today. This is evident in academic literature; what is written about Hegel is downright terrible. People still say today what they said during his lifetime: that he wanted to develop the whole world out of concepts. A particularly clever gentleman was the Leipzig philosopher Wilhelm Traugott Krug, who wrote an entire library of philosophical writings. He understood Hegel as wanting to spin the world out of concepts, for example, to deduce the concept of the rose from an idea. Krug once said pointedly to Hegel that he should try deducing his quill from the concept. Hegel replied: “Mr. Krug has, in this and at the same time in another, quite naive sense, once challenged natural philosophy to perform the feat of deducing only his quill. One could have given him hope of achieving this feat and the respective glorification of his quill if science had one day progressed so far and come to terms with everything important in heaven and on earth, in the present and in the past, that there was nothing more important left to comprehend.”

[ 23 ] It is extremely important for anthroposophists to work their way into these pure concepts, through which one gains [the entire network of concepts] step by step. It is extremely useful and constitutes an extremely fruitful meditation to live in Hegel's crystal-clear concepts; it is an important educational tool for the soul. At the same time, it is an educational tool against all laxity and sloppiness of concepts, which are thoroughly eradicated by Hegel's dialectic. Once you have trained your mind in Hegel's dialectic, you often get the impression of sloppy concepts when reading books by modern writers.

[ 24 ] Of course, one must have a starting point; one must begin with something. This must, of course, be the simplest concept, the one with the least content and the greatest scope. Formal logic explains why the content of a concept is opposed to its scope. The concept that has the least content and the greatest scope is the concept of being. It is in fact the concept that is applicable throughout our entire world; it has the greatest scope and the least content. When we speak of being in the abstract, we say nothing about the nature of being. Hegel starts from the concept of being. Now the question arises: How can we move beyond this concept of being? We cannot remain with this concept, otherwise we will not have a system of concepts. We must have the possibility of arriving at a system of concepts by allowing concepts to grow out of concepts. How can we find a starting point for this? We find this point of reference in the dialectical method, namely when we realize that every concept contains something else within itself than what it initially appears to be. It is with the concept as with a root. The root actually contains the whole plant, which has not yet grown out, but is still inside it. When we look at the root, we do not yet have everything that is there. We do not see the plant itself, which is inside the root. If we look at the root with our outer eyes, we do not see what the plant is sprouting from the root. In the same way, there is something in every concept that can grow out of it, just as there is something in the root that can grow out of it, namely, the opposite, nothingness, is contained in the concept of being. When we grasp the concept of being, it encompasses everything that can appear in the sensory and supersensory world. Because it encompasses everything, it also encompasses “nothingness.” “Nothingness” is contained within “being”; it sprouts out of “being.” When we look at “being” inwardly, we already see the concept of “nothingness” growing out of the concept of “being.” If we want to form an idea of the concept of nothingness, this is as difficult as it is important. Many people, including philosophers, will say that it is impossible to form an idea of nothingness. But this is something that is immensely important within the conceptual world for anthroposophists, and a time will come when anthroposophy will go into these concepts in greater depth, and much will depend on the concept of “nothingness” being understood in the right way. Theosophy suffers from the fact that the concept of “nothingness” is unclear. That is why theosophy has become a kind of “doctrine of emanation,” [gap in the transcript] as if the later had emerged from the earlier.

[ 25 ] Imagine yourself confronted with an external reality, for example two people, and consider them from a point of view that depends only on yourself. And consider, for example, two people, one tall and one short, and think something about them, form a concept that would never have been conceived if you had not encountered them. It does not matter what you think about these two people, but the concept would not have been formed if you had not encountered them. Let us assume that the two lived in America; then, as a European, you would never have encountered them. But because you did encounter them, the concepts of “tall” and “short” arose in you. So it is not up to you that the concept of tall and short people was formed; you will find nothing in yourself that could have led to your concept of “tall” and “short.” On the other hand, you will not find the fundamental reasons that should have led to this concept in these two people either. You first had to encounter these two people. So it is not up to you what has formed as a concept, nor is it up to the big or small people; it is something that has been brought about purely by the relationship of things to each other, by their constellation. But now this concept, which arose out of nothing, becomes a factor that continues to work within you. You cannot think of it any other way than that this concept can arise out of nothing through the relationship of things to each other, through their constellation. Out of the relationship, out of the constellation, a continuous force forms something that then continues to work. That means that something arises out of nothing. Nothingness is thus a real factor in world events, and you can never understand these world events if you have not grasped nothingness in this real sense. You would also understand the concept of “nirvana” better if you had a clear concept of nothingness, if you had meditated on the concept of nothingness, which is something quite effective.

[ 26 ] So we have spun the concept of nothingness out of the concept of being. The next concept can now be found by connecting these two concepts. When “being” and “non-being” are connected, “becoming” arises. “Becoming” is a richer concept that already contains the other two. ‘Becoming’ is a continuous transition from non-being to being, the preceding passes away, the following arises. Thus, in the concept of ‘becoming’ you have the interplay of the two concepts ‘being’ and ‘nothingness.’ Starting from the concept of becoming, you then arrive at the concept of ”existence.” It is what follows next after becoming: the solidification of becoming is “existence,” a completed becoming. “Existence” must be preceded by becoming. What do we gain from developing these four concepts internally and arriving at them in this way? We gain a great deal. When we think of the concept of becoming, we think of nothing other than what we have learned here as the content of the concept. We must exclude everything that does not belong to the concept. Anyone who is properly trained in dialectics understands the concept of “becoming” as nothing other than the interplay of “being” and “nothingness.” When the dialectically trained thinker speaks of “becoming,” it is just as definite a concept as when he speaks of the concept “triangle.” Thus, dialectics is precisely the most wonderful discipline of thought.

[ 27 ] Being -> Nothingness -> Becoming -> Existence

[ 28 ] We have already developed four consecutive categories here: the categories “being,” “nothing,” “becoming,” and “existence.” We could now go further and derive all kinds of concepts from the concept of “existence,” and we would obtain a richly structured system of concepts from the concept of “existence” according to one line of thought. But we can also proceed in another way. “Being” allows concepts to grow out of itself in two directions. It is something very fruitful. There is something that already exists before being shoots into reality. The pure thought of being already exists before being shoots out of thought into reality. At the moment when being becomes itself, becomes content in itself, at that moment we must designate what we then grasp as “essence,” so that in this way we have formed the concept “essence” from the concept “being.” So, on the one hand, we have formed the concepts “nothing,” “becoming,” and “existence” from the concept “being,” and on the other hand, we have formed the concept “essence” from the concept “being.”

[ 29 ] Being -> Essence

[ 30 ] Essence is being held within itself, being that permeates itself. The easiest way to grasp the concept of the “essence” of something is to think about what is essential and what is non-essential about it. Essence is the being that works within, the being that is confirmed through work. We refer to this as “essence.” We speak of the “essence” of a person when we list their higher members together with their lower ones, and we consider the concept of “essence” to be the concept immediately connected to “being.”

[ 31 ] From the concept of “essence” you derive [organically as the next step] the concept of “appearance,” the manifestation of something outwardly, the opposite of “essence,” the opposite of what essence has in itself. “Essence” and “appearance” are two contradictory concepts that relate to each other in the same way as the concepts “being” and “nothingness.” If we now combine the two concepts “essence” and “appearance,” we obtain appearance, which in turn contains essence within itself. [Gap in the transcript.] In a certain sense, there is a contradiction between inner essence and outer appearance. But when inner essence overflows into appearance, so that appearance itself contains essence, we speak of “reality.”

[ 32 ] Essence -> Appearance -> Reality

[ 33 ] No one trained in dialectics will speak of the concept of “reality” other than by saying: In the concept of reality lives appearance, which is permeated by essence. - The confluence of “essence” and “appearance” results in the concept of “reality.” Thus, all speech about reality must be permeated by these concepts.

[ 34 ] We can now go further and ascend to even richer concepts. This leads us to say: “Essence” is “being” that is in itself, that has come into itself, that has manifested itself. - If this being not only manifests itself, but also extends its lines to its surroundings, so to speak, not only expressing itself internally, but also attempting to express something else, then we arrive dialectically at the concept of the “concept” itself. Thus we ascend from “being” through “essence” to “concept.”

[ 35 ] Being -> essence -> concept

[ 36 ] Now remember what I said about the concept from a purely formal-logical point of view. When we consider our own “essence,” this applies to us; it reigns within us. But when we allow the “concept” to reign within us, we have something in it that points outward and encompasses the other, the outside world. Thus, through inner construction, we have been able to progress from “being” to “essence” to “concept.”

[ 37 ] Being -> Nothingness -> Becoming -> Existence

[ 38 ] and from

[ 39 ] essence -> appearance -> reality

[ 40 ] If we now proceed in the same way as we did with “have,” allowing further concepts to emerge from the “concept,” we arrive at the following: We have now seen how formal logic prevails in the final figure of the “concept.” The concept remains within itself. But now it can emerge from itself, and we then speak of a concept that reflects the nature of things. We arrive at “objectivity.” In contrast to subjective concepts, which are subject to the technique of thinking, we now have objective concepts. “Objectivity” relates to “concept” in the same way that “appearance” relates to “essence.” Only when we think of the concept “objectivity” as emerging in this way from the “concept” have we truly grasped it. And now, when we connect “concept” with “objectivity,” we arrive at what is an inner concept for us, but which at the same time contains its own reality within itself, which is at once a subjective concept and, as such, objective. This is the “idea.” Just as “reality” relates to “appearance,” so “idea” relates to “objectivity.”

[ 41 ] Concept -> Objectivity -> Idea

[ 42 ] Here is a small example of how we can use dialectics to develop concepts from the root concept “being.” We could have developed many other concepts from “being.”

[ 43 ] Thus we see how the movement of concepts gives rise to this transparent, diamond-clear, crystalline, spiritual world of concepts, and that human beings, equipped with this ability to know, trained in precise concepts, must approach the sensory world anew. Then it becomes apparent how the concepts gained in dialectics correspond on the one hand with sensory reality and on the other with supersensible reality, and how human beings arrive at the concordance between concept and reality in which true knowledge consists.

[ 44 ] Some people say: We are entering a world that is cold and frosty. I would therefore like to conclude by recounting a little experience. Many years ago, I also studied graphic statics, a very abstract science ... It involves tracing possible movements and equilibria using only lines. But I knew someone who presented it with infinite enthusiasm, drawing lines on the blackboard while the other students slept and, in most cases, the teacher slept too. I have heard people recite lyrical poems who did not have this enthusiasm. These are people who cannot feel the same way as Novalis, who called mathematics a great poem. Mathematics is a way of giving us an idea of how the world of concepts can be felt in beautiful clarity and bright light.