Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Spiritual-Scientific Consideration of Social and Pedagogic Questions
GA 192

8 May 1919, Whitsundsay, Stuttgart

IV. Pedagogy, from the Standpoint of the History of Culture

Considering the seriousness of the times, it seems to me that if I were to speak about Pentecost today in the way it is ordinarily spoken of, it would be unchristian—although such unchristian performances are quite the accepted thing. All who have been speaking here for the renewal of our education and school life, have spoken in the real spirit of Pentecost—endorsing as they have, so earnestly, our movement for the threefolding of the social organism. For in the liberation of the spiritual life, in the emancipation of the schools, lies the truest spirit of Pentecost for our present day—that Pentecost spirit which has entirely disappeared from the ordinary so-called religious and confessional streams of this age.

It is our sincere hope that an emancipation of the spiritual life, such as we are striving to achieve, will bring about its renewal—a thing of which mankind is so sorely in need. But one will only be able to comprehend what must be done to our schools and to our education in order to bring about a renewal of the spirit, a pouring out of the true Pentecost spirit, if one realizes how deeply the anti-Pentecost spirit has trickled into public life, into men's so-called spiritual intercourse with one another.

If one speaks in these times as one must on an anthroposophical basis, then one even—I underline it three times—even hears this reproof: that the word “German” and the word “Christian” or “Christ” are never mentioned in the course of one's remarks.

My dear friends, if we cannot find within ourselves the answer to such foolish chatter we have not yet get to the heart of the anthroposophical world-conception! It is the direct result of our distorted pedagogy; it illustrates what absurdities have trickled into our souls through our education. We must above all things gain a knowledge of the connection between the perverted chatter of our age and our perverted educational life; this knowledge must pour down in manifold fiery tongues upon the heads of our contemporaries.

A great deal is being said in our time about the unimportance of the word, and that “in the beginning was the deed”. My dear friends, an age like ours will even find a false use for the Gospel; the word has become mere chattered phrase and the deed, thoughtless brutality. An age like ours turns away from the Word with reason, because in the word that it knows it can only find phrase—and the deed that it knows is only thoughtless brutality.

There is a deep connection between our educational life and this fact which I have mentioned. We bear within us two sources of perverted humanity: a perverted Hellenic and a perverted Romanism. We do not understand Hellenism as it related to its own time and place. We can, hardly comprehend why the noble Socrates and Plato tried with such courage to cure the Greeks of their unconquerable love of illusion. The Greeks always wanted to escape from the seriousness of life, and sought their satisfaction in illusions. Socrates and Plato, the Greek lawgivers, had to point with great severity to the reality of the spirit, to save the Greeks from falling more and more into the failing of their race, that of withdrawing comfortably by means of illusions from the seriousness of life. The Greeks allowed “the loafer Socrates” to go on talking about the seriousness of life as long as he seemed harmless. But as soon an they realized what was really contained in his words they gave him hemlock to drink.

Socrates spirit of earnestness is not the spirit of this age. We inherit rather that spirit of Hellenism that poisoned Socrates; and we revel in it. We even consent to the poisoning of the pearl of world-literature, the beginning of the Gospel of St. John, when we allow the word “Word”—of which the Old Testament said that when man lets it become one of his illusions heaven and earth will fall—we allow it to be taken literally. St. John's Gospel begins, “In the beginning was the Word”. The man of today is content to take the word “Word” as a mere phrase. But something stands written there that is destined to scatter all his illusions which he drags into the phrase. The heaven end earth of our illusions would collapse if we were earnestly willing to understand the “Logos” that shines forth from this sentence, and that should be experienced in it.

Thus our culture has tried to ameliorate the severities of life either by mystic comfort or by brutal action. That is what we must see today, what we must realize above all things. Today we must drive out of men's souls from the first moment of education up through the highest schools, what Socrates and Plato sought to expel from Hellenism when they said to the Greeks: “Beware of illusions; the spirit alone has reality! There is living reality in ideas, which is not what you, with your elusive phrases, want to see in thee?”

We will get no further if we keep chattering about ethics and religion! For the Gospel is itself a fact in the evolution of the world. It has become today mere babble; and therefore it is accompanied by thoughtless, brutal action. We must fill our souls with what can really inspirit us when we speak. We must find a way to make the heart speak behind the lips. We must find a way to penetrate our words with our entire being; otherwise the word becomes a seducer, tempting us with illusion, alluring us from the earnestness of reality. We must put away forever the spirit which lures us to go church in order to be lifted there out of the earnestness of life, and to hear this gratifying phrase trickled out to us: that the Lord God will make it all right, He will deliver us from our evils. We must look within ourselves, within our own souls, for forces which are divine forces, which have been implanted in us during the evolution of the world in order that we shall use them, in order that we shall he able to receive God into our individual souls. We should not be listening to all this preaching about an external God, which allows our souls to lie in indolent repose on Philistine sofas, of which we are so fond when it is a question of spiritual life. Our education must find away out of the “Greek Phrase”, as one may call it today. It must also find a way out beyond the “Roman phrase”.

The “spirit of law” which our age still worships today was right for the Romans. For what was this spirit of law? A deep meaning lies hidden in the legend of the founding of Rome. Brutes were held together in order to combat the worst animal-human instincts. That is what the Roman laws were for, to herd wild animals together. But we should realize that we have become men, and we should not worship that spirit of law which arose from a legitimate Roman instinct to tame brutish human passions. The Roman spirit that still prevails in us today as our “spirit of right” is universally of such a character as to intend that wild human passions shall not rule in freedom, but shall be held in full restraint.

Christian! the complaint is that that word is not used in the lectures we are giving. But we continually forget a very Christian saying of Paul that reads as follows: “Sin came through law, not law through sin. “If there were no law, sin would be dead”. Of course that may be worth nothing for our time, because men have become unchristian. But it is a saying of which one must learn the dear significance. This is the true Christian spirit: to take out of the State—which men regard today as All-containing, All-embracing, and which is our inheritance from Rome—to take out of it the spiritual life and the economic life, and to make them free. But men do not want the Christian spirit, and therefore they want to make themselves feel comfortable by using “Christ” and “Christian” as often as possible as phrases.

Likewise they want to hear the word “German” as a mere phrase as often as possible. A true German spirit prevails in Goethe. The recent un-German spirit of middle Europe has in its enlightened representative, the Berlin Academy of Science, coined a phrase which I have mentioned here before: the glory of these men, the spiritual leaders of today, consists in this, they regard themselves as “the scientific bodyguard of the Hohenzollerns”! The man who coined that phrase has also given a lecture, in the scientific phraseology of the present day, entitled “Goethe and no End”, in which he endeavored to trample to the ground Goethe's whole natural-scientific spirit. He took great pleasure in saying: “Goethe's Faust character might better be inventing an air pump to keep Gretchen upright, than all the silly things he does in that book”. That is in the spirit of the time—trampling on the true German spirit which never takes the word “German” in vain—just as the “modern” Christian spirit (and that means unchristian spirit) has been always to require the words “Christ” and “Christian”, and to disregard this other saying; “Thou shalt not speak the word God is vain”. One should have a feeling for what is Christian, and not be constantly wanting to have one's ears filled with chatter about Christianity.

That is “the spirit of Whitsuntide” today. One can hardly say that if it were not cherished and cultivated it would find much fruitful ground upon which to fall. One has plenty of opportunity to see how this Whitsuntide spirit is everywhere misunderstood. The following fact, for instance, that has actually come to light, in a remarkable illustration of the spirit of our time (if I may descend for a moment to an everyday matter): Our Union for the Threefolding of the social organism started forth to make seed-words grow into deeds, and in order to be understood snatched up the words of a certain person for quotation. Then this person talked also on his side, about socialization, using words which could very well be used if socialization was being talked about, and which at the same time could very well be quoted by our Union for the Threefolding of the social organism, because as words, if they were the thought-seeds of actions, then would actually mean what we want to say. But then, what happened? From the side from which these words originally came, the course of action which should naturally follow these words was violently attacked. What, does this indicate, was under the surface of the man's thought? It was this: Woe to you if you regard our words as anything else but chatter and phrase! The moment you take our words seriously, we are your enemies! That is the outcome of on educational system that has grown up in this age under the wing of the State. That on the one side. On the other hand is this pleasing denunciation: We are in complete agreement with what Steiner says, his whole ides for fighting existing capitalism; we agree with his Threefold Commonwealth; but we are fighting him because we will not be preached to by a spirit-seer!

It does not seem unreasonable to ask ourselves: What can be attempted in an age that wants nothing else but phrases or thoughtless brutal action, that refuses everything else, but that nevertheless bears within it the seed out of which real men can be developed? People do not want to have to think; they prefer thoughtless class war. They utter beautiful phrases and do not want their thoughts to become deeds. And if someone takes their phrases seriously he is violently attacked.

We must ask ourselves noel, seriously: ! Have men who are born in the midst of such a spirit the right to pour out phrases—oily phrases—about the Pentecost wonder? My dear friends, the slime that is poured out today about the Pentecost wonder comes from the dame glands as the poison with which some want to choke everything today that comes from the spirit, poison by which they encourage in themselves on the one hand unreal phrase, and on the other hand thoughtless, brutal action. The unreel phrase is the religious chatter of the world; the brutal unspiritual act is militarism, the fundamental evil of our time. Until one realizes how thoroughly these two things are ingrained in our perverted educational life, one cannot think fruitfully about what ought to be done. Everything else is simply a quack remedy.

What must be done, my friends, must be done out or reality. For reality carries the spirit within it; whereas a denial of the spirit makes everything an absurdity. And if in our time anyone tries to indicate spiritual realities, he is branded a “visionary”, and “spirit-seer”. It is because a feeling for reality is universally lacking.

The comparison of the social organism with the human or any other organism, has also become a phrase, in our time, and avery cheap one at that. If one wants to use a comparison without resorting to phrases, one must present the fundamental knowledge for it as it is given in my book Riddles of the Soul. What sense is there today in speaking of the threefold social organism until its spiritual foundation, the threefold nature of the human organism, consisting of nerve-sense faculties, rhythmic faculties, and metabolic faculties, is presented to men as real natural-scientific knowledge? But men are so indolent that they will not allow the conceptions they have acquired from their perverted school-training of the present day to be corrected by that which originates in true reality.

Our official science, that is, the science that is accepted everywhere as authoritative, cherishes another hoary conception. Even modern science kneels in idolatrous worship before everything that is thrust forward as highest culture. To what else, then, should it have recourse when it wants to explain something especially mysterious, than to something to which just at this time kneels the lowest? Thus, the human nervous system has become for science a collection of “telegraphic lines”; it sees the whole nervous activity of men as a remarkably complicated telegraph system. The eye perceives; the skin perceives. Then what has been perceived on the outside is carried to the telegraph station called “the brain”. And sitting in the brain is some being or other—of course modern science would not have anything to do with a spiritual being—anyway, through some kind or being that has become a phrase because one acknowledges no reality there, the perception announced by the sensory nerves is transformed through the motor nerves into movements of will. And this distinction between sensory and motor nerves is stuffed into our young people, and upon it the whole conception of man is built.

For years I have been fighting this absurd distinction between sensory and motor nerves, first of all because the distinction is nonsense. For, the so-called motor nerves exist for no other reason than that for which the sensory nerves exist. A sensory nerve, a sense-nerve, is the means by which we are to perceive what is going on in our sense-organization. And a so-called motor nerve is not a “motor” nerve but is also a sensory nerve; it only exists so that I shall perceive my own movements, which originate in something quite other than the motor nerves. Motor nerves are inner sensory nerves for the perception of my own will-impulse. The sensory nerves exist in order that I may perceive the external things that are happening to my sense apparatus. And in order that I may not be merely an unconscious being walking, hitting, grasping, without myself knowing anything about it, the so-called motor nerves exist thus not for the exertion of will, but for the perception of what my will is doing. The whole idea of a distinction has been invented by modern science out of the distorted intellectual knowledge of our time, and it is truly scientific nonsense. That is one reason why I have been fighting it for years.

But there is another reason why this nonsense must be uprooted, this superstition about motor and sensory nerves, between which there is no other difference than that one is sensitive to what is outside the body and the other to what is inside the body. This is the other reason.

No one in any kind of social science can acquire a correct understanding of man in his relation to work if he builds up concepts on this false differentiation between sensory and motor nerves. For one will get most curious notions of what human work is, of what happens in man then he works, when he brings his muscles into movement, if one does not know that the man's bringing his muscles into movement does not depend upon his so-called motor nerves but upon the immediate connection of his soul with the outer world. I can do no more then just indicate this fact to you, because today men do not yet have the slightest understanding for it. Education has not yet produced even a primitive capacity for the understanding of such things because it still works on the basis of this mad distinction between sensory and motor nerves. When I confront a machine I must confront it as a whole man; I must set up a relation above all things between my muscles and this machine. This relation is all that a man's work really depends upon. It is this relation that one must understand if one wants to know the social significance of work,—this very special relation of men to work. What is our concept of work today?

The process that goes on in man when he is, as we say, “working” is no different, whether he is exerting himself at a machine, or chopping wood, or engaging in sport for pleasure. He can wear himself out just as thoroughly, he can consume just as much working-power, in some sport that is a social superfluity as in chopping wood which is social necessity. And the illusion of a difference between sensory and motor nerves is the origin psychologically of man's conception of work today—while in reality one can only gain a true conception of work if one considers, not how a man exerts himself in work, but in what sort of relation to his social environment he is placed by his work. I believe you do not really comprehend that, because the concepts one might have today of these things are so distorted by our education that it will be a long time before one can find any transition from the concept of work that is socially absurd and from the concept of sensory and motor nerves that is scientifically absurd. It is in these very things that we must look for the reason why our thinking in so impractical. How can humanity think practically about practical things when it is a victim of this absurd concept: that we have a telegraphic apparatus strung up in us by which wires go to someplace or other in the brain and are then switched on to other wires—sensory and motor nerves! It is from this unscientific science of ours, which arises from a distorted school system, and to which people are intrigued into pinning their faith—it is from this that the impossibility arises of thinking socially.

That is what we should recognize today as the Pentecost spirit. It would be wiser to pour that out in single streams on the men of the present day, than to use the kind of quack ointment that it is thought today will better this thing or that. When one says today that mankind must learn anew and think anew, people believe at most that one is employing that same phrase that they themselves employ—and that is easy to understand because people at once translate what one says into phrases and utopias. But does it not make a difference whether some popular orator says “Mankind must learn new lessons”, or whether someone says it who knows that through the habit of artificial thinking mankind has created such depths of false thoughts that they even reach down into the structure of the human nervous system, so that today men have a deeply rooted superstition about sensory and motor nerves because their authorities impose it upon them. It must be made clear to the world that one is speaking from a basis of reality—and saying very different things about this reality—when one talks on the ground of the anthroposophical movement about “thinking anew” and “learning anew”; it should be the task of the Anthroposophical Society to make that clear. For today the phrase has won such power that as far as the words themselves are concerned anyone who is unable to distinguish between reality and phrase can refer you, for instance, to the editorial of today's Stuttgart Daily and say: Look there, there is also preaching about “learning anew”. But it is not a question of comparing words, for then we fall into word-idolatry; today we must see what the reality is, and protect ourselves fro the danger of falling into phrase idolatry. How many times have I regretfully had to disagree when such phrases as this have been uttered: Look there, someone has again spoken from the pulpit “quite theosophically”—as people say. These things are so bad because they show how little capacity exists today for differentiating between a knowledge of reality and a smug use of phrases. With the Pentecost festival this admonition should pour down upon human souls: “Away from you phrases back to reality!” We talk today in the field of science, the field of art, the field of religion—in fact, we talk everywhere—in phrases which stick in the throat and do not include the whole man; just as man's belief today is that his sense impressions stay somewhere up in his brain and do not also register his motor activities. Everything is connected in the most intimate way, and until there is a change in those thought habits which official science has created in our time, which scientific popery has imposed upon us, there will be o real Pentecostal renewal—for all other renewal is only on the surface and does not pour forth, as it must, from real inner depths. If our school life and education are really to experience a renewal we must become awake to such things as have been discussed here, and protect mankind from the diseases which so easily can arise in it today, because of its inheritance from Romanism.

The love of illusion that is so widespread today must be fought against. The man of today feels comfortable when he can delude himself about reality, when he can say to himself: Not Christ in me, Who arouses my strength, Who liberates powerful forces within me—not that do I profess; but the Christ Who is external to me, and Who mercifully frees me from my sins without my having to do anything about it out of my own earnestness or my own powers!

My dear friends, again and again in numerous letter I have had this Christ-Jesus creed held up to me, in contract to what Anthroposophy must do and wants to do. And again and again I have been confronted by the request to “popularize” in trivial phrases, “so that people can understand it”, that which today must be stamped with severe accuracy out of the reality of the spirit because the time demands it. But the moment anthroposophical truths were cut up into trivial phrases they would become just phrases, such as all the phrases that are so cheap in the present day; they would be brought down either to trivialities of the street or to the Philistinism of modern science. Again and again I have found the courage not to do either—either to reduce anthroposophical teaching to the trivial phrases of the street (which is called “popularizing”) or to talk so that the scientific people would understand me. I have received these two admonitions many times. My dear friends, I should then have to talk so that I would find an echo in the scientific senselessness of the present day. It would be especially agreeable to me when people behave as a professor in Tübingen did recently out of the scientific conviction of the present time. It seems to me, truth reigns in external events, for that affair is the best proof of how necessary it is for the spiritual life to be completely transformed. Especially, if one wants to find a transition to the true Pentecost spirit, from babbling words to seed-bearing words, then one must earnestly again and again examine one's old habitual concepts in order to see what it is that one does not want to make new concepts for—what it is that can be chattered about perhaps while still clinging to one's old concepts, but not comprehended by them.

Apropos of' the value or words today, there is no great sense in pointing out that in certain circles the proletariat has sufficient goodwill to understand the Threefold Commonwealth ideas even better then the middle-class understands them. If the middle class would only have the same “goodwill” is what many would like to say today. The proletariat laughs at this urging the middle-class to have “goodwill”—and he is justified in laughing. He is better prepared to understand than a man of the middle-class. But it is on quite a different basis that he is prepared to understand these things, and he laughs when when anyone says one appeal to the goodwill of the middle-class in order to set understanding; he laughs especially when one says one could expect a result from this appeal. For he knows quite well that his better understanding comes from something quite different: that in the morning if he does not work he finds himself in the street: he is bound up with the social order, I might say, at points only—not throughout a straight line as is the middle-class citizen of today: he understands out of his humanness because the present social order has brought it about that he has other than human interests, for he is nothing else the morning he is thrown out on the street, but just a man. That is what his better understanding springs from.

As to the middle-class citizen, especially the state-official: the state takes him in hand as soon as possible—not too early, because then it is still considered indelicate, and so the state leaves him to mothers and wet-nurses. But as soon as he gets beyond this first indelicate period he is taken at once into the care of the state and trained, prepared—not to be a man, but to be a state-official. Then the strings are tied, so that he is connected with the social order not at points, like the proletarian, but by a long line; through strings on all his interests, he is fastened up to the social order that exists through the state and that is supported by the state. He is trained in all his behavior to be the correct expression of the social order. Then he is fed, and he is satisfied. He is not only fed, but he is so taken care of that he does not have to take care of himself. And then, when he is no longer able to work, the state sees that he gets a pension so that without having to do anything about himself he is properly supported by the Powers that trained him in the first place to be their loyal expression. This lasts until death. Then he is still taken care of, this time by a religion which gets its salvation not from the inner forces of the soul, but from a mercy that comes in from the outside; this religion sees to it that his soul is “pensioned” after death. That is the precise content of state wisdom and religious wisdom. No wonder that a man of the middle-class, citizen of both state and heaven, hangs on to that with which he is bound up so thoroughly.

There is the contrast: personal interest on the one side, but then also personal interest on the nearest corner of the other side. It is in opposition to the personal interest on the other side that that a number of men attain today that which mankind must attain in this age of the consciousness soul, and of which I have often spoken: establishing oneself as an individual human being. The proletarian has only an opportunity of doing that, of establishing the fact that he is first of all an individual, when he has not been drawn into a contract with all the others. The more he is drawn in, the worse it is for him.For here on this side are men who similarly are set up in their positions by the proletarist: they are the the men who have any kind of official position in the labor unions. Even if their positions are called by other names, they succumb easily to the same grand manners as the middle-class citizens, and they fight whatever arises as a possible hindrance to these airs. And so they gradually acquire the habits of the middle-class.

One talks today in the proletarian world of labor unions. In England about a fifth of the whole laboring population is economically organized. That is relatively many. Thus the present English laboring class, in the modern spirit of organizing, has grown quite neatly into the middle-class way of thinking. In Germany only an eighth are organized, the others are unorganized workers. And it is the unorganized workers today who stand on the ground of personality; they are the real driving powers, it is they who have preserved the consciousness of what it means to remain just a man, without the pensions—without even, the pension which I have rationed for one's later spiritual life. These men who stand in the external economic sphere upon their own individuality are, I might say, the psychic channel for that which must arise today as an historical necessity, for that which makes the proletarian demand of today at the same time a world-historical demand.

The modern economic order has harnessed the proletariat to factories and capitalism, where it is easier for them to understand what the demand of the time is, than for the middle-class man who hangs on with all his strings to his maintenance and his pension, and who does not want to think. If he were to think, if he were to analyze the age correctly, it would not be possible to speak as a Tübingen professor did recently, who brought up this argument during the discussion after one of my lectures: It has just been said that the proletarian's “existence worthy of a man” is undermined because the proletarian is paid wages for his work; is not Caruso paid wages when he sings, and at the end of the evening is given 30 or 40 thousand marks for his work? Or—the selfless gentleman continued—do I not also receive wages?—I feel none of this “unworthy of a man” business when I pocket my salary! Nor does Caruso feel it when he collects his 30 or 40 thousand marks… That is the gist of what he said. And he went on to say: the only difference is this, that in one case the wages are more, in the other, lees, but that is of no importance—in reality it is all the same!

My dear friends, that is the spirit which blossoms out of the educational life of today! It is the same spirit that says: We are becoming a poor nation , we will not be able to pay for schools and educations, the state will have to step in and pay for them. Now, to one who thinks so shortsightedly, one will have to reply: But what does the state do when everybody is poor, and it must suddenly become the Croesus who will pay the debts that all of, us cannot pay? First, the state takes away in the form of taxes whatever everybody has: it seems to me it can hardly manufacture as a Croesus what the people themselves do not have. That is what these classes of people have to learn. It is also what those persons must learn to understand who are supported by the state out of the pockets of those who stand economically on the basis of their human individuality. As long as they have not learnt to understand it through the necessity of life, it is impossible to put it into their minds. And so it seems to me, a great number of people today want to conjure up an age in which one can also be thrown on the street if one is not willing to bring about another social order through an impulse of thought. It could very easily happen that the state pensions of which I have spoken could no longer be paid—in which event, I believe, the people would not so much, either, of those other spiritual pensions that are paid today to the soul after death by the religious community that has become so dependent upon the material powers.

But now when something arises that is not willing to be mere phrase, but insists upon being seed-thoughts for action, people cannot accept it as anything other than phrase. They cannot perceive that a real concept of work depends upon actual knowledge of life, even of single details such as the scientific absurdity existing in the distinction between motor and sensory nerves.

It is necessary today that at least a few men see into these depths. Today it is absolutely necessary that individuals should not let themselves be fooled into saying: We will socialize the outer economic life, but we will not touch the schools, especially the high schools and colleges. They must remain as they are. That is the very worst thing that could happen, for the state of affairs that has prevailed until now will, if it remains as it is, will only become worse. Socialize economic life, and leave the spiritual life as it is, and in a short time out of your apparent socialization you will have a much greater tyranny and much worse conditions of life than ever before. Today of course the economic pressure which exists is the cause of frightful eruptions in the social organism. Is this now to be succeeded by place-hunting, by the worst kind of bureaucracy? Do men who have now (although a little late) finally learnt that they cannot depend upon “throne and alter”, actually believe that it would be any safer to depend in the same way upon the state treasury and state budget? Capitalism has known how to bring the altar around gradually to a respect for power that really no longer exists but that lives on in phrase, into corporation idolatry and corporation place-hunting.

What mankind needs for a renewal of the spirit is the courage to realize that the spiritual life of humanity has become today religious chatter on the one hand , and on the other , thoughtless, brutal action, militarism. The typical man of this modern capitalistic age feels most himself when he is engaged in cutting his coupons, averting his eyes while he does it from what really takes place through that action. On the one hand the gospel made into chatter about love of neighbor and brotherliness, and he sits there comfortably with his scissors, cutting it all to pieces: he does not need to see the reality of what he is doing, because on the other hand he knows that he does not have to protect his business himself: the state does that by manufacturing swords. We have experienced this covenant between business life and state life in modern times: it is precisely what brought the world catastrophe upon us. This “state” of which men have been so proud: what has it been else then the great Protector of economic life as it is carried on under capitalism? My dear friends, one would like to hope that the patriots of the past, whose patriotism in their sense one would not question, ( for they were “good” patriots, they coined the word from a patriotic phrase, and it was very disastrous in the age just past to point out that this patriotic phrase had a very real foundation, that the state reverenced by patriots was after all just a protector of banknotes?)—one would like to hope that these patriots do not suddenly “unpatriotize” themselves and now that their gold is probably bettor protected by the Entente powers, speedily trim their patriotism! I will not say anything in particular about such a possibility, but I should like to draw your attention to the ease with which the patriotic phrase can be transformed into its opposite. There are plenty of examples about us.

These are the things that must be said today, while celebrating Whitsuntide, in regard to the necessity of renewing school and educational life. For the unctuous talk that has been given to mankind should he poured out no longer. Men must accustom themselves to words that point to the realities of the present day. Then it will be possible for the real Pentecost spirit to descend among us, for little tongues of fire to reach into all that arises in the future out of the emancipated spiritual life, into the lowest school as well as the highest, so that in the future the liberated spirit, which is the real Holy Spirit, can bring about the spiritual evolution of mankind.

One is talking perhaps of something that the religious chatterer of today does not think of as exactly “Christian”. But mankind will have to decide whether the Christian talk of the man of today originates in that spirit which Peter denied his Lord three times, or whether it crises out of the spirit that said, “What I have revealed to you is not merely confined to one age, but will stand through all ages. And I will not cease to declare the truth to you; I will be with you until the end of the earth, time.” Those who can hear only the spirit of the past today even in Christianity, will be the phrase makers, the chatterers. Those who accept the living spirit today even for the transformation and rebuilding of the social order,' will be those perhaps in whom one will able to see the true Christ.

May this age grow out of a truly comprehended Pentecost spirit.

Siebenter Vortrag

Heute, in dieser unserer Gegenwart, über Pfingsten so zu sprechen, wie das üblich geworden ist, scheint mir angesichts des Ernstes der Zeit eine unchristliche Handlung, obwohl solche unchristlichen Handlungen heute gerade an der Tagesordnung sind. Schließlich, aus dem Geiste des Pfingstfestes heraus gesprochen ist ja gerade alles das, was hier von denjenigen zur Erneuerung unseres Erziehungs- und Schulwesens vorgebracht wird, die sich ernstlich bekennen zu unserer Bewegung für die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. Denn in der Abgliederung des Geisteslebens, in der Selbständigmachung des Schulwesens, liegt der wichtigste Pfingstgeist unserer Gegenwart, liegt jener Pfingstgeist, der in den übrigen sogenannten religiösen und konfessionellen Strömungen unseres Zeitalters längst geschwunden ist. Hoffen wollen wir ja, daß gerade aus der Emanzipation des Geisteslebens, wie wir sie anstreben, die Erneuerung dieses Geisteslebens, der die Menschheit so sehr bedarf, hervorgehe. Was heute in unserem Unterrichts- und Erziehungswesen zur Erneuerung des Geistes, zur Ausgießung des wahren Pfingstgeistes der Gegenwart geschehen muß, das kann doch nur derjenige einsehen, der sich ein Urteil darüber bildet, wie der Anti-Pfingstgeist überall hineingeträufelt ist in das, was uns heute im öffentlichen Leben, im sogenannten geistigen Verkehr der Menschen untereinander begegnet.

Wenn so gesprochen wird, wie es aus anthroposophischen Untergründen heraus in dieser Zeit von uns geschehen muß, dann kann man heute sogar - ich sage sogar, und ich unterstreiche das dreimal -, sogar den Vorwurf hören: in diesen Reden komme ja das Wort deutsch und christlich oder Christus fast gar nicht vor.

Wenn wir nicht in uns den Geist zur Zurückweisung eines solchen Geschwätzes finden, haben wir den Nerv anthroposophischer Weltanschauung noch nicht erkannt. In solchem Geschwätz liegt die Frucht unserer verkehrten Volks- und Menschheitspädagogik; in diesem Geschwätz lebt sich das aus, was an Verkehrtheiten in unsere Seelen während der Erziehung hineingeträufelt ist. Daher kommt es darauf an, vor allen Dingen Einsicht zu gewinnen in den Zusammenhang zwischen dem verkehrten Geschwätz unseres Zeitalters und unserem verkehrten Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesen. Die Gewinnung dieser Einsicht ist das, was sich heute zerteilen und in einzelnen feurigen Zungen über die Häupter der Zeitgenossen niedersenken sollte.

Es ist in unserer Zeit viel davon die Rede, daß man das Wort nicht achten solle, denn: «Im Anfang war die Tat.» Aber ein Zeitalter, wie das unsrige, wird auch diese Sache nut falsch anwenden, denn in diesem Zeitalter ist das Wort zur geschwätzigen Phrase und die Tat zur gedankenlosen Brutalität geworden. Ein solches Zeitalter hat es billig, vom Wort abzulenken, weil es in dem Wort, das es kennt, nur fühlen kann die Phrase, und in der Tat, die es kennt, die gedankenlose Brutalität.

Es gibt einen tiefen Zusammenhang zwischen unserer Erziehung, unserem Unterricht, und dieser eben gekennzeichneten Tatsache. Wir tragen zwei Quellen einer verkehrten Menschlichkeit in uns: wir tragen in uns ein verkehrtes Griechentum und ein verkehrtes Römertum. Wir verstehen nicht, das Griechentum in seiner Zeit und an seinem Ort so zu nehmen, wie es ist. Wir verstehen nicht, wie die hehren Gestalten des Sokrates und Plato alle Mühe hatten, den Griechen auszutreiben ihren unwiderstehlichen Hang zur Illusion. Der Grieche war so geartet, daß er fortwährend den Hang empfand, über den Ernst des Lebens hinaus sich zur wesenlosen Illusion zu erheben und in ihr seine Wohlbefriedigung zu suchen. Die griechischen Gesetzgeber, Sokrates und Plato, haben auf die Realität des Geistes mit aller Schärfe hinweisen müssen, damit die Griechen nicht immer mehr in ihren Volksfehler, in ihren Rassenfehler verfielen: sich durch Illusion wohlbehaglich über den Ernst des Lebens hinwegzutäuschen. Und selbst so lange nur haben es die Griechen dem Sokrates verziehen, von dem Lebensernst zu sprechen, als ihnen der «Bummler » Sokrates ungefährlich erschien. Als sie aber vernahmen, was eigentlich in den Worten des bummelnden Sokrates für Lebensernst enthalten ist, da haben sie ihn vergiftet.

Wir haben, soweit wir Menschen unseres Zeitalters sind, nicht in uns den Geist des sokratischen Ernstes. Wir nehmen lieber jenen Geist des Griechentums auf, der Sokrates vergiftet hat, und schweigen in diesem Geist des Griechentums. Wir lassen uns selbst gefallen, daß die Perle der Weltliteratur, das Johannes-Evangelium, in seinem Anfange dadurch vergiftet wird, daß an die Stelle dessen, wovon das Alte Testament gesprochen hat: daß, wenn der Mensch es in seine Illusionen hereinfallen läßt, Himmel und Erde zusammenstürzen, daß an dieser Stelle das harmlose Wort von uns wörtlich genommen wird. «Im Urbeginne war das Wort», so beginnt das Johannes-Evangelium. Der heutige Mensch ist froh, daß er an dieser Stelle das Wort «Wort», das er phrasenhaft zu nehmen geneigt ist, stehen hat. An dieser Stelle steht aber in Wahrheit etwas, was geeignet ist, alle die Illusionen, die der Mensch in die Phrase hineindrängt, auszutreiben. Himmel und Erde unserer Illusionen stürzen zusammen, wenn man die Wahrheit des Logos, der an dieser Stelle steht und empfunden werden sollte, wirklich ernsthaft vernehmen wollte.

Also unsere Zeitkultur ist darauf ausgegangen, die Schärfe des Lebens sich mystisch behaglich oder brutal tätlich abzuschwächen. Das ist es, worauf wir heute sehen müssen, wozu wir uns aber vor allen Dingen heute wieder bekennen müssen. Heute müssen wir aus unseren Seelen austreiben durch die früheste Erziehung, durch die früheste Schule schon, und bis hinauf zu den höchsten Stufen müssen wir es aus dem Menschen auszutreiben lernen, was Sokrates und Plato austreiben wollten aus dem Griechentum dadurch, daß sie diesem Griechentum sagten: Bewahret euch vor Illusionen! Der Geist hat Realität. In der Idee ist Wirklichkeit, nicht dasjenige, was ihr mit euren illusionären Phrasen in dieser Idee sehen wollt.

Wir kommen nicht weiter, wenn wir ethisch und religiös weiter schwätzen. Denn das Evangelium ist selber Tat im Weltenwerden. Heute ist das Evangelium zum Geschwätz geworden. Daher hat es neben sich die gedankenlose brutale Tat. Wir müssen aber in unsere Seelen aufnehmen können, was uns wirklich durchgeisten kann, wenn wir sprechen. Wir müssen finden den Weg, das Herz mittun zu lassen, wenn die Lippen sich bewegen. Wir müssen finden den Weg, den ganzen Menschen in unser Wort hineinzulegen, sonst wird das Wort zum Erzieher zur Illusion, zum Hinwegführer, zum behaglichen Hinwegführer von dem Ernst der Wirklichkeit. Wir müssen Abschied nehmen von jenem Geist, der uns hineingehen läßt in die Kirche, damit wir in dieser Kirche hinweggehoben werden von dem Ernst des Lebens und uns behaglich eingeträufelt wird die Phrase: Der Herrgott wird es schon machen, er wird euch erlösen von euren Übeln. - Wir müssen die Kräfte in uns aufsuchen, die in unsern Seelen selbst die göttlichen Kräfte sind, denn sie sind vom Weltenwerden in uns gelegt, damit wir sie brauchen und damit wir den Gott in unsere eigene Seele aufnehmen können. Nicht uns vorreden lassen von dem äußeren Gott, damit unsere Seelen in behaglicher Seelenruhe sich hinlegen können auf die philiströsen Sofas, die wir so lieben, wenn es sich um das Geistesleben handelt. Und den Weg muß unsere Erziehung, unser Unterrichtswesen suchen, um hinauszukommen über — wie man das heute schon nennen darf — die griechische Phrase; den Weg muß unsere Erziehung und unser Unterrichtswesen finden, um hinwegzukommen über die römische Phrase.

Für das Römertum war das, was unsere Zeit noch anbetet als den Geist der Gesetze, recht. Denn wozu war dieser Geist der Gesetze des Römertums? Oh, die Legende von der Gründung Roms hat eine tiefe Bedeutung. Räuberbanden wurden zusammengeholt, um an ihnen die schlimmsten tierisch-menschlichen Instinkte zu bekämpfen. Dazu war das römische Gesetz da, um wilde Tiere zu bändigen. Wir aber sollten uns darauf besinnen, daß wir Menschen geworden sind, und daß wir nicht anbeten sollten jenen Geist der Gesetze, welcher da war aus den berechtigten Trieben des Römertums heraus, wilde tierisch-menschliche Leidenschaften zu bezähmen. Was wir von dem römischen Geist zurückbehalten haben als den Geist des Rechtes, wie er noch heute in uns waltet, das trägt überall den Charakter, daß die wilden menschlichen Leidenschaften, die nicht selber in Freiheit walten können, gezähmt werden müssen.

Christlich, sagen die Menschen, dieses Wort lebe nicht in den Vorträgen, die jetzt gehalten werden. Dabei vergessen die Menschen immer wieder und wieder ein richtiges christliches Wort, das Paulinische Wort: Die Sünde ist durch das Gesetz gekommen, nicht das Gesetz durch die Sünde. Wäre das Gesetz nicht da, so wäre die Sünde tot. Das mag für unsere Zeit noch nichts taugen, weil die Menschen unchristlich geworden sind. Aber das ist ein Wort, dessen tiefen Sinn man lernen muß. Das ist das Christliche: daß herausgenommen werde aus dem, worin heute die Menschen den Allerhalter, den Allumfasser sehen, aus dem Staat, der unser Erbe des Römertums ist, daß herausgenommen werde aus ihm das freie Geistesleben und das Wirtschaftsleben, das sich auf sich selbst stellen muß. Christlichen Geist wollen die Menschen nicht. Daher wollen sie sich trösten lassen darüber, indem das Wort Christ und christlich möglichst oft als Phrase angewendet werde. Ebenso wollen heute die Menschen möglichst oft als Phrase das Wort deutsch hören. Deutscher Geist waltet in Goethe wahrhaftig. Neuerer mitteleuropäischer Geist, der undeutsch ist, er hat in seinem erleuchteten Vertreter der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften das Wort geprägt, das ich hier auch schon angeführt habe: die Ehre dieser Herren, der heutigen Geistesführer, bestehe darin, daß sie sich fühlen als die «wissenschaftliche Schutztruppe der Hohenzollern». Derselbe Mann, der dieses Wort geprägt hat, hat auch aus der wissenschaftlichen Phrase der gegenwärtigen Zeit heraus die Rede gehalten «Goethe und kein Ende», und er hat mit dieser Rede allen naturwissenschaftlichen Geist Goethes in Grund und Boden treten wollen. Er hat den Geschmack besessen zu sagen: Faust bei Goethe täte besser, die Luftpumpe zu erfinden und Gretchen ehrlich zu machen, als jenes Zeug zu vollführen, das der Faust bei Goethe tut. - Das war der neuzeitliche Geist, der den wirklichen deutschen Geist, der nicht immer das Wort deutsch eitel auf den Lippen trägt, mit Füßen getreten hat, gerade so, wie es christlich-neuzeitlicher Geist, das heißt unchristlicher Geist gewesen ist, immer das Wort Christ und christlich zu verlangen, und nicht des anderen Wortes zu achten: Du sollst das Wort Gott nicht immer eitel aussprechen. — Man sollte fühlen, was christlich ist, und nicht angewiesen sein darauf, daß immer das Geschwätz vom Christentum uns an die Ohren herandringt.

Das ist heute Pfingstgeist. Man kann nicht sagen, daß dieser Pfingstgeist heute, wenn er nicht gehegt und gepflegt wird, es leicht hätte, auf fruchtbaren Boden zu fallen. Man hat Gelegenheit hinzusehen, wie dieser Pfingstgeist von links und von rechts verkannt wird. Ist nicht eine merkwürdige Illustration — wenn ich von der Höhe der Betrachtung für einen Augenblick zum Alltäglichen komme -, eine merkwürdige Illustration des Geistes unserer Zeit dieses, was sich tatsächlich zugetragen hat: Unser Bund für soziale Dreigliederung macht sich auf, um ein Keimwort in Tat umzusetzen und, damit er verstanden werde, greift er zu den Worten eines Mannes, der nun auch seinerseits von Sozialisierung sprechen will, dessen Worte man gut brauchen kann, wenn von Sozialisierung gesprochen wird, dessen Worte man gut zitieren kann, weil sie als Worte tatsächlich, wenn sie Keimgedanken zu Taten wären, dasjenige bedeuten würden, was wir wollen. - Und was geschieht? Von der Seite, von der diese Worte ausgegangen sind, wird das, was als Taten aus ihnen genommen werden sollte, sofort in Grund und Boden gekämpft. Was heißt das eigentlich im Innern des Menschen? Das heißt: Wehe euch, wenn ihr unsere Worte als etwas anderes nehmt denn als Geschwätz und Phrase! In dem Augenblick, wo ihr sie ernst nehmt, diese unsere Worte, sind wir eure Gegner. -— So hat die Erziehung gewirkt, die in Staatsfittichen heraufgezogen ist im neueren Zeitalter. Das von der einen Seite.

Von der andern Seite die liebliche Denunziation: Wir sind ja mit alledem ganz einverstanden, was Steiner sagt, wir sind einverstanden mit dem, was er als seine Ansicht vorbringt zur Bekämpfung des bisherigen Kapitalismus, wir sind einverstanden mit seiner Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, aber wir bekämpfen ihn, denn wir lassen uns von einem Geister-Seher nicht solche Sachen sagen!

Nun, es wäre schon genügend Grund - aber der Grund darf keine Giftpflanze sein -, sich zu sagen: Was soll mit einem Zeitalter angefangen werden, das in dieser Weise nichts anderes will als entweder bloße Phrase oder bloße gedankenlose, brutale Tat, und das alles ablehnt, was nicht Phrase oder gedankenlose Brutalität ist und was gerade die Keime zur wahren Wirklichkeit des Menschen in sich trägt? Damit man nicht denken braucht, will man den gedankenlosen Klassenkampf. Damit man seine Gedanken nicht zur Tat werden läßt, spricht man die schönsten Phrasen aus. Und wenn sie die anderen Menschen ernst nehmen, bekämpft man sie bis aufs Messer.

Diese Frage muß in unsere Herzen einziehen: Haben die Menschen, die aus solchem Geiste geboren sind, noch das Recht, in wohlgefügten Phrasen sich über das Pfingstwunder auszuschleimen? Der Schleim, der heute über das Pfingstwunder sich salbungsvoll ausläßt, kommt aus denselben Drüsen, aus denen das Gift kommt, mit dem man heute alles, was aus dem Geist kommt, bespritzen will, und mit dem man sich berufen will auf der einen Seite auf die wesenlose Phrase und auf der andern Seite auf die gedankenlose brutale Tat. Die wesenlose Phrase ist auf der einen Seite zum religiösen Geschwätz der Welt geworden, die brutale ungeistige Tat ist zum Militarismus, dem Grundübel unserer Zeit, geworden. Ehe man nicht einsieht, wie diese beiden Dinge wurzeln in der verkehrten Erziehung und in der verkehrten Schule, eher kann man nicht fruchtbar nachdenken über das, was geschehen soll. Alles übrige ist Quacksalberei.

Die Dinge, die gemacht werden müssen, müssen aus der Wirklichkeit heraus gemacht werden. Denn die Wirklichkeit trägt den Geist in sich, und jede Verleugnung des Geistes wird in Wahrheit doch zum realen Unsinn und Unding. Aber wenn jemand versucht, auf die geistige Wirklichkeit hinzuweisen, dann ist er ein Illusionär oder ein Geister-Seher. So wird er in unserer Zeit gestempelt, weil die Empfindung für die wahre Wirklichkeit in den weitesten Kreisen völlig fehlt.

Den sozialen Organismus mit dem menschlichen oder einem sonstigen Organismus zu vergleichen, das ist auch in unserer Zeit Phrase geworden, und es ist eine recht billige Phrase. Will man auf diesem Gebiete nicht phrasenhaft reden, dann muß man jene Grundlegung liefern, die geliefert worden ist in meiner Schrift «Von Seelenrätseln ». Was hätte es heute für einen Sinn, von der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus zu sprechen, wenn nicht erst diese geistige Grundlage von der Dreigliederung des menschlichen Organismus in NervenSinnesfähigkeiten, in rhythmische Fähigkeiten und in Stoffwechselfähigkeiten, als eine wirkliche naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis vor die Menschen hingestellt worden wäre? Aber die Menschen sind zu bequem, die aus dem verkehrten Schulwesen herausgewachsenen Vorstellungen der Gegenwart sich korrigieren zu lassen durch das, was aus der wahren Wirklichkeit stammt.

Eine andere greuliche Vorstellung lebt in unserer offiziellen, das heißt überall autoritativ geglaubten Wissenschaft. Diese Wissenschaft nimmt teil an der götzendienerischen Anbetung alles dessen, was als so hohe Kultur in der neueren Zeit heraufgezogen ist. Wie sollte nicht, wenn sie etwas besonders geheimnisvoll ausdrücken will, diese moderne Wissenschaft ihre Zuflucht zu dem nehmen, was sie jeweilig am meisten anbetet. Nun also, so ist ihr das Nervensystem geworden zu einer Summe von Telegraphenlinien, so ist ihr geworden die ganze Nerventätigkeit des Menschen zu einem merkwürdig komplizierten Telegraphenfunktionieren. Das Auge nimmt wahr, die Haut nimmt mit wahr. Da wird zu der Telegraphenstation Gehirn durch sensitive Nerven das hingeleitet, was von außen her wahrgenommen wird. Dann sitzt dort im Gehirn ein, ich weiß nicht was für ein Wesen - ein geistiges Wesen leugnet die neuere Wissenschaft ja ab -, durch ein Wesen also, das zur Phrase geworden ist, weil man nichts Wirkliches darin erblickt, wird das von den «sensitiven » Nerven Wahrgenommene umgesetzt durch die «motorischen» Nerven in Willensbewegungen. Und eingebleut wird dem jungen Menschen der Unterschied zwischen sensitiven Nerven und motorischen Nerven, und aufgebaut wird auf diesen Unterschied die ganze Anschauung über den Menschen.

Seit Jahren kämpfe ich gegen dieses Unding der Trennung zwischen sensitiven und motorischen Nerven, erstens, weil dieser Unterschied ein Unding ist, weil die sogenannten motorischen Nerven zu nichts anderem da sind als zu dem, wozu die sensitiven Nerven auch da sind. Ein sensitiver Nerv, ein Sinnesnerv, ist dazu da, daß er uns Werkzeug ist, um das wahrzunehmen, was in unserer Sinnesorganisation vorgeht. Und ein sogenannter motorischer Nerv ist kein motorischer Nerv, sondern auch ein sensitiver Nerv; er ist nur dazu da, daß ich meine eigene Handbewegung, daß ich meine Eigenbewegungen, die aus anderen Gründen heraus kommen als aus den motorischen Nerven, wahrnehmen kann. Motorische Nerven sind innere Sinnesnerven zur Wahrnehmung meiner eigenen Willensentschlüsse. Damit ich das Äußere, was sich in meinem Sinnesapparat abspielt, wahrnehme, dazu sind die sensitiven Nerven da, und damit ich mir nicht ein unbekanntes Wesen bleibe, indem ich selber gehe, schlage oder greife, ohne daß ich etwas davon weiß, dazu sind die sogenannten motorischen Nerven da, also nicht zur Anspannung des Willens, sondern zur Wahrnehmung dessen, was der Wille in uns tut. Das Ganze, was aus der neueren Wissenschaft geprägt worden ist aus dem vertrackten Verstandeswissen unserer Zeit heraus, ist ein wirklich wissenschaftliches Unding. Das ist der eine Grund, warum ich seit Jahren dieses Unding bekämpfe.

Aber es gibt noch einen anderen Grund, warum dieses Unding ausgerottet werden muß, dieser Aberglaube von den sensitiven und motorischen Nerven, zwischen denen kein anderer Unterschied ist, als daß die einen sensitiv sind für das, was draußen ist, und die andern für das, was im eigenen Körper ist. Dieser andere Grund ist der folgende.

Kein Mensch kann in irgendeiner Sozialwissenschaft ein richtiges Verständnis des Menschen für sein Verhältnis zur Arbeit gewinnen, der auf der vertrackten Unterscheidung zwischen sensitiven und motorischen Nerven seine Begriffe, seine Vorstellungen aufbaut. Denn man wird stets kuriose Begriffe von dem bekommen, was menschliche Arbeit in Wirklichkeit ist, wenn man einerseits fragt: Was geht eigentlich im Menschen vor, wenn er arbeitet, wenn er seine Muskeln in Bewegung bringt? —- und andererseits keine Ahnung davon hat, daß dieses In-Bewegung-Bringen der Muskeln nicht auf den sogenannten motorischen Nerven beruht, sondern auf dem unmittelbaren Zusammensein der Seele mit der Außenwelt. Ich kann Ihnen diese Fragen selbstverständlich nur andeuten, aus dem Grunde, weil heute noch nicht einmal die primitivsten Vorstellungen dafür vorhanden sind. Die Menschen verstehen noch gar nichts über diese Dinge, weil das Schulwesen noch nicht die primitivsten Vorstellungen zum Verständnis solcher Dinge in Umschwung gebracht hat, weil es noch immerfort mit dem Wahnsinn der Unterscheidung zwischen sensitiven und motorischen Nerven arbeitet.

Wenn ich mit einer Maschine in Berührung komme, muß ich als ganzer Mensch mit ihr in Berührung kommen; da muß ich ein Verhältnis herstellen vor allen Dingen zwischen meinen Muskeln und dieser Maschine. Dieses Verhältnis ist dasjenige, worauf des Menschen Arbeit wirklich beruht. Auf dieses Verhältnis kommt es an, wenn man die Arbeit sozial werten will, auf das ganz besondere Verhältnis des Menschen zu der Arbeitsgrundlage.

Mit was für einem Arbeitsbegriff arbeiten wir denn heute? Das, was im Menschen vorgeht, wenn er, wie man sagt, arbeitet, das ist nicht verschieden, ob er nun an einer Maschine sich abmüht, ob er Holz hackt, oder ob er zu seinem Vergnügen Sport treibt. Er kann sich geradeso mit dem Sportvergnügen abnützen, er kann ebensoviel Arbeitskraft konsumieren bei dem sozial überflüssigen Sport wie bei dem sozial nützlichen Holzhacken. Und die Illusion über den Unterschied zwischen motorischen und sensitiven Nerven ist es, die psychologisch die Menschen ablenkt davon, auch einen wirklichen Arbeitsbegriff zu erfassen, der nur erfaßt werden kann, wenn man den Menschen nicht darnach betrachtet, wie er sich abnützt, sondern darnach, wie er sich in ein Verhältnis stellt zur sozialen Umgebung. Ich glaube Ihnen, daß Sie davon noch keinen deutlichen Begriff bekommen haben, weil die Begriffe, die man heute von diesen Dingen erhalten kann, so verkehrt sind durch unser Schulwesen, daß es erst einige Zeit dauern wird, bis man den Übergang von dem sozial unsinnigen Arbeitsbegriff, von dem wahnsinnigen wissenschaftlichen Begriff der Unterscheidung der sensitiven und motorischen Nerven, finden wird. Aber in diesen Dingen liegt zugleich der Grund dafür, warum wir so unpraktisch denken. Denn wie kann eine Menschheit praktisch über das Praktische denken, die sich der wahnsinnigen Vorstellung hingibt: in unserem Inneren waltet ein Telegraphenapparat, und die Drähte gehen hin zu irgend etwas im Gehirn und werden dort umgeschaltet in andere Drähte, sensitive und motorische Nerven? Von unserer, einem verkehrten Schulwesen entspringenden Unwissenschaft, an die das breite Publikum, verführt durch die Zeitungspest, glaubt, geht aus das Unvermögen, wirklich sozial zu denken.

Das ist es, was wir heute als Pfingstgeist erkennen sollten, und was gescheiter wäre, ausgegossen zu werden in Einzelzungen auf die Menschen der Gegenwart, als dasjenige, womit heute als mit Quacksalbereien daran gedacht wird, dies oder jenes zu verbessern. Wenn man heute sagt, die Menschheit muß umlernen und umdenken, so glauben die Menschen meistens, man meine mit diesen Dingen dieselbe Phrase, die sie selber meinen, selbstverständlich, weil die Menschen sogleich in Phrase und Utopie dasjenige umsetzen, was man sagt. Aber ist denn nicht ein Unterschied, ob irgendein beliebiger Redakteur sagt: Die Menschheit muß umlernen - oder ob man es sagt, weil man weiß: Bis in solche Tiefen hinein hat sich die Menschheit falsche Gedanken gemacht durch falsche Denkgewohnheiten, die bis zu den sensitiven und motorischen Nerven gehen, die bis in die Struktur desjenigen gehen, woran die Menschheit heute felsenfest aberglaubt, weil ihre Autoritäten es ihr befehlen? Daß aus einer Wirklichkeit heraus geredet werde, und anders geredet werde über diese Wirklichkeit, wenn auf dem Boden der anthroposophischen Bewegung vom «Umdenken» und «Umlernen» die Sprache ist, das der Welt klarzumachen, wäre die Aufgabe der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft. Denn die Phrase hat heute eine solche Kraft gewonnen, daß mit Bezug auf die äußeren Worte derjenige, der kein Unterscheidungsvermögen hat zwischen Wirklichkeit und Phrase, selbst sagen kann: Nun, lest doch den Leitartikel des heutigen «Stuttgarter Tagblattes», da werdet ihr auch die Lehre vom Umlernen finden. Aber heute kommt es nicht darauf an, daß wir Worte vergleichen, denn dadurch fallen wir gerade in die Phrasenhaftigkeit hinein; heute kommt es darauf an, daß wir die Wirklichkeit ergreifen und uns hüten, in die Phrasenhaftigkeit zu verfallen. Wie oft mußte ich ungerne abweisend sein, wenn immer wieder und wieder Phrasen hervorkamen wie solche: Nun, da hat wieder einer auf der Kanzel «ganz theosophisch » gesprochen, wie die Leute sagen. Diese Dinge waren die schlimmsten, denn sie zeugten davon, wie wenig Unterscheidungsvermögen vorhanden ist zwischen der Wirklichkeits-Erkenntnis und dem wohlbehaglichen Leben in der Phrase. Es sollte einmal das Fest der Pfingsten auch die Mahnung in die menschlichen Seelen eingießen: Hinweg von eurer Phrase, hin zur Wirklichkeit! Wir reden heute auf dem Gebiete der Wissenschaft, auf dem Gebiete der Kunst, auf dem Gebiete der Religion überall in Phrasen, in Phrasen, welche im Halse stecken bleiben und daher den ganzen Menschen nicht ergreifen; wie der Glaube des Menschen heute besteht, daß die Sensationen seiner Sinne irgendwo im Gehirn stecken bleiben und seinen motorischen Apparat nicht ergreifen. Zwischen allen diesen Dingen sind die genauesten Zusammenhänge, und ehe nicht die Umwandlung unserer Zeit hineingreift gerade in diejenigen Denkgewohnheiten, welche die autoritäre Wissenschaft heute ausgebildet hat, welche ausgebildet hat das wissenschaftliche Papsttum, eher gibt es keine wirkliche Erneuerung, denn alle andere Erneuerung erfließt nur aus der Oberfläche, und nicht aus dem, woraus sie erfließen muß: aus dem wirklichen Innern. Wenn unser Schul- und Erziehungswesen wirklich eine Erneuerung erfahren soll, muß man darauf bedacht sein, durch solche Dinge, wie sie hier erörtert worden sind, den Menschen vor dem zu bewahren, was in der heutigen Menschheit so leicht heraufkommen kann, weil sie in sich trägt das Erbe des Römertums.

Es muß bekämpft werden der Hang zur Illusion, die Liebe zur Illusion, die heute in der Menschheit ganz verbreitet ist. Der heutige Mensch fühlt sich behaglich, wenn er sich über den Wert der Wirklichkeit hinwegtäuschen darf, wenn er sich sagen darf: Nicht der Christus in mir, der die Kräfte in mir anregt, die Kräfte in mir stark macht, ist es, zu dem ich mich bekenne, sondern der Christus, der unabhängig von mir ist, und der in Gnaden mich von meinen Sünden befreit, ohne daß ich im Ernste durch meine eigene Kraft etwas dazu tue.

Immer wieder und wieder ist mir in zahlreichen Briefen dieses Christus Jesus-Bekenntnis entgegengehalten worden gegenüber demjenigen, was die Anthroposophie tun muß und tun will. Und immer wieder und wieder ist mir die Sehnsucht entgegengetreten, das, was heute aus der Wirklichkeit des Geistes heraus scharf geprägt werden muß, weil die Zeit es fordert, zur trivialen Phrase populär zuzurichten, damit die Menschen es doch verstehen können. Doch in dem Augenblick, wo man anthroposophische Wahrheiten zu trivialen Phrasen zuschneiden würde, da würden sie zu dem, was in der heutigen Zeit so billig ist: sie würden zur Phrase werden, würden zur Phrase werden, indem man sie zur Trivialität der Gasse oder zur Philistrosität der heutigen Wissenschaft herunterwürdigte. Immer wieder bin ich ermahnt worden, beides zu tun. Immer wieder hatte ich die Mühe, beides nicht zu tun, weder zur trivialen Phrase der Gasse das Anthroposophische herunterzudrücken -— was man im heutigen Sinne popularisieren nennt -—, noch auch konnte ich den andern Mahnungen folgen, für die wissenschaftlichen Leute so zu reden, daß sie es verstehen. Diese Ermahnungen kamen ja vielfach an mich heran. Nun, dann hätte ich so reden müssen, daß es ein Echo gefunden hätte bei dem wissenschaftlichen Unsinn der Gegenwart. Da ist es mir noch lieber, wenn sich die Leute so gebärden, wie neulich in Tübingen ein Professor aus der wissenschaftlichen Gesinnung der Zeit heraus es tat. Da scheint mir durchaus, daß Wahrheit herrscht in den Tatsachen, weil diese Gebärde der beste Beweis dafür ist, wie sehr das Geistesleben notwendig hat, umgewälzt zu werden. Insbesondere, wenn man diesen Übergang finden will zum wahren Pfingstgeist, von dem geschwätzigen Worte zu dem keimtragenden Worte, dann wird man sich hüten müssen, immer wieder und wieder die Seelen hinüberzuleiten zu seinen altgewohnten Vorstellungen, um das zu begreifen, was man mit neuen Vorstellungen nicht begreifen will, was mit alten Vorstellungen zwar geschwätzt, aber doch nicht begriffen werden kann.

Es hat aus bürgerlichem Munde keinen großen Sinn, etwa heute mit den Valeurs, mit den Werten, welche die Worte oftmals haben, darauf hinzuweisen, daß das Proletariertum in gewissen Kreisen für die Dinge, die auf dem Boden des dreigliedrigen sozialen Organismus zu sagen sind, den guten Willen hat, sie besser zu verstehen als das Bürgertum. Habt nur auch diesen guten Willen, ihr Bürger! — so möchte man heute vielfach sagen. Der Proletarier lacht selbstverständlich über diese Mahnung zum guten Willen der Bürger; denn richtig ist es, daß er besser als der Bürger dazu präpariert ist, manches zu verstehen. Aber er ist dazu präpatiert, diese Dinge auch aus einem andern Untergrunde her zu verstehen, und er lacht darüber, wenn man sagt, man solle beim Bürgertum appellieren an den guten Willen zum Verständnis, und er lacht insbesondere darüber, wenn man sagt, daß man sich von diesem Appellieren einen Erfolg versprechen könnte. Denn er weiß ganz gut, daß sein besseres Verständnis von etwas ganz anderem herkommt: daß er, wenn er morgen nicht arbeitet, auf der Straße liegt. Er ist mit der sozialen Ordnung, ich möchte sagen, punktuell, nicht durch eine gerade Linie, verbunden wie der heutige bürokratische Bürger. Er redet von seinem Menschentum aus, weil ihn die heutige soziale Ordnung dazu gebracht hat, keine andern als menschliche Interessen zu haben, denn er bleibt nichts anderes als Mensch, wenn er morgen auf die Straße geworfen wird. Daraus entspringt sein besseres Verständnis.

Der Bürger, insbesondere der Staatsbeamte, ihn nimmt der Staat so schnell wie möglich in seine Hand, nicht allzufrüh, weil da das In-die-Hand-Nehmen noch etwas unreinlich ist; da überläßt man es den Müttern und Ammen. Aber wenn er über die erste Unreinlichkeit hinauskommt, nimmt man den Menschen sogleich in Staatsobhut, dressiert ihn und präpariert ihn — nicht zum Menschen, sondern zum Staatsbeamten. Da knüpft man die Fäden, daß er nicht punktuell, wie der Proletarier, mit der sozialen Ordnung zusammenhängt, sondern durch eine lange Linie, durch Stricke mit allen seinen Interessen an die bestehende und durch den Staat erhaltene soziale Ordnung angebunden ist. Man präpariert ihn dazu, daß er in seinem ganzen Gehaben der richtige Ausdruck dieser sozialen Ordnung wird. Dann gibt man ihm zu essen, dann ist er zufrieden. Und man gibt ihm nicht nur zu essen, man sorgt für ihn, so daß er nicht selbst für sich zu sorgen hat. Und dann, wenn er nicht mehr arbeiten kann, sorgt der Staat dafür, daß er seine Pension bekommt, daß er ohne sein Zutun richtig von den Mächten erhalten werde, die ihn dazu präparierten, daß er ihr getreuer Ausdruck ist. Das geht so bis zum Tode. Dann sorgt man auch noch durch die Religion, welche ihre Heilmittel nicht aus den inneren Kräften der Seele nimmt, sondern von außen her, über die Gnade, kommen läßt, man sorgt dafür, daß die Seele auch noch nach dem Tode weiter «pensioniert» ist. Das ist gerade der Inhalt der Staatsweisheit, der Religionsweisheit. Kein Wunder, daß der so mit den Interessen des Staates zusammengebundene Staats- und Himmelsbürger an dem festhält, mit dem er zusammengebunden ist.

Das ist der Gegensatz: das Interesse auf der einen Seite, aber auch das Interesse auf der anderen Seite. Es ist das Interesse auf der andern Seite dasjenige, was heute eine Anzahl von Menschen aufruft zu dem, wozu die Menschheit im Zeitalter des Bewußtseinswesens kommen muß, wovon ich auch öfter gesprochen habe: von dem Sichstellen auf den individuellen menschlichen Boden. Der Proletarier hat nur Gelegenheit dazu, sich als erster auf den individuellen Boden zu stellen, weil er in den andern nicht hineingenommen worden ist. Je mehr er hineingenommen wird, desto schlimmer steht es mit ihm. Denn da haben wir auf der einen Seite diejenigen Menschen, die in ähnlicher Weise durch das Proletariertum in ihre Stellen eingesetzt wurden: die Gewerkschaftsbeamten. Die gewöhnen sich, wenn auch ihre Stellungen andere Namen haben, behaglich in die Allüren der anderen hinein und bekämpfen dann dasjenige, was so scheint, als ob es gegen ihre Allüren gehen könnte. Da schlüpfen sie nach und nach in die Gewohnheiten des Bürgertums hinein.

Man spricht heute in der proletarischen Welt vom Gewerkschaftstum. In England ist ungefähr ein Fünftel der gesamten Arbeiterschaft wirtschaftlich organisiert. Das ist verhältnismäßig viel. Daher ist die heutige englische Arbeiterschaft bei dem gegenwärtigen Geist der Organisation auch ganz niedlich in die bürgerliche Denkweise hineingewachsen. In Deutschland ist nur ein Achtel organisiert, die andern sind unorganisierte Arbeiter. Und die Unorganisierten sind es heute, die auf die Spitze der Persönlichkeit gestellt sind, sie sind die eigentlich treibenden Kräfte, oder diejenigen, die sich in ihre Organisation das Bewußtsein hineingerettet haben davon, was es heißt, Mensch zu bleiben, wenn man nicht für sein physisches Leben angestellt, dann pensioniert, und schließlich für sein geistig-seelisches Leben nach dem Tode, wie ich es angedeutet habe, ebenfalls pensioniert wird. Diese Menschen, die sich äußerlich ökonomisch auf die Spitze der eigenen Individualität gestellt fühlen, sie haben, ich möchte sagen, den seelischen Duktus für das, was heute weltgeschichtlich herauskommen muß, und was macht, daß die heutige proletarische Forderung zugleich eine weltgeschichtliche Forderung ist.

Die neuere wirtschaftliche Ordnung hat das Proletariertum in Fabriken in den Kapitalismus hineingespannt, wo es ihm leichter möglich ist, das, was Zeitforderung ist, zu verstehen, als dem Bürger, der eben mit allen Fasern seines Lebens hängt an seiner Versorgung und seiner Pension, und der nicht denken will. Würde er nämlich denken, würde er die Zeit heute richtig auffassen, so könnte es ja nicht vorkommen, daß ein Tübinger Professor so spricht wie neulich der Herr, der mir in der Diskussion erwidert hat: Da redet man davon, daß es beim Proletarier ein «menschenwürdiges Dasein» untergräbt, wenn dieser Proletarier für seine Arbeit «entlohnt» wird. Wird denn aber nicht auch Caruso «entlohnt», wenn er an einem Abend singt und für seine Arbeit dreißig- bis vierzigtausend Mark bekommt? Oder, so meinte der selbstlose Herr, werde nicht auch ich entlohnt? Und ich fühle gar nichts Menschenunwürdiges dabei, wenn ich mein Gehalt einstreiche für meine Arbeit. Und der Caruso findet es auch nicht, wenn er seine dreißig- bis vierzigtausend Mark einkassiert. - Das war der Sinn der Sache. Und es wurde noch hinzugefügt: Es ist ja der einzige kleine Unterschied der, daß das eine mehr, das andere weniger ist, aber darauf kommt es nicht an, denn im wesentlichen ist es dasselbe.

Das ist der Geist, der aus dem heutigen Schul- und Unterrichtswesen heraufblüht. Das ist dann auch der Geist, der sagt: Wir werden ein armes Volk werden, wir werden Schule und Unterricht nicht bezahlen können, da wird der Staat eingreifen müssen und wird ihn zu bezahlen haben. — Nun, für den, der unverschränkt denkt, wird man zwar einwenden müssen: Ja, aber wie macht es denn der Staat, wenn alle arm sind, und nun er plötzlich der Krösus sein soll, der die Schulden, die wir alle nicht bezahlen können, bezahlen soll? Der Staat nimmt ja erst in Form von Steuern den andern dasjenige ab, was sie haben, er scheint mir daher doch nicht fabrizieren zu können als Krösus, was die Leute nicht haben. — Aber das einzusehen, muß diese Klasse von Menschen erst lernen. Das ist es, was schließlich auch die, die vom Staate ihren Daseinsunterhalt aus den Taschen derjenigen erhalten, die auf der Spitze ihrer Menschenindividualität auch ökonomisch stehen, verstehen lernen sollten. Aber solange die Leute das nicht gelernt haben, nicht gelernt haben durch die Not des Lebens, ist es ihrem Denken nicht beizubringen. Und so scheint es mir, daß eine große Anzahl von Menschen heute einfach ein Zeitalter heraufbeschwören will, in dem man wird lernen können, daß man auch auf die Straße geworfen werden kann, wenn man nicht wirklich eine andere soziale Ordnung durch einen Gedankenimpuls herbeiführen will. Denn es könnte sehr leicht sein, daß jene Pensionen, von denen ich gesprochen habe, nicht mehr gezahlt werden können. Und dann, glaube ich, wenn jene sehr materiellen Pensionen nicht gezahlt werden können, würden die Leute auch nicht mehr soviel geben auf jene anderen Pensionen, die heute spirituell für die Seelen nach dem Tode von den ja auch von den leiblichen Mächten sehr abhängig gewordenen Religionsgemeinschaften gezahlt werden.

Aber wenn nun irgend etwas auftaucht, was nicht Phrase sein will, sondern Keimgedanke für Taten, dann ist man heute nicht in der Lage, dies anders zu nehmen denn als eine Phrase. Dann spürt man nicht, daß es auf wirklicher Sachkenntnis des Lebens beruht, bis in die Einzelheiten hinein, durch die man erkennt den wissenschaftlichen Wahnsinn der Unterscheidung zwischen sensitiven und motorischen Nerven, der davon abhält, in der Sozialwissenschaft wiederum zu einem wirklichen Arbeitsbegriff zu kommen. Heute ist es schon notwendig, daß wenigstens einige Menschen bis in diese Tiefen hinein sehen. Heute ist es dringend notwendig, daß sich einzelne Menschen nicht betören lassen dahingehend, daß sie sagen: Wir sozialisieren das äußere Wirtschaftsleben, aber die Schule, insbesondere die Mittel- und Hochschule, tasten wir nicht an, die muß bleiben. — Das ist das Allerschlimmste, wenn gerade die bleibt. Denn es wird das, was sie bis jetzt angerichtet hat, in der Zukunft nicht nur weiter angerichtet, sondern sie wird es in einem noch schlimmeren Sinne anrichten. Sozialisieren Sie wirtschaftlich, und lassen Sie dieses Geistesleben, dann haben Sie in kurzer Zeit aus Ihrem heutigen Scheinsozialisieren eine viel schlimmere Tyrannis und viel schlimmere Lebensverhältnisse, als sie nur irgendwie in die Gegenwart hinein sich entwickelt haben. Selbstverständlich gibt es heute einen wirtschaftlichen Zwang, der etwas Furchtbares auslöst im sozialen Organismus. Soll der nun abgelöst werden durch das Strebertum, durch den wüstesten Bürokratismus? Glaubt die Menschheit, die nun endlich — auch ziemlich spät — gelernt hat, daß sie sich nicht berufen darf auf «Thron und Altar», glaubt sie, daß es besser wäre, wenn sie sich aus derselben Gesinnung heraus auf das Staats-Kontobuch und auf das StaatsComptoir beruft? Der Kapitalismus hat verstanden, nach und nach den Altar überzuführen mit Bezug auf die Verehrung in die feuersichere Kasse. Ein Scheinsozialismus wird es verstehen, die jetzige Pseudoverehrung für Mächte, die nicht mehr da sind, die nur noch in der Phrase leben, umzuwandeln in das Genossenschafts-Götzentum und das Genossenschafts-Strebertum.

Was die Menschheit braucht zur Erneuerung des Geistes, das ist der Mut, einzusehen, daß das Erleben des Geistes im wirklichen menschlichen Innern, wie es heute geworden ist, auf der einen Seite zum religiösen Geschwätz und auf der anderen Seite zur gedankenlosen brutalen Tat, zur militaristischen Tat geführt hat. Derjenige, der sich als richtiger, heutiger, dem kapitalistischen Zeitalter entsprossener Mensch fühlt, er fühlt sich wohl, wenn er seine Coupons abschneidet, wenn er mitten drinnen aber seine Augen wegwendet von dem, was eigentlich geschieht, wenn ihm von der einen Seite das Evangelium zum Geschwätz gemacht wird und man ihm redet von Nächstenliebe und Brüderlichkeit, während er Nächstenliebe und Brüderlichkeit bequem mit der Schere entzweischneidet und nicht zu sehen braucht, wie eigentlich die Dinge in der Wirklichkeit vorgehen, weil er auf der andern Seite sicher ist, daß er nicht selber durch die Tat sein Geschäft schützen braucht, sondern weil das der Staat tut, indem er die Schwerter stählt. Wir haben es ja gerade in der modernen Zeit erlebt, daß jenes Bündnis eingegangen worden ist zwischen Geschäftsleben und Staatsleben, das uns in die Weltkatastrophe hineingebracht hat. Was ist denn der Staat, auf den die Menschen so stolz gewesen sind, anderes gewesen als der große Protektor des Wirtschaftslebens, wie es unter dem Kapitalismus geführt worden ist? Man möchte hoffen, daß sich die Patrioten der Vergangenheit, die man in ihrer Gesinnung nicht hat antasten dürfen — denn sie waren «gute » Patrioten, sie hatten die Phrase geprägt von dem patriotischen Wort, und es war im verflossenen Zeitalter eine recht schlimme Sache, wenn man etwa darauf hinwies: diese patriotische Phrase hat einen sehr realen Untergrund, denn der patriotisch verehrte Staat ist ja schließlich der Beschützer der Bankscheine -, man möchte hoffen, daß die Zeit nicht einen besonders wahren Beweis führen kann, daß diese Leute, die so patriotisch waren, nicht sich umpatriotisieren und nun, nachdem sie vielleicht von den Ententemächten ihr Geld besser geschützt wissen, schleunigst ihren Patriotismus umfrisieren! Ich will über die Möglichkeit auf diesem Gebiete gar nichts Besonderes sagen, aber auf die Leichtigkeit möchte ich hinweisen, mit der die patriotische Phrase in ihr Gegenteil übergehen kann. Anzeichen sind genug vorhanden.

Das sind die Dinge, die gerade mit Bezug auf die Notwendigkeit einer Erneuerung des Erziehungs- und Unterrichtswesens heute als eine Pfingstbetrachtung gesagt werden müssen. Denn mit den salbungsvollen Reden, mit denen man der Menschheit gedient hat, sollte ihr nicht weiter gedient werden. Die Menschen sollten sich gewöhnen, auf Worte zu hören, die auf die Wirklichkeiten der Gegenwart hinweisen. Dann würde es möglich sein, daß wirklich der Pfingstgeist sich recht zerteilt, daß in der Zukunft kleine Zungen hineingehen in all das, was entstehen soll auf der Grundlage des befreiten Geisteslebens als die kleinste Schule, als die höchste Schule, damit der befreite Geist, welcher der wirkliche Heilige Geist ist, aus dem emanzipierten Geistesleben der Zukunft heraus für die wirkliche geistige Entwickelung der Menschheit tätig sein kann.

Damit redet man vielleicht etwas, was die Religionsschwätzer heute nicht gerade christlich finden. Aber es wird sich die Menschheit der Gegenwart einmal überlegen müssen, ob das christliche Reden der Heutigen nicht noch aus jenem Geiste stammt, aus dem heraus Petrus den Herrn dreimal verleugnet hat, oder ob es schon stammt aus dem Geiste, der da gesprochen hat: Was ich euch geoffenbart habe, das ist nicht bloß auf ein Zeitalter beschränkt, sondern es wird bestehen durch alle Zeitalter. Und ich werde nicht aufhören, euch die Wahrheit zu sagen, und ich werde bei euch sein bis ans Ende der Erdenzeit. — Die, welche heute nur den Geist der Vergangenheit auch im Christentum hören können, werden die Phraseure, die Schwätzer sein. Die, welche den lebendigen Geist auch heute zur Umgestaltung und zum Neubau der menschlichen Ordnung vernehmen, das werden vielleicht doch diejenigen sein, in denen man die wahren Christen wird sehen können.

Möge dieses Zeitalter kommen aus einem wahrhaft erfaßten Pfingstgeist heraus.

Seventh Lecture

Today, in our present time, to speak about Pentecost in the way that has become customary seems to me, in view of the seriousness of the times, to be an unchristian act, even though such unchristian acts are precisely the order of the day today. After all, everything that is being put forward here for the renewal of our education and school system by those who seriously profess our movement for the threefold social order is spoken from the spirit of Pentecost. For it is in the separation of the spiritual life, in the independence of the school system, that the most important spirit of Pentecost in our time lies, that spirit of Pentecost which has long since disappeared from the other so-called religious and denominational currents of our age. Let us hope that it is precisely from the emancipation of spiritual life, as we are striving for it, that the renewal of this spiritual life, which humanity so badly needs, will emerge. What must happen today in our teaching and education systems to renew the spirit, to pour out the true spirit of Pentecost of the present age, can only be understood by those who form an opinion about how the anti-Pentecost spirit has permeated everything we encounter today in public life, in the so-called spiritual intercourse between human beings.

When we speak as we must do at this time from an anthroposophical perspective, then today we can even hear the accusation – and I say this emphatically, three times over – that the words “German” and “Christian” or “Christ” hardly ever appear in these speeches.

If we do not find within ourselves the spirit to reject such chatter, we have not yet recognized the nerve center of the anthroposophical worldview. Such chatter is the fruit of our perverted education of the people and of humanity; this chatter is the expression of the perversions that have been instilled into our souls during our education. That is why it is so important to gain insight into the connection between the perverted chatter of our age and our perverted education and teaching system. Gaining this insight is what should be divided up today and rained down in fiery tongues upon the heads of our contemporaries.

There is much talk in our time that one should not respect the word, because “in the beginning was the deed.” But an age such as ours will also apply this principle wrongly, because in this age the word has become idle phrase and the deed thoughtless brutality. Such an age has every reason to distract from words, because in the words it knows, it can only feel empty phrases, and in the deeds it knows, thoughtless brutality.

There is a deep connection between our education, our teaching, and this fact just described. We carry within us two sources of a perverted humanity: we carry within us a perverted Greekness and a perverted Romanity. We do not understand how to take Greekness in its time and place as it is. We do not understand how the noble figures of Socrates and Plato struggled to drive out the Greeks' irresistible tendency toward illusion. The Greeks were so constituted that they constantly felt the urge to rise above the seriousness of life to an illusory world and seek satisfaction there. The Greek lawmakers, Socrates and Plato, had to point out the reality of the spirit with all severity so that the Greeks would not fall further and further into their national flaw, their racial flaw: to deceive themselves comfortably about the seriousness of life through illusion. And the Greeks only forgave Socrates for speaking of the seriousness of life as long as the “loafer” Socrates seemed harmless to them. But when they heard what the loafing Socrates' words actually meant in terms of the seriousness of life, they poisoned him.

As far as we are people of our age, we do not have the spirit of Socratic seriousness within us. We prefer to adopt the spirit of Greek culture that poisoned Socrates, and we remain silent in this spirit of Greek culture. We allow ourselves to be satisfied that the pearl of world literature, the Gospel of John, is poisoned at its beginning by the fact that, in place of what the Old Testament said—that if man allows himself to fall into his illusions, heaven and earth will collapse—the harmless word is taken literally. “In the beginning was the Word,” begins the Gospel of John. People today are happy to find the word ‘Word’ here, which they tend to take as a phrase. But in reality, what stands here is something that is capable of dispelling all the illusions that people force into the phrase. The heaven and earth of our illusions collapse when we truly and seriously want to hear the truth of the Logos that stands here and should be felt.

So our contemporary culture has set out to soften the sharpness of life, either mystically and comfortably or brutally and violently. That is what we must see today, and above all, what we must recommit ourselves to today. Today, we must drive out of our souls, through early education, through the earliest schools, and all the way up to the highest levels, we must learn to drive out of human beings what Socrates and Plato wanted to drive out of Greek culture by telling the Greeks: Beware of illusions! The spirit has reality. Reality is in the idea, not in what you want to see in this idea with your illusory phrases.

We will not get anywhere if we continue to talk about ethics and religion. For the Gospel itself is action in the becoming of the world. Today, the Gospel has become mere talk. That is why it is accompanied by thoughtless, brutal action. But we must be able to take into our souls what can truly inspire us when we speak. We must find a way to let our hearts participate when our lips move. We must find a way to put our whole being into our words, otherwise words become educators of illusion, guides away from the seriousness of reality, comfortable guides away from reality. We must bid farewell to that spirit which allows us to enter the church so that we may be lifted out of the seriousness of life and comfortably instilled with the phrase: “The Lord God will take care of it, he will deliver you from your evils.” We must seek out the powers within us that are the divine powers in our souls, for they were placed in us at the beginning of the world so that we might use them and so that we might receive God into our own souls. Let us not be talked into believing in an external God, so that our souls can lie down in comfortable peace on the philistine sofas that we love so much when it comes to spiritual life. And our education, our teaching system, must seek the way to get beyond what we can already call Greek phraseology; our education and our teaching system must find the way to get beyond Roman phraseology.

For Romanism, what our age still worships as the spirit of the laws was right. For what was the purpose of this spirit of the laws of Romanism? Oh, the legend of the founding of Rome has a profound meaning. Bands of robbers were gathered together in order to combat the worst animalistic instincts in human beings. The Roman law was there to tame wild animals. But we should remember that we have become human beings and that we should not worship that spirit of the laws which arose from the justified instincts of Romanism to tame wild animalistic human passions. What we have retained from the Roman spirit as the spirit of justice, as it still prevails in us today, bears everywhere the character of the need to tame the wild human passions that cannot prevail in freedom.

Christian, people say, this word does not live in the lectures that are now being given. In doing so, people forget again and again a true Christian word, the Pauline word: Sin came through the law, not the law through sin. If the law were not there, sin would be dead. That may not be of any use in our time, because people have become unchristian. But this is a saying whose deep meaning must be learned. This is what is Christian: that what people today see as the provider of all things, the all-encompassing, must be taken out of the state, which is our inheritance from Romanism, that the free life of the spirit and the economic life, which must stand on its own, must be taken out of it. People do not want the Christian spirit. Therefore, they want to be comforted by using the words “Christian” and “Christianity” as often as possible as mere phrases. Similarly, people today want to hear the word “German” as often as possible as a mere phrase. The German spirit truly reigns in Goethe. The innovative Central European spirit, which is un-German, coined the phrase I have already quoted here through its enlightened representative, the Berlin Academy of Sciences: the honor of these gentlemen, the spiritual leaders of today, lies in the fact that they see themselves as the “scientific protection force of the Hohenzollerns.” The same man who coined this phrase also gave a speech entitled “Goethe and no end” based on the scientific phrase of the present day, and with this speech he sought to trample all of Goethe's scientific spirit into the ground. He had the taste to say that Faust, in Goethe's version, would do better to invent the air pump and make Gretchen honest than to do the things that Faust does in Goethe's version. That was the modern spirit that trampled underfoot the true German spirit, which does not always wear the word German vainly on its lips, just as it was the Christian-modern spirit, that is, the unchristian spirit, to always demand the word Christ and Christian and to disregard the other word: Thou shalt not always utter the word God in vain. One should feel what is Christian and not be dependent on the chatter of Christianity constantly ringing in our ears.

That is the spirit of Pentecost today. It cannot be said that this spirit of Pentecost would easily fall on fertile ground today if it were not nurtured and cultivated. We have the opportunity to see how this spirit of Pentecost is misunderstood on both the left and the right. Isn't it a strange illustration — if I may come down from my lofty perch for a moment and look at everyday life — isn't it a strange illustration of the spirit of our time, what has actually happened: Our Association for Social Threefolding sets out to put a seed word into action and, in order that it may be understood, it draws on the words of a man who now also wants to speak of socialization, whose words are very useful when speaking of socialization, whose words can be quoted because, as words, they would actually mean what we want if they were seed thoughts turned into deeds. And what happens? From the side from which these words originated, what should be taken from them as deeds is immediately fought to the ground. What does this actually mean within human beings? It means: Woe to you if you take our words as anything other than idle talk and empty phrases! The moment you take our words seriously, we are your enemies. Such has been the effect of the education that has grown up in the modern age under the auspices of the state. That is one side of the coin.

On the other side, there is the charming denunciation: We agree with everything Steiner says, we agree with his views on combating capitalism as it has existed up to now, we agree with his threefold division of the social organism, but we oppose him because we will not allow a spirit seer to tell us such things!

Well, there would be sufficient reason — but the reason must not be a poisonous plant — to say to oneself: What is to be done with an age that wants nothing else in this way but either mere phrases or mere thoughtless, brutal action, and rejects everything that is not phrase or thoughtless brutality and that carries within itself the seeds of true human reality? In order not to have to think, people want thoughtless class struggle. In order not to let one's thoughts become deeds, one utters the most beautiful phrases. And when other people take them seriously, one fights them to the death.

This question must enter our hearts: Do people born of such a spirit still have the right to gush about the miracle of Pentecost in well-formed phrases? The slime that is being poured out today in unctuous praise of the miracle of Pentecost comes from the same glands that produce the poison with which people today want to spray everything that comes from the spirit, and with which they want to invoke, on the one hand, empty phrases and, on the other, thoughtless, brutal action. On the one hand, empty phrases have become the religious babble of the world; on the other, brutal, unspiritual deeds have become militarism, the fundamental evil of our time. Until we understand how these two things are rooted in wrong education and wrong schooling, we cannot think fruitfully about what should happen. Everything else is quackery.

The things that need to be done must be done based on reality. For reality carries the spirit within itself, and any denial of the spirit becomes, in truth, real nonsense and absurdity. But if someone tries to point to spiritual reality, he is labeled an illusionist or a spirit seer. That is how he is branded in our time, because the sense of true reality is completely lacking in the widest circles.

Comparing the social organism with the human or any other organism has become a phrase in our time, and it is a rather cheap phrase. If one does not want to speak in phrases in this field, one must provide the foundation that has been provided in my book “The Mystery of the Soul.” What sense would it make today to speak of the threefold social organism if this spiritual foundation of the threefold human organism—in nerve-sense abilities, rhythmic abilities, and metabolic abilities—had not first been presented to humanity as a real scientific discovery? But people are too comfortable to allow the ideas of the present, which have grown out of a distorted school system, to be corrected by what comes from true reality.

Another gruesome idea lives in our official science, that is, in science that is authoritatively believed everywhere. This science participates in the idolatrous worship of everything that has been elevated to such a high culture in recent times. How could this modern science, when it wants to express something particularly mysterious, not resort to what it most worships at the moment? Now, then, the nervous system has become for it a sum of telegraph lines, and the entire nervous activity of the human being has become a strangely complicated telegraph function. The eye perceives, the skin perceives along with it. What is perceived from outside is conducted to the telegraph station, the brain, through sensitive nerves. Then there sits in the brain, I don't know what kind of being—a spiritual being is denied by modern science—through a being that has become a phrase because nothing real can be seen in it, what is perceived by the “sensitive” nerves is converted by the “motor” nerves into movements of the will. And the difference between sensitive nerves and motor nerves is drummed into young people, and the whole view of human beings is built on this difference.

For years I have been fighting against this absurdity of the separation between sensitive and motor nerves, firstly because this difference is absurd, because the so-called motor nerves are there for no other purpose than that for which the sensitive nerves are there. A sensitive nerve, a sensory nerve, is there to serve as a tool for us to perceive what is going on in our sensory organization. And a so-called motor nerve is not a motor nerve, but also a sensory nerve; it is only there so that I can perceive my own hand movements, my own movements that arise for reasons other than the motor nerves. Motor nerves are internal sensory nerves for perceiving my own decisions. The sensory nerves are there so that I can perceive the external world as it appears in my sensory apparatus, and the so-called motor nerves are there so that I do not remain an unknown being to myself, walking, striking, or grasping without knowing anything about it. They are not there to tense the will, but to perceive what the will is doing within us. The whole thing that has been coined by modern science out of the convoluted intellectual knowledge of our time is a truly scientific absurdity. That is one reason why I have been fighting this absurdity for years.

But there is another reason why this absurdity must be eradicated, this superstition about sensitive and motor nerves, between which there is no difference other than that some are sensitive to what is outside and others to what is inside our own bodies. This other reason is as follows.

No one can gain a proper understanding of human beings and their relationship to work in any social science if they base their concepts and ideas on the complicated distinction between sensory and motor nerves. For one will always arrive at curious concepts of what human work really is if one asks, on the one hand, what actually happens in a person when he works, when he sets his muscles in motion, and, on the other hand, has no idea that this setting of the muscles in motion is not based on the so-called motor nerves, but on the immediate connection of the soul with the external world. Of course, I can only hint at these questions, because even the most primitive ideas about them do not yet exist today. People still understand nothing about these things, because the school system has not yet brought about a change in the most primitive ideas for understanding such things, because it still works with the madness of distinguishing between sensitive and motor nerves.

When I come into contact with a machine, I must come into contact with it as a whole person; I must first and foremost establish a relationship between my muscles and this machine. This relationship is what human work is really based on. This relationship is what matters if one wants to evaluate work socially, the very special relationship between the human being and the basis of work.

What concept of work are we working with today? What goes on inside a person when they are, as we say, working is no different whether they are toiling at a machine, chopping wood, or playing sports for pleasure. They can wear themselves out just as much with the pleasure of sport; they can consume just as much energy in socially superfluous sport as in socially useful wood chopping. And it is the illusion about the difference between motor and sensory nerves that psychologically distracts people from grasping a real concept of work, which can only be grasped if one does not look at people in terms of how they wear themselves out, but in terms of how they relate to their social environment. I believe you have not yet gained a clear understanding of this because the concepts that can be obtained today about these things are so distorted by our school system that it will take some time before we can make the transition from the socially nonsensical concept of work and the insane scientific concept of the distinction between sensory and motor nerves. But these things are also the reason why we think so impractically. For how can a humanity think practically about practical matters when it indulges in the insane idea that there is a telegraph apparatus inside us, and that wires go to something in the brain and are switched there to other wires, sensitive and motor nerves? Our unscientific thinking, which stems from a flawed education system and is believed by the general public, seduced by the newspaper plague, results in an inability to think in a truly social way.

This is what we should recognize today as the spirit of Pentecost, and what would be wiser to pour out in individual tongues upon the people of the present than what is today thought of as quackery to improve this or that. When people say today that humanity must relearn and rethink, they usually believe that these things mean the same thing they themselves believe, because people immediately translate what is said into phrases and utopias. But isn't there a difference between some random editor saying: Humanity must relearn — or whether one says it because one knows: Humanity has deluded itself to such depths through false habits of thinking that these habits have penetrated the sensitive and motor nerves, have penetrated the very structure of what humanity today firmly believes in superstition because its authorities command it to do so? The task of the Anthroposophical Society is to make it clear to the world that people are speaking out of reality and speaking differently about this reality when the language of the anthroposophical movement is about “rethinking” and “relearning.” For phrases have gained such power today that, with reference to the outward words, those who have no discernment between reality and phrase can say: Well, read the editorial in today's “Stuttgarter Tagblatt,” there you will also find the doctrine of relearning. But today it is not important that we compare words, because that is precisely how we fall into phraseology; today it is important that we grasp reality and guard ourselves against falling into phraseology. How often have I had to be dismissive when phrases like these came up again and again: Well, there was another one in the pulpit talking “all theosophical,” as people say. These things were the worst, because they showed how little discernment there is between the knowledge of reality and the comfortable life of phrases. The feast of Pentecost should also instill the warning in human souls: Away from your phrases, toward reality! Today, in the fields of science, art, and religion, we speak everywhere in phrases, in phrases that stick in the throat and therefore do not touch the whole human being; just as the belief of human beings today is that the sensations of their senses remain somewhere in the brain and do not affect their motor apparatus. There are the most precise connections between all these things, and until the transformation of our time reaches precisely those habits of thinking which authoritarian science has developed today, which has developed the scientific papacy, there will be no real renewal, for all other renewal flows only from the surface and not from what it must flow from: from the real inner self. If our school and educational system is to undergo a real renewal, care must be taken to protect people, through such measures as those discussed here, from what can so easily arise in humanity today because it carries within itself the legacy of Romanism.

The tendency toward illusion, the love of illusion, which is so widespread in humanity today, must be combated. People today feel comfortable when they are allowed to deceive themselves about the value of reality, when they are allowed to say: It is not the Christ within me who stimulates the forces within me, who makes the forces within me strong, to whom I profess my faith, but the Christ who is independent of me and who graciously frees me from my sins without my seriously contributing anything of my own.

Again and again, in numerous letters, this confession of Christ Jesus has been held up to me in contrast to what anthroposophy must and wants to do. And again and again I have been confronted with the desire to reduce what must be sharply defined today out of the reality of the spirit, because the times demand it, to trivial phrases so that people can understand it. But the moment anthroposophical truths are cut down to trivial phrases, they become what is so cheap in our time: they become phrases, they become phrases by being degraded to the triviality of the street or to the philistinism of today's science. I have been admonished time and again to do both. Time and again I have had the trouble of not doing either, neither of reducing anthroposophy to the trivial phrases of the street — what is called popularization in today's sense — nor of following the other admonitions to speak to scientific people in such a way that they can understand. These admonitions came to me many times. Well, then I would have had to speak in such a way that it would have found an echo in the scientific nonsense of the present day. I prefer it when people behave as a professor did recently in Tübingen, out of the scientific spirit of the age. It seems to me that truth prevails in the facts, because this behavior is the best proof of how much the life of the spirit needs to be transformed. In particular, if one wants to find this transition to the true spirit of Pentecost, from idle words to words that bear seeds, then one must be careful not to lead people's souls back again and again to their old familiar ideas in order to understand what they do not want to understand with new ideas, what can be talked about with old ideas but cannot be understood.

It makes little sense today for bourgeois voices to point out, using the values that words often have, that the proletariat in certain circles has the good will to understand better than the bourgeoisie the things that need to be said on the basis of the threefold social organism. Just have this good will, you bourgeois! — one would like to say today in many cases. The proletarian naturally laughs at this exhortation to good will on the part of the bourgeois; for it is true that he is better prepared than the bourgeois to understand many things. But he is also prepared to understand these things from a different perspective, and he laughs when people say that one should appeal to the bourgeoisie's good will to understand, and he laughs especially when people say that one could expect this appeal to be successful. For he knows very well that his better understanding comes from something else entirely: that if he does not work tomorrow, he will be out on the street. He is connected to the social order, I would say, selectively, not in a straight line, like today's bureaucratic citizen. He speaks from his humanity because today's social order has led him to have no interests other than human ones, for he remains nothing but a human being if he is thrown out onto the street tomorrow. This is the source of his better understanding.

The citizen, especially the civil servant, is taken into the state's care as quickly as possible, but not too early, because taking someone into care is still somewhat unclean; this is left to mothers and wet nurses. But once they have passed the stage of initial impurity, they are immediately taken into the care of the state, trained and prepared—not to become human beings, but to become civil servants. They tie him up so that he is not connected to the social order in a selective way, like the proletarian, but through a long line, through strings, with all his interests tied to the existing social order maintained by the state. They prepare him so that in all his behavior he becomes the correct expression of this social order. Then he is given food, and then he is satisfied. And he is not only given food, he is cared for so that he does not have to care for himself. And then, when he can no longer work, the state ensures that he receives his pension, that he is properly provided for, without any effort on his part, by the powers that prepared him to be their faithful expression. This continues until death. Then, through religion, which does not draw its remedies from the inner powers of the soul but from outside, through grace, one ensures that the soul continues to be “retired” even after death. This is precisely the content of state wisdom, of religious wisdom. No wonder that the citizen of the state and of heaven, who is so bound to the interests of the state, clings to that with which he is bound.

That is the contrast: the interest on the one side, but also the interest on the other side. It is the interest on the other side that today calls a number of people to what humanity must achieve in the age of consciousness, of which I have spoken often: standing on individual human ground. The proletarian has only the opportunity to be the first to stand on individual ground because he has not been accepted into the other. The more he is accepted, the worse off he is. For on the one hand we have those people who have been placed in their positions in a similar way by the proletariat: the trade union officials. Even though their positions have different names, they become comfortably accustomed to the airs and graces of the others and then fight against anything that seems to go against their airs and graces. In this way, they gradually slip into the habits of the bourgeoisie.

Today, in the proletarian world, people speak of trade unionism. In England, about one-fifth of the entire workforce is economically organized. That is a relatively large number. Therefore, given the current spirit of organization, today's English working class has grown quite nicely into the bourgeois way of thinking. In Germany, only one-eighth is organized; the rest are unorganized workers. And it is the unorganized who are now at the forefront of personality; they are the real driving forces, or those who have saved themselves into their organization with the awareness of what it means to remain human when one is not employed for one's physical life, then retired, and finally, as I have indicated, also retired for one's spiritual life after death. These people, who outwardly feel economically placed at the peak of their own individuality, have, I would say, the spiritual disposition for what must emerge in world history today, and what makes today's proletarian demand at the same time a world-historical demand.

The new economic order has harnessed the proletariat in factories in capitalism, where it is easier for them to understand what the demands of the times are than for the citizen who is attached with every fiber of his being to his livelihood and his pension and who does not want to think. For if he did think, if he understood the times correctly, it would not be possible for a professor in Tübingen to speak as the gentleman who recently replied to me in the discussion: “People talk about the fact that the proletarian’s ‘human existence’ is undermined when he is ‘paid’ for his work. But isn't Caruso also 'paid' when he sings one evening and receives thirty to forty thousand marks for his work? Or, said the selfless gentleman, am I not also paid? And I don't feel anything degrading about collecting my salary for my work. And Caruso doesn't think so either when he collects his thirty to forty thousand marks. That was the point. And it was added: The only small difference is that one is more and the other less, but that doesn't matter, because essentially it's the same thing.

That is the spirit that is blossoming in today's school and education system. That is also the spirit that says: We will become a poor people, we will not be able to pay for schools and education, so the state will have to intervene and pay for it. — Well, for those who think independently, one will have to object: Yes, but how will the state do that when everyone is poor and it is suddenly supposed to be Croesus, paying the debts that none of us can pay? The state first takes what people have in the form of taxes, so it seems to me that it cannot produce what people do not have, like Croesus. — But this class of people must first learn to understand that. That is what even those who receive their livelihood from the state, from the pockets of those who are at the top of human individuality, should learn to understand. But as long as people have not learned this, have not learned it through the hardships of life, it cannot be taught to them. And so it seems to me that a large number of people today simply want to conjure up an age in which one will learn that one can also be thrown out onto the street if one does not really want to bring about a different social order through a thought impulse. For it could very easily be the case that those pensions I have spoken of can no longer be paid. And then, I believe, if those very material pensions cannot be paid, people would no longer care so much about those other pensions that are paid today for the spiritual needs of souls after death by religious communities that have become very dependent on physical powers.

But if something emerges that is not meant to be mere rhetoric, but rather a seed for action, then today we are not in a position to take it as anything other than rhetoric. Then one does not sense that it is based on real knowledge of life, down to the details, through which one recognizes the scientific madness of the distinction between sensitive and motor nerves, which prevents social science from arriving at a real working concept. Today, it is already necessary that at least some people see into these depths. Today it is urgently necessary that individuals do not allow themselves to be beguiled into saying: We are socialising external economic life, but we will not touch the school system, especially secondary and higher education; that must remain as it is. — That is the worst thing that could happen, if that is what remains. For what it has done so far will not only continue to be done in the future, but it will be done in an even worse sense. Socialize economically and leave this intellectual life alone, and in a short time your present pseudo-socialization will result in a much worse tyranny and much worse living conditions than have developed in the present. Of course, there is an economic compulsion today that triggers something terrible in the social organism. Should this now be replaced by ambition, by the most savage bureaucracy? Does humanity, which has finally—albeit rather late—learned that it must not invoke “throne and altar,” believe that it would be better to invoke the state's account book and the state's cash register out of the same spirit? Capitalism has gradually succeeded in transferring the altar, with all its veneration, into the fireproof safe. A sham socialism will succeed in transforming the current pseudo-veneration for powers that no longer exist, that live only in phrases, into cooperative idolatry and cooperative ambition.

What humanity needs for spiritual renewal is the courage to recognize that the experience of the spirit in the real human interior, as it has become today, has led on the one hand to religious babble and on the other to thoughtless brutal action, to militaristic action. Those who feel that they are true, modern people, products of the capitalist age, feel comfortable cutting their coupons, but in the midst of it all they turn their eyes away from what is actually happening, when on the one hand the Gospel is turned into idle talk and they are told about charity and brotherhood, while he conveniently cuts charity and brotherhood out with his scissors and does not need to see how things really are, because on the other side he is sure that he does not need to protect his business himself, but that the state does so by sharpening the swords. We have seen in modern times that an alliance has been formed between business and government that has led us into global catastrophe. What is the state, of which people have been so proud, other than the great protector of economic life as it has been conducted under capitalism? One would hope that the patriots of the past, whose convictions were not to be touched—for they were “good” patriots, they had coined the phrase of patriotic rhetoric, and in a bygone age it was a very bad thing to point out that this patriotic rhetoric had a very real basis, because the patriotically revered state is, after all, the protector of banknotes — one would hope that time will not provide particularly true proof that these people, who were so patriotic, will not become unpatriotic and, now that they perhaps know that their money is better protected by the Entente powers, will quickly change their patriotic tune! I do not wish to say anything specific about the possibility of this happening, but I would like to point out the ease with which patriotic rhetoric can turn into its opposite. There are enough signs of this.

These are the things that need to be said today, with reference to the need for a renewal of the education and teaching system. For the unctuous speeches with which humanity has been served should no longer be used to serve it. People should get used to listening to words that point to the realities of the present. Then it would be possible for the spirit of Pentecost to truly spread, so that in the future little tongues would enter into all that what is to arise on the basis of liberated spiritual life as the smallest school, as the highest school, so that the liberated spirit, which is the real Holy Spirit, can work for the real spiritual development of humanity out of the emancipated spiritual life of the future.

This may be saying something that religious chatterers today do not find particularly Christian. But the humanity of the present will one day have to consider whether the Christian discourse of today still stems from the spirit that led Peter to deny the Lord three times, or whether it already stems from the spirit that spoke: What I have revealed to you is not limited to one age, but will endure through all ages. And I will not cease to tell you the truth, and I will be with you until the end of the earth. Those who today can hear only the spirit of the past, even in Christianity, will be the phrase-mongers, the babblers. Those who hear the living spirit even today calling for the transformation and rebuilding of the human order will perhaps be those in whom we will be able to see the true Christians.

May this age come out of a truly understood spirit of Pentecost.