The Riddle of Humanity
GA 170
29 July 1916, Dornach
Lecture I
It gives me great pleasure to be here with you once more. And to see the fine progress our building has made during the time we could not meet is a pleasure no less great. In the name of our striving to serve the needs of our time, a hearty thanks is truly due to all our friends who have been devoting themselves to the necessary tasks of this building. Some of these things take months to accomplish, so allow me to say, by way of a greeting, that every step our work progresses has great significance for our spiritual movement. In these difficult times, when the fate of spiritual movements can be said to depend upon an uncertain future, we need above all to maintain a lively awareness of the eternal significance of precisely the kind of work that takes place here. It is important that such work has actually been taken up, that some human hearts and souls have actually been touched by the spiritual implications of the work, and that some human eyes have actually beheld it. For this creates a womb that will always be able to carry the future, and what we are doing thus enters into the developing stream of human aspiration. We may hope that what our dear friends accomplish here in their souls will also be able to bear the most manifold fruits out there in the world. And these fruits will most certainly be beautiful for, from its inception, this work has been done in the spirit of progress and with a desire to build the future—a desire to lead our times forward.
It gave me deep joy, for example, when I walked past the house that has been newly erected in the vicinity of the west portal1The house near the west portal is ‘Haus Duldeck’, the house of Dr Grosheintz. for the first time. It is significant that this house also stands within our precincts. For it is significant that it has been possible to build such a house. It stands there as a living protest against all merely traditional style in building and against an architecture that no longer has anything to contribute to our path of development. So this little house stands there as a preliminary announcement of something new. And the fact that in our circles the need to build something new was understood, is much more significant than one might at first think. For this house to stand here is of very great significance! Whatever objections may still be raised against this style of building and this kind of architecture, it is nevertheless the style and the architecture of the future. And if one tries to acquaint oneself with the artistic longings of the present, one finds everywhere the same: there is an obscure striving, but none of those who strive know where they want to go. By and by it will be seen that those who strive in darkness are striving for the goals that already are being sought here. It will be seen that one needs to become acquainted with these forms that are born out of the womb of spiritual science. However shocking some aspects of our buildings may now seem, it will not be long before they cease to be shocking and appear as the obvious result of the experience and the feelings of the present and of the immediate future. And at present, when there is so much to cause us sorrow, we have this to raise our spirits: that we are permitted, in the midst of these times of uncertain destiny, to establish what mankind needs for its future.
And now, today and tomorrow I would like to talk to you about some things that are evidence of what is rooted in the depths of the human soul, rooted in such a way that a person finds much of it incomprehensible when it emerges from the depths. Moreover, it makes self-knowledge difficult, for it is rooted in the soul in such a way that the inner destiny of a person is connected with what thus emerges from the depths of the soul. The nearer one comes to self-knowledge, the more these life-obscuring clouds arise. It is about human nature, therefore, that we want to speak—about some indefinite and often indefinable aspects of human nature.
I will begin with an example; our times provide us with many examples like it. You are aware that for a long time people have called our times ‘the age of decadence’, and have even been pleased to feel themselves to be true children of such times. One felt something about our times that made it proper and even stylish to be a ‘decadent’. Many adhered to a kind of gospel which proclaimed: In order not to be a philistine you must have a certain degree of nervousness. Anyone who was not nervous was a thick-headed philistine—or was some other kind of person who was bound to fail to achieve the heights of his age. More than a few people really did feel like this during the last few decades. To be distinguished one had to be, at the very least, nervous. Only as a decadent could one really belong to the new spiritual nobility.
Today we will first consider one type of decadent as an example. Later he will provide us with a basis for some more general conclusions about certain world-views. So, as I said, he will only be an example of one type and should only be viewed as such. There are numerous contemporary examples which we could equally well consider.
Today I want to discuss a relatively young man who developed along these lines. He wrote two books that attracted much attention. The first was called Sex and Character (Geschlecht und Charakter). The second book was only published by friends after his death. It bore the title, Concerning the Last Things (über die letzten Dinge).3Otto Weininger: über die letzte Dinge, Vienna and Leipzig, 1904. I am speaking about Otto Weininger,2Otto Weininger, (1880 – 1903): Geschlecht und Charakter, 17th edition, Vienna and Leipzig, 1918. a man whom many saw as a true genius of his time. When he wrote the fat book, Sex and Character, it attracted a great deal of attention, and the various judgments passed on the book differed greatly. There were people who viewed it as a kind of gospel proclaimed by the archetypal spirit of the times. They claimed that this book, Sex and Character, touched—if somewhat one-sidedly and perhaps not entirely explicitly—on the deepest truths of the contemporary era. There were also others—those, for example, who by profession were doctors to the insane—who maintained that the only serious libraries in which the two books, Sex and Character and Concerning the Last Things, belonged were the libraries of asylums for the insane. They did not mean in the patients' library, either, but rather in the doctors' library—so that the doctors could study the two books as typical examples of contemporary lunacy.
As you see, a greater divergence of opinion could not be imagined. On the one hand there was an almost prayerful reverence for a great work of genius; on the other, this work was viewed as a product of lunacy. And some of what is to be found in the book, Sex and Character, is indeed curious. But it could only have surprised those who had not concerned themselves intensively with certain thoughts that had been coming to the surface during the last few decades.
To begin with, Weininger said (not in precisely these words, for with so fat a book it is necessary to abbreviate): Up to now the views of mankind have been the views of philistines and pedants. The philistines and pedants have always believed that there are two kinds of human being in the world-men and women. But only a true philistine could believe that there are just men and women in the world. To really understand the world, one must rise above the philistine view that there are just men and women in the world, for Weininger believes it is not true that there are only the two sexual identities, masculine and feminine. With great correctness and diplomacy he calls the masculine and feminine characters respectively M and W. But, according to Weininger, there is no one in the world who is exclusively M or W. And it would be unfortunate if there were someone who would have to be designated as entirely M or entirely W. For, asks Weininger, what is a proper woman? A proper woman is not even a something, but is the negation of a something—is nothingness. Now there are some individuals walking about who are not properly here in this world. They are only here as a kind of maya. But those we designate as W would not be here at all—not if they are exclusively W. The truth of the matter is that every human individual consists of M + W. Every human being has both masculine and feminine characteristics. If there is a preponderance of M, the person gives the impression of being a man; if there is a preponderance of W, the impression of being a woman. And because a woman does not have so very much M in her, she is both a Something and a Nothing. The fundamental character of a person depends on how much M they possess and how much W, and on the way these are combined.
This is how Weininger observes humanity. He says that everything depends on our giving up the old prejudice that there are men and women. He believes that very much indeed depends on our finally seeing that every human individual is a Something in so far as there are M characteristics present in him, and a Nothing in so far as there are W characteristics, feminine characteristics, present. Thus every human being fundamentally consists of a combination of the Something and the Nothing.
Now, this is the point of view on which the whole fat book is based. Everything from the life of the individual to the course of history is observed, with mathematical rigour, from this point of view. Naturally, Weininger finds, for example, that the basic character of an individual depends very heavily on the quantity, the quantum, of W, contained in that individual—on how much of the Nothing they contain. A different type of person arises depending on whether more or less W is mixed into their character.
You must excuse me for confronting you with some of Weininger's train of thought. You might be of the opinion that it is not quite proper to talk openly about such things. But if we want to know what is going on, we cannot stick our heads in the sand like ostriches. So I am simply describing this one type of person. At present there are actually many people who think like this, only many of them do not know it. Therefore you must excuse me, for I am not expressing my own judgements; they are Weininger's.
Let us assume that much W were mixed into the character of a particular individual, a maximum quantity, so that the person appeared to us in the maya form of a woman. If less were mixed in, then the person would be of a different type and would only have the outward appearance of being exclusively feminine. If there is much W in the mixture, we have the type of the mother; if less, then we have the type of the hetaera. Thus, two basic types of individual have been distinguished: the mother and the courtesan. The mother is the most retrograde type of human being. She floats on the lowest plane of human existence and can only be a friend of men who are philistines, for, possessing the highest degree of W, she comes closest to the Nothing and has nothing to contribute to cultural progress. If there is less W mixed in, we have the type of woman who can be the friend of a genial man: the type of woman, whom Weininger calls the hetaera, who can participate in the cultural progress of humanity and who lives on a higher plane of being.
The other kind of human being is also divided into two kinds—those who have much M and those who have less M. These are the men, although we can only call them men if we lapse into the old, traditional way of speaking. Those who have much M have the great honour of being able to burden themselves with much guilt and are capable of doing great evil. Those with less M tend to exist on a lesser plane of existence and are less capable of doing evil and creating guilt in the world. And what is the greatest guilt that those with much M in their nature can load upon themselves? What, indeed, is the greatest possible guilt there is within the limits of our physical, historical existence? Now, you must remember what I have told you—that according to Weininger's theory, W is really the Nothing. But how can this Nothing exist in the world? Why is the Nothing in the world at all? What is this Nothing when one examines it more closely? It is nothing but the guilt of the men. Thus W has no existence at all in its own right. It exists only through the guilt of M. If men had not laden themselves with guilt by creating woman out of their longing, woman would not even exist. That is the Fall Of Man.
Yes, according to Weininger's theory, those of you who have the outer appearance of women are to believe that fundamentally, in some unknown, occult way, you have been summoned into existence by the guilt of men! And one must concede that there is genius in the way the book's argument is presented—precisely the kind of genius that has been used frequently in recent decades. In viewing Weininger's literary accomplishments one critic even said that the presence of such spirits as Weininger proves that one still can take sonic joy in present-day life, in spite of all its philistinism and pedantry!
The book is not intended frivolously, nor is it merely an item of belles-lettres. The man who wrote it received his doctorate from a university for the first part of it—not the whole book, but the first two or three sections of it. Thus, the first part of it was accepted by a university as a doctoral dissertation. Later he changed it somewhat. If one wants to write a doctoral dissertation, naturally one has to translate what has been written in a genial vein into something a little more pedantic. He was able to do this, of course. And so the book was received in all seriousness and it furnished a basis for subsequent theories. The book caused a great sensation and, not only that, it has had great influence.
Let us look a little more closely at this man. From the very beginning, Weininger was the kind of child one calls ‘gifted’. Even in his early years he was full of the kind of clever ideas which make so many parents happy. He was a serious child who was interested in intellectual matters. Once he had entered school, it is impossible to discover one instance in which his teachers made a mistake—which is as is to be expected, is it not? But for him, the teachers could not do things satisfactorily. Weininger was always wanting to do something different from what his teachers expected of him, especially once he had entered grammar school. While the teachers were talking about things that bored him, he read all kinds of things for himself. Of course others do that, too: one ignores the teacher who is going on about things that are, in any case, in the books, and can be read up at home in less time-meanwhile, under the desk ...!
When he had compositions to write, the teachers who corrected them were sometimes astonished, sometimes repelled, by what they read. Nor did he care to please the schoolmasters. When he entered university he showed himself to be a gifted person, with many ideas about what was presented to him there. He came under the most diverse literary influences. The various cultural streams of the end of the nineties of the last century had a marked influence on him. And the society around him naturally had a great influence on him, too. He lived in the Vienna of the end of the nineteenth century, a member of circles of which it was said—correctly—that there were many geniuses among them, but decadent geniuses. At the turn of the last century Weininger was a member of circles whose most gifted members were said to have dismissed Raphael as an idiot by the time they were twenty. Of course, at the age of twenty it is to be assumed that one is a genius. One reforms the whole world daily. This applies to Weininger, too, but as a genial, gifted man with ideas. For, to draw what I have been telling you to a conclusion, he does have ideas. However mistaken one may hold them to be, they are ideas. Moreover, they are new ideas.
Weininger was influenced by certain racial theories that are deeply rooted in our times. He was Jewish, and early on he acquainted himself with the development of humanity and with how it moves towards the Mystery of Golgotha. He was much concerned with the Christ. And he constructed a very unique theory for himself. On the one hand, he saw Christ as a Jew. But, precisely because Christ was a Jew, it was possible for him to overcome Judaism in the most thoroughgoing way. Weininger believed that the result was a total reversal in the development of mankind, and this observation made a deep impression on him. Whereas previously he had raised a kind of pessimistic defence of his Judaism, he now took heart in the thought of converting, of imitating Christ, by changing and becoming a Christian. At this stage there entered into his thinking the idea of a kind of modern Christ, but a Christ who had freed humanity from evil and from original sin. What Weininger does not say at this point, although one sees that it is the idea that rules his soul, is that the feminine is the thing from which Christ, out of his deeper knowledge, is to free modern humanity. Our redemption lies in being totally freed from W. Only then can mankind develop further. Not only must we be redeemed from sin, we must also be redeemed from W. Then W will no longer exist and the sin of man will also cease to exist, because the sin of man is what W is. Weininger saw this as the fulfilment of Christianity which he, as a Jew, could introduce: the redemption from F. He saw this as his mission.
Such were the thoughts that occupied him at the age of twenty or twenty-one. In a relatively short time he was able to write this gigantic book, a book in which a very great deal of contemporary learning and science is dealt with, and which is saturated with the kind of ideas I have been sketching for you. Then came a period when he was preoccupied with thoughts about how his kind of genius could not be understood in the present day. He believed that it was a foregone conclusion that he would not be understood by any people in whom the F plays a significant role—those with the outer appearance of women and others who possess a large amount of W, even though they do not outwardly appear to be women. All of these people he must do without. That, of course, is far, far more than the half of humanity. ‘Women will never understand me’, Weininger told his father. So they must all be put to one side.
Then, when his book appeared, he developed a kind of wanderlust. He wanted to travel, so he took a journey to Italy. At this point in his life, extraordinary things begin to emerge. On a journey to Sicily he wrote down the ideas which then were published in the book, Concerning the Last Things, which was published posthumously by his friend Rappaport.
This second book contains extraordinary ideas, ideas much more radical than those to be found in Sex and Character. But there is something curious about these ideas: they are reminiscent of what we call imaginative knowledge. There are ideas, aphoristically expressed, covering just about the whole range of human life. Mind you, what is said there about illness alone would be enough to convince any doctor that Weininger was completely insane. Yet all the ideas collected in Concerning the Last Things actually contain imaginative knowledge. They are paradoxically expressed, but they contain imaginative knowledge. They are constructed in the manner of imaginative knowledge. Consider one of them: Weininger points out that both evil and neurasthenia are present in mankind. He believes, furthermore, that if we observe neurasthenia, we will discover it growing everywhere in the external world, for the whole world of the plants is an embodiment of neurasthenia! It is comparable to neurasthenia. If that which rightly lives in the plant world gains the upper hand in a person, that person becomes neurasthenic; for a human being is also in a certain sense a plant, and he is neurasthenic to the extent that his plant nature gains the upper hand. Paradoxical! But by no means a mad idea—just one that has been paradoxically expressed! Or one could say, rather, that something that must be kept within the limits of imaginative knowledge has been dragged into the sphere of intellectual knowledge and has thereby been turned into a caricature.
He says similar things about the way evil lives in man. Just look about you, he says. Evil is to be found living wherever there are dogs. The dog is the symbol of evil. Just as a person is neurasthenic in so far as he resembles a plant, he becomes evil in so far as he resembles a dog. All the rest of nature, you see, is condensed in the human being.
Everything that is spread out before us in nature is contained in man—it can all be found in man. In this fashion, deeply felt aperys emerge from Weininger's soul. For example, he is standing on a mountain. It is spewing forth fire. What he compares that to I will not even mention. But then he sees the setting sun and says, more or less, ‘At this place and on this soil, such a setting sun is only endurable if the crater is at one's feet; otherwise it would be disturbing.’
So you see in what an extraordinary fashion this soul experiences the world: another soul would experience the beauty and grandeur, of a sunset, but a sunset is only endurable to him if there is something with which to contrast it. And there is much in which this soul differs from the souls of other men. It is interesting how he describes what happens when one meets a person and looks them in the eyes—how one being gazes out of one eye, another being out of the other. He observes the thing exactly. He possesses imaginative vision, but presents it in a confused manner.
Then he returns home, having recently felt much distress at the world's lack of understanding and asking himself how long it will be before the world will be able to understand the kind of things he writes. Weininger's father is still thoroughly convinced that his son is just a genial young man, even though he has had to move house because he cannot live with his family. Although he naturally does not agree with all his son's ideas, he does not notice anything abnormal about him. After all, what state would we be in if all the parents in the world thought that their children were insane just because they disagreed with their ideas!
Then Weininger took a room in the house in which Beethoven died. After living there for some days, he shot himself, exactly in accordance with a programme he had formulated. Beforehand, he had announced to a company of his younger friends that he was going to shoot himself because this corresponded so well to his personality. He was twenty-three years old. He shot himself in the house in which Beethoven died.
So you see that we are dealing with an extraordinary individual. And yet his personality is typical. This is an especially pronounced example, with certain ideas developed in a unique way, but there are many people about who possess similar natures. Contemporary humanity includes many individuals with natures similar to Weininger's. It is quite understandable that a doctor who treats the insane should see nothing but crazy nonsense in either Sex and Character or in Concerning the Last Things. A psychiatrist would compare Weininger's biography with the ideas he developed and would find numerous, obvious symptoms of abnormality. But some such signs are to be found in almost anyone. It more or less depends on the subjective viewpoint, but the psychiatrist does not know this. As I said, however, it is easy to point to a pre-existing abnormality in someone who set himself against his teachers as Weininger did and who read books under the desk while his teacher lectured about something entirely different. And it is a dubious trait to see oneself as a prophet, and dubious to rent a room in the house in which Beethoven died in order to shoot oneself there! Weininger exhibited many such traits, and one must acknowledge that it is quite appropriate to make him the subject of psychiatric studies, even though one could write in this same vein about many people. Nevertheless, it would be appropriate. But what most stands out as genuinely serious and significant in the distorted and caricature-like ideas of Sex and Character and Concerning the Last Things is the particular direction and fundamental character they express. One can concede that the whole of it is crazy nonsense, and yet it is interesting because of the manner in which the ideas are shaped.
If one were to express his fundamental insights in terms of a more strict, spiritualised, healthy science, one would have to put it thus: We can see how everything that fills the external world, the macrocosm, corresponds to something in the human being, the microcosm, for man carries within himself everything that is out there. Thus I am saying that Weininger is following the pattern of imaginative knowledge when he produces the idea, albeit in a distorted, caricature-like form, that the plant is the embodiment of neurasthenia, and that the dog is the embodiment of evil. It is as though someone had twisted genuine imaginative knowledge into a caricature, but it nevertheless follows the pattern of imaginative knowledge. And yet this man Weininger is wholly unsuited for life; he is a man who can be totally ignored as far as life goes! For, fundamentally speaking, no one can learn anything from these two books. It is characteristic of the literati of our time that they are much more interested in such tests of endurance than in confronting imaginative knowledge which has been expressed as it should be expressed. That holds no interest for them. It becomes interesting, however, when it comes expressed in insane ideas.
We are really talking about imaginative knowledge, therefore, but in a distorted form. What, then, is actually going on here? One needs to get to the bottom of things to understand why an individual of Weininger's calibre should still be unfit for life. Why did Weininger develop into such an extraordinary person? Now, suppose that one could have observed Weininger at times when he was sleeping normally. (Although I am convinced that what I am about to say must have been so, it is hypothetical, for I did not personally observe Weininger's case.) If he had been observed when he was sleeping a healthy sleep—something that must have been a rare occurrence—one would have seen that truly grandiose intuitions and imaginations of the spiritual world were present in his ego and his astral body. So, if we could have observed his ego and astral body when they were separated from his physical and etheric bodies, we would have perceived a grandiose, genial soul, a soul filled with wonderful intuitions and inspirations that were absolutely accurate. This soul, rightly understood, would actually have become one of the great teachers of our times. But it was only permitted to work as a teacher while separated from the sleeping physical and etheric bodies. Only in the state of sleep were the students permitted to behold what the I and the astral body of their teacher had to say to them. But Weininger himself was not far enough advanced to be aware of this. He was not awake enough to perceive it; he had not undergone what in these days would be called initiation. In other words, he himself was not aware of what happened in his I and astral body while he was separated from his physical and etheric bodies. In our times, what would Weininger have had to become in order for him to have been able to work for the spiritual benefit of his fellow men? Through initiation he would have had to acquire the ability to behold the great gifts he possessed while outside his own physical and etheric bodies, for these can only manifest themselves outside the physical and etheric bodies. Then he would have been able to submerge again in his physical and etheric bodies in order to use the spiritual faculties and powers they contain for looking at the things he had experienced while outside his physical and etheric bodies. Then he would not have believed that he needed to present these truths by deriving them from the physical body, in the way one would demonstrate a mathematical truth.
But instead of this, something else happened. What happened instead is the following. Imagine that this is Weininger's physical body, and that these are his etheric and astral bodies. (They were drawn on the blackboard.) If one were to observe this astral body and its I, one would see the most beautiful and significant things ... But now this astral body and I submerge in the physical body and are inside it.
Instead of the person being able to separate himself from the astral in order to behold the astral realm, this astrality is pressed into the physical body. There it acquires the vitality which otherwise would only be possessed by the astrality of a normal man. That is to say, the giant imaginations which are contained in the astral body, and which should remain there, are pressed into the physical body. The brain does not function in the way it has been formed to function, the way appropriate to our present cycle of development. What should simply remain in the astral body as imaginations is pressed into the brain as though it were a lump of soft wax. Think of the brain as being like butter, or wax. A properly formed human brain allows the astral body to submerge in it like in air, filling it but leaving it unaltered. But this brain has not retained the form proper to a human brain; instead, things that should remain in the astral body have been pressed into it. This now expresses itself in the brain, leading that to come to expression in the physical man which would receive its rightful expression only in the spiritual man.
Why does this happen? What leads the astral body to thrust itself into the physical body in a manner for which it is not intended? What enables this to happen?
Well, my dear friends, there is a good reason why this happened, for those intuitions and imaginations that were being expressed, in our day, through Weininger, are ideas that really belong to the future? Please do not let what I am saying upset you; do not think that all the ideas about masculinity and femininity that we have been following are really ideas of the future. Those are not ideas of the future, but the caricature-like results of ideas that already have been pressed into the brain. But there is more to them than just this business about M + W. If they are separated-out and observed from within, they become something grandiose, something that people of today cannot yet understand. In the future something will be poured out over humanity; people will no longer be so aware of one another in terms of gender, but will meet more as human beings. Once one isolates this idea and clarifies it as regards the way it has been pressed into the physical body, it really does contain something of the future. All ideas, however, must be said to contain something of the future, for although the ideas you develop as you live in the twentieth century belong to the twentieth century, the ideas you need for your next incarnation are already there beneath the surface. They are there in your astral body and I, and you will need to take them with you as fruits of this incarnation. Everyone already carries a little bit of the future, but normally it does not come to expression in this life. The ideas for the next incarnation are already there, at work in the brain, just as the seed is within the plant. What happened to Weininger, however, should not happen. The independent astral body and I should not have influenced his physical and etheric bodies as they did. That is something that should only have occurred during the time between death and a new birth, when the body for his next incarnation was being formed. Then it would have been right for the ideas to press into the body—the body that was to come.
So you can see what is involved: the present and the subsequent incarnation are out of tune with one another. They are creating disturbances in one another instead of remaining properly distinct. The future incarnation is erupting into the present incarnation. What would be significant and right for the next incarnation is forcing its way into the body of the present incarnation, where it causes disturbances and where it appears in caricature.
I have often told you that we live in a time of transition, and that there will come a time when the people living today will again incarnate. When that time comes, these people will have a different relation to their previous incarnations. Unlike today, when everyone is aware only of his present incarnation, they will have to look back to their previous incarnation. This change is being prepared, and sometimes aberrations occur. Aberrations of this process can be observed in precisely such individuals as Weininger. The aberrations can be followed all the way to their ultimate consequences. Why, then, do we die? In order to be able to live the next incarnation! Of the many things that make death magnificent—and I am speaking now about a life that has run its full course—one is the way in which we are able to carry the fruits of this incarnation with us through the gates of death and then use them to shape the next incarnation. Death is as much a part of life as birth and growth. A plant is killed by the seed it carries within itself; the seed is what leads it to wilt. First the leaves come, then the flower and fruit, then it wilts—and this is more or less how we are killed by our next incarnation. If our next incarnation is somehow off its tracks or turned around, then some of the things it needs to accomplish can happen in a distorted fashion instead of happening in the way they should. The next incarnation is the rightful bringer of death in the present incarnation. If the next incarnation erupts into the life of this incarnation, as Weininger's did, it brings a caricature of death, suicide. The next incarnation should rest, quietly embedded in this one. But if it is not attuned to it, the next incarnation can erupt into the present one, bringing about the caricature of death, suicide. So you can follow the results of a dissonance between this individuality's physical and etheric bodies on the one hand, his astral body and I on the other, all the way to these consequences.
I would like to point out how this particular example illustrates what is living in many people of today. The important thing is to notice it when it occurs in the present, and to understand it. The literati, who do not understand him, see Weininger as the genius of the age; the psychiatrists see him as insane. But for those who want to respond to events with a loving understanding, he is an example of the transitional nature of our times, an interesting example. It is important to take hold of life by way of such interesting examples. This is how spiritual science becomes practical, for we live in times in which life will become more and more difficult, in which men will become more and more involved with themselves, times when self-knowledge is becoming more and more difficult. The upward thrust of what is living and stirring within us will grow and will make us seem to be afflicted with confusion and depression. The knowledge of spiritual science must help us win through to an understanding of mankind.
Tomorrow we will speak further about this and begin the approach to a greater theme.
Erster Vortrag
Mit einer großen Befriedigung begrüße ich es, daß wir wiederum für eine Weile hier zusammen sein können, und mit nicht minder großer Befriedigung habe ich es zu begrüßen, daß in der Zeit, in der wir nicht hier zusammen sein konnten, unser Bau in einer so schönen Weise fortgeschritten ist. Allen denjenigen Freunden, welche mit der dazu ja so notwendigen Hingabe an den Aufgaben dieses Baues mitwirken, muß wirklich von seiten des Strebens, das in unserem Sinne der Zeit dienen will, der schönste Dank zum Ausdruck gebracht werden. Lassen Sie es mich heute als einen Gruß aussprechen, daß jedes Stück Fortgang in unseren Arbeiten, das sich wiederum einmal durch Monate hindurch vollzogen hat, etwas sehr Bedeutsames ist innerhalb unserer geistigen Bewegung. Jetzt, in dieser schweren Zeit, wo die Schicksale geistiger Bewegungen, man kann sagen, auf das Unbestimmte der Zukunft eingestellt sind, müssen wir uns ja vor allen Dingen das Bewußtsein rege halten von der ewigen Bedeutung dessen, was gerade mit einem solchen ‘Werke, wie es hier ersteht, geschieht. Was auch immer die Zukunft in ihrem Schoße tragen mag, wichtig ist, daß an einem solchen Werke einmal gearbeitet worden ist, daß alles dasjenige, was geistig zusammenhängt mit diesem Werke, durch eine Anzahl menschlicher Seelen und Herzen gezogen ist, daß es von einer Anzahl menschlicher Augen geschaut worden ist und dadurch wirksam geworden ist im Entwickelungsverlaufe des menschlichen Strebens. Wir dürfen hoffen, daß für die lieben Freunde, die hier mitarbeiten, dasjenige, was hier durch ihre Seelen gezogen ist, noch in der mannigfaltigsten Weise auch draußen in der Welt wird fruchtbar werden können. Und es wird schöne Früchte tragen müssen, weil es von vornherein verbunden ist mit dem Geiste des Fortschrittes und des Fortwirkens, des Fortstrebens unserer Zeit.
Tiefe Befriedigung zum Beispiel hat es mir gemacht, als ich beim ersten Gang vorbeigehen konnte an dem in der Nähe des Westportales nun aufgerichteten Hause. Es ist von Bedeutung, daß auch dieses Haus hier innerhalb unseres Bereiches steht. Man kann sagen, es ist von Bedeutung, daß solch ein Haus einmal gebaut werden konnte. Denn es steht da als ein lebendiger Protest gegen alles Althergebrachte im Baustil und in der Bauart, das eigentlich nicht mehr berufen ist, sich, so wie es ist, hineinzustellen in den Entwickelungsgang der Gegenwart. Es steht da auch dieses Häuschen als eine Vorverkündigung eines Neuen. Und daß sich in unserem Kreise Verständnis dafür fand, solch ein Neues hier aufzustellen, das ist viel bedeutsamer, als man zunächst denken kann. Daß dieses Haus hier steht, das ist von einer gewissen großen Bedeutung! Was auch immer heute noch eingewendet wird gegen diese Bauart, gegen diesen Baustil — es ist doch die Bauart, es ist doch der Baustil der Zukunft. Und wenn man versucht, die künstlerischen Sehnsuchten unserer Zeit kennenzulernen, man findet überall: dunkles Streben ist vorhanden, aber man weiß nicht innerhalb dieses dunklen Strebens, wohin man will. Man wird lernen, daß man schon im Dunklen doch das sucht, was hier angestrebt wird. Man wird lernen erkennen, daß man sich hineinfinden muß in die Formen, die ja hier aus dem Schoße der Geisteswissenschaft heraus sich entwickeln. Wie schockierend vielleicht manches an unseren Bauformen auch ist, es wird nicht lange dauern, so wird es nicht mehr schockierend sein, so wird es als das selbstverständliche Ergebnis des Empfindens und Fühlens der Gegenwart und der nächsten Zukunft erscheinen. Und gegenwärtig, wo so vieles ist, das unseren Schmerz erregen muß, gibt es doch für uns dieses Erhebende, daß wir in das so unbestimmte Schicksal der Gegenwart hineinstellen dürfen, was die Zukunft der Menschheit braucht.
Ich möchte nun heute und morgen die Zeit dazu verwenden, einiges mit Ihnen durchzusprechen, das die Seele hinweisen kann auf alles dasjenige, was in den Tiefen dieser Seele wurzelt, so wurzelt, daß vieles für die eigene Seele Unverständliche aus den Tiefen des Menschen kommt, so kommt, daß des Menschen inneres Schicksal abhängt von dem, was da heraufwogt aus der Seele, was die wahre Selbsterkenntnis schwierig macht. Je mehr man sich dieser Selbsterkenntnis nähert, desto mehr lösen sich manche Wolken, die das Leben trüben, auf. Also von der Menschennatur, von dem Unbestimmten, oftmals so Undefinierbaren der Menschennatur wollen wir sprechen.
Von einem Beispiel will ich zunächst ausgehen; in unserer Zeit gibt es viele solcher Beispiele. Sie wissen ja, daß man lange Zeit hindurch sogar ein gewisses Wohlgefallen daran gefunden hat, sich so recht als ein Kind unserer Zeit zu fühlen, und dabei diese Zeit zu nennen die Zeit der «decadence». Man fühlte geradezu etwas, was sich so gehört, was sich so schickt in unserer Zeit: ein «decadent» zu sein; und für viele Menschen hat es als eine Art von Evangelium gegolten: Willst du nicht ein Philister sein, so mußt du einen gewissen Grad von Nervosität haben. Man ist schon wirklich, wenn man nicht nervös war, ein knüppeldicker Philister gewesen oder irgendein nicht auf der Höhe der Zeit stehender Mensch. So fühlten wirklich nicht wenige in den allerletzten Jahrzehnten. Vornehm zum mindesten war man nur, wenn man dekadent war; den neuen Adel, den echten geistigen Adel hatte man nur, wenn man dekadent war.
Ein Typus eines Dekadenten soll uns heute zunächst als Beispiel beschäftigen, damit wir dann weitere, allgemeinere Weltanschauungserkenntnisse darauf aufbauen können. Wie gesagt, ein Typus eben. Er soll auch nur als Typus behandelt werden; denn dieFälle sind zahlreich in der Gegenwart, und ebensogut könnte ein anderer Fall uns beschäftigen.
Als Fall will ich heute besprechen einen verhältnismäßig jung dahingegangenen Menschen, der zwei aufsehenerregende Bücher geschrieben hat. Das erste heißt: «Geschlecht und Charakter», und das zweite wurde von seinen Freunden sogar erst nach seinem Tode herausgegeben und trägt den Titel: «Über die letzten Dinge». Otto Weininger ist es, den ich meine, der als ein richtiges Genie der Gegenwart von vielen Menschen angesehen worden ist. «Geschlecht und Charakter», ein dickes Buch, das er geschrieben hat, hat viel, viel Aufsehen gemacht, und die Urteile, die über dieses Buch gefällt worden sind, die sind sehr, sehr voneinander verschieden. Es gibt Leute, welche dieses Buch wie ein neues, gewissermaßen aus dem Urgeist der Gegenwart gefallenes Evangelium hingestellt haben, welche behauptet haben, daß die tiefsten Wahrheiten der Gegenwart, wenn auch einseitig, wenn auch vielleicht nicht ganz ausgesprochen, so doch berührt worden seien in diesem Buche «Geschlecht und Charakter» von Otto Weininger. Es gibt auch andere Menschen, sagen wir zum Beispiel diejenigen, die von Profession Irrenärzte sind, die behaupten, daß die beiden Bücher «Geschlecht und Charakter» und «Über die letzten Dinge» in keine andere ernsthafte Bibliothek gehören als in die Bibliothek der Irrenhäuser, und zwar nicht in diejenige Bibliothek, welche die Patienten lesen, sondern welche die Ärzte lesen, um an diesen beiden Büchern einen Fall von typischem Irrsinn der Gegenwart studieren zu können.
Sie sehen, man kann sich keine größeren Extreme des Urteils denken. Also auf der einen Seite eine bis zur Anbetung gehende Verehrung eines großen, genialen Werkes, auf der anderen Seite die Verurteilung desselben als ein Produkt des vollendeten Irrsinnes. Kurios ist ja allerdings manches, was in diesem Buche «Geschlecht und Charakter» steht. Überraschend aber ist es nur für den, der sich weniger intensiv beschäftigt hat mit mancherlei Gedanken, die die letzten Jahrzehnte an die Oberfläche getrieben haben.
Weininger sagt zunächst — nicht mit diesen Worten, ich muß ein Buch, das so dick ist, kurz charakterisieren -: Wie man den Menschen bisher angesehen hat, das ist Philisteranschauung, Pedantenanschauung. Und diese Philisteranschauung, diese Pedantenanschauung, die hat immer geglaubt, daß zweierlei Menschen auf der Welt sind: Männer und Frauen. Aber solches Vorurteil, daß Männer und Frauen auf der Welt sind, das kann nur ein richtiger Philister haben. Wer die Welt wirklich versteht, der erhebt sich über dieses Philisterurteil; denn es ist nicht wahr, meint Weininger, daß es Männer und Frauen gibt: es gibt nur männliche und weibliche Eigenschaften. Die männlichen Eigenschaften bezeichnet er - er drückt sich sehr korrekt und diplomatisch aus — als M, und die weiblichen Eigenschaften als W. Aber es gibt kein Individuum in der Welt - nach Weininger -, welches ganz M oder ganz W wäre. Das wäre auch schlimm, wenn es ein solches Individuum gäbe, das man ganz als M oder ganz als W bezeichnen müßte. Denn, sagt Weininger, was ist ein richtiges Weib? Ein richtiges Weib ist gar nicht einmal Etwas, sondern ist die Negation des Etwas, ist das Nichts. Nun sind aber solche Individuen doch da, die eigentlich gar nicht rechtmäßigerweise auf der Welt sind, sondern nur als Maja vorhanden sind. Sie wären gar nicht da, diejenigen Individuen, die bloß W bedeuten, wenn sie eben bloß W wären. Die Sache ist vielmehr so, daß jedes menschliche Individuum aus M+W besteht. Irgendwelche männlichen und weiblichen Eigenschaften hat jedes menschliche Individuum. Wenn das M etwas überwiegt, so macht das Individuum den Eindruck eines Mannes; wenn das W etwas überwiegt, so macht das Individuum den Eindruck einer Frau. Und weil sie noch sehr viel M in sich hat, die Frau, so ist sie auch Etwas und nicht Nichts. Der Grundcharakter eines menschlichen Individuums hängt nun ganz und gar davon ab, wieviel das betreffende Individuum von dem M oder von dem W in sich hat, wie die Mischung ist.
So also betrachtet Weininger die Menschheit, und er sagt, alles hänge davon ab, daß man sich endlich bequeme, dieses alte Vorurteil, als ob Männer und Frauen vorhanden wären, aufzugeben. Sehr viel, meint er, hängt davon ab, daß man endlich einsehe, daß jedes menschliche Individuum dadurch etwas ist, daß es männliche Eigenschaften hat — daß es ein W mit Etwas ist, insofern es männliche Eigenschaften hat, und ein W mit Nichts ist, insofern es weibliche Eigenschaften hat. Aus Etwas und Nichts ist also im Grunde genommen jeder Mensch zusammengesetzt.
Nun, auf dieser Anschauung basiert das ganze dicke Buch. Und alles, was in der Welt sich vollzieht, von dem einzelnen menschlichen Leben bis zum geschichtlichen Leben, wird nun unter diesem Gesichtspunkte betrachtet, richtig mathematisch betrachtet. So finder selbstverständlich Weininger den Grundcharakter eines menschlichen Individuums sehr stark davon abhängig, in welcher Quantität, in welchem Quantum, sagen wir zum Beispiel W dem menschlichen Individuum beigemischt ist, dieses Nichts dem menschlichen Individuum beigemischt ist. Ist sehr viel beigemischt von dem W, so kommt ein anderer menschlicher Typus zustande, als wenn weniger von dem W beigemischt ist.
Sie verzeihen, wenn ich aus dem Weiningerschen Gedankengange einiges darlege. Sie könnten vielleicht die Ansicht haben, daß das nicht einmal ganz anständig wäre, alles so darzulegen; aber man darf nicht wie der Vogel Strauß den Kopf in den Sand stecken, sondern muß die Dinge kennenlernen; ich schildere einen Typus. Viele Menschen denken so, und viele von denjenigen, die so denken in der Gegenwart, wissen es nur nicht. Also Sie müssen schon entschuldigen, es sind nicht meine Urteile, die ich jetzt aussprechen werde, sondern Weiningers Urteile.
Nehmen wir also an: Viel W wäre einem menschlichen Individuum beigemischt, ein gewisses Maximalquantum wäre beigemischt; dann hat man es mit einem Typus von Menschen zu tun, der in der Majagestalt der Frau einem entgegentritt. Ist weniger beigemischt, dann hat man es mit einem anderen Typus zu tun, der nur so äußerlich wie eine Frau aussieht. Ist viel beigemischt von dem W, dann hat man es mit dem Typus der Mutter zu tun, ist wenig beigemischt, so hat man es mit dem der Hetäre zu tun. So daß also dadurch zwei neue Grundcharaktere menschlicher Individualität gegeben sind: die Mutter und die Hetäre. Die Mutter ist der zurückgebliebenste Typus der Menschheit; sie schwebt ganz in den untersten Planen des Daseins und kann nur die Freundin werden der philiströsesten Männer, kann nichts beitragen zum Kulturfortschritt, denn sie nähert sich am meisten dem Nichts, weil am meisten W beigemischt ist. Ist weniger W beigemischt, so erhält man den Typus derjenigen Frau, welche der genialen Männer Freundin werden kann: der Typus der Frau, die Hetäre, wie Weininger sich ausdrückt, die teilnehmen kann an dem menschlichen Kulturfortschritt, die schon in höheren Regionen des Daseins lebt.
Auch die andere Art von menschlichen Individuen, die Männer Männer darf man natürlich nur sagen, wenn man den althergebrachten Ausdruck gebraucht - zerfallen in solche, die viel von dem M haben, und in solche, die weniger von dem M haben. Solche, die viel von dem M haben, die haben den großen Vorzug, große Schuld auf sich zu laden und großes Böses zu verrichten; solche, die wenig von dem M haben, stehen mehr in den unteren Regionen des Daseins; die haben weniger Fähigkeit, Böses zu tun, Schuld in die Welt zu setzen. Was ist nun die größte Schuld, die diejenigen Individuen auf sich laden können, die viel M haben in ihrer Natur? Was ist überhaupt die größte Schuld, die es gibt zunächst innerhalb unseres begrenzten physischen geschichtlichen Daseins? Ja, sehen Sie, ich sagte Ihnen vorher, in der Theorie Weiningers ist das W eigentlich das Nichts. Aber wie kann das Nichts in der Welt sein? Warum ist denn überhaupt das Nichts, das W, in der Welt? Was ist denn dieses W, dieses Nichts, wenn man näher darauf eingeht? Es ist nichts anderes als die Schuld des Mannes. Also das W hat überhaupt kein wirkliches Dasein, sondern es ist bloß durch die Schuld des M da, so daß es also Frauen gar nicht geben würde, wenn nicht die Männer die Schuld auf sich geladen hätten, durch ihre Begierden die Frau zu schaffen. Die Frau ist ein Geschöpf der männlichen Schuld. Das ist der Sündenfall der Menschheit.
Ja, Sie alle, die dem äußeren Ansehen nach wie Frauen ausschauen, Sie müssen sich also vorstellen, daß Sie, nach der Theorie Weiningers, im Grunde genommen durch die Schuld der Männer ins Dasein gerufen worden sind auf irgendeine unbekannte, okkulte Weise! Das wird, man kann schon sagen, mit großer Genialität in dem Buch ausgeführt, wie man in den letzten Jahrzehnten eben vielfach menschliche Genialität aufgefaßt hat. Es ist sogar von einem Kritiker über die Weiningersche literarische Leistung gesagt worden: Es beweise, daß man doch noch einige Freude an dem Leben der Gegenwart, dieser philiströsen, pedantischen Gegenwart haben könne, daß es solche Geister gibt, wie Weininger einer sei!
Das Buch ist nicht unernsthaft gemeint; es ist kein bloßes belletristisches Produkt. Der Mann, der das geschrieben hat, hat mit dem ersten Teil davon - nicht mit dem Ganzen, mit den ersten zwei, drei Bogen seinen Doktor an einer Universität gemacht. Es wurden also die ersten Bogen als Doktordissertation an einer Universität angenommen. Er hat sie später etwas verändert. Man muß ja natürlich das, was man genial schreibt, ein bißchen ins Pedantische umsetzen, wenn man eine Doktordissertation macht, und das hat er natürlich auch gekonnt. Also es ist ganz ernst genommen worden, und es sind manche Theorien dann aufgebaut worden. Das Buch hat großes Aufsehen gemacht, und nicht bloß das, es hat auch großen Einfluß gehabt.
Sehen wir uns den Mann ein wenig näher an. Weininger war von Anfang an, was man ein begabtes Kind nennt, hat schon in der allerersten Zeit viele kluge Gedanken gehabt, worüber viele Eltern ja so sehr froh sind. Er war ein ernstes Kind, das sich mit geistigen Dingen beschäftigt hat. Als es in die Schule kam, kann man nicht einmal sagen, daß es den Lehrern die Sache nicht recht gemacht hätte — das ist ja fast selbstverständlich, nicht wahr; aber die Lehrer konnten es ihm nicht recht machen! Weininger mußte immer etwas anderes machen, als die Lehrer von ihm haben wollten, insbesondere als er ins Gymnasium gekommen war. Während die Lehrer nach seiner Ansicht sehr langweilige Dinge sagten, las er allerlei Dinge für sich. Das tun zwar andere auch in der Praxis; man läßt den da reden, der sagt ja doch nichts anderes, als was im Buche steht, das kann man dann zu Hause kürzer lesen; und, nicht wahr, so unter der Bank - -!
Wenn er Aufsätze machte, ja, da ging es ihm so, daß er zum Teil das Erstaunen, aber zum Teil auch den Abscheu der korrigierenden Lehrer hervorrief. Auch wollte er sich nichts gefallen lassen in der Schule. Als er dann zur Universität kam, erwies er sich als ein sehr begabter Mensch, der über vieles Ideen hatte, was da vorgebracht wurde. Dann bekam er von den verschiedensten Seiten her tiefgehende literarische Einflüsse. Die verschiedenen geistigen Richtungen Ende der neunziger Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts wirkten sehr bedeutend auf ihn. Auch die Gesellschaft, in der er war, wirkte selbstverständlich auf ihn sehr bedeutsam. Er lebte in Wien am Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts in einem Kreise von Leuten, von denen man mit Recht sagte, daß viele Genies, aber eben dekadente Genies, darunter waren. Man hat von diesem Kreis gesagt, in dem Weininger da um die Wende des Jahrhunderts lebte, daß die Begabtesten unter ihnen, wenn sie zwanzig Jahre alt sind, Raffael für einen Trottel halten. Mit zwanzig Jahren ist man selbstverständlich ein ganzes Genie und reformiert die Welt jeden Tag. Dazu gehörte er auch, aber eben als ein genialer, begabter Mensch mit Ideen. Denn schließlich, was ich Ihnen vorgeführt habe, sind ja doch Ideen. Man mag sie für so irrtümlich wie möglich halten, es sind Ideen. Es sind auch neue Ideen.
Dann wirkten auf Weininger besonders gewisse in unserer Zeit ja sehr tiefe Wurzeln schlagende Rassentheorien. Er war Jude und machte sich früh bekannt mit der Entwickelung der Menschheit, wie sie hingeordnet ist auf das Mysterium von Golgatha, beschäftigte sich viel mit dem Christus. Nun bildete er sich eine sehr eigentümliche Theorie aus. Der Christus war ihm auf der einen Seite Jude, aber gerade weil er Jude war, konnte er das Judentum am intensivsten überwinden. Ein vollständiges Umschlagen, wie er es da zu beobachten glaubte in der Menschheitsentwickelung, es übte einen tiefen Eindruck aus auf Weininger. Und während er vorher eigentlich mit einem gewissen Pessimismus gerade sein Judentum verfochten hatte, wurde er beseligt in dem Gedanken, überzutreten, ein Christ zu werden, es dem Christus nachzumachen, umzuschlagen. Und da goß sich in seine Ideen hinein etwas wie von einem modernen Christus, nur daß der Christus die Menschheit von dem Übel befreit hat, von der Sünde, von der Erbsünde; Weininger aber — das sprach er nicht aus, aber man sieht, das waltete in seiner Seele — meinte, er habe, weil er noch Tieferes erkannt habe, die moderne Menschheit von allem Weiblichen, von allem W zu erlösen; erst dann könne die Menschengeschichte sich fortentwickeln, wenn sie von allem W, nicht nur von aller Sünde erlöst sei; denn gibt es nicht mehr das W, so gibt es selbstverständlich die Schuld des M nicht mehr, denn das W ist nur die Schuld des M. Und das sah Weininger als eine Art Erfüllung des Christentums an, daß er als Jude die Menschheit von dem W erlösen könne; das sah er gewissermaßen als seine Sendung an.
Unter solchen Gedanken und Empfindungen war er zwanzig-, einundzwanzigjährig geworden. Er hat in verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit dieses riesendicke Buch «Geschlecht und Charakter» geschrieben, in dem viel, viel Gelehrsamkeit und Wissenschaft der Gegenwart aufgearbeitet ist, das durchdrungen ist mit Ideen von der Art, wie ich sie Ihnen angedeutet habe. Dann kam eine Zeit über ihn, wo er darüber nachzudenken begann, wie ein solches Genie, wie er es ist, doch nicht verstanden werden kann in der Gegenwart. Alle diejenigen Individuen, meint er, bei denen das W irgendeine besondere Rolle spielt, also alle, die dem äußeren Ansehen nach als Frauen in der Welt herumgehen, und auch diejenigen, die dem äußeren Ansehen nach nicht Frauen sind, die aber ein großes Stück des W in sich haben, die können Weininger von vornherein nicht verstehen, auf die muß er verzichten. Das ist ja natürlich weit, weit über die Hälfte der Menschheit. «Frauen werden mich niemals verstehen», hat Weininger zu seinem Vater gesagt. Sie sind ganz kaltgestellt.
Dann bekam er eine Art Wandertrieb, als sein Buch erschienen war. Er mußte Reisen machen, und da reiste er nach Italien. Da kann man nun eine merkwürdige Entdeckung machen, denn da hat er seine Ideen niedergeschrieben auf der Reise bis nach Sizilien, und diese Ideen wurden dann in dem nachgelassenen Werke «Über die letzten Dinge» von seinem Freunde Rappaport veröffentlicht.
Merkwürdige Ideen sind darinnen, viel radikaler noch als die in dem Buche «Geschlecht und Charakter», radikalere Ideen, aber doch von einem sehr, sehr eigentümlichen Charakter, Ideen, die alle erinnern an dasjenige, was wir imaginative Erkenntnis nennen, Ideen so ziemlich über den ganzen Umfang des menschlichen Lebens, aphoristisch ausgesprochen. Allerdings, was da zum Beispiel über Krankheiten gesagt wird, das allein genügt, um jeden Arzt zu überzeugen, daß Weininger vollständig irrsinnig war. Aber alle diese Ideen, die da in dem Buch «Über die letzten Dinge» gesammelt sind, sind eigentlich wie imaginative Erkenntnis, paradox, aber wie imaginative Erkenntnis. Sie sind nach der Art der imaginativen Erkenntnis aufgebaut. Nehmen wir eines: Bei dem Menschen tritt auf das Böse, sagte er, und tritt auf die Neurasthenie. Schauen wir uns die Neurasthenie an, meint Weininger, ja, wir finden doch, die Neurasthenie, sie wächst überall draußen, denn die ganze Pflanzenwelt ist verkörperte Neurasthenie! Sie ist das Gleichnis für Neurasthenie. Lebt dasjenige im Menschen überwiegend, was in der Pflanzenwelt an seiner rechten Stelle lebt, dann wird der Mensch neurasthenisch, denn der Mensch ist in gewissem Sinne eine Pflanze, und er ist in dem Maße neurasthenisch, als das Pflanzliche das Übergewicht bekommt. Paradox! Eine ganz und gar nicht unsinnige Idee, paradox ausgeführt! Man möchte sagen: Etwas, was innerhalb der imaginativen Erkenntnis gehalten werden muß, ist hereingezerrt in die verstandesmäßige Erkenntnis und dadurch zur Karikatur geworden.
Ebenso, sagt er, lebt im Menschen das Böse; aber schauen wir hinaus: Überall, wo Hunde sind, lebt das Böse. Der Hund ist das Symbolum des Bösen. Der Mensch ist ebenso, wie er eine Pflanze ist, und dadurch ein Neurastheniker, auch wie ein Hund, und dadurch ein Böser. Es ist zum Beispiel durchaus wahr, daß im Menschen die ganze übrige Natur konzentriert ist; alles, was draußen in der Natur ausgegossen ist, ist im Menschen, das kommt vor in ihm. -— Dabei kommen tief gefühlvolle Aperçus aus Weiningers Seele heraus: Er steht auf einem feuerspeienden Berge. Womit er den vergleicht, will ich gar nicht wiederholen; aber er sieht die untergehende Sonne und sagt so ungefähr: Diese untergehende Sonne ist nur erträglich hier auf diesem Grund und Boden, wo man zu gleicher Zeit den Krater unter sich hat; sonst würde sie stören.
Sie sehen, merkwürdig empfindet diese Seele: Wo andere Seelen wunderschöne, großartige Empfindungen beim Sonnenuntergange haben, ist es ihm nur erträglich, wenn es zum Kontrast wird. Und so ist vieles ganz anders in dieser Seele als bei anderen Menschen. Interessant ist es, wie er da beschreibt, wie es ist, wenn man den Menschen entgegentritt und ihnen in die Augen schaut, wie aus dem einen Auge dieses, aus dem andern Auge jenes Wesen heraussieht. Er bekommt es genau heraus; er hat imaginative Schauungen, bringt sie aber in einer wahnsinnig verzerrten Weise zum Vorschein.
Dann kommt er nach Hause, ist nun gerade in der letzten Zeit voller Klagen über den Unverstand der Welt, fragt sich, wie lange es dauern wird, bis so etwas, wie er es zu schreiben hat, von der Welt wird verstanden werden können. Der Vater ist durchaus überzeugt, trotzdem der Sohn weggezogen war, weil er nicht mit der Familie wohnen konnte, daß er es mit einem genialen jungen Manne zu tun hat, bemerkt nichts irgendwie Unnormales an ihm, obwohl er selbstverständlich mit den Ideen nicht einverstanden ist; aber wenn alle Eltern, die mit den Ideen ihrer Söhne oder Töchter nicht einverstanden sein können, sie deshalb für Wahnsinnige halten wollten, nicht wahr, so würde etwas Schönes in der Welt herauskommen!
Dann nimmt er eines Tages ein Zimmer im Sterbehause von Beethoven. Nach einigen Tagen, die er dort gewohnt hat, erschießt er sich darin ganz programmäßig, nachdem er vorher einer Gesellschaft von jüngeren Freunden angekündigt hat, er werde sich erschießen, weil das seiner Individualität gerade so entspreche. Er war da etwa dreiundzwanzig Jahre alt. Er erschießt sich im Sterbehause Beethovens.
Ja, nun sehen Sie, wir haben eine merkwürdige Persönlichkeit vor uns, und eine typische Persönlichkeit. Es gibt viele so Geartete, wenn das auch ein herausgerissenes Beispiel ist, wo gewisse Ideen in besonderer Weise ausgebildet sind. Es gibt viele Individuen unter den Menschen in der Gegenwart, die so geartet sind wie Weininger. Für den Irrenarzt ist es ganz selbstverständlich, daß sowohl das Buch «Geschlecht und Charakter», wie das «Über die letzten Dinge» verrücktes Zeug sind. Der Irrenarzt vergleicht die Biographie Weiningers mit diesen Ideen, die er vorgebracht hat, und findet selbstverständlich überall Anzeichen des Abnormen. Es gibt kaum irgendeinen Menschen, bei dem man nicht solche Anzeichen finden kann. Das kommt ja wirklich mehr oder weniger auf den subjektiven Standpunkt an. Nur weiß das der Irrenarzt nicht. Aber wie gesagt, man kann leicht beweisen, daß schon eine Abnormität darinnen liegt, wenn jemand seinen Lehrern so widerstrebt, wie es der Weininger getan hat, wenn man so die Bücher unter der Bank liest, während der Lehrer ganz anderes vorträgt. Ein bedenklicher Zug ist es ja, wenn jemand sich als einen Propheten ansieht, ein bedenklicher Zug ist es, wenn jemand sich just in das Sterbehaus Beethovens einmietet, um sich dort zu erschießen! So sind viele Züge bei Weininger, und man muß sagen: Eine psychiatrische Schrift, die über Weininger geschrieben ist, ist ganz zutreffend, nur könnte man über viele Leute solch eine Schrift schreiben. Aber sie ist dennoch ganz zutreffend. Was aber am meisten ganz ernsthaftig und bedeutsam auffällt, das ist, daß man einen gewissen Grundzug, einen gewissen Grundcharakter der verzerrten, karikierten Gedanken in «Geschlecht und Charakter», in «Über die letzten Dinge» dennoch sehen muß. Man kann ruhig zugeben, das Ganze ist wahnsinniges Zeug, aber es muß einen interessieren durch die Art, wie die Gedanken gebildet sind.
Wenn man nach strenger, durchgeistigter, gesunder Wissenschaft diesen Grundcharakter zu begreifen sucht, so muß man sagen: Wir sehen, wie alles, was sich ausdehnt draußen in der Welt als Makrokosmos, wie ein Gleichnis ist, wie der Mensch ein Mikrokosmos ist, der alles in sich trägt, was draußen ist. Wenn der Gedanke bei Weininger auftritt, wenn auch in solch verzerrter Art, karikiert, die Pflanze sei verkörperte Neurasthenie, der Hund das verkörperte Böse, so ist es, ich möchte sagen, nach dem Musterbilde der imaginativen Erkenntnis aufgefaßt, wie wenn jemand richtige imaginative Erkenntnis in die Karikatur verzerrt; aber es ist nach dem Musterbilde imaginativer Erkenntnis aufgefaßt. Und dennoch, im Grunde genommen ein für das Leben ganz unbrauchbarer Mensch, dieser Weininger, ein für das Leben ganz und gar nicht irgendwie in Betracht kommender Mensch! Denn im Grunde genommen kann doch aus den beiden Büchern niemand etwas lernen, und es ist nur charakteristisch für unsere Zeit, daß die Literaten vielfach an solchen Kraftproben viel mehr Interesse finden, als wenn ihnen imaginative Erkenntnis so entgegentritt, wie sie sein soll. Da interessiert es sie nicht. Wenn es aber in wahnsinnigen Ideen ihnen entgegentritt, da interessiert es sie.
Also wir haben es wirklich zu tun mit imaginativer Erkenntnis, die nur als Zerrbild erscheint. Was liegt da eigentlich vor? Da ein solcher Charakter wie der Weiningers doch für das Leben nicht brauchbar ist, so muß man dahinterkommen können, was eigentlich vorliegt. Wodurch ist denn Weininger eben gerade dieser sonderbare Mensch geworden? Ja, sehen Sie, wenn man beobachtet haben würde — das sage ich jetzt als Hypothese, weil ich ja den Fall Weininger nicht persönlich beobachtet habe, aber was ich als Hypothese sage, ist ganz gewiß richtig —, wenn man Weininger beobachtet haben würde als schlafenden Menschen in den Zeiten, in denen er gesunden Schlaf hatte — den er allerdings sehr wenig gehabt haben wird -, dann würde man gefunden haben, daß im Ich und im astralischen Leib, die während des Schlafens heraußen waren aus dem physischen Leibe, wirklich grandiose Intuitionen und Imaginationen aus der geistigen Welt vorhanden waren. Würden wir also dieses Ich und diesen astralischen Leib abgesondert vom physischen und Ätherleib betrachten, so würden wir wahrnehmen eine grandios-geniale Seele mit wunderbaren Intuitionen und Imaginationen, die treffend richtig sind. Diese Seele, richtig verstanden, würde tatsächlich ein großer Lehrer für unsere Zeit sein können; aber sie dürfte nur so als Lehrer wirken, daß sie den physischen Leib und den Ätherleib schlafen läßt, und die Schüler dürfen nur dasjenige wahrnehmen, was ihnen im schlafenden Zustande das Ich und der astralische Leib des Betreffenden zu sagen haben. Aber nun war Weininger selber nicht so weit, das wahrzunehmen. Er war nicht aufgeweckt, das wahrzunehmen, er war nicht durchgegangen durch dasjenige, was man in unserer Zeit als eine Initiation bezeichnet. Also er wußte selber nichts von dem, was da in seinem Ich und in seinem astralischen Leibe lebte, wenn er außerhalb des physischen und des Ätherleibes war. Wenn Weininger hätte werden sollen ein Mensch, der seinen Mitmenschen heute in geistiger Beziehung viel sein könnte — wie hätte er dann werden müssen? Nun, er hätte so werden müssen, daß er seine großen Anlagen, die nur hervortreten konnten, wenn das Ich und der astralische Leib außer dem physischen und dem Ätherleibe waren, durch Initiation zum Schauen gebracht hätte außerhalb des physischen und Ätherleibes, und daß er dann hätte untertauchen können in den physischen und Ätherleib, um mit den geistigen Kräften und Fähigkeiten, die man im physischen und im Ätherleib hat, das anzuschauen, was er wahrnahm außerhalb des physischen und des Ätherleibes. Mit anderen Worten, wenn er wachend hier gewesen wäre in der physischen Welt, so hätte er auf seine großen Ideen als auf Inspirationen und Imaginationen hinschauen müssen. Er hätte nicht glauben müssen, daß er diese so hervorzubringen hat, wie man mathematische Wahrheiten hervorbringt, aus dem physischen Leib heraus.
Statt dessen ist etwas anderes eingetreten. Statt dessen ist das Folgende eingetreten: Denken Sie sich einmal, dieses wäre der physische, dieses der Ätherleib und dieses der astralische Leib Weiningers gewesen (es wird gezeichnet). Wenn man also diesen astralischen Leib mit dem Ich beobachten würde, würde man die schönsten, bedeutendsten Dinge sehen. Er hat sie selber gehabt. Nun tauchen also dieser astralische Leib und das Ich in den physischen Leib unter, sind jetzt darinnen. Statt daß sich der Mensch nun sondern kann und hinschauen kann auf das Astralische, drückt sich, preßt sich das Astralische in den physischen Leib hinein und wird im physischen Leib so lebendig, wie sonst nur das lebendig ist, was ein normaler Mensch im Astralleib hat. Also das, was der astralische Leib an großer Imagination hat, was im astralischen Leib verbleiben sollte, das drückt sich in den physischen Leib hinein. So daß in das Gehirn, statt daß es aufgebaut ist, wie es für den Menschen des jetzigen Zyklus normal ist, hineingepreßt wird wie in eine weiche Wachsmasse, was Imagination bloß im astralischen Leib bleiben soll. Denken Sie sich, das Gehirn ist wirklich wie Butter oder wie Wachs. Statt daß es nun die Form hat, die es beim Menschen haben muß, so daß der astralische Leib gleichsam nur untertaucht wie Luft, die das durchsetzt und ungeändert läßt, statt dessen wird hineingepreßt in das Gehirn dasjenige, was im astralischen Leibe bleiben soll. Das drückt sich im Gehirn nun selbst aus, und der Mensch spricht als physischer Mensch das aus, was er als geistiger Mensch aussprechen soll.
Und wodurch ist denn das geschehen? Wodurch wirkt dieser astralische Leib, gewissermaßen wie sich hineinpressend in den physischen Leib, was er nicht tun soll? Wodurch geschieht das?
Ja, meine lieben Freunde, daß das so ist, das hat seine guten Gründe; denn was da bei Weininger heute als Intuition und Imagination zum Ausdruck gekommen ist, das sind wirkliche Ideen der Zukunft! Bitte lassen Sie sich dadurch nicht stören, daß Sie etwa glauben könnten, alles das, was hier über das Männliche und Weibliche entwickelt worden ist, sei Idee der Zukunft. Das sind nicht Ideen der Zukunft, das sind schon die ins Gehirn hereingepreßten karikierten Ideen. Aber die sind wirklich nicht bloß dieses M+W. Wenn sie da drinnen abgesondert beobachtet werden, da sind sie etwas, was ganz grandios ist, was die heutige Menschheit noch nicht versteht, sondern erst in der Zukunft verstehen wird, wenn wirklich ausgegossen werden wird über die Menschheit etwas, wodurch sich die Menschen nicht nur so gegenüberstehen werden wie heute, durch das Geschlecht, sondern wodurch sie sich mehr als Menschen gegenüberstehen werden. Es ist wirklich, wenn man sie abgesondert beobachtet und sie nicht durch das Hereinpressen in den physischen Leib erklärt, in diesen Ideen Zukünftiges vorhanden. Aber wir müssen alle Ideen zukünftige nennen; denn während Sie jetzt hier im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert leben, entwickeln Sie Gedanken für das zwanzigste Jahrhundert; aber in den Untergründen, im astralischen Leib und im Ich drinnen sind schon die Ideen, die Sie für Ihre nächste Inkarnation brauchen, die Sie als Frucht von hier mitnehmen müssen. Die sind in jedem Menschen schon ein bißchen drinnen, nur kommen sie jetzt nicht heraus. Wie der Keim in der Pflanze drinnen ist, so sind schon die Ideen der nächsten Inkarnation drinnen, die da im Gehirn wirken. Das, was bei Weininger dieser abgesonderte Astralleib und das Ich in seinem physischen und Ätherleib jetzt tun, das ist mit Unrecht getan, denn das sollte sich erst vorbereiten durch die Zeit zwischen dem Tod und einer neuen Geburt und mit aufbauen den nächsten Leib. Da wäre es richtig, wenn es sich da hineinpreßte in den nächsten Leib.
Sie sehen, um was es sich handelt: die gegenwärtige und die nächstfolgende Inkarnation stimmen nicht zusammen. Die stören sich gegenseitig, die halten sich nicht ordentlich auseinander. Es spukt die nächste Inkarnation in die gegenwärtige Inkarnation hinein. Was in der nächsten Inkarnation wirklich etwas Bedeutsames und Richtiges sein würde, spukt herein in den gegenwärtigen Leib, den es nur stört, und kommt hier in Karikierungen zum Vorschein.
Ich habe Ihnen öfter gesagt, wir leben jetzt in einer Zeit des Überganges, und es kommen Zeiten, in denen die gegenwärtig lebenden Menschen wieder inkarniert sein werden. Da werden sich diese Menschen in ein anderes Verhältnis zu den vorhergehenden Inkarnationen stellen müssen. Sie werden zurückschauen müssen auf die vorhergehende Inkarnation, anders als jetzt, wo jeder nur von seiner gegenwärtigen Inkarnation ein Bewußtsein hat. Das bereitet sich vor, und da kommen Unregelmäßigkeiten hinein. Und gerade bei solchen Individuen wie Weininger kommt das als eine Unregelmäßigkeit zustande. Bis in die letzten Konsequenzen hinein kommt das als eine Unregelmäßigkeit zustande. Denn, warum sterben wir denn eigentlich? Damit wir in der nächsten Inkarnation leben können! Zu den vielen Dingen, die den Tod großartig machen, gehört auch dieses, daß wir — ich rede jetzt von vollendeten Lebensläufen —, wenn wir in einer Inkarnation leben, dann durch die Pforte des Todes gehen, die Früchte des Lebens forttragen und uns unser nächstes Dasein damit aufbauen, mit diesen Früchten. Aber es gehört das Sterben ebenso zum Leben wie das Geborenwerden oder das Wachsen. Geradeso, wie die Pflanze eigentlich getötet wird durch den Keim, der in ihr steckt — der Keim bringt sie zum Welken; erst wachsen die Blätter, dann die Blüten, dann die Früchte, und dann fängt sie an zu welken -, so tötet uns gewissermaßen unsere nächste Inkarnation. Ist unsere nächste Inkarnation vertrackt, verdreht, so kann sie auch etwas von dem verdreht machen, was sie rechtmäßigerweise machen muß: Regelmäßigerweise bringt sie den Tod der gegenwärtigen Inkarnation. Die nächste Inkarnation, die in der vorhergehenden spukt: bei Weininger bringt sie den Tod als eine Karikatur, als den Selbstmord. Dieses Nicht-Zusammenstimmen dessen, was als nächste Inkarnation in der gegenwärtigen ruhen soll, statt dessen aber spukt, das bewirkt die Karikatur des Todes, den Selbstmord. Bis in diese Konsequenz hinein können Sie verfolgen ein NichtZusammenstimmen zwischen physischem und Ätherleib auf der einen Seite, Ich und Astralleib auf der andern Seite bei diesem menschlichen Individuum.
Ich möchte sagen, herausgestellt wie in einem besonderen Beispiele sehen wir etwas, was heute in vielem lebt. Nur Geisteswissenschaft wird das so begreifen können. Aber wichtig ist es, da, wo es erscheint in der Gegenwart, es zu verstehen, sich darauf einzulassen. Für den unverständigen Literaten mag Weininger das Genie der Gegenwart sein, für den Irrenarzt ist er ein Wahnsinniger, für denjenigen, der verstehen will die Zeiten, der sich mit liebevoller Erkenntnis in die Ereignisse hineinversetzen will, ist er der Typus für das Übergangsleben unserer Zeit, einer der interessantesten Typen. Wichtig ist es, das Leben an solch interessanten Beispielen anzufassen. Denn hier ist es so, wo Geisteswissenschaft praktisch wird, weil wir in der Zeit leben, in der das Leben immer schwieriger wird, in der die Menschen immer mehr und mehr mit sich zu tun haben, in der Selbsterkenntnis immer schwerer sein wird, und immer bedrückender jenes Heraufdringen dessen, was da unten wogt und lebt, und was uns selbst oftmals so unverständlich und mit Depressionen behaftet erscheinen läßt. Aus den Erkenntnissen der Geisteswissenschaft müssen wir uns ein Verständnis des Menschlichen erwerben.
Davon wollen wir dann morgen weiterreden und es zu einem größeren Thema ausbilden.
First Lecture
It is with great satisfaction that I welcome the fact that we can be together here again for a while, and it is with no less satisfaction that I welcome the fact that, during the time when we were unable to be here together, our building has progressed in such a beautiful way. All those friends who are contributing to this building with such necessary dedication to the task at hand deserve our heartfelt thanks on behalf of the endeavor that seeks to serve our cause in this day and age. Let me express my gratitude today that every bit of progress in our work, which has once again been accomplished over the course of several months, is something very significant within our spiritual movement. Now, in these difficult times, when the fate of spiritual movements is, so to speak, uncertain, we must above all keep alive the awareness of the eternal significance of what is happening with a work such as the one that is being created here. Whatever the future may hold, it is important that such a work has been undertaken, that everything spiritually connected with this work has passed through the hearts and souls of many people, that it has been seen by many human eyes and has thus become effective in the course of human development. We may hope that for the dear friends who are working here, what has passed through their souls will also bear fruit in the most manifold ways out in the world. And it will have to bear beautiful fruit, because it is connected from the outset with the spirit of progress and of continuing activity, of striving forward in our time.
For example, it gave me deep satisfaction when I was able to walk past the house that has now been erected near the west portal. It is significant that this house also stands here within our domain. One can say that it is significant that such a house could be built. For it stands there as a living protest against everything traditional in architectural style and design that is no longer appropriate, as it is, in the course of present-day development. This little house also stands there as a harbinger of something new. And the fact that our circle found understanding for erecting something so new here is much more significant than one might initially think. The fact that this house stands here is of great importance! Whatever objections may still be raised today against this type of construction, against this architectural style—it is nevertheless the construction method, it is nevertheless the architectural style of the future. And if one tries to understand the artistic longings of our time, one finds everywhere: there is a dark striving, but within this dark striving, one does not know where one wants to go. One will learn that even in the darkness, one is searching for what is being strived for here. One will learn to recognize that one must find one's way into the forms that are developing here from the womb of spiritual science. However shocking some of our building forms may be, it will not be long before they are no longer shocking, but will appear as the natural result of the feelings and sensibilities of the present and the near future. And at present, when there is so much that must cause us pain, there is nevertheless this uplifting factor for us, that we may place into the uncertain destiny of the present what the future of humanity needs.
I would like to use the time today and tomorrow to discuss with you some things that can point the soul to all that is rooted in the depths of this soul, so deeply rooted that much of what is incomprehensible to one's own soul comes from the depths of the human being, so that the inner destiny of the human being depends on what wells up from the soul, which makes true self-knowledge difficult. The closer one comes to this self-knowledge, the more some of the clouds that cloud life dissipate. So let us speak of human nature, of the indeterminate, often so indefinable nature of human beings.
Let me start with an example; there are many such examples in our time. You know that for a long time people even took a certain pleasure in feeling like children of our time, calling this era the age of “decadence.” People felt that it was appropriate, that it was fashionable in our time to be “decadent,” and for many people it was regarded as a kind of gospel: if you don't want to be a philistine, you must have a certain degree of nervousness. If you weren't nervous, you were really a thick-skinned philistine or someone who wasn't in tune with the times. Quite a few people really felt this way in the last few decades. At least you were only considered distinguished if you were decadent; you only had the new nobility, the true intellectual nobility, if you were decadent.
Let us first consider a type of decadent person as an example, so that we can then build on this to gain further, more general insights into worldview. As I said, just a type. It should also be treated only as a type, because there are numerous cases in the present day, and we could just as well consider another case.
Today, I would like to discuss the case of a relatively young man who died prematurely and wrote two sensational books. The first is called “Sex and Character,” and the second was published by his friends after his death and is titled “On the Last Things.” I am referring to Otto Weininger, who was regarded by many as a true genius of the present day. “Sex and Character,” a thick book he wrote, caused a great deal of sensation, and the judgments passed on this book are very, very different from one another. There are people who have presented this book as a new gospel, so to speak, fallen from the primal spirit of the present, who have claimed that the deepest truths of the present, even if one-sided, even if perhaps not entirely expressed, have been touched upon in this book “Sex and Character” by Otto Weininger. There are also other people, let us say, for example, those who are professional psychiatrists, who claim that the two books “Sex and Character” and “On the Last Things” belong in no other serious library than the library of insane asylums, and not even in the library that the patients read, but in the one that the doctors read in order to study a case of typical contemporary insanity in these two books.
You see, it is impossible to imagine two more extreme judgments. On the one hand, there is the adoration, bordering on worship, of a great, brilliant work; on the other, the condemnation of the same work as a product of complete insanity. Admittedly, there are some curious things in this book, “Sex and Character.” But it is only surprising to those who have not dealt intensively with some of the ideas that have come to the surface in recent decades.
Weininger begins by saying—not in these words, I must summarize a book this thick—that the way people have been viewed up to now is a philistine view, a pedantic view. And this philistine view, this pedantic view, has always believed that there are two kinds of people in the world: men and women. But only a true philistine can have such a prejudice that there are men and women in the world. Anyone who truly understands the world rises above this philistine judgment; for it is not true, says Weininger, that there are men and women: there are only male and female characteristics. He describes the masculine characteristics—expressing himself very correctly and diplomatically—as M, and the feminine characteristics as W. But according to Weininger, there is no individual in the world who is entirely M or entirely W. It would also be terrible if there were such an individual who could be described as entirely M or entirely W. For, says Weininger, what is a real woman? A real woman is not even something, but is the negation of something, is nothing. But there are individuals who are not really legitimate in the world, but only exist as Maja. Those individuals who merely mean F would not exist at all if they were merely F. The fact is rather that every human individual consists of M+W. Every human individual has some male and some female characteristics. If M predominates, the individual gives the impression of being a man; if W predominates, the individual gives the impression of being a woman. And because she still has a great deal of M in her, the woman is also something and not nothing. The basic character of a human individual now depends entirely on how much of M or W the individual in question has in them, on the mixture.
This is how Weininger views humanity, and he says that everything depends on finally giving up this old prejudice that men and women exist. A great deal, he believes, depends on finally realizing that every human individual is something because it has male characteristics—that it is a W with something insofar as it has male characteristics, and a W with nothing insofar as it has female characteristics. Every human being is therefore basically composed of something and nothing.
Well, the whole thick book is based on this view. And everything that happens in the world, from individual human life to historical life, is now viewed from this perspective, viewed mathematically. So, of course, Weininger finds the basic character of a human individual to be very strongly dependent on the quantity, the quantum, let us say, of W that is mixed with the human individual, of this nothingness that is mixed with the human individual. If a great deal of W is mixed in, a different human type emerges than if less W is mixed in.
Forgive me if I explain some of Weininger's train of thought. You may think that it is not even proper to explain everything in this way, but one must not bury one's head in the sand like an ostrich; one must learn about things. I am describing a type. Many people think this way, and many of those who think this way today are simply unaware of it. So please excuse me, for it is not my judgments that I am about to express, but Weininger's.
Let us assume that a great deal of W is mixed into a human individual, a certain maximum quantity; then we are dealing with a type of person who appears in the majestic form of a woman. If less is mixed in, then we are dealing with a different type who only looks like a woman on the outside. If a lot of W is mixed in, then we are dealing with the type of mother; if little is mixed in, then we are dealing with the type of hetaera. This gives us two new basic characters of human individuality: the mother and the hetaera. The mother is the most backward type of humanity; she hovers entirely in the lowest planes of existence and can only become the friend of the most philistine men, contributing nothing to cultural progress, because she is closest to nothingness, having the most W mixed in. If there is less W mixed in, we obtain the type of woman who can become the friend of genius men: the type of woman who is the hetaera, as Weininger puts it, who can participate in human cultural progress, who already lives in higher regions of existence.
The other type of human individuals, men—one can of course only say men if one uses the traditional expression—are divided into those who have a lot of M and those who have less M. Those who have a lot of M have the great advantage of being able to take on great guilt and do great evil; those who have little M are more in the lower regions of existence; they have less ability to do evil, to bring guilt into the world. What is the greatest guilt that individuals who have a lot of M in their nature can take on? What is the greatest guilt that exists within our limited physical historical existence? Yes, you see, I told you before that in Weininger's theory, W is actually nothingness. But how can nothingness exist in the world? Why does nothingness, W, exist in the world at all? What is this W, this nothingness, when you look at it more closely? It is nothing other than the guilt of man. So the W has no real existence at all, but is merely there because of the guilt of the M, so that women would not exist at all if men had not taken the guilt upon themselves through their desire to create women. Woman is a creature of male guilt. That is the fall of mankind.
Yes, all of you who outwardly look like women must imagine that, according to Weininger's theory, you were basically brought into existence through the fault of men in some unknown, occult way! This is, one might say, explained with great genius in the book, in the way that human genius has often been understood in recent decades. One critic even said of Weininger's literary achievement that it proves that one can still derive some pleasure from contemporary life, this philistine, pedantic contemporary life, because there are minds such as Weininger's!
The book is not meant to be frivolous; it is not merely a work of fiction. The man who wrote it earned his doctorate at a university with the first part of it—not with the whole thing, but with the first two or three pages. The first pages were accepted as a doctoral dissertation at a university. He later changed it slightly. Of course, when you write something brilliant, you have to make it a little pedantic when you're writing a doctoral dissertation, and he was naturally skilled at that. So it was taken very seriously, and some theories were then developed. The book caused a great stir, and not only that, it also had a great influence.
Let's take a closer look at the man himself. From the very beginning, Weininger was what you would call a gifted child, already expressing many clever thoughts at a very early age, which is something many parents are so happy about. He was a serious child who was interested in intellectual matters. When he started school, one cannot even say that he did not please his teachers—that goes without saying, does it not? But his teachers could not please him! Weininger always had to do something different from what his teachers wanted him to do, especially when he started high school. While the teachers said things that he found very boring, he read all sorts of things for himself. Others do that too, of course; you let him talk, he's not saying anything other than what's in the book, you can read that more quickly at home; and, well, under the desk—!
When he wrote essays, he sometimes caused astonishment, but also disgust, among the teachers who corrected them. He also refused to put up with anything at school. When he went to university, he proved to be a very gifted person who had many ideas about what was being discussed. Then he was deeply influenced by literature from various sources. The different intellectual movements at the end of the 1890s had a significant impact on him. The society in which he lived also had a profound effect on him. He lived in Vienna at the end of the nineteenth century in a circle of people who were rightly said to include many geniuses, but decadent geniuses at that. It was said of this circle in which Weininger lived at the turn of the century that the most talented among them, when they were twenty years old, considered Raphael a fool. At twenty, one is naturally a complete genius and reforms the world every day. He belonged to this group, but as a brilliant, talented person with ideas. After all, what I have presented to you are ideas. One may consider them as erroneous as possible, but they are ideas. They are also new ideas.
Weininger was particularly influenced by certain racial theories that were deeply rooted in our time. He was Jewish and became familiar at an early age with the development of humanity as it is ordered by the mystery of Golgotha, and he was very interested in Christ. He then developed a very peculiar theory. On the one hand, Christ was a Jew to him, but precisely because he was a Jew, he was able to overcome Judaism most intensely. A complete reversal, as he believed he observed in the development of humanity, made a deep impression on Weininger. And while he had previously defended his Judaism with a certain pessimism, he became elated at the thought of converting, becoming a Christian, following Christ's example, and changing his ways. And then something like a modern Christ poured into his ideas, except that Christ had freed humanity from evil, from sin, from original sin; but Weininger—he didn't say it, but you can see it was evident in his soul—believed that, because he had recognized something even deeper, he had to redeem modern humanity from everything feminine, from everything W; only then could human history continue to develop, when it was redeemed from everything W, not only from all sin; for if W no longer existed, then of course the guilt of M would no longer exist, because W is only the guilt of M. And Weininger saw this as a kind of fulfillment of Christianity, that he, as a Jew, could redeem humanity from the feminine; he saw this, in a sense, as his mission.
He had reached the age of twenty-one with such thoughts and feelings. In a relatively short time, he wrote this enormous book, Sex and Character, which contains a great deal of contemporary scholarship and science and is permeated with ideas of the kind I have outlined to you. Then a time came when he began to reflect on how a genius such as himself could not be understood in the present. All those individuals, he believed, in whom the W plays a special role, that is, all those who, according to their outward appearance, go through the world as women, and also those who, according to their outward appearance, are not women, but who have a large part of the W in them, Weininger could not understand from the outset; he had to dispense with them. That is, of course, far, far more than half of humanity. “Women will never understand me,” Weininger said to his father. They are completely sidelined.
Then, when his book was published, he was seized by a kind of wanderlust. He had to travel, and so he traveled to Italy. Here we can make a curious discovery, for it was there that he wrote down his ideas on his journey to Sicily, and these ideas were then published in his posthumous work “On the Last Things” by his friend Rappaport.
There are strange ideas in it, even more radical than those in the book “Sex and Character,” more radical ideas, but still of a very, very peculiar character, ideas that are all reminiscent of what we call imaginative knowledge, ideas covering pretty much the entire scope of human life, expressed aphoristically. Admittedly, what is said there about diseases, for example, is enough to convince any doctor that Weininger was completely insane. But all these ideas collected in the book Über die letzten Dinge are actually like imaginative knowledge, paradoxical, but like imaginative knowledge. They are structured in the manner of imaginative knowledge. Let's take one example: In humans, he said, evil arises and neurasthenia arises. Let's look at neurasthenia, says Weininger, and yes, we find that neurasthenia is growing everywhere outside, because the entire plant world is embodied neurasthenia! It is the parable of neurasthenia. If what lives in the plant world in its right place lives predominantly in humans, then humans become neurasthenic, because humans are, in a certain sense, plants, and they are neurasthenic to the extent that the plant element gains the upper hand. Paradoxical! A completely nonsensical idea, paradoxically expressed! One is tempted to say: something that should be kept within the realm of imaginative knowledge has been dragged into intellectual knowledge and thus turned into a caricature.
Similarly, he says, evil lives in human beings; but let us look around us: wherever there are dogs, evil lives. The dog is the symbol of evil. Just as humans are plants, and therefore neurasthenic, they are also like dogs, and therefore evil. It is, for example, perfectly true that all of the rest of nature is concentrated in humans; everything that is poured out in nature is in humans, it occurs within them. Deeply emotional insights emerge from Weininger's soul: he stands on a fire-spewing mountain. I will not repeat what he compares it to, but he sees the setting sun and says something like this: This setting sun is only bearable here on this ground, where you have the crater beneath you; otherwise it would be disturbing.
You see, this soul feels strangely: where other souls have beautiful, magnificent feelings at sunset, he can only bear it when it becomes a contrast. And so much is completely different in this soul than in other people. It is interesting how he describes what it is like when you meet people and look them in the eyes, how one being looks out of one eye and another out of the other. He captures it precisely; he has imaginative visions, but brings them to light in an insanely distorted way.
Then he comes home, full of complaints about the senselessness of the world, wondering how long it will take for something like what he has to write to be understood by the world. His father is thoroughly convinced, even though his son moved away because he couldn't live with the family, that he is dealing with a brilliant young man. He doesn't notice anything unusual about him, although he naturally disagrees with his ideas; but if all parents who disagree with the ideas of their sons or daughters wanted to consider them insane, wouldn't something beautiful come out of it?
Then one day he takes a room in Beethoven's death house. After living there for a few days, he shoots himself in a very calculated manner, having previously announced to a group of younger friends that he was going to shoot himself because that was in keeping with his individuality. He was about twenty-three years old. He shoots himself in Beethoven's death house.
Yes, now you see, we have a strange personality before us, and a typical personality. There are many like him, even if this is an extreme example, where certain ideas are developed in a particular way. There are many individuals among people today who are like Weininger. For the psychiatrist, it is quite natural that both the book “Sex and Character” and “On the Last Things” are crazy stuff. The psychiatrist compares Weininger's biography with the ideas he put forward and naturally finds signs of abnormality everywhere. There is hardly anyone in whom such signs cannot be found. It really depends more or less on one's subjective point of view. Only the psychiatrist does not know this. But as I said, it is easy to prove that there is something abnormal in someone who resists his teachers as Weininger did, reading books under his desk while the teacher was lecturing on something completely different. It is a questionable trait when someone considers himself a prophet, and it is a questionable trait when someone rents a room in Beethoven's death house in order to shoot himself there! Weininger has many such traits, and one must say that a psychiatric report written about Weininger is quite accurate, except that such a report could be written about many people. But it is nevertheless entirely accurate. What is most striking, however, is that one must nevertheless see a certain basic trait, a certain basic character of distorted, caricatured thoughts in “Sex and Character” and “On the Last Things.” One can readily admit that the whole thing is insane, but it must be interesting because of the way the thoughts are formed.
If one tries to understand this basic character through strict, spiritual, healthy science, one must say: We see how everything that expands out there in the world as a macrocosm is like a parable, how man is a microcosm that carries within himself everything that is outside. When this thought appears in Weininger, even in such a distorted form, caricatured, that the plant is embodied neurasthenia, the dog the embodiment of evil, then it is, I would say, conceived according to the model of imaginative knowledge, as when someone distorts true imaginative knowledge into caricature; but it is conceived according to the model of imaginative knowledge. And yet, basically, Weininger is a person who is completely useless in life, a person who is completely unsuitable for life in any way! For basically, no one can learn anything from the two books, and it is characteristic of our time that literary figures are often much more interested in such tests of strength than when imaginative knowledge confronts them as it should. That does not interest them. But when it confronts them in the form of crazy ideas, then they are interested.
So we are really dealing with imaginative insight that appears only as a caricature. What is actually going on here? Since a character like Weininger's is useless in life, we must be able to get to the bottom of what is actually going on. What exactly made Weininger this peculiar person? Yes, you see, if one had observed — I am saying this as a hypothesis, because I did not personally observe the Weininger case, but what I am saying as a hypothesis is certainly correct — if one had observed Weininger as a sleeping person during the times when he was sleeping soundly — which he will have done very little, admittedly — then one would have found that in the ego and in the astral body, which were outside the physical body during sleep, there really were grandiose intuitions and imaginations from the spiritual world. If we were to consider this ego and this astral body separately from the physical and etheric bodies, we would perceive a grandiose, ingenious soul with wonderful intuitions and imaginations that are remarkably accurate. This soul, properly understood, could indeed be a great teacher for our time; but it could only work as a teacher by allowing the physical body and the etheric body to sleep, and the students could only perceive what the ego and the astral body of the person concerned had to say to them in their sleeping state. But Weininger himself was not ready to perceive this. He was not alert enough to perceive it; he had not gone through what we call initiation in our time. So he himself knew nothing of what lived in his ego and in his astral body when he was outside his physical and etheric bodies. If Weininger had been destined to become a person who could mean a great deal to his fellow human beings today in a spiritual sense, how would he have had to become that person? Well, he would have had to become someone who, through initiation, was able to see outside his physical and etheric bodies the great abilities that could only emerge when the ego and the astral body were outside the physical and etheric bodies, and that he could then have submerged himself in the physical and etheric bodies in order to view what he perceived outside the physical and etheric bodies with the spiritual powers and abilities that one has in the physical and etheric bodies. In other words, if he had been awake here in the physical world, he would have had to regard his great ideas as inspirations and imaginations. He would not have had to believe that he had to produce them in the same way that one produces mathematical truths from the physical body.
Instead, something else happened. Instead, the following happened: Imagine that this was Weininger's physical body, this was his etheric body, and this was his astral body (it is drawn). If one were to observe this astral body with the I, one would see the most beautiful, most significant things. He himself had them. Now this astral body and the ego submerge into the physical body and are now inside it. Instead of the human being being able to separate himself and look at the astral, the astral presses itself into the physical body and becomes as alive in the physical body as only what a normal human being has in the astral body is otherwise alive. So what the astral body has in terms of great imagination, what should remain in the astral body, presses itself into the physical body. So that instead of being structured as is normal for humans in the current cycle, what should remain in the astral body is pressed into the brain like a soft wax mass. Imagine that the brain is really like butter or wax. Instead of having the form that it must have in humans, so that the astral body is submerged, as it were, like air that permeates it and leaves it unchanged, what should remain in the astral body is pressed into the brain. This is now expressed in the brain itself, and the human being, as a physical human being, expresses what he should express as a spiritual human being.
And how did this happen? How does this astral body work, pressing itself into the physical body, as it were, which it should not do? How does this happen?
Yes, my dear friends, there are good reasons why this is so; for what Weininger has expressed today as intuition and imagination are real ideas of the future! Please do not be disturbed by the thought that everything that has been developed here about the masculine and feminine is an idea of the future. These are not ideas of the future; they are caricatured ideas that have already been pressed into the brain. But they are really not just this M+F. When they are observed separately in there, they are something quite magnificent, something that humanity today does not yet understand, but will only understand in the future, when something will truly be poured out over humanity, whereby people will no longer stand opposite each other as they do today, through gender, but will stand opposite each other more as human beings. It is really true that when you observe them in isolation and do not explain them by forcing them into the physical body, there is something of the future in these ideas. But we must call all ideas future; for while you are now living here in the twentieth century, you are developing thoughts for the twentieth century; but in the background, in the astral body and in the I within, there are already the ideas that you will need for your next incarnation, which you must take with you as the fruit of your life here. They are already a little bit within every human being, but they are not coming out yet. Just as the seed is inside the plant, so the ideas for the next incarnation are already inside, working in the brain. What Weininger describes as the separate astral body and the ego in its physical and etheric bodies is wrong, because this should first be prepared during the time between death and a new birth and help build the next body. It would be right for it to press itself into the next body.
You see what this is about: the present and the next incarnation do not agree. They interfere with each other; they do not keep themselves properly apart. The next incarnation haunts the present incarnation. What would really be meaningful and right in the next incarnation haunts the present body, which it only disturbs, and appears here in caricatures.
I have often told you that we are now living in a time of transition, and there will come a time when the people living today will be reincarnated. These people will then have to relate to their previous incarnations in a different way. They will have to look back on their previous incarnation, unlike now, when everyone is only aware of their present incarnation. This is preparing itself, and irregularities are coming into play. And it is precisely with individuals such as Weininger that this comes about as an irregularity. It comes about as an irregularity right down to its ultimate consequences. For why do we actually die? So that we can live in the next incarnation! Among the many things that make death great is this: that we — I am speaking now of completed lives — when we live in an incarnation, pass through the gate of death, carry away the fruits of life, and build our next existence with these fruits. But dying is as much a part of life as being born or growing. Just as the plant is actually killed by the seed within it — the seed causes it to wither; first the leaves grow, then the flowers, then the fruits, and then it begins to wither — so, in a sense, our next incarnation kills us. If our next incarnation is complicated, twisted, it can also twist something of what it is supposed to do: it regularly brings about the death of the present incarnation. The next incarnation, which haunts the previous one: in Weininger, it brings death as a caricature, as suicide. This lack of harmony between what is supposed to rest in the present as the next incarnation, but instead haunts it, causes the caricature of death, suicide. You can trace this lack of harmony between the physical and etheric bodies on the one hand, and the ego and astral bodies on the other, in this human individual, right up to this consequence.
I would like to say that, highlighted as in a special example, we see something that lives in many things today. Only spiritual science will be able to understand this. But it is important to understand it where it appears in the present and to engage with it. For the uncomprehending literary scholar, Weininger may be the genius of the present; for the psychiatrist, he is a madman; for those who want to understand the times, who want to empathize with events with loving insight, he is the archetype of the transitional life of our time, one of the most interesting archetypes. It is important to approach life through such interesting examples. For it is here that the humanities become practical, because we live in a time when life is becoming increasingly difficult, when people are increasingly preoccupied with themselves, when self-knowledge is becoming increasingly difficult, and when the emergence of what is stirring and living beneath the surface, and which often seems so incomprehensible and depressing to us, is becoming increasingly oppressive. We must use the insights of the humanities to gain an understanding of what it means to be human.
We will continue this discussion tomorrow and develop it into a larger topic.