Necessity and Freedom
GA 166
1 February 1916, Berlin
Lecture IV
We are far too accustomed to dealing with big problems like necessity and freedom in the simplest possible concepts and trying, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye to cover as many aspects as we can. We usually do not consider that problems of this kind require that we realize how complicated many of the interrelationships are in the world, and that what takes place in one area must be looked at in an entirely different light, if we want to understand it, than something quite similar in another area of the world.
I would like first of all to remind you of something I mentioned here a short time ago in a different connection. When we see such significant world events as those of the present, we are very much inclined to look hastily for the most obvious causes and to expect to find the consequences in what will happen immediately afterward. With this kind of observation we do the facts a thorough injustice. When I mentioned this before, I drew your attention to the fact that at the beginning of the Middle Ages the Roman world and what is now Central Europe were in opposition to one another. From a historical point of view we can say lightly, “Well, we try to discover the particular political motives of ancient Rome that made those Romans feel compelled to carry out their campaigns against the countries to their north, against what is now Central Europe. And we can look for the consequences in subsequent developments.”
Yet if we look at things this way we do not by any means exhaust all the points that should be considered. For just imagine, if something different had happened in the way the tribes moved across Europe from east to west, or something had happened differently in the clash between the might of Rome and the Teutonic tribes, the whole subsequent development of Central Europe right up to modern times would have had a different appearance. All the various events we have seen taking place in the course of the centuries up to our time would have been different if, at that time, the world of the ancient Roman people, who owing to their particular quality and their position in world history could not fully take up Christianity, had not fused with the world of historically young peoples who had taken up Christianity with youthful energy.
Out of the way this encounter came about between a culturally overly mature people, such as the Romans were, and a historically young people, such as the Teutonic people were in those days, all the later events have developed right up to Goethe's Faust and all that nineteenth century culture has produced. Could things have happened the way they did if that encounter had not occurred? Here, we are looking at a stream permeated with a strict inner necessity moving through world events and spreading out over immense regions. How could anyone at that time possibly have even wanted to arrange his actions in keeping with what has happened on the physical plane through the centuries from then until now?
What is taking place today is in turn the starting point of universal configurations that will of course be connected with current happenings; yet, as far as events on the physical plane are concerned, these configurations will on the face of it look very dissimilar to what takes place compressed into a short time span. I only want to mention this so that you become aware that there are deep reasons behind what I already mentioned in connection with these studies, namely, that we do not get far by brooding and speculating about how things are connected in the world. Imagine a Roman or a Teuton of the third or fourth century speculating on the possible consequences of the battles taking place in that time, and how far he would have got. Not very far!
It is essential that we become aware that the deciding factors concerning things that have to happen and our recognition that they really ought to happen are not our speculations about their possible results or immediate consequences but other things. It is essential that we become aware that into the stream of events taking place on the physical plane there actually enter forces we sense as coming from the spiritual world, impulses about the particular effects of which we don't need to speculate in regard to what ought to happen on the physical plane. We must be in no doubt that looking at human action and world history shows clearly how necessary it is that we should extend our view beyond what lies on the physical plane. And after having prepared the way for these essentials, let us return to considering the human being as such.
In the last lecture I showed how impossible it is to acquire a right relationship to our past actions if we merely continue mulling them over. On the contrary, we must realize that what is past, including our own actions, belongs to the realm of necessity, and we must become familiar with the thought that what happened had to happen. That is to say, we acquire a right relationship to our actions if we can look objectively at our past achievements, looking at a successful or unsuccessful deed of ours with equal objectivity.
Now you are bound to have serious objections to what I have just said, for such objections do exist. Consider for a moment what I have just said, that when we have done something, it is over; that we establish a proper attitude to it by facing it objectively and not wishing we had acted differently. The serious objection is this: What about the whole domain that should play a great part in human life, the domain of repentance for a deed we have done? Obviously people are quite right in saying that repentance is necessary and has to take place. If we could manage to remove from the human soul the feeling of regret, we would be removing a moral impulse of the highest order. But are we not actually doing away with it when we simply look at all that has happened completely objectively?
Here indeed is a new difficulty, one that can be the starting point for endless misunderstandings. We will have to go to the heart of the question of freedom if we want to clear away this difficulty. You know, the great Spinoza said that when we look at the world, we can really only speak of necessity.1Baruch Spinoza, 1632–1677, Dutch pantheist philosopher. The example of a stone being pushed into motion can be found in his sixty-second letter of 1674. Freedom is fundamentally a kind of illusion. For if a ball is hit by another one, it has to go the way the second one goes. “If it had consciousness it would believe”—Philosophy of Spiritual Activity—“that it was going its way by choice. And it is the same with the human being,” says Spinoza.1Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, (Hudson, N.Y.: Anthroposophic Press, 1986). “Even though he is in the clutches of necessity, just because he is conscious of what he does, he thinks he is free.”
But Spinoza is utterly and totally wrong. The matter is quite different. If we really flew off somewhere like the ball that follows only the necessity of propulsion, we would lose consciousness regarding everything to do with our flying and our acting out of necessity. We would be bound to be unconscious of it. Consciousness would be eliminated. And that is what happens. Just think of the speed with which you are moving through space according to the science of astronomy! You most certainly do not do that consciously. There, consciousness is cut out. You would not be capable of being conscious, for you would not be able to hurtle through space as the science of astronomy shows you do. Consciousness of everything a person does out of necessity has to be eliminated, and in such an obvious case as flying through space we can readily see that processes subject to necessity eliminate our consciousness.
However, we are not always so obviously conscious of things, but more or less unconscious of them. In real life it is very difficult to distinguish one from the other. Where one thing borders on another we cannot understand them as easily as in our case above. On the contrary, we could say, “In all matters where we are absolutely conscious, our actions cannot be other than free. If a ball that I struck really had consciousness, it would only fly in a certain direction if it received into its consciousness the impulse I gave it and directed its own course accordingly. The ball would first of all have to become unconscious in order merely to follow the momentum.”
If you think this over, you will make a distinction that we unfortunately do not make in ordinary life with regard to actions. The fact that we do not make this distinction has not only a theoretical significance but also a very practical one. We do not in fact distinguish between situations where we have been unsuccessful and cases that are immoral and bad. This distinction is an extraordinarily important one. It is absolutely true that we arrive at a correct estimate of an action that has not succeeded and has not turned out as we intended only if we can look at it objectively as though it had been absolutely necessary. For as soon as it is over it is in the realm of absolute necessity. If something does not work out and we feel uncomfortable later on because it has not worked out, it is absolutely true that our uneasiness arises from egotism. One would have liked to have been a better person, a more capable person. That is egotism expressing itself. And unless this egotism is completely rooted out, we cannot see the further development of our soul in as significant a light as we should.
But not every deed we have done is an unsuccessful one; there can also be a bad deed, a morally bad deed. Let us look at morally bad deeds, for instance, the following one, to choose a really striking example. Suppose someone has nothing to eat, or would like something for some other reason than hunger, and he steals. Stealing is a bad deed, isn't it? Does what we have said keep a person who has stolen something from feeling remorse for his deed? No, it does not! And why not? For the very simple reason that he did not seriously want to steal, but only wanted to possess what he stole. He could readily have cut out the stealing if you had given him what he wanted, or if he had been able to acquire it in some other way than by stealing.
This is a striking case, but in a certain way it applies to all forms of bad deeds. The bad deed as such is never really intended, and language has a subtle feeling for this. When an evil deed has been done, we say, “conscience stirs.” Why does conscience stir? Because the bad deed only now becomes a matter of knowledge. It comes up into consciousness. When the deed happened, the awareness was taken up by the motive on account of which the bad deed was done. A bad deed is not willed. And repenting means that the perpetrator becomes aware that he allowed his consciousness to be dulled at the time the bad deed was done. Whenever anyone does a bad deed, it is always a matter of his consciousness of the deed being dulled, and of his having to acquire an awareness of cases like the one in which his consciousness was dimmed. The whole point of punishment is to awaken forces in the soul that will enable consciousness to extend to the kind of situations that previously produced an elimination of consciousness.
Among the dissertations done at universities by philosophers who are also occupied with legal problems there is usually one on “the right to administer punishment.” Now a great many theories have been drawn up concerning reasons for giving punishment. The one and only possible reason can be found only when we realize that punishment is given for the sake of exerting the soul forces so that consciousness will extend into spheres it did not previously reach. This is also the task of repentance. Its purpose is precisely to let us observe the deed in such a way that the force of the repentance raises the action into consciousness. Then the consciousness will see the whole picture and will not be dulled the next time. You see what is involved. We must learn to discriminate properly between a fully conscious deed and one where the consciousness is dimmed.
On the other hand, if you have an action that does not fit the category of good or bad but was only unfortunate, an action in which something we had intended to do was not successful, there the point is that we ourselves can obscure our view of it if we judge it by bringing in the thought, the feeling, that it would perhaps have turned out differently if we had done this or that better, or if we ourselves had been different. Here, it is a matter of bearing in mind that if the eye is to see an object, it cannot see itself. It must hold up a mirror, for the moment the eye holds up a mirror to see itself, it cannot see the object. The moment a person broods about how differently he should have acted, the deed cannot act upon him with the kind of power that will further his soul development. For as soon as you set egotism between yourself and your deed, as implied in the fact that you would really like to have done the deed differently, you are doing exactly the same as when you hold a mirror in front of your eye so that it cannot see the object.
We can also put it another way. You know there are so-called astigmatic eyes, eyes in which the cornea are curved in different degrees in the perpendicular and the horizontal direction. Eyes like that have a peculiar kind of inaccurate vision. Such persons see specters merely because the cornea has an irregular curve. They see specters because they are actually perceiving their own eyes and not what is outside. If one perceives one's own eye because it is incorrectly constructed and has not become an eye that can completely eliminate itself and allow the object to affect it, one cannot perceive the object. If we fill our mind with the thought “You should have been different, and if you had only done this or that differently, it would all have turned out well,” it is just as though we had astigmatism and did not see the actual fact but distorted it. Yet a person must see the real facts allotted him, only then will they really be effective. Their effect on a person who is not filled with feeling about facts but allows the facts themselves to work upon him will be the same as the effect an outside object has on healthy eyes. The facts then continue their work in the soul.
One can say that anyone who has not yet acquired an objective view of past facts in which he was involved cannot see them in their objectivity and therefore cannot obtain from them what he ought to have for his soul. It is exactly as though our eyes were to remain at their stage of development in the sixth or seventh month of embryonic growth, while we ourselves were born at the proper time. We would see the whole world wrongly. If the eyes were not to continue developing during the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth month, but were to stop short, they would not eliminate themselves in the process of seeing. We would see something entirely different from what we actually see when we develop normally.
Thus what we have done acquires its right value only when we have come to the point of being able to let it enter the stream of necessity, and when we can regard it as necessity. But as has been said, we must realize that we then have to make the distinction between what is successful and unsuccessful and what is called “good” or “bad” in a moral sense.
Broadly speaking, you will find all this analyzed, though more philosophically, in my Philosophy of Spiritual Activity for there it is emphasized that human beings become free when they achieve the possibility of drawing impulses from the spiritual world. In one passage it is even expressly stated that impulses of free will come from the spiritual world. However, that does not exclude the utmost freedom in relation to certain events in which we very distinctly follow necessity. For we must distinguish between purely external physical necessity and spiritual necessity, although the two are basically pretty much the same. But they differ in regard to the position they occupy in world existence.
It is like this: Let us look again at a figure such as Goethe, who has appeared in world history and of whom one can say that we can follow up the education of a person such as he, and can see how he became what he was; we can then follow up the impulse that led him to achieve his Faust and his other poetical works. We can, as it were, regard all that Goethe achieved as if it were the result of his education. And then of course we see him as a genius. We certainly can. By doing this we remain focused on Goethe.
But we can do it another way. We can follow the spiritual development in the eighteenth century. We can pick out some details, for instance, that before Goethe had thought of writing a Faust, Lessing had projected one, so there was already one in existence.3Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 1729–1781, German poet, playwright, and critic. Thus we can say that the conception of Faust arose out of the spiritual problems and impulses of the time. We could say that if we examine Lessing's projected Faust and a number of other similar Faust versions, they all led to the famous Faust. By leaving Goethe out, we still come to Faust as though by necessity. Faust arose out of what preceded it. So we can arrive at Faust by following Goethe's development. One can look at Goethe from a more developmental point of view, or one can entirely leave him out and look in detail at how a type of poetry originated in Europe, such as the Song of the Nibelungs,4Nibelungenlied, a Middle High German epic of about 1200, telling of the life of Siegfried, his marriage to Kriemhild, his wooing of Brunhild on behalf of Gunther, his murder by Hägen, and the revenge of Kriemhild. and how it became compressed into the poem Parsifal:5Parsifal, a hero of mythology and various epics and romances, especially the one by Wolfram von Eschenbach. Parsifal, the striving human being, belonging to a certain period of evolution. One can look at how another line of development then came about, due to which the Parsifal concept was quite forgotten, and how that remarkable idea took hold of people that found its expression in the popular romance of Faust. This brought the appearance of a Faust about, what one might call a Parsifal of a later age. Goethe can be left out entirely.
Obviously we must not be pedantic; fifty years more or less do not matter. Time is elastic and can be stretched forward or backward, so that that does not interfere. It is only with things that go on in an ahrimanic way that time plays an important part. Things that come from the gods can always be moved forward or backward in time. But speaking generally we can say that even if the Frankfurt councilor Kaspar Goethe and his wife Aja had not had their son Wolfgang, or if he had died immediately after birth, for as you know he was ill at birth and nearly died, someone else would certainly have produced something similar to Faust. Similarly if Goethe had lived in the fourteenth century, he would certainly not have written Faust. These are unreal thoughts of course, but sometimes one has to consider them in order to realize the truth.
Thus we can now ask the question, “Did Goethe produce his Faust or any of his life's work out of freedom, or was it a question of absolute necessity?” The greatest freedom of all is to obey historical necessity! For if anyone imagines that his freedom could ever be endangered by what exists in the world as necessity, he ought also to say, “I want to create a poem, but I am a person who wants to work in total freedom! I want to disregard all the other poets who were unfree; I want to write a free poem. But I could not be free if I were to use the words of our language, for they came about through primeval necessity. That would not do! I will be an absolute champion of freedom. I will make up my own language!” And he sets about doing so. What he would actually achieve, of course, would be that everybody rejects him and his poem written in a nonexistent language, that with his freedom he would be bound to arouse everyone's resistance, which would express itself at first of course merely in incomprehension. From this you will see that there can be no talk of freedom, as it enters into the stream of events, being in any way encroached upon by the necessity present in the ongoing stream of world events.
We might also imagine a painter who wanted to be completely free saying, “I want to paint for sure, but I do not want to paint on a canvas or any other surface; I will paint freely. Do I first of all experiment on a given material? Not me! For then I would perpetually be compelled to comply with its surface.” The material has a very definite conformity to law, yet complying with it does not mean one is not free.
Particularly where major events in world history are concerned, it is obvious that when consciousness plays a part in our actions, what we can call necessity can join directly with freedom. As I have already said, in the fourteenth century Goethe would not have been able to create Faust, for it would have been absolutely impossible for Faust to have come about at that time. He would not have been able to write it. Why not? Because there is something we have to call an empty space in world events with regard to certain evolutionary impulses. Just as we cannot put more water into a cask if it is already full, or we can only put a certain quantity into it if it is already partly full, we cannot put anything we please into an already “full” age.
In the fourteenth century there was no space for anything like the kind of thing that came down from the spiritual world through a human being into the physical world in the form of Faust; no space, only a state of fullness. Events run their course in cycles, and when a cycle has been completed, an empty space appears for new impulses which can then enter the life of the world. A cycle has to be complete in regard to content, and then an empty space must occur again, before new impulses can come in. In the cultural period in which Goethe lived, an empty space had occurred for the impulses that came from the spiritual world to the physical world through him. Evolution really does proceed in waves: emptiness—a state of fullness to the point of completion—an ebbing—emptiness again. Then something new can come.
In the time between death and a new birth a human being plans his next incarnation according to this rhythm. He arranges it so that he encounters the particular level of emptiness or fullness in the physical world that is right for his impulses. Someone bringing with him from earlier incarnations impulses of the highest order that require a space must come at a time when there is an empty space. Whoever has the kind of impulses that need to meet with receptivity must incarnate at a time when there is a space to be filled. In many areas of course one thing will work in opposition to another. That is quite obvious. We see then that in a certain respect we choose—if we may use the word—on the strength of our inner qualities the period in which we come into the world. And on this depends the inner necessity governing our activities.
If you bear this in mind, you will no longer see any contradiction in the consecutive events and realize that Parsifal and so on, and Faust, take their turns, and then comes Goethe who creates a work that can just as well be understood in the succession of periods. You will find no contradiction any longer, because Goethe looked down from above and prepared in his inner being what could become tangible in his work. That is to say, when he was on the physical plane, he brought forth from his inner being what he had absorbed in those particular preceding centuries in which the stream of events had taken place.
Between the two statements “Goethe's work had to be produced at a definite time,” and “Goethe produced it out of freedom” there is just as little contradiction as there would be if I were to have a board and six balls in a row, then produce a small cup and say, “I will put the first ball into the cup, then the second and third and so on, and I pour them out over here.” And if now someone were to say, “But those balls lying over there are the same balls we had to start with,” someone else could reply, “No, they are the balls that came out of the cup.” Both statements can be true.
What took place in the course of time and ultimately led to Faust is what Goethe had absorbed in his inner being and what Goethe then expressed just because it had accumulated within him through looking down from the spiritual world. For we always take part in the whole evolution of the world. If we look at things this way, we can say “The moment we look into the past we have to regard past events themselves as a necessity. And if we look at ourselves and produce the past again as deeds of the present, so long as we do this consciously, we are still free in what we bring into the present of what was prepared in the past out of necessity.” Thus that person is most free of all who knows in full consciousness “what I am doing is nothing but spiritual necessity.” These things cannot be understood by pedantic logic but only by fully grasping reality in a living way.
There is still another approach that can help us understand this completely. We can ask ourselves the following. If we look at animals, we know they have a dimmed consciousness. I have often described that. Human beings have a level of consciousness in which freedom can come to expression. But what kind of consciousness do angels have, the beings immediately above human beings? What is the consciousness of the angels like?
It is actually very difficult to have an immediate perception of the consciousness of angels. When we as human beings want to do something, we consider what form our action is going to take. And if it does not work out on the physical plane as we imagined it should, we have failed. If someone sews two pieces of cloth together, and when he has finished it they come apart, the endeavor has not been a success. This can happen with a sewing machine. If things do not turn out as we had envisioned they would on the physical plane, we say the deed has miscarried. That is to say, people aim their will at something they picture happening on the physical plane. This is how our human willing proceeds.
But not in the case of angels. Their intention is everything. An angel's intention can be carried out in many different ways and the effect can still be exactly the same. This is quite true, though it is of course contrary to ordinary logic. In the artistic sphere only, and then only from the human point of view, can we acquire any feeling for this kind of consciousness. For you will always find that if the artist can take things in a human way—he may not always be in a position to do so, but if he can—he may possibly appreciate what turns out contrary to his expectations, even to the point of failure, and regard it to be of greater value than those things he did exactly as they should have been done. We then come a little closer to what is so extraordinarily difficult to grasp: that with the angels' consciousness, their will, everything depends on the intentions, and that these intentions may be realized in the most varied ways on the physical plane, even in polar opposite ways. That is to say, when an angel decides to do something, he chooses something quite definite, but not in the way that he says, “It has to look like this.” That is not in the least implied. He will not know what it looks like until it has happened.
We have seen, and I have drawn your attention to the fact, that this is even the case with the Elohim. The Elohim created light and saw that it was good. This means that what comes first for human beings, the mental image of what is on the physical plane, does not come first at all in the consciousness of spiritual beings above human beings. With them the intention comes first, and how it is to be carried out is quite another matter. Now in this respect humans are of course midway between animals and angels. Therefore, they tend on the one hand to descend to the unconsciousness of animals. Whenever a criminal deed occurs, it is essentially due to the animality in human beings. On the other hand, however, we also have a tendency to ascend to the consciousness of the Angeloi. We have within us the possibility of developing a higher consciousness, a consciousness beyond the ordinary one, in which intentions take on a different aspect than is normally the case.
Thus we can say, that if as human beings we get involved in some of life's important problems, we cannot then make plans in the ordinary way. Suppose that as a teacher—a proper teacher this time—you have a particular child to educate. Now an average person has his educational principles. He knows when to give punishment and when not to; perhaps that he should never give any punishment at all. He knows how to do that. But if you look at the matter from the point of view of a higher consciousness, you will not always judge in this way, but will leave everything in life's hands. You will wait for the results of observation. Your one intention will be to bring out all the latent talents. But these potential talents can be drawn out in various ways. This is the important thing.
If we take all these things into consideration, we will realize that in order to understand how necessity and freedom affect the human being we must observe both the external physical part and the inner part, first of all the etheric. I have already drawn your attention to the fact that our etheric body takes quite a different course from the physical body. Our physical body, as I once told you, is young to begin with. It then develops and grows older until it becomes senile. The etheric body does the opposite. Whereas we say we grow older when speaking of the physical body, we ought really to say we grow younger as regards the etheric body. If we want to use the words “old” and “young” for the etheric body, it is actually old when we are born, for it is all wrinkled up and small enough to fit us. When we reach a normal old age, and die, our etheric body has become so rejuvenated that we can hand it over to the whole world, where it can work again as a youthful force. While the physical grows older, the etheric body grows younger. It gets younger and younger.
If we die at an unusual time, die young, significant things can happen with the etheric body, such as those I have told you about. But it is not only with regard to aging that we see a difference between the physical and etheric bodies, but also with regard to necessity and freedom. When the human being is most enmeshed in necessity in what he does with the physical body or in general as a being on the physical plane, he is then freest in his etheric body, and the latter is then left entirely to itself. Whenever the etheric body is enmeshed in necessity, everything a person does on the physical plane is left to his own freedom. Thus, where the physical body is subject to necessity, the etheric body has a corresponding degree of freedom, and where the etheric body is subject to necessity, the physical body has a certain amount of freedom.
Let us look at what this means. You cannot say we are completely free to get up and go to bed whenever we want to. People get up in the morning and go to bed in the evening. There is no question of freedom there. This is part of the iron necessities of life. And even if you vary the time of getting up and going to bed, freedom is obviously out of the question. You also eat every day. There is no question of freedom there. You cannot resolve to do away with this necessity and try to be free by not eating, because you feel the taking in of food to be a compulsion. With regard to all these things a human being is tied to necessity. And why is he tied to necessity? Because the companion—as I called him last time—the inner self accompanying us through life on the physical plane and through all the compulsions connected with the physical plane, lives all the while in freedom.
But if we are to involve our inner being, our etheric body, in necessity, how are we to do it? By consciously submitting to what we recognize to be a necessity. For instance, by telling ourselves that the time has come when everyone who realizes he is ready for spiritual science ought to take it up. Nobody is forced to do this by an external necessity, of course. But we can see it as an inner necessity, because it is necessary in the present cycle of humanity. Thus out of our own free will we yield to necessity. There is no external pressure on the physical plane. We must follow compulsion out of inner freedom, as it were. The etheric body itself makes the resolve, which permeates it with necessity; it creates the necessity itself, thus acquiring the possibility of developing in freedom with regard to what happens on the physical plane. That is to say, we become acquainted with spiritual necessity, thereby making ourselves more and more free with regard to life on the physical plane.
You will now say, “Through the very fact that we find our way into a spiritual necessity we ought to become more and more free in life on the physical plane.” That is indeed so. By uniting ourselves with the spirit that streams through the world and letting it pass through us, we really do receive elements that set us free from the fetters of the physical world. We cannot of course free ourselves from what is allotted us by our previous incarnation, by our karma. But if we do not thus free ourselves through our knowledge of spiritual necessity from conditions of necessity on the physical plane, we remain bound to these after death, and have to carry them with us. We have to carry the necessities of the physical plane with us through the life between death and a new birth, and cannot free ourselves from them. But each moment in which we connect ourselves in our etheric body with the necessities of the spiritual plane, we become freer and freer of the necessities of the physical plane.
It is indeed so that if we can follow out of a free resolve a purely spiritual impulse, we become freer and freer from all that would otherwise fetter us to physical life, fetter us far beyond death. On the other hand, with regard to everything we are enmeshed in during physical life, and which is unalterable, the etheric body as such becomes freer and freer.
Thus we see how freedom and necessity interact on the physical plane and also in connection with the etheric body. The etheric body receives its freedom through the necessity of the physical plane, and has to recognize its own necessity. The physical body receives its freedom when the etheric body thus recognizes its necessity, and its necessity arises through its self-chosen karmic involvement in the events on the physical plane.
In this way we see the physical part of human beings, free in bondage, and the spiritual-soul part, bound in freedom, interacting organically. Freedom and necessity always interweave. It is quite impossible for us to be subject to pure necessity when we are fully conscious. Through the fact that we permeate a thing with consciousness, that is to say, accept it in full consciousness, freedom governs our soul. This is how we lift ourselves out of necessity in our soul and make ourselves free concerning matters we are conscious of. However, if we acknowledge with our minds that something is necessary, for instance, that the present time is the time for taking part in spiritual science, if we freely comply with a necessity, so to speak, does this give us a degree of unconsciousness? In a certain sense it does. We do become unconscious to the extent that we undertake to develop our consciousness to the point where we reach the gate through which streams and radiates what is to come from the spiritual world. We then receive this, and bend to the powerful forces coming to meet us from the spirit world. This is why in connection with working our way into spiritual necessity we speak of working our way up to the beings who bend down toward us.
Therefore we shall always stress that with our consciousness we soar toward the beings who permeate and pulse through us from the spiritual world and when we say, “We must of necessity accommodate ourselves to the impulses coming from the spiritual world,” we expect that at the same time the impulses of higher spiritual beings will descend into these our impulses. Thus a relative, deep unconsciousness arises, where we become aware of what is at work in us spiritually in the same way as we would be aware of an unconscious action where we are quite sure that the spirit is in us and the right thing to do is to obey, where we are privileged to obey.
We have now come back to our starting point. If we tried with our ordinary consciousness to mull over the many consequences that can arise from such significant events as those of the present, for instance—and I compared them earlier to the Roman-Teutonic wars—we would get nowhere. However, the moment we can tell ourselves we do not want to find the right solution through mulling them over but through giving way to the spiritual impulse and letting it stream in, we do not need to brood. For then we know that if only we let these spiritual impulses take hold of us, they lead us to the right solution, to spiritual currents that even go beyond the centuries, beyond millennia. This is what is important.
Then we see that we no longer need to think that things must go like this today and like that tomorrow for such and such to happen, for we will realize that we are now living in the particular epoch of humanity in which the further evolution of earthly existence can progress in the right way only if spiritual impulses coming from the spiritual world are directly taken up. That is how it is. And the things that happen externally on the physical plane must of necessity unite with these impulses in the right way. Then the right things will happen. Then we shall know, without mulling over what will happen tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, that what will really come about will be that the souls now passing through the gate of death will continue to work on, both in their etheric bodies and as souls, to the extent that the thoughts of those human beings who will in the future populate the blood-stained battlefields of the earth join with them, so that something will arise that will live for centuries. But we must have a direct awareness of this in the spirit of these words we have often heard:
Out of the courage of the fighters,
Out of the blood of battles,
Out of the grief of the bereaved,
Out of the peoples' deeds of sacrifice
There shall arise spirit fruit
If only souls, in spirit-mindfulness,
Will reach out to the spirits' realm.
The important thing to realize is that from a certain point in the present our souls must become conscious of the spirit, souls that have the will to direct their consciousness toward the spirit. Then, from what is happening today, the right things will come for the future. To make this thought our own, steadfast confidence is needed, such as those beings have whom we count as members of the hierarchy of the angels. For angels act out of that kind of confidence. They know that if they have the right intentions, the right things will come of them; not because they envision that future events should take a definite form, but because they have the right intentions. These right intentions, however, can only be grasped spiritually. And only through thinking in the way of spiritual science can we find the way to grasp something spiritually, as we have endeavored to do.
Vierter Vortrag
Wir sind zu sehr gewöhnt, so große Fragen wie diejenigen, die wir jetzt als die Fragen der Notwendigkeit und Freiheit in Betracht ziehen, zu behandeln so, daß wir mit einfachen Begriffen, mit möglichst einfachen Begriffen, im Handumdrehen gewissermaßen, vieles auf einmal überspannen wollen. Wir berücksichtigen zumeist nicht, wenn es sich um solche Fragen handelt, daß diese Fragen notwendig machen, darauf zu achten, wie die Zusammenhänge der Welt mannigfaltig sind, wie dasjenige, was an einer Stelle der Welt geschieht, in eine ganz andere Beleuchtung gerückt werden muß, wenn wir es verstehen wollen, als das ganze Ähnliche, das an einer anderen Stelle des Weltgeschehens sich abspielt.
Ich möchte zuerst noch einmal erinnern an etwas, das ich in anderem Zusammenhange vor ganz kurzer Zeit hier auch schon erwähnt habe. Ich sagte: Wenn wir so bedeutsame Ereignisse, wie nun wiederum die gegenwärtigen, durch das Weltgeschehen fluten sehen, dann sind wir so sehr geneigt, rasch, gewissermaßen am Nächstliegenden die Ursachen zu suchen, und auch wiederum rasch in demjenigen, was unmittelbar schon in der allernächsten Zeit darauf folgt, die Wirkungen zu erwarten. Wir tun mit einer solchen Betrachtung den Tatsachen durchaus unrecht. Ich machte damals, als ich dies erwähnte, darauf aufmerksam, daß einmal gegenüberstand die Welt des Römertums der Welt des heutigen Mitteleuropas im Beginne der mittelalterlichen Zeit. Man kann nun leichten Herzens geschichtlich sich sagen: Nun ja, man versucht zu erkennen, wie aus gewissen politischen Motiven des alten Roms heraus diese Römer sich gedrängt fühlten, ihre Kriegszüge gegen den - also ihren - Norden zu unternehmen, gegen das, was heute Mitteleuropa ist. Und man kann dann in dem, was sich dann herausbildete, die Folgen suchen.
Aber mit einer solchen Betrachtung erschöpft man keinesfalls dasjenige, was in Betracht kommt. Denn denken Sie nur einmal, irgend etwas wäre dazumal anders geschehen in dem Vorrücken der Völkerschaften von Osten nach Westen herüber in Europa, anders geschehen etwas im Zusammenprall des Römertums mit dem Germanentum - und die ganze folgende Entwickelung Mitteleuropas, auch bis in die Neuzeit herauf, würde ein anderes Gesicht bekommen haben. Alle Einzelheiten, die wir haben sich abspielen sehen im Laufe der Jahrhunderte bis zu unserer Zeit, würden sich anders abgespielt haben, wenn dazumal nicht jene Volkssubstanz, die wir eben in den alten Römern haben - die sich nicht ganz durchdringen konnte, ich möchte sagen eben wegen ihrer welthistorischen Qualität, wegen ihrer Eigenschaften, mit dem Christentum -, wenn diese Welt nicht zusammengeflossen wäre mit welthistorisch jungen Völkern, die mit junger Kraft das Christentum aufgenommen haben. Durch die Art und Weise, wie der Zusammenstoß erfolgt ist, aus einem, man möchte sagen geistig überreifen Volke, wie es die Römer waren, mit einem welthistorisch jungen Volke, wie es dazumal die Germanen waren, ist all dasjenige entstanden, was später entstanden ist, bis heran, könnte man sagen, zu Goethes «Faust» und alledem, was die Kultur des 19. Jahrhunderts gebracht hat. Hätten die Dinge sich abspielen können, wie sie sich abgespielt haben, wenn das nicht dazumal geschehen wäre? Wir sehen da hinein in eine Strömung, erfüllt von einer inneren, gesetzmäßigen Notwendigkeit, die hinflutet im Weltgeschehen und die sich über weite, weite Gebiete ausdehnt. Wie hätte denn irgend jemand wollen können dazumal seine Handlungen einrichten nach dem, was nunmehr auf dem physischen Plane im Laufe der Jahrhunderte bis heute sich vollzogen hat?
Was sich heute vollzieht, ist wiederum der Ausgangspunkt der Weltgestaltungen, welche notwendig selbstverständlich mit dem, was heute geschieht, zusammenhängen, die aber zunächst, soweit es sich um das Geschehen auf dem physischen Plan handelt, sehr unähnlich sind dem, was zusammengedrängt in kleinem Zeitraume sich abspielt. Ich will dieses nur erwähnen aus dem Grunde, damit Sie sehen, wie tief begründet das ist, was ich im Zusammenhange gerade dieser Betrachtungen schon erwähnte: daß man nicht weit kommt mit dem Grübeln, mit dem Spekulieren über Zusammenhänge in der Welt. Denken Sie, wenn ein Römer oder auch ein Germane im 3., 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert sich hätte einspinnen wollen in eine Spekulation über die möglichen Folgen der Kämpfe, die dazumal stattgefunden haben, wie weit er gekommen sein würde. Gar nicht weit!
Notwendig ist es, daß wir uns bewußt werden, daß über dasjenige, was geschehen soll, damit wir es erkennen als wirklich Geschehen-Sollendes, anderes entscheidet als solche Grübeleien über die möglichen Folgen oder über das, was unmittelbar daraus hervorgeht; daß hereinflutet in die Strömung des Geschehens, wie sie auf dem physischen Plane fließt, eben dasjenige, was wir als hereinflutend empfinden aus geistigen Welten: Impulse, für deren Auswirkung im einzelnen wir keine Grübelei brauchen über das, was auf dem physischen Plane geschehen soll. Wir müssen schon uns klarsein darüber, daß gerade der Blick auf das menschliche Geschehen, auf das weltgeschichtliche Geschehen, es notwendig macht, daß man erweitert die Betrachtungsweise über dasjenige hinaus, was auf dem physischen Plane liegt. Und nachdem wir diese Notwendigkeiten nur angeschlagen haben, wollen wir wiederum den Menschen als solchen in Betracht ziehen.
Ich habe schon das letzte Mal darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie unmöglich es ist, ein richtiges Verhältnis zu bekommen zu den Handlungen, die man verrichtet hat, die für einen also in der Vergangenheit liegen, wenn man über diese Handlungen fortwährend nur in Grübeleien, in Spekulationen sich ergeht. Man muß vielmehr einsehen, daß das, was vergangen ist, auch das Vergangene der eigenen Handlungen, zum Gebiete der Notwendigkeit gehört, und muß lernen, sich hineinzufinden in den Gedanken: Was geschehen ist, mußte geschehen. Das heißt, ein richtiges Verhältnis zu seinen Handlungen gewinnt man dann, wenn man Objektivität gewinnt gegenüber dem, was man in der Vergangenheit getan oder geleistet hat, wenn man anschauen kann, ich will sagen, eine gelungene und eine mißlungene Handlung, die von einem selber ausgegangen ist, mit gleicher Objektivität.
Nun werden Sie selbstverständlich schwerwiegende Einwände haben müssen sogar gegen dasjenige, was ich gerade gesagt habe, denn es gibt solche schwerwiegende Einwände. Denken Sie doch, daß also eben gesagt wurde: wenn wir irgend etwas getan haben, ist es vorbei. Wir finden, wurde gesagt, dadurch ein richtiges Verhältnis zu diesem Getanen, daß wir uns objektiv dazu stellen, daß wir nicht hinterher es anders getan haben wollen. Der schwerwiegende Einwand ist der: Ja, wo bleibt denn eigentlich dann alles dasjenige, was im Menschenleben eine so große Rolle spielen muß, nämlich das Bereuen einer Handlung, die wir vollzogen haben? Selbstverständlich hat derjenige ganz recht, der sagt: Das Bereuen ist notwendig, das Bereuen muß sein. Würde man das Bereuen irgendwie aus der menschlichen Seelenentwickelung ausschalten, so würde man selbstverständlich einen moralischen Impuls von höchstem Werte ausschalten. Schaltet man ihn denn aber nicht aus, wenn man sich einfach so zu alledem stellt, was geschehen ist, daß man es objektiv betrachtet, richtig objektiv betrachtet?
Nun, hier liegt in der Tat eine neue Schwierigkeit, eine Schwierigkeit, die der Ausgangspunkt sein kann von unendlich vielen Mißverständnissen. Wir müssen schon auf das Zentrum des Freiheitproblems eingehen, wenn wir diese Schwierigkeit aus dem Wege schaffen wollen. Sehen Sie, der große Spinoza hat gesagt: Im Grunde genommen kann man in der Welt nur von Notwendigkeit sprechen. Freiheit ist im Grunde genommen eine Art Illusion. Denn wenn eine Kugel von einer anderen getroffen wird, so fliegt sie mit Notwendigkeit ihre Bahn. Würde sie ein Bewußtsein haben, so würde sie den Glauben haben - meint Spinoza, ich habe das in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» erwähnt -, daß sie ihre Bahn freiwillig geht. - So meint Spinoza. «Und so kommt es denn, daß der Mensch, während er in die Notwendigkeit eingesponnen ist, weiler ein Bewußtsein hat desjenigen, was da geschieht, sich für frei hält.»
Aber Spinoza hat doch ganz total unrecht, wirklich ganz unrecht. Die Sache verhält sich nämlich ganz anders. Wenn der Mensch wirklich so fortflöge irgendwohin, wie die Kugel, die nur der Notwendigkeit des Antriebes folgt, so müßte er mit Bezug auf alles das, was sein Fortfliegen ist und wo er nur der Notwendigkeit folgt, das Bewußtsein verlieren. Er müßte unbewußt werden dafür. Es müßte sich das Bewußtsein ausschalten. Das tut es auch. Denken Sie doch nur einmal, mit welcher Schnelligkeit Sie sich nach der Wissenschaft der Astronomie durch den Weltenraum bewegen! Das tun Sie ganz sicher nicht bewußt. Da schaltet sich das Bewußtsein aus. Sie können es gar nicht einmal einschalten, denn es würde Ihnen nicht gelingen, sich in dieser Weise sausend durch den Weltenraum zu bewegen, wie die Wissenschaft der Astronomie es Ihnen zeigt. Was also von einem Menschen mit Notwendigkeit vollzogen wird, dafür muß das Bewußtsein ausgeschaltet werden, und bei so groben Sachen wie das Fliegen durch den Weltenraum merken wir sehr bald, daß dasjenige, was der Notwendigkeit unterliegt, das Bewußtsein ausschaltet. Aber die Sachen sind nicht immer so grob bewußt, sie sind mehr oder weniger nicht bewußt. Sie grenzen nämlich im wirklichen Leben hart aneinander. An den Grenzlinien läßt sich die Sache nicht so ganz grob begreifen wie für den Fall, den ich jetzt eben angeführt habe. Man kann vielmehr sagen: In allem, wofür wir wirklich ein Bewußtsein haben, wovon wir ein unbedingtes Bewußtsein haben, können wir nur frei handeln. Wenn eine Kugel Bewußtsein hätte und ich stieße sie, so würde sie, wenn sie nun eben wirklich Bewußtsein hätte, nur dann in einer bestimmten Richtung fliegen, wenn sie den Impuls in ihr Bewußtsein aufnimmt, den ich ihr gebe, und wenn sie sich nun nach diesem Impulse selber die Bahn gäbe. Die Kugel müßte erst unbewußt werden, das Bewußtsein erst ausschalten, wenn sie bloß dem Impuls folgen sollte.
Wenn Sie dieses bedenken, dann werden Sie einen Unterschied machen, den man sonst im Leben gegenüber den Handlungen leider nicht macht. Denn daß man ihn nicht macht, das hat nicht nur eine theoretische Bedeutung, sondern eine tief praktische Bedeutung. Nämlich man macht im Leben den Unterschied nicht zwischen Dingen, die einem mißlingen, und Dingen, die schlecht sind, die unmoralisch sind. Dieser Unterschied ist ein ganz bedeutsamer, ein ganz außerordentlich wichtiger. Was eine mißlungene Handlung ist, was nicht den Absichten gemäß ausgefallen ist als mißlungene Handlung, für das gilt unbedingt, daß wir nur dann das Rechte daraus wissen, wenn wir es objektiv so anschauen können, als ob es absolut notwendig gewesen wäre. Denn es ist, sobald es vergangen ist, im Reiche der absoluten Notwendigkeit. Wenn uns irgend etwas mißlungen ist, und wir empfinden nachher Unbehagen darüber, daß diese Tat mißlungen ist, so gilt es durchaus, daß dieses Unbehagen aus dem Egoismus stammt: wir haben eigentlich ein besserer Mensch sein wollen oder möchten ein besserer Mensch gewesen sein, ein Mensch, der die Sache besser gekonnt hätte. Das ist eben der Egoismus, der drinnensteckt. Und solange dieser Egoismus nicht mit der Wurzel ausgerottet ist, so lange kann das Erlebnis unserer Weiterentwickelung als Seele nicht die schwerwiegende Bedeutung haben, die es haben sollte.
Aber wenn wir eine Handlung verrichtet haben, so kommt ja nicht immer in Betracht, daß die Handlung eine mißlungene Handlung ist, sondern es kann eine schlechte Handlung vorliegen, das, was man moralisch schlechte Handlung nennt. Aber schauen wir uns einmal die moralisch schlechten Handlungen an. Schauen wir uns zum Beispiel nun folgende Handlung an, um gleich irgend etwas ganz Sprechendes zu haben. Nehmen wir an, irgend jemand habe nichts zu essen oder hätte irgend etwas gerne aus einem anderen Grunde als Hunger, und er stiehlt. Also «stehlen», nicht wahr, ist eine schlechte Handlung. Nun, schließt dasjenige, was wir gesagt haben, aus, daß irgend jemand, der gestohlen hat, Reue hat über seine Tat? Das schließt es nicht aus! Denn warum nicht, meine lieben Freunde? Aus dem sehr einfachen Grunde nicht, weil im Ernste, in vollem Ernste, derjenige, der gestohlen hat, gar nicht hat stehlen wollen, sondern er hat dasjenige besitzen wollen, was er gestohlen hat. Das Stehlen hätte er fein gelassen, wenn Sie ihm das geschenkt hätten, was er gewollt hat, oder wenn er es auf eine andere Weise hätte kriegen können als durch das Stehlen.
Es ist ein eklatanter Fall. Aber in einer gewissen Weise gilt das für alles, was eigentlich als schlechte Tat in Betracht kommt. Die schlechte Tat als solche, unmittelbar so, wie sie ist, ist eigentlich nie gewollt. Die Sprache hat ein feines Gefühl für die Sache: wenn die schlechte Handlung vorbei ist, «regt sich das Gewissen». Warum regt sich das Gewissen? Weil jetzt erst die schlechte Tat zum Wissen erhoben wird. Sie geht hinauf ins Wissen. Da, wo sie sich vollzogen hat, da war eigentlich im Wissen drinnen das andere, um dessentwillen die schlechte Tat vollzogen worden ist. Die schlechte Tat liegt nicht im Wollen. Und auch die Reue hat den Sinn, daß der Betreffende zum Wissen heraufhebt, wie er sich das Bewußtsein hat trüben lassen in dem Moment, wo er die schlechte Tat ausgeführt hat. Wir müssen immer davon sprechen: Wenn jemand eine schlechte Tat ausübt, so ist dasjenige, um was es sich handelt, das, daß sein Bewußtsein für diese Tat getrübt war, herabgestimmt war, und daß es sich für ihn darum handelt, eben ein Bewußtsein für solche Fälle zu gewinnen, wie der einer war, für den das Bewußtsein herabgestimmt war. Alles Bestrafen hat nur den Sinn, solche Kräfte in der Seele aufzurufen, daß das Bewußtsein sich auch auf solche Fälle erstreckt, die sonst bewirken, daß das Bewußtsein sich ausschaltet.
Unter denjenigen Dissertationen, die an den Universitäten von Philosophen gemacht worden sind, die sich zu gleicher Zeit mit juristischen Problemen beschäftigen, ist besonders häufig die Dissertation über «das Recht, zu strafen». Nun hat man über die Gründe, warum gestraft werden soll, viele Theorien aufgestellt. Die einzig mögliche findet man nur, wenn man weiß, daß es sich darum handelt, mit der Strafe die Kräfte der Seele so anzuspannen, daß das Bewußtsein sich erweitert über Kreise, über die es sich vorher nicht erstreckt hat. Und dies ist auch die Aufgabe der Reue. Die Reue soll gerade darinnen bestehen, die Tat so anzuschauen, daß sie durch ihre Gewalt ins Bewußtsein heraufgehoben wird, so daß das Bewußtsein nun den Zusammenhang so überschaut, daß es das nächste Mal nicht wiederum ausgeschaltet werden kann. Sie sehen, worauf es ankommt: darauf, daß man lernt, im Leben genau zu unterscheiden, wenn man etwas verstehen will, daß man wirklich lernt, zu unterscheiden zwischen vollbewußtem Tun und demjenigen, wofür das Bewußtsein herabgestimmt ist.
Wenn Sie nun dagegen eine Handlung haben, der gegenüber gar nicht in Betracht kommt, ob sie eine schlechte oder gute ist, sondern die eine mißlungene Handlung ist, wobei uns nur etwas nicht gelungen ist, was wir beabsichtigt hatten, da handelt es sich darum, daß wir nun gerade uns unsere Anschauung der Handlung trüben können, wenn wir sie so beurteilen, daß wir einmischen den Gedanken, die Empfindung: Ja, wäre es vielleicht nicht anders geschehen, wenn wir dies oder jenes besser gemacht hätten, oder wenn wir selber anders gewesen wären? Da kommt in Betracht, daß man wirklich ins Auge zu fassen hat: Wenn das Auge einen Gegenstand sehen soll, so kann es sich nicht selber sehen. Es kann sich nicht einen Spiegel vorhalten, denn im Augenblicke, wo das Auge sich den Spiegel vorhält, um sich selbst zu sehen, kann es den Gegenstand nicht sehen. In dem Augenblicke, wo der Mensch darüber spintisiert, wie er hätte anders sein sollen gegenüber einer Tat, die er getan hat, kann diese Tat nicht mit derjenigen Gewalt auf ihn wirken, die ihn vorwärtsbringt in der seelischen Entwickelung. Denn in dem Augenblicke, wo man zwischen sich und seine Tat den Egoismus hineinstellt, der darinnen liegt, daß man eigentlich die Tat hätte anders machen wollen, in dem Augenblicke tut man genau dasselbe, was man macht, wenn man vor das Auge den Spiegel hält, so daß das Auge den Gegenstand nicht sehen kann.
Man kann auch den Vergleich noch anders stellen. Sie wissen, es gibt sogenannte astigmatische Augen. Es sind Augen, bei denen die Bogen der Hornhaut in senkrechter und in Querrichtung verschieden stark gekrümmt sind. Solche Augen haben eine eigentümliche Art des ungenauen Sehens. Man sieht Gespenster, was nur davon herrührt, daß die Hornhaut in unregelmäßiger Weise gebogen ist. Man sieht Gespenster, aber das rührt davon her, daß man eigentlich sein Auge wahrnimmt und nicht das, was draußen ist. Wenn man sein Auge wahrnimmt, weil es unrichtig konstruiert ist, weil es nicht ein Auge geworden ist, das sich selber ganz ausschalten kann und nur den Gegenstand wirken lassen kann im Auge, dann kann man nicht den Gegenstand wahrnehmen. Wenn man seine Seele anfüllt mit dem Gedanken: «Du hättest anders sein können, du hättest dies oder jenes anders machen sollen, dann wäre dir die Sache gelungen», dann ist das geradeso, wie wenn man ein astigmatisches Auge hat: man sieht gar nicht die wirkliche Tatsache, man fälscht sie sich. Aber man muß die wirklichen Tatsachen sehen, die einem zugeteilt sind, dann wirken sie auch wirklich. Wie der Gegenstand, der draußen ist, auf ein gesundes Auge wirkt, so wirken sie auch auf eine Seele, die nicht angefüllt ist mit dem Gefühl über Tatsachen, sondern welche die Tatsachen selbst auf sich wirken läßt. Dann wirken diese Tatsachen in der Seele weiter.
Man kann sagen: Jemand, welcher noch nicht die Objektivität gefunden hat gegenüber verflossenen Tatsachen, in die man verwickelt war, der kann diese Tatsachen nicht in ihrer Objektivität sehen und daher von diesen Tatsachen auch nicht dasjenige haben, was er für seine Seele haben soll. Es wäre geradeso, wie wenn unsere Augen stehenbleiben würden im sechsten, siebenten Monat ihrer Embryonal-Entwickelung, wenn die Augen aufhören würden in ihrer Entwickelung und wir dann würden geboren werden zur rechten Zeit: wir würden die ganze Welt falsch sehen. Wenn die Augen sich nicht weiter im sechsten, siebenten, achten, neunten Monat mit uns entwickeln würden, sondern wenn sie stehenblieben: sie würden sich nicht ausschalten. Wir würden etwas ganz anderes sehen als wir in Wirklichkeit sehen.
So bekommt dasjenige, was wir getan haben, erst dann für uns den rechten Wert, wenn wir so weit sind, daß wir es einreihen können in die Strömung der Notwendigkeit, wenn wir es als etwas Notwendiges ansehen können. Aber wie gesagt, wir müssen uns klarsein darüber, daß wir eben dann die Unterscheidung machen müssen zwischen dem, was gelungen und mißlungen ist, und demjenigen, was in moralischer Beziehung mit «gut» oder «schlecht» belegt wird.
Im Grunde genommen finden Sie die Auseinandersetzungen über alles das, wenn auch in mehr philosophischer Weise gewendet, in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» drinnen, denn in dieser «Philosophie der Freiheit» wird ausdrücklich auseinandergesetzt, wie der Mensch frei wird dadurch, daß er dasjenige sich erringt, was ihm möglich macht, Impulse aus der geistigen Welt heraus zu entnehmen. Es wird an einer Stelle sogar ausdrücklich gesagt: Die freien Impulse gehen aus der geistigen Welt heraus. - Das schließt aber nicht aus, daß der Mensch gerade dann gewissermaßen am freiesten handelt mit Bezug auf gewisse Geschehnisse, warum er ganz besonders der Notwendigkeit wiederum folgt. Denn man muß unterscheiden zwischen der rein äußeren physischen Notwendigkeit und der geistigen Notwendigkeit, obwohl beide im Grunde genommen ziemlich einerlei sind. Aber sie unterscheiden sich, man möchte sagen, in bezug auf die Schichtung im Weltendasein, in der sie sich befinden.
Das ist so: Betrachten Sie wiederum solch eine Gestalt wie zum Beispiel Goethe, die in die Weltgeschichte hineintritt und von der man sagen kann: Wir können die Erziehung eines solchen Menschen wie Goethe verfolgen, wir können sehen, wie er zu dem geworden ist, was er ist, können dann die Impulse verfolgen, die ihn angeleitet haben, seinen «Faust», seine anderen Dichtungen zustande zu bringen. Wir können gewissermaßen alles dasjenige, was Goethe geleistet hat, als ein Ergebnis der Erziehung Goethes ansehen. Und nun sehen wir eben das Goethe-Genie hingestellt. Gewiß, das können wir. Da bleiben wir ganz in Goethe drinnen stehen. Aber sehen Sie, wir können es anders machen. Wir können die geistige Entwickelung im 18. Jahrhundert verfolgen. Nehmen Sie Einzelheiten daraus. Nehmen Sie das zum Beispiel, daß, bevor Goethe an einen «Faust» gedacht hat, Lessing einen «Faust» projektiert hat, daß ein «Faust» schon da war. Man kann sagen, aus den geistigen Problemen, mit denen sich die Zeit beschäftigt hat, aus den geistigen Impulsen ist der Gedanke des «Faust» entstanden. Man kann nun sagen, wenn man den Lessingschen «Faust» und eine Menge anderer solcher «Faust»-Dichtungen prüft: es hat alles zu Faust hingeleitet. Man kann gewissermaßen Goethe auslassen, und man kommt auch zu Faust hin wie zu einer Notwendigkeit. Faust ist aus dem Früheren entstanden. Man kann also Goethes Entwikkelung verfolgen und kommt in seinen «Faust» hinein. Man kann Goethe mehr entwickelungsgemäß vor sich hinstellen, man kann ihn aber ganz auslassen, kann nun streng verfolgen, wie in Europa eine solche Dichtungsart eingetreten ist wie die Nibelungen, wie sich das verdichtet hat zur Parzival-Dichtung, wie Parzival ein strebender Mensch ist, aus einem gewissen Zeitabschnitte der Entwickelung heraus, wie dann eine andere Entwickelung heraufgekommen ist, wie durch eine andere Entwickelung die ParzivalIdee ja ganz vergessen worden ist und jene merkwürdige Idee Platz gegriffen hat, die im Volksbuch des Faust zum Ausdrucke gekommen ist, und die dann das hervorruft, daß ein «Faust» entsteht, man möchte sagen ein Parzival in einem späteren Zeitalter. Man kann Goethe ganz auslassen. Selbstverständlich muß man da nicht pedantisch sein, da tun fünfzig Jahre nichts. Die Zeit ist elastisch, sie kann sich dehnen nach vorn und hinten, also darauf kommt es nicht an. In dieser Weise bestimmt, daß die Zeit eine Rolle spielt, sind nur die ahrimanischen Dinge, die in der Welt vorgehen. Das, was von den guten Göttern herrührt, ist durchaus in der Zeit verschiebbar nach vorne undrückwärts. Aber man kann im allgemeinen sagen: auch wenn der Frankfurter Rat Kaspar Goethe und die Frau Aja nicht den Sohn Wolfgang gehabt hätten, oder wenn der Sohn Wolfgang, der ja, wie Sie wissen, ohnedies schwarz geboren worden ist und nahe daran war, gleich nach der Geburt zu sterben, wenn der gleich nach der Geburt gestorben wäre, so wäre ganz gewiß eben durch einen anderen auch so etwas entstanden, wie die Faust-Dichtung ist. Oder wenn Goethe im 14. Jahrhundert gelebt hätte, würde er sicher keinen «Faust» geschrieben haben. Das sind allerdings unreale Gedanken. Aber man muß sie sich manchmal vor die Seele stellen, um dasjenige, was real ist, einzusehen.
Also man kann nun die Frage aufwerfen: Hat denn nun Goethe aus seiner Freiheit heraus den «Faust» oder überhaupt dasjenige, was sein Lebenswerk ist, gemacht, oder liegt da eine unbedingte Notwendigkeit vor? Die größte Freiheit liegt dann vor, wenn man das welthistorisch Notwendige macht! Denn wer glaubt, daß jemals die Freiheit gefährdet sein könnte durch dasjenige, was als Notwendigkeit in der Welt existiert, der soll nur auch gleich sagen: Ich will eine Dichtung schaffen, aber ich bin ein Mensch, der absolut frei wirken will! Also ich will einmal absehen von allen anderen Dichtern, die unfrei waren; ich will eine freie Dichtung schaffen. Aber frei könnte ich nicht sein, wenn ich die Worte benützen wollte, die in der Sprache sind, denn die sind ja durch uralte Notwendigkeit bewirkt. Na ja, das geht natürlich nicht! Ich will ein vollständiger Freiheitsheld sein. Ich mache mir also meine eigene Sprache. - Und nun beginnt er zunächst, sich seine Sprache zu machen. Ja, er würde natürlich das erreichen, daß er mit der Dichtung, die dann in einer noch nicht vorhandenen Sprache auftreten würde, zurückgestoßen würde von der ganzen Welt, daß er mit seiner Freiheit die Widerstandskraft der ganzen Welt entwickeln müßte, die sich ja zunächst selbstverständlich nur im Nichtverstehen äußern würde. Sie sehen daraus, daß gar nicht die Rede davon sein kann, daß Freiheit, die eingreift in den Strom des Geschehens, irgendwie sich beeinträchtigt fühlen kann von der Notwendigkeit, die in der fortgehenden Strömung des Weltengeschehens vorliegt.
Man könnte sich auch einen Maler denken, der durchaus frei sein wollte, und der sagen würde: Ja, malen will ich schon, aber ich will nicht auf Leinwand malen oder überhaupt nicht auf eine Fläche malen; ich will frei malen. Versuche ich erst auf einer Grundlage zu malen, die mir gegeben wird? Das werde ich nicht tun! Denn dann bin ich gezwungen, überall der Fläche dieser Grundlage zu folgen. - Diese Grundlage aber hat eine ganz bestimmte Gesetzmäßigkeit. Man folgt ihr, aber das beeinträchtigt durchaus nicht, daß man die Freiheit entwickle.
Gerade bei den großen weltgeschichtlichen Ereignissen tritt es einem so recht entgegen, wie dasjenige, was man Notwendigkeit nennen kann, dann, wenn Bewußtsein im Spiele ist, mit Freiheit unmittelbar zusammentreten kann, wo Bewußtheit im Spiele ist. Ich sagte schon: Goethe würde im 14. Jahrhundert nicht haben den «Faust» schaffen können, denn daß im 14. Jahrhundert der «Faust» hätte entstehen können, ist absolut unmöglich. Er würde nicht den «Faust» haben schreiben können. Warum denn.nicht? Ja, weil es etwas gibt, was man bezeichnen muß als Leerheit des Weltgeschehens mit Bezug auf gewisse Entwickelungsimpulse. Geradeso, wie Sie in ein Faß nicht Wasser hineintun können, wenn das Faß schon voll Wasser ist, oder wie Sie nur ein gewisses QJuantum Wasser in ein Faß hineinschütten können, wenn das Faß eben teilweise schon mit Wasser gefüllt ist, so können Sie nicht in eine erfüllte Zeit etwas in beliebiger Weise hineingießen. Im 14. Jahrhundert ist für so etwas, wie es im Faust aus der geistigen Welt heruntergeflossen ist durch einen Menschen in die physische Welt, nicht Leerheit dagewesen, sondern Erfülltheit. Das Geschehen verläuft in Zyklen, und wenn ein Zyklus erfüllt ist, dann tritt Leerheit ein für neue Impulse, die sich dann hineinstellen können in das Weltengeschehen. Es muß erst ein Zyklus inhaltlich erfüllt werden und wiederum Leerheit eintreten in bezug auf diesen Zyklus. Dann können sich in die Leerheit neue Impulse hineinbegeben. Mit Bezug auf dasjenige, was an Impulsen aus der geistigen Welt durch Goethe heruntergeflossen ist in die physische Welt, war Leerheit eingetreten innerhalb der Kulturentwickelung, in der Goethe gestanden hat. Und die Entwickelung verläuft so, daß sie wirklich wellenartig verläuft: Leerheit - höchste Erfülltheit - abflutend wiederum Leerheit. Dann kann Neues hineinkommen.
Darnach richtet nun der Mensch, der zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt steht, seine Inkarnation ein. Er richtet seine Inkarnation so ein, daß er in der physischen Welt denjenigen Grad von Leerheit oder Erfülltheit trifft, der für seine Impulse das Richtige ist. Jemand, der aus seinen früheren Inkarnationen solche Impulse mitbringt, die als Impulse allerersten Ranges wirken können, also ins Leere hineinfallen müssen, der muß in einem Zeitraume erscheinen, wo in der Welt Leerheit ist. Wer solche Impulse hat, die erst wiederum empfangen werden müssen von der Welt, der muß in einen solchen Zeitraum hineinfallen mit seiner neuen Inkarnation, wo Erfüllung für die Leerheit sein kann. Natürlich ist das für die verschiedensten Gebiete so, daß sie sich durchkreuzen. Das ist ja ganz selbstverständlich. Also wir sehen daraus, daß in gewisser Beziehung wir uns - wenn wir das Wort gebrauchen dürfen - den Zeitpunkt wählen, in dem wir hinunterkommen in die Welt, nach unseren inneren Qualitäten, die wir in uns haben. Und danach richtet sich die innere Notwendigkeit, mit der wir wirken.
Wenn Sie dies jetzt ins Auge fassen, dann wird Ihnen kein Widerspruch mehr bestehen, wenn Sie die aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse in der Zeitströmung beobachten und sich sagen: Parzival und so weiter, Faust, das geht so fort, und dann kommt Goethe, und aus seinem Innern heraus kommt dasjenige, was aber ebensogut begriffen werden kann in der aufeinanderfolgenden Zeitströmung. Sie werden keinen Widerspruch mehr empfinden, weil von oben Goethe hinunterschaute und sich oben das in seinem Innern vorbereitete, was dann außen in einem Werke werden konnte. Er läßt also aus seinem Innern dann, indem er auf dem physischen Plane ist, das hervorströmen, was er aufgenommen hat gerade in den vorhergehenden Jahrhunderten, in denen sich die fortflutenden Ereignisse abgespielt haben. Es ist zwischen diesen zwei Behauptungen «Goethes Werk hat in einer bestimmten Zeit hervorgebracht werden müssen» und «Goethe hat es frei hervorgebracht» ebensowenig ein Widerspruch, als wenn ich hier ein Brett hätte, und hier hätte ich 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Kugeln, also eine Reihe von Kugeln. Dann komme ich mit einem kleinen Becher und sage: die erste Kugel fülle ich in den Becher, die zweite Kugel fülle ich in den Becher, die dritte Kugel fülle ich in den Becher, die vierte Kugel und so weiter, und hier lade ich sie aus. Da sagt einer aber: Die Kugeln, die jetzt da liegen, das sind doch dieselben Kugeln, die dagewesen sind. Nein, sagt ein anderer, das sind die Kugeln, die drinnengewesen sind in dem Becher; aus dem habe ich sie herausgetan.
Beide Behauptungen können durchaus nebeneinander bestehen. Was in der Zeit sich abgespielt hat, was zuletzt zum «Faust» geführt hat, das ist dasjenige, was sich eingelebt hat in die Seele Goethes, und aus der Seele Goethes kommt es, weil es sich in der Seele Goethes durch die Beobachtung aus der geistigen Welt herunter eben angehäuft hat. Denn wir nehmen immer teil an der gesamten Entwickelung der Welt. Wenn wir nun das so betrachten, so werden wir uns sagen können: In dem Augenblicke , wo wir in die Vergangenheit blicken, müssen wir das Vergangene selbst als ein Notwendiges ansehen. Und wenn wir auf uns blicken und auch das Vergangene gegenwärtig wieder hervorbringen, wenn wir es nur bewußt hervorbringen, so stellen wir in die Gegenwart das in der Vergangenheit notwendig Vorbereitete dennoch durch Freiheit hinein. So kann derjenige der Allerfreieste sein, der das volle Bewußtsein entwickeln kann: Mit dem, was ich tue, tue ich nichts anderes als dasjenige, was geistig notwendig ist. Die Dinge lassen sich nicht mit einer pedantischen Logik entwickeln, sondern die Dinge lassen sich eben nur durch völlig lebendiges Auffassen der Wirklichkeit erschauen.
Wir können uns noch in einer Weise helfen, um die Sache vollständig zu durchschauen. Wir können uns einmal fragen: Nun ja, schauen wir also zum Beispiel die Tiere an. Für sie ist das Bewußtsein herabgestimmt. Wir wissen, sie haben ein herabgestimmtes Bewußtsein. Das ist öfter von mir ausgeführt. Schauen wir uns den Menschen an: er hat einen Grad von Bewußtsein, der so ist, daß eben Freiheit sich geltend machen kann. Wie ist es denn nun mit dem Bewußtsein der Engel, also derjenigen Wesen, die unmittelbar über dem Menschen stehen? Wie ist es mit dem Bewußtsein der Engel?
Es ist sogar sehr schwierig, gleich zu durchschauen das Bewußtsein der Angeloi. Sehen Sie, wenn man als Mensch etwas tun will, dann überlegt man, wie das, was man tun will, sein soll. Und es ist einem mißlungen, wenn auf dem physischen Plane nicht dasjenige eintritt, wovon man sich vorgestellt hat, daß es auf dem physischen Plane eintreten soll. Wenn jemand zwei Stücke Zeug zusammennäht, und, wenn er sie zusammengenäht hat, sie dann auseinandergehen, so ist ihm die Tat mißlungen. Ja, bei der Nähmaschine kann es schon passieren. Dann ist die Tat mißlungen. Also, wenn dasjenige nicht eintritt, was man als eine Vorstellung vorausfaßt für den physischen Plan, dann sagt man: die Tat ist mißlungen. Das heißt, man geht mit seinem Wollen aus auf etwas, das man sich dem Bilde nach ausmalt, wie es auf dem physischen Plan sein soll. So geschieht das Wollen beim Menschen. Nicht so bei den Angeloi.
Bei den Angeloi liegt alles in der Absicht. Eine Absicht eines Angeloi kann in der verschiedensten Weise zur Ausführung kommen und es kann doch der Effekt ganz derselbe sein. Es ist einmal wahr, aber es ist natürlich etwas, das, ich möchte sagen, sich im Begriffe gegenüber der gewohnten Logik spießen will. Nur beim Künstlerischen, wenn man das Künstlerische aber menschlich nimmt, da kann man sich diesem Bewußtsein angenähert fühlen. Denn Sie werden immer finden, daß, wenn der Künstler also die Sache menschlich nehmen kann - er braucht ja nicht immer in der Lage zu sein, sein Künstlerisches menschlich zu nehmen, aber wenn er sein Künstlerisches menschlich nehmen kann -, dann kann er unter Umständen dasjenige, was ihm ins Gegenteil gelungen ist, was ihm sogar mißlungen ist, für mehr wert halten als das, was ihm in der Weise gelungen ist, daß er es gerade so ausgeführt hat, wie es hätte werden sollen. Da nähert man sich ein wenig dem außerordentlich schwer Denkbaren, daß beim Bewußtsein der Angeloi, beim Wollen der Angelo: alles ankommt auf die Absichten, und daß diese Absichten in der verschiedensten Weise, ja sogar in der entgegengesetztesten Weise sich auf dem physischen Plane realisieren können. Das heißt, wenn sich ein Engel etwas vornimmt, so nimmt er sich etwas ganz Bestimmtes vor, aber nicht so, daß er sagt: Auf dem physischen Plane muß es so und so aussehen. Das liegt noch gar nicht drinnen. Das wird er erst wissen, wenn es da ist.
Wir haben gesehen, und ich habe darauf aufmerksam gemacht: sogar bei den Elohim ist ein solches der Fall. Die Elohim schufen das Licht und sie sahen, daß das Licht gut war. Das heißt, dasjenige, was beim Menschen das erste ist, die Vorstellung dessen, was auf dem physischen Plane da ist, das ist im Bewußtsein der geistigen Wesen, die über dem Menschen stehen, gar nicht das erste, sondern da ist das erste die Absicht, und wie es ausgeführt wird, das ist eine ganz andere Frage. Nun ist ja der Mensch in dieser Beziehung natürlich das Mittelgeschöpf zwischen Tier und Engel. Daher neigt er auf der einen Seite mehr in die Bewußtlosigkeit des Tieres hinunter. Überall da, wo Verbrecherisches zutage tritt, ist es jaim wesentlichen die Tierheit, die das im Menschen verursacht. Aber er neigt auf der anderen Seite schon auch hinauf, ich möchte sagen, zum Bewußtsein der Angeloi. Das ist schon so, daß der Mensch die Möglichkeit in sich trägt, über das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein hinaus ein höheres Bewußtsein zu entwickeln, wo ihm die Absichten in einer anderen Weise vors Auge treten, als es sonst beim gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein der Fall ist.
Da kann man eben sagen: Nehmen wir einmal an, man läßt sich als ein Mensch auf wichtige Lebensprobleme ein. Dann kann man nicht so mit seinen Absichten gehen, wie man es gewöhnlich macht. Nehmen wir zum Beispiel an, man bekommt als Erzieher - aber jetzt Erzieher im richtigen Sinne - irgendein Kind zu erziehen. Nicht wahr, der Durchschnittsmensch hat seine Erziehungsprinzipien, seine pädagogischen Prinzipien. Der weiß, wann er prügeln soll oder nicht prügeln soll, vielleicht auch, daß er gar niemals prügeln soll und so weiter. Er weiß, wie man das macht, wie man jenes macht. Aber wer die Sache von dem Standpunkte eines höheren Bewufßtseins aus betrachtet, der wird nicht immer in dieser Weise urteilen, sondern er wird alles dem Leben überlassen. Er wird warten, was er beobachten kann. Er wird sich nur das eine vorsetzen: die Absicht, dasjenige zu erreichen, was ihm veranlagt erscheint. Aber dieses veranlagt Erscheinende kann auf vieldeutige Weise erreicht werden. Das ist dasjenige, um was es sich handelt.
So werden wir, wenn wir alle diese Dinge zusammennehmen, jetzt auch einsehen, wie wir, um den ganzen Menschen in bezug auf Notwendigkeit und Freiheit zu verstehen, das äußerlich Physische am Menschen beachten müssen und das Innerliche, also zunächst das Ätherische. Wenn wir bloß auf den Ätherleib des Menschen sehen: ich habe Sie schon darauf aufmerksam gemacht, wie der Ätherleib des Menschen ganz andere Wege geht als der physische Leib. Der physische Leib des Menschen — so sagte ich Ihnen einmal -, er ist zuerst jung. Er entwickelt sich dann, wird älter, wird endlich greisenhaft. Der Ätherleib macht das Gegenteil. Wenn wir sagen, wir «altern» in bezug auf den physischen Leib, so müssen wir eigentlich sagen, wir «jüngern» in bezug auf den Ätherleib. Denn der Ätherleib ist in der Tat, wenn wir das Wort «alt» und jung« anwenden wollen, ein Greis, wenn wir geboren werden, denn da ist er ganz zusammengerunzelt, so klein, daß er nur für uns paßt. Wenn wir nun ein normales Alter erreichen und sterben, dann ist dieser Ätherleib wiederum soweit verjüngt, daß wir ihn der ganzen Welt übergeben können, und daß er außen wiederum jung wirken kann. Während der physische Leib altert, «jüngt» der Ätherleib. Der wird immer jünger.
Wenn wir zu einer abnormen Zeit sterben, Jung sterben, so kann ja der Ätherleib solche Bedeutungen haben wie diejenigen, die ich Ihnen angeführt habe. Aber nicht nur in bezug zum Beispiel auf dieses Altern müssen wir auf diese Verschiedenheit von physischem Leib und Ätherleib sehen, sondern auch in bezug auf Notwendigkeit und Freiheit. Dann, wenn der Mensch am allermeisten in die Notwendigkeit eingespannt ist mit Bezug auf das, was er mit seinem physischen Leibe oder überhaupt als Wesen auf dem physischen Plane vollzieht, dann ist sein Ätherleib am freiesten, dann ist sein Ätherleib ganz sich selbst überlassen. Mit Bezug auf alles dasjenige, wohinein wir in die Notwendigkeit gespannt sind, ist der Ätherleib sich selbst überlassen. Mit Bezug auf alles das, wo der Ätherleib sich in eine Notwendigkeit hineinspannt, ist dasjenige, was der Mensch auf dem physischen Plane entwickelt, in Freiheit begriffen. Während also der physische Leib der Notwendigkeit unterliegt, hat der Ätherleib ein gleiches Maß von Freiheit, und während der Ätherleib einer Notwendigkeit unterliegt, hat dasjenige, was den physischen Leib betrifft, ein gewisses Maß von Freiheit. Was bedeutet das?
Also nehmen Sie einmal an: Sie werden nicht sagen können, daß es Ihnen ganz freisteht, aufzustehen und sich schlafen zu legen, wann Sie wollen. Man steht morgens auf und legt sich abends schlafen. Von einer Freiheit kann da gar nicht die Rede sein. Das hängt zusammen mit eisernen Notwendigkeiten des Lebens. Und selbst wenn Sie irgendwie variieren lassen die Zeit des Aufstehens und Schlafengehens, kann von einer Freiheit gar nicht die Rede sein. Auch essen Sie jeden Tag. Von einer Freiheit kann da nicht die Rede sein. Sie können sich nicht dazu entschließen, diese Notwendigkeit zu durchbrechen und sich Ihre Freiheit dadurch zu suchen, daß Sie zum Beispiel nicht essen, weil Sie das als Zwang empfinden würden, zu essen. In bezug auf alle diese Dinge ist der Mensch in Notwendigkeiten eingespannt. Warum ist er in Notwendigke iten eingespannt? Weil der Begleiter — wie ich das letzte Mal gesagt habe -, der in seinem Innern ist, der mitgeht während des Lebens hier auf dem physischen Plane mit allem, was mit dem physischen Plane zusammenhängt, was in eine Notwendigkeit eingespannt ist, weil der mittlerweile in Freiheit lebt. Wenn wir uns aber nun mit dem Innern, mit dem Ätherleib in die Notwendigkeit begeben, wodurch kann das geschehen? Gerade dadurch, daß wir uns dem, was wir als eine Notwendigkeit erkennen, bewußt hingeben. Also so, daß wir uns zum Beispiel sagen: Gegenwärtig ist die Zeit, wo derjenige, der dazu reif ist, der das einsehen kann, sich mit der Geisteswissenschaft befassen soll. Selbstverständlich ist niemand äußerlich notwendig dazu gezwungen. Aber man kann es einsehen als eine innere Notwendigkeit, weil es im gegenwärtigen Menschheitszyklus notwendig ist. Man unterwirft sich so erst aus Freiheit der Notwendigkeit. Nichts zwingt einen äußerlich auf dem physischen Plan. Innerlich muß man aus Freiheit gewissermaßen der Nötigung folgen. Da macht sich der Ätherleib selber den Impuls, der ihn mit Notwendigkeit durchdringt. Da macht sich der Ätherleib selber die Notwendigkeit und versetzt sich dadurch in die Möglichkeit, das, was mit Bezug auf den physischen Plan geschieht, in Freiheit zu entwickeln. Das heißt, man lernt die geistige Notwendigkeit kennen und macht sich dadurch immer mehr und mehr frei für alles dasjenige, was das Leben auf dem physischen Plane ist.
Nun werden Sie sagen: Also müßte man eigentlich dadurch, daß man sich in eine geistige Notwendigkeit hineinfindet, freier werden für das Leben auf dem physischen Plane. Das ist tatsächlich auch so. Dadurch, daß man sich mit der Strömung des Geistigen in der Welt verbindet, daß man den Strom des Geistigen durch sich durchgehen läßt, nimmt man in der Tat Elemente auf, die einen losreißen von dem Verkettetsein mit der physischen Welt. Selbstverständlich, von dem kann man sich nicht losreißen, was einem zugeteilt ist durch seine vorhergehende Inkarnation, durch sein Karma. Aber wenn man sich nicht in der geschilderten Weise durch Erkenntnis der geistigen Notwendigkeit frei macht von den notwendigen Bedingungen des physischen Planes, so bleibt man nach dem Tode mit diesen notwendigen Bedingungen des physischen Planes verbunden, und man schleppt sie mit. Man schleppt die Notwendigkeiten des physischen Planes durch das Leben zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt mit. Man wird nicht frei davon. In jedem Augenblicke wird man immer freier und freier von den Notwendigkeiten des physischen Planes, in dem man sich verbindet mit seinem Ätherleib mit den Notwendigkeiten des geistigen Planes. Das ist wirklich so, daß, wenn man in freier Entschließung einem rein im Geistigen erkannten Impulse folgen kann, man immer freier wird für alles dasjenige, was einen sonst an das physische Leben kettet, kettet weit über den Tod hinaus. Dagegen für alles dasjenige, an was man im physischen Leben gekettet ist, was nicht zu ändern ist, für das wird gerade der Ätherleib als solcher immer freier und freier.
Und so können wir sehen, wie zusammenwirken auf dem physischen Plane Freiheit und Notwendigkeit, aber auch für den Ätherleib Freiheit und Notwendigkeit. Der Ätherleib bekommt seine Freiheit durch die Notwendigkeit des physischen Planes, und seine Notwendigkeit muß er selber einsehen. Der physische Leib bekommt eben gerade seine Freiheit dadurch, daß der Ätherleib seine Notwendigkeit einsieht, und seine Notwendigkeit ist ihm gegeben durch die Art und Weise, wie er karmisch sich hineingestellt hat in den ganzen Verlauf des physischen Planes.
So wirken organisch ineinander der frei-notwendige physische Mensch und der notwendig-freie geistig-seelische Mensch. Freiheit und Notwendigkeit gehen immer ineinander. Aber unmöglich ist es, daß wir einer reinen Notwendigkeit hingegeben sind, wenn wir voll bewußt sind. Dadurch, daß wir etwas mit Bewußtheit durchdringen, daß wir es also so aufnehmen, wie wir voll bewußt davon sein können, dadurch waltet Freiheit in unserer Seele. Dadurch heben wir uns heraus mit unserer Seele aus der Notwendigkeit und machen uns für dasjenige, dessen wir uns bewußt sind, frei. Ja, aber wenn wir nun geistig eine Notwendigkeit erkennen, wenn wir gerade erkennen, daß notwendig ist in der gegenwärtige Zeit, die Strömung der Geisteswissenschaft aufzunehmen, wenn wir uns also gewissermaßen frei in eine Notwendigkeit hineinfügen? Machen wir uns auch dadurch unbewußst? In gewissem Sinne ja! Wir machen uns in gewissem Sinne unbewußstt, denn wir entschließen uns dazu, unser Bewußtsein gerade so weit zu entfalten, bis wir am Tore ankommen, in das hineinströmt, in das hineinleuchtet dasjenige, was aus der geistigen Welt kommen soll. Dann aber nehmen wir das, was aus der geistigen Welt kommen soll, auf, neigen uns den waltenden, wirkenden Mächten, die in der geistigen Welt sich zu uns herniedersenken. Deshalb sprechen wir ja davon, daß wir uns hinaufarbeiten, indem wir uns in die geistige Notwendigkeit hineinarbeiten, zu den Wesen, die sich zu uns neigen. Deshalb werden wir es immer betonen: Wir schweben mit unserem Bewußtsein entgegen den Wesen, die uns durchdringen, die uns durchpulsen aus der geistigen Welt heraus, und wir erwarten, indem wir uns sagen: Notwendig fügen wir uns ein in die Impulse, die aus der geistigen Welt kommen, - wir erwarten, daß dadurch in diese unsere Impulse sich zugleich die Impulse höherer geistiger Wesen hineinsenken. Und dadurch tritt jene relative, jene tiefe Unbewußtheit zutage, wo wir wirksam dasjenige, was geistig in uns wirkt, so empfinden, wie sonst eben eine unbewußte Handlung, wo wir wirklich sicher sind: Der Geist ist in uns, und wo wir ihm folgen dürfen. Ja, wo wir ihm folgen dürfen.
Jetzt kommen wir zu unserem Ausgangspunkt zurück. Wenn man bewußt grübeln würde, was alles folgt aus solchen bedeutsamen Ereignissen, wie die der Gegenwart zum Beispiel sind - ich habe sie vorhin verglichen mit den römisch-germanischen Kriegen -, wenn man nun grübelt mit dem gewöhnlichen Bewußtsein, so kommt man zu nichts. In dem Augenblicke aber, wo man sich sagen kann, man will das Rechte nicht durch Grübeln erreichen, sondern man will das Rechte dadurch erreichen, daß das Geistige einströmt, daß man sich dem geistigen Impuls überläßt, dann braucht man nicht zu grübeln. Dann weiß man, diese geistigen Impulse führen, wenn man sich nur von ihnen ergreifen läßt, zum Rechten, die führen zu Strömungen, die auch über die Jahrhunderte, die auch über die Jahrtausende hinausgehen. Das ist dasjenige, was wichtig ist.
Dann sagt man: Man braucht jetzt nicht zu denken, die Dinge müssen heute so und morgen so verlaufen, damit das und das und das geschehen kann, sondern dann sagt man sich: Wir leben gegenwärtig in demjenigen Zeitabschnitt der Menschheit, in der Epoche, wo die Weiterentwickelung des irdischen Daseins nur dadurch in der rechten Weise vor sich gehen kann, daß geistige Impulse aus der geistigen Welt unmittelbar ergriffen werden. Also müssen sie ergriffen werden. Und dasjenige, was äußerlich auf dem physischen Plan geschieht, das muß sich damit notwendigerweise verbinden, in der richtigen Weise verbinden. Dann wird das Rechte geschehen. Dann weiß man, ohne daß man nachgrübelt, was morgen und übermorgen sein wird, daß das sich vollziehen wird, daß da die Seelen, die jetzt durch die Todespforte gehen, sowohl in ihrem Ätherleib wie als Seelen, wirken werden, soweit mit ihnen vereinigt werden die Gedanken derjenigen, die in der Zukunft auf den blutgedüngten Feldern die Erde bevölkern werden, daß daraus etwas entstehen wird, was durch die Jahrhunderte hindurch wirken wird. Aber man muß unmittelbar das Bewußtsein haben, dieses Bewußtsein so haben, wie wir das eben öfters ausgedrückt haben mit den Worten:
Aus dem Mut der Kämpfer,
Aus dem Blut der Schlachten,
Aus dem Leid Verlassener,
Aus des Volkes Opfertaten
Wird erwachsen Geistesfrucht
Lenken Seelen geistbewußt
Ihren Sinn ins Geisterreich.
Das also ist es, um was es sich handelt: daß wir einsehen, daß von einem gewissen Punkte an in der Gegenwart Seelen geistbewußt werden müssen, die willens sind, den Sinn geisterwärts lenken zu können. Dann wird aus dem, was jetzt geschieht, das Rechte werden für die Zukunft. Dazu gehört, um sich mit diesem Gedanken zu durchdringen, ein festes Vertrauen, wie es diejenigen Wesen haben, die wir zur Hierarchie der Angeloi zählen. Denn aus solchem Vertrauen wirken die Angeloi. Sie wissen, wenn sie die rechten Absichten haben, dann entsteht aus diesen rechten Absichten dasjenige, was das Richtige ist. Nicht dadurch, daß sie sich eine bestimmte Gestaltung von zukünftigen Ereignissen vornehmen, sondern dadurch, daß sie die rechten Absichten haben. Diese rechten Absichten sind aber nur geistig zu ergreifen. Wie etwas geistig ergriffen werden soll, dazu kann uns in dem Stile, wie wir das versucht haben, eben wirklich nur ein Denken im Sinne der Geisteswissenschaft Anleitung geben.
Fourth Lecture
We are too accustomed to dealing with such big questions as those we now consider to be questions of necessity and freedom in such a way that we want to cover a lot at once with simple concepts, with concepts that are as simple as possible, in the blink of an eye, so to speak. When dealing with such questions, we usually fail to take into account that these questions make it necessary to pay attention to the manifold connections in the world, to the fact that what happens in one part of the world must be viewed in a completely different light if we want to understand it as part of the whole of similar events taking place elsewhere in the world.
I would first like to remind you of something I mentioned here very recently in a different context. I said: When we see such significant events as those currently flooding world events, we are very inclined to quickly seek the causes in the most obvious places and, in turn, to quickly expect the effects in what immediately follows in the very near future. With such a view, we are doing the facts a great injustice. When I mentioned this at the time, I pointed out that the world of Roman civilization once stood in opposition to the world of today's Central Europe at the beginning of the Middle Ages. One can now say with a light heart, looking back at history: Well, one tries to understand how certain political motives in ancient Rome compelled the Romans to wage war against the north, against what is now Central Europe. And one can then look for the consequences in what subsequently developed.
But such a view by no means exhausts what needs to be considered. Just think for a moment that something had happened differently back then in the advance of the peoples from east to west across Europe, that something had happened differently in the clash between Roman and Germanic culture – and the entire subsequent development of Central Europe, right up to the modern era, would have taken on a completely different complexion. All the details that we have seen unfold over the centuries up to our time would have unfolded differently if, at that time, the substance of the people that we find in the ancient Romans—which could not completely permeate, I would say precisely because of its world-historical quality, because of its characteristics, with Christianity— if this world had not merged with world-historically young peoples who embraced Christianity with youthful vigor. The way in which the clash took place, between a people who were, one might say, spiritually overripe, as the Romans were, and a people who were young in world history, as the Germanic peoples were at that time, gave rise to everything that came later, up to, one might say, Goethe's Faust and everything that the culture of the 19th century brought with it. Could things have happened as they did if that had not happened at that time? We see a current filled with an inner, lawful necessity that floods into world events and spreads over vast areas. How could anyone at that time have wanted to organize their actions according to what has now taken place on the physical plane over the centuries up to the present day?
What is happening today is once again the starting point for world formations, which are necessarily connected with what is happening today, but which, as far as events on the physical plane are concerned, are very different from what is happening in a compressed form in a short period of time. I mention this only to show you how deeply rooted is what I have already mentioned in connection with these considerations: that one does not get very far by brooding and speculating about connections in the world. Think how far a Roman or a Germanic person in the 3rd or 4th century AD would have gotten if they had wanted to engage in speculation about the possible consequences of the battles that took place at that time. Not very far at all!
It is necessary for us to become aware that what is to happen, in order for us to recognize it as something that really ought to happen, is decided by something other than such brooding about the possible consequences or about what immediately results from it; that what floods into the stream of events as it flows on the physical plane is precisely that we perceive as flowing in from spiritual worlds: impulses whose effects in detail we do not need to ponder in terms of what should happen on the physical plane. We must be clear that it is precisely the view of human events, of world-historical events, that makes it necessary to broaden our perspective beyond what lies on the physical plane. And now that we have merely touched upon these necessities, let us again consider the human being as such.
I already pointed out last time how impossible it is to gain a correct relationship to the actions one has performed, which therefore lie in the past, if one continually indulges in speculation and speculation about these actions. Rather, one must realize that what has passed, including one's own actions, belongs to the realm of necessity, and one must learn to accept the thought: What has happened had to happen. This means that you gain a proper relationship to your actions when you gain objectivity toward what you have done or accomplished in the past, when you can look at, I would say, a successful and an unsuccessful action that originated from yourself with equal objectivity.
Now, of course, you will have serious objections even to what I have just said, because there are serious objections. Think about what has just been said: when we have done something, it is over. We find, it has been said, that we gain a proper relationship to what we have done by taking an objective view of it, by not wanting to have done it differently afterwards. The serious objection is this: Yes, but where does that leave everything that must play such an important role in human life, namely, regretting an action we have taken? Of course, those who say that regret is necessary, that regret must exist, are absolutely right. If one were to somehow eliminate regret from human soul development, one would naturally eliminate a moral impulse of the highest value. But does one not eliminate it if one simply takes a stance toward everything that has happened, viewing it objectively, truly objectively?
Well, here indeed lies a new difficulty, a difficulty that can be the starting point for an infinite number of misunderstandings. We must go to the heart of the problem of freedom if we want to remove this difficulty. You see, the great Spinoza said: “Basically, one can only speak of necessity in the world. Freedom is basically a kind of illusion. For when one ball is struck by another, it necessarily follows its course. If it had consciousness, it would believe—as Spinoza says, and as I mentioned in my Philosophy of Freedom—that it is following its course voluntarily. - So says Spinoza. “And so it is that man, while he is entangled in necessity, because he has consciousness of what is happening, considers himself free.”
But Spinoza is completely wrong, really completely wrong. The matter is quite different. If man really flew away somewhere like a bullet, following only the necessity of the impulse, he would have to lose consciousness of everything that constitutes his flight and where he follows only necessity. He would have to become unconscious of it. Consciousness would have to switch off. And that is what happens. Just think of the speed at which you are moving through space according to the science of astronomy! You are certainly not doing this consciously. Consciousness switches itself off. You cannot even switch it on, because you would not be able to move through space at such speed, as the science of astronomy shows you. So, for something that a person has to do, consciousness has to be turned off, and with something as big as flying through space, we quickly realize that what has to be done turns off consciousness. But things are not always so grossly conscious; they are more or less unconscious. In real life, they are closely intertwined. At the boundaries, things cannot be understood as clearly as in the case I have just mentioned. Rather, one can say that in everything of which we are truly conscious, of which we have unconditional consciousness, we can only act freely. If a ball had consciousness and I pushed it, then, if it really had consciousness, it would only fly in a certain direction if it took the impulse I gave it into its consciousness and if it then followed this impulse itself. The ball would first have to become unconscious, switch off its consciousness, if it were to follow the impulse alone.
If you consider this, you will make a distinction that is unfortunately not made in life when it comes to actions. The fact that this distinction is not made has not only theoretical significance, but also a deeply practical significance. Namely, in life we do not distinguish between things that fail and things that are bad or immoral. This difference is a very significant one, an extremely important one. What is a failed action, what has not turned out according to intention as a failed action, is only known to be right if we can look at it objectively as if it had been absolutely necessary. For as soon as it is past, it belongs to the realm of absolute necessity. If we have failed in something and afterwards feel uneasy about the fact that this action has failed, then it is certainly true that this unease stems from egoism: we actually wanted to be a better person or would like to have been a better person, a person who could have done the thing better. That is precisely the egoism that lies within. And as long as this egoism is not eradicated at its root, the experience of our further development as souls cannot have the serious significance that it should have.
But when we have performed an action, it is not always the case that the action is a failed action; it may be a bad action, what we call a morally bad action. But let us take a look at morally bad actions. Let us take the following action as an example, so that we have something very clear to talk about. Let us assume that someone has nothing to eat or would like something for a reason other than hunger, and he steals. So “stealing” is a bad action, isn't it? Now, does what we have said exclude the possibility that someone who has stolen feels remorse for his deed? It does not! Why not, my dear friends? For the very simple reason that, in all seriousness, in all earnestness, the person who stole did not want to steal at all, but wanted to possess what he stole. He would have refrained from stealing if you had given him what he wanted, or if he could have obtained it in some other way than by stealing.
This is a striking example. But in a certain sense, it applies to everything that can actually be considered a bad deed. The bad deed as such, immediately as it is, is never actually intended. Language has a subtle sense of this: when the bad deed is over, “the conscience stirs.” Why does the conscience stir? Because only now is the bad deed brought to light. It rises up into knowledge. Where it took place, there was actually something else in the knowledge for which the bad deed was done. The bad deed does not lie in the will. And remorse also has the meaning that the person concerned raises their knowledge to the level of awareness of how they allowed their consciousness to be clouded at the moment when they committed the bad deed. We must always speak of it this way: when someone commits a bad deed, what is at stake is that their consciousness was clouded, was lowered, for this deed, and that it is therefore a matter for them to gain an awareness of such cases as the one for which their consciousness was lowered. All punishment has only the purpose of calling up such forces in the soul that consciousness also extends to such cases which otherwise cause consciousness to shut down.
Among the dissertations written at universities by philosophers who are also concerned with legal problems, the dissertation on “the right to punish” is particularly common. Many theories have been put forward as to why punishment is necessary. The only possible reason can be found if one knows that the purpose of punishment is to strain the forces of the soul in such a way that consciousness expands beyond circles that it did not previously extend to. And this is also the task of repentance. Repentance should consist precisely in looking at the deed in such a way that its power is brought to consciousness, so that consciousness now sees the connection in such a way that it cannot be shut out again next time. You see what is important: that one learns to distinguish precisely in life when one wants to understand something, that one really learns to distinguish between fully conscious action and that for which consciousness is attuned.
If, on the other hand, you have an action that cannot be considered good or bad, but is simply a failed action, whereby we have simply not succeeded in doing what we intended, then we can cloud our view of the action if we judge it in such a way that we interfere with the thought, the feeling: Yes, might it not have happened differently if we had done this or that better, or if we ourselves had been different? Here it comes into consideration that one really has to consider: when the eye is supposed to see an object, it cannot see itself. It cannot hold up a mirror to itself, because the moment the eye holds up the mirror to see itself, it cannot see the object. At the moment when a person speculates about how he should have acted differently in relation to an action he has done, this action cannot have the same effect on him that propels him forward in his spiritual development. For at the moment when one places between oneself and one's deed the egoism that lies in the fact that one actually wanted to do the deed differently, at that moment one does exactly the same thing as when one holds a mirror in front of one's eyes so that the eye cannot see the object.
The comparison can also be made in another way. You know that there are so-called astigmatic eyes. These are eyes in which the curves of the cornea are differently curved in the vertical and horizontal directions. Such eyes have a peculiar kind of inaccurate vision. One sees ghosts, which is only due to the fact that the cornea is curved in an irregular manner. You see ghosts, but this is because you are actually perceiving your eye and not what is outside. If you perceive your eye because it is incorrectly constructed, because it has not become an eye that can switch itself off completely and allow only the object to have an effect in the eye, then you cannot perceive the object. If you fill your soul with the thought, “You could have been different, you should have done this or that differently, then you would have succeeded,” then it is just like having an astigmatic eye: you do not see the real facts at all, you falsify them. But you have to see the real facts that are assigned to you, then they will really have an effect. Just as an object outside affects a healthy eye, so they affect a soul that is not filled with feelings about facts, but allows the facts themselves to affect it. Then these facts continue to work in the soul.
One can say: Someone who has not yet found objectivity toward past facts in which they were involved cannot see these facts in their objectivity and therefore cannot gain from these facts what they should have for their soul. It would be just as if our eyes were to stop developing in the sixth or seventh month of our embryonic development, if the eyes were to cease their development and we were then to be born at the right time: we would see the whole world wrongly. If the eyes did not continue to develop with us in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth months, but if they were to stop, they would not switch off. We would see something completely different from what we actually see.
Thus, what we have done only acquires its true value for us when we are ready to place it in the flow of necessity, when we can see it as something necessary. But as I said, we must be clear that we must then make a distinction between what is successful and what is unsuccessful, and what is morally labeled “good” or “bad.”
Basically, you will find the discussions about all this, albeit in a more philosophical form, in my Philosophy of Freedom, because in this Philosophy of Freedom it is explicitly discussed how human beings become free by achieving what enables them to draw impulses from the spiritual world. At one point it is even stated explicitly: Free impulses emanate from the spiritual world. But this does not exclude the possibility that human beings act most freely in relation to certain events precisely when they follow necessity in a particular way. For a distinction must be made between purely external physical necessity and spiritual necessity, although both are basically quite the same. But they differ, one might say, in relation to the stratification in world existence in which they are found.
This is how it is: Consider again a figure such as Goethe, who enters world history and of whom one can say: We can follow the education of a man like Goethe, we can see how he became what he is, and we can then follow the impulses that led him to produce his Faust and his other poems. We can, in a sense, regard everything Goethe achieved as a result of Goethe's education. And now we see Goethe's genius standing there. Certainly, we can do that. We remain completely within Goethe. But you see, we can do it differently. We can trace the spiritual development of the 18th century. Take details from it. Take, for example, the fact that before Goethe thought of Faust, Lessing had planned a Faust, that a Faust already existed. One could say that the idea of Faust arose from the intellectual problems that preoccupied the age, from the intellectual impulses. One can now say, when examining Lessing's Faust and a host of other Faust poems, that everything led to Faust. One can, in a sense, leave Goethe out of the picture and still arrive at Faust as a necessity. Faust arose from what came before. One can therefore follow Goethe's development and arrive at his Faust. One can place Goethe more in line with his development, but one can also leave him out entirely and follow strictly how a type of poetry such as the Nibelungen emerged in Europe, how it condensed into the Parzival poem, how Parzival is a striving human being from a certain period of development, how another development then arose, how, through another development, the Parzival idea was completely forgotten and that strange idea took hold which found expression in the folk book of Faust, and which then gave rise to the creation of Faust, one might say a Parzival in a later age. One can leave Goethe out entirely. Of course, one need not be pedantic here; fifty years do not matter. Time is elastic; it can stretch forward and backward, so it doesn't matter. In this sense, only the Ahrimanic things that happen in the world are determined by time. That which comes from the good gods can be shifted forward and backward in time. But one can say in general: even if the Frankfurt Council had not had Kaspar Goethe and Mrs. Aja had not had their son Wolfgang, or if Wolfgang, who, as you know, was born black and was close to dying immediately after birth, had died immediately after birth, something like the Faust poem would certainly have come into being through someone else. Or if Goethe had lived in the 14th century, he certainly would not have written Faust. These are unreal thoughts, of course. But one must sometimes imagine them in order to understand what is real.
So one can now raise the question: Did Goethe create Faust, or indeed his entire life's work, out of his own free will, or was there an absolute necessity? The greatest freedom exists when one does what is necessary in terms of world history! For anyone who believes that freedom could ever be endangered by what exists as necessity in the world should just say: I want to create poetry, but I am a person who wants to act with absolute freedom! So I will disregard all other poets who were not free; I want to create free poetry. But I could not be free if I wanted to use the words that are in the language, because they are the result of ancient necessity. Well, that is not possible, of course! I want to be a complete hero of freedom. So I will create my own language. - And now he begins to create his own language. Yes, he would of course achieve that with his poetry, which would then appear in a language that did not yet exist, he would be rejected by the whole world, that with his freedom he would have to develop the resistance of the whole world, which would of course initially only express itself in incomprehension. You can see from this that there can be no question of freedom, which intervenes in the flow of events, feeling itself somehow impaired by the necessity that exists in the continuing flow of world events.
One could also imagine a painter who wanted to be completely free and who would say: Yes, I want to paint, but I don't want to paint on canvas or on any surface at all; I want to paint freely. Should I first try to paint on a surface that is given to me? I will not do that! For then I would be forced to follow the surface of that surface everywhere. But this foundation has a very specific set of rules. You follow them, but that doesn't prevent you from developing freedom.
It is precisely in the great events of world history that we see how what we might call necessity, when consciousness is at play, can directly coincide with freedom, where consciousness is at play. I have already said that Goethe could not have created Faust in the 14th century, because it is absolutely impossible that Faust could have come into being in the 14th century. He could not have written Faust. Why not? Because there is something that must be described as the emptiness of world events with regard to certain impulses of development. Just as you cannot pour water into a barrel that is already full of water, or just as you can only pour a certain amount of water into a barrel that is already partially filled with water, so you cannot pour anything into a fulfilled time in any way you like. In the 14th century, there was no emptiness for something like what flowed down from the spiritual world through a human being into the physical world in Faust, but rather fullness. Events proceed in cycles, and when a cycle is complete, emptiness sets in for new impulses, which can then enter into world events. A cycle must first be fulfilled in terms of content, and then emptiness must enter in relation to this cycle. Then new impulses can enter into the emptiness. With regard to the impulses that flowed down from the spiritual world through Goethe into the physical world, emptiness had entered into the cultural development in which Goethe stood. And development proceeds in such a way that it really does proceed in waves: emptiness — highest fulfillment — ebbing away again into emptiness. Then something new can enter.
The human being who stands between death and a new birth now directs his incarnation accordingly. He directs his incarnation in such a way that he encounters in the physical world the degree of emptiness or fullness that is right for his impulses. Someone who brings with them from their previous incarnations impulses that can act as impulses of the highest order, i.e., that must fall into emptiness, must appear in a period when there is emptiness in the world. Those who have such impulses, which must first be received by the world, must fall into such a period with their new incarnation, where there can be fulfillment for emptiness. Of course, this applies to all kinds of areas, which intersect with each other. That is quite natural. So we see from this that, in a certain sense, we choose the moment when we come down into the world according to our inner qualities. And this determines the inner necessity with which we act.
If you consider this now, there will no longer be any contradiction when you observe the successive events in the stream of time and say to yourself: Parzival and so on, Faust, it goes on like this, and then Goethe comes, and from within him comes that which can just as well be understood in the successive stream of time. You will no longer feel any contradiction, because Goethe looked down from above and prepared within himself what could then become external in a work. So, while he is on the physical plane, he allows what he has absorbed in the preceding centuries, in which the flowing events took place, to flow forth from within himself. There is no more contradiction between these two statements, “Goethe's work had to be produced in a certain time” and “Goethe produced it freely,” than if I had a board here and I had 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 balls, that is, a row of balls. Then I come with a small cup and say: I put the first ball in the cup, I put the second ball in the cup, I put the third ball in the cup, the fourth ball, and so on, and here I empty it. But then someone says: The balls that are now lying there are the same balls that were there before. No, says another, those are the balls that were in the cup; I took them out of there.”
Both statements can certainly coexist. What took place in time, what ultimately led to “Faust,” is what has become established in Goethe's soul, and it comes from Goethe's soul because it has accumulated there through observation from the spiritual world. For we always participate in the entire development of the world. If we look at it this way, we can say to ourselves: at the moment when we look back into the past, we must regard the past itself as necessary. And when we look at ourselves and bring the past back into the present, if we bring it back consciously, we nevertheless bring into the present what was necessarily prepared in the past through our freedom. Thus, the freest person is the one who can develop full consciousness: with what I do, I do nothing other than what is spiritually necessary. Things cannot be developed with pedantic logic; things can only be seen through a completely living understanding of reality.
We can help ourselves in another way to see the matter through completely. We can ask ourselves: Well, let us look at animals, for example. For them, consciousness is lowered. We know that they have a lowered consciousness. I have often explained this. Let us look at human beings: they have a degree of consciousness that allows freedom to assert itself. What about the consciousness of angels, those beings that stand directly above human beings? What about the consciousness of angels?
It is actually very difficult to immediately understand the consciousness of the Angeloi. You see, when you want to do something as a human being, you think about how what you want to do should be. And you have failed if what you imagined would happen on the physical plane does not happen on the physical plane. If someone sews two pieces of fabric together and, once they are sewn together, they come apart, then the action has failed. Yes, this can happen with a sewing machine. Then the action has failed. So, if what you have imagined for the physical plane does not happen, then you say: the action has failed. That is, one sets one's will on something that one imagines according to the image of how it should be on the physical plane. This is how the will works in humans. Not so with the Angeloi.
With the Angeloi, everything lies in the intention. An intention of an Angeloi can be carried out in many different ways, and yet the effect can be exactly the same. This is true, but it is, of course, something that, I would say, conflicts with the usual logic. Only in art, if one takes art in a human sense, can one feel closer to this awareness. For you will always find that when the artist can take things humanly—he does not always have to be able to take his art humanly, but when he can take his art humanly—then he may, under certain circumstances, consider what he has achieved in the opposite way, what he has even failed to achieve, to be of greater value than what he has achieved in the way he intended. he succeeded in doing it just as it should have been done. This brings us a little closer to the extraordinarily difficult idea that in the consciousness of the angeloi, in the will of the angel, everything depends on intentions, and that these intentions can be realized in the most diverse ways, even in the most opposite ways, on the physical plane. That is to say, when an angel decides to do something, he decides on something very specific, but not in such a way that he says: On the physical plane, it must look like this or that. That is not yet contained within him. He will only know that when it is there.
We have seen, and I have pointed out, that this is even the case with the Elohim. The Elohim created light and saw that the light was good. This means that what is first in human beings, the idea of what exists on the physical plane, is not at all the first thing in the consciousness of the spiritual beings above human beings. The first thing there is the intention, and how it is carried out is a completely different question. Now, in this respect, man is naturally the middle creature between animal and angel. Therefore, on the one hand, he tends more toward the unconsciousness of the animal. Wherever criminal behavior comes to light, it is essentially animal nature that causes it in man. But on the other hand, he also tends upward, I would say, toward the consciousness of the Angeloi. It is true that human beings have the potential to develop a higher consciousness beyond ordinary consciousness, where intentions appear to them in a different way than is usually the case with ordinary consciousness.
One could say: Let us assume that a person engages with important problems in life. Then they cannot pursue their intentions in the way they usually do. Let us assume, for example, that an educator – but now an educator in the true sense of the word – is given the task of educating a child. The average person has their educational principles, their pedagogical principles. They know when to use corporal punishment and when not to, perhaps even that they should never use corporal punishment, and so on. They know how to do this and how to do that. But someone who views the matter from the standpoint of a higher consciousness will not always judge in this way, but will leave everything to life. He will wait and see what he can observe. He will set himself only one goal: the intention to achieve what seems natural to him. But what seems natural can be achieved in many different ways. That is what it is all about.
So, when we take all these things together, we will now also see how, in order to understand the whole human being in terms of necessity and freedom, we must consider the external physical aspect of the human being and the inner aspect, that is, first of all the etheric. If we look only at the etheric body of the human being, I have already pointed out to you how the etheric body of the human being follows completely different paths than the physical body. The physical body of the human being — as I once told you — is young at first. It then develops, grows older, and finally becomes senile. The etheric body does the opposite. When we say that we “age” in relation to the physical body, we should actually say that we “grow younger” in relation to the etheric body. For if we want to use the words “old” and “young,” the etheric body is in fact an old man when we are born, because it is completely shriveled up, so small that it fits only us. When we reach a normal age and die, this etheric body is rejuvenated to such an extent that we can hand it over to the whole world, and that it can appear young again on the outside. While the physical body ages, the etheric body “rejuvenates.” It becomes younger and younger.
If we die at an abnormal time, if we die young, then the etheric body can have meanings such as those I have mentioned. But we must consider this difference between the physical body and the etheric body not only in relation to aging, for example, but also in relation to necessity and freedom. Then, when the human being is most bound by necessity in relation to what he accomplishes with his physical body or as a being on the physical plane in general, then his etheric body is most free, then his etheric body is completely left to itself. In relation to everything in which we are bound by necessity, the etheric body is left to itself. In relation to everything in which the etheric body is bound by necessity, what human beings develop on the physical plane is in a state of freedom. So while the physical body is subject to necessity, the etheric body has an equal measure of freedom, and while the etheric body is subject to necessity, what concerns the physical body has a certain measure of freedom. What does this mean?
Suppose, for example, that you cannot say that you are completely free to get up and go to bed whenever you want. You get up in the morning and go to bed in the evening. There is no question of freedom here. This is connected with the iron necessities of life. And even if you can somehow vary the time you get up and go to bed, there can be no question of freedom. You also eat every day. There can be no question of freedom here. You cannot decide to break this necessity and seek your freedom by, for example, not eating because you feel compelled to eat. In relation to all these things, human beings are bound by necessities. Why are they bound by necessities? Because, as I said last time, the companion within us, who accompanies us throughout our life here on the physical plane with everything connected with the physical plane, which is bound to necessity, now lives in freedom. But when we enter into necessity with our inner being, with our etheric body, how can this happen? Precisely by consciously surrendering ourselves to what we recognize as a necessity. For example, by saying to ourselves: Now is the time when those who are ready and able to understand this should study spiritual science. Of course, no one is outwardly compelled to do so. But one can recognize it as an inner necessity because it is necessary in the present cycle of human evolution. One thus submits to necessity out of freedom. Nothing compels one externally on the physical plane. Internally, one must, as it were, follow the compulsion out of freedom. The etheric body itself creates the impulse that permeates it with necessity. The etheric body creates the necessity for itself and thereby places itself in a position to freely develop what happens in relation to the physical plane. This means that one learns to recognize spiritual necessity and thereby becomes increasingly free for everything that life on the physical plane entails.
Now you will say: So, by finding oneself in a spiritual necessity, one should actually become freer for life on the physical plane. That is indeed the case. By connecting with the spiritual current in the world, by allowing the spiritual current to flow through you, you do indeed absorb elements that tear you away from your chains to the physical world. Of course, you cannot tear yourself away from what has been assigned to you through your previous incarnation, through your karma. But if one does not free oneself from the necessary conditions of the physical plane in the manner described, through recognition of spiritual necessity, then after death one remains connected to these necessary conditions of the physical plane and carries them with oneself. One carries the necessities of the physical plane with oneself through the life between death and a new birth. One does not become free of them. At every moment, one becomes freer and freer from the necessities of the physical plane by connecting one's etheric body with the necessities of the spiritual plane. It is really true that when one can follow an impulse recognized purely in the spiritual realm out of free determination, one becomes increasingly free from everything that otherwise chains one to physical life, chains one far beyond death. On the other hand, for everything to which one is bound in physical life, which cannot be changed, the etheric body as such becomes freer and freer.
And so we can see how freedom and necessity interact on the physical plane, but also how freedom and necessity interact for the etheric body. The etheric body gains its freedom through the necessity of the physical plane, and it must recognize its own necessity. The physical body gains its freedom precisely through the fact that the etheric body recognizes its necessity, and its necessity is given to it by the way in which it has karmically placed itself in the entire course of the physical plane.
Thus, the free-necessary physical human being and the necessary-free spiritual-soul human being interact organically. Freedom and necessity always intertwine. But it is impossible for us to be subject to pure necessity if we are fully conscious. Through the fact that we penetrate something with consciousness, that we take it in as fully as we can be conscious of it, freedom reigns in our soul. Through this we lift ourselves out of necessity with our soul and make ourselves free for that of which we are conscious. Yes, but what if we recognize a necessity intellectually, if we recognize that it is necessary in the present time to take up the stream of spiritual science, if we thus, in a sense, freely submit ourselves to a necessity? Do we thereby also render ourselves unconscious? In a certain sense, yes! We make ourselves unconscious in a certain sense, because we decide to develop our consciousness just far enough to reach the gate through which flows and shines in that which is to come from the spiritual world. But then we take in what is to come from the spiritual world, we incline ourselves toward the ruling, active powers that descend toward us from the spiritual world. That is why we speak of working our way up by working our way into spiritual necessity, toward the beings that incline themselves toward us. That is why we will always emphasize that we float with our consciousness toward the beings that permeate us, that pulsate through us from the spiritual world, and we expect, by saying to ourselves: We necessarily submit to the impulses that come from the spiritual world—we expect that through this, the impulses of higher spiritual beings will simultaneously sink into our impulses. And through this, that relative, that deep unconsciousness comes to light, where we effectively perceive that which works spiritually within us as we would otherwise perceive an unconscious action, where we are truly certain: the spirit is within us, and where we may follow it. Yes, where we may follow it.
Now we come back to our starting point. If one were to consciously ponder what follows from such significant events as those of the present, for example—I compared them earlier to the Roman-Germanic wars—if one were to ponder with the ordinary consciousness, one would come to nothing. But the moment you can say to yourself that you don't want to achieve what is right by brooding, but that you want to achieve what is right by allowing the spiritual to flow in, by surrendering yourself to the spiritual impulse, then you don't need to brood. Then you know that these spiritual impulses, if you allow yourself to be seized by them, lead to what is right, they lead to currents that also extend beyond the centuries, beyond the millennia. That is what is important.
Then one says: There is no need to think that things must happen this way today and that way tomorrow so that this and that and the other can happen. Instead, one says to oneself: We are currently living in a period of human history, in an epoch in which the further development of earthly existence can only proceed in the right way if spiritual impulses from the spiritual world are taken up directly. So they must be grasped. And what happens outwardly on the physical plane must necessarily be connected with this in the right way. Then the right thing will happen. Then one knows, without brooding over what tomorrow and the day after tomorrow will bring, that this will come to pass, that the souls who are now passing through the gates of death, both in their etheric bodies and as souls, will be united with the thoughts of those who will populate the earth in the future on the blood-fertilized fields, that something will arise from this that will work through the centuries. But one must have immediate consciousness of this, have this consciousness as we have often expressed it with the words:
From the courage of the fighters,
From the blood of the battles,
From the suffering of the forsaken,
From the sacrifices of the people
The fruit of the spirit will grow
Souls will consciously direct
Their minds toward the spirit realm.
So this is what it is all about: that we realize that from a certain point in the present, souls must become spiritually conscious if they are willing to direct their minds toward the spirit. Then what is happening now will become right for the future. In order to penetrate this thought, one must have a firm trust, such as that possessed by those beings whom we count among the hierarchy of the Angeloi. For it is out of such trust that the Angeloi work. They know that if they have the right intentions, then out of these right intentions will come what is right. Not by deciding on a specific form for future events, but by having the right intentions. However, these right intentions can only be grasped spiritually. How something can be grasped spiritually can really only be taught by thinking in the sense of spiritual science, in the way we have attempted to do here.