The Art of Lecturing
GA 339
14 October 1921, Dornach
Lecture IV
Yesterday I tried to describe how the first part of a lecture on the threefold social order could be dealt with in the case of a certain audience; I called attention to the fact that it is above all necessary to call forth a feeling for the special character of the spiritual life that stands independently on its own. In the second part it will be a matter of making it even comprehensible to present-day humanity that there can be something like a democratic-political connection that has to strive for equality. For it is actually a fact—and you must take this into consideration when preparing for such a lecture—that modern man has no feeling at all for a state structure that is built upon rights as upon its very foundation. This part, the political part referring to the state, is especially difficult to deal with within Swiss conditions. It will have to be specially emphasized that lecturers, who want to represent the threefold social order within Swiss conditions, proceed from the thus given Swiss conditions, and that in the middle part concerning the political, public life, they take into consideration how one must speak out of the Swiss context. After all, generally it is like this: Because of the conditions of the recent development of humanity, public life as such, which was to express itself in the life of rights, has in the main disappeared. What expresses and lives in the configuration of the state, is really a chaotic union of the spiritual elements of human existence and the economic elements. One could say that in the modern states the spiritual elements and the economic elements have gradually become mixed together; whereas the actual political life has fallen away in between, has in fact vanished.
This is particularly noticeable within the conditions of Switzerland. We are dealing there everywhere with a seeming democratization of the spiritual life, impossible in its actual formulations, and a democratization of economic life and the fact that the public believes that this apparent democratic mixture of the spiritual and the economic life is a democracy. Since people have formed their concepts of democracy out of this mixture, since they therefore have an absolute illusory concept of democracy, it is so difficult to speak of true democracy particularly to the Swiss. Actually, the Swiss know least of all about real democracy.
In Switzerland, one thinks about how to democratize the schools. This is about the same as if one were supposed to think about and gain an idea out of real, true concepts on how to turn a boot into a good head covering. In a similar manner, the so-called democratic political concepts are treated. It serves no purpose to speak of these matters in a—let me say—pussy-footing manner in order to speak politely to a mainly Swiss audience; for then we could not understand each other. Politeness in such matters can never lead to an understanding. Well, just because of this it is so necessary to discuss the concept of rights and the equality of men in face of a people like the Swiss nation.
One has to accustom oneself to speak differently in each locality if one wants to be active as a lecturer. When, as was the case beginning in April 1919, one spoke about the threefold social order in Germany, one spoke under totally different conditions from those here in Switzerland, and also completely different conditions than those under which one can speak in England or in America about the threefold order. Especially in that spring, in April 1919, directly after the German revolution, everybody in Germany, the proletarian as well as the middle class—the first naturally in a more revolutionary, the second in a more resigned manner—were convinced of the fact that something new would have to come. One actually spoke into this feeling, this mood, that something new had to come. One spoke at that time to relatively prepared, receptive people; naturally, one could speak in Germany quite differently from the way one could speak there today. A whole world lies between today and that spring of 1919 in Germany as well. Today, one can at most hope to call forth some sort of idea by means of something resembling the threefold order of how the spiritual life as such can be structured independently—especially how it would have to be formulated under the conditions presently existing in Germany today, and how, under certain conditions, the inner-political life of rights within the state could be constituted. In Germany today, one naturally cannot speak of a formulation of the economic life completely in the sense of the threefold order, for the economic life in Germany is in fact something that is under rules of duress, under pressure and such as that. It is something that cannot move freely, that cannot conceive ideas concerning its own free mobility. This is quite obvious in the completely different form of life of, for example, the Futurum and the Kommende Tag. The Kommende Tag exists as if in a strait-jacket, and its task is to function under such conditions; the Futurum must work under Swiss conditions in the way it develops,—conditions of which we shall speak further directly. Therefore, a speech must be formulated in different ways depending on whether it is delivered in Switzerland, Germany, or even at different times. Again, one would have to speak completely differently in England or in America. What can be accomplished from here, in Europe, in regard to these two countries, can only be a sort of substitute. It is alright, for example, if “The Threefold Social Order” is translated, it is fine if the book is widely distributed, but, as I have said from the beginning, in the final analysis the really effective way would be if the ideas of this book were set down in a totally different style for America and England. For both Switzerland and Central Europe, it can be taken literally word for word, the way it was written down. But for England and America the ideas would indeed have to be rendered in a completely different form because in those countries one addresses people who basically have the opposite attitude of what existed, for instance, among Germans in April of 1919. In Germany, the opinion prevailed that something new would have to come and to begin with it would suffice if one knew what this consisted of. One didn't have the mental strength to comprehend it but one had the feeling that one ought to know what this sensible innovation might be. Naturally, in all of England and America nothing like this feeling exists anywhere. The only concern there is how to hold on to and save the old traditions. The only worry is how to properly secure the past because the old values are good, so one thinks, and one must by no means shake the traditional foundations!
I am certainly aware that the above can be countered with the statement that there are so many progressive movements in the Western hemisphere. Still, all these progressive movements, regardless of whether their inner content is new, are reactionary and conservative insofar as their management is concerned. The feeling that things cannot continue the way they have gone 'til now, has to be called into being over there in the West in the first place.
This can certainly be noticed by individual examples. Let us take a terrible, horrible, I could say the worst problem that could have arisen from a purely human standpoint, the question of starvation in Russia. Although the views are ever so chaotic within Germany, even though for reasons of agitation one acts contrary to what would be sensible, and although, out of humane reasons, homage is paid to pity in a matter-of-fact manner,—and naturally, we are not saying anything against pity holding sway,—within Germany, at least in some circles, one is finally more or less reaching the conclusion that it is nonsense for the whole course of humanity's evolution to do something for the starvation of Russia in the form of subsidies, by gifts, as it were, from the West. People are getting the idea that this is quite certainly demanded even from a humane standpoint, but that what is done in this direction is so self-evident that nobody should say that it has anything to do with the tasks posed today by the starvation conditions in Russia. In the West, only a few theorists—but then only on the basis of something theoretical—might arrive at such views. It is therefore natural that one must first call forth a feeling in the West for the fact that the world needs a new form, a reformation.
Switzerland's position during the dreadful catastrophe of recent times (the First World War) was such that it only participated in a theoretical way, namely by means of journalistic theory in the events, also by means of what influenced the cultural and economic conditions from outside. The Swiss population therefore has no actual feeling at all, neither of the fact that something new should come into being, nor that the old ought to remain. If today, depending on one or the other party consideration, a Swiss speaks about something new having to come into being, or something old having to remain, one has the feeling: He only tells one what he has heard, heard on the one hand from Central Europe, on the other from England and the West. He only speaks of what has reached his ears, not of what he has actually experienced. This is why it appears so like the Swiss, when those individuals, who don't like to engage themselves to the right or to the left—and leading Swiss are very often like this today,—that such people say: Well, when this happens, it happens in this way, and when the other takes place, it occurs that way! If something new comes into being, matters take their course thusly, if the old remains, matters run that way!—One figures out, as it were, what one must put on one or the other side of the scale.
It is like this: When one tries to make somebody in Switzerland take an interest in something that is bitterly needed for the world today, one can become quite desperate, for it doesn't really move him at all, for it bounces right back because in reality his heart is not in it. It is too distasteful to him for him to become interested, and he has too little experience concerning these matters for them to become in some way appealing to his sympathy. He wants to have his peace. On the other hand, he wants to be a Swiss. This signifies: If all sorts of progressive reports that include “freedom” and “democracy” resound across the border, and since one has through many centuries called oneself democratic, one cannot turn around and say that one doesn't want democracy! In short, one really has the feeling that people in Switzerland have an exceedingly well-built canal between the right and the left ear, so that everything that goes in one side goes out on the other without having reached common sense and the heart.
One will have to at least take hold at those points where it can be shown that a political system like that of Switzerland is really something quite special. It is indeed something quite special. For, first of all, Switzerland is something like a gravity-point of the world—which was already noticeable during the war, if one wanted to take notice of it. Particularly its non-alliance in regard to the various world conditions could be utilized by Switzerland to achieve free, independent judgment and actions in regard to its surroundings. The world is literally waiting for the Swiss to note in their heads what they note in their pockets. In their pockets they notice that the franc has not been affected by the rise and fall and corruption of currency. The Swiss realize that the whole world revolves around the Swiss franc. That this is also the case in a spiritual regard is something the Swiss don't notice at all. Just as they know how to value the unchanging franc, which, as it were, has become the regulator of currency the world over, the Swiss should learn to understand their independent position, brought about by world conditions, whereby Switzerland could indeed be a kind of lever for world conditions. It is therefore necessary that one makes this comprehensible to them.
It is almost similar to the way one had to speak at one time about Austria. People who knew something about such matters in Austria have often pondered the question why this Austria, which only had centrifugal tendencies, remained in existence, why it didn't split apart. In the 1880's and in the '90's, I never said anything else but: What occurs in Austria itself has to begin with no significance for the cohesiveness or the splitting apart (of the state structure), what happens around it, does. Because the others—Germany, Russia, Italy, Turkey, and those interested in Turkey, France and Switzerland itself—because these political systems that surround Austria on all sides do not let Austria split apart, and instead hold it centrally together for the reason that each (country) begrudged the other a part of it! Each took pains that the other would not acquire anything: by these means Austria held together. It was held together from outside. One could clearly see this if one had an eye for such things. Only when this mutual watch of the surrounding powers was obscured in the World War by the smoke of the cannons, only then did Austria naturally split apart. Basically, this picture says it all.
Well, it is similar in the case of Switzerland, yet it is different. All around, there are all sorts of diverse interests, but these interests left out one small spot where they do not confront each other. And today, where there is the life of the world economy, of the cultural life, matters are such that this small spot is maintained by virtue of being something quite special. What does it represent? It is something that is held together within its borders by purely political conditions. You can see this from the history of Switzerland. Swiss history is seemingly completely political, just as Swiss thinking is seemingly completely democratic. It is the same, however, in politics in Switzerland as I explained it earlier concerning democracy. It is a form of politics that is no politics; on a small spot of the world it governs the cultural and the economic life, but in reality is not politically active. Compare what is politics in Switzerland and what it is elsewhere! Occasionally, one or the other matter must be done in a political sense, because one must enter into correspondence with other countries. But genuine Swiss politics—you would have to turn things upside-down, if you wanted to discover real Swiss politics. That doesn't really exist. But this makes it evident that here a national configuration was created in which the cultural and the economic life are governed in a political sense, but in which there actually does not exist a true feeling, a true experience of the existence of rights.
Therefore, it is a matter of especially emphasizing here that rights are something that cannot be defined, as red or blue cannot be defined, and that rights need to be experienced in their self-evident quality, something that must be experienced when a person, who has become of age, becomes conscious of himself as a human being. Therefore, it would be a matter of trying to work out this human relationship of feelings and sensations in the life of rights, in the political life for Swiss conditions, to show that equality must dwell in the individual person if there is to be a life of rights. For it is Switzerland that is actually called upon—and I would like to say that the angels of the whole world look upon Switzerland to watch whether the right things take place here, to create a system of rights by letting go, freeing the cultural and the economic life; for Switzerland is, if I may put it this way, quite virginal in regard to the political life.
Roman jurisprudence, which moved in a quite different way into France and Germany and the other European countries, was really stopped by the Swiss mountains for the hearts of men. It only moved into external elements, not into the feelings of men. Therefore, this is virginal soil for rights, soil on which everything can be created. If only people will come to the realization what infinite good luck it signifies to be able to live here between the mountains, to be able to have a will of their own, independent of the whole world that revolves around this tiny country! Just because of world conditions, the elements of rights can be brought out here, worked purely out of the human being.
Now I have indicated to you how one must take into consideration the particular locality, the specific area for the preparations of such a lecture, how one must be completely sure within oneself about what the essence of the Swiss character is. Naturally, I can only outline it now; but anybody who wants to lecture in Switzerland should really try hard to fully understand what specific form the Swiss character consists of.
Now it is true, you might say: We are, after all, Swiss—just as the English could say we are English—and you want to tell us how a Swiss is to become acquainted with the Swiss character, and what all an Englishman might not have of such feelings, and so on.—Certainly, one can say that. But those who today belong to the educated class, nowhere have a truly experienced education, an education that has emerged out of the directness of experience. This is the reason why, especially in reference to rights, this direct experience must be specifically pointed out.
With this we arrive at a consideration of how human beings have gradually come into the mutual, social relationships in modern civilization in the area, where rights should really develop. Rights should develop from man to man. Anything else, all parliamentary debates, are basically only a surrogate for what should take its course from one man to the next in a truly correct realm of rights.
If one now ponders the area of rights, one has the opportunity—but now in a more realistic manner—to go into what the concepts of the proletariat consist of and the feelings of the bourgeois. But now, one can lead what the proletariat has developed in its concepts in a more realistic way into the feelings of the bourgeois. I say: concepts of the proletariat, feelings of the bourgeois. The explanation for it you can find in my Towards Social Renewal.
Out of the four concepts, which I developed here yesterday, the proletariat has certainly evolved the feeling of class consciousness; it must appropriate what is in the possession of the bourgeois, namely the state. To what extent the state is a true state of rights or not is something that did not become clear naturally to the proletariat either. But what has developed as a state of rights is something that Switzerland has least of all been touched by; therefore it could comprehend a true state of rights most readily without any prejudices. What has developed as a real state of rights, actually lives only between the expressions of the main soul life of people almost the world over today, but not in Switzerland! Everywhere else in the world, the element that is the political state of rights lives an underground-existence, so to speak, whereas the element that is really experienced between person and person is based on something quite different, namely on something that is through and through a middle-class element. What man actually seeks in public life, what he carries into the whole of public life, whereby an obscuration of the actual life of rights takes place for him—that is something that one can only grasp if one focuses a bit on the concrete relationships.
You see, the cultural, the spiritual life has gradually been absorbed by the life of the state (the government). The cultural life, however, when one confronts it as an element standing on its own ground, is a very stern element, an element in regard to which one must constantly preserve one's freedom, which therefore cannot be organized in any other way except in freedom. Just let one generation unfold its spiritual life more freely and then organize it any way it wants to: it will be purest slavery for the following generation. Not only according to theory, but according to life, the spiritual, cultural life must really be free. The human beings who stand within it must experience this freedom. The cultural life turns into a great tyranny if it spreads out anywhere on earth, for without being organized it cannot spread, and when organization occurs, the organization itself becomes a tyrant. Therefore, there must be a constant battle in freedom, in living freedom, against the tyranny to which the cultural life is inclined.
Now, in the course of the nineteenth century, the cultural life has been absorbed by the life of the state. This means: If one divests the life of the state of the toga in which it is still very much clothed in memory of the ancient Roman age,—although judges are even beginning to discard the robe, but all in all one can still say that the life of the state still wears the toga,—if one disregards this toga, looks instead at what is underneath, one sees everywhere the constrained spiritual life that is present in the state and the social life of the state. It is the restrained spiritual life! It is constrained but ignorant of the fact that it is constrained; therefore it does not strive for freedom, although it does constantly fight against its constraint. Much has emerged in recent times out of this fighting against the constraint of spiritual life. Our whole public cultural life really stands under the influence of this constraint of cultural life, and we cannot attain to healthy social conditions if we do not acquire a feeling for awareness of this constraint. One must have a feeling for how this constraint of the spiritual life meets one in everyday life.
One day, I was invited by a number of ladies in Berlin, who had heard lectures of mine in an institute, to give a lecture in the private apartment of one of these ladies. The whole arrangement was really for the purpose of the ladies' working against a certain relatively harmless attitude of their husbands. You see, the ladies arrived around twelve o'clock noon in the institute where I gave my lectures. When such a day recurred—I think it was once a week—the husbands said, “There you go again into your crazy institute today; then the soup will be bad again, or something else won't be in its usual order!”—So the ladies wanted me to give a lecture on Goethe's Faust—this was selected as the subject—the husbands were also invited. Now I gave the lecture on Goethe's Faust before the ladies and gentlemen. The men were a bit perplexed afterwards and said, “Why yes, but Goethe's Faust is a science; Goethe's Faust is not art. Art, well that's Blumenthal!”1Oskar Blumenthal, 1852–1917; author of light comedy.—I am quoting word for word—“and there one doesn't have to make such an effort. After working so hard in our professional life, who wants to exert an effort in our leisure time!” You see, what has become a substitute for enthusiasm for freedom in cultural life confronts us in the social life as a mere desire to be lightly entertained.
In the country-side, where one could still observe this well, I once saw how these old traveling actors, who always had a clown among them, sometimes presented really fine acts. I watched how the clown, who had been doing his clownish acts for some time and had entertained the people with them, threw off the clown's costume, because he now wanted to act out something that was serious to him,—and there he stood in black trousers and black tails. This image always turns itself around in my mind: First I see the man in his formal black attire, afterwards I see the man in his clown's costume. To me it's like black trousers and tails when, somewhere in a window-display, I see a book by Einstein about the theory of relativity; and I see a clown, when, next to it, I have before me a book by Moszkowski on the theory of relativity. For, indeed, there is much that's maya in outer life. But one couldn't imagine that the whole pedantry of thinkers could inwardly appear other than in black trousers and well-cut tails, I mean in the theory of relativity. And again: It is bothersome to adjust to such stern processes of thinking, such consistent sequences of thoughts, which are really cut like a well-fitting formal suit; that must confront people in a different manner as well. So, Alexander Moszkowski, especially gifted feuilletonistically as a philosopher-clown, gets busy and writes a voluminous book. From it, all the people learn in the form of light literature in the clown's costume, what was born in coat and tails! You see, one cannot do other than translate things into something that requires no effort and where no great enthusiasm need be engendered.
It is namely this overall mood that must be opposed in people's feelings, if one wants to speak about concepts of rights, for there, the human being with all his inner worth confronts the other person as an equal. What does not allow the concepts of rights to arise, is—to put it this way—the Alexander-Moszkowski-element. One must seek for the concrete facts in any given situation.
Naturally, I am not saying that if one needs to speak of concepts of human rights, one has to talk about tails and clowns' costumes. But I would like to show how one has to possess an elasticity of concepts in all matters, how one has to point out both sides of a question, and how one's own mind needs to be disposed in order to gain the necessary fluency to lecture to people.
There is another reason why a modern lecturer must be aware of such things as these. Most of the time, he is compelled to speak in the evening, when he wants to present something important concerning the future, for example. This means that he has to make use of the time when people prefer to attend either the theater or a concert. Therefore, the lecturer must realize that he is speaking to an audience that, according to the mood of the hour, would be better off in the concert hall, the theater, or another place of entertainment. So the audience is really in the wrong place if it finds itself in a lecture hall listening to a speaker who discourses from the platform on some important topic. As a speaker, one must be aware of what one is doing, down to the last detail.
What does one in fact accomplish when forced to address such an audience? Quite literally, one ruins the listener's digestion! A serious speech has the peculiar effect of negatively reacting on the stomach juices, on pepsin. A serious lecturer causes stomach acidity. And only if the speaker is in the proper frame of mind to permeate his address at least inwardly with the necessary humor, can the digestive juices function harmoniously after all. One has to present a speech with a certain inner lightness, modulation, and with an amount of enthusiasm, then one aids the processes of digestion. This way, the adverse effects on people's stomachs, caused by the time of day when one is normally forced to lecture, are neutralized. One is not promoting social ideas but instead medical specialists if one speaks pedantically, with heavy, expressive emphasis. The style must be light and matter-of-fact, or else one does not further the ideas of the threefold social order but the medical specialist's practice! There are no statistics available about the number of people who end up at the doctor's office after they have listened to pedantic speeches, but if there were, one would be astonished at the percentage of people among patients of gastro-intestinal specialists who are eager listeners of lectures nowadays.
I must draw attention to these facts because the time is near when one must be familiar with the actual constitution of the human being. We must know how seriousness or humor affect the stomach and the digestive juices; how, for example, wine acts like a cynic who does not take the human organism seriously but plays with it, as it were. If the human organization were to be viewed with human concepts rather than with the confused, indecisive concepts of today's science, one would certainly realize how every word and word-relationship causes an organic, almost chemical, reaction in the human being.
Knowing such things makes lecturing easier too. The barrier that otherwise stands between speaker and audience ceases to exists if one becomes aware of the damage that a pedantic speech causes the stomach. One frequently has occasion to observe that; though that is less the case in a lecture-class at a university, there, the students protect themselves by not paying attention!
From all this, one can readily understand how much depends on the mood in lecturing. It is much more important to prepare the whole mood-atmosphere and have it in hand than to get the speech ready word for word. A person who has prepared himself for the correct mood need not concern himself with the verbal details to a point where, at a given moment, the latter would cause the listeners discomforts.
Several different aspects go into the makeup of a correctly trained speaker. I want to mention this at this particular point because a discussion of justice, of rights, demands much that has to be characterized in this direction. I want to bring this out now before I shall talk tomorrow about the relationship of speaking and the economic elements.
An anthroposophist once brought the well-known philosopher, Max Dessoir (1867–1947), along to an evening-lecture I was giving at the Architektenhaus in Berlin. This one-time friend of Max Dessoir's said afterwards, “Oh, that Dessoir didn't go along with the lecture after all! I asked him how he had liked it and he replied that he was a public speaker himself, therefore, being one himself, he could not listen properly and form a judgment about what another lecturer was saying.” Well, I did not have to form a judgment about Dessoir following this statement, I had other opportunities for that. Indeed, I wouldn't have done so based on this utterance because I couldn't be sure whether it was really the truth or whether Dessoir, as usual, had lied here too. But assuming it was the truth, what would it have proven? It would have been proof that a person holding such an opinion could never be a proper speaker. A person can never become a good speaker if he enjoys speaking, likes to hear himself talk, and attaches special importance to his own talks. A good speaker always has to experience a certain reluctance when he has to speak. He must clearly feel this reluctance. Above all, he should much prefer listening to another speaker, even the worst one, to speaking himself.
I know very well what I imply with this statement and I realize how difficult it is for some of you to believe me in this, but it is so. Of course, I concede that there are better things to do in life than to listen to poor speakers. But one's own speaking must by no means be included among the better things! Instead, one has to feel a certain urge to hear others, even enjoy listening to others. It is not love for his own speeches but listening to others that makes a person into a good speaker. A certain fluency is acquired by speaking but this has to happen instinctively. What makes one a speaker is basically listening, the development of an ear for the specific peculiarities of the other orators, even if they are poor ones. Therefore, I tell anybody who asks me how to best prepare to become a good speaker, to listen to and to read the speeches of others! Only by doing this one acquires a strong feeling of distaste for one's own speaking. And this distaste is the very thing that enables one to speak realistically. This is extremely important. And if people are as yet not successful in viewing their own speeches with antipathy, it is good if they at least retain their stage-fright. To stand up and lecture without stage-fright and with sympathy for one's own speech is something that ought not to be done because, under any circumstances, the results thus achieved would be negative. It contributes to rigidity, petrification and lack of communication in speech and belongs to the elements that ruin the sermon!
I would indeed not be speaking in the spirit of the aims of this speech-course if I would enumerate on rules of speech to you taken from some old book on rhetoric or copied from dusty rhetorical speeches. Instead, from my own living experience I want you to take to heart what one should always have in one's mind when one wants to influence one's fellow-men by lecturing.
Things change quite a bit if one is forced into a debate. In a sense, a certain rights-relationship between person and person comes up in a discussion. But in the debate through which one can learn most beautifully about human rights, the projection of general concepts of rights into the relationship existing between two people in a discussion hardly plays a role today. Yet here it is indeed important not to be in love with one's own way of thinking and feeling. Instead, in a debate one should feel antipathy for one's own reaction and replies. Because then, by suppressing one's own opinion, annoyance or excitement, one can instead project oneself into the other person's mind. Thus, even if one has to take exception to something in a debate, this attitude has positive results. Of course one cannot simply reiterate what the partner has stated but one can take the substance of an effective rebuttal from understanding him in the first place.
An example that best illustrates this point is the following exchange that took place in the German Parliament between the delegate Rickert and Chancellor Bismarck. Rickert gave a speech in which he accused Bismarck of changing the direction of his political leanings. He pointed out that Bismarck had gone along with the Liberals for a time and then had changed to the Conservatists. He summed it all up with the metaphor that Bismarck's politics amounted to turning his sails to the wind. One can imagine what an effect such a statement had in a place where everybody is ready to talk! Bismarck, however, rose and with a certain air of superiority, to begin with, presented what he had to say in reply to Rickert's remarks. And then, projecting himself into the other like he always did in similar cases, he said, “Rickert has accused me of turning my sails to the wind. But politics is somewhat like navigating a ship on sea. I would like to know how one can hold a steady course if one does not adjust to the wind. A real pilot, like a successful politician, must certainly adjust to the wind in steering his course—unless, possibly, he wants to make wind himself!”
One sees that this metaphor is put to use, turned in such a direction that the verbal arrow hits back at the archer. In a debate it is a matter of picking up the points made by the opponent and quite seriously using them to counter him. Thus, one undoes him with his own arguments. As a rule it doesn't help much if one simply sets one's own reasons against those of the opponent.
In a debate one should be able to evoke the following mood: The moment the debate begins one should be in a position to turn off everything one knew up to now, push it down into one's subconscious mind, and retain only what the speaker, whom one has to reply to, has said. Then can one properly exercise one's talent of setting straight what the other speaker said. Setting matters straight is what's important! In a discussion it is important to take up directly what the other has said, not to oppose him with something one knew some time ago. If one does that, as happens in most debates, the end-result will indeed be inconclusive and fruitless. One has to realize that in a discussion one can never successfully argue the opponent down. One can only demonstrate that he either contradicts himself or reality. One can only go into what he has set forth. If this attitude is developed as the basic rule for debates it will be of great significance for them. If a person only wants to bring out in a debate what he has known previously, then it will certainly he of no significance that he does so after the opponent has stated his case.
I once experienced a most instructive illustration of the above. During my last trip to Holland, I was invited to give a lecture before the Philosophical Society of the University of Amsterdam. Of course, the chairman there had a different opinion from mine already, no doubt about that! And if he participated in the debate he would differ from my viewpoints greatly. But it was equally clear that whatever he would have to say would have no effect on my lecture, and that my views would have no special influence on what he would say based on what he had known beforehand. Therefore, I thought that he was quite clever, he brought out what he had to say not afterwards, during the debate, but before my lecture. What he did add later to what he had said at the start might just as well have been said at the beginning too, it wouldn't have changed matters one bit.
One shouldn't have any illusions concerning such things. It is most important that an orator be very, very strongly attuned to human relationships. But, if matters are to have results, one cannot afford having illusions about human relations. And as a foundation for the following lectures, let me say that, above all, one should have no illusions about the effectiveness of speeches.
I always find it extremely humorous when well-meaning people say all the time that words don't matter, deeds do! I've heard it proclaimed at the most unsuitable times, during discussions and from the rostrums, that it isn't words but actions that count!
Everything that happens in the world in regard to actions depends on words! One who can see through things knows that nothing takes place that hasn't been prepared in advance by somebody through words.
But one will understand that this preparation is a subtle, delicate process. If it is true that theoretical, pedantic speaking affects the digestion, one can imagine how indigestion in turn affects actions, and how public actions are the results of such poor speeches. And if, on the other hand, speakers try to be humorists and only act funny, this results in an overproduction of digestive juices that act like vinegar. And vinegar is a terrible hypochondriac. But the general public is constantly entertained by what flows through public life as continuous fun-making. The jokes of yesterday are not yet digested when the fun of today makes its appearance. And so, the digestive juices turn into something like vinegar. Oh, man is already being entertained again today and maybe he is quite cheerful about it. But the way he places himself into public life is influenced by the hypochondria of this vinegar-like substance at work in him.
One must know how the dimension of speaking fits into the world of actions. The most untrue expression concerning speaking, born of a false sentimentality that is in itself wrong, is,
“The words you've bandied are sufficient;
'Tis deeds that I prefer to see ...”
Faust, Prelude on Stage)
Certainly, this can be said in a dramatic play, and rightly so in its place. But when it is taken out of context and made into a general dictum, it might be true but it certainly will not be good. And we should learn to speak not only beautifully or correctly but effectively as well, so that good will come of it. Otherwise, we lead people into the abyss and can certainly never speak to them about anything that has lasting value for the future.
Vierter Vortrag
Gestern versuchte ich zu entwickeln, wie man den ersten Teil eines Dreigliederungsvortrags vor einem gewissen Publikum behandeln könnte, und ich machte darauf aufmerksam, daß es namentlich notwendig ist, eine Empfindung hervorzurufen für den besonderen Charakter des auf sich selbst gestellten Geisteslebens. Im zweiten Teil wird es sich darum handeln, überhaupt einer gegenwärtigen Menschheit erst begreiflich zu machen, daß es so etwas geben kann wie einen demokratisch-politischen Zusammenhang, der Gleichheit anzustreben hat. Denn eigentlich — und das muß man bedenken, namentlich wenn man sich für einen solchen Vortrag vorbereitet — ist das der Fall, daß der gegenwärtige Mensch gar keine Empfindung hat für ein solches Staatsgebilde, das auf das Recht als auf sein eigentliches Fundament aufgebaut ist. Und dieser Teil, der politisch-staatliche Teil des Vortrags, er wird ganz besonders schwierig zu behandeln sein innerhalb der schweizerischen Verhältnisse. Und es wird sich ganz besonders darum handeln, daß die Redner, welche innerhalb der schweizerischen Verhältnisse die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus vertreten wollen, gerade von den also bedingten schweizerischen Verhältnissen ausgehen, und besonders darum, daß sie bei dem mittleren, dem rechtlich-staatlichen Teil, Rücksicht darauf nehmen, wie man aus den schweizerischen Verhältnissen heraus zu reden hat. Denn die Sache liegt ja im allgemeinen so: Durch die Verhältnisse der neueren Menschheitsentwickelung ist das eigentliche Staatsleben als solches, das sich eigentlich im Rechtsstaat ausleben sollte, im wesentlichen verschwunden, und was sich im Staate auslebt, ist eigentlich ein chaotisches Zusammensein der geistigen Elemente des menschlichen Daseins und der wirtschaftlichen Elemente. Man könnte sagen: In den modernen Staaten haben sich allmählich die geistigen Elemente und die wirtschaftlichen Elemente durcheinandergeschweißt, und das eigentliche Staatsleben ist zwischendurch eben heruntergefallen, eigentlich verschwunden.
Dies ist besonders innerhalb der schweizerischen Verhältnisse bemerkbar. Da haben wir es überall zu tun mit einer in ihren eigentlichen Ausgestaltungen unmöglichen, scheinbaren Demokratisierung des geistigen Lebens und mit einer Demokratisierung des Wirtschaftslebens, und damit, daß die Leute glauben, dieses scheinbar demokratisierte Gemisch von Geistesleben und Wirtschaftsleben, das wäre eine Demokratie. Und da sie sich ihre Vorstellung von Demokratie gebildet haben aus dieser Mischung heraus, da sie also eine vollständige Scheinvorstellung von Demokratie haben, so ist es so schwierig gerade zu den Schweizern von wirklicher Demokratie zu sprechen. Eigentlich verstehen gerade von wirklicher Demokratie die Schweizer am allerallerwenigsten.
Man denkt in der Schweiz darüber nach, wie man die Schulen demokratisieren soll. Das ist ungefähr so, als wenn man darüber nachdenken und aus wirklichen, wahren Begriffen heraus eine Vorstellung davon bekommen sollte, wie man einen Stiefel zu einer guten Kopfbedeckung macht. Und in ähnlicher Weise werden hier die staatlichen sogenannten demokratischen Begriffe behandelt. Es nützt ja nichts, über diese Dinge, ich möchte sagen, leisetreterisch zu sprechen, um, wenn man hauptsächlich vor Schweizern spricht, höflich zu sprechen; denn dann würden wir uns doch nicht verstehen können. In der Höflichkeit über solche Dinge kann man sich ja niemals ordentlich verstehen. Nun, gerade deshalb ist es notwendig, den Begriff des Rechts und der Gleichheit der Menschen vor einer solchen Bevölkerung zu erörtern, wie es die schweizerische ist.
Man muß sich da durchaus angewöhnen, wenn man rednerisch aktiv sein will, auf jedem Boden anders zu sprechen. Wenn man, wie es der Fall war vom April 1919 ab, in Deutschland über die Dreigliederung sprach, sprach man unter ganz anderen Verhältnissen als etwa hier in der Schweiz, und auch unter so ganz anderen Verhältnissen, als in England oder in Amerika von der Dreigliederung gesprochen werden kann. Gerade in jenem Frühling, im April 1919, unmittelbar nach der deutschen Revolution, waren in Deutschland alle, sowohl proletarische wie bürgerliche Kreise, die einen natürlich mehr revolutionär, die anderen resignierend, davon überzeugt, daß irgend etwas Neues kommen müsse. Und in diese Empfindung hinein, daß irgend etwas Neues kommen müsse, sprach man ja eigentlich. Man sprach doch damals zu verhältnismäßig vorbereiteten Leuten, und man konnte natürlich damals auch in Deutschland ganz anders sprechen, als man etwa heute sprechen kann. Zwischen heute und dem Frühling 1919 liegt ja auch in Deutschland eine Welt. Heute kann man höchstens hoffen, in Deutschland mit irgend etwas, was an Dreigliederung anklingt, eine Vorstellung davon hervorzurufen, wie das geistige Leben als solches selbständig gestaltet werden kann und eigentlich gerade unter solchen Verhältnissen, wie sie in Deutschland sind, heute gestaltet werden müßte, wie unter gewissen Verhältnissen auch das innerstaatlich-rechtliche Leben gestaltet werden könnte. Aber man kann natürlich heute in Deutschland nicht von einer völlig im Sinne der Dreigliederung gelegenen Gestaltung des Wirtschaftslebens sprechen, denn das Wirtschaftsleben in Deutschland ist ja tatsächlich etwas, was unter Zwangsmaßregeln, unter Druck und so weiter steht, was sich nicht frei bewegen kann, was keine Gedanken haben kann über seine eigene freie Beweglichkeit. Es ist dies zum Beispiel ganz auffällig in der ganz verschiedenen Art des Lebens, sagen wir, des «Futurum» und des «Kommenden Tages». Der «Kommende Tag» steht mitten drin, so wie wenn er in einer Zwangsjacke wäre, und hat die Aufgabe, unter solchen Verhältnissen zu arbeiten; das «Futurum», wie es sich hier in der Schweiz entwickelt, muß eben mit schweizerischen Verhältnissen arbeiten, über die wir ja gleich noch etwas mehr werden zu sprechen haben. Es ist also durchaus eine Rede verschieden zu gestalten, ob sie hier in der Schweiz, ob sie in Deutschland, ob sie zu dieser oder jener Zeit gehalten wird.
In England, in Amerika müßte man natürlich wieder ganz anders sprechen. Es ist ja, was zunächst von hier aus in bezug auf England und Amerika gemacht werden kann, doch nur eine Art Surrogat, denn schon zum Beispiel «Die Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage»: es ist gut, wenn sie übersetzt werden, gut, wenn sie überall verbreitet werden; aber, was ich von Änfang an gesagt habe, das wirklich Richtige, das letztlich Richtige wäre, wenn für Amerika und auch für England die «Kernpunkte» ganz anders geschrieben würden als für Mitteleuropa und auch für die Schweiz. Für Mitteleuropa und die Schweiz können sie schon ganz wörtlich und satzgemäß lauten, wie sie sind, aber für England und Amerika müßten sie eigentlich ganz anders verfaßt werden, denn da spricht man zu Menschen, die ja zunächst das Gegenteil von dem haben, was in Deutschland zum Beispiel im April 1919 vorhanden war. In Deutschland war die Meinung vorhanden, etwas Neues müsse kommen, und man müsse nur zunächst wissen, was dieses Neue sei. Man hatte nicht die Kraft, es zu verstehen, aber man hatte zunächst das Gefühl, man müsse wissen, was irgend etwas vernünftiges Neues sein könnte. Davon ist natürlich im ganzen Gebiete von England und Amerika auch nicht einmal die allergeringste Empfindung vorhanden. Da ist nur die Empfindung vorhanden: Wie kann man das Alte festlegen, retten? Was muß man tun, damit das Alte nur ja recht fest bleibt? Denn das Alte ist ja gut! An dem Alten ist ja nicht zu rütteln. — Ich weiß selbstverständlich, daß da, wenn man so etwas ausspricht, erwidert werden kann: Ja, aber es sind doch so viele progressistische Bewegungen in den westlichen Gebieten! — Diese progressistischen Bewegungen sind aber alle, ganz gleichgültig, ob sie auch dem Inhalte nach neu seien, der Führung nach durchaus reaktionär, konservativ. Da muß also die Empfindung davon erst hervorgerufen werden, daß es so nicht weitergeht, wie es bisher gegangen ist.
An einzelnen Fragen kann das durchaus bemerkt werden. Nehmen wir eine furchtbare, schreckliche, ich möchte sagen, die schrecklichste Frage, die hat heraufkommen können vom rein menschlichen Standpunkte aus, nehmen wir die Frage der Verhungerung Rußlands. Innerhalb Deutschlands — wenn auch die Anschauungen noch so chaotisch sind, wenn auch aus Agitationsgründen gegen das gehandelt wird, was vernünftig wäre, und aus menschlichen Gründen wiederum in selbstverständlicher Weise dem Mitleid gehuldigt wird, gegen welches Walten des Mitleids natürlich gar nicht gesprochen werden soll -, innerhalb Deutschlands kommt man endlich, wenigstens in einzelnen Kreisen, mehr oder weniger darauf, daß es ja ein Unsinn ist für den ganzen Gang der Menschheitsentwickelung, in Form von Unterstützungen für die Verhungerung Rußlands etwas zu tun, durch Schenkungen gewissermaßen von westlicher Seite. Man kommt darauf, daß das ganz gewiß vom menschlichen Standpunkte aus sogar gefordert wird, daß aber, was nach dieser Richtung getan wird, so selbstverständlich ist, daß man nur ja nicht sagen soll, es habe irgend etwas mit den Aufgaben zu tun, die heute die Verhungerung Rußlands stellt. Im Westen werden höchstens einige Theoretiker — aber dann auch nur auf dem Boden des Theoretischen — zu einer solchen Anschauung kommen. Es ist also natürlich, daß man im Westen erst eine Empfindung davon hervorrufen muß, daß die Welt eine Neugestaltung braucht.
Die Schweiz hat so dagestanden während der furchtbarsten Katastrophe der neueren Zeit, daß sie eigentlich nur theoretisierend — nämlich durch die journalistische Theorie — daran teilgenommen hat, und durch das, was von außen eben in die geistigen und die wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse hereingewirkt hat. Die schweizerische Bevölkerung hat deshalb gar nicht eine eigentliche Empfindung, weder davon, daß etwas Neues kommen müsse, noch davon daß das Alte bleiben müsse. Wenn heute der Schweizer, je nach der einen oder anderen Parteirichtung davon spricht, daß ein Neues kommen müsse oder das Alte bleiben müsse, so hat man immer das Gefühl: Er erzählt einem nur, was er gehört hat, gehört hat auf der einen Seite von Mitteleuropa, gehört hat von England und dem Westen auf der anderen Seite. Er erzählt einem nur, was zu seinen beiden Ohren hineingegangen ist, und nicht, was er eigentlich erlebt hat. Und daher erscheint es einem auch als so schweizerisch, wenn diejenigen Menschen, die sich nicht gern nach rechts oder nicht gern nach links engagieren — und das sind ja maßgebende Schweizer heute sehr häufig —, daß diese Menschen sagen: Ja, wenn das geschieht, dann geschieht es eben so, wenn das andere geschieht, geschieht es eben so! Wenn ein Neues kommt, dann verläuft die Sache halt so, wenn das Alte bleibt, dann verläuft die Sache so! — Es wird gewissermaßen ausgeknobelt, was man in die eine oder andere Waagschale noch zu legen hat.
Es ist so: Wenn man versucht, jemanden in der Schweiz zu erwärmen für das, was der Welt heute bitter notwendig ist, so gerät man in Verzweiflung, weil es ihn eigentlich gar nicht angreift, weil es gleich zurückprallt, weil er eigentlich in Wirklichkeit mit dem Herzen gar nicht dabei ist. Es ist ihm zu sehr zuwider, als daß es für ihn interessant sein könnte, und er hat zu wenig Erfahrung über diese Dinge, als daß es ihm irgendwie sympathisch sein könnte. Er möchte Ruhe haben. Aber er möchte doch auch wiederum Schweizer sein. Das heißt: Wenn da alle möglichen Fortschrittsgeschichten mit «Freiheit» und «Demokratie» über die Grenze herübertönen, so kann man doch, weil man sich durch viele Jahrhunderte hindurch immerfort demokratisch genannt hat, wiederum nicht sagen, man wolle die Demokratie nicht! Kurz, man hat wirklich das Gefühl, als ob in der Schweiz die Menschen einen sehr gut ausgebauten Kanal hätten zwischen dem rechten und dem linken Ohr, so daß alles, was auf der einen Seite hineingeht, auf der anderen Seite wiederum herausgeht, ohne daß es zu Verstand und Herzen gekommen ist.
Daher wird man wenigstens an den Punkten eben angreifen müssen, wo gezeigt werden kann, daß ja solch ein Staatswesen wie die Schweiz wirklich etwas ganz Besonderes ist. Und es ist etwas ganz Besonderes. Denn erstens ist die Schweiz — was schon während des Krieges bemerkbar war, wenn man es nur sehen wollte — etwas wie ein Schwerpunkt der Welt. Und gerade ihr Unengagiertsein gegenüber den verschiedenen Weltverhältnissen könnte sie benützen, um ein freies Urteilen und auch ein freies Handeln gegenüber ringsherum zu bekommen. Die Welt wartet ja nur darauf, daß die Schweizer das auch in ihren Köpfen bemerken, was sie in ihrer Tasche bemerken. In ihrer Tasche bemerken sie, daß der Franken vom Auf- und Absteigen der Valuta, von der Korrumpierung der Valuta, eigentlich nicht betroffen worden ist. Daß ja die ganze Welt sich um den Schweizer Franken bewegt, das bemerken die Schweizer. Daß das auch in geistiger Beziehung der Fall ist, das bemerken die Schweizer eben nicht. Aber so, wie sie den unbeweglichen Franken, der gewissermaßen der Regulator geworden ist der Valuta der ganzen Welt, wie sie den zu würdigen verstehen, so sollten sie auch ihre durch die Weltverhältnisse wirklich unabhängige Stellung, durch die die Schweiz tatsächlich eine Art Hypomochlion sein könnte für die Weltverhältnisse — dies sollten die Schweizer verstehen. Daher ist es notwendig, daß man ihnen dies eben begreiflich macht.
Es ist schon fast so, wie man es in ähnlicher Art einmal hat über Österreich sagen müssen. Leute, die etwas von den Dingen verstanden in Österreich, die haben oftmals darüber nachgedacht, warum denn dieses Österreich, das ja nur zentrifugale Tendenzen hatte, bestehen blieb, warum es nicht auseinandersplitterte. Ich habe in den achtziger, neunziger Jahren nie etwas anderes gesagt als: Was in Österreich selber geschieht, das hat zunächst noch gar keine Bedeutung für das Zusammenhalten oder Auseinandersplittern, sondern nur, was ringsherum geschieht. Weil die anderen — Deutschland, Rußland, Italien, Türkei und diejenigen, die an der Türkei interessiert sind, Frankreich und auch die Schweiz selber —, weil diese ringsherum liegenden Staatsgebilde Österreich nicht zerfallen lassen, sondern mitten drinnen zusammenhalten, weil keiner dem anderen ein Stück davon gönnte! Jeder sorgte dafür, daß der andere ja nichts bekomme: dadurch blieb Österreich beisammen. Es wurde von außen zusammengehalten. Das konnte man sehr genau sehen, wenn man einen Sinn hatte für solche Verhältnisse. Und erst als dieses gegenseitige Beschauen der umliegenden Mächte im Weltkrieg durch den Nebel der Kanonen getrübt wurde, erst da zerfiel Österreich, selbstverständlich. Das Bild besagt im Grunde genommen alles.
Nun, bei der Schweiz ist es ähnlich, aber doch wiederum anders. Ringsherum sind alle möglichen Interessen, aber diese Interessen haben einen kleinen Fleck da übriggelassen, wo sie sich nicht begegnen. Und heute, wo man Weltwirtschaftsleben, Weltgeistesleben hat, da ist die Sache so, daß ja dieser kleine Fleck allerdings dadurch aufrechterhalten wird, daß er nun etwas ganz Besonderes ist. Was ist er denn eigentlich? Er ist etwas, was innerhalb seiner Grenzen durchrein politische Verhältnisse zusammengehalten wird. Das geht Ihnen aus der schweizerischen Geschichte hervor. Die schweizerische Geschichte ist eine scheinbar ganz politische, so wie das schweizerische Denken ein scheinbar ganz demokratisches ist. Aber auch mit der Politik verhält es sich so für die Schweiz, wie ich es vorhin für die Demokratie auseinandergesetzt habe: Es ist eine Politik, die eigentlich keine ist, die auf einem kleinen Fleck Erde das Geistesleben und das Wirtschaftsleben verwaltet, aber eigentlich in Wirklichkeit gar nicht Politik treibt. Vergleichen Sie, was in der Schweiz und was anderwärts Politik ist! Es muß manchmal das eine oder andere politisch gemacht werden, weil man mit den anderen Ländern in Korrespondenz treten muß. Aber wirkliche schweizerische Politik - man müßte eben die Dinge auf den Kopf stellen, wenn man eine wirkliche schweizerische Politik finden wollte. Die gibt es eigentlich nicht. Auch daraus ist eben ersichtlich, daß hier ein Landgebilde geschaffen worden ist, auf dem im politischen Sinne das Geistesleben, im politischen Sinne das Wirtschaftsleben verwaltet wird, in dem aber eigentlich gar nicht eine wirkliche Empfindung, ein wirkliches Erleben von dem Rechtsdasein vorhanden ist.
Daher handelt es sich darum, daß man hier ganz besonders tief einschärft, daß das Recht etwas ist, was man nicht definieren kann, so wie man Rot oder Blau nicht definieren kann, daß das Recht etwas ist, was in seiner Selbständigkeit erlebt werden muß, und was erlebt werden muß, wenn sich als Mensch bewußt wird jeder mündig gewordene Mensch. Es wird sich also darum handeln, zu versuchen, für schweizerische Mittel gerade dieses menschliche Empfindungs- und Gefühlsverhältnis im Rechtsleben herauszuarbeiten, daß im einzelnen Menschen die Gleichheit leben müsse, wenn Rechtsleben da sein soll. Gerade die Schweiz ist nämlich dazu berufen, und ich möchte sagen: Die Engel der ganzen Welt schauen auf die Schweiz, ob hier das Richtige geschieht -, gerade die Schweiz ist dazu berufen, da sie, ich möchte sagen, völlig jungfräulich ist in bezug auf den Rechtsstaat, nur einen geistigen, nur einen Wirtschaftsstaat hat, einen Rechtsstaat zu schaffen unter Freigebung des geistigen und des Wirtschaftslebens.
An den schweizerischen Bergen hat sich für die Herzen der Menschen eigentlich gebrochen das römische Recht, das in ganz anderer Weise in Frankreich und in Deutschland und anderen europäischen Ländern eingezogen ist. Es ist nur in das Äußerliche hineingegangen, nicht aber in das Empfinden der Menschen. Es ist also jungfräulicher Rechtsboden, auf dem alles geschaffen werden kann. Wenn nur die Menschen zur wirklichen Besinnung kommen, was es für ein unendliches Glück ist, hier zwischen den Bergen zu leben und einen eigenen Willen haben zu können, unabhängig von der ganzen Welt, die sich um dieses kleine Ländchen dreht. Hier können, gerade wegen dieser Weltverhältnisse, die Rechtselemente bloß aus dem Menschen herausgearbeitet werden.
Also ich deute Ihnen an, wie man die besondere Lokalität, die besondere Örtlichkeit in das Vorbereiten hineinbringen muß für solch einen Vortrag, wie man tatsächlich mit sich selber völlig eins sein muß, was das Wesen des Schweizertums ist. Ich kann es natürlich hier nur skizzieren; aber jeder, der in der Schweiz reden will, müßte eigentlich sich bemühen, ganz zu verstehen, welch besonderer Art dieses Schweizertum ist.
Nicht wahr, Sie können sagen: Wir sind ja Schweizer — so wie die Engländer sagen können: Wir sind ja Engländer -, und du willst uns jetzt sagen, wie der Schweizer das Schweizertum kennenlernen soll, und was der Engländer alles nicht hat von solcher Empfindung und so weiter. - Gewiß, das kann man sagen. Aber diejenigen, die heute zu den Gebildeten gehören, haben ja nirgends eine wirklich erlebte Bildung, nirgends eine Bildung, die heraus ist aus dem Unmittelbaren des Erlebens. Daher muß gerade gegenüber dem Rechte auch sehr hingewiesen werden auf dieses unmittelbare Erleben.
Da kommen wir zu der Betrachtung, wie die Menschen allmählich unter der neueren Zivilisation in gegenseitige Verhältnisse, in soziale Verhältnisse hineingekommen sind auf dem Gebiete, wo sich eigentlich das Recht entwickeln sollte. Von Mensch zu Mensch sollte sich das Recht entwickeln. Und alles also, alles Parlamentarisieren ist eigentlich im Grunde genommen nur ein Surrogat für das, was sich von Mensch zu Mensch abspielen müßte in einem wirklich richtigen Rechtsgebiete.
Da hat man dann Gelegenheit, wenn man nun nachdenkt über das Rechtsgebiet, wiederum einzugehen — aber jetzt in einer realeren Weise einzugehen — auf dasjenige, was die Begriffe des Proletariats sind und die Empfindungen der Bourgeoisie. Man kann aber jetzt in einer realeren Weise dasjenige, was das Proletariat an Begriffen entwickelt hat, herüberführen in das Empfinden der Bourgeoisie. Ich sage: Begriffe des Proletariats, Empfindungen der Bourgeoisie. Die Erklärung dafür finden Sie in meinen «Kernpunkten der sozialen Frage».
Das Proletariat hat aus den vier Begriffen, die ich gestern hier entwickelt habe, durchaus eben das Gefühl des Klassenbewußtseins entwickelt; es muß erobern, was im Besitze der Bourgeoisie ist, den Staat. Inwieweit der Staat nun ein wirklicher Rechtsstaat ist oder nicht, das ist natürlich dem Proletariat auch nicht klargeworden. Aber was als Rechtsstaat sich entwickelt hat, davon ist die Schweiz am allerwenigsten berührt, daher sie am leichtesten ohne Vorurteile einen wirklichen Rechtsstaat begreifen könnte. Was sich als ein wirklicher Rechtsstaat entwickelt hat, das lebt ja nur zwischen den Äußerungen des eigentlichen Seelenlebens der Menschen fast in der ganzen Welt heute, nur eben nicht in der Schweiz! Überall sonst in der Welt lebt eigentlich dasjenige, was Rechtsstaat ist, ein, ich möchte sagen, Unter-der-HandDasein, währenddem dasjenige, was wirklich von Mensch zu Mensch erlebt wird, auf etwas ganz anderem beruht, und zwar auf etwas ganz durch und durch Bürgerlichem. Was der Mensch im öffentlichen Leben eigentlich sucht, was er hineinträgt in das ganze öffentliche Leben, wodurch ihm eine Verdunkelung des eigentlichen Rechtslebens geschieht, das kann man nur erfassen, wenn man ein wenig die konkreten Beziehungen ins Auge faßt.
Sehen Sie, das Geistesleben ist allmählich aufgesogen worden vom Staatsleben. Das Geistesleben aber ist, wenn man ihm gegenübersteht als einem Elemente, das auf sich selbst gebaut ist, ein sehr strenges Element, ein Element, demgegenüber man fortwährend seine Freiheit bewahren muß, das deshalb nicht anders als auch in der Freiheit organisiert werden darf. Lassen Sie einmal eine Generation ihr Geistesleben freier entfalten und dann dieses Geistesleben organisieren, wie sie es will: es ist die reinste Sklaverei für die nächstfolgende Generation. Das Geistesleben muß wirklich, nicht etwa bloß der Theorie nach, sondern dem Leben nach, frei sein. Die Menschen, die darinnenstehen, müssen die Freiheit erleben. Das Geistesleben wird zur großen Tyrannei, wenn es überhaupt auf der Erde sich ausbreitet, denn ohne daß eine Organisation eintritt, kann es sich nicht ausbreiten, und wenn eine Organisation eintritt, wird sogleich die Organisation zur Tyrannin. Daher muß fortwährend in Freiheit, in lebendiger Freiheit gekämpft werden gegen die Tyrannis, zu der das Geistesleben selber neigt.
Dieses Geistesleben ist nun im Laufe der neueren Jahrhunderte aufgesogen worden vom Staatsleben. Das heißt: Wenn man das Staatsleben der Toga entkleidet, die es noch immer sehr stark anhat in der Erinnerung an die alte Römerzeit, obwohl schon sogar die Richter anfangen, den Talar abzulegen, aber im ganzen kann man doch sagen, daß das Staatsleben die Toga noch anhat; aber wenn man absieht von dieser Toga, wenn man auf das sieht, was darunter ist: dann ist es eigentlich überall das verzwangte Geistesleben, das im Staate und im sozialen Leben des Staates vorhanden ist. Es ist das verzwangte Geistesleben! Verzwangt, aber nicht wissend, daß es verzwangt ist, daher nicht nach Freiheit strebend, aber immerhin doch gegen die Verzwangtheit fortwährend ankämpfend. Und vieles in der neuesten Zeit ist gerade aus diesem Ankämpfen gegen die Verzwangtheit des Geisteslebens hervorgegangen. Unser ganzes öffentliches Geistesleben steht eigentlich unter dem Zeichen dieser Verzwangtheit des Geisteslebens, und wir können nicht gesunde Verhältnisse gewinnen, wenn wir uns nicht einen Sinn aneignen für die Beobachtung dieser Verzwangtheit des Geisteslebens. Man muß ein Gefühl dafür haben, wie einem diese Verzwangtheit des Geisteslebens entgegenkommt im Alltag.
Ich wurde einmal von einer Anzahl Berliner Damen, die in einem Institute von mir Vorträge angehört hatten, dann eingeladen, einen Vortrag zu halten bei einer der Damen in ihrem Privatappartement, und die ganze Veranstaltung war eigentlich dazu da, daß die Damen entgegenarbeiten wollten einer gewissen dazumal recht gutmütigen Stimmung bei ihren Männern. Nicht wahr, diese Damen kamen so etwa um zwölf Uhr in das Unterrichtsinstitut, wo ich die Vorträge hielt. Und die Männer, wenn wiederum solch ein Tag kam — ich glaube, es war einmal in der Woche -, sagten dann: Na ja, da geht Ihr halt in eure verrückte Anstalt heute wieder hin; da wird die Suppe wieder schlecht sein, oder es wird etwas anderes nicht in Ordnung sein! - Und da wollten denn diese Damen, daß ich einen Vortrag hielte über Goethes «Faust» — das wurde als Thema ausgesucht -, und dazu wurden auch die Männer eingeladen. Nun hielt ich eben einen Vortrag über Goethes «Faust» vor den Damen und Herren. Ja, die Herren waren nachher etwas verdutzt und sie sagten: «Ja, aber Goethes ‹Faust› ist halt eine Wissenschaft; Kunst ist ja Goethes ‹Faust› nicht. Kunst, das ist Blumenthal» — ich zitiere wörtlich -, «da braucht man sich nicht anzustrengen. Wenn man sich schon im wirtschaftlichen Beruf so anstrengt, will man sich doch im Leben nicht auch noch anstrengen!» Sehen Sie, was eingezogen ist als Ersatz des Enthusiasmus für die Freiheit im Geistesleben, das tritt uns im staatlichen Leben entgegen als bloßes leichtes Unterhaltungsbedürfnis.
Ich habe einmal auf dem Lande gesehen, wo man so etwas noch gut sehen konnte, wie diese alten herumziehenden Schauspieler, die immer, in Deutschland nannte man es den Dummen August, also den Bajazzo bei sich hatten, wie diese manchmal ganz feine Sachen darstellten. Da sah ich, wie der Clown, der nun seine Clownkunststücke eine ganze Zeit hindurch gemacht und die Leute unterhalten hatte, weil er nun daranging, etwas für ihn sehr Ernstes darzustellen, das Clownkostüm abwarf und nun in schwarzen Beinkleidern und schwarzem Frack dastand. Mir dreht sich dieses Bild immer um: Ich sehe dann zuerst den Mann in schwarzen Beinkleidern und schwarzem Frack, und hinterher sehe ich den Mann mit dem Clownkostüm. Mir kommt es so vor wie schwarzes Beinkleid und Frack, wenn ich irgendwo in einem Schaufenster ein Buch von Einstein über die Relativitätstheorie sehe; und dann habe ich den Clown vor mir, wenn ich daneben ein Buch von Moszkowski über die Relativitätstheorie vor mir habe. Denn tatsächlich, im äußeren Leben ist ja manches Maja: Aber man könnte sich gar nicht denken, daß innerlich die ganze Denkerpedanterie anders auftreten könnte als in schwarzem Beinkleid und in wohlgeschnittenem Frack, will sagen, in der Relativitätstheorie. Und wiederum: Es ist unangenehm, sich so strengen Gedankengängen, so konsequenten Gedankengängen zu fügen, die schon wirklich so geschnitten sind wie ein gutsitzender Frack; das muß den Leuten auch anders entgegentreten. Da macht sich denn der als Philosophenclown feuilletonistisch ganz besonders begabte Alexander Moszkowski daran und schreibt ein dickes Buch. Aus dem lernen nun alle Leute in Feuilletonform, im Clownkostüm, was im Frack geboren worden ist! Sehen Sie, man kann gar nicht anders heute, als die Dinge herüber zu übersetzen in dasjenige, wobei man sich nicht anzustrengen braucht, wobei man auch keinen großen Enthusiasmus zu entfalten braucht.
Gegen diese allgemeine Stimmung muß nämlich empfindungsgemäß angekämpft werden, wenn man über Rechtsbegriffe sprechen will, denn da tritt der Mensch mit seinem ganzen inneren Werte als ein Gleicher den anderen Menschen gegenüber. Und dasjenige, was die Rechtsbegriffe nicht heraufkommen läßt, das ist das, ja, ich möchte sagen, Alexander-Moszkowskimäßige! Man muß überall die Dinge beim Konkreten aufsuchen.
Ich sage natürlich durchaus nicht, daß man nun nötig hat, wenn man über Rechtsbegriffe spricht, von Frack und Clownkostüm zu sprechen, aber ich möchte zeigen, wie man die Begriffe für diese Dinge elastisch bekommen muß, wie man wirklich auf das eine hinweisen muß, wenn man auf das andere hinweist; auch wie man disponieren können muß, zuerst in sich selber, um dann die nötige Geläufigkeit zu haben, vor den Menschen zu sprechen.
Und auch noch aus einem anderen Grunde muß der heutige Redner so etwas wissen. Er ist ja zumeist dazu verurteilt, wenn er für etwas Zukunftswürdiges zu sprechen hat, abends zu sprechen. Das heißt, er hat diejenige Zeit auszufüllen, in der eigentlich die Leute im Konzertsaal oder im Theater sein möchten. Er muß sich also durchaus klar sein darüber, daß er zu einem Publikum spricht, das besser an seinem Platze wäre, der Zeitverfassung nach, wenn es im Konzertsaal oder im Theater wäre, oder noch woanders, aber nicht eigentlich an seinem Platz ist da unten, wo es zuhören soll, wenn oben ein Redner von zukunftswürdigen Dingen spricht. Man muß sich klar sein, was man eigentlich tut, bis in die Einzelheiten hinein.
Was tut man denn eigentlich, wenn man vor einem solchen Publikum spricht, vor dem zu sprechen man heute zumeist verurteilt ist? Man verdirbt ja diesem Publikum eigentlich in ganz wörtlichem Sinne den Magen! Eine ernste Rede hat nämlich die Eigentümlichkeit, daß sie dem Pepsin feindlich ist, daß sie das Pepsin, den Magensaft nicht zur Wirksamkeit kommen läßt. Eine ernste Rede macht den Magen sauer. Und nur wenn man selber in der ganzen Stimmung ist, eine ernste Rede so vorzubringen, daß man, weigstens innerlich, sie mit dem nötigen Humor vorbringt, dann hilft man dem Magensaft wieder. Man muß mit einer gewissen inneren Leichtigkeit eine Rede vorbringen, mit einer gewissen Modulation, mit einer gewissen Begeisterung, dann hilft man dem Magensaft. Und dann gleicht man das wiederum aus, was man dem Magen zufügt in der Zeit, in der wir heute zumeist zu reden haben. Daher ist es wirklich eher als für die Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus für die Magenspezialisten gearbeitet, wenn Menschen in aller Schwere, mit allem inneren Herauspressen, in pedantischer Form über die Dreigliederung zu den Menschen sprechen. Das muß mit Leichtigkeit, mit Selbstverständlichkeit geschehen, sonst arbeitet man nicht für die Dreigliederung, sondern für die Magenspezialisten. Es gibt nur noch keine Statistik darüber, wie viele Leute, nachdem sie pedantische Vorträge angehört haben, zu den Magenspezialisten gehen müssen! Wenn man einmal eine Statistik über diese Dinge hätte, würde man nämlich erstaunt sein darüber, welcher Prozentsatz in den Patientenkreisen der Magenspezialisten eifrige Vortragszuhörer der heutigen Zeit abgeben.
Ich muß schon auf diese Dinge auch aufmerksam machen, denn es naht sich die Zeit, wo man kennen muß, wie eigentlich der Mensch lebt: wie Ernst auf seinen Magen, wie Humor auf seinen Magensaft wirkt, wie zum Beispiel, sagen wir, der Wein eine Art Zyniker ist, der die ganze menschliche Organisation nicht ernst nimmt, sondern mit ihr spielt. Und so könnte man, wenn man nicht mit den Wischiwaschibegriffen der heutigen Wissenschaft, sondern mit menschlichen Begriffen an die menschliche Organisation heranginge, durchaus einsehen, was nun auch für eine organische Wirkung, fast chemische Wirkung, jedes Wort und jeder Wortzusammenhang beim Menschen hervorruft.
Solche Dinge zu wissen, erleichtert einem auch das Reden. Während man sonst eine Mauer vor sich hat gegenüber dem Publikum, hört diese Mauer auf zu sein, wenn man gewissermaßen bei einer pedantischen Rede immer durchsieht, wie der Magensaft träufelt und endlich sauer wird im Magen, die Magenwände angreift. Man hat schon zuweilen Gelegenheit, das zu sehen. In Hörsälen der Universitäten ja weniger; da helfen sich die Studenten dadurch, daß sie nicht zuhören.
Sie sehen aber daraus, was ich so sage, wieviel beim Reden von der Stimmung abhängt, wieviel mehr Bedeutung das Vorbereiten der Stimmung, das In-die-Hand-Nehmen der Stimmung hat, als das wortwörtliche Vorbereiten. Wer oftmals sich für die Stimmung vorbereitet hat, der hat dann gar nicht mehr nötig, sich für das Wortwörtliche so vorzubereiten, daß er sich im entsprechenden Moment durch das zu gute wortwörtliche Vorbereiten eben zum Verderber des Magensaftes gerade macht.
Sehen Sie, zu einem — wenn ich mich jetzt so ausdrücken darf richtig geschulten Redner gehört verschiedenes; und ich möchte es gerade an dieser Stelle vorbringen, weil das Auseinandersetzen der Rechtsbegriffe gerade vieles fordert, was man nach dieser Richtung charakterisieren muß. Ich möchte es gerade jetzt vorbringen, bevor ich dann wohl morgen zu der Hineinverwebung der Wirtschaftselemente in das Reden sprechen möchte.
Ein Anthroposoph brachte einmal in den Architektenhaussaal in Berlin den Ihnen ja vielleicht auch schon bekannten Max Dessoir mit an einem Abend, wo ich dort einen Vortrag zu halten hatte. Dieser damalige Freund des Max Dessoir sagte hinterher: Ach, der Dessoir ging doch nicht mit! - Ich fragte ihn, wie ihm der Vortrag gefallen habe; da sagte er: Ja, wissen Sie, ich bin selbst ein Redner; und derjenige, der selbst ein Redner ist, der kann nicht richtig zuhören, der hat kein Urteil über das, was der andere redet! — Nun, ich hatte nicht nötig, mir über Dessoir ein Urteil zu bilden nach dieser Aussage, denn dazu hatte ich andere Urteilsbildungsgelegenheiten, würde mir auch kein Urteil gebildet haben nach dieser Aussage: denn ich konnte gar nicht wissen, ob es wirklich wahr ist, oder ob der Dessoir, wie sonst, auch diesmal gelogen hat. Nun aber, nehmen wir an, es wäre wahr gewesen: Wofür wäre das ein Beweis? Dafür, daß jedenfalls derjenige, der solche Ansicht hat, niemals ein richtiger Redner werden kann. Denn niemals kann derjenige ein richtiger Redner werden, der gerne redet, und der sich selbst gerne hört, und der auf sein eigenes Reden besonders viel gibt. Ein richtiger Redner muß eigentlich immer eine gewisse Überwindung durchmachen, wenn er reden soll, und er muß diese Überwindung deutlich fühlen. Er muß vor allen Dingen selbst den schlechtesten fremden Redner lieber hören wollen, als daß er selber sprechen will.
Ich weiß sehr genau, was ich mit dieser Sache sage, und weiß sehr genau, wie schwer es manchem von Ihnen ist, das gerade mir zu glauben, aber es ist so. Ich gebe zwar zu, daß es andere Vergnügungen gibt in der Welt, als schlechten Rednern zuzuhören. Aber es darf jedenfalls zu diesen anderen größeren Vergnügungen nicht das gehören, selber zu sprechen. Man muß sogar einen gewissen Drang haben, andere zu hören. Man muß gerne anderen zuhören, denn durch das Zuhören wird man eigentlich ein Redner, nicht durch die Liebe zum eigenen Reden. Durch das eigene Reden bekommt man eine gewisse Geläufigkeit; das muß aber instinktiv verlaufen. Was einen zum Redner macht, das ist eigentlich das Zuhören, das Entwickeln eines Ohres für die besonderen Eigentümlichkeiten der anderen Redner, und selbst wenn sie schlechte Redner sind. Daher werde ich jedem, der mich frägt, wie er sich am besten vorbereite, nach einer gewissen Richtung hin ein guter Redner zu werden, antworten: Er höre, aber insbesondere er lese — ich habe den Unterschied zwischen Hören und Lesen auseinandergesetzt — er höre und lese - man kann das ja auch; denn der Unfug besteht einmal, daß die Reden gedruckt werden — die Reden von anderen! Man wird nur auf diese Art jenes starke Gefühl bekommen der Abneigung gegen das eigene Reden. Und diese Abneigung gegen das eigene Reden ist es eigentlich, die es einem ermöglicht, eben entsprechend wirklich zu reden. Das ist außerordentlich wichtig. Und bei den Menschen, die es doch nicht zustande kriegen das eigene Reden mit Antipathie zu betrachten, bei denen ist es gut, wenn sie wenigstens das Lampenfieber sich bewahren, denn ohne Lampenfieber und mit Sympathie für das eigene Reden sich hinstellen und reden, das ist eigentlich etwas, das man unterlassen sollte, denn es wirkt unter allen Umständen nicht gut in der Welt. Es wirkt zur Sklerotisierung der Rede, zur Verknöcherung, zur Verkapselung der Rede und gehört dann eben zu dem, was den Leuten die Predigt verdirbt.
Sehen Sie, ich würde Ihnen wahrhaftig nicht im Sinne der Aufgabe dieses Kurses über das Reden sprechen, wenn ich aus irgendeiner alten Rhetorik oder aus nachgebildeten alten rhetorischen Reden heraus Ihnen hier Redegesetze aufzählen würde, sondern ich will Ihnen aus voller Erfahrung heraus ans Herz legen, was man eigentlich immer im Herzen haben soll, wenn man durch Reden auf seine Mitmenschen wirken will.
Gewiß, einigermaßen ändern sich die Dinge, wenn man zur Wechselrede gezwungen ist, wenn also, ich möchte sagen, ein gewisses Rechtsverhältnis auftritt zwischen Mensch und Mensch in der Diskussion. Aber in der Diskussion, an der man gerade das Rechtsverhältnis am schönsten lernen könnte, macht sich heute fast gar nicht dieses Hineinprojizieren der allgemeinen Rechtsbegriffe in das Verhältnis, das zwischen Mensch und Mensch in der Diskussion, im Wortverhältnis, im Satzverhältnis besteht, geltend. Da handelt es sich wirklich darum, daß man dann bei der Diskussion nicht verliebt ist in seine eigene Art zu denken, in seine Art zu empfinden, sondern daß man in der Diskussion eigentlich antipathisch empfindet, was man selber zu etwas sagen möchte und das man heraufholt. Dann kann man das nämlich, wenn man seine eigene Meinung, auch seinen eigenen Ärger oder die eigene Aufgeregtheit zurückzudämmen versteht und hinüberkriechen kann in den anderen. So wird das fruchtbar auch in der Debatte, wo etwas zurückgewiesen werden muß. Man kann natürlich nicht dasselbe sagen, was der andere sagt, aber man kann von dem anderen das nehmen, was man gerade zu einer wirksamen Debatte braucht.
Ein ganz eklatantes Beispiel ist das Folgende. Es ist erzählt in der letzten Nummer der «Dreigliederung»; ich habe es vor mehr als zwanzig Jahren erlebt. Der Abgeordnete Rickert hielt im deutschen Reichstag eine Rede, in der er Bismarck vorwarf, daß er die Richtung seiner Politik ändere. Er wies darauf hin, wie Bismarck eine Zeitlang mit den Liberalen gegangen ist, sich nachher nach den Konservativen gewendet hat, und hielt eine sehr wirksame Rede, die er zusammenfaßte in das Bild, daß die Bismarcksche Politik darauf hinausliefe, den Mantel nach dem Winde zu drehen. Nun, Sie können sich denken, wie das in der Empfindung eines Auditoriums, noch dazu einer Schwatzanstalt — nun, der deutsche Ausdruck ist nicht gut, wenn man ihn braucht, aber für Parlament ist die richtige deutsche Übersetzung schon Schwatzanstalt -, innerlich, empfindungsgemäß wirkt, wenn solch ein Bild gebraucht wird. Bismarck aber stellte sich hin und hielt nun dem Abgeordneten Rickert die Dinge entgegen — zunächst mit einer gewissen Überlegenheit -, die er zu sagen hatte; und dann kroch er in den Abgeordneten Rickert hinein, wie er das in ähnlichen Fällen immer tat, und sagte: Der Abgeordnete Rickert hat mir vorgeworfen, daß ich den Mantel nach dem Winde drehe. Aber Politik treiben ist so etwas, wie auf der See fahren. Ich möchte wissen, wie man eigentlich richtig steuern sollte, wenn man sich nicht nach dem Winde drehen will! Ein richtiger Seefahrer muß sich, wie ein richtiger Politiker, beim Steuern selbstverständlich nach dem Winde richten, wenn er nicht etwa selbst Wind machen will!
Sie sehen: Das Bild ist aufgegriffen, so gewendet, daß es nun tatsächlich den Pfeil auf den Schützen zurückschlägt. Es handelt sich in der Debatte darum, die Dinge aufzunehmen, aus dem Redner selber heraus die Dinge zu holen. Wenn es sich um ein leichteres Bild handelt, ist ja die Sache begreiflich. Aber man wird das auch ganz im Seriösen tun können: aufsuchen bei dem Gegner, was aus dem Gegner heraus selber die Sache zerfasert! In der Regel wird es nicht viel nützen, wenn man seine eigenen Gründe den Gründen des Gegners einfach entgegensetzt.
Bei der Debatte sollte man eigentlich in folgender Stimmung sein können: Man sollte in dem Augenblick, wo die Debatte losgehen soll, eigentlich alles, was man bisher gewußt hat, ausschalten können, das alles ins Unbewußte hinunterdrängen, und eigentlich nur wissen, was der Redner, dem man zu erwidern hat, eben gesagt hat, und dann redlich sein Zurechtrückungstalent über das, was der Redner gesagt hat, walten lassen. Das Zurechtrückungstalent walten lassen! In der Debatte handelt es sich darum, unmittelbar aufzunehmen, was der Redner sagt, und nicht einfach das, was man schon vor längerer Zeit gewußt hat, eben einfach entgegenzustellen. Wenn man das, was man schon vor längerer Zeit gewußt hat, einfach entgegenstellt, wie es bei den meisten Debatten geht, so geht die Debatte eigentlich wirklich ergebnislos aus, tatsächlich ergebnislos. Man kann ja eigentlich nie jemanden in einer Diskussion widerlegen. Man muß sich dessen nur bewußt sein, daß man nie jemanden in einer Debatte widerlegen kann, sondern man kann nur zeigen, daß ein Redner entweder sich selbst oder der Wirklichkeit widerspricht. Man kann nur eingehen auf das, was er gesagt hat. Und das wird gerade, wenn es als Grundsatz entwickelt wird, für Debatten, für Diskussionen von einer außerordentlichen Wichtigkeit sein. Wenn einer in der Debatte nur das sagen will, was er schon gewußt hat, dann wird es sicher gar keine Bedeutung haben, daß er es nach dem Redner vorbringt.
Mir trat das einmal ganz besonders instruktiv, möchte ich sagen, vor Augen. Ich wurde in Holland auf meiner letzten Reise eingeladen, auch in der Philosophischen Gesellschaft der Amsterdamer Universität einen Vortrag zu halten über Anthroposophie. Da war schon der Vorsitzende selbstverständlich anderer Meinung als ich. Es war gar kein Zweifel, daß er, wenn er in die Debatte eingriff, etwas ganz anderes sagen werde als ich. Aber es war ebenso klar, daß schließlich das, was er sagte, nichts ausmachte in bezug auf meine Rede, und daß meine Rede auch keinen besonderen Einfluß haben würde auf dasjenige, was er sagen würde, aus dem, was er ja ohnedies wußte. Daher fand ich, daß er es ganz gescheit gemacht hat: Er brachte, was er zunächst vorzubringen hatte, nicht etwa hinterher in der Debatte, sondern schon vorher vor! Er hätte auch das, was er nachher in der Debatte noch angefügt hat an seine vorausgehenden Worte, schon am Anfang auch gleich vorher vorbringen können, es würde an der Sache gar nichts geändert haben.
Über solche Dinge muß man sich nur keinen Illusionen hingeben. Vor allen Dingen kommt es darauf an, daß gerade ein Redner sich recht, recht stark in menschliche Verhältnisse hineinfindet. Aber über menschliche Verhältnisse darf man sich, wenn die Dinge wirken sollen, keinen Illusionen hingeben. Vor allen Dingen — das möchte ich Ihnen heute noch sagen, weil das eine gewisse Grundlage für die nächsten Vorträge abgeben wird -, vor allen Dingen soll man sich keiner Illusion darüber hingeben, daß Reden doch wirken.
Ich muß immer innerlich furchtbar in eine humoristische Stimmung kommen, wenn gutmeinende Zeitgenossen immer wieder und wieder sagen: Auf Worte kommt es nicht an, auf Taten kommt es an! Ich habe an den ungeeignetsten Stellen, sowohl in Zwiegesprächen wie auch von verschiedenen Podien herab, immer wieder deklamieren hören: Auf Worte kommt es nicht an; auf Taten kommt es an! - Bei dem, was in der Welt an Taten geschieht, kommt alles auf die Worte an! Es geschehen nämlich für den, der die Sache durchschaut, gar keine Taten, die nicht vorher durch die Worte von irgend jemandem vorbereitet sind.
Aber Sie werden verstehen, daß die Vorbereitung etwas recht Subtiles ist. Denn, wenn es wahr ist, und es ist wahr, daß man eigentlich dadurch, daß man pedantisch theoretisch, prinzipiell marxistisch redet, den Leuten den Magensaft verdirbt, wobei der Magensaft den übrigen Organismus infiziert, dann können Sie sich denken, wie die Taten draußen, die sehr stark vom Magensaft abhängen, wie er sich dann in den übrigen Organismus ergießt, wenn er zerstreut wird — wie die Taten draußen Folgen solcher schlechten Reden sind. Und wie auf der anderen Seite wiederum, wenn die Leute nur als Spaßmacher auftreten, fortwährend Magensaft produziert wird, der dann eigentlich als Essig wirkt, und der Essig ist ein furchtbarer Hypochonder. Aber die Leute werden weiter unterhalten, indem das, was heute in die Öffentlichkeit fließt, ein fortwährendes Getriebe von Spaßmacherei ist. Die Spaßmacherei von gestern ist noch gar nicht verdaut, wenn die Spaßmacherei von heute auftritt. Da verschlägt sich der Magensaft von gestern und wird etwas Essighaftes. Der Mensch wird ja heute schon wiederum unterhalten. Er kann ganz lustig sein. Aber so, wie er sich in das öffentliche Leben hineinstellt, so ist es eigentlich der hypochondrische Essig, der da wirkt. Und diesen hypochondrischen Essig, den kann man dann finden!
Ja, in den Wirtshäusern sind es die marxistischen Redner, die den Leuten den Magen verderben, und wenn die Leute dann den «Vorwärts» lesen, so ist dies dasjenige, woran der verdorbene Magen wieder zurechtgerückt werden muß. Das ist schon ein ganz realer Prozeß.
Man muß wissen, wie sich in die Welt der Taten die Welt der Reden hineinstellt. Der unwahrste Ausspruch — weil aus einer falschen Sentimentalität, und alles, was aus einer falschen Sentimentalität kommt, ist nämlich unwahr -, der unwahrste Ausspruch gegenüber dem Reden ist der: «Der Worte sind genug gewechselt, laßt mich auch endlich Taten sehn!» Das kann ganz gewiß stehen an einer Stelle eines Dramas, und dort, wo es steht, steht es schon zu Recht. Aber wenn es da herausgerissen und als ein allgemeines Diktum hingestellt wird, dann mag es richtig sein, aber gut ist es ganz sicher nicht. Und wir sollen lernen, nicht etwa bloß schön, nicht etwa bloß richtig, sondern auch gut zu reden, sonst bringen wir die Menschen in den Abgrund hinein, können jedenfalls nichts Zukunftswürdiges mit den Leuten besprechen.
Also morgen um drei Uhr.
Fourth Lecture
Yesterday I attempted to develop how the first part of a threefold lecture could be presented to a certain audience, and I pointed out that it is particularly necessary to evoke a feeling for the special character of spiritual life on its own. The second part will be about making it comprehensible to contemporary humanity that there can be such a thing as a democratic-political context that strives for equality. For in fact — and this must be borne in mind, especially when preparing for such a lecture — the case is that contemporary human beings have no feeling whatsoever for such a state structure, which is built on law as its actual foundation. And this part, the political-state part of the lecture, will be particularly difficult to deal with within the Swiss context. And it will be particularly important that the speakers who want to represent the threefold social organism within the Swiss context start from the Swiss conditions that have been conditioned in this way, and especially that they take into account, in the middle, legal-political part, how one has to speak from the Swiss context. For the situation is generally as follows: due to the conditions of recent human development, actual state life as such, which should really be lived out in a constitutional state, has essentially disappeared, and what is actually lived out in the state is a chaotic coexistence of the spiritual elements of human existence and the economic elements. One could say that in modern states, the spiritual and economic elements have gradually become intertwined, and actual state life has fallen by the wayside, essentially disappeared.
This is particularly noticeable in the Swiss context. There, we are confronted everywhere with an apparent democratization of intellectual life, which is impossible in its actual form, and with a democratization of economic life, and thus with the fact that people believe that this apparently democratized mixture of intellectual life and economic life is democracy. And since they have formed their idea of democracy out of this mixture, since they have a completely false idea of democracy, it is so difficult to talk to the Swiss in particular about real democracy. In fact, the Swiss understand real democracy the least of all.
In Switzerland, people are thinking about how to democratize schools. That is roughly equivalent to thinking about how to turn a boot into a good head covering, based on real, true concepts. And in a similar way, the so-called democratic concepts of the state are treated here. It is no use talking about these things, I would say, in a soft-spoken manner, in order to speak politely when addressing mainly Swiss people, because then we would not be able to understand each other. When being polite about such things, it is impossible to understand each other properly. Well, that is precisely why it is necessary to discuss the concept of law and the equality of human beings before a population such as the Swiss.
If you want to be an active speaker, you have to get used to speaking differently in different contexts. When, as was the case from April 1919 onwards, people spoke about the threefold social order in Germany, they did so under completely different circumstances than, for example, here in Switzerland, and also under completely different circumstances than in England or America. In that spring, in April 1919, immediately after the German Revolution, everyone in Germany, both proletarian and bourgeois circles, the former naturally more revolutionary, the latter more resigned, was convinced that something new had to come. And it was into this feeling that something new had to come that people actually spoke. At that time, people were talking to relatively prepared people, and of course it was possible to speak very differently in Germany then than it is possible to speak today. Between today and the spring of 1919, there is a world of difference in Germany. Today, one can at best hope to evoke in Germany, with something that echoes the threefold social order, an idea of how spiritual life as such can be shaped independently and, in fact, should be shaped today, especially under conditions such as those that exist in Germany, and how, under certain conditions, domestic legal life could also be shaped. But of course, today in Germany, one cannot speak of an organization of economic life that is completely in line with the threefold social order, because economic life in Germany is in fact something that is subject to coercive measures, pressure, and so on, something that cannot move freely, that cannot think about its own free mobility. This is very noticeable, for example, in the very different nature of life in, say, the “Futurum” and the “Kommende Tag.” The “coming day” stands in the middle, as if it were in a straitjacket, and has the task of working under such conditions; the “future,” as it is developing here in Switzerland, must work with Swiss conditions, about which we will talk a little more in a moment. It is therefore necessary to structure a speech differently depending on whether it is delivered here in Switzerland, in Germany, or at this or that time.
In England and America, of course, one would have to speak quite differently again. What can be done from here with regard to England and America is, after all, only a kind of surrogate, because even “The Key Points of the Social Question,” for example, it is good if they are translated, good if they are distributed everywhere; but, as I have said from the beginning, the really right thing, the ultimately right thing, would be if the “Key Points” were written quite differently for America and also for England than for Central Europe and also for Switzerland. For Central Europe and Switzerland, they can be taken quite literally and word for word as they are, but for England and America they would actually have to be written quite differently, because there you are speaking to people who initially have the opposite of what existed in Germany, for example, in April 1919. In Germany, the opinion prevailed that something new had to come, and that one only had to know first what this new thing was. People did not have the strength to understand it, but they initially had the feeling that they had to know what something reasonable and new could be. Of course, there is not even the slightest feeling of this in the whole of England and America. There is only the feeling: How can we establish and save the old? What must we do to ensure that the old remains firmly in place? Because the old is good! The old cannot be shaken. — I know, of course, that when one says something like this, one may be answered: Yes, but there are so many progressive movements in the Western countries! — However, these progressive movements are all, regardless of whether they are new in content, thoroughly reactionary and conservative in their leadership. So first we have to create the feeling that things cannot continue as they have been going so far.
This can be seen quite clearly in individual issues. Let's take a terrible, horrific, I would say the most horrific issue that could arise from a purely human standpoint, let's take the issue of starvation in Russia. Within Germany — even if opinions are still chaotic, even if, for reasons of agitation, people act against what would be reasonable, and for human reasons, in turn, naturally pay homage to compassion, against which, of course, no one should speak — within Germany, at least in individual circles, people are finally coming to the conclusion that it is nonsense for the entire course of human development to do something in the form of aid for starving Russia. at least in certain circles, more or less to the conclusion that it is nonsense for the whole course of human development to do something in the form of aid for starving Russia, in the form of donations, as it were, from the West. It is being realized that this is certainly required from a human standpoint, but that what is being done in this direction is so self-evident that one should not say that it has anything to do with the tasks that Russia's starvation presents today. In the West, at most a few theorists—but then only on a theoretical basis—will come to such a view. It is therefore natural that in the West one must first create a feeling that the world needs to be reorganized.
Switzerland stood by during the most terrible catastrophe of modern times, participating in it only theoretically — namely through journalistic theory — and through the effects of external factors on intellectual and economic conditions. The Swiss population therefore has no real sense that something new must come, nor that the old must remain. When Swiss people today, depending on their political affiliation, talk about the need for something new or for the old to remain, one always has the feeling that they are merely repeating what they have heard, heard from Central Europe on the one hand, and from England and the West on the other. They are merely repeating what has entered their ears, and not what they have actually experienced. And that is why it seems so Swiss when people who do not like to engage on the right or on the left — and these are very often influential Swiss people today — say: Yes, if that happens, then that's the way it is, if the other thing happens, then that's the way it is! If something new comes along, then that's the way things will be, if the old remains, then that's the way things will be! — In a sense, it is decided by chance what is to be placed on one side of the scales or the other.
The fact is, if you try to get someone in Switzerland excited about what the world so desperately needs today, you end up in despair because it doesn't really affect them, because it just bounces right back off them, because in reality they're not really into it with their heart. It is too repugnant to them to be of any interest, and they have too little experience of these things to find them appealing in any way. They want peace and quiet. But he also wants to be Swiss. That means that when all kinds of stories about progress, “freedom,” and “democracy” come flooding in from across the border, you can't say you don't want democracy, because you've called yourself democratic for centuries. In short, one really has the feeling that in Switzerland people have a very well-developed channel between their right and left ears, so that everything that goes in on one side comes out on the other without reaching the mind and heart.
Therefore, we will have to attack at least those points where it can be shown that a state like Switzerland is really something very special. And it is something very special. For, first of all, Switzerland is — as was already noticeable during the war, if one was willing to see it — something like a center of gravity for the world. And it is precisely its lack of involvement in various world affairs that it could use to gain freedom of judgment and also freedom of action in relation to its surroundings. The world is just waiting for the Swiss to realize in their minds what they already realize in their pockets. In their pockets, they notice that the franc has not really been affected by the rise and fall of currencies, by the corruption of currencies. The Swiss notice that the whole world revolves around the Swiss franc. What the Swiss do not notice is that this is also the case in an intellectual sense. But just as they appreciate the immovable franc, which has become, in a sense, the regulator of the world's currencies, so too should they appreciate their truly independent position in world affairs, through which Switzerland could actually be a kind of hypomochlion for world affairs — the Swiss should understand this. It is therefore necessary to make them understand this.
It is almost as if one had to say something similar about Austria. People who understood something about Austria often wondered why Austria, which had only centrifugal tendencies, remained intact and did not fall apart. In the 1980s and 1990s, I never said anything other than: What happens in Austria itself is initially of no significance for its cohesion or fragmentation, but only what happens around it. Because the others—Germany, Russia, Italy, Turkey, and those interested in Turkey, France, and Switzerland itself—because these surrounding states did not allow Austria to disintegrate, but held it together in the middle, because none of them wanted to give the others a piece of it! Everyone made sure that the others got nothing: that's how Austria stayed together. It was held together from the outside. You could see that very clearly if you had a sense for such circumstances. And only when this mutual scrutiny of the surrounding powers was clouded by the fog of war during the World War did Austria fall apart, of course. The picture basically says it all.
Well, it's similar with Switzerland, but different again. There are all kinds of interests all around, but these interests have left a small spot where they don't meet. And today, with global economic life and global intellectual life, the situation is such that this small spot is indeed maintained because it is now something very special. What is it actually? It is something that is held together within its borders by purely political circumstances. This is evident from Swiss history. Swiss history is seemingly entirely political, just as Swiss thinking is seemingly entirely democratic. But politics in Switzerland is the same as I explained earlier with regard to democracy: it is a form of politics that is not really politics at all, which administers intellectual and economic life on a small patch of land, but in reality does not engage in politics at all. Compare what is politics in Switzerland with what is politics elsewhere! Sometimes one thing or another has to be done politically because one has to correspond with other countries. But real Swiss politics—one would have to turn things upside down if one wanted to find real Swiss politics. It doesn't really exist. This also shows that a country has been created here in which intellectual life and economic life are administered in a political sense, but in which there is actually no real feeling, no real experience of the existence of law.
Therefore, it is particularly important to emphasize that law is something that cannot be defined, just as red or blue cannot be defined, that law is something that must be experienced in its independence, and that must be experienced when every person who has come of age becomes conscious as a human being. It will therefore be a matter of trying to work out, for Swiss means, precisely this human relationship of feeling and emotion in legal life, that equality must live in each individual human being if legal life is to exist. Switzerland in particular is called upon to do this, and I would like to say: the angels of the whole world are watching Switzerland to see whether the right thing is happening here – Switzerland in particular is called upon to do this because, I would say, it is completely untouched in terms of the rule of law, it only has a spiritual and economic state, and it must create a constitutional state while liberating spiritual and economic life.
In the Swiss mountains, Roman law, which has been introduced in a completely different way in France, Germany, and other European countries, has actually broken into the hearts of the people. It has only entered into the external, but not into the feelings of the people. It is therefore virgin legal ground on which everything can be created. If only people would truly realize what infinite happiness it is to live here among the mountains and to be able to have their own will, independent of the whole world that revolves around this little country. Here, precisely because of these world conditions, the elements of law can be worked out solely from within the human being.
So I am suggesting to you how to incorporate the special locality, the special location, into the preparation for such a lecture, how to be completely at one with yourself, which is the essence of Swissness. Of course, I can only sketch it out here, but anyone who wants to speak in Switzerland should really make an effort to understand completely what a special kind of Swissness this is.
You may say: We are Swiss — just as the English can say: We are English — and now you want to tell us how the Swiss should get to know Swissness, and what the English lack in terms of such feelings and so on. - Certainly, one can say that. But those who today belong to the educated class have nowhere a truly lived education, nowhere an education that comes from the immediacy of experience. Therefore, especially in relation to the law, great emphasis must be placed on this immediate experience.
This brings us to the observation that, under the newer civilization, people have gradually entered into mutual relationships, into social relationships, in the area where the law should actually develop. The law should develop from person to person. And so everything, all parliamentarianism, is actually only a surrogate for what should take place from person to person in a truly proper legal sphere.
When we think about the legal sphere, we then have the opportunity to revisit — but now in a more realistic way — the concepts of the proletariat and the sentiments of the bourgeoisie. But now we can transfer what the proletariat has developed in terms of concepts to the sentiments of the bourgeoisie in a more realistic way. I say: concepts of the proletariat, sentiments of the bourgeoisie. You will find the explanation for this in my “Key Points of the Social Question.”
From the four concepts I developed here yesterday, the proletariat has developed precisely this feeling of class consciousness; it must conquer what is in the possession of the bourgeoisie, the state. To what extent the state is a true constitutional state or not is, of course, not clear to the proletariat. But Switzerland is the least affected by what has developed as a constitutional state, which is why it could most easily understand a real constitutional state without prejudice. What has developed as a real constitutional state only exists in the expressions of the actual inner life of people almost everywhere in the world today, just not in Switzerland! Everywhere else in the world, what the rule of law is actually lives, I would say, a secret existence, while what is really experienced from person to person is based on something completely different, namely on something thoroughly bourgeois. What people actually seek in public life, what they bring into public life as a whole, which obscures the actual life of law, can only be understood if one considers the concrete relationships a little.
You see, intellectual life has gradually been absorbed by public life. But intellectual life, when viewed as an element built upon itself, is a very strict element, an element against which one must constantly preserve one's freedom, and which therefore cannot be organized in any other way than in freedom. Let one generation develop its spiritual life more freely and then organize this spiritual life as it wishes: it is the purest slavery for the next generation. Spiritual life must be free, not just in theory, but in practice. The people who are part of it must experience freedom. Spiritual life becomes a great tyranny when it spreads on earth, because without organization it cannot spread, and when organization enters, it immediately becomes tyrannical. Therefore, we must continually fight in freedom, in living freedom, against the tyranny to which spiritual life itself is prone.
This spiritual life has now been absorbed by state life in the course of recent centuries. That is to say, if one strips state life of the toga, which it still wears very strongly in memory of ancient Roman times, even though judges are already beginning to take off their robes, but on the whole one can still say that state life still wears the toga; but if one disregards this toga and looks at what is underneath, then what one finds everywhere is the constrained intellectual life that exists in the state and in the social life of the state. It is a constrained intellectual life! Constrained, but unaware that it is constrained, and therefore not striving for freedom, but nevertheless constantly fighting against the constraints. And much of what has happened in recent times has emerged precisely from this struggle against the constraints of intellectual life. Our entire public spiritual life is actually marked by this compulsion of spiritual life, and we cannot achieve healthy conditions unless we acquire a sense of observing this compulsion of spiritual life. One must have a feeling for how this compulsion of spiritual life affects one in everyday life.
I was once invited by a number of Berlin ladies who had attended my lectures at an institute to give a lecture at one of the ladies' private apartments, and the whole event was actually intended to counteract a certain good-natured mood among their husbands at the time. These ladies would arrive at the teaching institute where I gave my lectures at around noon. And when such a day came around again — I believe it was once a week — the men would say: “Well, off you go to your crazy institution again today; the soup will be bad again, or something else will be wrong!” And then these ladies wanted me to give a lecture on Goethe's “Faust” — that was the topic chosen — and the men were also invited. So I gave a lecture on Goethe's “Faust” to the ladies and gentlemen. Yes, the gentlemen were a little perplexed afterwards and they said: “Yes, but Goethe's ‘Faust’ is just a science; Goethe's ‘Faust’ is not art. Art is Blumenthal” — I quote verbatim — "you don't have to make an effort with that. If you already have to make such an effort in your economic profession, you don't want to have to make an effort in your personal life as well!" You see, what has replaced enthusiasm for freedom in intellectual life is encountered in public life as a mere need for light entertainment.
I once saw in the countryside, where you could still see such things clearly, how these old traveling actors, who always had with them what in Germany was called the Dummen August, or Bajazzo, sometimes performed very refined things. I saw how the clown, who had been performing his clown tricks for quite some time and entertaining the people, because he was now going to perform something very serious for him, threw off his clown costume and stood there in black trousers and a black tailcoat. This image always turns around for me: first I see the man in black trousers and a black tailcoat, and then I see the man in the clown costume. It seems to me like black trousers and a tailcoat when I see a book by Einstein on the theory of relativity in a shop window somewhere; and then I have the clown in front of me when I have a book by Moszkowski on the theory of relativity next to it. For in fact, in outer life, some things are maya: But one could not imagine that inwardly the whole pedantry of thought could appear in any other way than in black trousers and a well-cut tailcoat, that is to say, in the theory of relativity. And again: it is unpleasant to submit to such rigorous trains of thought, such consistent trains of thought, which are really as tailored as a well-fitting tailcoat; this must also be presented to people in a different way. Alexander Moszkowski, who is particularly gifted as a philosopher clown in the feuilleton, sets about writing a thick book. From this, everyone learns in feature article form, in clown costume, what was born in a tailcoat! You see, today there is no other way than to translate things into something that does not require effort, something that does not require great enthusiasm.
This general mood must be fought against, if one wants to talk about legal concepts, because then people face each other as equals with all their inner values. And what prevents legal concepts from emerging is, I would say, the Alexander Moszkowski approach! One must seek out concrete examples of things everywhere.
Of course, I am not saying that when discussing legal concepts, it is necessary to talk about tailcoats and clown costumes, but I would like to show how one must make the concepts for these things flexible, how one must really point to one thing when pointing to another; and also how one must be able to organize oneself first, in order to then have the necessary fluency to speak in front of people.
And there is another reason why today's speaker needs to know this. When he has something worthwhile to say about the future, he is usually condemned to speak in the evening. This means that he has to fill the time when people would actually prefer to be in a concert hall or theater. So they must be well aware that they are speaking to an audience that would be better off, given the time of day, in a concert hall or theater, or somewhere else, but is not actually where it should be, down there, listening to a speaker talking about things that are important for the future. You have to be clear about what you are actually doing, down to the last detail.
What does one actually do when speaking to such an audience, to which one is mostly condemned to speak today? One literally turns this audience's stomach! A serious speech has the peculiarity of being hostile to pepsin, of preventing pepsin, the gastric juice, from taking effect. A serious speech makes the stomach sour. And only if you yourself are in the mood to deliver a serious speech in such a way that, at least inwardly, you deliver it with the necessary humor, then you help the gastric juice again. You have to deliver a speech with a certain inner lightness, with a certain modulation, with a certain enthusiasm, then you help the gastric juice. And then you compensate for what you do to your stomach during the time we usually have to talk today. That is why it is really more for the stomach specialists than for the threefold social order when people talk to people about the threefold social order in a serious manner, with all their inner effort, in a pedantic way. This must be done with ease, with naturalness, otherwise one is not working for the threefold social order, but for the stomach specialists. There are simply no statistics yet on how many people have to go to stomach specialists after listening to pedantic lectures! If we had statistics on these things, we would be amazed at the percentage of stomach specialists' patients who are avid listeners to today's lectures.
I must draw attention to these things, because the time is approaching when we will need to know how human beings actually live: how seriousness affects the stomach, how humor affects gastric juice, how, for example, wine is a kind of cynic that does not take the whole human organism seriously, but plays with it. And so, if one approached the human organism not with the vague concepts of modern science, but with human concepts, one could certainly understand what kind of organic effect, almost a chemical effect, every word and every context of words has on human beings.
Knowing such things also makes it easier to speak. Whereas one would otherwise have a wall in front of one's audience, this wall ceases to exist when, in a pedantic speech, one can see, as it were, how the gastric juice drips and finally becomes acidic in the stomach, attacking the stomach walls. One sometimes has the opportunity to see this. Less so in university lecture halls, where students help themselves by not listening.
But you can see from what I am saying how much depends on the mood when speaking, how much more important it is to prepare the mood, to take control of the mood, than to prepare the words themselves. Those who have often prepared themselves for the mood no longer need to prepare themselves for the literal meaning in such a way that, at the appropriate moment, their overly literal preparation makes them a spoiler of the gastric juice.
You see, a properly trained speaker, if I may put it that way, needs to have various skills, and I would like to mention this at this point because dealing with legal concepts requires many things that must be characterized in this way. I would like to mention this now, before I talk tomorrow about the interweaving of economic elements into speech.
An anthroposophist once brought Max Dessoir, whom you may already know, to the Architektenhaussaal in Berlin on an evening when I was to give a lecture there. This friend of Max Dessoir said afterwards: “Oh, Dessoir didn't come with me!” I asked him how he had enjoyed the lecture, and he said: “Well, you see, I am a speaker myself, and someone who is a speaker cannot really listen properly; they have no judgment about what the other person is saying!” Well, I didn't need to form an opinion about Dessoir after that statement, because I had other opportunities to form an opinion, and I wouldn't have formed an opinion based on that statement anyway, because I had no way of knowing whether it was really true or whether Dessoir, as usual, was lying again. But let us assume that it was true: what would that prove? That anyone who holds such a view can never become a good speaker. For anyone who likes to talk, who likes to hear themselves talk, and who attaches particular importance to their own speech can never become a good speaker. A true orator must always overcome a certain reluctance when he is called upon to speak, and he must feel this reluctance clearly. Above all, he must prefer to listen to even the worst foreign orator rather than speak himself.
I know exactly what I mean by this, and I know very well how difficult it is for some of you to believe me, but it is true. I admit that there are other pleasures in the world than listening to bad speakers. But speaking yourself should not be one of these other greater pleasures. You must even have a certain urge to listen to others. You have to enjoy listening to others, because it is through listening that you actually become a speaker, not through a love of your own speech. Speaking yourself gives you a certain fluency, but that has to happen instinctively. What makes you a speaker is actually listening, developing an ear for the particular characteristics of other speakers, even if they are bad speakers. Therefore, I will answer anyone who asks me how best to prepare to become a good speaker in a certain direction: listen, but especially read—I have explained the difference between listening and reading—listen and read—you can do that too, because the nonsense is that speeches are printed—the speeches of others! Only in this way will you develop a strong feeling of aversion to your own speech. And it is this aversion to your own speech that actually enables you to speak properly. This is extremely important. And for those people who are unable to view their own speech with antipathy, it is good if they at least retain their stage fright, because standing up and speaking without stage fright and with sympathy for one's own speech is actually something that should be avoided, because it does not have a good effect in the world under any circumstances. It leads to the sclerotization of speech, to ossification, to the encapsulation of speech, and is then part of what spoils the sermon for people.
You see, I would not be speaking to you in the spirit of this course on speech if I were to list rules of speech based on some ancient rhetoric or imitations of ancient rhetorical speeches. Instead, I want to recommend to you, from my own experience, what you should always keep in mind when you want to influence your fellow human beings through speech.
Certainly, things change to some extent when one is forced into dialogue, when, I would say, a certain legal relationship arises between people in discussion. But in the discussion, where one could learn the legal relationship most beautifully, this projection of general legal concepts into the relationship that exists between people in the discussion, in the relationship of words, in the relationship of sentences, is hardly ever applied today. It is really a matter of not being in love with one's own way of thinking, one's own way of feeling, in the discussion, but of actually feeling antipathy in the discussion toward what one wants to say about something and what one brings up. Then, if one knows how to restrain one's own opinion, one's own anger or one's own agitation, and can crawl over to the other person, this can be fruitful even in a debate where something has to be rejected. Of course, one cannot say the same thing that the other person says, but one can take from the other person what one needs for an effective debate.
The following is a striking example. It is recounted in the latest issue of “Dreigliederung”; I experienced it more than twenty years ago. Representative Rickert gave a speech in the German Reichstag in which he accused Bismarck of changing the direction of his politics. He pointed out how Bismarck had gone along with the liberals for a while and then turned to the conservatives, and he gave a very effective speech, which he summarized with the image that Bismarck's politics amounted to turning his coat with the wind. Well, you can imagine how such an image would be received by an audience, especially one in a talking shop—well, the German expression is not good when you need it, but for parliament, the correct German translation is indeed talking shop—in terms of their feelings and emotions. But Bismarck stood up and confronted Representative Rickert with what he had to say—at first with a certain superiority—and then he crept into Representative Rickert, as he always did in similar cases, and said: Representative Rickert has accused me of turning my coat with the wind. But politics is like sailing the seas. I would like to know how one should actually steer correctly if one does not want to turn with the wind! A real sailor, like a real politician, must of course steer according to the wind if he does not want to make the wind himself!
You see: the image is taken up and turned around so that it now actually strikes back at the archer. The debate is about taking things up, getting things out of the speaker himself. If it is a simpler image, the matter is understandable. But it can also be done in a serious manner: seeking out what in the opponent's own words undermines their argument! As a rule, it is not very useful to simply counter the opponent's arguments with your own.
In a debate, you should actually be in the following frame of mind: When the debate is about to begin, you should be able to switch off everything you have known up to that point, push it all into your subconscious, and only know what the speaker you are responding to has just said, and then honestly apply your talent for correction to what the speaker has said. Exercise your talent for correction! In a debate, it is important to immediately take in what the speaker is saying and not simply counter it with what you have known for a long time. If you simply counter what you have known for a long time, as is the case in most debates, the debate will actually end without any real result, indeed without any result at all. You can never really refute someone in a discussion. You just have to be aware that you can never refute someone in a debate, but you can only show that a speaker contradicts either himself or reality. You can only respond to what he has said. And that, especially when developed as a principle, will be of extraordinary importance for debates and discussions. If someone in a debate only wants to say what they already knew, then it will certainly be meaningless for them to say it after the speaker.
I once saw this demonstrated in a particularly instructive way, I would say. On my last trip to Holland, I was invited to give a lecture on anthroposophy at the Philosophical Society of the University of Amsterdam. The chairman, of course, had a different opinion than I did. There was no doubt that when he joined the debate, he would say something completely different from what I said. But it was equally clear that what he said would ultimately have no bearing on my speech, and that my speech would have no particular influence on what he would say, based on what he already knew. Therefore, I thought he did it very cleverly: he presented what he had to say first, not afterwards in the debate, but beforehand! He could have added what he later added to his previous words at the beginning, and it would not have changed anything.
One must not harbor any illusions about such things. Above all, it is important that a speaker has a very, very strong understanding of human relationships. But if things are to have an effect, one must not harbor any illusions about human relationships. Above all—and I would like to say this to you today because it will provide a certain basis for the next lectures—above all, one should not delude oneself into thinking that speeches have any effect.
I always find myself in a terribly humorous mood when well-meaning contemporaries say over and over again: Words don't matter, actions matter! I have heard people declare again and again, in the most inappropriate places, both in conversations and from various podiums: Words don't matter; actions matter! When it comes to what happens in the world, everything depends on words! For those who see through the matter, there are no actions that are not first prepared by someone's words.
But you will understand that preparation is something quite subtle. For if it is true, and it is true, that by talking pedantically and theoretically, principally Marxist, spoils people's gastric juice, whereby the gastric juice infects the rest of the organism, then you can imagine how the deeds outside, which depend very strongly on the gastric juice, how it then pours into the rest of the organism when it is dispersed — how the deeds outside are the consequences of such bad speech. And how, on the other hand, when people only act as jesters, gastric juice is constantly produced, which then actually acts like vinegar, and vinegar is a terrible hypochondriac. But people continue to be entertained by the fact that what flows into the public sphere today is a constant stream of jesting. Yesterday's fun-making has not yet been digested when today's fun-making appears. Then yesterday's gastric juice gets stuck and becomes something vinegary. People today are already being entertained again. They can be quite funny. But the way they present themselves in public life, it is actually the hypochondriac vinegar that is at work. And this hypochondriac vinegar can then be found!
Yes, in the taverns it is the Marxist speakers who spoil people's stomachs, and when people then read the “Vorwärts,” this is what the spoiled stomach needs to be put right again. This is a very real process.
One must know how the world of words fits into the world of deeds. The most untrue statement—because it comes from false sentimentality, and everything that comes from false sentimentality is untrue—the most untrue statement in relation to speech is: “Enough words have been exchanged, let me finally see some action!” This can certainly be found in a drama, and where it is found, it is rightly so. But if it is taken out of context and presented as a general dictum, then it may be correct, but it is certainly not good. And we should learn not only to speak beautifully, not only to speak correctly, but also to speak well, otherwise we will lead people into the abyss, or at least we will not be able to discuss anything worthwhile with them for the future.
So tomorrow at three o'clock.