Earthly Death and Cosmic Life
GA 181
29 January 1918, Berlin
2. A Contribution to our Knowledge of the Human Being
In our studies we have often called attention to the aphorism written on the Greek Temple of Apollo, ‘Know thyself,’ which comes down to us along the ages. A tremendous challenge to strive after human wisdom as well as cosmic wisdom lies in this sentence. It receives a pregnant renewal, a deepening through the impulse given by the Mystery of Golgotha. If time admits we shall speak further of these matters in the course of this winter. We must seek the path to the goal to which it points.
To-day we shall start from an apparently external consideration of man, from an external form, as it were, of human self-knowledge, yet only apparently external, being a specially powerful force when man makes use of it in order to penetrate the inner nature of the human being. We shall start—apparently only—from the external human form.
We find a consideration of that outer human form in what is approved to-day as science, but in a sense somewhat unsatisfactory to the higher spiritual consideration. We might say: Anyone who wishes to know man as man, finds but little incitement to such knowledge in science, especially as practised at the present time. What science brings forward, what calls for discussion, can be seen from indications given in my book Riddles of the Soul. This book gives an essential and important foundation for a far-seeing knowledge of the human being; but such a foundation is not sought at the present time. Anatomy, physiology, etc., to-day contribute very little to enquirers who wish to penetrate seriously into the nature of man from a knowledge of his outer form. At the present time an artistic study really gives far more. It might be said that science leaves much unsatisfied. If a man will only decide to seek actual substantial truth in art, especially in an artistic consideration of the universe, he may find more truth in that way than by recognised science. In future times there will be a philosophy of life which will derive from Spiritual Science much that man cannot fathom to-day, a philosophy which will unite a scientific and an artistic perception of the world into a higher synthesis and harmony, based on a certain need of human knowledge. There will be much more clairvoyance in that than in the clairvoyance of which most people dream to-day but only dream.
On approaching the human form we at once perceive something of the utmost importance to it when we direct our attention—as we have doubtless all done more or less—to its centre of support, the skeleton. We have all seen a skeleton, and observed the difference between the head and the rest. We have observed that the head, the chief part, is in a sense an enclosed and isolated whole, which is, as it were, mounted on a column above the limb system and the rest of the human organism. We can very easily contrast the head resting on the skeleton, with the rest of the human form. If we thus turn our attention to the most superficial difference, it may strike us that the formation of the head is more or less spherical, it is not a perfect sphere, but spherically constructed. Now the investigator into Spiritual Science must warn students not to expect external superficial analogies to underlie a search for knowledge; but the concept of the human head as approaching a spherical form is no superficial observation, for man is really a kind of duality, and the spherical formation of his head is in no wise accidental. We must bear in mind what we actually have before us in the human head. The first indications of what is intended here is given in The Spiritual Guidance of Man, where I showed how the human head presents an image of the whole universe which surrounds us externally as a spatial globe, a hollow sphere.
In reviewing these things we must observe something which for the man of to-day lies far from the most essential kind of observation, something which he always employs, but not where it is of the utmost importance. It would not occur to anyone who takes a compass, a magnetic needle in hand, to seek in the needle itself the cause of its pointing with one end to the North and with the other to the South; the physicist feels himself compelled to regard the magnetic force proceeding from the needle, and the directing magnetic force coming from the North Pole of the earth, as a whole. The cause of what takes place in the small space of the needle is sought in the great universe. Yet this is not done in other cases where it should be done, and where it is of importance. If anyone—especially a scientist—observes that one living being is formed within another living being, as, for instance, the egg is formed in the body of the hen, he sees there how something forms in the smallest space; but what does not usually strike him is to apply what he knows of the magnetic needle and say, that the reason why the germ of the egg develops in the body of the hen lies in the entire cosmos, not in the hen. Exactly as the great universe has a part in the magnetic needle, so too the whole cosmos has a share in the hen's body,—no matter what other processes also take part in it—the whole cosmos in its spherical form co-operate. The processes that can be traced back through the line of heredity to the fore-fathers, only co-operate when the germ of the egg is formed in the maternal organism. That of course is heresy in the eyes of official science, but it is a truth. The forces of the cosmos co-operate in the most varied ways. Just as it is true that in the case of man (empirical embryology proves this) the head, in its germinal rudiments is formed from the whole universe,—the human head forms first in the maternal organism—so too is it true that, on the other hand, the original causative forces for this formation work from the whole cosmos, and man's head is an image of it. That to which the head is attached (the skeleton), if carefully observed, is seen in its configuration, its form, to be more connected with the line of heredity, with the father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, than with the cosmos outside. Thus even in relation to his origin, his development, man is primarily a dual being. On the one side his form is fashioned from the cosmos, which comes to light in the spherical form of his head, on the other, he is formed from the whole line of heredity, which can be seen in the rest of the organism attached to the head. The whole of man's outer formation shows him to be of a hybrid nature, it shows that he has a twofold origin.
A consideration of this kind has more than one significance, if by means of it we learn two quite different facts. Anyone studying men under the direction of ordinary official science, studying the development of the germ through the microscope—seeing only what is within its range (as though one wished to see by the magnetic needle itself why it is capable of pointing North and South)—lives in a mass of thought which make him immovable and unserviceable for outer life, especially if he proceeds accordingly in outer science. If man applies such thoughts to social science, they do not suffice; or they lead him to world schoolmastering, which in other words may be called Wilsonism. This is a question of what sort of thinking is called up in us, what thought-forms arise when we devote ourselves to certain thoughts. To ‘know’ about things is of less significance; the important point is the particular kind of knowledge, and of what service it is. If one has an open mind to see man's connection with the whole universe, thoughts will arise which lead to the ethical, juridical consideration of the world, which ought really to be the highest, but which to-day is considered somewhat strange. Thus we see, there are certain impulses required to seek such knowledge as is here meant, other than the satisfaction of—I will not say inquisitiveness—but of mere desire for knowledge.
Thus man stands before us as a compound being, a hybrid. This has a much deeper significance still. To-day I only wished to strike the keynote which is to call forth in us a feeling of the reality of what we are studying.
Let us adhere to the fact that in the further course of our life the head—which we have just encountered as an image of the whole cosmos—is really the intermediary for knowledge (I will not say the instrument, for that would not be quite correct). The head however is not the only intermediary. Let us keep to knowledge or perception of the world. The head acts as intermediary for this, but so does the rest of the man. As regards its origin, the rest of the man differs very much from the head, it is something quite different; thus man, in so far as he is a being of perception, consists of a head-man and a heart-man; because in the heart everything else is concentrated. We are, in fact, two men; a head-man, who stands with discernment in his relation to the world, and a heart man. The difference is, that as surely as he inveighs against that world, he uses his head solely in order to know. What is really at the root of this! To draw a parallel between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge would not lead to much. One able to understand with the heart what the head knows, would be ‘warmer’ in his knowledge than another. There would be a difference between the two men, but the difference would not be very great. If, however, facts were approached with the practical knowledge of Spiritual Science, they would appear in a very different light. We acquire knowledge, perception; it gradually comes to us. Then the following happens. Our relation to the world through our head, our perception and knowledge, takes place in a certain respect quickly; and the way in which we confront the world with the rest of our organism takes place slowly. Our head hurries on with its knowledge, the rest of the organism does not. This has a profoundly deep significance. In scholastic education we see only the training of the head; nowadays people only receive education for the head. This can be done by scholastic training, for, if the head has taken part slowly in the development of knowledge, only in exceptional cases does it close as late as the 20th year of life—in the case of most people it does not keep open so long. The head is then ready with its knowledge, its assimilation of the world. The rest of the organism needs the whole time up to death for this assimilation. We might say that in this respect the rate of the head is approximately three times as quick as that of the rest of the organism; the latter has more time and moves three times as slow; the rate is quite different. Hence one who through knowledge has the gift of clearly observing such things, is aware that having grasped something through the head it must wait until he has united it with the whole man. In order to receive something really full of life, after this absorption through the head has lasted about a day, a man must wait three or four days until he has completely absorbed it. The scientific spiritual investigator will never recount what he has received with the head alone, but what he has grasped with the whole man. That has an uncommonly comprehensive and profound significance. According to existing arrangements, we can only give our children a kind of head-knowledge; we do not give them a knowledge compatible with the rest of the organism. It stops at head-knowledge; a knowledge so prepared that it must be quickly accepted by the head and remembered later. Where it is a matter of education, however, one does not always remember later. One is thankful if the knowledge holds out even till the final examination. A knowledge in which the whole of the rest of the organism can be used would, under all circumstance, develop love, joy and appreciation for it when one remembered it later. How to mould education so that a man may look back upon his school time with warmth and joy, and may wish himself back, is connected with one of the deepest secrets of the mysteries of humanity.
In this domain there is a tremendous amount to be done. Anyone acquainted with such things, knows that everything now presented to children in particular, is previously so prepared that the rest of the organism does not receive it, and thus no future pleasure is prepared. This is connected with the fact that man's soul ages comparatively early in our time. One of the Mysteries of man is that when the head is 28 years old, the rest of his organism which follows in its development is only a third or fourth of this age. It maintains a rate three or four times as slow (other connections we have yet to learn). If we were to approach these mysteries as educators, a child might receive something so fruitful, so flourishing, that it would last until its death. Thus if he had received such things up to 25 years, and the time needed for this elaboration by the remaining organism was three times that period, it might take 75 years. Knowledge acquired by the head alone has not unlimited significance for man's whole being; it requires the inner deliberate experience gained by man in his whole being. Public life, however, is averse to this to-day, it will only accept head-wisdom. One can easily reckon the whole significance of what is intended by saying that up to 15 years of age a man might absorb through his head a certain number of ideas which, if directed to the administration of public affairs, would render him fit at 45 years of age to be chosen for state service of parliament, for he ought not to offer himself until he has become a whole man. Thus we may say that if at 15 years of age he can produce ideas of sufficient force to be elaborated by his whole nature, at 45 he would be mature enough to be chosen for the town council or parliament. The mode of view of the ancients, who possessed a living wisdom from the Mysteries, was based on such things. To-day, on the contrary, the endeavour is to set the age limit as low as possible, for everyone is regarded as being as mature at 20 as man used to be at 80. Insistent demands, however, cannot decide these things, but only true knowledge.
These things have a pregnant application to life. The whole of our modern public life takes into account only what people are as regards their heads; yet, while they have social relations only with the head (let us reflect that all social relations are only head-relations) such social relations are wholly unsuited to form a social life. For whence comes the head? The human head is not of this earth, but is brought forth from the cosmos. One cannot attend to earthly affairs with the head. One cannot be a nationalist with the head, or belong to any one part of the earth. With the head we can only determine what belongs to the whole universe. To be able to decide what belongs to the earth, we must grow together throughout life with what belongs to the earth, and what makes us citizens of the earth and not of the heavens. These things must be so. What may underlie public decisions must be drawn forth from deeper knowledge, beyond that of man himself. Further, we must bear in mind what Goethe expressed as ‘The thought of metamorphosis;’ this has a deep significance and far wider application than Goethe himself could make in his time.
Our head is formed from the cosmos. Consider the matter from Spiritual Science: we must say that throughout the time between death and rebirth in the cosmos itself we work in advance on the head. In a sense the head is the grave of the soul, respecting what the soul was before birth or conception. The activity we exercised in the spiritual life between death and rebirth there comes to rest; and to this, which is in a sense formed out of the spiritual world, there is then added that which belongs to the line of heredity. What then is this? It is still something connected with the head. As before remarked, all in man except the head is the germ of the head in the next incarnation. The whole of the remaining organism is something that can pass over to the head at the next incarnation. When we pass through the gate of death, the forces developed throughout life wrest themselves free from the rest of the organism but remain in the same forms borne by the rest of the organism during life; man carries these during the time between death and rebirth, and transforms them into his future head. Thus in our head we have always something which is a heritage from the former incarnation; and in the rest of our organism something which works determinately for the formation of our head in the coming incarnation. In this respect also we are of a twofold nature.
If we consider man as regards his cosmic relations, we find that in reality he does not only arise and develop in the divisions of time and space which we have before us in outer physical view, but stands in a tremendously great relationship. It is especially fascinating not only to look, as Goethe did, at a bone of the vertebral column and then at the bones of the head, saying that the bones of the head are only transformed vertebrae; but to see that all pertaining to the head is also part of the rest of the organism. It needs, however, an exceptionally unbiased observation to recognise not only the nose, for instance, and all belonging to the head as having been thus remodelled, but that also all belonging to the rest of the organism, though at a younger stage of metamorphosis, has in an earlier metamorphosis all been changed to what now meets us in the head.
In matters of educational science the consequences of such a view are extremely important; and some day man's thinking will turn to the knowledge of Spiritual Science, when momentous demands for a practical educational science arise.
One thing especially is significant. In life we grow old, but in reality we can only say that our physical body grows old; for, strange as it may seem, the etheric body, the nearest spiritual part of our being, grows younger. The older we grow the younger becomes our etheric body; and as we become wrinkled and bald as regards the physical body, we become—at least the etheric body does—chubby and blooming. As external nature provides that our physical body shall grow old, we must certainly take care that our etheric body is provided with youthful forces. We can only do this if through the head we introduce such sustenance of spiritual ideas that they suffice for working into the whole life. The investigator of Spiritual Science can have some idea of how children ought to be taught in earliest childhood that man is an image of the whole universe, an image of the divinely wise cosmic ordering; and this should be grasped directly and simply, not by reciting Bible words imperfectly understood. All this must be drawn from the spirit or sources of Spiritual Science, then there will be a richer head-wisdom than that of to-day. During man's lifetime that will be a source of rejuvenation, whereas our present system of education is quite the contrary. If to-day in spite of early education, we are in the fortunate position not to be terribly bad-tempered, it is because the present method of providing for the head (which was prepared approximately 400 hundred years ago and has now reached its zenith) has not yet been able to ruin so much of what still remain, as hereditary culture from older times. If, however, we continue to instruct the head only, we are going the right way to become really bad-tempered. In the last years before the war there was a great leaning towards ‘sanatoria,’ great measures were taken to do away with ‘nervous conditions.’ This is all connected with the fact that the head is not given what the whole man needs. I have mentioned how seldom one finds the right thing done for these things, for I remember an occasion a few years ago when I went to visit someone at a sanatorium. We arrived at mid-day. All the patients walked past us. Some of these were remarkable persons; their nervous condition was partly written on their faces and partly on their fidgeting hands and feet. I then made the acquaintance of the most fidgety and nervous of them all—the medical superintendent. It must be said that a medical director cannot find a cure for his patients if he is himself the one who needs it most. In other respects he was an extremely loveable man; but he was an example of those who, in their youth at any rate, have not absorbed what can keep them young throughout their lives. Such things cannot be changed by any kind of isolated reform, nor can the relationships be changed that way; they can only be improved when the whole social organism is improved. Therefore attention must be directed to that. The great cosmic laws have provided that man as a solitary individual cannot gratify his egoism in such spheres, but can, as it were, only find his welfare when he seeks it together with others.
Thus it appears to me, as it must to everyone who does not live absorbed in material things (as is customary to-day) but is able to look beyond to the super-sensible from which must come the reformation of the world in the near future—it appears to me that in this sphere, as well as in others, Spiritual Science can be introduced into life in such a way that it will come to pass that men can, in an upright, honourable way, work out something in the concrete to which Spiritual Science can give the impulse. As I have often said, there is no need to press towards visionary clairvoyance, but we must learn to understand man as a likeness of the cosmic spiritual nature, then spirituality will come of itself. It is impossible to understand man in his entirety without investigating the spiritual underlying his nature and keeping that in view. One thing is necessary;—I have often emphasised this—the renunciation of intellectual laziness, a fault so terribly persistent in relation to all questions of the philosophy of life. Our whole study of Spiritual Science shows us that man must go forward step by step, that he must be disposed to go into details and thence build up a whole, so that starting, as it were, from the nearest sensible, he can rise to the super-sensible. This he can easily do, for anyone who regards the human head in the right way sees in it something modelled from the whole universe, and in the rest of the organism something also organised into the universe in order to come back in the next incarnation. By rightly observing what is obvious to the senses, one can rightly arrive at the super-sensible. One must, however, be willing to admit that if one wishes to understand the construction of man, the same trouble must be taken as would he necessary—e.g., if one wished to understand the mechanical action of a watch; one would have to bear in mind the connection of the wheels, etc. Yet it is supposed that one can talk of man's highest being without the requisite trouble being taken to gain knowledge of man's nature. It is very frequently pleaded that ‘Truth must be very simple’—and the accusation is made against Spiritual Science that it is very complicated. Man longs to acquire in five minutes—or in less time—what is necessary for the knowledge of his highest being; whereas he is by nature a complicated being, his greatness in the universe is due to that very fact, and we must overcome the tendency to indolence in respect of knowledge if we really wish to penetrate to the human entity. In our time there is no understanding of what is needful for one who wishes to put himself in a position to penetrate even dimly the whole complexity of human nature; for because we only cultivate head-wisdom, because we do not wish the whole man to elaborate what the head learns, nothing is given to the head which can be worked upon by the rest of the man, and we thereby place man in the social order in such a position that his earthly life cannot become a reflection of a super-sensible spiritual life. We are subject to a remarkable cleavage, one not like the others already mentioned, but an injurious cleavage which must be overcome.
Human life has changed in course of evolution. To observe this we need only go back four centuries, indeed not so far. Anyone acquainted with the spiritual history of life—not the ordinary historical literature—knows how tremendously the life and thought of the 18th century differed from that of the 19th. We need only go a little way back to see how the whole of human life has changed in four centuries. Human thinking has wholly changed, ideas formed before the 20th century have gradually become more and more abstract, they have become ideas of the head. When we compare the rich ideas of the 13th and 14th centuries with the natural science of this 19th century, we find an impressive difference in the abstract ideas, the dry conformity to law of the present day. There is a very interesting book by Valentine of Bâle, containing very interesting matter. A short while ago a Swedish scholar wrote a book on ‘Matter,’ quoting various things from Valentine, and his judgment is ‘Let him who can, understand it; no one can.’ We very readily believe that he could not, for, read with the ideas derived from modern physics and chemistry, Valentine is quite incomprehensible. This is connected with such facts as the good old practical wisdom of life: ‘The morning has both God and gold in its hand,’ which has been changed in course of time to ‘The early bird catches the worm.’ The good European saying has been Americanised.
With regard to the description and comprehension of Nature, those older times were permeated with what comes from the whole man. To-day it is head-knowledge. Therefore on the one side it is abstract, dry, and does not fill a man's whole life to the end, yet on the other side it is very spiritual. This dual nature is really present, so that we actually do engender what is most spiritual; for these abstract ideas are the most spiritual that can be, yet they are incapable of grasping the Spirit. It is astonishingly easy to perceive the cleavage in which man is involved through the spiritual ideas he has developed. It is precisely in them that he has become so remarkably materialistic. When these ideas come in the right way, however, materialism never arises from them. The simple existence of abstract ideas is the first refutation of materialism. In this duality we live. We have been tremendously intellectualised for four centuries, and in this spiritual, which we only possess in the abstract, we must find again the living spiritual. We have risen to objective concepts; we must get back to Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. We have cast aside what has been handed down to us of old primeval wisdom in Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition. We must now recover it, after having so wholly discarded the richness of the knowledge of man's whole being. This is a truth which will fill us with a sense of the seriousness of Spiritual Science.
The object of these two somewhat introductory lectures is to show how, from the most external observation of man, an impulse may arise to apply one's intelligence to that which spiritually underlies the world. In the pursuit of these impulses and ideas something will come to humanity which to-day is so terribly lacking: viz., INNER SINCERITY. Man cannot really strive fruitfully after the Spirit if he does not do so in inner sincerity, and he will never go astray if he acquires knowledge through life's experience; true harmony is only possible between head-wisdom and heart-wisdom when man adopts the right relationship towards life. The man of to-day does not wish to lead head-wisdom over to heart-wisdom, because the latter not only takes longer, but even reacts against the former, and thrusts it back when it is untrue. In this way the rest of the man then makes itself felt as a kind of conscience. The humanity of the present, with a bias towards the head-wisdom only, shrinks from this.
In conclusion, a few directly practical remarks—since when we are thus gathered together we must contemplate the efforts of spiritual science in the whole world.
Spiritual Science can only flourish if people take it in sincerity, with earnestness; for it is just this which at the present time can satisfy man's deepest needs. It must meet those qualms of conscience which easily arise when the heart says ‘no’ to the head—as it always does when the spiritual is not sought, or when knowledge is only sought from pure egoism, greed, ambition, etc. For this reason it is necessary to allow no compromise in any quarter. Spiritual Science must be followed positively for its own sake; no compromise can be made with half and half incomplete things; it is too serious a matter. I may perhaps here introduce a few personal remarks, though not intended personally. A great proportion of the opposition to Spiritual Science can only be understood when man has in view its origin and development. Here or there someone appears, for instance, who turns furiously against Spiritual Science. There are other cases, but in many instances opposition arises as in the following concrete case.
Once, when I was in Frankfort-on-Main, to give lectures, someone telephoned that a gentleman wished to speak to me. I had no objection, and said that I could see him then and there. He came, and said, ‘I have been travelling about after you for a long time, hoping to speak with you.’ I had nothing either for or against that, and he then talked of all sorts of other things. Spiritual Science, however, can only be taken seriously, and much that ‘shows off’ and wishes to appear clever, must be rejected. No compromise can be made. I was not discourteous to this man, but I sent him away letting him see that I would take no further notice of him. I was convinced that he talked much nonsense, for which he hoped to find support in me. (What I am now relating is for the purpose of describing certain occurrences.) I had to send the man away. He said much that was extremely flattering, but the only question was whether his aspirations for Spiritual Science were at all genuine. Soon after advertisements appeared in Switzerland announcing that this man was to speak of the ‘demoniacal,’ ‘devilish’ character of Steiner's Spiritual Science. I might relate the subsequent history of this matter, but I shall not do so. This is one of the ways that opposition shows itself. Often people come forward who really seek some kind of connection with Spiritual Science and whose quest must be disregarded.
In connection with this I may mention that our friend Dr. Rittelmeyer wrote a short time ago in a periodical, an article on the attitude of Spiritual Science to religion, endeavouring to reply to many other prejudices against spiritual science, in a way worthy of appreciation and thanks. Now Dr. Johannes Müller, who is well known, has felt it his duty to write a series of three articles in the same paper against Dr. Rittelmeyer. It is really not my task to go into what Dr. Johannes Müller has written, for it has been my endeavour throughout many years not to talk of him, with the motive of keeping Spiritual Science free from superficial pursuits and any entanglement in compromise. This is best attained by not worrying or at least not troubling to speak about what ostensibly must work by its own merit, if it is to work at all. I have never mentioned Dr. Johannes Müller in any particular connection. In our time there is not much feeling for truth or untruth in these domains. Looking over Johannes Müller's articles, it will be seen that they contain much that is called forth either by carelessness or what might be called objective untruth. They are full of it. These things must be kept well in mind. In the book, Riddles of the Soul, I have described one such case: the false statements of Dessoir. I am now very curious, for something must inevitably follow from what a professor of the Berlin University is proved to have written. Let people but read the second article in Riddles of the Soul upon Professor Dessoir's method of working. Of course anyone who now writes on Dessoir without taking into account the article before us is accessory to these things; but to-day people will not take these things seriously; they excuse themselves by saying ‘I have not read it,’ as if someone who made a statement had not properly given his attention to the matter. Now it can easily be proved that Johannes Müller's accusations are untrue: namely, that my lectures pander to man's love of sensation. In any town where Spiritual Science has as yet no footing, very few people as a rule attend my lectures; where many come, it is because in such places Spiritual Science has been made known and worked for. I will not go further into the matter than to allude to the last part of Johannes Müller's article, which launches forth, saying that I speak of a ‘Divine Drama’ through which man is to be saved, and the like, and where he fills a column and a-half by quoting a few sentences from Christianity as Mystical Fact, which he tears out of their context as they strike him, until through his omissions, what he quotes becomes absolute nonsense. In my book on Christianity I said the very opposite of what he quotes of the ‘Divine Drama’ and its magic. Johannes Müller excuses himself by saying that he was not able to understand my writings. Of that I am confident! Without understanding this book in the very least, he has undertaken to criticise it! I have often called attention to the fact that this book places the Mystery of Golgotha in contradistinction to all other Mysteries, as the central point of Evolution. Of this Johannes Müller has no perception. I should never expect him to understand my book, I do not think he could; yet he criticises it. It is remarkable that this book was published in 1902; so that in 1906 it had been under discussion for four years. It was known that in the first edition I had set forth my relation to Natural Science on the one side and to Philosophy on the other. Christianity as Mystical Fact has since become known. Now if it was not known to Johannes Müller, that is his affair; but I mention that it was known in 1906, and was just as much connected with my general philosophy of life as Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, for instance. Anyone who formed an opinion of me in 1906 ought to do so from the whole aspect of my conception of the universe, and should not really select fragments. In the year 1906, it is a fact that Christianity as Mystical Fact was four years old. In that year, however, Johannes Müller's book on The Sermon of the Mount was sent to me. The dedication of that book is: ‘To Dr. Steiner, in grateful remembrance of Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, Mainberg, 17. viii. 1906.’ This is one of those circumstances which I am compelled to ignore, for it was not possible to compromise in the direction of which I have spoken, and I considered it within my duty when approached in this way, to be silent, instead of saying: ‘I see your meaning on this or that point.’ Sometimes, however, silence annoys people more than anything else. I said that one should look for the opposition to Spiritual Science in its real relations. I could tell of even more annoying things, but anyone who now reads Dr. Johannes Müller's articles against our friend Dr. Rittelmeyer, will perhaps do well not to look for the opposition in these things alone, but in other things too, such as the few just cited. One must seek everywhere for much more sincere reasons than those lying on the surface. It is vexing when one man approaches another with ‘in grateful remembrance of the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity,’ and the other turns away and gives no answer.
I did not wish to keep from you this slight contribution to the psychology of Johannes Müller, so that you might see matters more clearly than through his articles alone.
Zweiter Vortrag
Es ist öfter im Zusammenhange unserer Betrachtungen aufmerksam gemacht worden auf den durch die Zeiten leuchtenden, an dem griechischen Apollotempel stehenden Spruch «Erkenne dich selbst!». Vieles, unendlich vieles von Aufforderung, nach Menschenweisheit und damit nach Weltenweisheit zu streben, liegt in diesem Spruch. Der Spruch hat allerdings eine bedeutsame Erneuerung, eine Vertiefung erfahren durch den Impuls, den das Mysterium von Golgatha gegeben hat. Von allen diesen Dingen werden wir vielleicht, wenn die Zeiten es gestatten, im Verlaufe dieses Winters noch zu sprechen haben. Wir werden versuchen, den Weg zu finden gerade zu solchen Zielen, die damit angedeutet sind.
Da möchte ich denn heute ausgehen von einer scheinbar äußerlichen Betrachtung des Menschen, also gewissermaßen von einer äußerlichen Form der menschlichen Selbsterkenntnis, die aber nur scheinbar eine äußerliche ist, die trotzdem eine erste, gewichtige Kraft ist, wenn man sich ihrer bemächtigt, um auch in das innere Wesen des Menschen einzudringen. Ich möchte ausgehen, aber eigentlich doch nur scheinbar ausgehen von der äußeren menschlichen Gestalt.
Eine Betrachtung dieser äußeren menschlichen Gestalt findet man heute in dem, was als Wissenschaft anerkannt ist, eigentlich nur mehr in einem Sinne, der für eine höhere Geistbetrachtung ziemlich unbefriedigend ist. Man darf schon sagen: Wer heute den Menschen als Menschen erkennen will, findet wenig Anregung zu solcher Menschenerkenntnis in der Wissenschaft, allerdings in der Wissenschaft, so wie sie eben in der Gegenwart getrieben wird. Denn, was diese Wissenschaft schon hervorgebracht hat, was vorliegt, das können Sie wiederum aus den verschiedenen Andeutungen meines letzten Buches «Von Seelenrätseln» ersehen. Dieses Buch gibt wichtige, bedeutungsvolle Bausteine zu einer weitausblickenden Erkenntnis des menschlichen Wesens. Aber diese Bausteine werden eben gegenwärtig nicht gesucht. Und was heute Anatomie, Physiologie und so weiter bieten, gibt sehr wenig dem Fragenden, der ernsthaft in das Wesen des Menschen aus einer Erkenntnis der äußeren physischen Menschengestalt eindringen will. Da gibt heute im Grunde genommen viel mehr dasjenige, was künstlerische Betrachtungsweise ist. Man darf schon sagen: Vieles läßt heute die Wissenschaft unbefriedigt. Und wenn jemand sich nur entschließen kann, im Goetheschen Sinne auch in der Kunst, namentlich in der künstlerischen Betrachtung der Welt wirkliche, substantielle Wahrheit zu suchen, so findet er vielleicht heute mehr Wahrheit auf diese Weise, als bei dem, was anerkannte Wissenschaft ist. Es wird in der Zukunft eine Weltanschauung geben, welche gerade die aus der Geisteswissenschaft hervorgegangene sein wird, so wenig man das heute noch durchschauen kann. Eine Weltanschaung wird es geben, die aus einem gewissen menschlichen Erkenntnisbedürfnis wissenschaftliches Empfinden der Welt und künstlerisches Empfinden der Welt in einer höheren Synthese und Harmonie vereinigen wird. Darin wird dann viel mehr Hellsehen sein als in jenem Hellsehen, von dem heute mancher Mensch träumt, aber eben nur träumt.
Wenn wir an die menschliche Gestalt herantreten, so können wir zunächst etwas Wichtiges an ihr wahrnehmen, wenn wir unseren Blick richten — was Sie gewiß mehr oder weniger alle schon getan haben auf diesen Grundstock der menschlichen Gestalt, der uns im Skelett entgegentritt. Sie alle haben gewiß schon ein menschliches Skelett gesehen und die Differenzierung bemerkt, welche zwischen dem Kopfteil und der übrigen Menschengestalt besteht. Sie werden dabei bemerkt haben, daß der Kopf, das Haupt, in einer gewissen Weise eine abgeschlossene Ganzheit ist, die eigentlich wie auf einer Säule auf alledem aufsitzt, was das Gliedsystem, was den übrigen menschlichen Organismus ausmacht. Man kann sehr leicht beim Skelett den auf dem übrigen menschlichen Organismus ruhenden Kopf abheben. Wenn Sie in dieser Weise die oberflächlichste Differenzierung ins Auge fas‚sen, kann Ihnen auffallen, daß der Kopf, das Haupt, eigentlich mehr oder weniger annähernd kugelförmig gestaltet ist; es ist keine vollkommene Kugelform, aber es ist die Kugelform veranlagt im menschlichen Haupt. Nun muß man als geisteswissenschaftlicher Forscher sogar davor warnen, äußere oberflächliche Analogien einer Erkenntnisbestrebung zugrunde zu legen. Aber die Anschauung des menschlichen Hauptes als der Kugelform sich annähernd ist keine oberflächliche Betrachtung der Form des menschlichen Hauptes; denn der Mensch ist wirklich eine Art Zweiheit zunächst, und die Kugelgestalt seines Hauptes ist keineswegs etwas Zufälliges. Man muß nur ins Auge fassen, was man eigentlich an dem menschlichen Haupt vor sich hat. Erste Andeutungen zu dem, was ich hier meine, wurden gegeben innerhalb unserer geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachtungen in der Schrift, die ich benannt habe «Die geistige Führung des Menschen und der Menschheit», worin ich schon angedeutet habe, wie in der Tat das menschliche Haupt ein Abbild darstellt des ganzen Universums, des gerade uns äußerlich als Raumkugel, als Hohlkugel entgegentretenden Universums.
Wenn man diese Dinge bespricht, muß man auf etwas aufmerksam machen, was dem heutigen Menschen für die wichtigste Art der Betrachtung noch fern liegt, was er auf einem Gebiete immer anwendet, was er aber gerade da nicht anwenden will, wo es von ungeheurer Tragweite ist. Niemandem, der einen Kompaß, eine Magnetnadel in die Hand nimmt, und wenn diese Magnetnadel mit einem Ende nach dem magnetischen Nordpol, mit dem andern nach dem magnetischen Südpol gerichtet ist, wird es heute einfallen, die Ursachen dafür, daß diese Magnetnadel sich gerade so richtet, bloß in der Magnetnadel selbst zu suchen; sondern der Physiker wird sich gedrängt fühlen, die Magnetnadel und die von dem magnetischen Nordpol der Erde ausgehende magnetische Kraft als ein Ganzes anzusehen, indem diese magnetische Kraft das eine Ende der Nadel nach dem Nordpol richtet und das andere nach dem Südpol. Da sucht man die Veranlassung zu dem, was in der Magnetnadel im kleinsten Raume geschieht, in dem großen Universum. Dasselbe macht man jedoch nicht, wo man es auch machen sollte, wo es aber sehr darauf ankommen würde, daß man es machte. Wenn jemand heute wahrnimmt - und zwar gerade als Wissenschafter -, daß sich in einem Lebewesen ein anderes Lebewesen bildet, also zum Beispiel, wenn jemand wahrnimmt, daß sich im Huhn das Ei bildet, so geschieht auch etwas im kleinsten Raume; da aber fällt es dem Menschen gewöhnlich nicht ein, das, was er sich bei der Magnetnadel sagen muß, jetzt auch anzuwenden und zu sagen: Es liegt nicht im Huhn, sondern im ganzen Kosmos, daß sich im Huhnkörper der Eikeim bildet. - Gerade so aber, wie an der Magnetnadel das große Universum beteiligt ist, so ist im Huhnkörper, im Mutterhuhn - trotz aller Vorgänge, die daran mitbeteiligt sind — der ganze Kosmos in seiner Sphärengestalt, in seiner Kugelgestalt beteiligt. Diejenigen Vorgänge, die in der Vererbungslinie zurückführen zu den Vorfahren, wirken bloß mit, wenn sich im Mutterorganismus der Eikeim bildet. Das ist heute noch eine Ketzerei gegenüber der offiziellen Wissenschaft, aber doch eine Wahrheit. Und in der verschiedensten Weise wirken die Kräfte des Kosmos mit. Und so wahr es ist, daß sich in der Tat beim Menschen - das, was ich sage, beweist die empirische Embryologie — das Haupt, in seiner Keimanlage zunächst, aus dem ganzen Universum herausbildet, so wahr es ist, daß das menschliche Haupt zuerst im Mutterorganismus entsteht, so wahr ist es auf der andern Seite, daß die ursächlichsten Kräfte zu dieser Entstehung aus dem ganzen Kosmos heraus wirken und daß der Mensch in seinem Haupte ein Abbild ist des ganzen Kosmos. Nur das, was am Haupte hängt, das Skelett, kann man sagen -— wenn man es nur besonders beachtet -, das ist eigentlich in seiner Konfiguration, in seiner Formung mehr zusammenhängend mit dem, was in der Vererbungslinie liegt, was mit Vater und Mutter, Großvater und Großmutter zusammenhängt, als mit dem, was im Kosmos draußen ist. So ist auch in bezug auf seine Entstehung, in bezug auf seine Entwickelung der Mensch ein Doppelwesen, zunächst. Er ist seiner Gestalt nach auf der einen Seite aus dem Kosmos herausgebildet, und das kommt in der Kugelgestalt seines Hauptes zum Vorschein; er ist auf der andern Seite herausgebildet aus der ganzen Vererbungsströmung, und das kommt in dem ganzen übrigen Organismus, der ani Kopfe hängt, zum Vorschein. Die ganze äußere Formung des Menschen zeigt ihn uns als ein Zwitterwesen, zeigt uns, daß er einen doppelten Ursprung hat.
Eine solche Betrachtungsweise hat nicht nur die Bedeutung, daß wir durch sie etwas wissen lernen, sondern noch eine ganz andere. Wer heute nach der Anleitung der gewöhnlichen offiziellen Wissenschaft den Menschen betrachtet, wer zum Beispiel ins Mikroskop hineinschaut und den Keim sich entwickeln sieht, und nur das sieht, was dadrinnen ist — so wie man an der Magnetnadel etwa sehen wollte, warum diese die Fähigkeit hat, sich so in der Richtung von Nord nach Süd einzustellen —, der lebt in einem Gedankenmassiv, das ihn unbeweglich macht und unbrauchbar für das äußere Leben, besonders wenn man so vorgeht wie in der äußeren Wissenschaft. Und wendet man solche Gedanken auf die Sozialwissenschaft an, so genügen sie nicht, oder sie führen zur Weltenschulmeisterei, die man mit einem andern Worte auch «Wilsonianismus» nennen kann. Es handelt sich also darum, welches Denken in uns herangezogen wird, welche Formen in unseren Gedanken entstehen, indem wir uns gewissen Gedanken hingeben. Zu wissen über die Dinge, ist das, was noch die geringere Bedeutung hat. Was in uns die bestimmte Art des Wissens macht, welche Brauchbarkeit sie mit sich bringt, das ist es, worauf es ankommt. Und wenn man einen offenen Sinn dafür hat, den Menschen in Zusammenhang mit dem Weltenganzen anzuschauen, dann werden in uns auch diejenigen Gedanken erweckt, welche in die ethische Weltbetrachtung, in die juristische Weltbetrachtung hineinführen, die in Wirklichkeit die höchste sein soll, die aber heute eben etwas ganz Sonderbares ist. Sie sehen also, es gibt gewisse andere Impulse noch, um ein solches Wissen, wie es hier gemeint ist, aufzusuchen, als die Befriedigung, ich will nicht sagen, der Neugier, sondern der bloßen Wißbegierde.
So steht der Mensch vor uns als ein Doppelwesen, als ein Zwitterwesen. Das hat eine viel tiefere Bedeutung noch. Und ich möchte heute nur die Grundtöne anschlagen, die uns beschäftigen sollen, um in Ihren Seelen ein Gefühl von der Wichtigkeit dessen, was wir betrachten, hervorzurufen.
Bleiben wir dabei stehen, daß das Haupt im weiteren Verlaufe unseres Lebens - das Haupt, das uns jetzt entgegentritt als ein Abbild der ganzen Welt - im wesentlichen der Vermittler ist für unser Erkennen, ich will nicht sagen das Werkzeug, denn ich würde damit etwas nicht ganz Richtiges aussprechen. Aber nicht das Haupt allein ist der Vermittler für unser Erkennen — bleiben wir beim Erkennen, beim Wahrnehmen der Welt -, das Haupt vermittelt es, aber auch der übrige Mensch. Und da der übrige Mensch, sogar seinem Ursprunge nach, von dem Haupte ganz verschieden ist, etwas anderes ist, so besteht der Mensch, auch insofern er Erkennender ist, aus dem Kopfmenschen und - ich nenne ihn so, wie ich ihn schon früher genannt habe — dem Herzensmenschen, weil sich im Herzen das andere alles konzentriert. Wir sind in der Tat zwei Menschen: ein Kopfmensch, der wahrnehmend zu der Welt in Beziehung steht, und ein Herzensmensch. Der Unterschied ist der, daß der Mensch, so sehr er manchmal auf die Welt schimpft, lediglich seinen Kopf benutzt zur Erkenntnis. Was liegt dem eigentlich zugrunde? Wenn man Parallelen ziehen würde zwischen der Kopferkenntnis und der Herzenserkenntnis, so würde nicht viel dabei herauskommen. Es würde der, welcher mit dem Herzen zu erfassen vermag, was der Kopf erkennt, wärmer sein in seiner Erkenntnis als der andere. Es würde eine Differenzierung unter den Menschen geben, aber der Unterschied würde nicht sehr groß sein. Wenn man aber nun mit der geisteswissenschaftlichen Erfahrung an die Dinge herantritt, so stellt sich etwas ganz ‚ anderes heraus. Erkenntnisse, Wahrnehmungen eignet man sich ja an. Nach und nach geschieht es, daß die Wahrnehmungen, die Erkenntnisse an uns herankommen. So ist denn das Folgende der Fall. Wie wir uns mit dem Kopfe zur Welt verhalten, wie wir da wahrnehmen und erkennen, das geschieht in einer gewissen Beziehung schnell; und wie wir uns mit dem übrigen Organismus zur Welt erkennend verhalten, das geschieht langsam. Zu all dem übrigen an Differenzierungen, was ich schon im vorigen Winter in bezug auf die Entwickelung der Welt und der Menschen angeführt habe, kommt noch hinzu, daß unser Kopf mit seinem Erkennen eilt, der übrige Organismus nicht eilt. Das hat eine ungeheuer tiefe Bedeutung. Wenn wir schulmäßig erzogen werden, sieht man eigentlich nur auf die Kopferziehung. Die Menschen werden heute nur für den Kopf erzogen; das können sie schulmäßig machen. Denn der Kopf schließt im äußersten Falle, wenn er sich lange an der Erkenntnisentwickelung beteiligt aber bei den meisten Menschen geht es nicht so weit -, in den Zwanzigerjahren des Lebens ab. Dann ist der Kopf fertig mit seinem Erkennen, mit seinem Aneignen der Welt. Der übrige Organismus braucht dafür die ganze Zeit bis zum Tode. Und man kann schon sagen: Der Kopf geht in dieser Beziehung ungefähr dreimal so schnell wie der übrige Organismus; der übrige Organismus hat Zeit, er geht dreimal langsamer, er macht ein ganz anderes Tempo. Daher ist es für den, der die Gabe hat, solche Dinge durch Erkenntnis zu beobachten, klar, daß er, wenn er irgend etwas ergriffen hat durch den Kopf, warten muß, bis er es mit dem ganzen Menschen vereinigt hat. Um etwas als etwas Lebensvolles aufzunehmen, muß man wirklich, wenn das Aufnehmen durch den Kopf etwa einen Tag gedauert hat, drei bis vier Tage warten, bis man es voll aufgenommen hat. Der gewissenhafte Geistesforscher wird nie das erzählen, was er nur mit dem Kopfe aufgenommen hat, sondern nur das, was er mit seinem ganzen Menschen begriffen hat. Das hat eine außerordentliche, weit- und tiefgehende Bedeutung.
Wir können heute eigentlich unseren Kindern nach den bestehenden Einrichtungen nur eine Art von Kopfwissen geben, wir geben ihnen nicht ein Wissen, das der übrige Organismus verträgt. Es bleibt beim Kopfwissen, bei einem Wissen, das schon so präpariert ist, daß es schnell aufgenommen werden muß durch den Kopf, und daß man sich später daran erinnern kann. Zwar bei Gegenständen, wo es sich um den Unterricht handelt, erinnert man sich später nicht mehr daran, da ist man froh, wenn man die Dinge nur bald nach dem letzten Examen wieder weg hat. Ein Wissen, das ganz von dem übrigen Organismus verarbeitet werden kann, es würde unter allen Umständen später, wenn man sich wieder daran erinnerte, Liebe, Freude, Herzlichkeit dafür entwickeln. Mit den tiefsten Geheimnissen der Mysterien der Menschheit hängt es zusammen, wie man den Unterricht gestalten soll, damit der Mensch später zeitlebens, wenn er auf seine Unterrichtszeit zurücksieht, sich mit Herzlichkeit, mit Freude, mit einer gewissen Beseligung danach zurücksehnen kann.
Auf diesem Gebiete ist ungeheuer viel zu tun. Denn wer mit den einschlägigen Dingen bekannt ist, der weiß, daß alles, was wir heute insbesondere an Kinder heranbringen, schon von vorneherein so präpariert ist, daß der übrige Organismus es nicht annimmt, daß es später keine Freude macht. Damit hängt aber zusammen, daß die Menschen in unserer Zeit verhältnismäßig früh seelisch altern. Denn das ist ja das Geheimnis des Menschen: Wenn der Kopf zum Beispiel achtundzwanzig Jahre ist, so ist der übrige Organismus, der in seiner Entwickelung nachläuft, erst ein Drittel oder ein Viertel dieser Zeit. Der übrige Organismus hält ein Tempo ein, das dreimal, viermal langsamer ist. Andere Beziehungen werden wir noch kennenlernen. Also der Mensch könnte, wenn man pädagogisch diesen Mysterien entgegenkommen würde, etwas aufnehmen, was so fruchtbar, so gedeihlich ist, daß es ausreichen würde bis zu der Zeit, wo er stirbt. Denn, wenn er bis zum fünfundzwanzigsten Jahre solche Dinge aufgenommen hat und für sie nur dreimal längere Zeit zum Verarbeiten braucht, so würde sie der übrige Organismus bis zum fünfundsiebzigsten Jahre verarbeiten können. Für den Menschen aber in seiner gesamten Wesenheit hat das Wissen, das sich der Kopf aneignet, nicht eine umfassende Bedeutung, sondern nur dasjenige innerlich wissentliche Erleben, das sich der ganze Mensch in seiner ganzen Wesenheit aneignet. Aber demgegenüber ist sogar heute das öffentliche Leben abgeneigt; es will nur das aufnehmen, was Kopfweisheit ist. Denn denken Sie einmal — Sie können sich an den Fingern herzählen die ganze Bedeutung dessen, was ich jetzt meine: Jemand könnte bis zu seinem fünfzehnten Jahre so viel mit dem Kopfe aufnehmen, daß er, wenn er diese Begriffe verarbeitete und wenn diese Begriffe sich zum Beispiel auf die Verwaltung der öffentlichen Angelegenheiten beziehen würden, er mit fünfundvierzig Jahren reif sein würde, in eine Stadtverwaltung, in ein Parlament gewählt zu werden; denn da muß er sich als ein ganzer Mensch hineinstellen. Denn man muß sagen: Wenn man dem Menschen bis zum fünfzehnten Jahre solche Begriffskräfte beibringen kann, daß sie mit seinem ganzen Lebenswesen verarbeitet werden könnten, so wird er mit dem fünfundvierzigsten Jahre reif sein, um in eine Stadtverordnetenversammlung oder in ein Parlament gewählt zu werden. Und den Anschauungen der Alten, die noch ein lebendiges Wissen von diesen Dingen aus den Mysterien hatten, lagen solche Dinge noch zugrunde. Heute dagegen gehen die Bestrebungen dahin, die Altersgrenze möglichst herabzusetzen, denn heute ist jeder mit zwanzig Jahren ebenso reif, wie es sonst jemand mit achtzig war. Aber nicht begierdliche Forderungen können darin entscheiden, sondern nur eine richtige Erkenntnis.
Diese Dinge haben also schon eine grundbedeutsame Anwendung für das Leben. Unser ganzes öffentliches Leben ist darauf eingestellt, nur das zu berücksichtigen, was die Menschen durch ihre Köpfe sind. Aber trotzdem es so ist, daß eigentlich heute die Menschen, indem sie miteinander sozial verkehren, weisheitsvoll nur mit den Köpfen verkehren, so ist dieser Kopfverkehr - denken Sie nur einmal nach: es ist der ganze soziale Verkehr nur ein Kopfverkehr! — ganz ungeeignet, um ein soziales Leben zu konfigurieren. Denn woher ist denn der Kopf? Der Kopf des Menschen - wir haben das ausgeführt - ist nicht von dieser Erde, er ist gerade aus dem Kosmos heraus geschaffen. Will man mit dem Kopfe die Erdenangelegenheiten besorgen, so kann man es nicht. Mit dem Kopfe ist niemand ein Nationaler, mit dem Kopfe ist niemand ein solcher, der irgendeinem Teil der Erde angehört. Mit dem Kopfe sollen wir nur das entscheiden, was der ganzen Welt angehört. Um jedoch das entscheiden zu können, was der Erde angehört, müssen wir erst während unseres ganzen Lebens mit demjenigen zusammenwachsen, was der Erde angehört und was uns zu einem Bürger der Erde macht, nicht zu einem Bürger des Himmels. Diese Dinge müssen so sein. Was dem öffentlichen Urteile zugrunde liegen kann, das muß man aus den tieferen Erkenntnissen über den Menschen selbst hervorholen. Und wiederum muß man ins Auge fassen — ich will heute nur Fäden zeichnen, die Dinge werden noch weiter ausgeführt werden: Was Goethe als Metamorphosegedanken äußerte, das hat eine tiefe Bedeutung, und das hat eine viel weitere Anwendung noch, als Goethe selbst zu seiner Zeit daraus machen konnte. |
Unser Haupt ist also herausgebildet aus dem Kosmos. Betrachten wir die Sache geisteswissenschaftlich, so müssen wir sagen: In der ganzen Zeit, die zwischen dem Tode und einer neuen Geburt verläuft, arbeiten wir vor — wir arbeiten ja da im Kosmos -, um unser Haupt zu bilden. Wir arbeiten an unserem Organismus, indem wir vorzugsweise zwischen Tod und neuer Geburt an unserem Haupte arbeiten. Dieses Haupt ist in gewisser Beziehung das Grab der Seele, hinsichtlich dessen, wie die Seele war vor der Geburt oder, wenn wir sagen wollen, vor der Empfängnis. Da kommen jene Tätigkeiten zur Ruhe, die wir zwischen dem Tode und einer neuen Geburt in einem geistigen Leben ausführen. Und zu demjenigen, was in gewisser Beziehung herausgeformt wird aus der geistigen Welt, wird dann dasjenige hinzugefügt, was als angehängt daranhängt aus der Vererbungsströmung. Aber was ist das, was aus der Vererbungsströmung daranhängt? Das ist trotzdem etwas, was mit dem Haupte zusammenhängt. Ich habe schon früher darauf aufmerksam gemacht: Dasjenige was am Menschen ist außer seinem Haupte, das ist die Anlage für das Haupt in der nächsten Inkarnation. Der ganze übrige Organismus ist etwas, was durch Metamorphose übergehen kann zu dem Haupt der nächsten Inkarnation. Die Kräfte, die wir während des ganzen Lebens ausbilden, entreißen sich, wenn wir durch die Pforte des Todes gehen, dem ganzen übrigen Organismus; aber sie bleiben in jenen Formungen, die der übrige Organismus während des Lebens hatte; das trägt man durch die Zeit zwischen Tod und nächster Geburt und formt es um zum Haupte. In unserem Haupte haben wir also immer auch das, was Erbschaft ist aus der früheren Inkarnation. Und in unserem übrigen Organismus haben wir zu gleicher Zeit etwas, was bestimmend wirkt für die Gestaltung unseres Hauptes in der kommenden Inkarnation. In dieser Beziehung sind wir auch eine Zwienatur.
Denken Sie, wie man, wenn man so anschaut, daß der Mensch wirklich ganz hineingestellt ist in kosmische Zusammenhänge, dann darauf kommt, daß er wirklich nicht bloß in dem Zeitenteil und Raumesteil entsteht und sich bildet, den man im äußeren physischen Anschauen vor sich hat, sondern daß er in einem ungeheuer großen Zusammenhange drinnensteht. Es ist außerordentlich reizvoll, nicht nur so, wie es schon Goethe gemacht hat, hinzuschauen auf einen Knochen der Wirbelsäule und dann auf die Kopfknochen, um sich zu sagen, die Kopfknochen sind nur umgeformte Wirbelknochen, sondern es ist außerordentlich reizvoll zu sehen, wie alles, was am Haupte ist, auch am übrigen Organismus ist. Nur gehört eine außerordentlich vorurteilslose Betrachtung dazu, um nicht nur beispielsweise die Nase und alles, was am Haupte ist, als eine solche Umbildung zu erkennen, sondern auch alles, was am übrigen Organismus, nur in einer jüngeren Metamorphose, ist; das alles wird umgebildet in einer älteren Metamorphose zu dem, was uns dann am Haupte entgegentritt.
Ich sagte: Pädagogisch sind die Konsequenzen einer solchen Anschauung außerordentlich wichtig, und wird sich einmal das Denken der Menschen dieser geisteswissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis zuwenden, dann werden ungeheuer bedeutungsvolle Forderungen für so etwas, wie es zum Beispiel die praktische Pädagogik ist, hervorgehen.
Vor allen Dingen ist eines bedeutsam: Wir werden alt in unserem Leben. Aber eigentlich können wir nur sagen, unser physischer Leib wird alt. Denn so sonderbar es ist - ich habe das auch schon erwähnt -, unser Ätherleib, der nächste geistige Teil unseres Wesens, wird immer jünger. Je älter wir werden, desto jünger wird unser ätherischer Leib. Und während wir Runzeln bekommen und kahlköpfig werden dem physischen Leibe nach, werden wir, oder können wir wenigstens dem ätherischen Leibe nach immer pausbackiger und blühender werden. Aber wir müssen allerdings — so wie schon die äußere Natur dafür sorgt, daß der physische Leib älter wird - dafür sorgen, daß unser Ätherleib Jugendkräfte zugeführt erhält. Das können wir aber nur, wenn wir durch den Kopf solche geistige Vorstellungsnahrung einführen, daß sie ausreicht, um im ganzen Leben verarbeitet zu werden.
Es kann einem geisteswissenschaftlichen Betrachter vorschweben, wie man Kinder in frühester Jugend darüber unterrichtet, wie der Mensch ein Abbild ist des gesamten Universums, ein Abbild der göttlichen weisen Weltenordnung, aber einer solchen göttlichen Weltenordnung, daß es unmittelbar, elementar ergriffen wird, und nicht indem man dem Menschen unverstandene Bibelworte vorsagt. Das alles aber muß aus dem Geiste der Geisteswissenschaft geschaffen werden, dann wird es ein vollsaftigeres Kopfwissen geben als heute. Das aber wird für den Menschen zeit seines Lebens ein Quell der Verjüngung sein, während unser gegenwärtiger Unterricht nicht ein solcher Quell der Verjüngung ist, sondern das Gegenteil. Und wenn wir heute in der glücklichen Lage sind, wegen unseres früheren Unterrichtes nicht die fürchterlichsten Sauertöpfe zu sein, so ist das nur deshalb, weil die heutige Art, für den Kopf zu sorgen - die sich seit ungefähr vier Jahrhunderten vorbereitet hat und die heute auf ihren Gipfelpunkt gelangt ist —, noch nicht so viel hat ruinieren können von dem, was doch aus alten Zeiten als Erbkultur vorhanden ist. Aber wenn wir so fortfahren, daß wir bloß für den Kopf unterrichten, dann sind wir auf dem besten Wege, wirklich Sauertöpfe zu erziehen. Ich habe schon neulich gesagt - der Krieg hat ja die Sache unterbrochen -: Groß waren in den Jahren vor dem Kriege die Züge nach den Sanatorien, groß waren die Mittel, [die der Mensch aufwendete], um seine Nervosität wegzubringen.
Das alles hängt damit zusammen, daß dem Kopfe nicht das gegeben wird, was der ganze Mensch braucht. Ich habe es auch erwähnt, wie wenig man findet, daß in der richtigen Art einiges für diese Dinge gesorgt wird. Denn ich muß immer wieder daran denken, wie ich vor einigen Jahren einmal ein Sanatorium aufsuchte, um dort jemanden zu besuchen. Wir kamen gerade hin, als Mittagszeit war. Die ganze Menge der Sanatoriumsgäste defilierte an uns vorbei. Es waren ja zum Teil recht merkwürdige Menschenkinder, die wirklich ihre Nervosität zum Teil auf ihrem Gesichte geschrieben hatten und ihr Hände- und Füßegezappel hatten. Aber ich lernte dann den Allernervösesten, den Allerzappeligsten in jenem Sanatorium kennen, nämlich den dirigierenden Arzt. Und es muß schon gesagt werden, daß ein dirigierender Arzt nicht die rechte Hand findet zur Kur für seine Gäste, wenn er selbst derjenige ist, dem die Kur am meisten not täte. Sonst jedoch war er ein außerordentlich liebenswürdiger Mensch, aber er war ein Beispiel für diejenigen Menschen, die in ihrer Jugend jedenfalls nicht das aufgenommen haben, was sie zeitlebens verjüngt halten kann. Solche Dinge lassen sich nicht durch irgendwelche vereinzelten Reformen ändern und aus Verhältnissen, in denen sie sind, in andere Verhältnisse bringen; solche Dinge lassen sich nur verbessern, wenn der ganze soziale Organismus verbessert wird. Daher muß man seine Aufmerksamkeit auf den ganzen sozialen Organismus richten. Es ist schon durch die großen Weltgesetze dafür gesorgt, daß der Mensch als einzelner auf solchem Gebiete seinen Egoismus nicht befriedigen kann, sondern daß er gewissermaßen sein Heil nur finden kann, wenn er es sucht in der Gemeinsamkeit mit den andern.
So stelle ich mir vor — und jeder, der nicht bloß das, was im Sinnlichen lebt, wie es heute üblich ist, sich vorstellt, sondern der hinauszublicken vermag von dem Sinnlichen ins Übersinnliche, aus dem die Kräfte hereinkommen müssen zur Reformation der Welt für die nächste Zukunft, kann sich das vorstellen -, so stelle ich mir vor, daß auf solchem Gebiete, aber auch noch auf andern, die Einführung des Geisteswissenschaftlichen in das Leben geschehen kann, dadurch geschehen kann, daß man in ehrlicher, aufrichtiger Weise im Konkreten das ausarbeitet, wozu die Geisteswissenschaft die Impulse geben kann. Sie sehen, man braucht in dem Sinne, von dem wir ja oft gesprochen haben und immer wieder sprechen werden, nicht zu drängen nach visionärem Hellsehen, sondern man braucht nur sinnvoll den Menschen als Ebenbild der Weltengeistigkeit zu erfassen, dann kommt einem schon die Geistigkeit. Man kann unmöglich den Menschen in seiner Ganzheit auffassen und durchschauen, ohne daß man das, was als Geistiges dem Menschen zugrunde liegt, durchschaut und ins Auge faßt. Aber eines ist notwendig, ich habe öfter darauf aufmerksam gemacht: die Ablegung einer gegenüber allen Weltanschauungsfragen heute so furchtbar vorhandenen Untugend, die Ablegung der Erkenntnisbequemlichkeit des Menschen. Unsere ganze geisteswissenschaftliche Betrachtung zeigt uns ja, daß man Schritt für Schritt vorwärtsgehen muß, daß man Neigung haben muß, auf Einzelheiten einzugehen, um ein Ganzes aus diesen Einzelheiten aufzubauen, daß man gewissermaßen vom sinnlich Nächstliegenden ausgehen muß, um ins Übersinnliche aufzusteigen. Man kann an dem sinnlich Nächstliegenden das Übersinnliche fast mit Händen greifen. Denn wer in richtiger Weise das menschliche Haupt ins Auge fassen kann, der sieht in ihm das, was aus dem ganzen Weltenall herausgebildet ist, und er sieht in dem übrigen Menschenorganismus dasjenige, was sich wieder hineinbildet ins Weltenall, um wieder zurückzukommen aus dem Weltenall in der nächsten Inkarnation. Man kann, wenn man richtig das äußere Sinnenfällige betrachtet, schon in ganz rechter Art zu dem Übersinnlichen kommen. Aber man hat nötig, die Unbequemlichkeit auf sich zu nehmen, den Menschen wenigstens so weit zu seinem Rechte kommen zu lassen, daß man ihm in bezug auf seine Erkenntnis das zugesteht, was man beispielsweise der Uhr oder einem ganz gewöhnlichen Dinge zugesteht. Jeder, wenn er nur ein bißchen gelernt hat, wie die Sachen mechanisch zusammenwirken, wird zugeben, eine Uhr nicht zu verstehen, ohne den Zusammenhang der Räder ins Auge zu fassen. Über den Menschen jedoch redet jeder, ohne eine solche Anforderung zu stellen, und zwar glaubt jeder auch über das höchste Wesen des Menschen reden zu können, und beruft sich dann sehr häufig darauf, daß er sagt: Ja, die Wahrheit muß eben «einfach» sein -, und dann jene Anklage gegen die Geisteswissenschaft zimmert, die immer darin besteht, daß die Geisteswissenschaft ja viel zu kompliziert sei. Die menschliche Begierde mag allerdings dahin gehen, in fünf Minuten oder vielleicht in gar keiner Zeit sich das anzueignen, was zur Erkenntnis des höchsten Wesens des Menschen notwendig ist. Aber der Mensch ist nun einmal ein kompliziertes Wesen. Gerade darin besteht seine Größe im Weltenall, daß er ein kompliziertes Wesen ist, und man muß den Hang nach Bequemlichkeit der Erkenntnis überwinden, wenn man wirklich in das Wesen des Menschen eindringen will. Für unsere Zeit gibt es kein Verständnis desjenigen, was not tut, wenn man sich nicht in die Lage versetzen will, die ganze Kompliziertheit der menschlichen Natur wenigstens ahnungsvoll zu durchdringen. Denn dadurch, daß wir nur Kopfwissen pflegen, daß wir nicht mit dem ganzen Menschen das, was das Haupt lernt, verarbeiten wollen, und schon dem Haupte nicht so etwas geben, was von dem ganzen Menschen verarbeitet werden kann, dadurch stellen wir den Menschen in die soziale Ordnung so hinein, daß wir gewissermaßen das irdische Leben nicht zum Abbilde eines übersinnlichen, geistigen Lebens machen wollen. Wir leiden an einem merkwürdigen Zwiespalt. Das ist aber jetzt nicht ein Zwiespalt wie die andern Zwiespältigkeiten, von denen ich jetzt gesprochen habe, sondern das ist ein schädlicher Zwiespalt, den wir überwinden müssen.Das menschliche Leben hat sich im Laufe der Entwickelung verändert. Um das zu beobachten, braucht man nur vier Jahrhunderte zurückgehen, ja nicht einmal so weit. Wer nicht aus der landläufigen Literaturgeschichte, sondern wer aus der Geistesgeschichte das Leben aus seiner Wirklichkeit kennt, der weiß, wie unendlich verschieden das Leben und Denken noch des 18. Jahrhunderts von dem des 19. Jahrhunderts ist. Wir brauchen nur etwas zurückzugehen und werden sehen, wie seit vier Jahrhunderten das ganze menschliche Denken sich geändert hat. Das ganze menschliche Denken, das sich so geändert hat, ist allmählich bis zum 20. Jahrhundert dazu gekommen, immer abstraktere Begriffe auszubilden. Es sind immer mehr Kopfbegriffe gekommen. Wenn wir die vollsaftigen Begriffe der Menschen im 13., im 14. Jahrhundert nehmen, wenn wir die Naturwissenschaft dieser Jahrhunderte ansehen: Es ist ein grandioser Unterschied gegenüber dem Abstrakten, gegenüber der trockenen Gesetzmäßigkeit der heutigen Naturwissenschaft! Es gibt ein sehr bekanntes Buch, das dem Basilins Valentinus zugeschrieben wird. Sehr interessante Dinge finden sich darin. Vor kurzem hat nun ein schwedischer Gelehrter ein Buch über die «Materie» geschrieben und auch verschiedenes von Valentinus darin zitiert, und sein Urteil darüber ist: Das verstehe, wer kann; man kann es eben nicht verstehen. — Wir glauben es sehr gern, daß er nichts von diesem Buche des Valentinus verstehen kann. Denn Valentinus gelesen mit den Begriffen, die man aus der Physik und Chemie heute mitbringt, ist ganz unverständlich! Das hängt mit denselben Dingen zusammen, mit denen etwa die Tatsache zusammenhängt, daß sich die gute alte Lebensweisheit «Morgenstunde hat Gott und Gold im Munde» umgewandelt hat im Laufe der Zeit in jene andere Lebensweisheit «Morgenstunde hat Gold im Munde». Dadurch ist der gut europäische Ausspruch «Morgenstunde hat Gott und Gold im Munde» amerikanisch geworden: «Morgenstunde hat Gold im Munde.»
Jene alte Zeit war in bezug auf die Beschreibung und die Auffassung der Natur durchdrungen von dem, was aus dem ganzen Menschen kommt. Heute ist es Kopfwissen. Dadurch ist es auf der einen Seite abstrakt, trocken und füllt den Menschen nicht sein ganzes Leben hindurch aus; und auf der andern Seite ist es doch sehr geistig. Wir stehen vor dieser Zwienatur, daß wir das Geistigste eigentlich heute erzeugen; diese abstrakten Begriffe sind das Geistigste, was es geben kann, aber sie sind unfähig, den Geist zu begreifen. Es ist ungeheuer leicht einzusehen, in welchen Zwiespalt der Mensch hineinkommt durch jene geistigen Begriffe, die er sich ausgebildet hat. Er ist gerade in diesen geistigen Begriffen merkwürdigerweise Materialist geworden. Aber wenn die Begriffe richtig sind, würde nie der Materialismus aus ihnen entstehen. Einfach das Vorhandensein der abstrakten Begriffe ist schon die erste Widerlegung des Materialismus. In diesem Zwiespalte leben wir drinnen. Wir haben uns seit vier Jahrhunderten ungeheuer vergeistigt, und wir müssen in diesem Geistigen, das wir nur abstrakt haben, wieder das lebendige Geistige finden. Wir sind dazu aufgestiegen, nur gegenständliche Begriffe zu haben, aber wir müssen wieder zur Imagination, zur Inspiration, zur Intuition kommen. Wir haben abgelegt, was aus früherer uralter Erbweisheit in Imaginationen, Inspirationen und Intuitionen uns überkommen war. Wir müssen es wiederbekommen, nachdem wir uns der Vollsaftigkeit des Wissens des ganzen Menschen soweit entäußert haben.
Das ist etwas, was einen schon erfüllen kann mit dem Ernst gegenüber dem Geisteswissenschaftlichen. Und wenn ich in diesen zwei Vorträgen, die ich jetzt wieder vor Ihnen halten durfte, mehr einleitend gesprochen habe, so war meine Absicht, zu zeigen, wie aus der äußerlichsten Betrachtung des Menschen der Impuls hervorgehen kann, sich mit demjenigen zu beschäftigen, was der Welt geistig zugrunde liegt. Es wird die Menschheit im Verfolgen dieser Impulse und Ideen auf etwas kommen, was ihr heute so ungeheuer abgeht: innere Wahrhaftigkeit. Man kann nicht wirklich fruchtbar nach dem Geist streben, wenn man nicht in innerer Wahrhaftigkeit strebt, und man wird niemals fehl gehen, wenn man sich durch Lebenserfahrung die Erkenntnis erwirbt, daß eine richtige Harmonie zwischen Kopfwissen und Herzenswissen nur möglich ist, wenn man sich wahrhaftig in das Leben hineinstellt. Denn deshalb wollen gerade die Menschen der Gegenwart das Kopfwissen nicht in Herzenswissen überführen, weil das Herzenswissen nicht nur länger braucht, sondern weil es auch gegen das Kopfwissen reagiert, es zurückstößt, wenn es unwahr ist. Der übrige Mensch macht sich dann als eine Art Gewissen bemerkbar. Davor fürchtet sich die nur für den Kopf geneigte Menschheit der Gegenwart.
Und jetzt zum Schlusse — weil es sich für uns ja immer darum handeln muß, wenn wir so unter uns zusammen sind, auch die Stellung unseres geisteswissenschaftlichen Strebens, das wir in solcher Art charakterisierten, wie es heute und das letzte Mal geschehen ist, in der ganzen Welt einzusehen -, zum Schlusse einige Bemerkungen, die sich für uns unmittelbar praktisch ergeben.
Geisteswissenschaft kann auch nur gedeihen, wenn man mit ihr Ernst macht in der Wahrhaftigkeit; denn sie muß ja an tiefste Bedürfnisse der Menschheit gerade in der Gegenwart herangehen. Sie muß sich jenen Gewissensqualen aussetzen, die sehr leicht entstehen können, wenn das Herz zum Kopfe Nein sagt. Denn immer sagt das Herz zum Kopfe Nein, wenn nicht Geistiges gesucht wird, oder wenn Wissen nur angestrebt wird aus einem bloßen Egoismus, aus Begierde, Ehrgeiz und so weiter. Aus diesem Grunde war es schon notwendig, in dem Betriebe der Geisteswissenschaft nach keiner Seite hin auch nur leise Kompromisse aufkommen zu lassen. Geisteswissenschaft muß aus sich selbst heraus positiv betrieben werden; man kann nicht Kompromisse schließen mit Halbheiten, Viertelheiten oder Achtelheiten; es ist heute eine zu ernste Angelegenheit. Wir dürfen wohl, nachdem wir einiges einleitend gesagt haben, diese Bemerkungen folgen lassen, die nicht persönlich gemeint sind, wenn sie auch an Persönliches anschließen. Einen großen Teil der Gegnerschaft gegen die Geisteswissenschaft kann man nur verstehen, wenn man ihn seiner Genesis nach, seinem Werden nach ins Auge faßt. Da oder dort tritt zum Beispiel jemand auf, der sich in der heftigsten Weise gegen die Geisteswissenschaft wendet. Es gibt auch andere Fälle, als ich jetzt meine, aber in vielen Fällen geht die Gegnerschaft gegen Geisteswissenschaft aus so etwas hervor, wie ich jetzt einen konkreten Fall anführen will.
Ich war einmal in Frankfurt am Main, um Vorträge zu halten. Da telephonierte mich jemand an, daß ein Herr mich sprechen wollte. Ich hatte nichts dagegen und sagte, er könne mich dann und dann sprechen. Der Betreffende kam und sagte: « Ach, ich bin Ihnen eigentlich seit langer Zeit immer so nachgereist, um zu sehen, ob ich Sie einmal sprechen könnte.» Ich konnte nichts dagegen haben, aber ich hatte auch nichts dafür. Der Betreffende redete dann so um allerlei herum. Aber man kann schon nicht anders, als Geisteswissenschaft ernst zu nehmen, und wenn man das will, dann muß man manches, was sich aufspielt und als gelehrt erweisen will, abweisen. Man kann nicht mit allem Möglichen Kompromisse schließen. Ich war nicht unhöflich gegen den Mann, aber ich ließ ihn ablaufen, ließ ihn merken, daß ich weiter keine Notiz von ihm nehmen würde. Es war meine tiefste Überzeugung, daß der Mann hohles Zeug herumtredete, aber daß er dabei Anlehnung suchte. Das trat ja wirklich in unzähligen Fällen hervor. — Was ich jetzt sage, spreche ich nicht aus Albernheit, sondern um eben gewisse Vorgänge zu charakterisieren. — Also ich mußte diesen Mann ablaufen lassen. Es war vieles außerordentlich schmeichelhaft, was der Mann sagte, aber es kam nur darauf an, oban seinen «auch» geisteswissenschaftlichen Bestrebungen etwas Wahres sei. Bald darnach traten in der Schweiz Ankündigungen dieses Mannes auf, aus denen hervorging, daß über das «Dämonische», über das «Teuflische» der Steinerschen Geisteswissenschaft in Grund und Boden zu reden wäre. — Ich könnte auch noch eine Nachgeschichte dieser Sache erzählen, aber das will ich schon nicht. Es ist dies aber eine von den Arten, wie da oder dort Gegner auftreten. Es sind sehr häufig Menschen, welche eigentlich irgendwie Zusammenhang gesucht haben, und deren Suchen nach Zusammenhang eben aus bestimmten Gründen ignoriert werden mußte. Vieles mußte ignoriert werden, um die Geisteswissenschaft rein zu erhalten. Das mußte man sich schon auferlegen.
Nun will ich im Zusammenhang damit etwas anderes erwähnen, Unser sehr verehrter Freund Dr. Rittelmeyer hatte vor kurzem in der Zeitschrift «Die christliche Welt» über das Verhältnis unserer Geisteswissenschaft zur religiösen Frage gesprochen und dabei versucht, manches andere Vorurteil gegen unsere Geisteswissenschaft in einer außerordentlich anerkennenswerten und dankenswerten Weise zurück‚zuweisen. Ich hoffe, daß sich alle von Ihnen mit dem Aufsatze, der von Dr. Rittelmeyer in der «Christlichen Welt» erschienen ist, bekanntmachen werden. Nun aber hat sich Dr. Johannes Müller, der ja vielen bekannt ist, bemüßigt gesehen, eine Reihe von Aufsätzen über drei Nummern in derselben «Christlichen Welt» gegen diese Abhandlung Dr. Rittelmeyers zu schreiben. Es ist wirklich nicht meine Absicht, irgendwie auf das einzugehen, was Dr. Johannes Müller geschrieben hat. Denn seit einer langen Reihe von Jahren, die nach vorne keinen Anfang hat, war es im wesentlichen immer mein Bestreben, über Dr. Johannes Müller nicht zu reden; denn ich habe Gründe, die Geisteswissenschaft von dilettantischen Bestrebungen freizuhalten, sie nicht irgendwie in Kompromisse zu verwickeln. Und ich glaube, daß dies am besten zu erreichen ist, wenn man sich um das nicht kümmert, wenigstens nicht sprechend kümmert, was ja angeblich durch seinen eigenen Wert wirken muß, wenn es wirken kann. Niemals habe ich Dr. Johannes Müller in einem besonderen Zusammenhange erwähnt. Nun besteht ja in unserer Zeit nicht viel Gefühl dafür, was auf diesem Gebiete eigentlich in Wirklichkeit Wahrheit und Unwahrheit ist. Wenn Sie die Johannes Müllerschen Aufsätze jetzt durchgehen, so werden Sie finden, daß sie schon ein gut Stück von dem enthalten, was man durch Leichtsinn bewirkte oder durch sonst etwas bewirkte objektive Unwahrheiten nennen muß. Sie strotzen davon. Solche Dinge muß man nahe ins Auge fassen. Ich hatte in einem Falle eine solche Unwahrheit zu charakterisieren: die Dessoitschen Unwahrheiten in meinen «Seelenrätseln». Ich bin nun sehr gespannt, denn auf das, wie dort dem Professor an der Berliner Universität nachgewiesen ist zu schreiben, müßte eigentlich etwas erfolgen. Man lese nur den Aufsatz, den ich als zweiten in meinem Buche «Von Seelenrätseln» geschrieben habe über die Art, wie Professor Dessoir wirkt. Jeder natürlich, der nach diesem Aufsatze, der jetzt vorliegt, über das Dessoirsche Buch schreibt und diesen Aufsatz nicht berücksichtigt, ist ein Mitschuldiger an diesen Dingen. Aber diese Sachen nimmt man heute nicht so, indem mancher sich heute ausredet: Ich habe es nicht gewußt -, als ob nicht der, welcher etwas behauptet, die Dinge erst richtig ins Auge zu fassen hätte. - Nun, über derlei Kinkerlitzchen, daß meine Plakate «marktschreierisch» und so weiter wären, darüber lasse ich lieber diejenigen urteilen, welche die Johannes Müllerschen Vorträge und Plakate kennen; und daß bei meinen Vorträgen auf die besondere Sensationsbedürftigkeit der Menschen spekuliert werden sollte, darüber lasse ich ebenfalls andere urteilen. Es ist noch nicht lange her, da hat mir ein sehr geschätzter alter Herr, der sich wirklich ein sehr gewissenhaftes Urteil über diese Dinge bilden will, gesagt, er wundere sich eigentlich, daß in meine Vorträge so viele Menschen kämen, denn ich legte es gar nicht darauf an, daß sie leicht wären. Nun kann man sehr leicht beweisen, daß die Johannes Müllerschen Beschuldigungen unwahr sind. Denn auf die bloße Ankündigung hin kommen in einer Stadt, wo die Geisteswissenschaft noch nicht Fuß gefaßt hat, gewöhnlich nicht sehr viele Leute in meine Vorträge; wo aber viele kommen, da kommt das daher, weil an solchem Orte wirklich darum geworben und gearbeitet worden ist. Ich will jedoch nicht weiter darauf eingehen, höchstens noch auf den letzten Abschnitt der Johannes Müllerschen Aussprache hinweisen, die sich darin ergeht, daß ich von dem «Drama Gottes» spreche, der durch den Menschen erlöst werden soll und dergleichen, und wo Johannes Müller anderthalb Spalten dadurch zustande bringt, daß er an einer beliebigen Stelle aus meinem Buche «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache» einige Sätze bringt, die er aus ihrem Zusammenhange herausreißt, wie es ihm gerade einfällt. Aber durch das, was er vorher ausgelassen hat, wird alles, was er sagt, zum absolutesten Unsinn. In meinem Buche über das Christentum wird über das «Drama Gottes und seine Verzauberung» das Gegenteil gesagt. Johannes Müller redet sich jedoch damit heraus, daß er aus meinen Schriften nicht hat klar werden können. Das glaube ich ihm ganz bestimmt! Aber ohne auch nur das geringste verstanden zu haben, macht sich Johannes Müller über dieses Buch her. Ich habe öfter darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß dieses Buch in dem Mysterium von Golgatha - im Unterschiede von allen übrigen Mysterien — den Hauptnerv sieht. Dafür hat Johannes Müller keine Empfindung. Ich würde also niemals verlangen, daß er mein Buch verstehen sollte, glaube auch nicht, daß er dazu in der Lage wäre, aber er kritisiert es. Und das Merkwürdige ist dies: Im Jahre 1902 ist dieses Buch gedruckt worden; es lag also im Jahre 1906 viex Jahre lang vor. Man wußte, ich habe gerade damals in der damaligen ersten Auflage mein Verhältnis zur Naturwissenschaft auf der einen Seite, zur Philosophie auf der andern Seite auseinandergelegt. Das «Christentum als mystische Tatsache» ist bekanntgeworden. Nun, wenn es Johannes Müller noch nicht bekanntgeworden ist, so ist das seine Sache. Aber ich erwähne, daß es 1906 bekannt war, und daß} es ebenso mit meiner Gesamtweltauffassung verbunden war, wie zum Beispiel meine «Philosophie der Freiheit». Wer sich also im Jahre 1906 über mich eine Meinung bildete, der mußte mich vom Standpunkte meiner ganzen Weltanschauung aus nehmen und konnte im Grunde genommen nicht Halbheiten nehmen. Also 1906 war die Tatsache da, daß das «Christentum» vier Jahre bereits erschienen war. 1906 aber wurde mir das Buch «Die Bergpredigt» von Johannes Müller zugeschickt. Darin stand als Widmung: «Herrn Dr. R. Steiner in angenehmer Erinnerung an die «Philosophie der Freiheit». Mainberg, 17. VIII. 06.» Diese Angelegenheit gehört zu denjenigen, wo ich in die Notwendigkeit versetzt war, zu ignorieren; denn es war nicht möglich, Kompromisse zu schließen nach jenen Richtungen, von denen ich gesprochen habe. Und ich betrachte es als mein gutes Recht, statt jemandem zu sagen: Ich sehe Ihre Dinge als dies und das an -, zu schweigen, wenn er in dieser Weise an mich herantritt. Aber daß man schweigt, ärgert unter Umständen die Leute am allermeisten. Ich sagte, man müsse die Gegnerschaft gegen die Geisteswissenschaft in den realen Verhältnissen suchen. Das ist den Leuten oft viel unangenehmer, wenn man die realen Verhältnisse aufdeckt. Ich könnte noch unangenehmere Dinge erzählen. Aber wer jetzt die Aufsätze von Dr. Johannes Müller über unseren Freund Dr. Rittelmeyer liest, der wird vielleicht gut tun, nicht bloß in diesen Dingen die Gegnerschaft zu suchen, sondern in solchen Beiträgen, von denen ich einen kleinen anführte. Man muß überall nachgehen, ob man nicht viel wahrere Gründe als die an der Oberfläche liegenden findet. Es wurmt, wenn jemand «in angenehmer Erinnerung an die «Philosophie der Freiheit»» herankommt und der andere nicht darauf eingeht und keine Antwort gibt.
Ich wollte Ihnen diesen kleinen Beitrag vielleicht auch zur Psychologie Johannes Müllers nicht vorenthalten, damit Sie auch dort klarer sehen, als Sie vielleicht bloß durch seine Aufsätze sehen würden.
Second Lecture
In the context of our reflections, attention has often been drawn to the saying that has shone down through the ages from the Greek temple of Apollo: “Know thyself!” This saying contains much, infinitely much, that urges us to strive for human wisdom and thus for world wisdom. However, the saying has undergone a significant renewal and deepening through the impulse given by the Mystery of Golgotha. We will perhaps have occasion to speak about all these things in the course of this winter, if time permits. We will try to find the way to precisely those goals that are indicated by this saying.
Today I would like to start from a seemingly external observation of the human being, that is, from a kind of external form of human self-knowledge, which is only apparently external, but which is nevertheless a first, powerful force when one takes hold of it in order to penetrate into the inner being of the human being. I would like to start, but only seemingly, from the external human form.
Today, a consideration of this external human form can only be found in what is recognized as science, and even then only in a sense that is quite unsatisfactory for a higher spiritual consideration. It is fair to say that anyone who wants to understand human beings as human beings today will find little inspiration for such an understanding in science, at least in science as it is currently practiced. For what this science has already produced, what is available, can be seen in the various hints in my last book, “Von Seelenrätseln” (The Riddle of the Soul). This book provides important, meaningful building blocks for a far-reaching understanding of the human being. But these building blocks are not being sought at present. And what anatomy, physiology, and so on offer today gives very little to those who seriously want to penetrate the essence of the human being from an understanding of the outer physical human form. Today, there is basically much more of what is artistic observation. It is fair to say that much remains unsatisfactory in science today. And if someone can decide to seek real, substantial truth in the Goethean sense, namely in art, in the artistic observation of the world, they may find more truth in this way than in what is recognized as science. In the future, there will be a worldview that will have emerged from spiritual science, even if we cannot see that clearly today. There will be a worldview that will unite scientific perception of the world and artistic perception of the world in a higher synthesis and harmony, based on a certain human need for knowledge. This will involve much more clairvoyance than the clairvoyance that many people dream of today, but which is only a dream.
When we approach the human form, we can first perceive something important if we direct our gaze — as I am sure you have all done to some extent — to the foundation of the human form, which we see in the skeleton. You have all certainly seen a human skeleton and noticed the difference between the head and the rest of the human form. You will have noticed that the head is, in a certain sense, a complete entity that sits on top of everything else that makes up the limb system, the rest of the human organism. It is very easy to lift the head resting on the rest of the human organism from the skeleton. If you consider the most superficial differentiation in this way, you may notice that the head is actually more or less spherical in shape; it is not a perfect sphere, but the spherical shape is inherent in the human head. Now, as a spiritual scientist, one must warn against basing one's quest for knowledge on superficial external analogies. But viewing the human head as approximating a spherical shape is not a superficial observation of the form of the human head; for the human being is really a kind of duality in the first place, and the spherical shape of his head is by no means accidental. One need only consider what one actually has before one's eyes in the human head. Initial indications of what I mean here were given in our spiritual scientific considerations in the book I have mentioned, “The Spiritual Guidance of Human Beings and Humanity,” in which I have already indicated how the human head is in fact a reflection of the entire universe, the universe that confronts us externally as a spatial sphere, as a hollow sphere.
When discussing these things, one must draw attention to something that is still far removed from the most important way of thinking for people today, something that they always apply in one area, but which they do not want to apply where it is of enormous significance. No one who takes a compass or a magnetic needle in their hand, and if this magnetic needle is pointed with one end toward the magnetic north pole and with the other toward the magnetic south pole, will today think of looking for the causes of this alignment of the magnetic needle in the magnetic needle itself; Instead, the physicist will feel compelled to view the magnetic needle and the magnetic force emanating from the magnetic north pole of the earth as a whole, in that this magnetic force directs one end of the needle toward the north pole and the other toward the south pole. One seeks the cause of what happens in the magnetic needle in the smallest space in the great universe. However, the same is not done where it should be done, where it would be very important to do so. If someone today perceives—especially as a scientist—that one living being is forming inside another living being, for example, if someone perceives that an egg is forming inside a chicken, then something is also happening in the smallest space; but it does not usually occur to people to apply what they must say about the magnetic needle and say: It is not in the chicken, but in the whole cosmos, that the egg germ is formed in the chicken's body. Just as the great universe is involved in the magnetic needle, so too is the whole cosmos, in its spherical form, involved in the chicken's body, in the mother hen, despite all the processes that are involved. The processes that lead back to the ancestors in the line of inheritance merely contribute when the egg germ forms in the mother's organism. This is still considered heresy by official science today, but it is nevertheless true. And the forces of the cosmos contribute in the most diverse ways. And just as it is true that in humans — as empirical embryology proves — the head in its embryonic form, develops from the whole universe, as true as it is that the human head first arises in the mother's organism, so true is it, on the other hand, that the most causal forces for this development work from the whole cosmos and that the human being is in his head an image of the whole cosmos. Only that which is attached to the head, the skeleton, can be said — if one pays particular attention to it — to be actually more closely related in its configuration, in its formation, to what lies in the line of inheritance, to what is connected with the father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, than to what is outside in the cosmos. Thus, in terms of its origin and development, the human being is initially a dual being. On the one hand, its form is shaped by the cosmos, which is evident in the spherical shape of its head; on the other hand, it is shaped by the entire stream of heredity, which is evident in the rest of the organism that hangs from the head. The entire external form of man shows him to us as a hermaphroditic being, shows us that he has a dual origin.
Such a view has not only the significance that it enables us to learn something, but also a completely different one. Anyone who today looks at man according to the instructions of ordinary official science, who, for example, looks into a microscope and sees the germ developing, and sees only what is inside — just as one might try to see why the magnetic needle has the ability to align itself in a north-south direction — lives in a mass of thoughts that renders him immobile and useless for external life, especially if one proceeds as in external science. And if you apply such thoughts to social science, they are insufficient, or they lead to world-schooling, which can also be called “Wilsonianism.” It is therefore a question of what kind of thinking we draw upon, what forms arise in our thoughts when we give ourselves over to certain thoughts. Knowing about things is of lesser importance. What matters is what makes the particular kind of knowledge within us, what usefulness it brings with it. And if one has an open mind to view human beings in connection with the whole world, then thoughts are awakened within us that lead to an ethical view of the world, to a legal view of the world, which in reality should be the highest, but which today is something quite strange. So you see, there are certain other impulses for seeking the kind of knowledge we are talking about here, other than the satisfaction, I won't say of curiosity, but of mere thirst for knowledge.
Thus, human beings stand before us as dual beings, as hybrid beings. This has a much deeper meaning. And today I would like to strike only the basic notes that should occupy us in order to evoke in your souls a feeling of the importance of what we are considering.
Let us remain with the idea that in the further course of our lives, the head—the head that now confronts us as an image of the whole world—is essentially the mediator of our cognition. I do not want to say the tool, because that would not be entirely correct. But the head alone is not the mediator of our cognition—let us stick to cognition, to the perception of the world—the head mediates it, but so does the rest of the human being. And since the rest of the human being, even in its origin, is completely different from the head, is something else, the human being, even insofar as it is a cognizing being, consists of the head-human being and — I call it what I have called it before — the heart-human being, because everything else is concentrated in the heart. We are in fact two people: a head person, who perceives the world, and a heart person. The difference is that, no matter how much a person sometimes complains about the world, they only use their head for cognition. What is actually behind this? If one were to draw parallels between head knowledge and heart knowledge, not much would come of it. Those who are able to grasp with their hearts what their heads recognize would be warmer in their knowledge than others. There would be a difference between people, but it would not be very great. However, if we approach things from the perspective of spiritual science, something completely different emerges. Knowledge and perceptions are acquired. Gradually, perceptions and insights come to us. The following is therefore the case. How we relate to the world with our heads, how we perceive and recognize, happens quickly in a certain sense; and how we relate to the world with the rest of our organism in a cognitive way happens slowly. In addition to all the other distinctions I made last winter regarding the development of the world and human beings, there is also the fact that our head is quick to recognize, while the rest of the organism is not. This has an enormously profound meaning. When we are educated in school, the focus is really only on educating the head. People today are educated only for the head; that is what schools can do. For in the extreme case, the head closes itself off in the twenties, if it has been involved in the development of knowledge for a long time, but most people do not go that far. Then the head is finished with its cognition, with its appropriation of the world. The rest of the organism needs the whole time until death for this. And one can already say that in this respect the head works about three times as fast as the rest of the organism; the rest of the organism has time, it works three times slower, it moves at a completely different pace. Therefore, it is clear to those who have the gift of observing such things through knowledge that when they have grasped something with their head, they must wait until they have united it with the whole human being. In order to take something in as something full of life, one must really wait three to four days after it has taken about a day to take it in through the head before one has fully absorbed it. The conscientious spiritual researcher will never tell what he has taken in only with his head, but only what he has grasped with his whole being. This has an extraordinary, far-reaching and profound meaning.
Today, given the existing institutions, we can really only give our children a kind of head knowledge; we do not give them knowledge that the rest of the organism can assimilate. It remains head knowledge, knowledge that is already prepared in such a way that it must be quickly absorbed by the head so that it can be remembered later. In the case of subjects that are taught in school, one does not remember them later, and one is glad to have them out of one's system soon after the final exam. Knowledge that can be processed by the rest of the organism would, under all circumstances, later, when one remembers it, develop into love, joy, and warmth. How lessons should be structured so that later in life, when people look back on their school days, they can look back with warmth, joy, and a certain bliss, is connected with the deepest secrets of the mysteries of humanity.
There is an enormous amount to do in this area. For anyone familiar with the relevant matters knows that everything we present to children today, in particular, is prepared in such a way from the outset that the rest of the organism does not accept it and that it does not give pleasure later on. This is connected with the fact that people in our time age relatively early in their souls. For that is the secret of the human being: when the head is twenty-eight years old, for example, the rest of the organism, which lags behind in its development, is only a third or a quarter of that age. The rest of the organism keeps a pace that is three or four times slower. We will learn about other relationships later. So, if we were to approach these mysteries from an educational perspective, human beings could absorb something so fruitful and beneficial that it would suffice until the time of their death. For if they have absorbed such things by the age of twenty-five and need only three times as long to process them, the rest of the organism would be able to process them by the age of seventy-five. But for human beings in their entire being, the knowledge that the head acquires does not have a comprehensive meaning, but only the inner experience that the whole human being acquires in its entire being. But even today, public life is averse to this; it wants to take in only what is intellectual knowledge. Just think about it — you can count on your fingers the whole significance of what I mean: Someone could absorb so much with their head by the age of fifteen that, if they processed these concepts and if these concepts related, for example, to the administration of public affairs, they would be mature enough at the age of forty-five to be elected to a city council or a parliament; for there they would have to stand as a whole human being. For it must be said that if one can teach a person such conceptual powers up to the age of fifteen that they can be processed with his whole life, then at the age of forty-five he will be mature enough to be elected to a city council or a parliament. And the views of the ancients, who still had a living knowledge of these things from the mysteries, were still based on such things. Today, on the other hand, efforts are being made to lower the age limit as much as possible, because today everyone is as mature at the age of twenty as someone used to be at the age of eighty. But it is not covetous demands that can decide this, but only a correct understanding.
These things therefore have a fundamental application in life. Our entire public life is geared towards taking into account only what people are through their minds. But even though it is true that today, when people interact socially, they interact wisely only with their minds, this mental interaction – just think about it: all social interaction is only mental interaction! — is completely unsuitable for shaping social life. For where does the head come from? The human head — as we have explained — is not of this earth; it is created directly out of the cosmos. If one wants to deal with earthly matters with the head, one cannot do so. With the head, no one is a national, with the head, no one belongs to any part of the earth. With the head, we should only decide what belongs to the whole world. However, in order to be able to decide what belongs to the earth, we must first grow together throughout our entire lives with what belongs to the earth and what makes us citizens of the earth, not citizens of heaven. These things must be so. What can form the basis of public judgment must be drawn from deeper insights into human beings themselves. And again, we must consider—I will only sketch the outlines here, the details will be elaborated further—that what Goethe expressed as the idea of metamorphosis has a profound meaning and a much wider application than Goethe himself was able to make of it in his time. |
Our head is thus formed out of the cosmos. If we look at the matter from a spiritual scientific point of view, we must say: during the entire time between death and a new birth, we work — we work in the cosmos — to form our head. We work on our organism by working primarily on our head between death and rebirth. This head is, in a certain sense, the grave of the soul, in terms of how the soul was before birth or, if we want to say, before conception. There, the activities that we carry out in a spiritual life between death and rebirth come to rest. And to what is formed in a certain sense out of the spiritual world, there is then added what is attached to it from the stream of heredity. But what is it that is attached to it from the stream of heredity? It is nevertheless something that is connected with the head. I have already pointed this out before: what is in the human being apart from the head is the predisposition for the head in the next incarnation. The entire remaining organism is something that can be transformed into the head of the next incarnation. The forces we develop throughout our lives are torn away from the rest of the organism when we pass through the gate of death, but they remain in the forms that the rest of the organism had during life; these are carried through the time between death and the next birth and transformed into the head. In our head, therefore, we always have what is inherited from our previous incarnation. And in the rest of our organism, we have at the same time something that has a decisive influence on the formation of our head in the next incarnation. In this respect, we are also a dual nature.
Think about how, when you look at it this way, that human beings are truly immersed in cosmic connections, you come to the conclusion that they do not merely arise and form themselves in the part of time and space that we see in our external physical perception, but that they are part of an enormously large connection. It is extremely fascinating, not only to look, as Goethe did, at a bone of the spine and then at the bones of the head and say to oneself that the bones of the head are merely transformed vertebrae, but it is extremely fascinating to see how everything that is in the head is also in the rest of the organism. However, it requires an extremely unprejudiced observation to recognize not only the nose and everything else on the head as such a transformation, but also everything else in the rest of the organism as merely a more recent metamorphosis; all of this is transformed in an earlier metamorphosis into what we then see on the head.
I said: Pedagogically, the consequences of such a view are extremely important, and once people's thinking turns to this spiritual-scientific insight, then enormously significant demands will arise for such things as practical pedagogy, for example.
One thing above all is significant: we grow old in our lives. But actually, we can only say that our physical body grows old. For strange as it is — I have already mentioned this — our etheric body, the next spiritual part of our being, becomes younger and younger. The older we get, the younger our etheric body becomes. And while we develop wrinkles and become bald in our physical body, we become, or at least can become, increasingly chubby and blooming in our etheric body. But we must ensure that our etheric body receives the nourishment of youth, just as external nature ensures that the physical body ages. We can only do this if we feed our minds with spiritual ideas that are sufficient to be processed throughout our entire lives.
A spiritual scientist might imagine teaching children in their earliest years how human beings are a reflection of the entire universe, a reflection of the divine, wise world order, but in such a way that it is grasped immediately and fundamentally, rather than by reciting incomprehensible words from the Bible. But all this must be created from the spirit of spiritual science, then there will be a more complete knowledge than there is today. This will be a source of rejuvenation for people throughout their lives, whereas our present teaching is not such a source of rejuvenation, but rather the opposite. And if we are in the fortunate position today of not being the most terrible sourpusses because of our earlier education, it is only because the present way of caring for the head—which has been in preparation for about four centuries and has now reached its peak—has not yet been able to ruin so much of what has been handed down from ancient times as a cultural heritage. But if we continue to teach only for the head, then we are well on the way to raising real sourpusses. I said recently—the war interrupted the discussion—that in the years before the war, there was a great rush to sanatoriums, and people spent a great deal of money to get rid of their nervousness.
All this has to do with the fact that the head is not given what the whole person needs. I have also mentioned how little is being done in the right way to provide for these things. For I keep thinking back to how I visited a sanatorium a few years ago to see someone. We arrived just as lunchtime was beginning. The entire crowd of sanatorium guests filed past us. Some of them were quite strange people, who really had their nervousness written all over their faces and fidgeted with their hands and feet. But then I got to know the most nervous, the most fidgety person in that sanatorium, namely the head doctor. And it has to be said that a head doctor who is himself the one who needs the treatment most is not in a position to find the right treatment for his guests. Otherwise, he was an extremely amiable person, but he was an example of those people who, in their youth, did not take in what could keep them young throughout their lives. Such things cannot be changed by isolated reforms and cannot be transferred from one set of circumstances to another; such things can only be improved if the entire social organism is improved. Therefore, one must focus one's attention on the entire social organism. The great laws of the world already ensure that the individual cannot satisfy his egoism in such a field, but that he can only find his salvation, so to speak, if he seeks it in common with others.
This is how I imagine it — and anyone who does not merely imagine what lives in the sensory realm, as is customary today, but who is able to look beyond the sensory to the supersensible, from which the forces must come to reform the world in the near future, can imagine this — I imagine that in this area, but also in others, the introduction of spiritual science into life can take place by working out in an honest and sincere way, in concrete terms, what spiritual science can provide the impetus for. You see, in the sense of which we have often spoken and will speak again and again, there is no need to push for visionary clairvoyance, but only to understand human beings meaningfully as images of the world spirit, and then spirituality will come to you. It is impossible to understand and see through the human being in their entirety without seeing through and grasping what lies at the foundation of the human being as spiritual. But one thing is necessary, as I have often pointed out: the rejection of a vice that is so terribly prevalent today in all questions of worldview, the rejection of human beings' complacency in their knowledge. Our entire spiritual scientific observation shows us that we must proceed step by step, that we must be inclined to go into details in order to build up a whole from these details, that we must, so to speak, start from what is closest to the senses in order to ascend to the supersensible. We can almost grasp the supersensible with our hands in what is closest to the senses. For anyone who can contemplate the human head in the right way sees in it what has been formed out of the whole universe, and sees in the rest of the human organism what is being formed back into the universe in order to return from the universe in the next incarnation. If one observes the external senses correctly, one can already arrive at the supersensible in a completely correct manner. But one must take the trouble to allow human beings at least to their right, to grant them in relation to their knowledge what one grants, for example, to a clock or to a completely ordinary object. Anyone who has learned even a little about how things work mechanically will admit that they cannot understand a clock without considering the connection between the wheels. However, everyone talks about human beings without making such a demand, and indeed everyone believes that they can talk about the highest essence of human beings, and then very often appeals to the fact that they say: Yes, the truth must be “simple” — and then constructs that accusation against spiritual science, which always consists in the claim that spiritual science is far too complicated. Human desire may indeed be to acquire in five minutes, or perhaps in no time at all, what is necessary for the knowledge of the highest being of man. But man is a complicated being. It is precisely in this that his greatness in the universe lies, that he is a complicated being, and one must overcome the tendency toward convenience in knowledge if one really wants to penetrate into the essence of man. In our time, there is no understanding of what is necessary if one does not want to put oneself in a position to penetrate, at least intuitively, the whole complexity of human nature. For by cultivating only intellectual knowledge, by not wanting to process what the head learns with the whole human being, and by not giving the head anything that can be processed by the whole human being, we place human beings in the social order in such a way that we do not want to make earthly life a reflection of a supersensible, spiritual life. We suffer from a strange conflict. But this is not a conflict like the other conflicts I have just mentioned; it is a harmful conflict that we must overcome.
Human life has changed in the course of evolution. To observe this, one need only go back four centuries, not even that far. Anyone who knows life from its reality, not from popular literary history but from spiritual history, knows how infinitely different life and thinking in the 18th century were from those of the 19th century. We need only go back a little and we will see how the whole of human thinking has changed over the last four centuries. The whole of human thinking, which has changed so much, has gradually come to develop increasingly abstract concepts in the 20th century. More and more intellectual concepts have emerged. If we take the rich concepts of people in the 13th and 14th centuries, if we look at the natural sciences of those centuries, we see a tremendous difference from the abstract, dry laws of today's natural sciences! There is a very well-known book attributed to Basil Valentinus. It contains some very interesting things. Recently, a Swedish scholar wrote a book about “matter” and quoted various passages from Valentinus, concluding that “understand this if you can; it is impossible to understand.” We are quite willing to believe that he could not understand anything in Valentinus' book. For Valentinus, read with the concepts that we bring with us from physics and chemistry today, is completely incomprehensible! This has to do with the same things that have to do with the fact that the good old piece of wisdom, “The morning hour has God and gold in the mouth,” has been transformed over time into that other piece of wisdom, “The morning hour has gold in the mouth.” As a result, the good European saying “The morning hour has God and gold in the mouth” has become American: “The morning hour has gold in the mouth.”
In terms of the description and understanding of nature, those old times were permeated by what comes from the whole human being. Today, it is intellectual knowledge. As a result, on the one hand, it is abstract, dry, and does not fill a person's entire life; and on the other hand, it is nevertheless very spiritual. We are faced with this dual nature, in that we actually produce the most spiritual things today; these abstract concepts are the most spiritual things that can exist, but they are incapable of comprehending the spirit. It is incredibly easy to see the conflict into which human beings have fallen through the spiritual concepts they have developed. Strangely enough, it is precisely in these spiritual concepts that they have become materialists. But if the concepts were correct, materialism would never arise from them. The mere existence of abstract concepts is the first refutation of materialism. We live in this conflict. For four centuries, we have become immensely spiritualized, and we must find the living spirit again in this spirit that we have only in the abstract. We have risen to the level of having only objective concepts, but we must return to imagination, inspiration, and intuition. We have discarded what was handed down to us from ancient wisdom in the form of imagination, inspiration, and intuition. We must regain it now that we have renounced the fullness of knowledge of the whole human being.
This is something that can fill one with a sense of seriousness toward spiritual science. And if I have spoken more introductory in these two lectures that I have now been allowed to give before you again, my intention was to show how, from the most external observation of the human being, the impulse can arise to concern oneself with what lies spiritually at the foundation of the world. In pursuing these impulses and ideas, humanity will come to something that is so sorely lacking today: inner truthfulness. One cannot truly strive for the spirit unless one strives for inner truthfulness, and one will never go wrong if one acquires the knowledge through life experience that a true harmony between head knowledge and heart knowledge is only possible if one truly places oneself in life. For this is why people today do not want to transform head knowledge into heart knowledge, because heart knowledge not only takes longer, but also reacts against head knowledge, rejects it when it is untrue. The rest of the human being then makes itself felt as a kind of conscience. This is what the head-oriented humanity of today fears.
And now, in conclusion — because when we are together like this, it must always be a matter of concern to us to understand the position of our spiritual scientific endeavors, which we have characterized in this way today and last time, in the whole world — in conclusion, a few remarks that are of immediate practical relevance to us.
Spiritual science can only flourish if it is taken seriously in truthfulness, for it must address the deepest needs of humanity, especially in the present age. It must expose itself to those pangs of conscience that can very easily arise when the heart says no to the head. For the heart always says no to the head when the spiritual is not sought, or when knowledge is sought only out of mere egoism, out of desire, ambition, and so on. For this reason, it was necessary not to allow even the slightest compromise to arise in the work of spiritual science. Spiritual science must be pursued positively from within itself; one cannot compromise with half-measures, quarter-measures, or eighth-measures; it is too serious a matter today. Having said this by way of introduction, we may now make the following remarks, which are not meant personally, even if they touch on personal matters. Much of the opposition to spiritual science can only be understood if one considers its genesis, its development. Here and there, for example, someone appears who vehemently opposes spiritual science. There are other cases than the one I am referring to now, but in many cases the opposition to spiritual science arises from something like the concrete case I am about to describe.
I was once in Frankfurt am Main to give lectures. Someone called me on the phone to say that a gentleman wanted to speak to me. I had no objection and said he could speak to me at such and such a time. The gentleman in question arrived and said, “Oh, I've actually been following you around for a long time to see if I could speak to you.” I couldn't object, but I didn't have any interest either. The man then talked about all sorts of things. But one cannot help taking the humanities seriously, and if one wants to do so, one must reject some of the pretentious behavior that is intended to appear scholarly. One cannot compromise on everything. I wasn't rude to the man, but I let him run on, letting him know that I wouldn't be taking any further notice of him. It was my deepest conviction that the man was spouting empty nonsense, but that he was seeking approval. This was evident in countless cases. — What I am saying now is not out of silliness, but to characterize certain processes. — So I had to let this man run on. Much of what he said was extremely flattering, but the only thing that mattered was whether there was any truth in his “also” spiritual-scientific endeavors. Soon afterwards, announcements appeared in Switzerland from this man, stating that the “demonic” and “diabolical” aspects of Steiner's spiritual science had to be thoroughly discussed. — I could also tell you the rest of the story, but I don't want to. However, this is one of the ways in which opponents appear here and there. Very often these are people who have actually sought some kind of connection, but whose search for connection had to be ignored for certain reasons. Much had to be ignored in order to keep spiritual science pure. That was something we had to impose on ourselves.
Now I would like to mention something else in connection with this. Our esteemed friend Dr. Rittelmeyer recently spoke in the magazine “Die christliche Welt” about the relationship between our spiritual science and the religious question, and in doing so attempted to refute many other prejudices against our spiritual science in an extremely commendable and grateful manner. I hope that all of you will familiarize yourselves with the article that appeared by Dr. Rittelmeyer in Die christliche Welt. Now, however, Dr. Johannes Müller, who is well known to many, has seen fit to write a series of articles in three issues of the same magazine in response to Dr. Rittelmeyer's treatise. It is really not my intention to respond in any way to what Dr. Johannes Müller has written. For a long time now, I have always tried not to talk about Dr. Johannes Müller, because I have reasons to keep spiritual science free from amateurish efforts and not get it mixed up in compromises. And I believe that this is best achieved by not concerning oneself with what, if it can have an effect, must surely do so through its own merit, at least not by talking about it. I have never mentioned Dr. Johannes Müller in any particular context. Now, in our time, there is not much feeling for what is actually true and untrue in this field. If you go through Johannes Müller's essays now, you will find that they contain a good deal of what must be called objective untruths caused by carelessness or something else. They are full of them. Such things must be looked at closely. I had to characterize one such untruth in one case: the Dessoit untruths in my “Seelenrätseln” (Riddles of the Soul). I am now very curious, because something should actually happen in response to what has been proven there about the professor at the Berlin University. Just read the essay I wrote as the second in my book “Von Seelenrätseln” about the way Professor Dessoir works. Anyone who writes about Dessoir's book after reading this essay, which is now available, and does not take this essay into account is an accomplice to these things. But these things are not taken seriously today, with many people excusing themselves by saying, “I didn't know,” as if those who make claims do not have to examine the facts properly first. Well, I prefer to leave it to those who are familiar with Johannes Müller's lectures and posters to judge such trifles as whether my posters are “sensationalist” and so on; and I will also leave it to others to judge whether my lectures should be seen as speculating on people's particular thirst for sensation. Not long ago, a highly esteemed elderly gentleman, who really wants to form a very conscientious opinion about these things, told me that he was actually surprised that so many people came to my lectures, because I did not make any effort to make them easy. Now, it is very easy to prove that Johannes Müller's accusations are untrue. For in a city where spiritual science has not yet gained a foothold, not very many people usually come to my lectures on mere announcement; but where many come, it is because real effort has been made to advertise and work for them in such a place. However, I do not wish to go into this further, except perhaps to point out the last section of Johannes Müller's statement, which dwells on my reference to the “drama of God” that is to be redeemed by man and the like, and where Johannes Müller fills one and a half columns by taking a few sentences from my book “Christianity as Mystical Fact” , taking them out of context as it suits him. But because of what he has omitted, everything he says becomes utter nonsense. In my book on Christianity, the opposite is said about the “drama of God and its enchantment.” Johannes Müller, however, excuses himself by saying that he could not understand my writings. I certainly believe him! But without having understood the slightest thing, Johannes Müller attacks this book. I have often pointed out that this book sees the mystery of Golgotha—in contrast to all other mysteries—as the main nerve. Johannes Müller has no feeling for this. So I would never demand that he should understand my book, nor do I believe that he is capable of doing so, but he criticizes it. And the strange thing is this: this book was printed in 1902; it had therefore been available for six years in 1906. It was known that I had just then, in the first edition, explained my relationship to natural science on the one hand and to philosophy on the other. Christianity as Mystical Fact had become well known. Now, if Johannes Müller was not yet familiar with it, that is his business. But I mention that it was known in 1906 and that it was just as much connected with my overall worldview as, for example, my Philosophy of Freedom. So anyone who formed an opinion about me in 1906 had to take me from the standpoint of my entire worldview and could not, in essence, accept half-measures. So in 1906, the fact was that Christianity had already been published for four years. But in 1906, Johannes Müller sent me his book The Sermon on the Mount. It contained the following dedication: “To Dr. R. Steiner, in pleasant memory of The Philosophy of Freedom. Mainberg, August 17, 1906.” This matter was one of those where I was forced to ignore it, because it was impossible to compromise in the directions I have spoken of. And I consider it my right, instead of saying to someone, ‘I see your things as this and that,’ to remain silent when he approaches me in this way. But remaining silent, under certain circumstances, annoys people most of all. I said that one must remain silent when one approaches me in this way. I see your things as this and that — to remain silent when he approaches me in this way. But remaining silent may, under certain circumstances, annoy people the most. I said that one must seek the opposition to spiritual science in real circumstances. It is often much more unpleasant for people when one reveals the real circumstances. I could tell you even more unpleasant things. But anyone who now reads the essays by Dr. Johannes Müller about our friend Dr. Rittelmeyer would perhaps do well not to seek opposition merely in these things, but in contributions such as the one I quoted. One must search everywhere to see whether one cannot find much truer reasons than those that lie on the surface. It is annoying when someone approaches a subject “in pleasant memory of the Philosophy of Freedom” and the other person does not respond and gives no answer.
I did not want to withhold this short contribution from you, perhaps also because of Johannes Müller's psychology, so that you can see more clearly than you might from his essays alone.