The Rudolf Steiner Archive

When one looks today at the fact that individual countries and ethnic areas are isolated from one another, to the extent that it is sometimes quite impossible and extremely difficult, even within narrow limits, to travel from one ethnic area or country to another, one must say: One can, if one has participated to some extent in the intellectual life as it has developed in the modern world, one can only say that this fact is as little compatible as possible with what actually lives in the depths of human beings, in their deepest longings and in their mental and spiritual drives. For if we look into the human soul with an open mind, we cannot but perceive that the content of the soul, the sum of all the powers of the soul of a man who shares in our culture, is composed of the spiritual and cultural aspirations of all civilized peoples on our earth. no human being today is in a position – if I may use this commercial term – to draw up the balance sheet of his spiritual life without entering the individual items that have flowed into the totality of our soul and spiritual condition from all cultural areas of the world. But what about taking stock of our spiritual and intellectual life in our immediate present? It seems to me that it behooves the German people in particular to engage in these reflections. After all, the issues of our cultural life must be seriously addressed today. Perhaps we may be permitted to recall, without being misunderstood after all that we have experienced, how the brooderer and profound thinker Friedrich Nietzsche wrote his cultural book “The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music” in the year of the rise of the newer German Reich. Regarding the moods that then passed through the soul of the youthfully striving Nietzsche, he himself writes that it seems to him, when he looks at the way the Reich was inaugurated at the time, that the extirpation of the German spirit in favor of the German Reich is imminent. There were years, and they are not far behind us, when such a statement would have seemed more or less frivolous to many people. But the facts have changed, and whether one agrees with or disagrees with the person who made such a statement today is less important. What is significant is that such a statement could be made during the dawn of the newer Reich era by someone who had truly suffered deeply enough from all that can be summarized in the words: the materialism of the 19th century. But perhaps one may continue the idea, the feeling that led to this saying. One could say: Could it not perhaps be precisely the plight of the German people that has re-inspired and re-animated that part of it of which Nietzsche thought that it had been extirpated at that time?

With these introductory words, I do not wish to say more than point out the seriousness that must prevail over any considerations that deal with a broader overview of the current spiritual and psychological life and its tasks. If only a kind of spotlight has fallen through Nietzsche in the year 187 on the balance of the spiritual and mental life of his time, we can say that many a spirit striving for thoroughness and seriousness in German development in the 19th century has dealt with the world balance of the spiritual life of its time. I could recall many personalities who thought in terms of such a world balance of spiritual and mental life. I would just like to point out David Friedrich Strauß, who, because of his materialism, is certainly not liked by many people today, and rightly so. Those of the honored listeners who have heard me speak over the past few decades will have an idea of how much I have against something like the book 'The Old and the New Faith' by David Friedrich Strauß; but it raises the big questions of the mid-19th century. Questions such as: Do we still have religion? Are we still Christians? David Friedrich Strauß raises them in a very forceful way. And again, I do not want to decide here how the yes or no stands in these things, nor how the yes or no stands in relation to David Friedrich Strauß himself. But I would like to point out that despite all of David Friedrich Strauß' materialism, despite the fact that he has everything that Nietzsche in particular perceived as such trivialities in his world view, honesty hangs over what David Friedrich Strauß wrote down back then.

What questions did David Friedrich Strauß want to answer, and from what point of view? He took in everything that the 19th century had brought in terms of scientific worldview and attitudes. David Friedrich Strauß attempted to construct a world view out of the most modern elements, and it must be said: with all that had been achieved in modern times up to Darwin and Haeckel, David Friedrich Strauß formed his world view, honestly formed it as his conviction and as the whole extent of his soul life, and then raised the question, unreservedly honestly: Can I still believe in religion in the old sense if I, in accordance with the spirit of modern times, profess this world view? Can I still be a Christian if I profess this world view? And both questions are answered by Strauß with an honest No. He draws the world balance of modern education, of modern intellectual and spiritual life in this sense.

As sharply as the spiritual scientist must speak out against this creed of David Friedrich Strauß, it must be said that at that time, through him, as through many others, an honest balance of the spiritual and mental life was drawn. If we look impartially at the similar endeavors that have emerged since that time, which has elapsed since about the middle of the 19th century, then we cannot speak of an honest stocktaking. Rather, we can only speak of the fact that many, many sides are endeavoring to obscure the world balance of the spiritual and soul life. This concealment of the world balance of the soul and spiritual life is something that confronts us at every turn today. We see it at every turn when we look at what is asserted by numerous representatives of this or that confession. On the one hand, such people often find words that seem self-evident as concessions to the scientific mind, and incidentally, unsuspecting of the honesty of a David Friedrich Strauß, they continue to speak in the old habits of thought of Christianity and religion, and it does not occur to them to draw a real balance between those items that enter our spiritual life from the most diverse sides. The veiling of the balance of the life of mind and soul is the mysterious signature of many cultural endeavors of the present.

But we cannot cope with it if we try to penetrate once again to an honest balance from a small circle. The endeavor to come from small circles to comprehensive views is precisely what has led us ad absurdum. Clinging to comfortable little thoughts is what has prevented us from developing a healthy relationship to the facts of the world, and that is what has ultimately brought about the terrible catastrophe of recent years. From the terrible experiences, from the terrible plight of this catastrophe, humanity should learn that it is truly time to turn our gaze upwards, to where the aspects of life arise that control life, so that we consciously learn to control it, while unconsciously we have allowed ourselves to be led by this or that.

We are truly not short of all kinds of programs and programmatic ideas today. One could say that associations, programs and programmatic ideas are growing like blackberries. They can grow, after all, because our intellectual life has come a long way, and from a well-developed intellectual life, one or two reasonable things can always be said, on which one can swear as if on a sacred word. And so then arise those numerous programs - whether they are political programs or programs of intellectual life, programs in some area of morality, of social activity, and so on - programs whose supporters always think: What I see as the right thing for humanity must be established as soon as possible in the whole of the present world, because I have devised it as the right thing, the right thing for the salvation of humanity, it must spread throughout the human sphere as it is considered today, throughout America, Europe and Asia. And then a program-maker very often adds: What I have devised must now apply, yes, more or less until the end of time; for it is absolutely for the whole earth and for all later times the salutary.

This way of thinking, this absolutizing of everything, is the source of the disaster and the real sin of the intellectual life of our time. Our time does not want to look at the concrete conditions that exist among people, does not want to look at how different the living conditions, let us say first, of the Orient and the Occident are. Today, I would like to speak briefly from this point of view about the world balance of spiritual and mental life, by drawing attention to how different everything is that wells up from the soul, as a picture of life and world view, on the one hand in the world of the Orient, and on the other in the world of the West. And we here in Central Europe, are we not actually intimately interwoven in our soul and spiritual life with that which flows, has flowed for centuries and millennia from the Orient on the one hand? And are we not, on the other hand, interwoven with everything that has been and is emerging as a special new element in the West for a long time? If we look at the basis of all cultural development in our region and our lives, if we look at Christianity, at this most powerful impulse of all earthly development, but above all at this impulse that has shaped Western culture in all its aspects, then we find that, quite apart from that the event of Golgotha took place in the Orient, the first current of Christianity flowed into Europe from the Oriental spirit; that we, in that we have the Christ impulse in our European soul life, basically have an Oriental influence in it. The whole configuration, the whole nature of the Oriental spiritual life points back to ancient times. And today - you need only read the forceful words of a figure like Rabindranath Tagore to confirm this.

When we look towards Asia, where once again everything is stirring among the educated, where everything is taking part in the formation of the balance of the spiritual and intellectual life, we see something that has emerged in a certain way as a straightforward development of the ancient spiritual life that is peculiar to the Orient. However much we partake in this oriental spiritual life, however much it has been instilled into our culture, we must always reflect on our deepest powers of understanding and knowledge if we want to understand what forces of aspiration are alive in the Orient today, and even more so if we want to grasp from which powerful spiritual sources in the Orient, centuries and millennia ago, today's oriental spiritual life has developed. If we look at this spiritual life, we still find in it today what might be called spirituality, spirituality. This spirituality is certainly in decline there, in decadence, and it is hardly possible to compare what comes from the best minds of the Orient with what was once absorbed into the profound, meaningful spiritual life of Asia. It has a basic character, and the further and further back we go, the more clearly we see this basic character. If we examine everything we know about the cultural and spiritual life of the Orient, we have to say that it did not arise from a state of soul and spiritual mood such as ours, that of the occurs in the soul life of the Occident in the life of the average person. It has come about that other soul powers are involved in the creation of this spiritual life than those which we ourselves apply in our advanced science and in the most advanced spiritual striving. In order to sense, to really feel the configuration, the whole nature of oriental spiritual life - as I said, today it is in decadence - one must ask oneself how often I have asked this question in these lectures and tried to give the answer from spiritual-scientific foundations , one must ask oneself: Can nothing speak out of man that is of a higher kind than that which only makes use of the outer sense and nerve tools or of bodily tools in order to become an expression of the soul and spiritual life?

It has often been shown here from spiritual scientific backgrounds how the spiritual researcher can penetrate, by remaining just as strictly scientific as today's natural science is strictly scientific, to what can be called the eternal, the immortal in man, to what enters the inherited body, what must be brought in from the spiritual world as that which is not inherited, what enters through birth or conception, and what in turn goes out into the spiritual world when the human being passes through the gate of death. When we listen to what speaks to us especially from the older elements of Oriental spiritual life, we must say: It is not the human being speaking who only makes use of the outer bodily tools, as in our science, poetry, art ; here, beyond what the bodily tools are capable of, the spiritual man speaks, who, as an eternal being, descends from spiritual worlds through birth or conception and who, in turn, returns through the gate of death into the spiritual world. The spiritual life of the Oriental is something like a revelation of what a person has brought with them into physical existence through birth or conception, something that, in a sense, cannot be applied here but must be carried through the gate of death. One could say that everything the Oriental intellectual regards as truly spiritual culture is an emanation of the higher man in man, if I may use this expression, which has become so hackneyed; it is something that goes far beyond the everyday human.

In our soul life, we basically have only something like a part of our being, from which we can really get a thorough, correct idea of the whole way in which the Oriental in his best prime stood in relation to his spiritual life. To form such an idea, we must look at the way in which, when we summon up the best forces of our humanity, that which we call our moral impulses arises within us, that by which we measure the morally good and morally bad in us. When these moral impulses announce themselves as intuitions in the innermost part of our being, when they are to become the guiding principle of our lives in the moral sphere, then we experience in these impulses something of the power of the soul, which we must now imagine extended over everything that the Oriental feels when he conjures his spiritual life into the physical world. Not the mood we have when we make up something about nature, not the mood that pervades our philosophies and worldviews and our trivial monisms, but that awareness in the soul of receiving something transcendental, something supersensible, that determined the Oriental in everything that gave content to what he could have called his worldview.

With this way of thinking, I do not want to say, about the supersensible world, but with this way of relating to the supersensible world, with this way of feeling about that which can reveal itself from the supersensible world into the sensual world, the member of Western civilization basically did not know what to do for a long time. What is called the higher human being in the human being has certainly appeared in the external moral life in the abstract. But that powerful, direct experience through which this higher human being brings a spiritual culture into this sensual-physical world, which is the direct expression of a supersensible one, has been largely lost to Western culture. Today, as an honest result of a world balance of the spiritual and soul life, one should actually admit this.

Let us now look at individual phenomena. On the one hand, we see how - as I have already pointed out - the Christ impulse has entered into all our cultural currents. It once entered Western life with tremendous momentum. It lost this momentum. If we go back to ancient Christian times, we find that people who seriously want to approach the Christian worldview want to grasp the figure of Christ through supersensible knowledge. In the 19th century, the most advanced theologians, the most advanced confessors of Christianity, were proud to remove the supersensible element from the figure of Christ Jesus, and there were and still are university teachers of Christian theology who are proud to see Christ Jesus only as the “simple man from Nazareth,” who are proud to bring as little as possible of the superhuman into this earthly life. We see how, little by little, the sense for the supersensible has evaporated, even in the face of the most sacred convictions of Western humanity, often precisely among leading minds. The people of the West could not even begin to understand what had been developed over the centuries out of the spirit of the Orient. They materialized it. The most significant manifestation is the materialization of the Christianity of theology, for it is a materialization when the Christ-being, which must be conceived as extra-worldly, united with the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, is obliterated, and when attention is paid only to the personal qualities of Jesus of Nazareth as to another historical phenomenon.

We can also see from other examples how strangely this Western spirit relates to the Oriental one. Our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is confused by some people, some consciously, some unconsciously, some willingly, some maliciously, with what in English-speaking countries is called Theosophy. Today I do not want to talk about the relationship between our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science and what is called Theosophy in England under Blavatsky and Besant, but I want to point out that in the last third of the last century, England, the world conqueror nation, had a remarkable phenomenon, albeit small in relation to English culture as a whole, but still remarkable, which expressed itself in the Theosophical movement there. What did this theosophical movement want within the Western culture in the most eminent sense? It wanted to deepen spiritual life, wanted to search for the sources of spiritual experience. What did it do? The members of the conquering people strove for the sources of the spirit, they went to the conquered people of the Indians and took ancient oriental wisdom from there. The fact that we did not imitate this was precisely why we were so much hated by this theosophical side. And if we compare what lives within this English-Theosophical Society, what is borrowed entirely from Oriental India, with what once lived there as wisdom, then we must see in all that is handed down as, let us say, 'etheric body', 'astral body', a materialization of what in the Orient was spiritual, purely spiritual thought. But what I have just mentioned is characteristic of another fact. It is so impossible for the members of Western English culture to strive for the sources of a new spiritual life on their own that they turn to the decadent oriental spiritual life of the time to borrow from it and bring alien goods to the West. This example shows how little talent there is in this Occident to produce something like the productions of the one who lives as a higher man, as a spiritual man, as an eternal man, as an immortal man in the mortal, and whose expression is ultimately the oriental spiritual culture. The Oriental therefore understands very well what the higher man in man is, what the man is who does not live purely on earth, but lives in spiritual worlds beyond the earth.

What do we have as an analogue in Western intellectual life, and what do we have more and more as an analogue the further west we go, in relation to this higher human being, as I have now tried to characterize it in halting words for the Oriental intellectual life? What do we actually have in the everyday, ordinary, popular intellectual life of the West? We have to think long and hard to come up with what Western culture, which has set the tone to this day, has to offer as a counterpart to the higher spiritual man of the Orient. If you look in the usual handbooks about the population of our earth today, you will find the well-known information: About 1500 million people live on earth. This is basically correct if we look at those human beings who create for human culture by walking on two legs over the earth's surface, but it is no longer correct for our present time if we ask about the amount of work that, relatively speaking, not so long ago, people did almost single-handedly for human culture. Through the achievements of Western civilization, we have come to use machine labor in abundance in place of human labor, and we can say that over the last three to four centuries, what is fabricated and manufactured for our culture has become not only the result of what human labor achieves, but also of what machine labor achieves. If the machine did not exist, one would see how much work people would have to do to achieve what is achieved today with the help of the machine. One can now calculate how many more people would have to live on earth if what is achieved by machine work had to be achieved by human labor. I have endeavored to calculate this, and for an eight-hour working day – it can be calculated approximately from coal consumption and other factors – I find that about 700 to 750 million more people would have to work on earth than are now present in the form of carnal human beings. This means that it is only partially correct when we look at the amount of work done - that we have our earth inhabited by 1500 million people. We have had it inhabited by more, but by those who are not really human, but actually homunculi, machines, but who do the work that otherwise humans would have to do. In a certain way, the Oriental is quite uncomfortable with this thought of human homunculi, of 700 to 750 million people breaking into human culture, who are not human but machines.

These kinds of people, who work alongside, who are the bearers, the mechanical bearers of human strength, are the real analogues, the real equivalents in normal Western culture, these subhumans for the higher human, for the spiritual human of the Orient. And I do not believe that anyone today honestly takes stock of the world's spiritual and intellectual life who does not include in this accounting that in which, in the best of times, human culture has culminated in the higher human being, as opposed to what Western culture has ultimately produced: the subhuman, the machine that performs human labor.

Of course, in more recent times, the Orientals have certainly not remained idealists, but have appropriated what the machine of the West is supposed to achieve, but for the overall configuration of their intellectual life, I still find the fact that occurred about 45 years ago characteristic. The Japanese received their first warships from the English and were proud that they could now do what the English could do: command warships. And they thanked their English teacher and went out themselves. The people watched from the shore as a captain steered a warship around the sea. But then they felt somewhat uneasy: the steamer turned and turned and did not want to stop turning. For it had to turn, the Englishman had been dismissed, who would have known how to make the steam escape through the appropriate device. And so the Japanese captain had to turn and turn in the sea outside until the steam was completely used up. Now, of course, it is no longer so in external life, but in the inner soul and spiritual state it is so. The Oriental educated is basically in front of the Western intellectual culture as that Japanese captain on his warship, whose device for releasing the steam he did not understand. There is a huge abyss between the inner configuration of this Oriental and Occidental spiritual life. And as difficult as it is for the Westerner to truly and honestly find his way into the Oriental spiritual life, so difficult it is for the Oriental to find his way into the Western spiritual life.

This is why it has come about that this has now become particularly difficult for us in Central Europe, who, I would like to say, are wedged between oriental and occidental intellectual life. What I have just explained to you about oriental intellectual life is basically a characteristic of ancient oriental intellectual life. What can still be found of it today and which is already in a state of transition to a new metamorphosis is basically only a final offshoot. Only for those who understand something of these things does this offshoot point to what oriental spiritual life actually was. But we, insofar as we ourselves belong to the West, have long lived off what came to us from this oriental spiritual life. One should not say that the event of Golgotha itself came from oriental spiritual life. It took place in the Orient, but it is a fact that took place for all of humanity. But what has allowed the West to understand the mystery of Golgotha so far, out of the human soul and spiritual condition, came from oriental tradition. And our way of thinking about the mystery of Golgotha in a Christian way is, for those who can observe such things impartially, the final result of what we have inherited from the East.

Our normal culture, our everyday culture today, still draws on currents from the Orient and has not yet produced new approaches to understanding the event of Golgotha and other transcendental phenomena in a new way. But what has become of that which in the Orient is already in decline, but which there is still a corresponding element to today's Oriental, what has it become with us throughout Europe and as far as the European outposts, as far as America? It has become a mere phrase. We can show how what we still have in our soul veins for the purpose of understanding the supersensible, and what has been absorbed into these soul veins through ancient oriental spiritual currents, to which we have not yet added anything new from our ordinary everyday culture, has become a mere phrase at important points. Anyone who really follows our spiritual and soul life today will have to say to themselves: Much, infinitely much of this intellectual and spiritual life is nothing more than a phrase, has lost its content. We still think in words that have been handed down to us either directly from the oriental language element or that have been modeled on it. But it has become a phrase, and to a large extent our intellectual life has become a phrase. We utter words that once had a grandiose meaning in the ancient oriental spiritual culture, but in our mouths, in our minds, in our hearts they have become mere phrases.

People today do not feel this strongly enough, and that is the misfortune of our time. For although party programmes are born out of empty phrases, and worldviews of a phrase-like nature are also born out of phrases, out of phrases, however, fruitful deeds and ideas for the real further development of humanity will never arise. You can agitate with phrases, but you cannot create anything with phrases. We look to the oriental spiritual life with its heritage for us and say to ourselves: It has become a phrase, what was lived there as a spiritual world. And we now look to that which - we have been able to characterize it to some extent - is the most essential of Western spiritual life: the mechanistic element. How can this be sensed when it is no longer sensed with the same vitality of spiritual life as it once was, and when it is only sensed vaguely? Can we deny that what we have become accustomed to, that 700 to 750 million people on earth are replaced by machine power, can we deny that this dominates our social thoughts, our state thoughts, that it has entered into our heads - can we deny this?

There have, however, been exceptions: people within Western civilization who have felt this in a profound way, and again we may refer to a significant creation by the Austrian poet Robert Hamerling, to his “Homunculus”. In this book, written in the 1880s, he attempts to sketch the picture of a human being whose entire spiritual and mental life and nature is outgrowing modern mechanistic culture. He tried to characterize the way of thinking that arises from it, the peculiar form of selfish striving. All this Robert Hamerling tries to draw in his “Homunculus”. He draws the man who has no soul because the mechanistic way of thinking has driven out his entire soul; he draws a man who has outgrown the practices of this mechanistic culture. This man becomes a trillionaire. And Hamerling foresaw many things that were not yet an external reality at the time; he foresaw air travel and all the things that were not yet reality in this way. Like a homunculus, like an artificially mechanistic human being in his soul and spiritual life, so the Western man Robert Hamerling appeared. Not like someone who builds his life out of spiritual impulses, out of the supersensible that reveals itself in the innermost part of man, but rather someone who is built by the mechanistic powers of the outside world, this is how Robert Hamerling characterizes the type of normal Western man as a homunculus.

And one must say: Especially when one looks at something that vividly describes the feelings that today's educated Oriental has about the life of the Occident, one feels these Orientals oneself, for example Tagore, who with all the fervor of a spiritual worldview again he looks at everything he can observe in the Western world in terms of its view of nature, its view of the state, and its social ideas; he describes it in such a way that one says to oneself – only with the nuances of how an Oriental speaks –: this educated Oriental of today describes all this as the homunculus. The Westerner carries in his spiritual and intellectual life the echoes of what was once great in the Orient, as a phrase. The Oriental perceives what Western culture has produced as greatest so far as Homunculus culture.

I know very well that people who prefer comfort would say that these things are exaggerated. But that is only because they do not have the courage to call a spade a spade. It is, however, necessary to honestly take stock of the soul and spiritual life. And in doing so, we have pointed out what actually characterizes this Western culture, something that must be pointed out particularly in our day. Is it not palpable that conditions have developed out of the last world catastrophe that make it finally clear, even to those who are slow on the uptake, what the unbiased could see long before 1914? Is it not obvious that the Anglo-American essence, in the form of the English and Anglo-American empires, is spreading over the earth with its homunculus nature to a large extent?

I am not saying this because I am now speaking to you here in one part of Germany. I have said similar things in recent weeks and for a long time to the members of the Anglo-American population themselves. I have calmly told members of the Anglo-American population: Basically, the Germans living in Central Europe have it better than you do, because the fact that things have developed as they have is a great deal of the responsibility taken from the Germans - another is coming! that responsibility, which has now passed to the Anglo-American element. Today, people on this side are less concerned with whether that – yes, how should one put it? – an insightful Englishman recently called it “robbery together of the various areas of the world” to me; perhaps it is more appropriate to speak with this expression than to take a national German term – people are less concerned with this robbery together; they are more concerned with the fact that this is a fact that is taking its course, but that those who still have any human feeling left in their breasts in those countries must feel the huge responsibility for the further development of humanity that weighs on them because they are within this expansion of the Anglo-American world.

But how do we see what is actually the essence of this world culture represented by the Anglo-American world with its mechanistic character? Do you not think that a member of the spiritual science in particular would like to rail against this mechanistic culture in a reactionary way? Do you not think that I would like to express any reactionary thoughts about conjuring up old institutions, or something that would like to eliminate a single achievement of this newer culture, even for a moment? This is there with the same necessity as the spiritual culture once was. The necessities of world development must be duly observed. But what is the essential? Just as in the Orient there was once a great striving for the higher human being, for that which can reveal itself in man as the spiritual, as the divine human being, so as over there in the Orient this rising up to become a spiritual human being finally ended in decadence, so that today it is something that grows out of martyr-like impulses, something that even today, in many areas of the Orient, confuses the social life based on spiritual principles with the so-called social life introduced from Western Europe. We see that What was once great in the Orient is no more, has lost its true inner impulse; it is the past, and the breath of the past weighs heavily on the entire spiritual life and culture of the Orient. And it is the decadence of the Occident, the expression of all good spirits of Occidental humanity, when today many people are found who seek to aid their Occidental intellectual life by absorbing Oriental essence. Just as the past hovers over what is outwardly there in the present in the Orient - as grotesque as that may seem - so the future hovers over what Western mechanistic culture is.

I am not talking about Western culture as a reactionary; I am not talking as if all that is missing from Western culture is the icing on the cake. But the way it spreads through the mechanistic subhuman in 700 to 750 million copies, it is a fact that today we still do not have a spiritual and soul life that can fully engage with impact and momentum in a world that is mechanistic. And it is my belief, which I have often characterized here not as mere belief but as knowledge arising out of spiritual science. It is my belief that what is called anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, what has been presented as this spiritual science for two decades, arises from the same spiritual power that, when it turns outward to the mere temporal and spatial and sensual, becomes external mechanics, which culminates in magnificent technology. Such a spiritual life, which creates our machines and mechanistic culture, would have destroyed the people who once created the spiritual culture of the Orient out of the spiritual life of the Orient. It would have been impossible to connect it to their way of spiritual life. It was not for them to have such an external mechanistic life around them; it is for us in the West to have such a life around us, to apply our intelligence, our entire human powers of mind and soul, in such a way that we have the inner strength to master all that appears in our mechanistic, electrical cultures.

From the same spiritual configuration, through elevation from the sensory to the supersensible, there must arise the power of the human soul that I have described in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” and in the second part of my “Occult Science” — the power that leads us into the supersensible worlds in a way that was never known in the Orient. But with this, the humanity of the West is only at the beginning; only the starting point exists for it, and still few people today realize that it is possible, indeed necessary, to ascend from the same spirit that permeates the laws of our machines, that works in our electrical engineering, from the same spirit, to ascend by inner spiritual development along such strict inner soul paths as only the strictest science ascends to its results, to that knowledge where one sees in the same way, only in a different way, as the oriental man once saw in supersensible worlds. We must arrive at a spiritual science that has grown through the whole nature of the inner human spirit and soul life, through every kind of scientific and cognitive striving of the modern era in the West. We must not go back to what has often become a cliché in the religions of belief, not back to that cheap use of old phrases to characterize the new spiritual science as well. This new spiritual science must be created with the same seriousness, with the same force — only in a spiritual way — as the external science.

This is what happens when we try to put together the assets and liabilities of our time in a reasonable way. If we continue to build even our social views only on the foundations that the external sensory natural science has given us, then we only get our items on the right side of our soul and spirit account book, then with such a sociological or historical view we only understand what is based in our social and historical life. For with external natural science we comprehend only the dead, and if we apply this natural science of the dead to what is contained in the social life or in the historical life, we also comprehend there only what is dying. That is why the new social theories, which are now also taking hold of reality, after having been merely critiques of the existing, are so stifling for real life, because they are modeled on the dead. We shall only have a real social outlook when we draw it from the same sources from which, as I have described, we must draw our supersensible life today. We see only as a passive item that which comes from the merely mechanistic view of nature. But we also see as mere passive items all that is reproduced in the centuries-old creeds that have lost their power, for present-day humanity needs the power of Christ more than any other. But it needs a new path to this Christ. Everything that leads openly or veiled, on old paths, that stands on the side of the passive items. We need the active items. These are the ones that will come out of a renewal of the spiritual view of the world. Today it is still too difficult for many, especially in Western countries, where that curious spiritual direction comes from, where the path into the spiritual world is not sought in the strong powers of the soul itself, but where, in the manner of an imitation of scientific experiments, the gods or spirits or even the souls of the dead are induced to make an occasional visit to the physical-sensual world and to show themselves in the costume of the physical-sensual world. Spiritism makes such an occasionally made theatrical visit. This is precisely the opposite of the real search for the spirit. If we really want to search for the spirit today, then it must not consist in our lives being outwardly materialistic and us not looking for spiritual beings anywhere in the outer world, but only occasionally, as if in a theater, suddenly receiving spiritual beings on a visit, so that they prove to us that there is a spiritual world that we do not have to worry about. What have even naturalists of the Lombroso variety done? Natural science remained spiritless to them; they were interested in finding something in a spiritualistic way outside of nature, so that they could then pursue all the more materialistically what human life and human environment is. But we need a spiritual deepening that can truly penetrate into all material things, that can accompany our lives at every turn.

To describe to you such a spiritual view of life, which is capable in its ideas of forming deeds that at the same time become morals out of the strength of your soul, and out of your soul strength can at the same time produce religious devotion, to show you that such a spiritual science exists in what I have now been allowed to present to you for two decades, that will continue to be my task. Today I wanted to point out how this spiritual striving must be seen as an active element in the present day, in contrast to the many passive elements in our spiritual and mental life. And should we not, as we are wedged in between the East and the West as members of the German people, the sorely tried and sorely afflicted German people, should we not be able to find the path to new spiritual seeking from what was present in the spirituality of our great spiritual ancestors? Whatever happens in the external political sphere, if we have the strength to turn to this spiritual path, we will be able to say something to the Orient in the future about a spiritual life that it once had in a different form but has lost. We will be able to say something to the West if it is possible for us to say to the West something of a spiritual life that will one day be able to respond to all those demands that are so depressing in a merely mechanistic culture, then we will fulfill a task in the heart of Europe if we seek such a path.

It seems as if the catastrophic events have revealed something strange about the Germans. Indeed, on the one hand the Germans have also participated in allowing themselves to be flooded with the still premature economic life of the West, have participated in the lameness of turning to the Orient when it comes to seeking spiritual renewal again. But it seems – I say it seems, for I could say what would be better for me: it is so – it seems that the Germans, even in the time when they strove in a materialistic way, have also proved that they have no talent for materialism. This talent must be sought elsewhere in the world. If we recognize out of our need that the Germans have no talent for materialism, then perhaps this realization will give us the impetus to enter into spirituality. But then, out of this necessity, the impulse will also come to us for our own spiritual striving, not for borrowing from the Orient, and perhaps, out of that purest, most filtered form of thought striving that we found in the Germans at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, spiritual work will arise for the whole development of humanity in the future through correct recognition of the roots of German strength. Whatever else the destiny of the German people may be, we can say that for everything we can achieve by going back to the roots of our spiritual and soul forces, we can say that the German spirit has not finished, it wants to live into future deeds, into future concerns, and hopefully, from this spiritual point of view, it still has much, very much, to say to the future of humanity, in addition to many other things.

Two years ago, as the catastrophic events of recent times were approaching their decision, the circumstances revealed that the friends of our School of Spiritual Science in Dornach wanted to change the name of this School of Spiritual Science. The intention was to express how, out of an awareness of German intellectual life, they wanted to courageously oppose everything that might arise against this intellectual life in the present or in the future. In those days — and you will feel the significance of this naming — that building, which is also intended to reflect in its artistic design what lives in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, was called the School of Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum. And so this Goetheanum stands on one of the most north-westerly hills in Switzerland as a symbol of a truly international spirit, but of a spirit that wants to have that significant element in itself that can be linked to the name Goethe. And so it will be allowed, in spiritual scientific considerations, as they are practiced here, to occasionally recall Goethe's.

Today I will apparently take something far-fetched as a starting point, but this apparent far-fetchedness may be suitable to point out a characteristic of the spiritual science meant here.

It may be known how Goethe, after taking up his duties in Weimar, devoted himself intensively to scientific observations out of certain contexts of his life there. And when, after having conducted the most diverse experiments and studies on plants and animals in Weimar and in the neighboring town of Jena, he had traveled to Italy in the mid-1880s and had occupied himself with all the natural sciences as he wandered from region to region, he once wrote about the ideas that he now had to form about the connection between plants and the earth. He wrote to his friends in Weimar that he had now fully grasped the idea of the primal plant, the plant that he was convinced was a concept that could only be grasped in the mind, that was something that all individual plant forms were based on, but that was only a spiritually grasped unified form. And he wrote a remarkable sentence to his friends in Weimar at the time: With this image in the soul, one must be able to recognize the plant world in such a way that, if one modifies this image - Goethe called it a sensual-supersensory image - in the appropriate way, by giving it a concrete form, one must inwardly create something in the spirit that has the possibility of becoming external reality. With this primal plant in one's soul, one must have grasped plant life so deeply that one could invent a fantasy plant that would have just as much justification for being an external reality as the plants that grow outside in the meadows and in the forests and on the mountains.

What did Goethe mean and how did he feel when he uttered such a thing at the moment when he believed himself to be at the pinnacle of his insight in a certain field of knowledge? Do we not see from this saying, especially when we consider everything that lived in Goethe's nature, that Goethe strove for a knowledge of nature that, as he puts it, is spiritual, that is, a knowledge in which not only the senses, not only the intelligence, are involved, but a knowledge in which the whole of the human being's spiritual nature is involved? But don't we also see how Goethe strives for such knowledge, which can delve into the essence of things, which knows itself so intimately with things that, by creating the idea of things within itself, it can be clear to itself that in this creative power, which lives and is productive in the soul, the same lives and moves as in the growth force of the plant outside? Goethe was clear about this: when the plant grows out there, when it develops leaf by leaf, node by node, blossom by blossom, growth force lives in it. But Goethe wanted to connect with this growth force that lives out there; he wanted to let it live in his own soul. Something should live in what he created as cognitive ideas about things, something that is the same as what lies out there in the things.

Such knowledge strives for an incredible intimacy of shared experience with external things. Today, we still underestimate the impact that Goethe's ascent to such ideas had on the quest for knowledge in humanity; for, basically, we live in a completely different era of knowledge. However, the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science referred to here wants to be Goetheanism, that is, not Goethe science in the way that this or that Goethe collection does with what Goethe said or wrote, but in the sense that that it seizes what lived in Goethe in an initial, elementary way, but which has an inner vitality to bear fruit again and again, which today is something quite different than it could be in 1832, when Goethe died. A spirit lived in Goethe that continued to develop, even after Goethe was dead to this earth. Today we can speak of a Goetheanism of 1919. It does not need to reheat what Goethe himself said word for word, but it must work in his spirit. And one can best work in his spirit if one takes what he tried to do for his time almost a century and a half ago in a small area, that of plants and a little of animals, and only in terms of outer forms, and makes it the impulse for a comprehensive world view, and above all, includes the human being in this comprehensive world view. But in doing so, one professes a Goetheanism that must have a transforming effect on everything that today wants to grow from the most respected parts of our quest for knowledge, from the natural sciences, into a world view.

Perhaps I may, with some reference to what I have already said in previous lectures, once more characterize the spiritual development of civilized humanity over the last four centuries. What have we seen as the main force in human development and in the quest for knowledge? We have seen the rise of intellectual and rational life, and even if we have experienced great triumphs in the field of natural science, we must still say: Although natural science describes external facts to us in abundance , the way in which we, as human beings, approach the external world, namely how we form ideas in our souls about external nature and about life, is steeped in intellectualism through and through.

If one takes the intellectualistic moment in human nature as one's guiding principle, one arrives at something very spiritual. Our abstract ideas and concepts are, of course, very spiritual within. As they have asserted themselves over the last four centuries, they are spiritual in themselves, but they are not capable of becoming anything other than mirror images of external sensual facts. That is the characteristic feature of our intellectual and spiritual life: we have gradually developed abstract, very fine ideas and concepts that have filtered into the spiritual, but they are ideas and concepts that only dare to approach the external sensual reality, that do not have the strength within themselves to grasp anything in life other than the external sensual reality. Those who today strain their soul in this intellectualistic direction often believe that they are pursuing the paths of their research and thinking quite unconditionally and impartially. But this thinking and research, which moves along such intellectualistic paths, is by no means independent of historical development. And it is interesting to see how many people who call themselves philosophers or scientists today believe that they can somehow justify their research in this or that way on the basis of human nature or the essence of the world, whereas the way they research is only the result of thousands of years of human education.

If we go back first – and today I can only give a general characterization – through the centuries after Christ to ancient Greece, we find in the last centuries of pre-Christian Greece the first echoes of that intellectualistic thinking to which we have completely surrendered in the Western civilized world since the 15th century. In ancient Greece, we find the emergence of what was long called dialectics. This dialectics is the inner mobilization of a thought element that increasingly tends towards abstraction. But anyone who looks at Greek life impartially will see that this life of the intellect, which in Plato is still very spiritualized and in Aristotle is already purely logical, goes back to a fully substantial soul-filled life. And if one goes back to the earliest times of Greek thought and cultural development, as Nietzsche did – grandiosely, even if somewhat pathologically – then one finds that in what Nietzsche called the tragic age of the Greeks, the intellectual life does not yet include the abstract dialectical, logical element, nor is there a turning to the merely external world. Instead, this spiritual life still contains something that can only arise from the innermost nature of man itself, which, as if from within itself, bears the essence of the world in the most diverse forms. And if we trace the origin of what arose in Greece further back, what was later filtered down to mere logic, then in the Orient we find what I recently pointed out, what could be called a mysterious knowledge of the mysteries that is accessible to today's humanity — but only to today's humanity. It is a kind of knowledge that is gained in a way that modern humanity can no longer even imagine in its normal life. In those schools of the ancient Orient, which were simultaneously schools and art institutions and religious sites, the individual did not merely have something to learn or to explore intellectually. Rather, before he was even introduced to the secrets of existence, he had to undergo a transformation of his entire being. In these mysteries of the Orient, it was taken for granted that man, in the way he lives his outer life, could not penetrate to the secrets of existence. Therefore, one had to lead man, through strict discipline of his entire being, to that state in which he became a different being, and to this other being one then imparted what was called the content of knowledge. Once upon a time, in the East, knowledge was built up out of a rich, historically no longer existing, but intellectually verifiable, soul-spiritually concretely shaped life. This knowledge then spread to Greece, where it was filtered into dialectics , to logic, to mere intelligence, and which then was filtered further and further until it became the mere intellectualism in which we have been immersed in modern civilization since the middle of the 15th century.

Without directing the eye of the soul unreservedly to such things as I have characterized them, one cannot look into the various cultural currents and balances of culture in today's existence, one cannot come to fruitful views on what is necessary for humanity today. Today it is a matter of looking unreservedly at what has become, and from that recognizing in which spiritual worlds we actually stand in it. If we follow the way in which a spiritual life from the Orient that was more or less foreign to us was transplanted to Greece and filtered into our intellectualism, then we come to the question: How did this spiritual life actually develop?

This spiritual life could not have developed in any other way than by being bound in a certain way to something natural in the human being. If we examine what has actually been working and weaving in human nature so that this spiritual life could develop through the transformation of the human being described, we must say that the fact of heredity, the fact of blood inheritance, plays a major role in this. And we can only study how the development of knowledge has taken place in humanity if we extract it from the knowledge of the fact of blood development. Therefore, the knowledge in the times to which I have referred, in order to explain the origin of our present knowledge, is bound to individual peoples, to individual races, to blood connections, to hereditary conditions. Knowledge arises differentiated according to the individual peoples. What had to be taken into account when the pupil was brought in from the outer life into the mystery school of which I have spoken, and what had to be taken into account in his education, was: What blood, what temperament in the blood, what gift based on the blood lived in him? And this natural element was developed until everything that could arise from it emerged in the knowledge of the person concerned.

Anyone who really knows the developmental history of humanity, who does not cling to — I may use this word again — the fable conveniale-like, what is called history today, but to the real developmental history of humanity, will find that this bondage of the human soul and spiritual life to blood ties and blood facts radically ceases around the middle of the 15th century for the Western civilized world. Something begins to set the tone that can never be bound to blood in the development of man. It is very interesting to see how everything that has been artistically developed since the 15th century in modern humanity emerges from the sources of the human soul, which have nothing to do with the natural and elemental aspects of even the greatest intellectual achievements of earlier times. This may be misunderstood in many circles. But anyone who really wants to understand what lives in Aeschylus, what lives in an ancient Greek philosopher like Heraclitus or Anaxagoras, anyone who wants to comprehend what lived in those ancient civilizations must realize that something lives in them that is bound to the blood of certain races. The Greeks were still aware that all their spiritual being was bound to what their blood produced as a spiritual blossom. This can be seen by studying Greek works of art with any sense, for example, the typical sculpted figures. If you try to understand the nature of these figures, you will find that three types live in the realm of Greek sculpture: first the satyr type, then the Mercury type, which appears particularly in all Mercury heads, but then the type that we find in Zeus, in Hera, in Athena, in Apollo. If we carefully compare the shape of the nose, the shape of the ears, everything about these three types, it will be obvious how the Greeks wanted to represent in the satyr type and in the Mercury type the subordinate humanity within which, as the blood-related superior humanity, that Aryanism had spread, which the Greeks gave their image to in the head of Zeus. One would like to say: It expresses the consciousness of how the Greek felt his spirituality bound to the blood-related, elementary in the development of mankind. This gradually petered out and ceased to have any significance for humanity by the middle of the 15th century. Since that time, the intellectual element, the element of imagination, has been alive in what is produced in the normal life of the spirit, so that everything that arises in the soul, the artist of the soul, has nothing more to do with what surges in the blood, what the blood produces. Today even trivial philosophers have to admit that what lives in intellectualized ideas is not bound to the body, least of all to the blood, and in any case has nothing to do with what played such a great role in the old spirituality: with heredity, with the fact of blood relationship within heredity.

Since the middle of the 15th century, something has emerged in human development that is, so to speak, a very thin spiritual, just merely intellectual, but it educates this modern humanity to independence from everything merely natural, which, however, also removes this humanity from everything that was previously felt to be human. And a strange, I might say tragic, thing occurred in this development of modern humanity. It had to rise to an experience that is independent of the natural, elemental, but it could no longer understand itself with what it received in the soul. In that ancient spirituality, in that spiritual knowledge which was still based on blood, one had, together with the inner knowledge, a knowledge of human nature and essence itself; now one had risen to an abstract spirituality, which can experience great triumphs in natural science, but which cannot possibly go into the essence of man himself, which remains far removed from the essence of man.

But that had another consequence. If we look back at this development, which I have characterized as being bound to the natural, elementary, and turn our gaze not to the nature of knowledge, but to what happens in history in terms of good or evil, sympathetic or antipathetic deeds, we find that these deeds are connected to natural cognition, to the natural experience of the spirit, and are the expression of the natural experience of the spirit: Man experiences himself through his blood, rises through his blood to spirituality, experiences what his blood gives him in powerful images, in imaginations that are representations of the spiritual experienced, and what he experiences in his soul passes over into his whole being. And the outflow of what pulses from his perceptions, from his sensed perceptions, sensed ideas, becomes his deeds.

And today? We have arrived at a point of culmination. We have three to four centuries of intellectual life behind us. We look around us in the modern civilized world and find everywhere an intensive development of intellectual research, the most diverse ideas, but all these ideas are so abstract and so far removed from life that they cannot be transformed into impulses for action. When we see the general spiritual slumber in which people find themselves today, from which they are always and forever unwilling to admit how much we are on a slippery slope and how much we need to draw to draw from our soul life the strength to find the impulses that can lead to action. This reminds one of a saying that was used in earlier centuries to call to the Germans, who were already found to be sleepy at the time: “Sleep, Michel, sleep, in the garden a sheep is walking, in the garden a little Pfäflelin is walking, it will take you to heaven. Sleep, Michel, sleep!” Yes, that is the attitude of many today: listening to some abstract religious teaching that has no connection with the immediate external reality and life in this reality. We have lost the connection between the external knowledge of nature, which we grasp only intellectually, and what lives in our soul and what was included in the old, blood-based knowledge of nature, the view of the essence of man.

I know how reluctant people are today to listen to such characterizations, which they regard as something outlandish, as fantasies that seek to exaggerate things. Nevertheless, it must be said: unless we listen to what comes from this quarter, we will not arrive at fruitful ideas about a reorganization or a new structure, which seems so necessary today if we observe things impartially. The spiritual and the soul — well, our school philosophers still talk about something soul-like in relation to the external world; but that clear grasp of the human being as body, soul and spirit is no longer part of our Western way of looking at things. There we can perceive a very remarkable fact. As I have already explained in other lectures, we can only come to terms with the essence of the human being if we are able to divide the human being into body, soul and spirit. For the body is what provides the tool for the spiritual powers between birth and death, the spirit is what makes use of this tool, and the soul is what is neither body nor spirit, but what connects the two. Without understanding this trinity, one cannot penetrate the essence of man. But even outstanding philosophers speak of it: man consists of body and soul. They believe they are pursuing unprejudiced science. Yes, unprejudiced science! They only do not know: In intellectual life we are dependent on the entire oriental development. Thus, in our looking at body and soul, we are dependent on the 8th General Council of Constantinople in 869, where the dogma was established that as a Christian one should not believe in body, soul and spirit, but only in body and soul, and one should believe that the soul has some spiritual properties. This has since become a dogma of the Catholic Church, it has become a commandment for those who have searched externally. And today people believe that they are pursuing an unbiased search that they are spinning out of themselves, while they are only following the old education that was inaugurated by the general council at Constantinople in 869, where the spirit was abolished.

All this has contributed to our spiritual life becoming so abstract, so intellectualistic, that there is no longer anything in it - but humanity is subject to a development, and there can no longer be anything in it - that lived in the old spiritual life and gave impulses to the will. And a time would have to come in which man would appear completely paralyzed in relation to his deeds if we retained only materialism within our Western intellectual life. From the course of Western intellectual development, it must be felt that a new fertilization of this intellectual development is necessary; that we must regain what we have lost as old blood from another side. It was right for humanity to undergo an intellectual development independent of blood for three to four centuries. In this way it educated itself to freedom, to a certain emancipation from the merely natural. But what we have developed in terms of intellectualism must in turn be impregnated, it must in turn be filled in our being with a kind of knowledge that can flow into human action, that can soul and spiritualize the human being at will. Such spiritual knowledge, a modern spiritual knowledge that wants nothing to do with a revival of the old oriental spiritual knowledge, is what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science strives for. And in this sense, it now seeks to achieve that intimacy with everything that lives in the universe, not only for plant and animal forms, but especially for humans, whereby one can say: the forces that live outside enter into our being, they awaken in our being itself, and by recognizing them, the growth forces of nature and the spiritual world live in us, above all our own human growth forces. So when we impregnate our intellectual life with spiritual experiences, we stand in modern civilization in such a way that not only something blood-related, but also something seen in the free spiritual lives in us, which in turn can have an inspiring and invigorating effect on our life of action.

It is true that the human life of will and deed would have to weaken if it did not receive the impact of what can be seen in the spirit. It is fair to say today, for example: Yes, but the insights of this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science are gained in the inner, contemplative life! Of course they are won in the inwardly contemplative life, just as, after all, chemical knowledge is also won, closed off from the application of chemical achievements in the practical world, in secluded laboratories and study rooms. What we need to do is to gain knowledge that can shed light on the human being, that can form the content of a true spiritual knowledge today, in which, again, but in a very different way than in the ancient mysteries, the human being transforms himself and comes to gain a spiritual view, as he has a sensory view here in the sensory world through his sensory organs and an intellectual view through his mind. This intellectual modesty, of which I spoke in the penultimate lecture here, must be developed so that one says to oneself: just as a five-year-old child must first be educated to learn to read, so too must a person who is involved in external life first transform himself in order to approach the real secrets of the natural and spiritual world. And it is only through renunciation, through voluntarily borne suffering, that real knowledge of the human being can be gained. You can see this from the fact that it is necessary for the truly cognizant person, the person penetrating into the spiritual world, no longer to look at the world as if with different eyes, to hear as if with different ears, to think as if with different thoughts, but to look at the world in an independent spiritual organism. But between birth and death one is not adapted to this world, into which one enters; one enters into a world, to which one stands as a stranger. This non-adaptation, this being placed into a world, to which one, insofar as one makes use of one's body, does not belong, is something that must be characterized by a spiritual-soul pain, which of course can only be recognized through experience. Through such and similar things, which certainly lie far removed from the outer storms and floods of life, one must penetrate into the spiritual world. But what is gained through the spiritual science meant here is slandered when one says: This is a mysticism that is unworldly; when one says: This is something that is alien to life or hostile to life. No, what is gained in spiritual research, albeit apart from life, is something that, when presented to humanity, is knowledge, a realization that can be grasped by common sense, but then impels the human being in such a way that it can become the bearer of his life of will and action.

What knowledge does spiritual science oriented towards anthroposophy strive for in its desire to develop a comprehensive Goetheanism? It strives for a knowledge of the spirit that can be the foundation for a strong life of will and deed. Our world can only be helped if that which can be seen out of the spirit enters into our life of will and deed. Intellectual knowledge and its application, knowledge of nature, is something contemplative, it is something that can at most be transferred into technology, into the extra-human. But what is seen out of the spirit will become an impulse to steer social life, this social life that is becoming so difficult, in truly salutary ways.

One could reflect a little and consider whether such characteristically spiritual scientific demands should not be taken into account after all, when one sees the immense suffering caused to humanity by the fact that so much is going wrong in social life today, that Leninism and Trotskyism and the like are introduced into social life. These are nothing but the intellectual poison which, during the four centuries, was admittedly needed for the liberation of humanity, but could only be used as long as the old social form was not yet affected by it. The moment it is affected, the poisonous effect of mere intellectualism in social life must show itself. It will begin to show itself in terrible manifestations, and it will show itself more and more. It is a terrible illusion when people believe that they are not just at the beginning in this area, but at a point where one can watch calmly. No, we are at the beginning, and healing can only come if it comes from the spirit. Spiritual knowledge must become the foundation. Instead of letting off all kinds of sometimes well-meant declamations, for example about the way in which this spiritual science has nothing to do with religion, it would be better to look the phenomena of life in the eye without bias.

So I was told that here in Stuttgart a lecture was given on anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in which it was said: All kinds of things may be brought to light by clairvoyant powers, of which spiritual science speaks; but this has nothing to do with the simple childlikeness that is said to be effective in religion, in the religious understanding of Christianity as well. This is how one can declaim, how one can believe one is allowed to speak when one is abandoned of all spirits of historical observation, of all spirits that explain the development of humanity. If one is not abandoned by them, then the spirit of human development proclaims loudly and clearly that this abstract talk of an abstract unifying of something in man, which one cannot define either, with an undefinable word, or Christ, that this enthusiasm for a childlike element has led us into the social misery in which we find ourselves. At first the spiritual and intellectual element was monopolized by the confessions. This gave rise to a natural science in which there is no spirit, which presents the image of nature in a spiritless way. And by admitting that all kinds of spiritual realities can be revealed to humanity through spiritual science, it is now demanded that it should be confessed that in this spiritual reality nothing is alive of what man should seek as his divine. Yes, the materialism of natural science has successfully managed to de-spiritualize nature. This religiosity will increasingly lead to the de-divinization of the spirit. And then we will have a de-spiritualized nature, a de-divinized spirit and a religion without content. This religion without content will not inspire any deeds. Spiritual knowledge must bring about deeds, otherwise our moral impulses for our Western intellectual life are in the air. Our moral impulses strive from within us in a completely different way than intellectual knowledge. Anyone who is able to look at themselves impartially knows that the intellectually conceived, for example, scientific knowledge in the life of the soul is something quite different from those impulses that arise within us as moral drives, as moral intuitions, and demand that we introduce them into life. But this modern intellectualism, through its intellectualism, has no bridge between its knowledge of nature and its moral life. What has become of the moral worldview? If we disregard a religious worldview that has now become more or less meaningless, if we look at those honest people who build a worldview out of science, which is certainly highly one-sided but still honest , we have to say: they imagine that some kind of connection between vortex phenomena arose from a Kant-Laplacean cosmic fog, and that little by little what we now call our world with natural beings and human beings arose from it. But moral ideals and moral intuitions arise in the human being. If we believe only in the natural context, then these moral ideals, these moral intuitions, are merely what emerges, what is valid only as long as people say so. Many old instincts from that human development are still alive, which actually came to an end in the 15th century. If these instincts were not to live on, if they were to be eradicated and nothing else were to enter into human spiritual life, then one would have to limit oneself to the external documentation of what we call moral ideals. And instead of feeling inwardly bound to our moral ideals, instead of feeling bound to the spiritual life that rises above all physical life, instead of this, at most, one might find it honorable to be thought a moral person by other people, one might find it opportune not to violate what is established by law in the state. In short, if our intellectuality remains, that glowing of a spiritualized soul should also disappear from the human moral life. For reality can only be given to our moral life when spirit-perception again impregnates and permeates all that we have acquired for ourselves through three to four centuries. By no means should this be criticized in a reactionary way, but only the necessities should be emphasized. But what does this spiritual insight show us, what is the moral of our spiritual insight? This spiritual insight recognizes external nature, it sees in it, in an initial sense, what reasonable geologists - I want to speak comparatively - assume for the geological formation of the earth. Such geologists say: a large part of our geological development is already in a state of decline. In many regions of the earth, we are walking over dead matter when we walk across the ground. But such dead matter is much more universally present than merely in the geological; it also permeates our cultural life, and in more recent times we have acquired a natural science that is directed only towards the dead, the inanimate, because we are gradually surrounded by the dying in our culture. We get to know what is dying out, what comes from ancient times of development and what is reaching its last phase in the development of the earth. But then we can compare what is reaching its last phase there with what blossoms in us as our moral ideals and intuitions. What are these moral ideals and intuitions? These moral ideals and intuitions, when they arise in us, reveal themselves to what is here called anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in such a way that one sees in them something that could be compared to the germ for the next plant contained in a plant blossom, while what dies off in the blossom is the inheritance from the previous plant. We see our moral life sprouting up within us. By experiencing the natural, we experience what has developed from ancient times to the earth; by feeling the moral ideals flourish, we experience what, when the earth is once thrown off like a slag corpse, will go out with the human souls into a cosmic, immortal life, just as the individual human being, when he discards his corpse, enters into spiritual-soul existence. Thus we see the germs of future earth metamorphoses sprouting within us as we unfold our moral life.

If you are able to take such an idea, which may certainly still seem fantastic to today's humanity, in its full seriousness and in its entire depth, then think what will become of a concept such as moral responsibility! You say to yourself: What are you, human? You are a result of the past and of the whole development of the earth. As such you are going downhill. Your moral sense is awakening within you; it is the germ of the future, which now seems unreal, so much so that we consider it to be merely abstract. But it is the first beginning of a future rich reality. And one should still say to oneself: If you do not practise this morality, if you do not connect with it, then you sin not only against your fellow man, but also against the spiritual worlds. For they have placed in you the seed through your morality to grow into the future of the world. If you are immoral, you exclude yourself from the future of humanity. In addition to the strength that comes from the knowledge of the spirit for the will and the life of deeds, such seriousness, I would even say cosmic, universally oriented human responsibility, can still be added to the life of morals. We can feel: In ancient Greece, the horizon of the educated was limited. One was a citizen of the country. Then came the newer times. America was discovered, and the globular shape of the earth was rediscovered through direct travel around the earth, through experience. Man became a citizen of the world. Once again, we have progressed. Mankind has passed through the stage of being a citizen of the country and of the earth. Today, it is called upon to become a citizen of the world in the truest sense of the word, that is, to feel itself as a citizen of those worlds that are outside our earth, but which belong to it as part of a whole, and to be a citizen of those future worlds to which I have alluded.

In this way, an ethical view can be rooted in spiritual knowledge in a new way. Only when such strength permeates our moral life will we be able to transform the moral doctrine into a socially effective view of life.

Approaches such as those outlined here have been attempted in something like the threefold social organism and in something like my book The Core Issues of the Social Question. Many people consider these to be abstractions, utopias, and yet they are the most real, because they are based on that new understanding of reality that cannot be achieved by any natural science, since it is too much affected by intellectualistic life. This intellectual life has gradually led man to turn in on himself. Today we can see remarkable examples of how man, no longer comprehending the human being from his external knowledge of nature, has become egotistical. At the same time as intellectualism has entered into all outer and inner human life during the last three or four centuries, this intellectualism, this egoism has also seized religious life. Today, unfortunately, human education over the centuries has prepared the way for speaking about the immortality of the human soul only from a certain egoistic point of view. People today recoil from the thought that — as it is not a matter of course, but as it would be possible — the cessation of their spiritual and soul-life could occur if the corpse were returned to the earth. This contradicts what is left of the natural as a clear last thing; it contradicts a clear egoistic urge. One indulges in this egoistic impulse when one speaks, as one does under the compulsion of dogmas, only of the continuation of the human soul-life after death, which, of course, is fully substantiated by spiritual science; but one does not speak of the fact that our spiritual soul was in a spiritual world before our birth or conception. Before we descend into physical corporeality and take on the covering given to us by the inheritance of father and mother, we undergo a development in a spiritual-soul world just as we do here on earth. And just as our life after death is a continuation of our life here on earth, a development of the experiences we have had here, so the life we undergo between birth and death is a continuation of the life we had before birth.

This, for example, imposes great duties on the educator when he is fully aware of the responsibility that weighs on his soul, in that he has to develop that which has descended from eternal spiritual heights into a human body and, through the outer form and shell, expresses itself more and more from year to year. This is the other thing that can be added to the knowledge that accommodates egoism, which only takes into account the fact of the immortality of the human soul in the face of death, which is of course an established fact. This is the other side that spiritual science in particular must emphasize for the modern human being: life before birth or before conception and the continuation of that same life here. It is easy to become world-weary when one speaks only of the afterlife. Anyone who seriously considers the prenatal period will feel obliged - since the order of the world is such that the human being has to descend into physical existence - to make this an active one. For only in this way can we shape what we are seeking to shape if we know that we descend into physical existence through birth. While the mere prospect of what comes after death leads to the deadening of the soul and spirit in physical existence, the consciousness that we have descended into this physical-sensual existence as spirits must lead to the strengthening of our will, to the working through of our whole life. Human hopes for the future can only arise with certainty from spiritual insight if we are rooted in spirit with our insight, if we permeate and impregnate our intellectual nature with what spiritual science gives us. Then, in turn, the impulse of deed and the impulse of will can enter into our lives. And our life will need these spiritual impulses, for this life is a descending one. Former generations could still rely on their instincts. We can see that in the ancient Greeks, those who matured for public life only needed to develop their blood instincts. This will no longer be possible; education would have to disappear if we were to rely only on what the earth could still bring us from human instincts. Present-day Eastern European socialism relies on these instincts; it relies on a zero. One reality will be relied upon if the hope is raised that socialism should be built on a spiritual-scientific basis. However, such views as have been put forward here are not yet taken seriously in their full import, at least not by a large number of people. Some people do take them seriously, but only from a very particular point of view. For example, in our journal 'Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus' (Threefolding of the Social Organism), when I was still working in Dornach, I read how something that comes from a certain quarter is taken very seriously; and I read that a remarkable lecture was given there, I believe even accompanied by music which was based on something that appears like a program from a certain quarter, for example, in the “Stimmen der Zeit” [Voices of the Times] by the Jesuit Father Zimmermann, in almost every issue, and which produces just such reactions as the one that is said to have occurred here. It was said, and by a member of the cathedral chapter at that, that one could indeed inform oneself about what Steiner says from the writings of his opponents, because the writings that he himself writes and those of his followers are not allowed to be read by Catholics because the Pope has forbidden them. In fact, the Sacred Congregation of the Roman Church of July 18, 1919, issued a general edict prohibiting the reading of theosophical and anthroposophical writings, at least according to the interpretation of this general edict by Father Zimmermann, a Jesuit priest. And yet one cannot believe that this Jesuit Father Zimmermann always lies. He lied: he claimed that I had been a former priest, that I had escaped from a monastery. I was never in a monastery. Then he said: 'The claim that Steiner was a runaway priest can no longer be maintained today'. A strange way to make up for telling a lie! Now I do not believe that what has found this strange expression is also a lie. It goes that one can educate oneself from the writings of my opponents because the anthroposophical writings were banned by the Holy Congregation of July 18, 1919. Yes, on this side one senses that something in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which has very real powers, wants to be placed in the present.

This anthroposophically oriented spiritual science – let me say this in conclusion, I would like to say, as an objective and at the same time personal comment – this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science will continue to represent what it has to represent as the basis of knowledge for the life of action, as the basis of knowledge for the moral and social life, as the basis of knowledge for the most beautiful human hopes, against all resistance, as well as it can. As far as I am concerned, it can be gagged; but as soon as it can stir even a little, it will again assert what it believes it can recognize as the truth necessary for humanity. And just as, at the moment when the prospect of victory began to turn against us, a testimony to international spiritual life was created in the Goetheanum for the whole international world, without shying away from the fact that what is now developed Goetheanism comes from the roots of German spiritual life, then this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science will also fight for the recognition that everything else that wants to stand in the way as an obstacle, for the knowledge that has become part of their conviction, as a world content.

Thirty-five years ago, in one of my first essays, I wrote the words as a call to arms to the German people, to characterize how the German essence must necessarily return to the best spiritual sources of its strength. an appeal to the German people: “Despite all the progress we have made in the most diverse fields of culture, we cannot escape the fact that the signature of our age leaves much, very much, to be desired. Most of our progress has been only in breadth and not in depth. But only progress in depth is decisive for the content of an age. It may be that the abundance of facts that have come upon us from all sides makes it understandable that we have momentarily lost sight of the broader view in favor of the deeper one. We only wish that the severed thread of progressive development would soon be re-established and that the new facts would be grasped from the spiritual height that has been attained.

In the feeling that if the spiritual low of that time did not meet with a counterpoise in a real spiritual upliftment, something catastrophic must happen, in this feeling, with a heart-wrenching pain, I wrote these words down and had them printed 35 years ago. I believe that today, from the same point of view as I have stated, I may refer to these words in a factual and personal way. For the course of events in these three and a half decades is proof that it is justified to let the call for spirituality resound again. May it, since it was not heard at the time, be heard today and in the near future by the Germans, so that they can build from within, out of a grasped spirituality, what has been so terribly way in recent years, indeed, what has only just begun to be destroyed, and what will certainly continue on the paths of destruction if one does not take spirituality with them for the new building.

That is what one would like to appeal to today: the will to spirituality in the German people in particular. And one may appeal to this will to spirituality; for it is certain: if the German people develop this will to spirituality, then they must find it. As I said recently, there seems to be no talent for materialism – the events of the last few decades prove this; but there is talent for spirituality, as proven by the spirit of our development over the centuries. Therefore, one may appeal to the will for spirituality: the German people, if they only develop the will, will find spirituality, they have the talent for it. But because it has this gift, it also has a great responsibility before the call for spirituality. May the awareness of this responsibility awaken, awaken in such a way that the German people may once more intervene energetically in the development of humanity on a spiritual basis and from spiritual impulses, may continue what it has done for the benefit of humanity through its greatest spirits for many centuries.

Anyone who looks at the building in the neighborhood that is dedicated to the so-called Goetheanum, a free university for spiritual science that aims to serve the spiritual and cultural interests of the future, may initially be struck by the peculiar forms and style that confront them. One might have various objections to what one sees there. Those who are involved in the construction will be able to understand such objections, that it is a preliminary attempt, if they arise from goodwill. But a certain question must be raised about this building, which is characteristic of everything that the spiritual movement wants and strives for, of which this building is supposed to be a representative. If it had been necessary, in the usual way, to erect an independent building somewhere for a certain spiritual movement, for a certain kind of spiritual activity, then one would probably have turned to this or that architect, to this or that artist, and one might have conferred with them about what was to be done in such a building, and then a building would have been erected in some antique, Renaissance or other style, in which this spiritual-scientific activity was to find its home. There would only have been an external relationship between the forms within and around the building dedicated to this spiritual activity, and the activity itself. This was not possible with this spiritual movement. The aim here was to create an outer shell for a particular spiritual current that, in its entirety and in every detail, even the most insignificant, seemed to have been born out of the entire thinking, feeling and willing of this spiritual movement itself. The point was to create something in the external forms, down to the most minute detail, which is an external expression of the inwardly willed in the same way as a word or anything else that is intended to express the content of this spiritual movement itself. In this matter one could not turn to some existing style, to some formal language that has been handed down historically. What is visible to the eye in the structures had to be created from the same spiritual foundation from which the content of the world view is drawn. This is not only the innermost motivation of the spiritual-scientific movement, which also calls itself anthroposophical, but also of the whole way in which this movement conceives of its task, its paths and its goals in relation to the great demands of the present civilized world.

This spiritual movement does not want some abstract theory, a science that only occupies the intellect; it does not want to be something that can only serve the one-sided satisfaction of the inner soul's interests; it wants to be something that can indeed give the most intimate satisfaction to those longings of the human soul that go to a world view. But it wants to anchor this Weltanschhauung so firmly in reality that it can intervene in all practical life. And so it is that what we were able to achieve alone at first was the direct creation of building and art forms for our cause, which are characteristic of this whole movement. In this particular sphere it has intervened in the most practical matters; but this spiritual movement will seek ways and indicate goals which will have an effect on all social and moral aspects of human coexistence, in the widest sense. Those who build on this spiritual science should not be unworldly idealists, but should become idealists who can allow what arises from their soul to flow directly into their practical life. And all that often goes so strangely in the thoughts of man should be harmonized with what is in man's innermost soul striving. The outer practice of life should become one with that through which man seeks his moral impulses, develops his social instincts, and engages in his religious worship. With such a view, however, this spiritual-scientific movement still stands today quite far removed from that which is striven for, willed, and even considered right by the broadest circles of today's educated people.

That this must be so, but also that it is necessary for such a spiritual movement to take its place in our modern civilization, can be seen when we turn our gaze to the way in which our whole life, in which we live today, has actually come together out of the most diverse currents. Today I would like to speak first of two main currents in our civilized life. We have today what we call our spiritual education, in which our religious convictions are rooted, in which our moral ideals arise, but in which our entire higher spiritual life is also rooted. We have that through which man is to educate his abilities and strengths for a spiritual education beyond the ordinary manual work. And we have, in addition to this, the practical activity of life, which has received such intensive impulses in recent centuries. We have around us a technology that has been inspired by our science but that also reaches deeply into social life. This technology has transformed modern civilized life in a way that would certainly have been completely incomprehensible to a person eight or nine centuries ago.

If we now ask ourselves where our intellectual and cultural life comes from, a life that not only dominates our higher schools but also unfolds its impulses down to our elementary schools, and where, on the other hand, our practical life, permeated by such an extensive technology, comes from, we get an answer that the man of the present still gives little account of. But one need only – and we will discuss this in more detail in the third lecture – consider what, so to speak, forms the basis of our Western civilization, especially its higher spiritual part, one need only look at Christianity in the broadest sense, so one will be able to say, even from a superficial world-historical point of view, If we look for the origin of our Christian views and convictions, which have shaped so much of our general intellectual outlook and convictions, and if we look for the origin of these beliefs and convictions, much more than we are willing to admit today, we will eventually come across the path that Christianity took from the Orient to the Occident. And one can continue to look around for the thread that one has gained in such a way, and one will find that those paths that arise when one traces back our spiritual education - those paths that lead into Latin-Roman, into Greek, from which our spiritual education still clearly shows its inner — that these paths ultimately lead to the special state of mind, to the special constitution of the soul, through which, millennia ago, before prehistoric times, our educational life, which is more directed towards the inner, the soul-spiritual, originated from the Orient. Only because this educational life, this inner spiritual view, has changed so much over the centuries and millennia, we no longer notice today how it derives its origin from what, as I said, took its origin before pre-Christian millennia from a state of mind that has become quite alien to today's civilized man. To understand this long journey, we must not only go back to what external historiography, which can be proven by documents, offers, we must go beyond what this historiography can say, and go back to prehistoric times. This is quite difficult for the modern man. For he thinks in his innermost being that he has “made such wonderful progress” in spiritual things in the course of the last few centuries, perhaps only in the very last century, that everything that lies in the times just mentioned must be referred to the realm of the childlike, the primitive.

But anyone who is able to see the ancient culture of the Orient clearly, without being clouded by such prejudices, will see that, although civilization and intellectual development were substantially different in pre-Christian times in the Orient, they offered human souls very intense spiritual content. But these were achieved in a completely different, I would say radically different, way than what is achieved today to influence people who are to acquire a higher education at secondary schools.

In the ancient Orient, anyone who was to acquire a higher intellectual culture had to undergo a complete transformation of their entire human being after being chosen by the leaders and directors of the educational institutions concerned. I am speaking of the educational institutions of this ancient Orient. They are cognitively accessible to the spiritual science that is being discussed here; but if one is unprejudiced enough, if one has a certain courage of thought and cognition, then one can also deduce from what has been handed down historically what was there prehistorically. One must speak of these educational institutions in such a way that what appears separately in us has an inner unity there. These educational institutions, to which everything that we actually still carry within us today refers, but in a significantly transformed form, were at the same time what we call a church today, but also what we call a school today, and were at the same time what we call an art institution today. Art, science, and religion formed a unity in the older human civilizations. And anyone who was to be developed in these educational institutions had to bring their whole being to development. They had to transform their whole being. They had to adopt a different form of thinking from the one that is effective in everyday life. He had to devote himself to contemplative thinking. He had to get used to dealing with thinking in the same way as one otherwise deals with the external world. But he also had to get used to transforming his entire emotional and volitional life. It is difficult to imagine today what was striven for in this direction. For how do we actually think about our lives? We admit: the child, that must be developed. The abilities and powers with which it is endowed when it comes into the world must be developed through education. Now, the child cannot educate itself; the others, the adults, initially have the view that the child's abilities and powers must be developed. And we also make the child different in terms of his thinking, feeling and will than when he is born into the world. But if we now expect the human being to continue this development even when he has already come into his own will, when others no longer take care of his development out of their own views, then the present human being finds this a strange expectation; for one should only be developed as long as one cannot take charge of this development oneself, cannot take it into one's own hands. Once one comes to a certain freedom with regard to one's own development, then one abandons evolution. This is the intellectual arrogance in which we live today. We think in the moment when we would be in a position to take our development into our own hands, we are already finished, and we place ourselves in the world as finished people.

Such a view did not exist within that civilization, but rather, the human being was developed further and further. And just as the child is able to recognize, feel, and do more and more after going through a certain training, as if there were a kind of awakening in the soul, so there is also such an awakening for the further development that the human being can now take into his own hands. The oriental mystery school student was educated for this awakening in soul activities, which were higher than the ordinary ones in the same sense that the higher abilities of adults are higher than those of a child. And it was believed that only the one who has gone through this later awakening in the best sense of the word in life is capable of judging the highest matters of life. And one was not prepared there merely to be a person who, when he reflects, when he develops a certain inner feeling and perception, feels satisfied through the knowledge of his connection with a spiritual world. No, it was not only the ability to develop a worldview that was developed there, but also those abilities through which social and outwardly technical life was guided, through which human coexistence was directed. The whole of life was influenced by spiritual education and development.

It is so difficult for us to place ourselves back in the prevailing situation in the Orient thousands of years ago, at the starting point of our more recent human development, because our whole soul constitution has changed with the further development of humanity, because we have come to different feelings and views about life. For those people who were steeped in the spiritual development I have just hinted at, it was instinctive to move towards such a transformation of the human being. These people's instincts were different. They tended towards such a vision of spiritual life after a certain transformation. Those who did not themselves undergo such training looked up, by virtue of the instincts that were also present in them, to what those who had been trained could give them. They followed them in the training of their inner soul life. But they also followed them in the ordering of their social life, in their attitude to the life of the whole.

The instincts that led to such a life have been transformed just as much as the special soul instincts of the child have been transformed in the adult in the context of today's overall culture of humanity. But through these instincts, in connection with what had been absorbed from the teachings of those educational institutions that can truly be called mysteries, there arose a human soul-disposition that could not but lead to seeking what is at the core of the human being, not here in the sphere of life that includes the human body, but to direct this whole view of life, also to rise, as it were instinctively, in the popular consciousness, to the higher man in man, to that in man which is essentially spiritual-soul-like, to that in man which, although it appears in the sensual body for the time between birth and death, is eternal in itself and belongs to a spiritual world, into which one instinctively looked. Something superhuman, if I may use this expression, which has become somewhat questionable through the followers of Nietzsche, something superhuman was seen as the essence of man. What man looked at as his own nature was something that went beyond this ordinary human being. In this respect, education was great: seeking out the human being in his essence in a spiritual-soul realm, which finds expression only in the physical, reaching out from the spiritual-soul world into the whole human being, directing this human being in his most material expressions from the spiritual-soul realm.

In many metamorphoses, through many transformations, what came about as the content of spiritual education was then worked out in the Orient and came to Greece in many transformations. There it appears, I might say, filtered. While in the oldest Greek period, which Friedrich Nietzsche called the tragic age of the Greeks, we can still see something of such a directing of the whole human being to the higher human being, in the later Greek period what can be called, in a more comprehensive sense, the dialectical, the purely intellectual essence of the human being emerges. The whole rich and intensely all-human content of an original culture was, as it were, filtered and further and further filtered, and in the most diluted state it came over into our age. And so it forms the one current of our life, which went right up to the spiritual and soul-filled human being and gave the human being an awareness through which he felt, in every moment of life, in the presence of the giver and in the most menial of tasks, as an external expression of the spiritual and soul-filled human being.

We shall see in the third lecture that the Mystery of Golgotha, from which Christianity emerged in its development on this earth, stands as a fact in itself, which can be grasped in different ways in different ages. But that from which the next understanding of this Mystery of Golgotha was shaped was what had been brought over from the Orient in the form of education. And in fact, in all that we still summon up today to comprehend Christianity, there lives that which is the last, albeit intellectually diluted, experience of the Orient. There is a certain idiosyncrasy to this entire soul configuration, which lives in us only in its final metamorphosis. And this idiosyncrasy must be sought in what follows.

As great and powerful as this world view is in terms of rising to the superhuman in man and descending to what Western civilization has risen to and become great in, this oriental civilization could never have done so. It could produce the superhuman, the spiritual-soul, it could not produce anything else. It is something I have already hinted at in other contexts here. Just at the time when the last metamorphosis of Oriental spiritual life began to take root in the West, a new spiritual life began to take shape, a spiritual life that has indeed produced enormous blossoms in our time, but blossoms of a completely different kind than the Oriental spiritual life just described. Let us look at these other blossoms.

I would like to point out the following fact again. As I said, I have already mentioned it here from other points of view. If we look through the current handbooks to see how many people live on the earth, we are told that about 1500 million people inhabit the earth. If we look at what is being worked on within human civilization, if we look at the human resources that are active in our human being and human life, then, strangely enough, we have to say something different. We would actually have to say that the Earth works as if it were inhabited not just by 1500 million people, but by 2200 million people. For three to four centuries, our world of machines has been working in such a way that work is being done that could also be done by people. We are replacing human labor with machine power. And if you convert what our machines achieve into human labor, you find, based on an eight-hour working day, that our work on earth involves seven to eight times a hundred million people, that is, not real people, but human labor, which is raised by machines.

This is something that is being introduced into human civilization by those spiritual forces that have arisen from the Western world, those spiritual forces that could never have developed in a straight line from that inner culture of spirit and soul that had so magnificently risen to the superhuman, to the higher human in the human, to the spiritual-soul human being. This culture remained at the level of certain heights of the soul. It did not penetrate what we call practical life today. It could never have brought dead metal or other material into such a context that a man would work among people, not a superman, but an underman, a man who is actually a homunculus compared to people of flesh and blood, a mechanism that introduces into human culture what otherwise people could introduce. This is the essence of our Western intellectual life. It is all the more characteristic of this Western intellectual life the farther west we go, where the mechanical man, the sub-human, has emerged from this intellectual life, just as the spiritual man, the super-human, has emerged from the Oriental intellectual life.

The fact that such a thing could be created in the West is not an isolated phenomenon of civilization. It is connected with the whole development of perception, feeling and thinking. The people who brought this homunculus into being are, in their whole state of mind, of course, greater in the other direction than the Oriental man. Today, one cannot understand life if one cannot see through this contrast in all its intensity. For on the one hand, this modern man still carries within him the last metamorphosis of that which came to him from the Orient, and on the other hand, he has been absorbing for centuries what is most essential to Western spiritual life. A balance has not yet been achieved. They stand there like two separate currents flowing apart: the current of the superman, though much changed, and the current of the subhuman, though only in its beginning. And the modern man, the man of the present, when he awakens to the consciousness that in his soul these two currents live abruptly, he suffers mentally, spiritually and probably also physically from the discord that arises from it. These are matters that become so deeply entwined in the unconscious and subconscious that something quite different from the actual cause enters not only into the consciousness of the person, but even into the constitution of his body. The modern human being finds himself nervous, finds himself dissatisfied with circumstances. There are hundreds of ways in which modern man feels a discord between himself and his surroundings, and how this discord is also expressed in his physical health. What has been mentioned is behind this. Behind this lies the great question: How can we, for the civilization of the future, harmonize what produced the subhuman with what lives in us in its last phase as the legacy of a civilization that has led to the spiritual-soul human being?

The spiritual science oriented towards anthroposophy seeks to take on board what is contained in the forces of our civilization, as I have just mentioned. It sees as a necessary goal, borne by the most significant demands of the time, a balancing between the soul forces that have led in one direction and the soul forces that have led in the other direction. And it is aware of how tremendously necessary and significant it is for humanity to find the paths to this goal. Instinctively, I have named the oriental spiritual life.

This spiritual life was born out of the instincts of ancient man. We have received it as an heirloom. But we have received it in an already intellectualized state; it has lived its way into our civilization in concepts and ideas of a rather abstract nature. For we no longer have the instincts that the former bearer of this spiritual life had. No matter how much one may fantasize about it, the fact remains that the present-day human being should return to naivety, that he should become instinctive again. In one respect, one is right to make such a demand. But naivety will express itself in a different way than before. The instinctive life will go in different directions. And to demand that we should become like people of previous millennia is the same as demanding that adults should play like children. No, we cannot go back to satisfy our deepest soul needs, into the civilization of past millennia, nor can we, if we do not want to fall into decadence, call out as Westerners “ex oriente lux”; no, we must not call out, the light comes to us from the Orient. For the light that is there today has also undergone many metamorphoses, and we cannot indulge in the illusion that what can still be found somewhere in the Orient today represents a spirituality that could somehow fruitfully reach into our civilization. It was a decadence of the worst kind when a theosophical movement asserted itself out of the religious and cultural needs of the Occident, out of the machine age, which had also formed a mechanistic world view that cannot satisfy man. It was decadence of the worst kind that one went into the area that today's decadent oriental succession of an intellectual life of earlier times has. When Indian culture was sought out today in order to incorporate it into Western theosophy, it showed just how barren one had become, how the creative powers no longer stir from one's own spiritual life, how one could only be great in the mechanistic, but how one could not find one's own way into those areas that the soul needs for its view of the true spiritual essence of man.

This tendency, by the way, underlies today's life all too much. Do we not see how those who are dissatisfied with present-day Christianity often inquire: What was Christianity like in the past? What was early Christianity like? Let us do it again as the early Christians did. As if we had not progressed since then, as if we did not need a new understanding of Christianity! Oh, the characteristic of infertility is everywhere, the impossibility of one's own creation. No, that is not what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants: borrowing from some ancient culture or from the present-day succession of an ancient culture.

Particularly when one grasps the concrete reality of the roots of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, it is easy to see what has been said. You can hear how the present-day Oriental, I would even say, how old methods are reproduced, seeks the path to the spiritual in a certain breathing process, in a regulation of breathing, seeks to develop the human constitution through which one finds inner powers of knowledge and feeling and will, in order to ascend into the spiritual world, where the spiritual-soul human being is found, where true self-knowledge is. The Oriental of today does what the Oriental has always done in earlier centuries and millennia for such a path: he descends from the mere intellectual life of the head into the life of the whole human being. He knows the inner organic connection between the way we breathe in and the way we breathe out — I will speak of this again in the next few days — and the process of our imagining and thinking. But he also knows that thinking and imagining grow out of the breathing process. And so he wants to go back to the roots of thinking, to the breathing process. He seeks the path up to the spiritual world in a regulation of the breathing process. We cannot imitate this path. If we were to imitate it, we would sin against our human constitution, which has become quite different. The inner structure of our brain and nervous system is different from that from which the instinctive spiritual culture of the Orient emerged. If we were to consider it right today to devote ourselves only to a regulated breathing process, we would be denying the intellectual life. We would be denying what we are constituted for today.

In order to ascend the paths into the spiritual world, we must undergo other metamorphoses. We no longer have to go back from thinking to bodily processes such as breathing; we have to develop thinking itself. That is why today's spiritual science, living at the height of its time, must speak of an education of the intellectual life, but not of the intellectual life that is almost the only one known today. It is precisely this intellectual life that has made us dry and arid, as if parched, for the full scope of life. No matter how much the one-sided intellectualism is railed against from all sides in the present day, nothing is being done to really fight it. One has the feeling that mere concepts, even those taken from serious and conscientious science, leave the soul cold and do not lead it along the paths of true life. On the other hand, however, one does not find the possibility of directing this intellectual life in a direction that can be satisfying, because one wants to avoid precisely that which the spiritual science meant here must regard as the right thing for the modern human being. The modern human being cannot, when he realizes the dryness, the sobriety, the one-sidedness of mere intellectualism, draw on some, as one often says, pre-thought, primitive, elementary life to improve himself as an intellectual person. He cannot, I would say, seek in a life of blind rage, which one does not understand, that which he wants to externally affix to intellectual civilization.

Therefore, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science seeks, through the practice-based development of the soul, that which modern man actually longs for in order to truly satisfy his soul. I have described in detail in the second part of my “Occult Science”, in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” and in other of my writings, how this path is to be followed in a way that is appropriate for Western man. In principle, I will only hint at the fact that it is a matter of taking hold of the soul life in such a way that one avoids developing concepts, notions and ideas in the highest degree, that one does not develop only the life of thought in a one-sided way, but that one exercises the soul in such a way that the most living feelings are connected with the thoughts themselves, which arise, combine and separate. While today the one-sided intellectualist is sober in his thought life, but also lets this thought life wander in the alien fields of science or other fields and otherwise thoughtlessly lives in life, that which anthroposophically oriented spiritual science calls its practice seeks to deepen into thinking, but at this deepening of thinking of thinking, so that one can rejoice, become angry, hate and love what one only thinks, how one hates and loves people, how one becomes angry at outer events, so that a whole inner life arises, arises in such liveliness as the outer life is. The books mentioned are intended to bear witness to the fact that this can be done systematically.

But then, when a person seeks out such paths, when he really develops the forces of knowledge, feeling and will that otherwise lie dormant within him, when he therefore takes his development in hand not from the body, as in the ancient oriental culture, in a regulated breathing process, but from the soul and from the spirit, then he finds the way into the spiritual world. And what forces does he apply? He applies the forces through which his civilization has become great. He applies the forces that he also applied in building his machines, in developing his mechanistic Copernican, Galilean, Keplerian, Newtonian astronomical conceptions. The powers of imagination and ingenuity that are developed by our minds and souls in our machines, what lives in our astronomy, in our chemistry, what lies in our social life, all this is being cultivated. The Oriental had none of this. He could not have continued his spiritual life to the point of developing these powers of the soul. He had to go to the breathing of the body in order to follow the path of knowledge. We must start from the point where we start in our outer practical life. We must proceed from the same soul and spiritual powers that live in our mechanistic culture, which has produced seven to eight hundred million specimens of the subhuman. We must develop a new orientation, that is, a vision of the higher, the eternal, the immortal human being from the most sensual, the most mechanical, from that which proves to be the path to the subhuman in our Western civilization.

However, not everything that wants to be part of modern civilization is appealing to modern people. For this modern man, he demands that the child should develop, because the child cannot yet make its own decision about its development. At the moment when he is supposed to make the decision himself, he no longer allows himself to be involved in the development; at that point he is done; at that point he allows himself to be elected to the city council, to parliament, because he knows everything. One knows everything. There is no need to descend to the development of abilities through which one knows something. One is a critic for everything, if only one has come to the awareness of one's arbitrariness, if only the others are no longer allowed to mess around in relation to development. This modern man must seek the way to ascend again to those heights where one finds the spiritual-soul man.

Now the fact of the matter is that for the time being the inner urge to seek this spiritual-soul-man, to tread the path to these realizations, is still a renunciation-filled one, for this path demands a life that certainly takes place in pain and suffering, a life that not everyone has to live today, not everyone can live, nor does everyone need to live. But just as not everyone can become a chemist, but the results of chemistry can be useful for all people, just as not everyone can become an astronomer, but the results of astronomy can appeal to all souls, so there can be few spiritual researchers, but the results of this spiritual research can be grasped by ordinary common sense, as I have often said here. The few spiritual researchers can communicate their spiritual insights, and common sense will understand them. But that is precisely what people today deny. They come and say: What you spiritual researchers communicate to us may be beautiful fantasies; but we dissect it logically, we do not accept it, because it does not show itself before our human understanding. We have not yet trained ourselves to see higher things.

One does experience very strange things in this area. Just recently another pamphlet has appeared about what I, as an anthroposophically oriented worldview, have to represent before humanity today. A man who is, well, a “university professor” says, where he gives me the brush-off as a philosopher and, as he says, as a theosophist: Yes, there Steiner claims that one must also become a chemist in order to understand chemical things, a physicist in order to understand physical things; one can admit that to him. But now it is very strange how this gentleman behaves strangely. He says: Everyone can agree with what chemists claim about this or that, because if he becomes a chemist himself, he will see that it is correct; everyone can agree with what physicists claim, because if he becomes a physicist himself, he will see that what physicists say is correct. But to understand what spiritual science says, one would have to develop special abilities.

But I am not saying anything else. Just as a person must become a chemist in order to judge chemistry, and as a person must become a physicist in order to judge physics, so a person must become a scholar of spiritual science in order to decide on spiritual science. But now, continuing his text, that strange - perhaps not so strange - university professor says: It is not a matter of what Steiner claims only being justified before people trained in spiritual science, but of it having to be justified before me! That is, it must be justified before someone who not only has no idea about it, but also does not want to get one.

This is, of course, a “common sense” written in quotation marks, which is not good at understanding what spiritual science has to offer. The unbiased common sense will grasp it. Yes, in the future people will perhaps think quite differently about these things than they are accustomed to thinking in many circles today. The world is there. The philosophers have always argued about the world. Well, philosophers will still have common sense. And one can even say, if one is unbiased: philosophy is better than its reputation. But philosophers argue. And if you are unprejudiced, you can even grant a certain acumen in the philosophical field to someone who says the opposite of what another is saying, again out of a certain acumen. Yes, if you are unprejudiced here in this field, you come to a very strange judgment about common sense. It is there. People generally speak in this common sense. But it is not at all suitable for understanding the world, otherwise philosophers would not need to argue. This ordinary common sense does not seem to be at all suitable for grasping the world that is presented to the senses externally, just as it is. Try to see if it can grasp what spiritual science has to say, and you will see: the way will open up for you to grasp precisely that. It is wishy-washy, not even mere prejudice, to say: humanitarians also claim different things; one this or the other that. This is said without knowledge of the facts. If one gets to know the facts, one will no longer claim this.

Of course, many a prejudice and many a preconception will have to be overcome if the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science referred to here is to be integrated into modern life. But it will have to be integrated. For the way will have to be found to combine the two spiritual currents you have been shown today. We cannot become reactionaries in order to return to earlier intellectual formations. We must place ourselves in that which the scientific, mechanistic age has produced. But we must spiritualize the forces that have brought forth a Copernicus, a Galileo, a Giordano Bruno, a Röntgen, a Becquerel and so on down to our own day, we must spiritualize these forces so that through the same forces of the human soul, through which we build machines, we also ascend to the knowledge of the spiritual-soul human being. Then we will no longer merely speak of the spirit, but we will be able to give content to the striving for the spirit.

This is what is so disturbing to the deeper observer of contemporary civilization: people today talk a lot about the spirit, but they give no content to this talk about the spirit. This gives rise to world views on the one hand, and to the practice of life in an unorganized way connected with these world views on the other, just as our spiritually scientific world view would be out of place in a house built in an old architectural style. Our spiritually scientific world view wants to live in structures that are born of itself. It should create and can create in such a way that it is able to permeate the external material life down to the technical details and the social interconnections. Then this spiritual science will be able to become the bearer of a civilization that finds the right ways to the goals that have been hinted at today. Then this spiritual science will no longer allow that life to flourish, of which one can say: Well, some strive towards the spirit again; they demand that the person who works hard in the factory no longer works only in the factory, but that he has enough time left over to devote to the spirit as well. Oh, no, spiritual science does not demand that one has to work in the factory and, when one locks the door behind oneself, then steps out of the factory to find spiritual life there. No, spiritual science demands the opposite: that when you enter the factory to go to work, you carry the spirit with you, so that every machine is imbued with the spirit of that which also carries the world view to the highest heights of knowledge, of the immortal. Spiritual science does not want to leave time for the spirit, but to imbue all time with what man can find as the content of his spirit.

Now, people often cry out for the spirit today. A book about socialism has just been published - there are all sorts of heartfelt and sometimes sensible views - by Robert Wilbrandt, a professor at the University of Tübingen. It sounds: Yes, but we will not get anywhere with socialism if we do not find the new spirit, the new soul. So on the last pages of the book, the cry for the spirit, for the soul! But if you take such a man, such a personality, to the point where the spirit is given content, where you not only interpret in the abstract in terms of spirit and soul, where you speak of spiritual and soul content as science otherwise speaks of natural content, then the personality in question withdraws, because they do not have the courage to profess the real spirit that is full of content. And so we see it in many. They cry out for the spirit. But when the spirit seeks a real content, they do not come forward. They remain in merely pointing to an abstract union of human souls with the spiritual. This is what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science seeks as a path: the path to real spiritual content, to a real spiritual world, out of our own organic powers of knowledge as a goal: to develop the merely inorganic two currents that have been joined together in us, Orientalism and Occidentalism, to form a striving that finds its way out of our own striving, both down into the mechanism and up into the highest spirituality.

I will conclude today by saying only the following, in anticipation of the further elaboration of this theme that I will give tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, when it will be possible to characterize many things more broadly than I could in today's introduction. The call for a new spirituality is echoing today in many hearts and minds, and in a certain way people already sense that our misfortune, which has manifested itself so terribly in the last five years, is connected in the outer world with the fact that our spirit has reached an impasse. That a wall must be broken through in order to make spiritual progress. There is a sense that we cannot make progress in the social, the political, or the outwardly technical spheres without a new spirit. A man who may not always have played a very favorable role, but perhaps a wiser one than some of his colleagues among the “statesmen” - I say that in quotation marks when I speak of statesmen today - in recent years, has now also - statesmen and generals write war memoirs today, after all - has now also written his war memoirs. They end with the following words:

“War will continue, albeit in a modified form. I believe that future generations will call the great drama that has dominated the world for five years not world war, but world revolution...”

These are the words of Czernin, the Austrian statesman. So at least one person can see how things are connected, even if only to a very limited extent. And he continues:

”... and we shall know that this world revolution has only begun with the world war. Neither Versailles nor Saint Germain will create a lasting work. In this peace lies the disintegrating seed of death. The convulsions that shake Europe are not yet diminishing. Like a mighty earthquake, the subterranean rumblings continue. Soon, the earth will open again and again, here or there, hurling fire against the sky; again and again, events of an elemental nature and force will sweep devastatingly across the lands. Until all that is reminiscent of the madness of this war and the French peace has been swept away.

Slowly, with unspeakable agony, a new world will be born. Future generations will look back on our time as if it were a long, evil dream, but day always follows the darkest night. Generations have sunk into the grave, murdered, starved, succumbed to disease. Millions have died in the quest to destroy and annihilate, with hatred and murder in their hearts.

But other generations are rising, and with them a new spirit. They will build up what war and revolution have destroyed. Every winter is followed by spring. That, too, is an eternal law in the cycle of life, that resurrection follows death.

Blessed are those who will be called upon to help build the new world as soldiers of labor.

Here, too, the call for the new spirit arises from the limited statesmanship of the old days. Now, this call for the new spirit must only be understood and take root truly and earnestly enough in people's souls. For even the most external events in life are connected with the most internal ones, the most external material events with the most internal spiritual experiences. And when we look at what the spirit, which reached its peak at the beginning of the 20th century, has lived out in the events of recent years, we will understand that the call for a new spiritual life must come true. With this new spiritual life, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science would like to have its ways and goals connected to the building of the world, just as those spiritual endeavors that fight it are visibly connected to the terrible events of recent years.

Just recently I read a remarkable lecture that was given in the Baltic region – note the date – on May 1, 1918. A physicist's lecture on May 1, 1918, ends with the words: “The world war has shown that the spiritual aspirations of the present day, the scientific work of the present day, are still too isolated.” The world war – roughly speaking, this physicist says – has taught us that in the future, what is being worked on in the scientific laboratories must be in an inner organic connection, in a continuous inner exchange of ideas, with what is being worked on in the general staffs. The most intimate alliance must be sought – so this physicist says – between science and the general staff. He sees the salvation of the future in this!

As one can see, the science of the past can even view alliances that are formed between it and the most destructive forces of humanity as an ideal. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science would like to form an alliance between its spiritual striving and all truly constructive forces of human civilization.

Before I proceed to the important consequences of spiritual science, which deal with the moral, social and religious forces of the human being, that are particularly relevant to the present day, I would like to insert a consideration today of what spiritual science has to say about the physical and mental health of the human being. Such a consideration as today's is justified because, after all, a person can only set humane and dignified moral goals, set social tasks and bring forth a corresponding religious life from the depths of his soul if these goals and achievements are based on what can be called his physical, mental and spiritual health.

You will assume from the outset that when we speak about the foundations of health in the spiritual-scientific, anthroposophical sense, then the spiritual and soul factors that come into consideration will be particularly touched upon. Now, however, such a consideration immediately encounters one of the oldest and, one might say, most controversial questions of human world view: the question of the connection between the soul and spirit in the human being and the physical body in general. Much has been thought about and much has been investigated with the means of various scientific fields regarding this question: How does the spiritual-soul of man actually relate to the physical body?

The spiritual science meant here must take the view that it cannot regard this question, as it is usually asked, from the outset as a correctly asked one. The usual question is: How does the human spirit or soul relate to the body, to the physical organization? This does not take into account whether the soul condition and soul strength that we can call the arbitrary of the human being, might not perhaps found a special relationship between spirit and body in different ways in different people, whether certain circumstances might not intervene through precisely these forces that the human being develops in his soul, in his physical organization. And this question can actually only be treated by a spiritual-scientific consideration, such as the one I took the liberty of presenting to you yesterday. For if we consider what has led the science of the West to its triumphs in the sense in which it was characterized yesterday, we must say that it is not an element that leads to the human being, but rather an element that, in a certain respect, actually removes us from the human being.

What, in particular, does the scientist who has adopted the principles of the last three to four centuries strive for in his science? He strives in particular to gain such ideas about external things and also about man, in which as little as possible, or even better, no human feelings and impulses of will interfere. The more one is able to keep apart from scientific observation everything that can be called subjective and personal, the more one believes that the ideal of this scientific observation has been fulfilled. The physicist and the biologist no longer believe that they can fulfil their task if they mix anything into their findings that can only be grasped inwardly in the soul.

If I may recall what I characterized yesterday as an ideal of oriental world view, which admittedly belongs to a distant past, it must be said that since the whole person was brought up for that transformation, for that development of human nature, which in the Orient formed the basis of a world view, this method was the complete opposite of what appears to us today as a scientific ideal.

Now, when we devote ourselves to such things, we have to discard many of the prejudices that apply, I would say, as a matter of course. However, in a short time these will no longer be matters of course, but prejudices that have been created by the education of humanity over the last three to four centuries.

If we really delve into the fundamental character of what characterizes all our thinking, impregnated as it is with science, we find that only one part, one link in the whole of human nature, actually finds favor with this thinking today : that which may be called the intellectual element, the element that rises to thoughts free of feeling and will, that wants to add nothing from its own subjective human nature to this process of imagining. But as a result, the whole human being as such does not participate in the most important scientific work, but only that part of the human being that is the bearer of the intellectual soul life.

What I characterized yesterday as the truly Western striving for a spiritual-scientific world view wants to develop the soul forces that produce a world view out of the whole of human nature, without returning to oriental ideals. Therefore, yesterday I had to characterize the paths of knowledge that lead to such an anthroposophically oriented spiritual-scientific world view in the following way. While the man who is merely scientific develops intellectualized thinking through his experiments or his observations of nature, the one who wants to ascend to a spiritual-scientific view must draw purified feelings and purified will impulses from the depths of his soul life. He must indeed immerse himself in a world of thought. He must be able to work in an intellectual way just as only the most exact scientist can. But he stands in a different way to intellectuality with his humanity than this exact scientist does. He immerses himself in worlds of ideas, he immerses himself in that which otherwise only the pale, shadowy thought delivers. But just as one otherwise only participates in the events of external life with one's sympathies and antipathies, with one's whole emotional world, just as one otherwise only participates in the demands of life with one's will impulses, so in the case of someone who wants to seek the path into the spiritual world in the sense of this spiritual science, feeling, willing, sympathies and antipathies accompany thoughts and ideas. We connect an inner element of sympathy or antipathy, an inner volition, with the way in which the ideas work, how they relate to one another. We would otherwise only have this kind of connection with a person of flesh and blood, or with nature in a lesser sense, or we develop it when we are hungry or thirsty or when other tasks of ordinary life arise. The inner life is as active in the volition under the influence of hunger and thirst as it is in the feelings that one develops towards loved or hated people, as it is in the methods that are to lead to spiritual insight. The whole human being, with all their feelings and intentions, participates in these methods. This develops different insights, different relationships to the external world and also to other people than mere intellectual activity.

If the insights that become the content of spiritual science in this way – which, after all, are a closed book to the broadest sections of contemporary humanity, not because the spiritual scientists seal this book with seven seals, but because those who should approach this spiritual science so that they need not approach it, first seal it with the seven seals of their prejudices and their scorn and derision - when this content of spiritual science is then taken up by people, when the soul of the human being unites with it, it therefore also works differently than the content of mere intellectual knowledge. It takes hold of the whole soul of the human being directly. It pours energies and forces into the whole soul of the human being. And when the content of spiritual science is gained in such a way that it corresponds to the great world-law connections, then it pours, so to speak, the same forces into the human soul from which the human organism is built. For the human organism is built out of the forces of the world. Spiritual scientific knowledge, in turn, goes back to these forces of the world. Thus, there must be an inner harmony between what is recognized through spiritual science from the perspective of world law and what arises from the organization of the human being as the human being himself, in that the human being receives his own organization from the foundations of the world order.

But this has the consequence that there is a completely different relationship between what one takes in as the content of spiritual science and the whole development of the human being, and what only occupies the intellect, such as natural science or, as today, social science and the like, and this human being himself. But there is something that obscures this relationship. This makes it difficult for anyone who has not yet penetrated to the actual meaning of spiritual science to form a precise idea of such things. It must be said that just as the healthy nature of the human being is organized in a healthy way out of the world, so too is the content of spiritual science gained in a healthy way and can therefore, since it encompasses the whole human being, not only have an effect on the intellect but also on the whole human being. If one says this, then today, anyone who is a layperson in spiritual science will draw the following conclusion. He will say: Of course, I will hypothetically admit that you, as a spiritual scientist, draw healthy thoughts from your view of the world. Thoughts that are intellectual and shadowy have no effect on the human organism; yours are conceived with reference to the whole nature of man, they therefore have an effect on the human organism, and we shall be able to use them, let us assume hypothetically, in the sense of healthy human nature. Let us say, then, that the thoughts which you develop as healthy thoughts through your spiritual science will be used in such a way that we imbibe them and let them take effect in us, and then, like a medicine, they can work against the aberrations of human nature. |

However obvious this hypothesis may be, and however much credence it has found among certain superstitious people, it corresponds little to reality as I have just stated it. And here it is necessary, I might say, to touch on the foundation that must be laid in order to understand the interaction between healthy spiritual and mental life and healthy physical life in the right way. When a human being enters physical existence through birth or through conception from spiritual worlds, by clothing himself with a physical body, we see that what the soul and spirit takes on with this physical body needs time to take effect. The child arrives in the physical world with its predispositions. But it must grow up. We can observe how, from month to month, from year to year, from decade to decade, the physical organization first brings forth what is spiritually and soulfully predisposed in the human being. Those who, through the spiritual science referred to here, acquire the ability to penetrate into the real connection between the spiritual and soul life and the bodily and physical, come to the following realization, not through some kind of logical fantasy, but through a penetrating, very conscientious observation of life that is continued over long periods of time:

Just as the whole nature of the human being takes time to integrate as a spiritual-soul element of the physical organization, so everything that we take in spiritually and soulfully first takes time to integrate into the physical-bodily organization. So when I, as an eight-year-old child, or as a twenty-year-old, or only as a fifty-year-old, take in something of spiritual-soul content, when something of such content takes hold of my soul, then this content is, in relation to my bodily organization where it enters my soul, as young as the soul of a child in relation to the bodily organization, and such soul content takes time to take effect in the body. Therefore, one cannot hope that, in the manner of American thought healing, one can invent thoughts that are introduced into the person like a liquid medicine and that work immediately. No, the transformation that the spiritual-soul content undergoes as it increasingly penetrates the bodily-physical requires time. One spiritual-soul content needs less time, the other more, but time must elapse between the moment when a spiritual-soul content is taken up in the abstract, when we penetrate it cognitively, and the state when it has organized us thoroughly.

What I am telling you here is not just any old idea that can be carelessly tacked onto life's phenomena. Rather, it is something that is discovered as conscientiously as any laboratory or clinical result, and much more conscientiously. In such investigations, one starts out from the paths that ordinary, everyday spiritual assimilation undergoes in the human being, in that the human being can later conjure up from the depths of his soul that which he has once taken into that soul, in terms of memory. In the course of their lives, the vast majority of people simply bypass the paths that the soul life takes in relation to memory; they do not observe how it is quite differently experienced when we remember something that we experienced decades ago and something that we experienced three days ago. We certainly draw both from the depths of our soul. But what we experienced three days ago or even three years ago proves, to someone with the ability to observe such things, to be something that is drawn, I might say, from the shallower depths of our soul life, and is still entirely mental content. What one remembers as an older person from one's childhood experiences is what one brings up from the depths of the soul. If one observes the process, one sees how it is already intimately intertwined with the whole body, how it permeates our body like a soul blood, how it has strongly taken on the character of the forces that denote the habitual in us.

This, of course, is only the beginning of the detailed method by which it is observed how, over time, what we absorb as spiritual-mental content first unites with the physical body. From this you will realize how spiritual science must demand that its way of caring for physical and mental health be considered not only among the arts that have an immediate effect, but how it appeals to what, first of all, is child-rearing, and secondly, what is national education and national life. For spiritual science must work with foresight, I would say with a prophetic vision, with regard to human health.

If you see through what I am touching on here, you will only then realize what it means when spiritual-scientific impulses are incorporated into educational methods, when our children are actually educated in such a way that the educational impulses are kept in a spiritual-scientific sense; and then the things that are taught to children are imbued, not with spiritual-scientific theories – the world has no need to fear that – but with a spiritual-scientific attitude, with a spiritual-scientific disposition of soul, and above all with a spiritual-scientific pedagogical fire. This will penetrate the child's mind, and will then connect with the soul and physical organization, growing and, because it is healthy, merging with the human organization in a healthy way, making it healthy and strong, and resistant to external influences.

When the world once realizes the full significance of what spiritual science can achieve here, then gradually all the beautiful theories of infectious diseases and the like, which today are only viewed in a one-sided way, will not disappear, but they will become less important. Much more attention will be paid to the way in which bacilli and bacteria enter our organism than to how strong we have become in soul and spirit to resist these invasions. This strength in human nature will not require an external remedy, but the remedy that strengthens people internally from the spirit and from the soul through a healthy spiritual-scientific content. In this way, public health care is placed on a fundamentally different basis through spiritual science than anyone could have dreamt of, who believes that the salvation of human development can only lie in the continuation of current views.

Among many things, I would like to draw attention to just one, to which I have already drawn the attention of some prominent figures here in this city from other points of view. Today, for example, in education, in teaching, an enormous value is placed on the so-called contemplation, and rightly so, because within certain limits it is good to lead the child directly to the external or internal contemplation and to let his ideas and concepts be imagined by him in such a way that he draws them himself. But not everything that is needed for the child's development into a human being can be brought to it in this way. And so much must enter into the child merely by looking up to his educator, to his teacher as his authority, to the one who develops a certain fire in educating, in teaching, who transmits imponderables from himself to the child with his fire. There will then be some things that the child absorbs in the belief that the authority believes in them; but it does not yet understand them. Then the time may come, perhaps fifteen or twenty years after the child has left school, when he remembers: “You learned that then and didn't understand it. Now you have matured, now you are bringing it up from the depths of your soul. Now you understand it.” Anyone who is familiar with the soul life of a human being knows that such an understanding, mediated by later ripening, of what one has carried in one's soul for years, perhaps decades, develops forces that strengthen the human being inwardly; nothing pours such energy into the will from the innermost part of the soul as learning to understand something through one's own ripening power, something that one took in years ago on authority, on someone's saying. In this way, pedagogy can be combined with ideal and spiritual hygiene. When such far-reaching views are fully integrated into our public health care system, then the spiritual that is rooted in humanity will be able to truly unfold its energies, which are so beneficial for humanity. While everything we absorb through our intellect and its development is, so to speak, detached from the human being and therefore cannot have an effect on the human being, what is drawn from the whole human nature, the spiritual-scientific, can also have an effect on this whole human nature. And if, in the field of medicine, we look not only for momentary success but also for a system of health care that takes into account the laws of the world, and thus also the laws of time, we have the opportunity to work in this direction with tremendous benefit. Unfortunately, however, the nature of present-day humanity is such that it does not like to look at that which eludes the moment and which, I might say, goes into the great with its effect. Modern man would prefer to take leave of the laws of the world and become ill at will. You will understand that I do not mean this quite literally, but it is something that human nature tends towards. And then, again, he would like to be cured in the twinkling of an eye. But what must be borne in mind is that the strong inner energy should be developed in individual people's education, and indeed throughout their whole lives, in order to really bring to fruition the healing powers of the soul, of the spirit, in people. From this point of view, it will be seen that physical and mental health depend very much on the development of such a strong and vigorous soul life in people that this strong and vigorous soul life can actually intervene in the physical being.

To do this, it is necessary to broaden our perspective over longer periods of time. That which affects our intellect does not affect our will at the same time. And although we may never have influenced our will, we can strain our will at any age with ever so healthy ideas and thoughts, in order to act on our soul from the intellect, we will not succeed. For from the intellect, no spiritual-soul content can directly intervene in human nature. We must also influence the will. We influence the will through everything that arouses our interest in the world, that arouses our share, our loving participation in the world. People often go through the world, I would say, with a certain mental deficiency. Of course, there are also deeper causes, but one of the causes of imbecility is that such people have not understood how to develop a broad and deep interest in everything that lives and works around them when they were children, because this development of interest affects the will. And only when the will has been strengthened in this way can that which affects the intellect later gain influence over the whole human being. The worst thing that can happen to a person in terms of their physical and mental health is that their physical organization separates from their spiritual being. In mediumship, this separation of the physical organization of the human being from his soul and spiritual being is brought about in an almost experimental way. We see that the spiritual-soul being is virtually paralyzed, put to sleep for a certain time, so that the bodily-physical, with which, however, the spiritual is also always connected, seems to work automatically. Seen from the right point of view, mediumship is nothing more than a real illness, a real discord between the spiritual-mental, which has become quite unenergetic, and the physical-bodily, which therefore gains the upper hand. Therefore, mediumship, when it is radically extended, is always associated with the paralysis of the will, with the entire paralysis of the soul of the medium concerned. And since the moral can only arise from the soul's energy, there is also, as a rule, a certain moral decline associated with mediumship. It is precisely from the insight into the connection between spiritual and mental health and physical and bodily health that everything that is the dark side of mediumship can truly be seen.

If only those who judge mediumship without knowledge of the actual essence of spiritual science did not all too often lump spiritual science together with all the aberrations of the zeitgeist or of modern times in general, as I am pointing out here! It is certainly easier to appeal to spiritless mediumship to learn something about the spiritual world than to appeal to spiritual science, which demands effort. When one appeals to mediumship, one has the spirit reported by a medium, but first one has to eliminate the spirit. It is a convenient method to get to the spirit. Spiritual science, however, demands that one not switch off the spirit in another in order to learn something about the spirit, but that one bring the spirit within oneself to higher development and unfoldment, so that one can direct one's forces into the spiritual world and experience the peculiarities of the spiritual world there. If one were to look at spiritual science without prejudice, one would see how it is the universal remedy against such aberrations as those to which I have now alluded in a few words.

Thus, it can be said that health care is a necessary consequence of what spiritual science wants to bring into human development. But of course human nature is subject to a wide variety of influences. No one should interpret what I have discussed so far as if I meant that the cultivation of spiritual science should one day eliminate all diseases from the world. I certainly do not mean that at all. Diseases have their causes. The process of healing is more important than the knowledge of their causes. And here it is a matter of the fact that spiritual science also has something to say, not only about the care of health, which has spiritual scientific foundations, but that, as with all aspects of life, it also has something to say about medicine itself. It is a fact, though denied by many because they do not want to admit the truth on this point, but it nevertheless exists, that many people who have really thought things through and have gone through medical studies today, when they then feel abandoned to suffering humanity, are afflicted by the most bitter mental anguish because they then realize what demands the human organism makes on human insight when it strays from the healthy into the diseased, and how little can be gained for this medical work from the means and methods of knowledge of the purely scientific approach. The shadowy side of mere natural science observation is clearly shown in medicine, which, incidentally, also has a light side with regard to the observation of mere external nature. In medicine, the dark side is there. For one has only to consider the following: This natural science, it may be said once more, places its main emphasis on completely excluding the human being by looking at the world in an intellectualistic way and seeking its natural laws in an intellectualistic way through experiments. One learns only what can be learned from observation of the effect of this or that remedy on the sick person, of the effect in general of this or that natural product on the human being. But one lacks the inner vision of the connection, firstly, of the whole human nature, but secondly, of the connection between what is produced outside in nature, be it as food or as a remedy, and the human being itself. And only when one wishes to proceed from pure natural science to medicine in such an unprejudiced way does one realize what it means to exclude the human being from the point of view and then to apply what has been gained from such a point of view to human nature. Natural science excludes everything that can arise in human nature in order, as it says, to arrive at true objectivity. And it does achieve objectivity. But this objectivity does not include the human being. Man first excludes himself. It is no wonder that he does not include the human being in the science that he is now developing. Now this science is to be applied to the human being. It cannot be applied because no consideration has been given to the human being.

The complete opposite is the case with anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Here, the whole human being is called upon to gain insights into the human being and the world. In this case, however, the insights are also based differently. In order to make myself clear on this point, I would also like to recall today how the spiritual science that is meant here is basically only one expression of what was established in the first element as a new knowledge of nature by the much-misunderstood natural scientist, not the poet Goethe. It is precisely for this reason that we call our building out on the hill in Dornach the Goetheanum, because we want to practise Goetheanism, but not the kind of Goetheanism practised by Goethe researchers who believe that the Goethean spirit came to an end in 1832 and that in order to practise Goethean science one has to study what this Goethean spirit has produced. No, we are pursuing a Goetheanism that does not go back to 1832, but which is a Goetheanism through the continuing influence of the Goethean spirit today from 1920. But what appears in Goethe in a very elementary way can today be grasped in a higher education by the course of human development.

Now I want to mention something seemingly quite remote, but by means of which I will be able to illustrate how one can reach the highest heights of spiritual science, starting from Goetheanism. Goethe proceeded from the similarities, the relationships, especially in the nature of living beings. It became clear to him how the whole plant is only a complicated leaf and a single plant leaf is an entire plant, only simply formed. Thus, Goethe saw in every part of an organism the metamorphosis, the transformed form of the other part. He sought to discover the origin of the enigmatic forms of the human skull bones, namely for the unbiased observer. As he himself recounts, he once went to the Jewish cemetery in Venice and found a sheep's skull that had split particularly well. The bones had fallen apart in such a way that their shape had a direct effect on Goethe's soul. And as he looked at this shape, he said to himself: Yes, these skull bones are nothing other than transformed, metamorphosed backbone bones. If the simple, almost ring-shaped vertebrae of the spine transform themselves – so Goethe believed – in such a way that certain extensions grow stronger and certain bulges flatten, then the skull bones arise from the transformed growth of the simple vertebrae of the spine. In this way, Goethe was able to express for the first time what, with a certain modification, is also a result of our present-day human anatomy: that the skull bones are transformed spinal cord vertebrae. In connection with this, because it will also explain the matter I am referring to, I may relate a kind of personal experience. These Goethean views have been particularly close to me since the late 1870s. Well, I already started writing about the Goethean scientific world view back then. This view of the transformation of the skull bones, the vertebral bones into skull bones, was also part of what I developed in more detail for the Goethean world view. But I said to myself, how could it have escaped such a universal mind as Goethe's that when one speaks of the transformation of the vertebral bones into skull bones, one must proceed to the view of the transformation of the simple nervous structure in the spinal cord into the complicated structure of the brain, so that one must also look at the brain as a transformation of the simple nervous structure that sits inside the spinal cord vertebra. And when I was appointed to Weimar at the end of the 1880s, to work at the Goethe and Schiller Archive on the new edition or the first edition of Goethe's unpublished writings, it was naturally a pleasant task for me to examine whether there might be something to be found somewhere, a clue that Goethe also had this view of the transformation of form of the brain from simple nerve ganglia. And lo and behold, when I got hold of a notebook with poorly written pencil strokes from the 1790s, I found Goethe had noted down this view of the human brain exactly as I had suspected!

I would like to point out another way of looking at things – admittedly, it is only just emerging in Goethe in an elementary form – a way of looking at things other than that which merely observes the laws of nature in an intellectual way. I would like to point out a way of looking at things that is instinctively within Goethe, which draws on the whole human being. In the kind of dissecting, analytical experimental method that is common in natural science today, one does not see such transformations correctly, because one must take everything into account, not just what one can measure and count. One must also take into account what one can only observe in terms of its intensity, its quality. In spiritual science, one must advance even further. There one must actually observe things according to the qualities that the spirit of the world, the soul of the world, impresses upon them, which are not found in the external scientific method.

Then one arrives at such results as the one that one might believe to be perhaps only an aperçu, but which is not an aperçu, but the result of spiritual scientific work, which I may say I have been working on for more than thirty years, that result which divides man into three, I would say, subdivisions of his nature. It is usually assumed that what is spiritual in man is soul-like and bound to his sensory nervous system. That is indeed today's one-sided view – the one who is familiar with the development of science understands that it had to come to this – that today man believes that the spiritual-soul life depends solely and exclusively on the nervous system. You can read what I have to say about this point from spiritual scientific investigations in my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' (Puzzles of the Soul), which was published two years ago. There I tried to show that only the intellectual-sensual life is connected to the sensory nervous system as its tool in human nature, that which observes objects sensually and processes them intellectually. In contrast, the human being's emotional life is directly, not only indirectly, connected to the rhythmic life in the human being, that rhythmic life which includes the respiratory system, the blood circulation system connected to it, and which is connected to the carrier of the intellectual system in a peculiar way, namely like this: we have the so-called cerebral fluid in us as the most important component of our brain. Our brain is, however, first and foremost a nervous organ that has to process what is conveyed by the senses. But this brain floats in brain water. And this brain water, which fills our main cavity, our spinal cord cavity, has a special task. When we exhale, the brain water sinks from top to bottom. The diaphragm rises, causing the brain water to sink; the opposite happens when we inhale. So we are in a continuous rhythm of brain water rising and falling.

This rhythm of the ascending and descending brain water is the outer carrier of the emotional life in man. And through the interaction of that which the brain nerves experience with that which arises as such a rhythm through the brain water, that which is the exchange between feelings and thoughts arises.

This is an area where anthroposophically oriented knowledge of the human being has a long way to go if the human being is to be properly understood in his soul-spiritual and physical being. Only when one has developed those methods of knowledge within oneself, which are characterized in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, in my “Occult Science”, in other of my writings, then one really learns to recognize, by having an inner soul life that is able to see through such things, how emotional life can be separated from intellectual life. Otherwise they mix. And the person with ordinary knowledge does not learn to recognize that the brain, that the nerve-sense apparatus, is only the carrier of the intellectual, while the rhythmic in the human being is the carrier of the life of feeling.

And in the same way, the metabolism is the carrier of the will, wherever it occurs; the metabolism in the brain is also the carrier of the will. But with the nervous-sensory activity, with the rhythmic activity, with the metabolic activity, the essence of the human being in relation to his functions is exhausted. That is the whole human being. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science seeks to grasp this whole human being through the powers of knowledge, again from the whole human being. Because it draws on everything that comes not only from the intellect, but also from the life of feeling and its carrier, the rhythmic activity of the human being, and because it also draws its insights from what lives and weaves spiritually in the human being's metabolism, it can grasp the whole human being. Only in this way does it actually learn to recognize what the lungs, liver, spleen and other organs mean in the human being; for this can only be recognized by taking the spiritual impregnation of things as a guide.

In this way, one acquires an intuitive knowledge of the human being, and one paves the way for an intuitive medicine. By looking at the human being as a mechanism, one does not learn to recognize him. You only learn to recognize the mechanical aspects of the human body. By taking hold of the human being in this way, by further expanding the Goethean approach, which is intuitive, and by further spiritualizing it, the individual organs of the human being in their metamorphoses become transparent. But then, when one has come to know what these individual metamorphoses of the human organism mean, one can place the human being, who one has now grasped, back into nature. If we first recognize nature in such a way that we exclude the human being, then we cannot place the human being back into nature. If we really get to know the human being as I have described him, we can also place him back into nature. We study his organology and we learn to recognize the deep relationship that exists between the human being and the cosmos. Then the connection between the food taken from the outer nature and the human organization becomes clear. But then the connection between the remedy taken from the outer nature or from the soul in the case of spiritual healing and the whole human nature also becomes clear.

I could only sketch out this view of the human being. But what I have sketched out is the way out of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science into an intuitive medicine, into the kind of medicine that, I would like to say, so many long for today, who have gone through the course of medical studies without prejudice and then feel released upon suffering humanity. They miss the intuitive, spiritual element in what has impressed them in human knowledge and the art of healing. It is precisely in medicine that it is most intensely apparent what a science can achieve when it excludes the human being from its methods.

Oh, I know that what I am saying is still facing a wall of prejudice in the present. But this wall of prejudice must be addressed again and again. It will take a long time before a larger number of people will attempt the path outlined here, because it is less convenient than the path taken today. Just as the whole plant is, in the Goethean sense, a complex leaf, so the whole human being is, in a sense, composed of three people: the thinking person, who perceives through the senses; the rhythmic person; and the metabolic person. Each represents a person in a certain way, and the three people must be built up to form the whole nature of the human being. And each link in the human being relates to external nature in a different way. But what that mysterious connection is between remedy and disease can only be grasped by the intuitive medicine characterized here.

I also know that many people today still feel that it is presumptuous of the spiritual science meant here to think, among many other things, of reforming medicine. It must think of it out of a sacred obligation to the progress of humanity. For he must realize that the path trodden by natural science in the last three or four centuries, which has been a blessing in so many fields, can never become a healing one for the treatment of the sick person. Just as the artist cannot be a true artist if he only knows the aesthetic laws intellectually, so the physician cannot be a healer if he only knows what are today called natural laws. He must be able to live with his whole being in the weaving and being of nature itself. He must be able to immerse himself in the creative and weaving nature. Then he will be able to follow with heartfelt interest the paths that nature takes when it is ill. Then, from the observation of the healthy person, the observation of the sick person will become clear to him.

Not only does spiritual science have something to contribute to hygiene, which it gains from spiritual forces, but spiritual science must also open up the prospect of an intuitive medicine. Anyone who engages with this spiritual science will hear how I have today only characterized in broad strokes and in general, in the abstract, a path to an intuitive medicine, but how much of what I have outlined here is already developed, how much is just waiting for the moment when the official representatives of medical knowledge come and acquire the insight that it must be taken up. This applies to physical illnesses of the body as well as to illnesses of the soul itself. Today, one must already appear immodest if one wants to point out what spiritual science believes it can contribute to the healing and nature of the human being on the basis of sound knowledge.

I would like to make the transition to what I will deal with tomorrow about the moral, religious and social nature of man by pointing out, in conclusion, how, precisely in such a field as that of a truly intuitive medicine, it would be the ideal of the spiritual scientist to be able to express himself before those who are truly experts. If they would come and allow their expertise to be spoken without prejudice, then they would see how this expertise could be enriched by spiritual science. Spiritual science does not fear the criticism of experts. Spiritual science is not amateurish dilettantism. Spiritual science attempts to create from deeper scientific foundations than those of ordinary outer science today. Spiritual science knows that lay opinion, not expertise, is what it might fear if it had not long since unlearned fear for easily understandable reasons. Spiritual science has no need to fear or be afraid of expertise or impartiality. It knows that the more expertly its results are considered, the more they will be taken up in a positive sense. Particularly with regard to the perspective of an intuitive medicine, one would like to recall an old saying, the universal value of which I do not wish to examine today, but which in a certain limited sense must certainly apply to the approach that willingly shows itself to be applied in the art of treating the sick person. The ancients said: Only the same can recognize the same. In order to heal the person, one must first recognize him. What science does today in the human being is not the whole human being, therefore not the human being, therefore not the human being. When the whole human being is called upon to recognize the human being, then the same - the human being - will be recognized by the same - the human being. And then an art of human knowledge and human treatment will arise that, on the one hand, will maintain human health in social coexistence as much as it can be maintained, and which, on the other hand, will treat illness as it can only be treated from the combination of all the real healing factors.

A view of the world, as it is intended to be in spiritual science, must prove itself by giving people support for what they need in life. The support for life must be what we can call moral strength. But the support for life must also include, among other things, what we can call the inner soul-condition that can arise in a person from feeling that he is a member of the great cosmic whole, from feeling so incorporated into the cosmic whole that it corresponds to what one can call one's religious need. As for man's inner moral strength, Schopenhauer spoke an excellent word, even if the further remarks he made on these words in his own way seem quite disputable. He said: It is easy to preach morals, but to found morals is difficult. This is indeed a true saying of life. For in general, to recognize what is good, what the moral life demands of us, is relatively easy as a matter of intellect. But to draw from the primal forces of the soul those impulses that are necessary in man to place himself in the fabric of life as a morally powerful being, that is difficult. But that is what it means to found morality. To found morality is not merely to say what is good, what is moral. To found morality is to bring to man such impulses, which, by absorbing them into his soul life, become a real strength, a real efficiency in him.

Now, at the present stage of civilization, man's moral consciousness is embedded in the world in a very unique way, in a way that is not always fully consciously observed, but which is the reason for many uncertainties and insecurities that prevail in people's lives. On the one hand, we have our intellectually oriented knowledge, our insight, which makes it possible for us to penetrate into natural phenomena, which makes it possible for us to absorb the whole world into our imagination to a certain extent, which makes it possible for us, in an admittedly very limited way, as we have seen in the last two reflections here, to also make ideas about the nature of man.

Alongside what flashes up in us as our cognitive faculty, as everything that is, I would say, directed by our human logic, alongside all this, another element of our being asserts itself, the one from which our moral duty, our moral love, in short, the impulses for moral action, arise. And it must be said that modern man lives, on the one hand, in his cognitive abilities and their results, and on the other hand, in his moral impulses. Both are soul contents. But for this modern man, there is basically little mediation between the two, so little mediation that, for example, Kant could say: There are two things that are most precious to him in the world: the starry heavens above him, the moral law within him. But precisely this Kantian way of thinking, which lies dormant in the modern human being, knows of no bridge between what leads to knowledge of the world on the one hand and what moral impulses are on the other. Kant regards the life of knowledge in his Critique of Pure Reason and the moral life in his Critique of Practical Reason as if by chance.

And if we are completely honest with our sense of the times, we must actually say that there is an abyss here between two ways of experiencing human nature. Today's science, in forming ideas about the course of world evolution in the most diverse fields of knowledge, regards the workings of nature from the simplest living creatures, indeed from inorganic nature, right up to the human being. It forms ideas about how this world, which is directly before us, came into being. It also forms ideas about the processes by which the former end of this world, which is immediately before us, could take place. But now, from within man, who is nevertheless interwoven with this natural order, there wells up what he calls his moral ideals. And man perceives these moral ideals in such a way that he can only feel himself valuable if he follows these ideals, if there is agreement between him and these ideals. Man makes his value dependent on these moral ideals. But if we imagine that the forces of nature, which become accessible to man through his knowledge, are once upon a time approaching their end, where does today's sense of time leave what man creates out of his moral ideals, out of his moral impulses? Anyone who is honest, who does not shroud today's consciousness in nebulousness, must admit that, in the face of present-day scientific knowledge, these moral ideals are something by which man must guide himself in life, but by which nothing is created that could once triumph when the earth, together with man, comes to an end.

It is, for today's consciousness, one must only admit it, no bridge between the cognitive abilities that lead to natural knowledge and the abilities that govern us by being moral beings. Man is not aware of everything that goes on in the depths of his soul. Much remains unconscious. But what rumbles unconsciously down there asserts itself in life through disharmony, through mental or even physical illness. And anyone who just wants to see what is going on today without prejudice will have to say: our life is surging, and there are people in this life with all kinds of mental and physical contradictions. And that which surges up wells up from a depth in which something is indeed active that is like those weak human powers that cannot build a bridge between the moral life and the knowledge of nature. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science addresses these questions in the following way. It must abandon everything that is, on the one hand, only a theoretical view of external reality. It must therefore recognize everything that, as I explained in the last two lectures here, would like to exclude the human being from this view of nature, so that a true objectivity can arise.

What I characterized as the path to the spiritual world is presented, to summarize what I said earlier, in the following way: First of all, anyone who wants to enter the spiritual world must devote themselves to a certain inner soul-spiritual work. In my books, I have summarized this inner practice, this inner spiritual-soul work, as meditation and concentration work. This work enables people to relate to their imaginative life differently than they do in ordinary life when we observe natural phenomena or even social life. It is a complete being-with-the-ideas, which otherwise only accompany our outer impressions like shadows. Just as I said, we usually face people or nature or anything else in physical life with our feelings, with our sympathies and antipathies, and we face facts with our will emotions. How these ideas arise, that disturbs us, that challenges our sympathy and antipathy, that stimulates our entire life force. This becomes our destiny. While we are outwardly quite calm, inwardly we are going through something that is by no means weaker than what we otherwise go through as life's destiny in the outer world. We are, so to speak, doubling our lives. While we usually get excited, develop sympathy and antipathy, and assert volitional impulses only in the outer life, in relation to outer events, we carry what otherwise only occupies us in this outer material world into our inner life of thought. If we can do this — and everyone can do it if they practise as I have described in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds' or in my 'Occult Science' —, if we can really carry this out, then there comes a moment for us when in which he not only has images of the world when he opens his senses, when he hears or sees, but where he has images purely from the life of imagination, so full of content images, if I may use the expression, so full of sap, as they otherwise only come to us through sensory perception. They come through this thus intensified and sharpened life of imagination. Without sensory perception, we live in a world of images, as they otherwise only come to us through sensory perception.

But another significant experience is linked to this – these things can only be understood as experiences; abstract logic, so-called reasoning does not lead to them. Another experience is connected to this: We learn through such practice what it means to develop a spiritual-soul activity independently of the physical activity. The moment comes for the human being when he can rightly admit to himself, if I may put it this way, that he is a materialist, however strange and paradoxical that may sound. At this moment he can say: yes, in ordinary life we are completely dependent on the tools of our body. We think through the instrument of our nervous system. But that is precisely what characterizes this outer life, that we traverse it only by developing the soul and spiritual when it avails itself of the bodily instruments. But the soul and spiritual is not dependent on merely availing itself of the bodily instruments. Through the efforts described, it can free itself from the physical tool, can become free of the body. No matter how much speculation and philosophizing one does with materialism, if one only brings against it what can be known from ordinary life, one will never refute it, because for ordinary life, materialism is right. Materialism can only be refuted through spiritual practice, by detaching the soul-spiritual from the bodily in direct experience. One visualizes – I called it imaginative visualization in the books mentioned – one visualizes, but outside of the body, whereby the “outside” is of course not to be imagined spatially, but independently of the body. This is one side of what one must get to know within anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in order to really build the bridge that cannot be built in the way we have described. What one attains in this way as the content of imaginative knowledge is not in the human body, but outside of it. This provides the practical explanation that our innermost being was in the spiritual-soul world before it clothed itself with this body. For one is not only outside of the body, one is outside of time, in which one lives with the body. In this way, one really experiences the prenatal, or let us say, the pre-physical conception in man. Just as a light from outside shines into the room, so our prenatal life shines into our present life in this imagination.

What shines in is not just thoughts, it has a living content. This living content reveals itself as something very special. It reveals itself as a certain, I might say, intellectual content. So, as we cultivate, sharpen and strengthen our imaginative life in the way I have described, we come out of ourselves into a will content that has something living about it at the same time. It is the will content that creates in us what clothes itself in the physical body, what we do not have through heredity, what we do not have at all from the physical world.

Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science does not arrive at the realization of immortality through speculative processing of ordinary life, but rather through the cultivation of a cognitive faculty that is initially not present in ordinary life. What is particularly important for us today, however, is that in this way we reach beyond our physical body, even beyond the time in which our physical body lives. There one arrives at ideas that are still difficult for most people today to imagine, but which must become an important link in the evolution of humanity towards the future.

And now something very strange comes to light when one not only exercises on one side, that of the life of imagination, but also when one exercises on the side of the life of will. We human beings live, I would say, as Faust goes through life, saying, “I have only run through the world.” We run through the world. Of course, we undergo a development between birth and death, from month to month, from year to year, from decade to decade; but we undergo this development by, as it were, abandoning ourselves to external objectivity. Hand on heart, how many people do it differently than letting themselves be carried by life, be it by childhood, where adults educate them, or by later life and its fate? They become more perfect because the world makes them more perfect. But what do most people do differently, other than just abandon themselves to the stream of life? However, by abandoning oneself to the stream of life, one does not come to the spiritual path meant here. It is necessary that one takes self-discipline into one's own hands, that one actually works on oneself in such a way that one not only develops through the life that fate brings one, but that one develops further by making up one's mind: you want to implant this or that attitude. Now one works on implanting this attitude. One can undertake something on a small scale, one can do something on a large scale. But there is a big difference between just carrying out something in yourself, in the training of your own nature, by abandoning yourself to life, or taking this training of your own self into your own hands. By taking it into your own hands, you get to know the will in its effectiveness; because you learn to recognize what kind of resistance stands in the way of this will when you want to cultivate it in self-discipline. Oh, one gets to know all kinds of things in this way, one strengthens above all one's own powers of the spiritual-soul, and one will very soon notice when one exercises such exercises in self-discipline – but one must practice them for years – that one then acquires inner powers. These inner powers are of such a nature that we do not find them in outer nature. They are of such a nature that we do not find them in the ordinary life of the soul that we have carried within us before our exercises. We discover these forces only when we engage in such an inner exercise with ourselves. These forces are capable of something very definite: they are capable of absorbing into our own self, in a much more conscious way, the moral impulses that otherwise arise in the soul as if they were instinctive, as if they were indefinite and separate from the cognitive faculties. But understand me correctly, not into the self that we develop in our body, but into the self that we develop when we step out of our body with our imagination in the way described earlier. We cannot get the true form of the moral impulses into our sensual body, into our sensual perception; but we get what stands there so isolated that Kant presented it quite isolated as the categorical imperative, we get that into our self that has separated from the body.

And then what I have described earlier as imagination, as pictorial representations, becomes imbued with what one can call the objective power of moral impulses; it becomes imbued with moral inspiration. We now recognize that what wells up in us as moral imperatives, as moral ideals, is not rooted only in us, but in the whole of the world. We learn, by being outside of our physical being, to recognize that which does not appear in its true form within the physical organization, but in this true form, we recognize it through imaginative beholding, as objective forces of the world.

Such a vision can open up to a person who, with his or her healthy common sense, properly takes in what the spiritual researcher is able to say from his vision of the spiritual world. Anyone who imbues themselves with such a vision feels something very special about what today's popular public lectures are. It may sound strange when I say it, but I would like to say: anyone who unreservedly absorbs this inspiration in their imagination, which coincides with the moral forces that are present in human life, and imagines how can see through something like this in the present through spiritual knowledge, would like to think: if only such knowledge could take hold of people, at least as strongly as they are seized when they hear that X-rays or wireless telegraphy have been found! In view of what is taking place in the soul of a spiritual scientist, one would like to say: it is very necessary for present-day civilization that people should come to appreciate the spiritual forces for human strengthening that can be found in this way, just as much as what can be useful and beneficial in the outer life.

I believe that we have touched on an important challenge of civilization in the present day. The spiritual-scientific insights are, I repeat, not speculation, they are experiences. And the fact that so few people today accept them is because most people allow themselves to be blinded by materialistic scientific views, let their own prejudices stand in their way, do not apply their common sense, and therefore cannot properly

examine what the spiritual scientist says. They always say: we cannot see for ourselves what the spiritual researcher says. I would like to know how many people who believe in the Venus transits have ever seen a Venus transit! I would like to know how many people who say that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen have ever observed in a laboratory how to determine that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen and so on. There is a logic of common sense. Through it one can check what the spiritual researcher says. I certainly cannot paint illusions before those who use their common sense, nor can I talk fantasies to them, because they can use their common sense to see whether I speak like a dreamer or whether I speak in logical contexts, whether I speak like someone who puts forward one idea after another, as one does even in the most exact science. Anyone who acquires such a healthy knowledge and understanding of human nature will be able to distinguish whether he has a fantasist in front of him or a person who, by knowing how to clothe his view in healthy logical forms and not giving the impression of a dreamer in other ways, is to be taken seriously. We have to decide many things in life in this way; why should we not decide in this way the most important thing: insight into the order of the world? There is no other way for someone who cannot become a spiritual researcher themselves – but everyone can become a spiritual researcher to a certain extent, as I have explained in the books mentioned – to determine this; because spiritual science is something that is experienced, something that must be experienced, not something that is only achieved through logical conclusions.

So if you study worldviews, I would say the combination of imagination and inspired morality, you get to know something else, you learn to recognize what the contradiction is between so-called natural causality, natural necessity, and the element in which man lives as in his freedom. For it is only in the element of freedom that we can live with our moral impulses. We look out into the outer nature. Overwhelming for the view of nature that has developed over the last three to four centuries is what is called the necessary connection of the following with the preceding, what is called general causality. Thus, nature, including the human condition, presents itself as if everything were seized by a natural necessity. But then our freedom would be in a sorry state; then we could not act differently than the natural necessity in us compels us to act. Freedom would be an impossibility if the world were as the scientific view that has become popular in the last three to four centuries wants it to be.

But once we have gained the point of view that I have just described, the point of view of observation outside the human body, then everything that is permeated by necessity is, so to speak, presented as a kind of natural body. And this natural body produces a natural soul and a natural spirit in all possible places. The natural body is, as it were, that which has cast and thrown off the nascent world; the natural spirit, the natural soul, is that which grows into the future.

Just as, when I see a corpse before me, this corpse no longer has the possibility of following anything other than the necessities that have been determined by the soul and spirit that dwelled in it, so too that which is corpse-like in external nature has nothing in it of impulses as necessities. But in every place, what grows into the future springs forth. Our natural science has only been accustomed to observing the natural corpse, and therefore sees only necessity everywhere. Spiritual science must be added to this. It will see the life that is sprouting and has sprouted everywhere.

Thus man is placed, on the one hand, in the realm of natural causality and, on the other, in that which is also there but contains no causality. This contains something that is the same as the element of freedom we experience inwardly. We experience this element of freedom as I have described it in my Philosophy of Freedom when we rise to inwardly transparent, pure thinking, which is actually an outflow of our will activity. You can find more details in my Philosophy of Freedom.

Thus, what we gain by creating a possibility of knowledge for ourselves outside the human body carries us into a world where the contrast between natural necessity and freedom becomes explicable. We get to know freedom itself in the world. We learn to feel ourselves in a world in which freedom resides.

When I describe something like this to you, I do not do it just to show you the content of what I am describing, but I want to present it to you show you how man can enter into a certain frame of mind by absorbing knowledge drawn from such regions, by invigorating himself with such knowledge.

Just as we are imbued with joy when we experience an extraordinarily joyful event, as some people, when they have drunk so and so much Moselle wine, are completely imbued with the mood that comes from the Moselle wine, so too can a person's entire state of mind be seized by something so truly spiritual that it permeates the person. When has a person's state of mind been gripped by something, at first only in the outer life, but then in a shadowy way? When the categorical imperative or conscience moves in the face of moral obligations. But the content of this conscience now becomes clear and it will also take on a different emotional nuance. For what has actually happened – whether a person is a spiritual researcher himself, or whether he absorbs what the spiritual researcher brings through his common sense and incorporates it into his soul as insights – what has happened to the person? He has merged with something, has united with something, with which one only comes together when one goes out of oneself, when one alienates oneself from oneself. You will find no better, more realistic definition of love and the feeling of love than that which can be described as the state of mind that overcomes one when one penetrates, free of the body, into the entity of the outer world. If moral imperatives otherwise appear as a constraint, they can be cast in such a form that they appear imbued with the same mood that must permeate spiritual scientific knowledge. These moral impulses, these moral imperatives, can learn from the soul-attitude that comes to us through the assimilation of spiritual science; they can be warmed through by what must live in spiritual science in the highest sense: by love.

I tried to show this again in my Philosophy of Freedom, that love is the most dignified impulse for moral action in man. Within the modern development of the spirit, these things have already been spoken of more instinctively than can be the case today, when we can, if we want, have progressed in spiritual science. Kant once spoke of the compelling duty, of the, I would say, humanly restraining categorical imperative, which allows no interference of any sympathy. What one does out of moral duty, one does because one must. Kant therefore says: Duty, you exalted, great name, you carry nothing with you that means ingratiation or the like, but only the strictest submission. Schiller did not consider this slavish submission to duty to be humane. And he countered this Kantian argument with what he expressed so beautifully and so magnificently in his “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man”.

But we need only take a small epigram that Schiller coined in opposition to this rigorist, rigid concept of duty as propounded by Kant, and we have an important humanistic contrast with regard to the moral life: “I gladly serve my friends,” says Schiller, “but unfortunately I do it reluctantly. And so it often rankles me that I am not virtuous.” He believes that in the Kantian sense, one should not gladly serve one's friends, but rather submit to one's duty in obedience. But that which can make human life truly human is when we fulfill what Goethe says in a few monumental words: Duty, where we love what we command ourselves. But the mood to love what one commands oneself can only be kindled from that state of the human soul that comes about in the acquisition of spiritual science.

So when one delves into spiritual science, it is not something that runs alongside life, like preaching morals, but there is a development of strength within it that directly takes hold of the moral will. It is a grounding of morality. It is there that which pours into the human being the moral love. Spiritual science does not merely preach morals; spiritual science, when taken in its full seriousness, in its full power, grounds morality, but by not giving words of morality, but giving strength for virtuous love, for loving virtue.

Spiritual science is not just theory, it is life. And when one acquires spiritual science, it is not just a matter of reflection, it is something like absorbing life, like breathing. This is what spiritual science can offer modern civilization in the moral sphere, what it must offer. For in ancient times, as I indicated the day before yesterday, people also had a spiritual science, but it was instinctive. Where did the spiritual science of the ancient, millennia-old developing Oriental wisdom come from? It was a dull, dream-like visualization of the world. It came from human instincts, from human drives. This spiritual science was instinctive. People saw into nature through a kind of clairvoyance. And this clairvoyance was connected with their blood, was connected with their outer physicality. But the moral impulses of that time were also connected with this blood, with this outer physicality. Both came from one source. Humanity is undergoing a development and believes that we can be like people thousands of years ago; this is the same as believing that an adult man can be like a child. We can no longer stand on the standpoint of the primitive clairvoyant arts of the ancient Orient or ancient Egypt. We have advanced to Galileism, to Copernicanism. We have advanced to the point of observation that arises in the intellect. In those ancient oriental ways of looking at things, the intellect had not yet developed. But for that, we must also get the impulses for our moral action from the spirit, not from instinct. That is the worst thing today, that people, when they talk about ideals or impulses for life, always make everything absolute. When some party member or enthusiastic theorist appears on the scene today, dreaming of a thousand-year Reich, they say: I want this or that for humanity and they think to themselves that what they are saying is good for humanity in all times to come and for the whole earth. That it is good in the most absolute sense. Anyone who really looks into the life of developing humanity knows that what is good, what is valid for the world view, is always only appropriate for a certain age, that one must know the nature of this age. I have often said in earlier lectures here: spiritual science, anthroposophically oriented, as I express it here, does not imagine that it is something absolute. But it does believe that it speaks from the heart of the present and the near future, that it says for human souls what these human souls need in the present and in the near future. But she knows full well that this spiritual science: if in five hundred years someone will again speak of the great riddles of the world and of the affairs of humanity, he will speak in different tones, in a different way, because there is nothing absolute in this sense, nothing that lasts forever.

We are effective in life precisely because we are able to grasp it in its liveliness, in its metamorphosis, even where we stand in it. It is easier to set up absolute ideals in abstractions than to first get to know one's age and then, from the essence of this age, to speak what is appropriate for it. Then, when, through the assimilation of spiritual-scientific impulses, man, as has been said, permeates himself with what comes to him from the spirit, then he will know that he is spirit as man, is soul, then he will know that he lives through the world as spirit and soul. And then he will address every other human being as spirit and soul. One would be inclined to say that something tremendous will come about when this becomes spiritual science in human life, when it becomes an attitude that permeates human life to such an extent that one consciously encounters another human being as a riddle to be solved, because with each person one looks into infinity, into spiritual depths and abysses.

What emerges from this real observation of our fellow human beings as spirit and soul will give rise to social and moral forces that must form the basis for a real treatment of the burning social question of our time. I cannot imagine that those who see through the whole essence of the social question and at the same time let today's human condition take effect on them do not suffer certain mental anguish. We live in a time when the social question needs to be resolved in a certain way. We also live in a time when the promoters of the social order are inspired by the most anti-social instincts, when the demand for social organization of life seems to be in opposition to what lives in human souls as anti-social instincts. No matter how beautiful the programs may be that are drawn up, no matter how beautiful the ideas that are entertained as to what should be done to solve the social problem, a way to solve it can only be found when the spirit is seen, felt and sensed among people, when people treat each other with respect, protection, honor and love, and not just the physical part of their fellow human beings.

That is why I have called in my book “The Essentials of the Social Question” for the separation of spiritual life from the rest of social life, so that this spiritual life can be placed only on its own foundations, independent of the state and independent of economic impulses, purely of human nature. Only such a free spiritual life will truly spread social instincts, social views and attitudes among people. Social morality also depends on people taking in their spiritual state what can become them in the pursuit of what can be said from the research of spiritual science.

And that in which man must rest as a whole, worthy and dignified, so that he does not feel as a mere lonely wanderer, but as a member of the world, the religious element, can, in the sense that modern man needs it, only be kindled and fanned by that which is attained as an inner mood in the pursuit of spiritual science.

The events of the world order or of human development that religious feelings point to stand there as fact. The Mystery of Golgotha, for example, stands there as fact. What took place in Palestine at the beginning of our era, when the Christ came into the flesh in Jesus, is a fact. One must distinguish this fact, this objective fact, from the way in which man approaches the understanding and contemplation of such a fact. In the times when Christianity first spread, it was able to flow within the human attitudes that still came from the ancient Orient. What happened in Palestine as the event of Golgotha was understood with the ideas that in a certain way came from ancient times, from primitive human attitudes. For centuries, those who were able to do so were honest and sincere in their understanding of the event of Golgotha through such ideas. But then came the time when Galilean science arose, when Giordano Bruno overcame space in such a remarkable way for the human conception by showing that what is up there the blue firmament is only that which lives in ourselves, the boundaries that we ourselves set, while in a far-flung sea of space the stars are in infinity. All that Copernicus brought, all that has been brought to the newer world-picture of externals by the spirits who have lived up to the present day, has come. In this time men have inwardly become accustomed to a different way of looking at the world than that through which Christianity was first comprehended. In this time a new relation must also be won to the religious foundations of the evolution of mankind. The point is not to shake the facts on which the religious development of humanity is based. But the point is to appeal to modern human conscience in such a way that the man of today, out of his state of soul, can understand the Christ event as he must.

Those who say that a new path must also be sought to the old facts on religious ground mean it most honestly and reverently with regard to religion. Spiritual science, oriented towards anthroposophy, will be the best preparation for understanding Christianity or other religious content in a modern way. Those who do not honestly mean it with religious life do not admit this, because they want to preserve ways to the foundations of religious life to which man today, when he otherwise pays homage to the views of his time, cannot pay homage.

We have come to materialism in modern times. Certainly, different types of people have become the instigators of materialism; but among these people there are also those who have retained certain old habits of life in the development of humanity, habits of life that have led to a monopoly being given to the denominations for everything that can be said about the spirit and soul. Because the confessions alone had the right to decide what should be believed about the spirit and soul, natural science was left without a spirit to guide its research. Today, natural science believes that it has taken on this form because it had to, when researching nature, one must exclude the spirit. Oh no, natural science has become so because in earlier times it was forbidden to research nature with spirit, because the church had to decide about spirit and soul. And today, people continue the habits and even trumpet them as unprejudiced scientific judgment.

One only has to look at such researchers, who in the sense of materialistic research must be highly praised, as for example at the Jesuit priest and ant researcher Wasmann, the excellent materialistic researcher in the field of natural science, a researcher who, however, does not allow a grain of spirit to flow into what dogma is. Spirit and soul must be excluded. Therefore: external science is materialistic. The founders of the religions of the book are not in the least the originators of modern materialism. However paradoxical it may sound today, it is true: because the church did not allow the spirit to be brought into the contemplation of nature, natural science has become spiritless. The others have only adopted this as a habit. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science must bring the spirit back into the study of nature. Let me say once more: this spiritual science is not based on the idea that spirit only makes occasional or brief visits, as in materialism, so that man can convince himself that there is a spirit. No, this spiritual science wants to show that in the small and large, in all material things, there is always and everywhere spirit, that one can always and everywhere follow the spirit. But because spiritual science oriented to anthroposophy always and everywhere investigates spirit in the most material form, it shows that there is no such thing as a material substance that is independent of spirit, just as there is no ice that is independent of water. Ice is transformed water, water that has cooled down; matter is spirit that has solidified. One must only explain it in the right way in each individual case. By showing, as everywhere, where there is matter, where there is outer life, there is spirit, and by leading man to connect with the ruling spirit, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science also provides the impetus for a real religious deepening today.

But one experiences many things in this field. You see, an experience of a man who is even well-intentioned is the following. Someone says: I cannot examine spiritual science as Steiner presents it; it may contain truths, but it should be kept very far from all religious life, because religious life must represent a direct relationship, a direct unity of man with God, far from all knowledge. And now the person in question says, very strangely: in our time we have too much of religious interest, of religious experience; people just always want to experience something religious. They want to have religious interest. You don't need any of that in religion. In religion, you only need direct unity with God. Away, says the churchman in question, with all religious interest, with all religious experience.

Now, an unprejudiced person must say today that even if people still long for an unclear religious experience, even if they still awaken an unclear religious interest in themselves, that is precisely the beginning of the yearning to really find a way into the religious element, as I have described it to you now. Whoever is honest and sincere about religious life should take hold of that urge for religious interest and religious experience. Instead, the clergyman condemns religious experience and religious interest. The question today is whether real religious understanding is to be found in those who speak as they do or in those who try to speak as I have spoken to you today. However, you also have to recognize people by their fruits.

In a recent lecture, a man who is also a churchman, but also a university professor, tried to refute anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Two young friends of mine were in this lecture, and they were able to speak afterwards in the discussion. Because of the context, these two young people, who had absorbed the impulses of spiritual science well, brought forward words from the Bible to prove how what is written in the Bible, if properly understood, agrees with what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has to say in this area. And at one point the chairman, who was a real churchman, didn't know what else to do but say, “Here Christ errs!” It could be retorted, “So you believe in a God who errs!” A fine religious sentiment. It produces strange blossoms today. Religious sentiment is only genuine when it enters into real moral life. There one certainly has strange experiences. I now find it pretty much the most disgusting thing that can be said about what appears as a social consequence in this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, from beginning to end, and that it has been lied about by a whole series of German newspapers. But people today find it compatible with morality to say that the following can happen as a moral consequence of religious practice. Recently, a canon, that is, a churchman of the Catholic kind, gave a lecture in a city about the spiritual science presented here, and at the end he said: find out from the opposing writings what kind of worldview the man represents, because you are not allowed to read his own writings and those of his followers. The Pope has forbidden Catholics to read them.

The recommendation to get to know something from the evil-intentioned, from the most malevolent opposing writings, is the moral consequence of some religious practices of the present day. No wonder that what we have experienced in the last five years has poured out over the world from such underground life. Or was it not a surfacing of lies and hatred of humanity and much more that was rooted and still is rooted in the depths of human souls? Should not the fact that one has experienced give cause to seriously consider whether a thorough re-education is not necessary? Has not something like world-historical immorality come to the surface of world history in the present? Or is it religious sentiment that has been acted out in the world in the last five years? Those attitudes that have not had centuries, but millennia, to work on improving humanity, are now seeing their fruits! Nineteenth-century theology no longer recognizes anything of the spirituality of the event of Golgotha. This spirituality, this divine Christ in the man Jesus, will be rediscovered through the path of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. From there, he will again enter into human souls, to prompt them not merely to preach morality, but to establish within themselves the right instinctive motivation for moral action and work in the world. Is there not an obvious need for renewal and reconstruction? Does this necessity not emerge when one looks at the events of the last five to six years? Do we not see the fruits of that which has been living under the surface for centuries and has now come to the surface? Should this not be proof that thorough religious and moral work is necessary?

Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science would like to collaborate on this work, the necessity of which any unbiased person must admit today if they are not asleep in their soul within the great events of the time. And anyone who wants to criticize it, who wants to condemn it, should first raise the fundamental question: does it honestly want to collaborate on the real progress of humanity? And only when he has conscientiously informed himself about it so that he can form an opinion about it, will it become clear to what extent this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has the right to participate. Because it wants to honestly and sincerely participate in the necessary progress, in the necessary rethinking and relearning of humanity.

Among the somewhat authoritative judgments that have been made in the present day about today's chaotic world situation, one of the most significant is undoubtedly that of the Englishman John Maynard Keynes, who, in his book The Economic Consequences of the Versailles Peace, offers such an assessment of the current general world situation. Keynes was undoubtedly led to such a judgment by his external circumstances. During the war, he was assigned to the English Treasury and was in a position to form a basis for such a judgment from the underlying facts that presented themselves to him there. On the other hand, he was among the envoys, among the collaborators of the Versailles Peace Treaty itself. However, he resigned from this position as early as June 1919. And this resignation, like the conclusions he reaches in his book on the economic consequences of the peace treaty, are precisely what sheds significant light on the way this personality relates to the current world situation. Keynes, too, was one of those who, when they first went to Versailles, probably still saw something of a prophet and organizer of the current world situation in the personality of Woodrow Wilson, who had come over from America and was received with such great glory. He has thoroughly changed his mind. And those of us who, even at a time when Woodrow Wilson was being declared a world liberator by an enormous crowd, including from this place here in Switzerland, has given his opinion that the empty and abstract arguments of Woodrow Wilson and his manifestos cannot contribute anything to the real reconstruction of the destroyed civilization, may well point to such an authoritative judgment today. In his book, Keynes describes, as far as personality is concerned, with an intense vividness — one might say. He describes how Woodrow Wilson arrives in Versailles, how he participates in the meetings, how slow his thinking is, how he, so to speak, always lags behind. While the others are already well ahead with their assessment of the situation, he is still far behind with something that was said five, six or ten sentences ago. He is a man who suffers from the slowness of his thinking. Much else is vividly described in relation to the personality of this alleged liberator of the world.

But Keynes also speaks about the other leading figures who were involved in this peace agreement, and speaks urgently. He describes how Clemenceau is a man who has actually slept through the whole development of European humanity since the 1770s, who actually wanted nothing more from this peace settlement than to reduce the world, in a sense, to what was available in Europe in the 1770s. And he then describes no less vividly and graphically how Lloyd George is actually superior to everyone else, how he has a certain instinct for sensing what is being thought and done and wanted by the personalities around him. And from all this one can see how difficult it is today, even for an astute observer like Keynes, to gradually arrive at a judgment through the force of the facts. That is what contributes more and more to the increasing chaos in the world today: that the leading personalities, the affairs that public life has brought to the surface in recent decades, are not at all up to the great demands of the present time. This is precisely what emerges from the book and its assessment. It shows that all the destructive forces at work in the world cannot be brought under any kind of judgment by those who have been called to leadership by public life. And since Keynes saw that nothing could come out of this conference that would lead to a healthy and prosperous further development of European civilization, he resigned from office right at the beginning of the negotiations. And the way he constructs his judgment is extraordinarily significant. In the present situation, one really only needs to construct something real on judgments that are based on such foundations. Keynes' judgment is, I would say, calculated. Only those personalities who have a certain sense and instinct for calculating the future with all sobriety from still existing forces in a certain way can really have a say in the present. They should be listened to with special attention, because the great majority of judgments made today are based on some kind of nationalistic or other prejudices, while only a few people are able to form objective judgments from the facts themselves. Keynes is one of them. He considers what might follow from what the three leading figures at Versailles have cooked up, especially in economic terms, and what would have to happen to the economic life of European civilization if nothing else occurred but the forces that were brought to bear at Versailles. And Keynes calculates – I say explicitly and I emphasize it very strongly – Keynes calculates that nothing other than the economic ruin of Europe can follow from this peace agreement. Of course, the intellectual and political ruin of Europe must be connected with the economic ruin.

Thus the book about the economic consequences of the Versailles Peace Treaty is interesting enough just because of its content. But in some respects it becomes even more interesting because of its conclusion. In this conclusion Keynes openly admits that he has no idea what should be done or wanted to get out of the chaos into which we are entering. And in making this confession, he says something that is actually extraordinarily significant, which he summarizes in a single sentence. He says that one can only hope that some salvation for European civilization will come from the combination of all the forces involved in a new state of mind and new imaginations.

My dear attendees, this is said by a man who has been immersed in the circumstances, who was called upon to participate, who, through his analysis, shows that he is a person who can calculate soberly in the broadest sense. A new state of mind, a gathering of all forces for a new view of the powers at work in the public life of humanity, where can these be found? How can we arrive at such a view?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, it will not take much impartiality to convince you that the first step in this direction is to examine the essentials of contemporary public life without any prejudice and to ask ourselves: What are the actual forces at work in contemporary public life? In earlier lectures, which I had the honor of giving here, I pointed out what kind of historical considerations should be used to arrive at the truly effective forces in human life. Above all, one must look for certain symptoms that vividly illustrate what is at work in the depths of human development. And so I would like to point out something that is perhaps one of the most outstanding forces that has worked with the forces of destruction. I would like to point out the basis of the world view of the present day, but in the way it has developed over the last three to four centuries. I do not wish to give the impression that a Weltanschhauung, founded in the solitude of a thinker, can now go out and influence every single soul, and that public affairs can, as it were, come into being out of such a Weltanschhauung. That is certainly not the case. But just as public affairs grow out of the will, out of feeling, out of the emotional life, out of the thoughts of the overall state of the human being, so too does the world view grow out of this overall state of human life, especially of the human soul. And one can see, as in a symptom, what the people of an age are like in their whole work and in their whole activity, when one, so to speak, considers the symptom of the world view, insofar as one wants to point to the world views that are decisive and have come into their own in the present. This determining factor is characterized, in particular, by the fact that everything that has not entered our world view through tradition from ancient times has developed out of the soil of natural science, which seeks to base its knowledge on external material observation alone. What does this natural scientific world view show, when looked at more deeply?

Perhaps only someone who can admire it can judge it correctly. And in earlier lectures, I have certainly expressed my admiration for the scientific world view strongly enough. These remarks, which I am developing here, are not meant to be a criticism of this scientific world view, which is certainly justified in its field. This scientific view, especially in its technical and economic consequences, has led to great fruits of civilization for humanity. But suppose there were some spirit today — it is hardly possible, firstly, given the vast field of scientific knowledge and, secondly, given its specialization — but suppose there were some spirit today that embraced the whole revolution of the scientific view from mathematics and from mechanics up to biology and up to what can be gained from biology for the science of the human soul: such a mind would undoubtedly be able to gain significant insights into certain areas of nature and being. But if such a mind were to ask itself with complete clarity the great and comprehensive human question: What is man in his own essence and in his whole relationship to the world? then the one who stands firmly on the ground of natural science, who is able to correctly assess the scope of scientific knowledge, would have to say: the scientific world view cannot answer these questions about the human being and about the relationship of the human being to the rest of the cosmos. This question remains unanswered, even by the latest physical scientific knowledge. There are already some great insights into how man has emerged in outward physical development from lower, animal-like forms to his present human form. But these insights have led man far away from what man is in his relationship to spiritual worlds. Those who cannot admit this to themselves without prejudice will also be unable to form an opinion about the inner impulses from which present-day humanity acts, whether it is organizing public affairs or destroying public organizations. For even if we are not always conscious of how we think consciously about the nature of man and his position in the world, even if we are not always conscious of the thoughts we entertain in this position, these thoughts, however unconsciously or instinctively they may be, they work in our feelings and in our decisions of will. They therefore become the creators of all public, spiritual, political and economic life. Anyone who wants to see things correctly will realize that economic interrelationships, since they are made by people, but since people in turn act out of their soul impulses, the economic interrelationships of the world are also a reflection of what people are able to feel about themselves and about their relationship to the world. Now we have to say: the scientific world view has grown large over all that is non-human. It cannot provide any answers about the human being itself. It is extensive when information is required about the sub-human realms. But how does the information that we, as human beings, acquire relate to what we should allow to flow into social life from our ideas and from our inner soul impulses, and in particular into the way we live together with other people and groups of people? Can we receive any impulses for human activity and human coexistence from those areas that lie outside of the human being? This is best shown by observing the relationship between the human being and language.

Language is basically the medium through which everything that leads from person to person comes to life. Through language, we also control economic life. Through language, we inaugurate external political and spiritual conditions. Now there is something most remarkable, which unfortunately is not often considered thoroughly enough. When we try to apply our language to scientific knowledge, we can never do anything other than extend the words, the phrases, and everything we use to express natural laws, those natural laws that we today so admire as the great progress of modern humanity, we can do nothing but extend to nature what we have formed in words as an expression of inner soul conditions or of conditions in man. Such subtle minds as Goethe's noticed this. That is why Goethe said: Man does not realize how anthropomorphic he is. -— When we say: an elastic ball pushes the other -, and we derive from it the laws of elastic' push in physics, then we basically start from what we have in the word meaning for the push that we carry out in our own organism. And anyone who really wants to investigate will see that everything that can be applied from language to natural science, which deals with the non-human, must be taken from the human being.

How did our language come to have content? It would have come to very little content if we could only imitate the mooing of a cow and other animal sounds. How did our language come to have such content? Those who can look impartially at the course of human development will find that all the content of language comes from the fact that, in times that were indeed behind our civilization, humanity had a certain instinctive-spiritual knowledge, I say: an instinctive-spiritual knowledge with the natural elementary empathy that arises in the human soul. With the impulses of the will, with pictorial imagination, which found expression in myth and mythology, spiritual insights came to man, and out of these spiritual insights he formed the content of the soul , which then became the content of his language in modern times, which is great in that it looked in a certain disdainful way at what instinctive spiritual abilities gave to man in an earlier time. In this modern time, in which one has become great primarily in relation to natural science, in this modern time our words have not been given any new content. And one thing is historically significant in the last two to four centuries: our language, all languages of our civilized world, have lost their old content. No new content could be poured into them because that which cannot provide such content, mere knowledge of nature, is that which has been developed in this very time. And in this time, which we must otherwise admire so much, there took place what may be called the emptying of civilized languages of their old spiritual content.

What did the civilized languages become as a result of losing their old instinctive content and natural science being unable to give them a new one? — They became that which has now reached a certain climax in the present day. They became that which developed into a phrase, and truly nothing that would only have a meaning in a limited area, but what is practiced today by those who exercise world domination is called a phrase. And the four to five years of horror that we have behind us have shown the world domination of the phrase at its peak. Today we live under the world domination of the phrase. What is the remedy for this world domination of the phrase? Only the acquisition of a new spiritual content, a conscious spiritual content. The old spiritual content, acquired by earlier humanity through instinct, which made language the sum of words, not phrases, is gone. Humanity that is truly attached to the present can no longer believe in it. A new conscious spiritual content must be conquered.

That, dear attendees, is what the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which has its representatives in the Dornach building, is consciously striving for: to conquer conscious spiritual knowledge in addition to scientific knowledge, which provides such great insights into everything gives such wonderful insights into everything outside of the human being, to conquer with the same clarity of thought, logical rigor, and scientific conscientiousness, spiritual knowledge that can now provide information about the great question of the nature of the human being and the human being's place in the rest of the cosmos. However, before one can proceed to such knowledge, one must admit that, although the external scientific method must be imitated in its conscientiousness today by all knowledge, it cannot itself lead to spiritual knowledge. In order to arrive at spiritual knowledge, it is necessary that the human being of today, above all, brings to bear those inner abilities that are to arise precisely on the soil of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science meant here. I have shown how man can come to such knowledge through his own soul life, for example in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds' and in the second part of my 'Occult Science'. However, one thing is necessary - I have emphasized it here often enough - one thing is necessary for man, to which he now only surrenders with the greatest reluctance. It is necessary to have what I would call intellectual modesty. Modern man is so proud of his intellectual development. Intellectual modesty only asserts itself when, for example, one says to oneself: Suppose you give a five-year-old child a volume of Goethe's poetry. What will the child do with a volume of Goethe's lyric poems? It would probably tear it up or play with it. It certainly would not get from the volume of Goethe's lyric poems what an adult can get and what the volume of Goethe's lyric poetry is actually meant for. The abilities that can determine it, that can make it possible for him to let the volume of Goethean poetry take effect on him in the right way, must first be cultivated in the child bit by bit. For this development of childlike abilities, one surrenders a lot in human life today. But that a person, when he has grown up and is equipped only with the abilities that one can acquire in normal, external, sensual human life today, that he could then stand before the world itself as the five-year-old child stands before the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems, that he must first develop by taking his soul abilities into his own hands in order to extract from what what is presented to him in the world, something that can be compared to what the child first draws from the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems when he has grown up, in other words, what he does with the volume of Goethe's lyrical poems at the age of twenty-five – yes, to admit that, in his intellectual arrogance, the man of the present does not want to do that. But this must be asserted above all, that in order to truly know oneself, to finally fulfill the Apollonian saying “Know thyself,” it is necessary to take hold of the human soul faculties. How this is possible in detail will be the subject of tomorrow's lecture.

Today I would just like to emphasize in general terms that it is indeed possible for the human being to strengthen their thinking through a certain treatment of their thinking, which I will describe tomorrow. This enables their thinking to no longer passively , but that it is inwardly seized as by a will, becomes active, that it becomes more intense, that it occurs in such a way that the person knows through inner experience in direct perception: now thinking has become a spiritual-soul seeing. While in ordinary thinking one is dependent on one's thinking apparatus, on one's body, on the nervous system, and while, just when one develops thinking a little, one sees through this dependence, one also knows that when thinking is strengthened in the appropriate ways, which are described in the books mentioned, it becomes free from the body, it becomes an activity that is no longer guided by the instrument of the body. Certain meditations, to which one devotes oneself with the same objectivity with which one conducts an experiment in a chemical laboratory or observes the stars in an observatory, empower this thinking and free it from the tool of the body. It is only when this thinking is to be used for a real world-view that self-discipline of the will must be applied. When self-discipline of the will, together with inner meditation, develops into will-imbued thinking that is independent of the body, only then does spiritual knowledge arise, conscious spiritual knowledge, which in turn can give man what instinctive spiritual knowledge once gave him: content for speech, content for language. The moment man ceased to feel within himself the impulse to give content to his speech out of himself, the moment instinctive spiritual perception ceased and was replaced by external natural perception, which cannot give content to speech, the development of man in a certain respect came to a standstill. But man must recognize from the signs of the present that he must acquire self-knowledge and knowledge of humanity through conscious inner soul work, through the development of his thinking to soul-vision, and that only through this can arise what in turn gives content to our language, what can eliminate the world domination of the phrase.

But such knowledge also gives us the insight that the external world, as we observe it with our senses, is something we grow into in the course of our lives between birth and death, that these external observations cannot give us the actual spiritual, that this, the actual spiritual content, is brought into the world by us, that we bring it with us, in that we descend from spiritual worlds — as I said, we will talk about these things in more detail tomorrow — through birth into this physical world, that when we speak of the spiritual content, we must look at what people carry within, what they develop only through the instrument of their body, little by little, from year to year. It is not the ever-increasing wealth of the world's experience that brings the spirit into reality, but what we, as human individuals, bring into the world through our birth. Today people are only afraid of what man himself brings into the world. They are afraid because they believe that if he asserts it, it would lead to fantasy. But there are ways to avoid this fantasy. But anyone who realizes that, fundamentally, all spiritual content must come from human individuality will readily admit that a fruitful development of this spiritual life can only come about if the human being is given the full opportunity for human development, if he is not dependent in his spiritual development and in the expression and revelation of his spirit on any external powers that serve only here in the physical world. For with the rise of pure scientific knowledge, that knowledge which only provides information about what is non-human, there has also arisen, as organically connected with it, the dependence of spiritual life not on what the human being carries into the world through birth, but on what the external state life establishes, on what the economic life makes of the human being. At the same time as the natural sciences were coming of age, we saw the omnipotence of the state develop to the highest degree, with the state stretching its tentacles over everything that is intellectual life; it began to organize school life, and economic life, on the other hand, became decisive for the lives of those personalities who were able to enter precisely this intellectual field. But this has gone hand in hand with the fact that the human being has lost the ability to give birth out of himself a spiritual content, to give his words a spiritual content. Therefore, in the age of natural science, the dependence of spiritual life on political and economic powers has developed, and under this influence the world domination of phrase has developed.

This is the first link in the chain of present-day organizations that are working towards destruction: the world domination of phrase, of empty talk. If a person is incapable of investing words with the spiritual substance that he draws directly from his connection with the spiritual world, then words must become empty phrases; words must gradually become so ingrained in a person that he is, as it were, merely carried away by the mechanisms of language. And unfortunately we see this all too clearly emerging in modern times: that which breaks out with elemental force from the spiritual and soul inner being of the human being, which, as it were, only discharges into language, disappears. Life in the mechanisms of language becomes more and more intense, and it has reached its climax in recent years. Because people, by talking to each other about the civilized world, were talking directly or indirectly through the print of nothing, and by the words only taking place in their mechanism, that which was driven by chaotic forces to destruction developed.

I know very well that there is little inclination in the present day to go into these intimacies of human life when the causes of the present chaos are to be discussed. But no one will gain clear ideas and clear judgments about these causes if they do not want to go into these intimacies of the human soul. Not until this happens will harmony replace chaos in public affairs; not until spiritual deepening, through genuine spiritual science, gives rise in man to the urge to give his words full content. For that which certainly first appears in the scientific field, that which is born in the scientific field, it pushes its way into the other habits of life, it becomes the one that sets the tone in public life. And anyone who has an eye for observing life sees how, in the end, only the final consequences of what is ultimately present as the characteristic feature play out in everyday life, where worldviews are formed. Indeed, people have not wanted to properly survey the connections that arise there for a long time. Here in Switzerland, a blustering spirit once worked, I explicitly call him a blustering spirit so that you can see that I am not overestimating him, Johannes Scherr. He spoiled a lot with his blustering tone and his blustering judgment, which was also in the healthy thoughts that he had in what he said publicly. In the 1960s and 1970s, he made a very significant judgment based on a truly penetrating observation of historical and social life. He said: If the materialistic demon, which now only relies on that which man sees and experiences in the external world, continues to prevail, it will also enter into everything that man does in external public affairs; it will enter into economic and financial life, and a social structure will develop that will finally lead to the fact that one must say: Nonsense, you triumphed!

My dear audience! We don't like to listen to such people. This judgment of Johannes Scherr has also been ignored. But now, fifty years later, it must be said for those who look at everything connected with the so-called world catastrophe: the words of this world observer Johannes Scherr, which culminated in the sentence: You will have to say: Nonsense, you triumphed – the words have been fulfilled! For Johannes Scherr saw well how that which is spirit has gradually been squeezed out of human life, how the materialistic un-spirit has taken the place of the spirit, and he was able to turn this observation into a true prophecy. The world simply does not know that what is initially only a worldview, only a theory, that basically after two generations becomes moral, public action, becomes deed. Oh, the world should be much, much better at noticing certain connections! It should form a much more thorough judgment, a real judgment about certain things!

A philosopher, Avenarius, also worked here for a time. He is a kindred spirit of Mach, who in turn had a student work here in Zurich quite recently. These people have drawn the consequences in the field of world view from the current materialistic lack of spirit – I call it a lack of spirit because mere knowledge of nature cannot infuse our language with substantial content. They, the philosophers, Avenarius and so on, have drawn the consequences for their world view from the materialistic lack of spirit of the time. The philosophy they have gained, and the whole way in which people like Avenarius live, is good bourgeois. Of course no one will recognize in these people anything other than good citizens. But today something else should be recognized. Today, we should study the question based on the facts: What has become of the state philosophy of Lenin and Trotsky? What is the state philosophy of the Bolsheviks? It is the Avenarius-Mach school of thought! It is not just a matter of the temporal connection that a number of these people studied here in Zurich; it is the inner factual connection that what lives in the human soul as a world-view thought in one generation becomes action in the third generation. And in these deeds one can see the causes as they play out in the world. But today's humanity only wants abstract logical judgments and does not understand that something that is logically deduced is not yet a judgment of fact, that one must look with real spiritual insight into the real context, into the context of reality, and then seemingly most dissimilar, the bourgeois world view of Avenarius, which, however, emerged from a materialistic lack of spirit, is revived deep in that which fundamentally destroys all human society, which leads to the gravediggers of all European civilization.

At the same time, this indicates that this world domination of the phrase is not something that applies only to a narrow field. It is something that permeates our entire public life as a fundamental force, especially in the field of the spirit. And there will be no salvation until the spiritual life emancipates itself from that which has emerged as the basis for this phraseology, until the spiritual life emancipates itself from the external political or legal life, from the economic life, and to build only on what the spirit itself brings forth from itself, that is, what the individual human being produces from what he carries into the sensual world through birth from the spiritual world. To arrive at spiritual content is the only way to overcome the world domination of phrase. And there is something else closely associated with phrase. Because the phrase does not connect the context of the word with the content, the word very easily becomes a carrier of lies in the age of the phrase. And it is a straight path from the phrase to the lie. Hence the domination, the triumph of lies in the last four to five years, which in turn is so much a part of the process of destruction we are heading for if spirit is not called into the place of the un-spirit!

So much for the one area of public life, the area of intellectual life. But there are other areas as well. But all of them are dependent on the intellectual life to a certain extent. If the intellectual life is dominated by empty phrases and meaningless talk, then the feelings and perceptions cannot be given full expression. But that which develops in the feelings and perceptions in social life, that which is kindled in the interaction from person to person, as one person sympathizes with another, that is custom, that is what emerges from the social community into the realm of custom. And it is only from this customary practice that law can develop historically. But this law can only develop if the sentiments that arise in the interaction between people do not become imbued with empty phrases, if these sentiments are linked to words that are full of substance and to speech that is supported by thought. And in the age of empty phrases, the feeling between human beings cannot be kindled in the appropriate way either; only an external relationship between human beings can arise. The consequence is that in the age in which empty phrases develop in the field of social intellectual life, conventions develop in the field of social feeling instead of the direct substantial relationship between human beings. of man to man, which can at most be regulated by external treaties, that even between nations one raves about treaties because one does not come to the elementary living out of that which can be revealed from person to person. This age of convention makes a second area of our public life so empty of content: it deserts human coexistence, as the phrase deserts the spiritual life, the life of the soul.

This is what leads to the mere external man, not to the right born from within the man. For this right can only be ignited when the word borne by thought flows from the head to the heart. Just as real right, which can flourish in social life alone, belongs to the real spiritual life, which is filled with substantial spirit, so convention belongs to the spiritual life that lives in phrase. Thus we have characterized two areas of our public life in the present.

The third area from which public life emerges is human volition. A conscious will, a will that places a person in human society in such a way that this person brings something into society that flows from his or her own human nature, cannot come about unless it is driven by real, substantial, spiritual content. The phrase is unsuitable for evoking a real conscious will. Just as spiritual life becomes a mere phrase when it becomes dependent on the external life of the state or of the law, or on the external life of economics; just as the life of the law itself is absorbed in convention when it can only be nourished by empty phrases, so the sphere of economic life, the sphere of external human coexistence, is supported, not by the practice of real life but by mere routine, when the will is not inspired by the spirit. Therefore, alongside convention and empty phrases, we see the emergence in the age from which our present age has developed, in the sphere of life and in the outward expression of life, in the sphere of economic life, of routine everywhere.

What is meant by this: our economic life is dominated by routine – it may become clear from this if I say: a realistic consideration of our public life has shown that in the field of economic life, that chaos must end, which is prevalent in the present, where everyone only wants to acquire out of their own selfishness and no one is aware of the context in which their own production is placed in relation to the production of the whole. Only when we realize that this economic life, which has gradually descended into chaos, can only be healed by associating the most diverse professional and life spheres with one another, by people who belong together in different occupations really integrating with one another, so that associations arise from occupation to occupation, that associations arise between the consumers of a profession and the producers of the profession, in short, that our economic life acquires a structure so that the producers, by organizing themselves internally, join forces with their consumers, so that the individual who is a consumer or producer in a profession can see how his consumption and production into some economic cycle - only when the person lives in such an organization, when our economic life is based on association, only then does the individual see how he contributes to the economic process through what he produces or how he participates through what he consumes. Then the individual human being not only knows how to handle this or that in some routine of life, but he also knows that what he does belongs to the overall process of the economic life of humanity. Then he acts out of other impulses. Then what he does is not dominated by a superficial routine, but by a life practice that is only possible if one can connect an idea to it, if one places oneself economically within the overall organism of humanity. Because life has become dominated by empty phrases and because human interaction has become dominated by convention, people have not found the opportunity to associate with each other in this way. They have been turned away from the tasks they face and have become mere routine workers. And routine spread from the individual mechanical action to the mechanism of our entire organization and our entire financial system. The phrase-filled time became the time of the routiniers. And the routiniers brought about that catastrophe, which shows this or that on the surface, but which in its depths shows the causes that lie in the area that has just been characterized.

If we examine the things that dominate contemporary life with an open mind, without sympathy or antipathy, we have to say: in the field of intellectual life, empty phrases; in the field of legal life, conventions; and in the field of economic life, routine. Only the forces that I will describe tomorrow can lead to salvation. This is when the phrase is replaced by speech that is filled with a substantial spirit, with a spirit that has been contemplated, and that can only come about in an independent spiritual life that brings forth what man has to bring into the outer life, which does not want to dominate this spiritual life like the laws of nature, which are gained through outer experience. The conventions of what is externally established must give way to the living interplay that can arise when, on a strictly democratic basis, all mature human beings enter into that which is generally human affairs, which the human being does not bring in through his birth, but which can only develop in the human coexistence of mature human beings. Only when man arrives at such a world-view from the phrase-free, thought-filled word, can the true practice of life develop out of the routine that clings to ephemeral economic objects. that testify and reveal that what is achieved on the ground of economic life is more than what is accomplished by the machine, that it is a link in the overall process of human development on earth. We will not stop at this if we stand as a routine worker at our machine, in our factory, in our bank or anywhere else; we will only stop if the threads of association go from one person to the next, if one person learns from another how he or she is connected to the social organization closest to him or her through his or her consumption and production. What these people achieve together through their combined efforts and associations will be something more than what the human being can achieve in economic life. Man must work, but through his economic activity his whole human being rises out of the transitory and into the eternal. And he will experience from his economic life that precisely by becoming a practitioner in this life, he has a school of practice, the results of which he can carry even through death.

Thus it follows from an observation of the present life, which is more directed towards the spirit, from the three most characteristic domains, that of phrase, that of convention, that of routine, the necessity to work according to a threefold structure of social life, according to a recovery of our spiritual life through its independence, through a recovery of our legal life, which can only be freed from convention when living democratic interaction occurs between all mature human beings, and through a recovery of economic life in which the independence of economic life abolishes routine in favor of a real life practice. But this can only happen when people associate with each other, because it is only through this social interaction that something arises out of what the individual can produce, something that leads all of humanity beyond itself, from mere matter to spirit. Phrase means unspiritualness in the realm of spiritual life; convention means unspiritualness in the realm of the state and of the law; routine means unspiritualness in the realm of economic life. In place of unspiritualness, spirit must come. How it can, and with what forces it can, is what I will attempt to describe tomorrow. For only when, in place of empty phrases, there is again speech that is borne by thought, and only through this, when in place of convention there is the legal life that is imbued with human social feeling, and only through this, when in place of economic routine there is spiritualized economy , an economy ordered by the spirit and steeped in associations, only in this way will our entire public life be healed from what ails it in the present, one must say: what would destroy it if no healing process were to occur.

In the present, unfortunately, we only notice too much the phrase, the convention, the routine. We see the result: chaos. For the future we need the thought-borne word, the spirit filled with substance, the living law that results from the interaction of all mature human beings. That is spirit instead of un-spirit at this point. In the field of economic life we need the associations that arise from the spirit, we need the replacement of routine with the true, spirit-filled economy. In the economic field this means replacing the unspiritual spirit of the present with the spirit of the future. And only by doing so can we rise from pessimistic moods, which are all too justified today when we look at the world around us, to a certain hope for the future. We do not build on what could be thrown at us somewhere today as hope for the future, but that we build on our own human will, which wants to stake its power, its endurance, its fire, out of the present for the future, the victory of the spirit over the un-spirit.

[There follows a brief discussion).

Closing remarks

The first speaker in the discussion initially concluded his remarks by pointing out that an international language serves as a unifying element in humanity. I do not want to go into the pros and cons that can be asserted against such an international language, because this can only be decided through extensive discussion. But I will assume that those who strive to establish such an international language have a certain right. We know what has been tried and done in this direction. Well, it is not enough with the associative way in which such a language has been pursued so far, because such a language would still have to find completely different ways to people than it has found so far if it is to have a truly practical significance. But I do not want to speak out against such a language. Because, you see, on the one hand I know that what arises artificially in our time also bears the characteristic properties of all that our time can produce: a certain intellectualism, a certain intellectualism. And I cannot help but confess that it seems to me that precisely that which has brought us down today, intellectualism, the anti-elemental, was also essentially active in the construction of today's attempted international language. I can very well appreciate the view of those who say: what will ultimately become of that originality of human self-revelation in poetry, in speech, which is truly connected with the innermost being of man, if we pour an abstract language over all mankind? On the other hand, I have also heard some truly wonderful poems in Esperanto, and I must say that I have already tried to achieve a certain objectivity in this matter.

However, what I have presented today, ladies and gentlemen, is not at all affected by the question of such a language. Because, hypothetically speaking, if such a language were to be poured out on humanity, it would be unable to contain anything other than empty phrases if we did not come to a new revival of the substantial spirit. Whether we ultimately turn phrases in Esperanto or in English or in German or French or in Russian is irrelevant. What matters is that we find a way to bring substantial spirit into Russian, German, English, French and Esperanto. And that is one of the questions I have addressed today.

So, as I said, I do not want to say anything against the efforts of those who go for such an abstract language. I believe that perhaps the one point of view could be not entirely unfruitful if it were possible to have an international language for that which really lives in international economic life, for example, that then perhaps the possibility would be given for the actual spiritual life, which after all must always must always arise from individuality, to liberate the other languages. This can only happen if they can develop individually, just as the spirit must develop individually, if their development is not to be disturbed by the lust for conquest and domination on the part of political powers. I believe, however, that the hopes of the Esperantists and similar people are still on much weaker ground than the hopes of those who believe that if only a sufficiently large number of people can come together today to work towards a renewal of our intellectual life from the real spirit, then a better time could dawn, even if it is not perfect. Those who see reality as it is cannot belong to the group that hopes for an earthly paradise. I believe that the latter type of person is still more in touch with reality than those who hope for an international language.

What was said by the second speaker was essentially an interpretation of what I said in part of my lecture, and I would just like to note that when discussing such talking about such things, that it is necessary not to regard human beings as if one could simply approach them and make them better by teaching them. In public life I have often used the image for the pure teaching method: If I have a stove in front of me, then I can say: it is your stove duty to warm the room, it is your categorical imperative to warm the room. I can now preach on and on, with all Kant's insight I can preach on and on, it will not get warm. If I remain silent and just put wood in the stove and light it, the stove will warm the room without any preaching. It is the same with people. If the whole human being is in question, if not only that is in question which can, for example, provide a theoretical echo in the human being, if the whole human being is in question, preaching is of little use, because then one is dealing above all with the human being standing within a social totality. And the human being in a social totality is something different from the individual, unique human being. If we demand of the individual human being that he should somehow contribute to the betterment of humanity through a concentrated life of thought, then it must first be possible for such a concentrated life of thought to develop in a fruitful way. Ultimately, this is only possible in a free spiritual life. Further explanations can be found in the “Key Points of the Social Question”. The question today is not so much to examine what is good for the individual, but what must be brought about in the human social organism so that the individual can truly develop.

In 1894, during the nineties, I published for the first time my “Philosophy of Freedom”. In it, as a consequence of a spiritual world view, there is also a certain ethic that is built precisely on the individual human being. But there is a prerequisite, and this prerequisite must be made by everyone who grasps the problem of freedom in a serious and realistic sense: that, if it is possible to have intuitions that establish human freedom, then it must also be possible for that individual human being to bring forth something that can be built upon in social coexistence. But our attention must constantly be directed to this social life. Therefore I may say that in a certain sense my Philosophy of Freedom is supplemented by my Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage (Key Points in the Social Question). Just as my Philosophy of Freedom investigates the source of the forces that lead to freedom in the individual human being, so my Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage investigates how the social organism must be constructed so that the individual human being can develop freely. And these are basically the two great questions that must occupy us in contemporary public life. A real answer to this question will at the same time be able to shed some light into the chaos.

I would like to note that I have organized today's and tomorrow's lectures in such a way that today's lecture should, so to speak, be more of a critique of the times, pointing out what has been in the present so far, that this present has become what we see it as, drifting into chaos, equipped with tremendous destructive powers. Tomorrow I would like to explain what needs to be done to enable national life in the broadest sense and the life of civilized humanity in general to emerge from the chaos. I would like to show how the forces that already lie within man, and that lie particularly in human coexistence, can be unleashed, but how they are fettered today. Therefore, the positive, to which the last speaker obviously wanted to point, will be more in my tomorrow's lecture than in my today's. But it had to be pointed out, what we are suffering from, so that a knowledge of the will can be built on this knowledge of the present, which is necessary for a prosperous development in the future.

But I would like to mention one more thing in conclusion. Those who are serious about the great issues of the present must not think in a traditional sense, they must not be followers of something similar to a “thousand-year Reich” or the like, they must not think that we can establish a paradise on earth here, but they must think that every reality can only develop in accordance with its own conditions of existence, that within the life between birth and death one can only come to a 'yes' in this life if one is able to constantly supplement the imperfections of physical life with the prospect of a spiritual life: One of the greatest mistakes of our time is that a large number of people gradually want everything that makes life worth living to come from the mere external life. And this is how social questions are formulated today: How must the external life be designed to give people everything they imagine a paradise would offer? Those who ask the question in this way will never come to an answer. You can only come to a true, genuine answer if you are imbued with a sense of reality. And I will take the liberty of speaking tomorrow about what such a sense of reality can give as an answer to the great question of the present.

Yesterday I took the liberty of explaining how three destructive forces are at work in the decline of our time: the world domination of phrase, the world domination of convention, the world domination of routine. And yesterday I tried to suggest how the phrase should be replaced by thought-filled speech, by thoughts imbued with spiritual substance, which can express themselves through language in the social life of people. And in this connection I tried to suggest how the revival of spiritual life must take the place of convention, which can only arise from the living interaction of mature people living together in the democratic sense. And I tried to suggest how the practice of spiritualized life must take the place of mere routine, of spiritless routine.

If we initially characterize all these things only from the outside, they actually only seem to touch on the surface facts of our present life. But in truth, they push straight to that which, on the one hand, is rooted in the innermost part of human existence, but which, on the other hand, is also lived out in the most significant, most far-reaching and decisive social facts of life.

Yesterday I already hinted at how one of the fundamental causes of our present civilization, which is permeated by so many destructive forces, must be sought in a particular symptom. I pointed out that for three to four centuries it has essentially been scientific knowledge that has provided the basis of our world view, the one that seeks to establish

What is otherwise present in our social life are the traditional impulses for a worldview. What has been bearing fruit in a new way, what has really moved people for three to four centuries, is the question: in what way can a worldview flow from the scientific foundations of human knowledge? It is no wonder that, under the urge to found a world view in this way, precisely those forces of the human soul have been developed that are capable of bringing such a world view into being. A very specific kind of thinking and a very specific kind of will has emerged in these last centuries and has reached a certain peak of activity in our present time. Natural science, after all, emphasizes time and again that its conscientious method depends on investigating the world of facts, so that nothing is introduced into what is determined about the facts themselves, that nothing is introduced from the human being, from the human personality itself. In vain have minds such as Goethe's, who realized the one-sidedness to which mere knowledge of nature, separated from man, must lead, pointed out how real knowledge, useful for a comprehensive world view, must not be separated from man, how even the external physical fact must be considered in connection with the man standing in the world. On the other hand, it can be said that this approach, separated from the human being, has in turn celebrated its great triumphs by bringing the world of technology to what it is today. But all this could only come about under the influence of a certain kind of thinking; that thinking which devotes itself either to what nature presents through itself to observation, or to that which we can present in experiment. To understand the language of facts itself, that is the ideal of this thinking.

In this thinking, little flows in from that — the one who, in addition to spiritual science, has also conscientiously and methodically dealt with natural science knows what human will is, from what impulsates us as we carry out our task in the outer life, as we come into contact and relationship with other people, as we, in other words, place ourselves in the social being. Yes, the great triumphs of science and technology have only been possible because, to a certain extent, man has learned to think in such a way that his will influences his thinking as little as possible. One could say that a kind of thinking habit has developed under the influence of this fact over the last three to four centuries.

Now, with such thinking, one can recognize great things in the mineral world, the plant world, but less so in the animal world, and — as I already hinted at yesterday — nothing at all with regard to the true nature of man. And the reason why no other thinking has been developed alongside this, I might say, unwilled thinking, is to be found in a certain fear of everything that enters our thinking when man, of his own accord, gives this thinking its structure and organization. In this way, fantasy and arbitrariness can enter into thinking through human volition. And again and again it is pointed out how fantastic the worldviews of certain philosophers appear, who have indeed introduced human volition into their thinking, in contrast to the certain results that natural scientists have arrived at, who allowed only what nature itself or the experiment told them.

It was simply not known that it is possible to permeate human thinking with the will in such a way that in this well-trained, will-borne thinking, arbitrariness disappears just as it disappears in relation to that thinking which is only concerned with external facts or with experiments. In order to discover such thinking, which is permeated by the will, it requires, however, spiritual exercises performed with energy, care and patience. To this end, a person who wants to become a spiritual researcher, who really wants to penetrate into the spiritual world, from which alone knowledge of man can flow, must repeatedly and repeatedly over long periods of time and with inner soul methodology, hold thoughts in which he develops nothing but inner volition. He must develop such volition in these thoughts as one otherwise only develops in the outer world. In the outer world one loves, one hates, one takes up this or that activity, rejects this or that activity. In the outer world one has to deal with something about which one can only have opinions. One has to deal with something that contains crises. Whatever one recognizes in the outer world through one's will, or against which one is fought, must be carried into the world of one's thoughts if one wants to become a spiritual researcher, and one will gradually notice that these thoughts really become powers carried by the will, imbued with inner conformity to law. You must accept what I have just said in apparent abstraction in such a way that the work that is characterized by it, the inner soul work, is one that takes a long time and is carried out just as methodically, albeit in the spiritual realm, as everything we do with the most precise instruments for our chemical or physical experiments. Just as the chemist or the physicist carries out his experiments with exactitude, so the spiritual researcher carries out that which is the weighing of one thought against another, the effect of one thought upon another. In this way, abstract thinking, which has developed under the influence of natural scientific research in the course of the last three to four hundred years, rises to become an inwardly living thinking, a thinking that is more an image-gazing of a spiritual nature than ordinary abstract thinking. This is one side of it, which must be developed into real knowledge of the human being, because it is impossible to use that abstract thinking for this knowledge of the human being, which must be a spiritual knowledge, a spiritual vision, that celebrates its great triumphs in natural science. But this thinking, which is fully at home in natural science, has certain, I would say impossible results, especially in social life in the broadest sense. The more abstract our thinking becomes, the more dogmatic it becomes in the individual. Certainly, one becomes very critical, conscientious, and methodical when applying the thinking cultivated in the last three to four centuries. But one does become opinionated with regard to one's social integration into all of humanity or into a part of humanity. Just do some research and you will see when you stick to the thinking that has made science great: you get used to always being right — and the other person is right too! And people, that would be the extreme, basically couldn't communicate with each other at all.

Are we not living in the midst of this state of affairs? Today, anyone who has gone through a life of trials and tribulations and has struggled with problems for decades, who is compelled by today's education of humanity to present these problems in the accessible, conventional forms of spiritual-scientific concepts, he does not find young people everywhere who come and say, with their one-and-a-half decades of experience at most: This is my point of view, this is what I think, this is what I counter with my rich life experiences. And finally, taken in the abstract, one cannot even disagree with these beginners in life, who can think just as logically as the aged with life experience. scientific knowledge is basically not bound to human development. It is something that one achieves, wherever one finds oneself, and which one finally attains when one has reached a certain degree of adulthood. And so we can say: this abstract thinking, this intellectualism, which has today reached a high degree of perfection, gives everyone something that they actually want to communicate to everyone else, but which the other person already knows from within themselves. They want to communicate in social life. They cannot communicate because the other person is not inclined to receive the message, but at most to counter it with their point of view.

What makes science great is inapplicable in social life, because in it man gives, would like to give, something that no one else really wants to receive because he already believes he has it. Whoever really thinks through what the real basic direction of our entire present-day soul life is, will have to see much of what is present in our social life today in terms of destructive forces, which drive people apart instead of bringing them together. He will have to see it partly in what I have now characterized as a peculiarity and social consequence of abstract thinking, which is useful precisely for natural science.

Spiritual science will lead beyond this thinking because it cultivates that which remains unconscious in today's thinking, because it pushes the will – that is precisely what remains unconscious – into this thinking, because it develops deliberate thinking. And from deliberate thinking, real knowledge of human nature can follow. But that is only one element.

The other element is that, under the influence of this way of thinking, as it has emerged in the scientific world view, man has also come to contrast volition-barren thinking with thought-barren willing. Today's human being basically consists of this duality, of that soul element that cannot be described other than as volition-devoid thinking, and of the other soul element that must be described as thought-devoid willing. Spiritual scientific knowledge, in the same way that it attempts to integrate the will into thinking, seeks to bring the person who wants to become a spiritual researcher to face his own actions, the results of his own will, with an objectivity that is otherwise only applied to external facts. When he sets out on the path of spiritual research, man must become a faithful observer of what he himself does and what he himself wills. In a sense, he must first of all lift himself up ideationally and walk beside himself as in a higher self. And this higher self must observe the human being in everything he does, as one would otherwise only observe when observing external natural facts or conducting experiments. For then one learns to develop thoughts from something that, especially in the last three to four centuries, has been dominated and impulsed by the most personal emotions, particularly in certain radical, extreme circles. One learns to recognize that in thoughts which one otherwise does not see at all, whose thoughts otherwise remain completely unconscious.

And because the human being breaks down into these two elements, today we see, on the one hand, abstract scientific knowledge that only deals with the non-human, and social impulses that are only effective as personal instincts. We see how natural science has risen to certain heights, how, for example, in the East — and it will not remain with the East, unfortunately — education, which has been gained from this natural scientific thinking, now wants to gain principles from it for social coexistence , as can be seen in the East, that with scientific social policy one can do nothing but organize the most savage human instincts, organize them in such a way that the organization must drive humanity to its downfall.

These things are connected with what has come to prominence in the last few centuries, and must be considered in this context. Only when one cultivates the will in thinking, as I have indicated, then cultivates thinking in willing - the exact description can be found in my books “How to Know Higher Worlds?” and in the second part of my “Secret Science”, and in similar books – only then, when one has founded a spiritual science in this way, which can penetrate into the real being of man, will such a science not stand powerless in the face of the whole human personality. Yes, our present-day science is powerless in the face of the whole human personality, because thinking that is not pulsating with will is an activity of the human head alone; it is intellectualism that has no communicative power for life. Spiritual knowledge, as it gradually forms into a worldview from such foundations, as I could only hint at here, spiritual science is something that not only takes hold of human thoughts, the human intellect, but the whole human personality. Because it has emerged from the will, from volitional thinking, it places this human thinking in the social community, and because it carries thought into the will, it can also inspire thoughts in people that bring forth true life practice, not just routine, but life practice that can only be based on ideas, on spirit-borne will.

This spiritual-scientific world view is needed today above all in the field of that spiritual life which is most important for the public, we need it in the field of the art of education. And it is precisely in the art of education that one can explore the inner truth of what I have just characterized as the principles of a spiritual science. In the already mentioned “Waldorf School”, which was established in Stuttgart under the aegis of our friend, Mr. Molt, an attempt has been made to found education as an art on a spiritual-scientific basis. This Waldorf School does not want to be a school of world view. Those people who say that it wants to be a school in which, instead of old worldviews, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is already brought into the child are not telling the truth. That is not the case with this school, but rather the fact that what is meant here as spiritual science can grasp the will of the human being, can permeate his actions, and that what remains only a thought, an idea, in other worldviews can be methodically formulated in the anthroposophically oriented spiritual-scientific worldview. Therefore, the question at the Steiner Waldorf School in Stuttgart is not what content we want to convey to the children, but rather that our spiritual science becomes method in it, becomes that which provides the basis for the teacher's work, for teaching, for educating, for acting, for willing.

However, this does mean that this pedagogy, this art of education, is built on a real knowledge of human nature. A true knowledge of human nature can only be gained through the methods that I have briefly outlined today. Through these methods, one learns to recognize how, above all, certain epochs can be distinguished in the developing human being, based on the inner soul-spiritual. These epochs are often superficially overlooked today, even in science, which thinks it is very exact. Of course, certain processes can be seen in the child when the teeth change around the age of seven. But those who look deeper into human nature also see how, during this time of changing teeth, a complete metamorphosis of the entire soul life takes place in the child. While in the first period, from birth to seven years, everything the child does, everything the child feels inclined and capable of doing, stems from the principle of imitation, from a feeling one's way into everything that those around the child do, the change of teeth marks the beginning of the epoch when, around the age of seven, the child's inner abilities are oriented towards authority. Up to the age of seven, the child will, as a matter of course, imitate the elementary life around him, even in the movements of his hands and the way he forms his speech, doing what the adults around him do. He will completely interweave himself into what emanates even from the imponderables of the directions of thoughts and ideas in his environment. From the seventh year onwards, the child needs to believe in those around him: they know, in a certain sense, what is right; they need authority. No matter how much one may rail against authority today, one should bear in mind that from the seventh year onwards, until around the year when sexual maturity occurs, authority is something that a person must be influenced by if they are to develop healthily. For a second epoch in human childhood is that from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, to about the age of fourteen. About, I say; it is not some kind of number game that is at issue here, but the important stages, the transformations of the life metamorphoses, that are at issue. At about the age of fourteen, the human being becomes sexually mature. A complete transformation of his soul life occurs, and that which inwardly enables him to judge independently occurs, to confront the world with what arises as judgment in his inner being, while from the seventh to the fourteenth year he can thrive if he has the authority to look up to.

Now it is precisely the years from the change of teeth to sexual maturity that the child has to be cared for in teaching and education during his so-called primary school years. But even during this time, certain epochs and sub-epochs can still be distinguished. The imitative impulse, which stems from the innermost being of the human being and prevails until the seventh year, extends, in a weakened but clearly recognizable form, beyond the seventh year into the ninth year. And anyone who, through spiritual science, acquires a living sense of how this interplay of imitative ability and need for authority comes to expression in every single child in all their learning and in relation to all education, will be able to see a unique educational problem in every child, even if they have the largest class in front of them. For such a person, as an educator and teacher, cannot be devoted to some standardised pedagogy, not to a pedagogy that in turn sets up abstract principles out of intellectualism: this is how one must educate, or this is how one must educate. No, the person who has become a teacher through spiritual science sees in the developing child something that the artist sees in each individual work that he creates: always something new and ever new. There are no abstract pedagogical principles here, only a living process of finding one's way into the child, of bringing something out of the child, of solving the riddle of what is hidden in the child, what wants to come out through the body as a spiritual-soul element. For it is the peculiarity of spiritual knowledge, which must above all be applied in the art of education, that it leads the human being back to the direct life of the soul. This is not the case with intellectualism, with abstract knowledge. When I have grasped something in the abstract, I have grasped it, and then I carry it further into life. At most, I remember what I have already learned. This is not the case with spiritual knowledge. Anyone who has taken just a few steps in this spiritual knowledge knows that spiritual knowledge does not give you something that you can merely remember. Nor does spiritual knowledge give you something that you can merely remember, like what I ate and drank today can give me something that I can merely remember tomorrow and the following days; you are not satisfied as a person if you are only supposed to remember what you ate four weeks ago. But one is satisfied as a human being who has absorbed an abstract realization when one remembers what one has learned or acquired four weeks ago. It is not the same with spiritual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is interwoven with the human being, goes down, is digested and must always be revived, thus going into the phenomena of life.

If someone were a great spiritual researcher in his forties and did not continue to cultivate a living relationship with what can be known, he would starve in relation to the soul-spiritual content, as someone would starve who stopped eating when he turned forty. Abstract knowledge, as magnified by science, can be satisfied with appearances. It is a one-time conclusion. Spiritual knowledge brings people into a living connection with their environment, and must be constantly renewed if it is not to die away. In life, it becomes similar to eating and drinking in a lower realm.

By saying something like this, the world should recognize how radically different this spiritual knowledge is from the one that is believed to be the only possible one today. But imagine that this knowledge of the spirit permeates everything the teacher wants to do, permeating his actions and thoughts when he enters the classroom, just as iron invigorates our blood. Imagine an attitude that comes from a spiritual realization and that knows: you have to approach each individual in a special way, you cannot memorize anything, you have to face each child as a new riddle — only that gives a real pedagogy, a pedagogy full of life. Today there is much talk of educating the individuality. All kinds of fine, abstract principles are also given about it, but nothing will be achieved by this. We will only achieve something in our demanding time by founding a pedagogy as art. This pedagogy as art, which looks into the human being anew each time, forgets the science of knowledge, just as the artist discards all aesthetics and everything when he wants to create positively. What use are all the principles of beauty when we want to shape the clay! Anyone who knows what artistic creation is will agree with me. What use are all pedagogical rules when we begin to unravel and develop what is soul and spiritual in the child? It is a matter of us as educators becoming artists. We can become such artists when spiritual science penetrates our civilization as a living component. Then we will also see how we have to educate the will during the period between the seventh and ninth year, when the sense of imitation balances with the sense of authority. Above all, we must not approach the child in an inartistic way with what is determined by human convention. We must not present to the child as convention that which speaks only to the intellect. This includes the letter forms, and it also includes writing and reading. All of this is based on human convention, as we have it today, because we are no longer in the time of the old pictographic writing. We have to get away from that. That is why we try to develop reading and writing – writing first – from an artistic point of view. We try to draw or paint such forms first, from which the letter forms can then be built; first the artistic, then the intellectual. But in order for what the child's nature actually desires in this age to flourish in the right way, everything must be based on this artistic teaching. And now that we have been teaching at the Waldorf School for only a few months, we can see how it is possible to work from the artistic, how it is possible, above all in music, in song, in eurythmy, in inspired musical art – for that is what eurythmy for the child — how it is possible to give the child something in all of this that his nature demands, that his nature wants, but which at the same time makes the artistic sense pliable, makes the artistic sense inclined to receive the whole world in an artistic way. Then, when the ninth year approaches, when the human being can establish a relationship between the self and the outside world, then one can experimentally steer towards what nature description is, then one can evoke science from the artistic.

However, it must always be taken into account – however strange, however trivial it may sound, it must be said – that the human being is human. The so-called timetable, as we often have it today, does not take into account the fact that the human being is human. There is nothing less educational than teaching the child three quarters of an hour of one subject and then three quarters of an hour of something completely opposite. Three quarters of an hour of religion, three quarters of an hour of arithmetic, three quarters of an hour of writing and so on. In the Waldorf school, we try to get everything out of the laws that express themselves in the soul and spirit of the child. It is certainly necessary to do something, for example, arithmetic, for three, four, five to six weeks, without a timetable, and only when a certain amount of work has been done, you move on to something else. This is the concentration of teaching. At the end of the school year, everything that comes into consideration can be summarized by repetition. But the timetable is actually the enemy of every true art of education.

And in this way, not only can we achieve something in terms of the educational and teaching guidance of the child, but we can also deduce the necessities of the curriculum from the development of the child itself. When I held the pedagogical course for the teachers of the Waldorf School, which prepared them for their task, I was primarily concerned with developing a curriculum that is actually the mere result of what the child demands . from the sixth, seventh to the eighth, ninth year, from the ninth year to the twelfth year, from the twelfth year to sexual maturity. From what is elementary in the development of human nature, from what should be done, one can see, if one has a sense and understanding of the human being through spiritual science, from year to year, and one can see, when one enters the classroom, with a deep pedagogical sense, from what the faces of the children sitting in front of you tell you. In this way, an attempt is made – I can only sketch it out for you, I cannot describe these things in detail – to bring direct life into one of the most important social areas, into the art of education, through spiritual science. |

All abstractions, everything that makes technology great, is not fruitful where it is about bringing people together. The true art of education will have to seek its sources in spiritual science. It will only be able to do so when, in the sense of the threefold social organism, spiritual life is liberated from the state and economic life. It was only because there was still a gap in the Württemberg Education Act that it was possible to bring the Waldorf school into this gap as an independent school in which pedagogical and artistic principles can really be applied. To accept spiritual science, one does not have to become a spiritual scientist. Just as one can accept modern astronomy or modern chemistry and does not have to become an astronomer or a chemist, but only needs common sense, so one also only needs common sense, if one does not allow oneself to be influenced by prejudices, to accept what the spiritual scientific researcher brings from the depths of the soul to the surface. But when one becomes imbued with what is recognized out of will-borne thoughts and out of thought-borne volition, then one also acquires the necessary enthusiasm for life, which today's sleeping humanity lacks and which must come if things are to improve.

Until a sufficiently large number of people energetically demand what is necessary for a new beginning, it will not come of its own accord from some corner. Today's development of humanity is predisposed to demand the great goals in life out of will, out of conscious will. We have pursued that policy long enough, which always looks diplomatically at what is there and according to which one says: it will work out again. Today people see how things get worse every day; every day they believe that what has just happened will not happen again. They have not the slightest sense that in decline the power of the rising must be recognized. And so, as in the art of education, we must also look for the forces that can lead to the new building in the life of the nation. There too, only those forces can arise that come from the spirit, from the knowledge of the spirit, from the contemplation of the spirit. How those two soul elements that I have pointed out stand in relation to each other in our social life and in the life of our nation today! Abstract thinking, which every human being actually has – it is quite irrelevant whether one has outgrown the cobbler's workshop, is the son of the cobbler or [gap], if one has brought it to a level of thinking. This thinking is independent of the personal; from this thinking one has one's standpoint. But these standpoints are actually not necessary at all, for every person actually has the right to his own standpoint, and he could actually go through the world as a loner with this standpoint. There is no need to live together at all if everyone has “their standpoint” and no one has anything to say to the other.

But the peculiar thing about spiritual knowledge is that it frees us completely from these “points of view”, from this standing on points of view, that it actually becomes something that makes people receptive to life, to a true school. For anyone who becomes acquainted with spiritual science in the sense in which it is meant here as anthroposophically oriented, as it is represented by the Dornach building, every single person they meet in life becomes an interesting problem. The child itself, that is important for the art of education; the child becomes an interesting problem. And just as one feels hunger in relation to the outer nature in physical life, and how one must connect with the outer nature, so as a spiritual scientist one feels the need to constantly engage with what other people mean, what other people think, feel and want. In the broadest sense, spiritual science brings us together with people.

Today, the humanities scholar can say, above all, that when he reads other worldviews, he lets them affect him differently than other people. He is less concerned with what is error or truth, because that is usually only one's own point of view that decides this, and I have just expressed my own point of view. But however great the supposed error may be that is produced by this or that person, thinking or acting, what the person presents to us is the complement of our own being if we imbue ourselves with spiritual science. Just as the natural scientist has the need to deal with the experiment, so the spiritual scientist has the need to deal with everything human. If he establishes a world view, it becomes a social impulse because it does not divide people, but brings them together; because it brings individual life into that which is otherwise only an abstract point of view that anyone can have towards anyone else. The spiritual researcher encounters the small child, who perhaps can only babble, perhaps cannot even babble, who can reveal secrets to him through the still completely childlike eye. He receives revelations from all humanity. Through this, what spiritual science has to say, if it is only taken up into human life, becomes an impulse for social togetherness of people. Just as scientific knowledge has extracted the content of thought from human language, just as it has created the phrase, so spiritual science will bring secrets into our language, living spiritual substantiality, and our language will become, through the fact that spiritual science leads man to man, the most important social remedy for the coming time.

And precisely because knowledge has become so abstract on the one hand, the will has become dependent on mere emotions, on mere personal instincts, as I have also explained today. By creating its content out of the will borne by thoughts, spiritual science can give people a basis for more far-reaching interests than mere personal feelings or personal egoism can. What has become the decisive factor in social life in the last three to four centuries? The decisive factor has become selfishness. If we cannot rise through knowledge to the human, if the human cannot penetrate us, then we can only assert selfishness in social life. But in the moment when we have spiritual life in its independence, and thereby found that independence in the art of education, which I have outlined today, and in the moment when we permeate our will with ideas, we can find the way in our economic life from person to person, we can form associations out of the various professions and out of the coming together of consumers and producers, and we can build an economic structure into the social organism that is built precisely on what one person can learn from another, what one person can experience from another. As a result, the routine of life will be transformed into the practice of life. The more inwardly one looks at human life, the more one looks at human life itself, the more the necessity of the threefold social organism emerges from every corner. And just as economic life is fertilized by a will imbued with ideas, on the other hand, spiritual life [gap], so that which takes place between human beings - in today's world it actually only takes place as convention, and so that one also wants convention in the form of the League of Nations between peoples - to become a living element in the legal life of the state, which, as an independent link in the threefold social organism, should stand in relation to the other independent links, the independent spiritual life, the independent economic life. But at the same time, you can see from the example of the art of education how spiritual science reaches into the life of the people, into social life, how it must be this spiritual science, on the foundations of which the structure of the threefold social organism must be built. Oh, to what extremes has man come in recent times under the influence of the two soul elements described! On the one hand, we have abstract thinking, which, I might say, reaches beyond all human individuality and is the same in all people who have developed the ability for this logical, abstract, intellectual thinking. Because it is the same, it is also necessary that what man cannot attain as an abstract man, what he wants to acquire in the social community, is built on the subhuman, on mere instincts, on selfish instincts. And so we see how, in the age of Darwinism, when it was noticed that the struggle for existence, which is only valid to a limited extent in the animal kingdom, had come about, natural scientists wanted to become social politicians, social scientists, and now also wanted to establish the struggle for existence as the natural thing in human life. Yes, it is even true that the struggle for existence would rage in human life if only the instincts of egoism could be active in social life. And Lenin and Trotsky also want to stage this struggle for existence; they will only organize egoism. This is known to everyone who can see through human life today. Everything else will be a mask. We can already see the inner falsity of Leninism, which promises people the moon, shorter working hours, and has already arrived at the point of imposing twelve-hour working hours because this turns out to be a necessity within the mechanism that is to be introduced.

But never in human life will what is present in him as abstract thinking, what is the same in all people, be able to say yes to this struggle for existence; it will always be dissatisfied with this struggle for existence, it will always strive for harmony, for overcoming the struggle for existence. But if we do not succeed in pouring real spirituality into abstract intellectualism, the world of abstraction will be too weak to eliminate egoism from social life. And on the other hand, egoism will remain brutal if it is not infused with that which only spiritual knowledge, spiritual insight, can bring to man. That which appears dualistically in man today, on the one hand abstract intellectualism, on the other hand the mere rule of instincts, can only find its balance through the fact that both can be permeated by the spirit. When thoughts are spiritualized, they are brought to the individual human being and make this individual human being not only someone who wants to be right, who can give only that which others do not want, but someone who must constantly engage with other people, must constantly engage with other people, so to speak, using the language of thoughts instead of the language of phrases. But this can only be done out of a spiritual life that is not merely built on memory, but that, like hunger and thirst, is built on the daily renewal, on the metamorphosis of life, which must constantly renew itself, even if it has already reached the highest level. This can only happen if the instincts are imbued with those thoughts that arise in the way I have described today. Then, within his economic associations, man will be able to want what goes beyond the individual human being. Then economic life can be spiritualized. It is already the case that wherever one looks into real life today, the necessity for what one can demand as the threefold social order arises. This is not a utopia. Only those who have no sense of reality, who are utopians themselves, describe the threefold social order as utopian, and therefore declare everything that does not fit into their utopias to be utopian.

What is offered to the world as the impulse of the threefold social order is taken from the fullness of life. But it also shows that this full life demands today a permeation with what can be grasped in a living vision. This vision is necessary for the human being. And until it is recognized that the human being is not a mere creature of nature, it will not be possible to arrive at a solution to the social problems that are so pressing today. Years ago, when theoretical materialism was at its height, people who could already see through it were indignant against this materialism. But one cannot help saying that after all, the people who became theoretical materialists, like Haeckel and the like, were not clever people. We are confronted with the peculiar phenomenon that truly bright minds have become materialists. Why? They have become materialists because thinking, which over the last three to four centuries has developed as abstract thinking - this is particularly clear to the spiritual researcher - must be explained in materialistic terms. The thinking that makes science great is bound to the tools of the brain, to the tools of the human body. Thought ceases with death. But when we infuse our thought processes with will, when we are not only guided by observation of nature and experiment, when we permeate thought with that which arises out of the will, then something arises that can become free of the body, that is truly soul-spiritual. Materialism was right for the kind of thinking that has become prominent in the last three to four centuries and has reached its peak in the present. This must be explained in materialistic terms. That is why the cleverest people in the second half of the 19th century became materialists, because they were ultimately faced with the great mystery: what about ordinary thinking, which has reached such heights in natural science? This must be explained in materialistic terms. Materialism in its own way is fully justified, and no one can be a spiritualist in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science who does not know that materialism has a right to exist in its limited field. Anyone who now asks the question: either materialism or spiritualism? — is barking up the wrong tree. For materialism has its domain, and it must be clearly understood that if man wishes to save the soul-spiritual, he must also go beyond the thinking of which he is so proud today. And in the same way, a truly desirable social order will never be able to come about if man wishes to found these social orders only on the basis of ordinary egoistic emotions, for these can only found the struggle for existence, not a social dream à la Lenin. Man can only found a real social order if he incorporates the spiritual and soul aspects, as described today and as it is inspired in him by that world view that comes from spiritual insight, into this social life. Then man will be able to recognize and verify through life what was in Goethe's mind when he turned his gaze to the nature of man and asked himself: What is man's actual relationship to nature? — Goethe said to himself: When we survey everything from the wonderful stars above to all that presents itself in the various realms of nature around us, we must look at man, standing in front of this nature, how he absorbs this nature , how he transforms it, how he gives rise to it as something new within himself, creating a higher nature through the human being in the human being, a higher nature that is spiritual-soul, soul-spiritual. Goethe expresses this so beautifully when he says:

Out of such an attitude, which leads man through nature, beyond nature, to himself, to the soul-spiritual, only that which is to build up our social life can arise. But it will only arise if man, through his will, directs his gaze to that which the study of spiritual life itself can give him.

Therefore, it must be said: It is not in external institutions and their transformation that we should see what can lead us forward. However we may reshape external institutions, it will not lead to a new structure. This can only lead to a new structure if man himself seeks out in his own inner being that which is currently inclined towards destruction within him. For everything external that arises in a person's life is done by the person himself, by the innermost being of the person. Only by relearning, only by rethinking can we make progress. Therefore, it cannot get better sooner than until a sufficiently large number of people muster the courage to rethink, to relearn. And finally, that which may once again come upon humanity as constructive forces must arise out of the courage to elevate the real spirit, so that, as I said yesterday in conclusion, the real spirit may gradually but effectively eliminate the un-spirit.

[There follows a discussion.]

Closing words

Dear attendees! I actually have no particular point of reference from Mr. B.'s remarks to say anything significant in this closing word, because he has provided the example of how to judge from the abstract thinking of the present that which would like to be said from spirit-fertilized thinking. And so I would like to say a few words for those of the honored audience who might have misunderstood, perhaps even with justification, what I said about the curriculum.

What I said about the curriculum is that it should work towards concentration. I did not say that there should be no variety. Apart from the fact that one could argue whether this variety should be created after three to five weeks for arithmetic, or whether this is better or that, this is a purely didactic question that cannot be treated agitatorially, but only factually. But apart from that, one has to work on concentration in class, so that a certain workload is processed in such a way that the timetable is not a hindrance. One really works through a workload for three to six weeks, as long as it is necessary, without being interrupted by anything else. Naturally, the child's nature is fully taken into account. So that you do not misunderstand me, I would like to explain to you how it is in some classes at the Waldorf School. Let's take the fifth grade. I could just as easily mention the first. There, the lessons begin a few minutes after eight o'clock in the morning. In the first two hours, the children are taught to concentrate, which is otherwise decentered and scattered throughout the school day by the usual school subjects and the timetable. So in these first two hours, until a few minutes after ten o'clock, the children work in a concentrated way towards what is otherwise viewed as the content of the school subjects. So that, let's say, in a sufficient number of weeks, arithmetic is taught, then language teaching is taught for a number of weeks, and so on. Then comes what makes concentration possible by doing it in a certain way; we teach foreign languages, French and English, to even the youngest children, so that the first classes receive foreign language teaching. And it makes a great impression when you see the little sponges coming to their lessons and see how they have actually made progress with great joy in the few weeks of foreign language lessons. There they are actually working towards using the language. So for five to six weeks in the first class it is already the case; then French is taught until 11 a.m. and English until 12 noon. Then the children go home. And on some afternoons – the children have enough free time, and it is also part of the change that they now come out again – on some afternoons, when they come back, they have singing, music and eurythmy, soulful gymnastics, soulful movement art. In this soulful movement art, the children not only have physiological gymnastics, which is also practiced, but spiritualized movement. They have, as it were, given a mute language in eurythmy. The children find their way into this extraordinarily well. And when there are eurythmy performances on days when the children are called together for special festivities, the children crowd around it, and you can see how it all comes to life. So there can be no question of there being no variety or no consideration for what suits the child's nature. But if it is said: if the children get too bored, something else has to come along – yes, my dear audience, that is precisely the task: to never let the children get too bored! At most, the children may become unruly because something is bothering them, but they would never want the lesson to end because they were bored. And in this short time, since I have attended school for long periods twice and actually always take the lead in teaching, I have been able to see for myself how, in this way, life is actually brought into the whole teaching.

My dear attendees, if you want to establish equal rights for all, not through talk but through action, then you really don't have to get worked up in a talkative way about the difference between entrepreneurs and workers, which despite all the talk is still there today; it simply exists as a fact, and if you talk today, you really can't wipe away this difference for the time being. The fact is that in the Waldorf school, the child of the proletarian sits next to the child of the entrepreneur. The children are educated in complete unity, and this is where equal rights for all are established in practice! While all the talk and agitating is going on, the “entrepreneurs” and “workers” do not have to be there, nothing will be achieved, but they must have equal rights. In short, the question cannot be solved with talk; the only way to solve it is to create goals and, above all, to envisage the real solution of the social question. By always interfering with inflammatory phrases when action is required, not a single step towards improvement can ever be taken! That is what matters today: to distinguish between action and talk. If we do not make this distinction between the talkers and those who want to do something, we will not get anywhere. The talkers will talk all social order to death. With fine talk, nothing can be achieved in our time, no matter how much this talk is based on equality. Equality must be established; mere talk of equality achieves nothing.

Another question, esteemed attendees: Must not the materially precondition be created for the economically oppressed today, so that the possibility is offered to him to absorb spiritual? I have just written an article in the last or next-to-last issue of the journal for “Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus” (Threefolding of the Social Organism), which appears in Stuttgart: “Ideas and Bread” - to counter the popular prejudice that, when on the part of the satiated and even today those who can still satiate themselves repeatedly point out: All that is needed to solve the social question is for people to work. That is easy to say! The point is for people to see a goal, a meaning in their work! But on the other hand, it is also not enough to always hear from the other side: First bread must be created for the people, then they will rise spiritually, or then one can ensure that they rise spiritually. It is spiritual work that leads to bread being earned. You have to organize, you have to bring what is being worked on into some kind of structure, into a social one, otherwise the bread cannot be created. If a terrible wave of famine is now spreading across Central Europe, this wave of famine has not come about because bread has suddenly been withdrawn from people, but because people have entered into a social order as a result of the war catastrophe, within which no bread is being earned and within which no ideas are working that earn bread. that bread has suddenly been withdrawn from people, but that people have come into a social order through the catastrophe of war, within which no bread is earned, within which no ideas are at work that make bread earned. The ideas that were worshipped by people until 1914, who were the leaders, have been reduced to absurdity by the last five to six years, they have been dismissed. We need new ideas! And if we do not decide to say to ourselves, “We need new ideas,” then these new ideas will organize the social order, they will create the necessary bread; if we do not decide to do so, then we will not be able to move forward into the future in a healthy way. It is very strange how, I would say, it shows in individual cases that people do not want to admit to themselves how the truth actually lies and works. Until 1914, Prince Krapotkin was certainly one of the most radical. When he went back to Russia, people soon began saying: Yes, if we only get bread from the West, things will get better! — And then they heard that he was writing an 'ethics'. You see, that is what has destroyed us, that people have material life on the one hand, and an abstract spiritual life on the other, and that nothing of the abstract spiritual life spills over into the real material life. The spirit does not show itself by being worshipped; the spirit shows itself by becoming capable of dominating and organizing matter as well. That is precisely the problem: our creeds have come to mean that man has only beautiful things to look forward to when he has finished working, or at most a directive on the first white page of the ledger that says, “With God.” Even if what is processed there in debit and credit does not always justify the statement, “With God!” But therein lie the symptoms of the decline of our time, that we have lost the power to find the transition from what we profess spiritually to material life, that the prevailing attitude is: Oh yes, do not link material life with the spirit! The spirit is something very sublime, it must be kept free from material life! No, the spirit is not there for that, so that it can be kept free from material life, so that when you leave the factory you can only have it as a Sunday afternoon sensation, no matter how noble it may be. The spirit is there for that, so that you can carry it through the factory gate, so that the machines go after the spirit, so that the workers are organized after the spirit. That is what the spirit is for, to permeate material life! And that is what has destroyed us, that this is not the case, that we have an abstract spiritual life alongside a spiritless material life ruled by mere routine. It will not get better until the spirit becomes so powerful that it can rule matter. It is not the spirit that is alien to matter and the world that spiritual science wants to lead to, but the spirit that can rule man, which one finds not only when one is glad to leave the factory, but which one carries gladly and joyfully into the factory, so that every single action is done in the light of this spiritual life.

Those who want the spirit in the sense in which it is meant here, they truly do not want an impractical spirit, they want the spirit that really has something to say in the world, not just something to chat about, something that can give pleasure in free hours, but a spirit that, by dominating matter, organizing life thoroughly, can connect intimately with life. Whether we want to continue to drift deeper and deeper into misfortune by denying this spirit or not depends on this spirit and our acceptance of it. Today we must decide on this either/or. The more people who decide to embrace this active spirit, the better it will be for the future of humanity.

That is what I wanted to add to what I said today.

Today, an endless number of what could be called social programs or the like are buzzing through the air, truly challenged more than at any other time by all the forces at work in the present that are leading to destruction. There is no lack of proposals as to how a new structure might be developed out of this destruction. Nevertheless, when the idea of the threefold social order, urged on by the needs of the time, seeks to assert itself among these various proposals, it is primarily because of the realization that that the idea of the threefold social organism has something to offer which, if one grasps its inner essence, cannot be equated with programmatic proposals or social ideals in the abstract sense. What I would like to present to you here is thoroughly imbued with the realization that today there is a great danger for all such things to fall into utopianism. One need only think of how, basically, even if it is not yet sufficiently noticed here or there in the European world, everything that was thought to be established in the traditional economic, legal, and intellectual order is subject to a certain process of destruction, and how this process of destruction has become all too clear in the course of the last four to five years of horror for European civilization.

In such times, one cannot build on this or that that is already there and has retained its reality. After all, the most firmly established institutions have, so to speak, been reduced to absurdity by recent years. And so it is obvious that we have to build on a completely new foundation. Man can only do this by building from the foundation of thought, and it soon becomes apparent that the foundations that make a solid structure possible are not easy to find. For at first one seems to have no point of reference at all as to whether what one wants to translate into reality from one's thoughts can somehow be justified in this reality. And anything that cannot show and prove from the outset, through its content, that it can be fully realized, is utopian.

The idea of the threefold social order seeks to avoid the danger of utopianism by not actually setting up anything that could be called a social philosophy , what is called a social program, but that it wants to point to a special way in which people can work together in public life so that the forces of destruction can be countered by forces of new construction, of new development.

I would like to say that what the others indicate should happen, according to the idea of threefolding, should only arise when such cooperation between people and groups of people can take place, which is what the idea of threefolding of the social organism seeks to express. When one stands on this ground, one does not take the standpoint that one is somehow omniscient, that one is a prophet who can indicate how this or that institution should turn out in the future for the benefit of humanity, but one only wants to call upon the judgment of those who have something to say in such a way that, through the cooperation of people, this judgment can also become objective reality.

The inspiration for this idea of the threefold social organism actually goes back a long way for the person speaking to you today. It is rooted in decades of life experience relating to the social conditions in the most diverse areas of Europe, but especially in Central Europe and those parts of Central Europe that, through their fate in the last great war catastrophe, show how what had previously been the social structure of humanity, of civilized humanity in Europe, is striving towards something new, and is unable to cope with the forces that, I would say, are moving from the depths of humanity to the surface today. If one looks impartially at historical life, especially in the last third of the 19th century, in the years of the 20th century that preceded 1914, one can clearly see how that to which one adheres so dogmatically, which one still regards today, even though it has been shaken in many areas of Europe, as something that should not be shaken, such as the unified state, which has gradually taken hold of all areas of public life for three to four centuries, is no longer up to its task in the face of certain great demands of humanity, how it is not capable of simultaneously encompassing intellectual life, state-political or legal life in the narrower or even in the broader sense, and economic life. Therefore, for those who were last concerned with the idea of the threefold order, the idea arose to start precisely there and raise the question: what form must the state, which has so far been regarded as a necessary unity, take in relation to the three main spheres of human life, in relation to the spiritual sphere, to the legal-political sphere and to the economic sphere? And now, before I proceed to a kind of justification, I would first like to take the liberty of presenting to you a brief sketch of how the cooperation of people should be conceived so that the tasks that arise for people from these three main areas of life can now really be mastered from within the social structure.

In summary, the life of these three areas has only taken place in the last three to four centuries. You only need to remember — to cite one example — how, with the “development of medieval conditions into modern ones, schools, up to the universities, were not founded by the state, but by church communities or other communities, which had their development alongside the beginnings of state life. It was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the view arose that the unified state must also extend its power, for example, to schools, universities and the like. Likewise, one can say that economic life was also supported by corporations founded on economic impulses; it was led by those personalities who formed associations only out of economic motives. And it was only in the course of the last three or four centuries that the state extended its power over economic life, so that this combination of spiritual, legal and economic life is something that has only come about in its full significance in modern times, although it has of course shown itself earlier here and there, because everything in the historical life of mankind announces itself in advance.

In contrast to this, the idea of the threefold social order seeks to place each of these three fields on its own ground. It starts from the assumption that a certain impulse has, in the course of modern history, risen with an inner necessity, I would say again, from the depths of human feeling and sensing to the surface of historical becoming. And that is – one cannot deny it, I believe, even if one is still so biased – that in public life, despite everything that is emerging today, the most powerful impulse is after democracy. This impulse occurs as something elementary in the development of humanity. One can say: just as in the individual human being of a certain epoch of his life, let us say, sexual maturity occurs, so in the development of European humanity, preparing since the 15th century, the tendency towards democracy emerges.

If we try to identify the essential element in the various forms demanded for the democratic coexistence of people, it ultimately turns out to be this – at least it emerges as the only reasonable possibility – that the affairs of the state should be managed by the cooperation and joint judgment of all people of legal age , who in this cooperation and in this joint judgment are regarded as equals, so that everyone stands as an equal in relation to the other, with equal rights in his judgment, with equal rights in the contribution he has to make to social life, and also equal in everything he has to demand from this social life. This is the abstract democratic demand. In the modern history of humanity, it becomes concrete through the fact that it is connected with the most important feelings and impulses. One can also say that this democratic tendency has found its way into the state structures of Europe in the most diverse ways, fighting against that which has emerged from feudal and other social orders. The democratic tendency has more or less pushed its way into the old-established forms. But the urge to do so has left its mark on modern history. Since the States could not avoid adding the democratic force to their former powers in some way, even if some, I might say, only did so for the sake of appearances, they also extended this democratic principle to the fields of intellectual and economic life.

But now, as a result, a significant contradiction in public life as a whole has emerged in the development of modern humanity. The one who is serious and honest about realizing the democratic impulse must actually notice this inner contradiction in modern public life. It is the contradiction that I would like to characterize in the following way: spiritual life, up to its most important part, school life, cannot develop out of anything other than the abilities of human beings, which are quite individually different from one another. The moment one wants to extend the levelling influence of democracy to that which wants to flourish and thrive in the individual form of the adult, the moment spiritual life must always suffer in some way, must always feel oppressed in some way. Therefore, I believe that anyone who is truly serious about the democratic tendency, who says that democracy must be everywhere in public life, must say: Then one must exclude from all that all mature people decide upon as equals that which truly not all mature people as equals can have an appropriate judgment about. By pursuing this thought to its ultimate consequences, by also checking whether you have really taken into account everything that comes into question, you will come to the conclusion that, precisely when you strive for the democratization of modern state life, you have to extract the whole intellectual life from this state life, from the political-legal life.

The spiritual life must be placed on its own ground. It must be placed so firmly on its own ground that those who teach, for example, from the lowest school to the highest levels of education, are at the same time the administrators of the education and teaching system, and that the administration of the education and teaching system is connected with the entire spiritual life of a social organism, whatever it may be. Only when one — and I would like to speak specifically here — makes the person who teaches at school responsible for both tasks, and only when one creates institutions in such a way that the person who works in the spiritual life , especially if he is teaching and educating, has nothing to do with anyone other than other teachers and educators. If the entire spiritual organism is an independent unit built upon itself, then all the forces inherent in humanity can truly be unleashed in the realm of spiritual life, and spiritual life can develop to its full fruition. This seems to indicate, at least in some kind of abstract form, the necessity of separating intellectual life, which must be built on its own principles and impulses, from everything that is absorbed in democracy.

But just as intellectual life must be separated from mere state life, economic life must also be separated from it. Admittedly, this is an area in which one finds fewer opponents today than in intellectual life. In the sphere of intellectual life, especially in the field of education, it has become customary during the last three or four hundred years to regard as enlightened only those who recognize the superiority of the State over education, and who cannot imagine that it would be possible to restore the independence of intellectual life without lapsing into clericalism or something of that kind.

In the economic sphere the situation is basically similar. While spiritual life is concerned with that which is inherent in man as an ability, which must be developed freely, which, so to speak, man carries into this physical existence through his birth, economic life is concerned with that which must be built on experience, which must be built from that into which one grows by being absorbed in a particular economic field with one's professional activity. Therefore, what comes from democratic life cannot be decisive in economic life, but only what comes from professional and factual foundations.

How can these professional and factual foundations be given to economic life? Actually, not through any kind of corporation, through any kind of organization that is so beloved today, but solely through what I would like to call associations. So that associations are formed by people who immerse themselves in their professions and become truly knowledgeable and skilled in the field of economic life. Not that people are organized, but that they join together according to objective criteria, as they arise from the individual economic sectors, from the relationship between producers and consumers, from the relationship between professional and economic sectors. A certain law even emerges here – you can read about the details in my writings – as to how large such associations may be, how they should be organized, and how they become harmful when they become too large, and how they become harmful when they become too small. It is perfectly possible to found an economic life by building it on such associations, by basing everything that is achieved in the social structure through the purely economic impulse of such associations on the purely material and technical. In a sense, everyone knows whom to turn to for this or that, if they know that they are linked to the other in one way or another through the social structure of associations, and that they have to guide their product through a chain of associations in such and such a way.

Of course, since I have to speak briefly here, I can only sketch out the principles of the matter. And so, I would like to say, the spiritual life must develop independently out of its own forces, in that those who achieve it are at the same time the administrators; likewise, the economic life must develop out of its own perspectives, in that those who are active in the economic life join together according to the principles of the economic life. If economic life is independent, then that which can only be based on the equal judgment of all mature human beings will arise as the content of the third link in the social organism, the actual state community.

I know very well that many people are truly frightened when one speaks to them of this threefold social organism, which is said to be necessary for the future. But this is only because people usually think that the state should be split into three parts. How should these three parts then work together? The truth is that unity is maintained precisely because these three parts are brought to their full development in the way I have only been able to sketch out, because the human being as a unity is present in all three parts. He participates in some way in the spiritual organism. If he has children, he is interested in the spiritual organism through the school. With his spiritual interests, he is somehow involved in the spiritual organism. He carries what he has received from the spiritual organism into this democratic state, since he is a participating adult in the democratic state, in his deeds, in his life. But what public law, public security, public welfare and so on is, which concerns every adult, is developed on the basis of the unified state. And with the constitutions of the soul, which are developed there in the direct interrelationship from person to person, one enters again into economic life in one's special field, in which one is linked through various associations in which one is active. One carries what one has gained from spiritual life, from public life, into this economic life, fertilizes it through it, maintains it, brings justice and spiritual fertilization into this economic life. The human being himself forms the unity between what is not the division into estates.

I have often been told that this would be a return to what in ancient Greece included the nourishing, defending and teaching classes. Such an objection only shows how superficially such things are often viewed today. For it is not a matter of a division of people themselves, not of a division into classes, but of the external life being divided into three in its institutions. It is precisely because man is part of such a tripartite social organism that all estates can cease to exist and true democracy can come about. I would say that the development of modern states points to this with an inner necessity for anyone who is unprejudiced.

Do we not see that, on the one hand, they have to take account of the necessary impulse towards democracy, but then, on the other hand, allow democracy to be corrupted by the fact that, as a matter of course, the able will always have more weight in the democratic life of the state than the less able? In matters where ability is important, this is entirely justified, for example in the intellectual sphere. On the other hand, the actual democratic state must be kept free and pure from such overpowering influences of particularly capable personalities, because there must be an area according to the basic demand of modern humanity in which only that which is equally valid for all people who have come of age is asserted.

The economic field shows particularly well how impossible it is to allow what man acquires through his special development as an ability in economic life to have an effect. He may acquire economic supremacy through it. But it must not become a social supremacy. It will not become one only because that which is economic power, which remains within economic life, cannot possibly become a political or legal supremacy. All the factors that have led to the caricature of the so-called social question would be overcome if people were willing to accept that economic life would be placed on its own ground and that democratic state life could, in turn, be placed honestly and sincerely on its own ground. The development of newer states shows how necessary it is for humanity to turn to such principles. And so, in addition to the historical impulses that one must take up in order to be pointed to this idea of the threefold social order, allow me to characterize the two subjective sources from which this impulse has arisen for me over many years.

The first source is that, with spiritual-scientific knowledge, which I have chosen to represent my view of life, one can inform oneself about certain developmental conditions of humanity differently than from the currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview. This currently prevailing materialistic-scientific worldview cannot actually lead to a real understanding of the historical development of humanity, because what we call “history” today is basically more or less a fable convenante. We make history today - and then want to learn something from this history for the social and political tasks of the present - in such a way that we imagine that what follows in human development is always the effect of the preceding, this preceding in turn the effect of a preceding and so on. A truly appropriate comparison of the whole development of humanity with the development of the individual human being, one that is not based merely on analogies, could heal one from this error.

When I see the individual develop, I have to say: What occurs in the first years of life, in the middle years of life, at the end of life, that does not present itself in such a way that I can speak of cause and effect. I cannot truly say that a person who turns thirty-five only experiences organically what is the effect of what he experienced at twenty or twenty-five, but we see as man develops, we see certain developmental impulses and developmental forces arise from his organism, from his entire organic being and nature, which show themselves to be particularly effective at certain periods of time.

Thus, for each individual, there are life epochs: When the second dentition appears, at around seven years of age, we find that the child's entire soul life changes. Before, the child imitated; now it becomes one who needs to come under a certain authority and to follow the judgments of people. Again, at puberty, a transformation of the soul life clearly begins. This transformation of the soul life can also be observed in later epochs, if only we have an organ for it.

For the individual human being, it is not just a matter of cause and effect, but of developmental forces shooting up from the depths of his being. And if you study history properly, you will find – to cite just one example – such a turning point in the development of all civilized modern humanity around the middle of the 14th or 15th century. There we find precisely that transition which, out of the elementary necessity of development, actually gave rise to modern humanity with its demands. Oh, there is a great difference between what man has regarded as the right way for himself to live a dignified life since that fifteenth century and what the man of the Middle Ages regarded as such.

The story of the soul – which we have not actually pursued – as it can arise from spiritual science, of which our building in Dornach is a representation, leads one to see what I have called the democratic principle as something that occurs in modern humanity in the same way as one sees the qualities that occur in the individual human being, say, at the age of sexual maturity. By taking into account the fact that modern humanity is quite different and that the developmental principles of the whole of humanity, as well as of the individual, must be taken into account, it becomes clear that democracy is something that cannot be opposed. , but that, because democracy is something that springs from the most elementary human nature, the social organism must be tripartite so that what can be democratically ordered comes into its own in the development of humanity. That is one thing, this spiritual-scientific view of the developmental impulses of humanity. The other is the observation of the facts of the life of nations.

I can only give you a few examples here. But it is still interesting to see from individual examples the impossibility of the newer unitary state structures coming out of their unity to form a truly viable social structure. It is only necessary to refer to a few examples to show this. You will understand that, as a non-Swiss, I do not mention Switzerland as an obvious example. I need only mention that what has already occurred to such a high degree in some European states will also gradually occur in the others, and that it is quite a short-sighted attitude to keep relying on the thought: Oh, it's different for us, we don't need to worry about what's happening elsewhere.

Now, I have chosen as an example the East of Europe, Russia, not only because Russia, with her tragic destiny, is particularly significant for our study of humanity, but also because, according to the practical political judgments of the leading English politicians, Russia is also the country in which, most vividly, I might say, as in an experiment taking place in the life of nations, what needs and what impossibilities prevail in modern national life must show. Let me highlight just a few aspects of this Russian national character.

There, placed in the middle of the Russian absolutism of the 1860s, which you know only too well, we encounter the curious institution of the zemstvo. These are assemblies of representatives of the rural population, those people who are involved in economic life or other areas of life in individual rural areas, who come together in certain assemblies to discuss these matters, I would say in the manner of a council or the like, a cantonal council. From the 1860s onwards, Russia was full of such zemstvos. They actually do fruitful work; they work together with something else that is traditional in Russia: the Mir organizations of the individual village communities, a kind of compulsory organization for the economic life of the village. There we have, on the one hand, old democratic customs in the Russian peasant organization, but in the appearance of the Zemstvos we have something newer that definitely tends towards the democratic. But something very strange is emerging. And this strangeness becomes even more striking when we look at another phenomenon that has emerged in Russia before the world catastrophe destroyed everything or cast it in a different light.

In Russia, it has been found that people from the most diverse individual professions have associated with each other, and in turn that associations have arisen from profession to profession, bank cashiers and bank cashiers have formed associations. These associations have in turn joined together to form more comprehensive associations. Those who came to Russia actually held their meetings not with individuals, but encountered such associations wherever they had anything to do with.

All of this was incorporated into the other state life of absolutism. Now, if you study these zemstvos, if you study the associations, if you study the Mir organization itself, you notice one thing. Of course, these organizations also extend to many other areas of life, such as school institutions and the like, but they do not do anything special there. Anyone who engages in an unbiased study of these associations – after all, the Semstwos did not develop into corporations either, but actually into associations, with farmers joining those at the forefront of industrial life, and so on. Even if it all took on the character of a public institution, in reality one was dealing with associations, and they all did good. But what they did, they actually only did on the basis of economic life. And we can say: In this Russia, the strange thing is that an organic system based on associations is emerging. Furthermore, it is proving that the Russian state is incapable of dealing with what is emerging there. So we can say: as the necessity of the early capitalist development, as it occurs in Russia, leads to economic organizations, these must, out of an inner necessity, take their place alongside the political institutions.

Now, something else peculiar occurs in Russia in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Yes, of course, absolutism founds its schools; but these schools are nothing more than, I would say, a reflection of the needs of absolutist state life. Now, a spiritual life is developing in Russia, a more intense spiritual life than the West of Europe assumes. But how must this spiritual life develop? Absolutely in opposition, yes, in revolutionary turmoil against everything that is Russian statehood. One sees that this tightly and uniformly organized state is splitting apart into three parts, but really only wants to split apart. But it cannot. It shows us, precisely through what it is experiencing, how impossible it is to compress these three most excellent spheres of human life into a unified state.

I can only sketch this out for you. If you study in detail how these three elements in Russian state life then develop into the world war, how out of the world war first the really insubstantial rule of Miliukov develops, but then under Kerensky something develops that can be called the transformation of absolutism into a democratic state, but still entirely with a belief in the omnipotence of the unitary state, then can be seen precisely from what Kerensky's short reign must fail, how this Russian state, which wants to become democratic, is unable to address the most important issues, an economic issue, the agrarian issue, because the associations of Russian life are such that anything democratic that is tried out of the old absolutism breaks down on them.

Of course, everything is also showing itself in a certain concrete way. You can't see everything in it right away. But anyone who looks at it impartially, at this becoming Russia, its steering into an impossible social-democratic structure, because the unified state is fragmented at the impossibility of combining the three areas of life, will see that this example of Eastern Europe is a very significant one and that the far-sighted English politicians are right to look at Russia as the field in which, as in a world experiment, the course of human development is being demonstrated.

One could survey the whole of Europe from such points of view, one would see everywhere how the unified state is gradually disintegrating. Even if it still appears firmly established in some areas, it will dissolve because it cannot cope with the proper interaction of the three human spheres of life. Just see how, in more recent times, where, for example, the political sense, the political attitude completely fills the innermost being of the human being, how there the political attitude cannot become master over economic life.

In this respect, France is a good example. France has saved from its revolution in the 18th century what is now a truly inner democratic spirit, even if this democratic spirit is coupled with a great conservatism in relation to family life. Even if much of the democratic reminds one of the philistine and patriarchal, the tendency towards democracy is perhaps, if not purest, then at least most pronounced in the Frenchman's deepest convictions among the peoples of Europe. This democratic spirit first sought to express itself in the life of the state. It was precisely through this expression of the democratic spirit in French state life that the state was, on the one hand, abstractly dissected into its departments; but these departments were, in turn, combined into a single unit. All this was the fruit of the French Revolution.

One has only to consider one thing in this structure of the French state: the position of the departmental prefect, and one will see how inorganically the political-legal, the state element, is linked to the economic element. The prefect is actually nothing more than the executive organ of the Paris government from a certain point of view. I might say that the Paris government has the various departmental prefects as it has its many hands. But the departmental prefect, in turn, must be in contact with the economic interest groups in his department. So that when there is an election in France, the prefect will certainly direct that election, but it will not turn out differently than it can turn out from what the prefect concedes to the economic interest groups.

Thus we see how parties exist in France, parties with party slogans, and party watchwords too, but how these party watchwords signify much less reality than that which grows out of the economic interests of the department. In this respect, the study of the individual facts of French life is extraordinarily interesting. In France, in particular, one can see how a proper interaction of the legal-state and the economic can never be transformed into a certain public truth, because the state element cannot control the economic element.

I myself have, I would like to say, studied for decades from direct observation what was bound to lead to the downfall, let us say, of Austria. There was no way for Austria to avoid going to the dogs, one way or another. For as the newer democratic life emerged, it also had to bring something like democracy into its state life, into this state life, which above all had its intellectual structure from such a diversity of peoples that there were actually thirteen official languages in Austria, which on the other hand had a complicated economic life, leaning on the Orient on the one hand, on Germany and Western Europe on the other, on Italy and so on. When something democratic was to be introduced into this Austrian state life, it was formed in such a way that a Reichsrat was created. Four different sections were elected to this Reichsrat: the curia of the chambers of commerce, the curia of the large landowners, the curia of the cities, markets and industrial centers, and the curia of the rural communities. If you look more closely at the reason: nothing but representatives of economic interests were elected to the Austrian parliament to shape the state. Of course, they achieved nothing, except that they transformed economic interests into state interests, and nothing of a real state emerged at all, but rather a conglomeration of economic interests, against which the spiritual life of the various nations then rebelled, something that was bound to move towards fragmentation for internal reasons.

We can observe something else, however, that is much more international and universal, and we will see how everything that is considered impartially in the modern life of humanity tends towards this threefoldness. Take the most striking thing that has emerged: I am not talking explicitly about the social question, but about the social-democratic question. In Russia, because the old state life, when it wanted to democratize itself, fragmented due to the impossibility of unifying the three areas of life in such a way as to a resulted in something completely alien being imposed on Russian culture, and that what is now unfolding in Russia is, of course, nothing other than something that must necessarily lead the social life it affects into ruin. What Social Democracy, the Socialist trend that swears by Marxism, can practically achieve, especially in terms of democracy, which is truly demanded by the innermost human being, can be seen from the sad state of present-day Russia, where it can already be reported that the ideals of the gullible workers are being fulfilled in such a way that now, under the necessity of the circumstances, is compelled to transform the eight-hour day into a twelve-hour day, and that instead of the usual organization, in which the worker thinks he will find his freedom, a military labor regiment is being set up that promises to be much more tyrannical than the Prussian military regiment ever was. These are the fruits of Leninism, of Trotskyism!

They cannot be otherwise. They only show, in the most radical form, how the social-democratic current developed out of the proletariat – because today's Russian rule over the many millions of the Russian people includes only a few million industrial workers, and basically there is a tyranny of the few million industrial workers today – how the social-democratic current developed. How did it develop? Yes, we can say: this social democracy, which is particularly characterized by the fact that it derives all human life only from economic production, that it regards all spiritual life only as an ideology, as something that rises like a smoke from economic production, this social democracy, how could it arise?

This social democracy, which is under Marxist influence – I do not mean healthy socialism, of course – is actually the sin of bourgeois currents that have arisen in modern times, the result of the sin of bourgeois currents, I might say. For if you look everywhere, you would see, as I have shown with two examples, France and Russia, that the whole civilized world has gone through this in its development in modern times. You would see everywhere that economic life has become one that has been stamped by technology , which has taken man away from his former connection with his occupation, and placed him in the abstract, indifferent machine, in the indifferent factory – and the proletariat, basically, has known nothing but economic life.

In more recent times, it would have been necessary to place this ever-growing proletariat in a social structure. From what historical development has brought forth in humanity, nothing could be gained by which one could, as it were, have devised a unified structure for those who are the leaders in economic life, in intellectual life, and so on, and those who have to work by hand. To a certain extent, the old powers had not been developed into new forces. The old princely states did not give rise to real institutions that would have been supported by democracy. So it has to be said that what modern social democracy actually is came about because the leading classes, the leading people in modern history, could not cope with what economic life had brought about. They have left the states so organized that they could not encompass the ever more massive and massive economic life. And so it is precisely the failure to come to terms with what was brought about by the emergence of the proletarian in human souls that shows that nothing fruitful for a possible structure of the social organism could arise from what could be imagined by the state.

And so I could cite many more examples that would show you that it is indeed necessary, on the basis of what can be observed, to place the three most important spheres of human and human existence on their own ground.

This necessity could truly have been discussed before this terrible catastrophe befell the world and so clearly revealed the destructive forces in the last four to five years. But I do not believe that humanity in the period before 1914, when people only lived in illusions about what they felt was a great, powerful upsurge in modern humanity, could somehow have been won over to an understanding of this necessity. Now, however, the time has come when it is no longer enough to prove theoretically that such a necessity exists. Instead, states that have been particularly exposed to the dangers of the unitary state have been swept away in their old form and are faced with the necessity of rebuilding themselves from scratch.

We see the eastern former Russian state fragmented, faced with the necessity of rebuilding itself, but also with the powerlessness to rebuild itself in a way that will flourish, having to accept something is being imposed on it that never grows out of its own nationality, but is imposed on it like a general socialist template that can be applied to everything. And we see, for example, in Germany, where a failed revolution, the revolution of November 1918, really shows a lot of how only chaos, real chaos, results from the circumstances. And the most striking, I would say heartbreaking, thing in the life of present-day Germany is that wherever you meet people and talk to them about public affairs, they appear at a loss. Why are they at a loss? For the simple reason that the dogma of the unified state is deeply rooted in the souls and because the terrible lessons of the last four to five years have truly not been enough for people to erase this dogma from them. I have asked many individuals where it comes from that they are so lethargic that they cannot be won over to rallying for anything positive in the direction of reconstruction. The people confessed calmly: Yes, we were in the trenches for so long, we didn't know if we would still be alive in eight days, it had to gradually become indifferent to us whether we would still be alive in eight days; shouldn't it be indifferent to us now what social institutions are made in eight days? One accommodates oneself to the mood of the soul. Many a person, truly not just one, has said this.

Of course, the circumstances of the time make many things understandable, but something greater, something more significant is the historical, the purely human necessity. There is only either-or. And I believe that here too it could be realized – since the conditions are truly not far away that are likely to throw their waves into the whole of Europe – what should be realized: that it is impossible to bring the three spheres of life, intellectual life, state life, economic life, into a unity. The necessity should be realized to place each of these three spheres on its own ground.

I am well aware of the many objections that can be raised from the old point of view against this threefold ordering of the social organism. But anyone who considers the present world situation, as I have tried to describe it with a few examples, will say to himself: this proposal differs from all the other, more utopian proposals for the reorganization of the social organism in that it does not present a program, that it does not come with the pretension of knowing everything, but that it says: if people organize themselves socially in such a way that their best that their best comes about independently in a free, emancipated spiritual life, that in which all mature people are equal, in an independent democratic state life, that in which everything must develop from economic foundations, in an independent economic life, then the fact that people are called upon to work socially will bring about something like the solution of the social question.

For I do not believe that anyone who knows life can go along with the superficial view that the social question arose yesterday, and that one only needs to have some ideas or draw some conclusions from life in order to hammer out a program that will solve the social question. There are many such concoctions. But the impulse for the threefold social order is not based on this ground of omniscience. It is permeated by the conviction that the social question has indeed arisen, that it cannot be solved overnight or with any single measure: it will always be there in the future, it will permeate our lives, and the solution can only consist in being continuously under such institutions, so that the daily new difficulties can be overcome little by little. The whole of life in the future will consist in being a kind of solution to the social question.

The impulse for threefolding hopes that the social question can be resolved through the work and judgment of individuals in the threefold social organism. It does not seek to solve the social question theoretically; it seeks to give people the opportunity to solve the social question through collaboration and joint reflection. But even what can be proposed – today I have only been able to give you a rough sketch – these characteristics of the three areas of the social organism, even that is by no means regarded by the bearers of this idea as something that could be any kind of dogma. That is all I ask: that it be discussed, that as many people as possible be imbued with what the needs of the present time teach, that out of the best forces of the human being, that which can lead to a new structure be done.

When good will from all sides works together, a fruitful discussion can arise. And it is this fruitful discussion that is really important to those who are the bearers of the idea of the threefold social organism. If they had to believe that they could not have emerged before the distress of the world catastrophe occurred, they now have some optimism; although, I would say, a sad optimism: that the ever-widening spread of distress must become the great teacher, that it is precisely out of distress that people will have to recognize that something like what is being said today — I do not want to say in the content that we are able to give to the idea of the threefold social order, but in the impulse that we would like to give to the public discussion through this idea — that something like this must somehow be taken seriously. Much will depend on whether such things can be taken seriously. A kind of spiritual drowsiness still hangs over European humanity, and indeed over modern civilized humanity. Even if those who are already working today in the movement for the threefold social order have done this or that out of their convictions, they know that the right thing will only come when a sufficiently large number of people engage with the details of the matter.

We have already had the opportunity to found a free school in the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, where children between the ages of six or seven and fourteen or fifteen are taught in an eight-year primary school according to the principles of a free spiritual life, so that they grow into a social order from a free spiritual life. We have tried many different things in this area, and economic matters are also being considered, where we want to try to place the most diverse branches of economic life under the aspects of the threefold order, to organize them, to finance them according to these aspects; for it will perhaps be particularly necessary, in order to be convincing, that the model, that the example, is there. But in order for this example to have a sufficient impact, in order to put it into practice at all, it is necessary, above all, that a sufficiently large number of people take part in the discussion of what the impulse for the threefold order of the social organism actually wants.

I would like to have stimulated a little thought on this point, and on this alone, with the very sketchy remarks that I have been able to make in the short time available to me this evening.

A discussion then followed in which various questions and objections to the remarks made in the lecture were raised.

Final Word

Actually, I have to admit that no real objections have been raised. I understand very well that, based on what I have said tonight, a wide range of questions can be asked, and I believe that it is impossible to cover such a question so exhaustively in a one-hour lecture that hundreds and thousands and perhaps even more questions cannot be asked afterwards. I would therefore just like to make a few comments, which may at least provide some insights instead of an answer to the various questions, which would really take several days. First of all, with regard to what the Chairman said last, that there are no clear formulations of what threefolding actually wants. You see, I have tried, as well as it is possible for such a movement, which is basically only at the beginning of its work, to discuss some of these problems in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question', for example, the problem of the circulation of the means of production, which I have put in the place of the unworkable socialization of the means of production, and so on. You will find more such details in the Kernpunkte der sozialen Frage than one might perhaps expect. I must emphasize again and again that my attempts to grasp this impulse of threefolding are actually drawn from the whole of life, and that the whole of life actually has dimensions not only in two directions, but always also in the depths. I would ask you to bear in mind that the movement is in its infancy and that at the end of my presentation today, if I may call it that, I actually called for a discussion. I believe that only a discussion will produce the right results.

Now I would like to at least touch on some individual questions. An important misunderstanding between Dr. S. and me will have arisen precisely because I do not speak at all, as the doctor understood it, of three parliaments. I do not see the essence of this threefold structure as being that the unified parliament is divided into three parliaments, but rather that we only have a parliament in the modern sense for that which can be democratically administered or oriented, but that the other two areas are not administered by parliament, but are administered from what arises from within themselves. It is very difficult for me to discuss these concrete things in abstract terms. I would therefore like to build the answer, so to speak.

When setting up the Waldorf School, I once again had to deal in detail with what I would call a cross-section of the state administration for the school system. Right? I had to constitute the Waldorf School from two sides. On the one hand, I had to base it on what I believed the spiritual life itself would demand as an impulse for the Waldorf School. On the other hand, I could not build castles in the air. That is, I had to create a school where it is possible for students to leave, for example, at the age of fourteen or, if you like, in between, and then be able to join another school later on. Naturally, I had to deal with the curricula. Now, I first came across – please excuse me for having to go into very specific details, but I believe this is the best way for me to communicate – I came across the curricula. The curricula are state-defined descriptions of the subject matter, the teaching objective and so on. It is quite another matter if one, as a pedagogical and didactic artist, can study purely from the essence of the human being how, from the age of seven to fourteen, what is to be brought to the human being takes place. I am convinced that the teaching objectives for each year can be read from the developing human being.

Now I want those who are immersed in the living teaching to set the teaching goals, and not those who are torn out of it and become state officials, who thus pass over from the living teaching to democracy. So I want what comprises the spiritual life to be administered by those who are still immersed in it, who are building this spiritual life. So it is important that the whole structure of the administration is built on the structure of a spiritual life itself. Isn't it true that today, for example, I still had to make the decision that children, after completing three classes, can join again — in order to have freedom in between — after another three years, at the age of twelve, they can join again. So I had to do justice to an external aspect.

That is the essence of the threefold social order. It has a real basis everywhere and must also work from a real basis. But if you have a real basis, you do not have something vague. Spiritual life is there, it has an administration simply because one person is in one position and another in another. In this separation of the spiritual body from the state body, I would simply like the administration to be hierarchical, and I believe – of course this is something that cannot be explained quickly – that the hierarchical administration will have all imperfections. I know what the lecturers in particular will object, but perhaps even major imperfections are sometimes necessary in such transitions in order to arrive at something perfect. But the point is that, little by little, a purely didactic body of intellectual life, which, if administered in a way that is justified by the facts, only slightly echoes Klopstock's “Republic of Scholars”. And that something like this is actually possible in the field of intellectual life if one only has the good will to found it.

I think that it will then become very clear – let me mention something specific, pick out an example – that pedagogy, when practised at university level, has been one of the worst disciplines so far, at least in the whole of Central Europe. As a rule, it has been saddled on some pedagogue who has practised it as a secondary subject. In such a republic of scholars, the one who proves to be capable can be called upon for three years, can teach education, and then return to the teaching profession.

But as far as the external structure is concerned, I must say that, on a small scale, things have gone excellently so far with our teaching staff at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. The question arose right at the beginning: Who will be the director? – Of course, nobody; we simply have teachers with equal rights in all classes, and one of this teaching staff, who has slightly fewer hours than the others, takes care of the administrative matters. In this way, it can already be seen that the capable teachers also have a certain authority over the others, a natural authority, and a certain hierarchical system emerges. However, this does not need to be an answer to the question, as the senior judge L. meant: Who commands? — but it happens automatically. Naturally I will refrain from mentioning names, but it does happen. And in the intellectual field....

What about the parents' say in the choice of teachers? That's dictatorship!

Professional and objective! Of course, call it a dictatorship for my sake, the name doesn't bother me. It is a dictatorship in the sense that it is not the individual who decides. Since you are a scientist, you will easily understand when I say: when it comes to the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem, it does no harm if a “dictatorship” decides, because a certain necessity lies in the matter.

And religious education?

The point here is that some theoretical questions now become didactic questions. In the religious instruction as it is organized in the Waldorf School, although I do not want to say that it is always organized in this way, because there may be developments here too, it is important that it is appropriate for me, for example, that what I was able to give as a pedagogical and didactic teaching course is expressed only in the methodology, not in the world view, but in the way the lessons are taught. The Waldorf school is not meant to be a school of world view in any direction. This could only be achieved by the fact that my institutions all relate to the pedagogical-didactic and work from that. The children who come from Catholic parents have their Catholic religious education, the children who come from Protestant parents have their Protestant religious education from the respective Catholic and Protestant pastor. Now, there were a large number of proletarian children and also anthroposophist children, and there was a demand for free religious education. And the children whose parents demand free religious education receive free religious education from us, based on our convictions. So in this question, an emotional truth, combined with certain social driving forces, decides.

Things naturally look different in the process of becoming than after some time. But it is precisely in practice that it can be seen that one can make progress if one does not want a parliament for spiritual matters. That is why I cannot go along with the “three parliaments”, nor can I answer the question, “if Kerensky had had three parliaments. . .»; that is just it, that he should have solved the agrarian question in his one and failed because of it. I see no causal nexus between threefolding and what came before, for example; I just wanted to point out that what came before failed because of the three spheres of life, which I cannot take as two or four or even more, because there are only three.

Dr. S.: I didn't seriously consider that objection.

Dr. Steiner: I did not understand it any other way! Now I am wondering, since the state has failed in its establishment of the three parliaments, how one can make progress through a new beginning, not through a causal nexus, although what is good must remain. You see, the elements of the answer to your questions lie in what you said. I do not want a parliament in the economic field either; heaven forbid, no democracy in the economic field! But an order that does not arise hierarchically, but from the thing itself.

Now, these areas are not simply juxtaposed. If you read my “key points,” you will find that the circulation of the means of production is essentially determined by what is determined in the intellectual sphere, so that the intellectual sphere has a direct effect on the economic sphere. And so much of economic life is determined by the organization in relation to one's position. What I want to say is that the spiritual organization will also be concerned with determining whether a person is capable of doing this or that and will be trained for it; the economic position in which he can be placed depends on this. Of course, this must now be done jointly by the economic and spiritual aspects. The fact that he is qualified for this or that will already place him in a different position from another person. Nothing hierarchical develops from this, but in a certain sense nothing bureaucratic either. Every bureaucratic parliament for the economic system only leads to the disintegration of the economic system. So the essential thing for me is the way the three elements are organized, and you can't say that everyone will be in three parliaments; it is only one parliament in which everyone can be, but only based on the judgment of each mature human being. So let's say, to highlight the most important area: all legal matters. The legal issues are actually such that they are at least in the interest of every person who has come of age, and I would like to say, of course, that every person who has come of age is not ideally equally capable with every other person who has come of age. But a certain arithmetic mean does yield the appropriate result in relation to legal issues. At this point, one should now turn to the theory of the basis of law in general. Law is not really based on judgment, but on perception, on the habits that arise from the interaction of people living together. This can be judged when people who belong together judge it. I do not believe, Doctor $., that the individual human being therefore needs to find the right law, but together they will find it. That is what democracy does. I see much more of importance in the interplay than in the details. I would like to see people who have come of age in the democratic parliament and have them decide there mainly on legal matters, but also, and rightly so, on welfare issues, because every person who has come of age can decide there; of course, in many things not on the

objective and technical.

Now, the eight-hour day is something that cannot seriously be considered at all for the threefold social organism, because what does an eight-hour day actually mean? I must confess that I do not, but for the greater part of the year I work much more than eight hours and do not find it in any way excessive. I do not believe that it is possible to establish such an eight-hour day without undermining our real social life. In my “Key Points of the Social Question” you will therefore find that everything that relates to the time of work is determined within the democratic state, and on this basis, the contracts for the distribution of the proceeds are then concluded, not labor contracts, but contracts for the distribution of the proceeds between what I call the labor manager and between what I must call the worker.

So that in the right-wing parliament?

In the right-wing parliament, the time and nature of the work is determined. In this respect, the manual laborer is on an equal footing with the intellectual laborer, because the intellectual laborer cannot assert his interests. You can come to an understanding with goodwill, but you cannot make any demands that relate to economic life itself, you cannot regulate export and import according to parliamentary laws; rather, that must be studied from the economic conditions, from factual and technical knowledge. The fact that I have been working in a company for twenty years also gives me a different moral authority with my fellow human beings than if I have only been there for a year. In democratic life, it is not a matter of whether I am a cheeky young badger of twenty-one years old passing judgment on something. In economic life, it simply depends on whether life experience is taken into account. This is simply necessary for the good of humanity.

I deliberately raised the question of the eight-hour day. Now, if there were a four-hour day, what could the manager do? I don't care about the eight-hour day. I also work more. I am talking about the regulation of working hours.

All right. The matter is this: if the democratic parliament decides on a four-hour day, then this four-hour day will either be sufficient to run the economy within the economy, or it will not be sufficient. If that is not the case, then it will be a matter of everyone, in turn, realizing from their mature reason — for the change must also be carried out democratically — that the change must come about democratically, not in any other way, not by the economically more powerful being able to exert pressure. So what exists as the legal basis of economic life belongs in the democratic parliament. But what is the economic question? Isn't everything an economic question? One might ask: can spiritual life be separated from economic life at all? The objection has been raised that this costs money. In economic life, I see associations emerging from the individual branches of economic life, which interweave, from related and unrelated branches, production, consumption and so on. To describe this in detail would be going too far.

What is important is this: the various members of the spiritual life, who are in their administration of the spiritual life what I have described for the spiritual life; as participants in economic life, they form economic consumers and are members, associations that belong to the economic body. What I separate is life; it is not an abstract separation into three bodies, but it is life that is structured. It is true that spiritual life is indeed administered hierarchically, but the economic life of all those who work spiritually is part of the economic life of the associations. So in their economic activity, teachers and so on are also economic entities and economic organizations. And so the various people actually work together. And this can only be followed in detail; just as, after all, when one wants to present chemistry, not everything can be presented in one hour, but one must refer to what can then be done in detail.

But to answer a question from Judge L., it is easier to discuss and answer certain questions with people who have simply come of age than factual questions, I think that is obvious in the end.

Basically, socialist agitators usually have no understanding of economic life and even less of the conditions of economic life. And so the most diverse utopias have been put forward as to how one thing or another can be organized. For example, I would like to mention how industrial sectors that are based on a fine, meticulous interlocking of very different things are supposed to cope with their exports if they are to be organized according to a Möllendorff planned economy or something similar. It depends on certain things that can only be administered from within an economic organism, not by government, but from within.

It is characteristic, for example, when it is said: You cannot take school out of the state today; people will not put up with it, and it is not necessary in a socialist state. Those who do not know the conditions that really exist in humanity, but which haunt the minds of political agitators, must say to themselves: in the socialist state it would be even more necessary! Above all, for the good of the people, it would be even more necessary to at least take the school out of what is intended for humanity in the socialist state, as it is imagined by Marxism.

So I believe that if the good will exists to respond to the individual – I have already been repeatedly confronted with the objection of the three parliaments – I want to have the threefold structure for its own sake, not just to have three groups of people, three houses next to each other; there really won't be three houses. If I am understood correctly, it will probably be found that we can meet in the concrete solutions that I have already given for individual questions, and for others, if I still have some time to live, will still give - I would prefer if you will give others - I think we will get along quite well.

I would like to emphasize again here: it is not a matter of omniscience, but rather of trying to determine, without utopia, what should happen in detail, starting from the assumption that the three areas of life different conditions of life, and that only when people from the three areas of life work together in a qualitatively different way, not just in a parliamentary, quantitative way, but in a qualitative way, will the concrete findings emerge in the right way.

I must also say that for me, this threefold social order is so firmly established that I would compare this certainty, of course cum grano salis, with the certainty of the Pythagorean theorem. You cannot prove it everywhere, in all cases, but you can prove that you can use it. The threefold social order does not have to be abstracted from all particulars, but it can be applied in all details, in this case practically applied, in that in the threefold organism precisely the state life, economic life and spiritual life are organized in such a way that a practical result is achieved.

I believe that answering the very extensive questions of Mr. Chief Justice L. would take too long this evening; but it may be seen that the point here is to start from the concrete shaping of reality, and that it is therefore extremely difficult with abstract answers, because one wants to remain in the full reality.

I would just like to come back to this: I also find it extremely interesting that within French folklore, syndicalism has emerged, and I believe that this question is best solved by studying socialization. It is very interesting to study the different nuances of English and French socialism. English socialism is basically a watered-down form of capitalism. It is actually entirely what works in capitalism. So the purely economic element in the English labor question is actually only sharpened to the interests of the worker in the big picture; but it has not gone away completely, so that English socialism has an economically opportunistic coloring.

German socialism has taken up Marxism with military efficiency and military organizational spirit, and it has acquired a tight military organization. And those like me who have worked in a workers' educational school that had grown entirely out of social democracy, but was also thrown out by its non-Marxist orthodoxy, that is, by its non-Marxism, by saying: Not freedom, but a reasonable compulsion can judge that. German socialism is basically something that is entirely in line with the same spirit that produced Prussian militarism.

Without wishing to say anything favorable about the nature of the people or to accuse the Germans of anything, French syndicalism is, after all, — through its associative character, I must see it as the best beginning for precisely what I must think of as the association in economic life. And especially when I compare it with English and German socialism, I see that it arises from the same thing that I have tried to characterize, from the democratic spirit. These are two sides; one side has shown itself among the bourgeoisie, the other among the workers. And what is more capitalist and more profit-oriented in the bourgeoisie is syndicalism among the workers. It is only the obverse and reverse sides.

So I believe that these three different nuances, the English, French and German nuances of socialism, are related to the qualities of nationality.

And this brings us to a question that I consider to be extremely important. We should not start from a general socialism and we should not believe that there is such a thing as an abstract socialism. Instead, we should ask: How should each national culture be treated based on its own characteristics? And anyone who comes from Western Europe, has observed and reflected on Swiss social conditions, goes to Russia and imposes something completely alien on the Russian people, actually destroys what the Russian people could have formed out of themselves. — But, as I said, not all social issues can be resolved today.

Dear attendees, at your request I would like to discuss with you today some aspects of the social impulse, which wants to face the world under the name of the threefold social organism. And it may be carried out into the world from here, for the very reason that spiritual science is to be practised here and actually already today the widest circles could understand that a recovery of the general world conditions can only come about through a deepening of the spirit.

After this short lecture, we still have a tour of the building ahead of us, so you will understand that I want to be brief and can only give you a few aphoristic pointers to the essentials of the idea of threefolding.

This idea of threefold social order is not entirely new. It has its origin in decades of observation of the conditions prevailing in Europe, especially in Central Europe, and especially of those conditions that led to the terrible catastrophe of the last five to six years.

For the person speaking to you today, these circumstances, under which a large part of the world is now suffering terribly, did not come as a surprise. It was in the spring of 1914 that I gave a series of lectures to a small audience in Vienna – in Vienna, you know, the world conflagration started in Vienna! Within these lectures I had to say, simply under the obligation, I would like to say, to the time, that one should not calm down in doing so, but should always praise the great importance of the development of the present in all possible words, but that one should look at what is being prepared. And I had to say at the time – so it was in the early spring of 1914, many weeks before the outbreak of the World War! – Anyone who surveys the social conditions of Europe with a certain expert eye can only compare certain phenomena, especially in our economic life, with a kind of social cancer disease that must come to a terrible outbreak in the shortest possible time.

You see, anyone who said something like that in the spring of 1914 would have been seen as a dreamy idealist with pessimistic views. And those who considered themselves “practitioners” at the time spoke of the general political situation as being relaxed, of the best relations between the governments of Europe, and so on.

Today, it may well be pointed out that it was not the idealist who was wrong with his prediction, but rather the ten to twelve million people who have been killed since then by the world conflagration, and three times as many who have been crippled within the civilized world, who provide sufficient proof that the “idealist” was right to speak such words.

One is also reminded today in a certain way of the position that people who thought they were practical took at that time.

Even today, some will say that one is being pessimistic when making such a prognosis. One is not being pessimistic, one is only speaking out of an understanding of the circumstances.

And just as today, strengthened, so to speak, by spiritual science, one can take a deeper look at the situation, so it has been possible for decades. One could carefully observe how the individual relationships between states in Europe developed more and more into antagonisms, and how the measures taken were by no means sufficient to deal with the tensions that were accumulating everywhere. And one had to foresee what was coming: the years of terror that we now seem to have left behind us.

Today, however, it may be said that just before these terrible years, if I may put it this way, there were no ears to hear these things. It was only when a great part of Europe was struck by the terrible adversity that is now here that people began to listen. So people said at the time, there were no ears to hear, and even today we still have to wait and see if we are really being heard. Nevertheless, despite the hardship, despite the terrible lessons that the last few years have brought us, it cannot be said that the idea of threefolding, which has emerged from careful observation of the circumstances, has already been received in the appropriate way today. And so I would like to tell you right at the outset why people are so opposed to this idea of threefolding, why they consider it a kind of utopia, a kind of fantasy.

You see, the reason for this is that conditions of such a complicated nature, conditions that have spread such devastation and chaos, have actually never existed before in the whole of human development! Humanity has been through a lot; at certain times, a lot has also befallen Europe. Conditions as they are now have really not yet existed in the time of historical development.

Circumstances have brought it about that in the past small groups of humanity have been seized by phenomena of decline. Even when the great Roman Empire was heading for its decline, it was still a small area in relation to the whole earth. Today, the amalgamation of conditions that we have spread across the whole civilized world makes the phenomena of decline more visible. It is no wonder that it is now necessary to have not a small idea of how to improve this or that in a limited area, but rather a comprehensive idea that really intervenes as deeply as the confusion runs deep. The threefold social order is such an idea. It is based not only on observation of the actual situation but also on a consideration of the historical moment in which humanity finds itself today. And it is also because it actually takes into account all of present-day civilized humanity that the idea of threefolding is so rejected. It is considered utopian, it is thought to be something that has been thought up. But it is the most real, or at least wants to be the most real, that has to be integrated into the present circumstances.

If we take a look at the development of intellectual, political and economic conditions in the present day, we have to link them to the same development over the last three to four centuries. Anything further back has a completely different character. The last three to four centuries, and especially the 19th century and the period since then, have brought humanity to a very particular state of development. In some areas, this is not yet apparent. The health of the Swiss people has been rightly mentioned here. It must be counted on for the future. But it is also necessary, in order for this health to remain, that there be no illusions that, in the face of all that is now collapsing, a small area could remain isolated. This cannot be the case.

You see, there are large areas in Central and Southeastern Europe today that you know suffer greatly from the fall of the exchange rate. The economist opposes this fall in the exchange rate, I would say, as a major phenomenon compared to minor phenomena that have always existed in the past. It was known that when the value of a currency falls in any particular area, imports into that area are somewhat undermined; exports are thus all the more encouraged. This law can no longer be applied to the devastation of economic conditions that has occurred in Central and Eastern Europe.

But so far, only the disadvantages of the fall in the value of a currency in certain areas have been shown! It will not take them very long to realize the disadvantages of a currency appreciation in a country! They will come, and it will not take that long, then the countries with depreciating currencies, where economic conditions are declining, will not be alone in their worries; the countries with appreciating currencies will think with fear about their high currencies.

These things show those who can see into the circumstances how, despite the fact that the economic area of the earth basically forms a unit today, despite all state structures, how the weal and woe of a small area of the earth depends on the weal and woe of the whole earth. Therefore, even today, social conditions can only be considered in a completely international sense.

If we look at what has actually brought us to today's situation, we have to say: We see how far we have come – today you do not see it yet – – but you could actually say, you could see it in the malformation of Eastern Europe, in the malformation of Russia. It must be said: such things are deeply significant, as we can now read in Russia, for example – I will mention a small thing, but it is deeply significant – as we can now read in Russia. You could read that Trotsky called on people not to celebrate May 1, but to work on May 1. Please, over there in Russia, the ideal of socialism is to be realized on a large scale – a paradise was promised to the people. That which the proletariat has designated as its sign of manifestation for decades – the May celebration – is something that must be abolished there. It is only one expression of all that must be abolished there! For a long time people have spoken of the evils of militarism, and rightly so. In Russia, labor is currently being militarized. In Russia, it is currently being said that it is nonsense that a person here on this earth should have control over his own person. There can be no such thing as freedom of disposal over one's own person. This is clearly shown by the fruits it has borne in the extreme case to which the development of the last three to four centuries has brought it. We must look at these things. We must realize that this state – I do not mean the individual state, but the state in general – which has developed from quite different conditions over the course of these last three to four hundred years, that this state has overburdened itself with things that the state as such cannot provide. For why?

You see, in order to look at such things soberly and clearly, without fantasy, we have to embrace the idea that the whole life of humanity is something similar to the life of the individual human being. We cannot describe the life of the individual in such a way that we always say: Now, when a person is forty years old, he is in the world the effect of the cause that was present at thirty-nine years, which in turn is the effect of the cause present at thirty-eight years, and so on. We cannot say that, but there is an inner, lawful development in the human being. Man gets second teeth around the seventh year, according to an inner law. He goes through other developmental stages in later years. There is a certain impulse living within man that makes him ripe for something at a certain time. It is the same with all mankind. What has emerged in all mankind over the last three to four centuries is something from which mankind cannot escape.

There was no other way for humanity than to call for democracy. Whatever ideals have been set in the external social life, the ideal of democracy is the one that has most powerfully seized and must seize humanity of the present. The state must become democratic, democratic in the broadest sense. Especially in Switzerland, where there is an old democracy, people should feel this, but they will also gradually perceive the necessity to relieve this democracy of certain areas.

What does democracy mean? Democracy means that people should have the opportunity to decide for themselves, either by referendum or by representation, on matters that are the same for everyone and that are the concern of every mature person. That is the ultimate ideal of democracy: equality among people with regard to decisions, in other words, everything that is equal among people of legal age. But what did the state, which has just developed in the course of history and emerged from very different circumstances, strive for? There are two fields in human life where democratic decisions can never be taken: one is the field of intellectual life and the other is the field of economic life. Those who are sincere in their belief in democracy must realize that if democracy is to be complete, intellectual life must be excluded from the sphere of the purely democratic state, as must economic life.

Anyone who is able to observe in this area can see from obvious examples how impossible it is to carry intellectual life as such into the democratic political sphere. I will not speak of the conditions here; that is not for me; but it is not at all possible to look at these conditions only from a small point of view today, but one must look at the whole world, at least the whole civilized world.

But if you look at the former German Reichstag, which apparently existed until 1914 and beyond, you have a perfect example of how the state – whether it is more or less democratic is not important in this case – has become overburdened with purely spiritual matters. Among the parties in the German Reichstag, they had a very large party, the so-called Center. In the present metamorphosis of the old Reichstag, which is called the National Assembly, the Center Party is again playing a role. This Center Party had no interests except purely religious, that is, spiritual matters. If any economic or political question came up, it was decided by some compromise which the Center Party made with other parties. But it is quite natural that this Center always had only the interest to promote its own spiritual interests. In short, if you follow the train of thought to its conclusion, it becomes clear that matters of purely spiritual concern have no place in the political parliament.

Take economic life. You see, Austria is the country that really shows, I would say is the textbook example of what has developed under the newer conditions, of the fact that the countries must perish. Only, Austria is the textbook example of what is perishing!

Anyone who, like myself, has spent thirty years of their life in Austria and has been able to see the developments that took place in the last third of the 19th century could see all the conditions coming about that have developed there, could see all the newer social conditions occurring. They also thought of making a parliament in Austria. But how was this parliament formed? Four curiae were formed: the curiae of the cities, the curiae of the provinces, the curiae of the municipalities, and the curiae of the big landowners. These were purely economic curiae, economic associations that were elected to the political parliament. They then decided from their economic point of view what should be public law. There you have the other example! In the German Reichstag you have the example of how a party that seeks purely intellectual goals turns out to be a troublemaker in a purely economic parliament. In Austria you have built up a parliament based on purely economic curiae, and anyone who has observed the situation knows that this parliament was never able to deal with what would have been necessary in Austria, for example: to regulate the spiritual conditions insofar as they manifested themselves in the secular conditions of the nationalities.

In Austria one could see something else. There the state was only a political entity. There were thirteen official languages. These thirteen official languages could not be brought under one roof; one could not bring them under one roof under the impression, because the people with the different languages had the most diverse intellectual interests in Austria. They tried to preserve some of it through private channels. Oh, I was often there when, you know, such long straws, the ones in the so-called Virginia cigars, were auctioned off in America in favor of the school associations! The school associations were founded to do something out of the intellectual interests themselves that the state as such could not do. But the idea of a unified state was too much in people's minds for such private foundations to achieve any great or widespread effect. And so I could go on telling you about the impossibility of keeping together certain things that the modern state wants to keep together.

The medium-sized states of Europe and Russia have had to learn the hard way that the centralized state cannot survive as it has existed up to now. Those who have not yet been affected by this fate still believe that it can be averted. It cannot be averted unless we grasp the legal idea of how to remedy the situation by human will. And here, based on ample observation and consideration of historical circumstances, is where the idea of threefold social order comes in. It says: People must become ever more honest and sincere in their striving for democracy. But then the democratic principle must be limited to the mere state principle, in which every person has to decide in the same way on everything that concerns all mature people. As I said, this can be done either by referendum or by representation. But then, the entire intellectual life, on the one hand, must be separated out from this state structure, from what is to be administered strictly by parliament. This entire intellectual life has increasingly come into the power of the state in recent centuries, and even today most people regard it as a great advantage of the modern state idea to absorb intellectual life, especially the school system. There is still a great deal of resistance to the most terrible prejudices. But the world does not see the connections.

But if you ask yourself: how did it actually come about that today we are not only faced with class struggles, but with the approval of class struggles? That we are faced with a complete lack of understanding between people? That we are witnessing the tyrannical rule of a few hundred thousand people in Russia over millions of people today, pretending to be democratic? Where did it all come from? It has been slowly prepared. One needs to think of a single word – I have pointed this out in my book 'The Key Points of the Social Question in Present-Day Necessities of Life' – to see why, out of error, a large part of humanity today, the part of humanity that includes the proletariat, stands up and believes: Only by means of what you are all too familiar with, can they bring about any kind of change in the circumstances. The only word that needs to be mentioned is the one that could be heard at all, all social democratic events over decades: it is the word “ideology”. And this word, ideology, ladies and gentlemen, points to the entire course that the materialistic world view has taken in modern times.

Whatever one may think of the earlier conditions of humanity, we certainly do not want to restore the earlier conditions, we want forward and not backward; but one must still say: look at the man of the past! He knew that there lived in his soul something that had a direct connection with the spiritual that permeates the world. What, after all, has man known since the middle of the 15th century about these connections between his inner being and a spiritual in the world! The sun, they say, is a glowing ball of gas. What do people know today about the stars, about the sun! If you ask our scholars: what was the origin of the evolution of the earth? — they will tell you: it was once a nebula; then the sun and planets were formed over thousands of years. People have also surrendered to this realization! I have often referred to the description by Herman Grimm, who said: “Future people will have a hard time understanding the madness that speaks of the origin of the earth from the primeval mist in this Kant-Laplacean idea.” — But today it is regarded as a great development and science.

What was cultivated there then drove out the most diverse currents, and these currents flowed into the proletariat. And basically, what is being advocated in Russia today by Trotsky and Lenin is only the final consequence of what our scholars taught as materialism at the universities.

Here in Switzerland, there was a man who ranted a lot in the 1970s, but he saw what was coming. They didn't like him because he ranted a lot, Johannes Scherr. But besides a lot of ranting, he also saw important things. And he said as early as the 1970s: If you look at the economic development, if you look at the spiritual life, as it had to come down more and more, you will finally come to the point where Europe has to say: nonsense, you have won!

In the last five to six years, people have been saying, and still do: “Nonsense, you have won!”

Ideology, what does it mean? It means nothing other than: All spiritual life is ultimately only a smoke that rises from mere economic life. Economic conditions are the only reality, as Marxism preaches in all keys. And that which arises from economic conditions is that which man carries within himself as the content of his soul. Law, custom, religion, science, art: all ideology. This is the seed that has sprouted: ideology, disbelief in the spiritual life.

Where does this disbelief come from? This disbelief comes from the amalgamation of the spiritual life with the state life in recent centuries. For intellectual life, ladies and gentlemen, can only flourish if it is placed entirely on its own ground. Consider – I will pick out only the school system, because it is the most important area of the public intellectual life – the school system is organized so that those who teach and educate are at the same time the administrators of the teaching and education system. Just imagine: the teacher of the lowest class in the school has no one to obey but someone else whom he does not obey but whose advice he follows, who is himself involved in teaching and education. Someone who is so far relieved that he can simultaneously administer the teaching and education system, so that no one from any political department can interfere in the spiritual life itself, so that the spiritual life itself stands on its own feet. You can read about this in my book. I have tried to make the matter as clear as possible, that only a spiritual life that is left to its own devices can free us from all the harmful effects that have plunged us into misfortune. But only one that is drawn directly from the spiritual can, in turn, generate faith in the spiritual, the connection with the spiritual.

I would like to be clear. We founded the Waldorf School in Stuttgart because there is still a school law there that I would say leaves a small gap. This Waldorf School is a real unified school, because the children of the workers from the Waldorf Astoria factory are next to the children of the factory owners and so on, all together; it is a real unified school, a complete elementary school, up to the fourteenth, fifteenth year of age.

I held a pedagogical course for the teachers I selected myself, in order to prepare the teachers for this school, where teaching should only be done according to the knowledge of human nature, according to the observation of what what is in man; where teaching should not be based on some or other prejudice that it must be so and so, but on observation of what comes into the world through man, what should be taught from it. I have reported on this in a wide variety of journals, including here, on how the methods in the Waldorf School have been established. But what I want to mention to you now is this: if you consider such a course to be the way to teach and educate, then you are guided by what knowledge of human nature, what real spiritual science, reveals. But in today's school system, there is something else. There is also what the teachers believe to be the right thing for the education of the child. But then more and more something else has come. I had to look at it, precisely because I had to proceed very practically when I founded the Waldorf School with regard to its spiritual content. Coming from political life, the decrees are: First class: this and that must be taught, that and that is the teaching goal. Second class: this and that must be taught, that is the teaching goal. — You see, that comes from political life! Is it not obvious that it does not belong there, that the person who does not look inside, who understands nothing of teaching and education, must give the instructions? The prescriptions must come only from those who are educators, and they should not be called over as experts to the ministry, but should be involved in the living process of educating and teaching. Spiritual life must be placed on its own ground in all areas of the school system. Then the spirit will take hold of people again.

So that one must say: the state honestly realizes democracy by relieving itself of the intellectual life, which is based entirely on expertise and professional competence, in which, after all, one truly cannot decide by majorities, but only according to what one knows. There it is a matter of only the specialized and the factual being the deciding factors, of the decisions coming from the self-administration of the school system. That is one area that must be excluded from the state. The other area is the economic one. Do you see where all the things come from that are driving the world more and more into a general economic crisis today? Where do such things come from, as for example in 1907 in Europe, which could be very well noticed by individual people? But it happened at that time, even if not without pain, it still passed without major catastrophes for the world economy, I would say, only with the pain of some. Then again there was rejoicing among everyone about the great economic progress and “how we have come so gloriously far” in more recent times. No one noticed how certain characteristic phenomena were pointing to what is now gradually developing into a general world crisis. These characteristic phenomena...

All these things have taken place everywhere, on a small and large scale. They can essentially be traced back to the fact that since the beginning of the 19th century, money has gradually become the ruler over the entire economic life. Money as the ruler over the entire economic life; what does that mean? You see, whether it is wheat – because you have to look at the monetary value – it costs so and so many francs. When you buy skirts, if you just look at the monetary value: francs. In short, money is not specified, it is not based on the concreteness of economic life. It is something that exists in the non-real world, like the abstract concepts in the intellectual life, with which you cannot lure a dog behind the stove in reality. Except that the abstract, fantastic concepts do not cause as much harm as this generalized abstractness of money. One can point out how, in the course of the 19th century, the money lender gradually became the actual driving force in our economic life. Whereas before, it was only the economic, economic man who mattered. Gradually, the possibility also arose for states to become involved in economic affairs, so that states themselves became economic actors.

If one examines the causes of war impartially, one will find that they arose and had to arise from purely economic circumstances, because the circumstances I have mentioned developed. Here again, careful study provides insights into what is at stake: that we must return to a coming together of man with economic production itself. Man must again be brought close to what he produces. Man must again grow together with wheat and rye and everything else he produces, and he must change economic life according to what he produces. And people must not be allowed to multiply this money purely for the sake of it. Without thinking about these things, we will not get anywhere. A recovery of economic life is only possible if man is brought together with the economy again, working out of the needs of the economy.

But this can only come about if one does not organize from the state, but if one allows the people who are in the corresponding economic sectors to come together in associations, if one builds an economy of interests merely on expertise and skill and craftsmanship in economic life. Two things are necessary: first, that one can do what one wants to produce, and second, that one has the trust of the people. But this can only be achieved if one is involved in the corresponding branch of the economy and has grown together with it.

But this is how the individual occupations arise, this is how the laws of production and consumption arise. On the other hand, the various economic methods can only be brought into a certain relationship with each other if the various associations work independently, without interference from the state or any other authority. Just as intellectual life must be set apart from state life and stand on its own two feet, so must economic life. Intellectual life can flourish only if the individual who has the abilities can also develop these abilities for the benefit of his fellow human beings. Spiritual life is most ideal and most socially beneficial when the individual, who is gifted, can work in the service of his fellow human beings. Economic life is most effective when those who produce in any field, or when the consumer circles, combine in such a way that simply through the existence of the associations and connections, there is a real trust that is not dependent on money, when the credit system is a real one and not a mere fiction , as was the case in the previous period, and when you know that you can support any branch of production because the people you have now got to know and who have grown together with their branch of production are in that branch of production.

This is certainly still the case in small communities; in the large-scale conditions that have actually brought about the decline, it is no longer the case.

You see, I have only been able to sketch out what threefolding is about. I could only show you that, to a certain extent, the development of humanity has reached the point where what was once charged to the state as a unified entity now wants to be divided into three independent areas: the spiritual life, which administers itself independently, in the democratic state life, which will be the legal life in particular, and in the economic life, which is standing on its own two feet and is in turn a separate area. That alone is the essential thing: we can see from what the civilized world should and actually wants to strive today, except that people have not yet become aware of it, and that people want to hold on to the old conditions.

You see, it is very strange how one can see precisely in Social Democracy, as it is developing today, the most conservative principle. For what does Social Democracy want? It wants to turn the state into a single large cooperative, through which it could militarize everything. This could be said today when looking at Russia, where everything is being militarized. The militarization of labor is already being discussed from a Russian perspective, because social democracy with a Marxist slant says: the state is there. We now load everything onto it, education and economic life and everything. That is the unhealthy thing! The socialist idea in particular represents the last, most unhealthy consequence of what has developed over the last few centuries.

The healthy thing is to recognize that what has been charged to the state, what it cannot decide out of its democratic nature, must be separated from it and put on its own two feet, intellectual life and economic life. Of course, one can understand that many people today cannot go into such ideas, because people today have been brought up to regard the state as something that works best through a certain omnipotence. One is not really serious about the democratic idea if one wants to saddle the state with everything. One is only serious about the democratic idea if one wants to see that which can be treated equally among all mature people. If it depends on the individual person, on the abilities that he carries into this world from other worlds through his birth, then it is a matter of this world, this spiritual world, also having to be organized out of these abilities. In economic life, it is important that we do not impose an abstract organization on everything, which the monetary economy is by its very nature, but that it should be possible to manage out of the concrete economic life. But out of the concrete economic life, only associations can be formed that join together and that, through their mutual relationship, really achieve what can be a healthy relationship between consumers and producers. Of course, such a concept, which, as it were, addresses everything that is currently being pushed aside in the wake of decline, and which recognizes that decline can only be stopped by thoroughly seeking a new formation, such a concept cannot be understood immediately. One realizes that it cannot be understood immediately. For people are actually organized to always think to themselves: Yes, things are bad now, but they will get better again. They think that improvement will come from some unknown quarter. That is how it was done, for example, in Germany during the war. Whenever things went badly, people waited for improvement to come from some unknown quarter. It did not come! So today we should not wait for things to improve, from somewhere, we don't know where! No, humanity today – as the advent of democracy itself testifies – is called upon to act in a mature way. But one is only mature when one does not expect improvement to come from some vague source, but when one says to oneself: Improvement can only come from one's own will, from an understanding will that sees through the effect. [Gap] If only one percent of today's civilized humanity could bring themselves to a clear recognition of the danger for the whole civilized world, and could see, could see how urgently the conditions strive for threefolding! But threefolding is being trampled underfoot everywhere. If only one percent of people would understand things to a certain degree, things would get better. Because only through people can improvement come! The worst thing for humanity has always been fatalism.

But the worst thing today is precisely this fatalism! Recently, you could read here in a paper that appears in Basel a letter from a German who says: We in Germany must now accept going through Bolshevism. Then, when we have gone through Bolshevism, then — one does not know from where! — the better will come.

This is the most terrible fatalism. It is the consequence of the fact that, basically, the deepest essence of Christianity is still not understood today. The Christ came into the world for all men. He did not come into the world merely for the one people from which He proceeded; He did not fight merely for the one national God, for He taught: Not this one national God, but that which is God for all men, that is what matters. Have not people in the last five or six years looked back to the old Jehovah again, have they not fought everywhere for the folk gods by giving these folk gods the name of Christ? Was it the real Christ, the Christ to whom all people are entitled, that they spoke of? No, it was not the Christ to whom all people are entitled that was spoken of; it was the individual folk gods! And, of course, the individual peoples are spoken of in this sense today, as they were then, as embodying their separate ideals. Christianity, in turn, must be understood as a general one; but not just in words, but in mature ideas.

You see, just by giving a few sketchy thoughts in this short time today, but by speaking again and again to people about threefolding, there were also people who appeared who are “good Christians” today, that is, they appeared with phrases. They talked about all sorts of things, but they thought it should be said today that Christianity should be fulfilled, that Christ should really come. — I could only reply: There is a commandment: You shall not take the name of your God, the name of your Lord, in vain. — Does that make one a bad Christian because one does not always have the name of Christ on one's tongue? The Christ did not just want to be addressed with the name “Lord! Lord!” – but he wanted to bring an attitude among people that, when developed, takes on concrete forms, that do not always just refer to his name, but that bring about social conditions in his spirit that embrace all people equally.

It may appear that the words used do not mention Christianity, but this threefold social organism is intended to be in the spirit of true, genuine, practical Christianity. And I am deeply convinced, dear ladies and gentlemen, that one day it will be recognized that the idealists who speak of threefolding today are the true practitioners. And the others, who say: Oh, pipe dreams! — these are the ones who speak that way today, well, just as, for example, the foreign ministers of the German Reichstag and the Austrian delegation spoke almost identically in June 1914. These two practical gentlemen said something similar in Berlin and Vienna: Our friendly relations with St. Petersburg are the very best there are. The political situation has relaxed; we are approaching peaceful conditions in Europe - in May, June 1914! Negotiations are in progress with England, the practitioners said in Berlin, which will soon lead to satisfactory results. The satisfactory results then came in August 1914! So the “practitioners” spoke, so the practitioners foresaw things.

We should bear this in mind, ladies and gentlemen, when we hear such a proposal as the threefold social order being dismissed as the mere idealism of a few visionaries, whereas it should be seen as the most practical of proposals, the one that takes reality most fully into account and seeks to align itself with our times!

I thank you, my dear attendees, for listening to what I had to present. I can only ask for your indulgence, since in the short time available to me I could, of course, only present a few pure thoughts without the necessary proofs, but which you can find in the corresponding books and magazines, which are also available here in Switzerland, and which you can also find in “Social Future”, published by Dr. Boos. I have only been able to give you a few guiding ideas; and I only hope that these guiding ideas may perhaps be able to evoke in you the feeling that this impulse of the threefold social order is not a randomly thrown-out idea, but that this threefold is a response to the deepest needs of humanity today, but one that can truly lead humanity out of its current plight. It can lead us out of chaos and decline and towards a new beginning, which so many people today long for, and rightly so.

[Closing words of the organizer.

I could imagine that the editor of a wit-breathing could be tempted to take the floor at a sample fair event about the recovery of economic life, the builder of the Dornach Free University for Spiritual Science, the Goetheanum. For it is already generally recognized that nothing could be further apart than what people who know the matter superficially imagine by the nebulous mysticism of the Dornach Goetheanum and what can be seen as a living practice. And yet, it might seem even more paradoxical and amusing that precisely in recent times, in the last few weeks, in a place in southern Germany – and Switzerland will follow suit in the very near future – the founding is being undertaken, precisely by the current of thought and world view represented in Dornach, of a company for the promotion of economic and spiritual real values.

As I said, this could appear even more paradoxical. For one sees in such a spiritual movement, as it is, for which the Dornach building is to be the representative of the external expression, one sees in it something completely impractical, which only has to be discussed when one has to turn away from the real practical goals in life, more or less for Sunday rest.

Now, dear ladies and gentlemen, I do not want to keep you for long with introductory remarks about the tasks of the spiritual movement represented by the Goetheanum. But I would just like to say that this spiritual movement, precisely because of its special nature, wants to be the basis for the practice of life that we really need for the present, in order to get out of that which has driven us into that which has always been regarded as so practical and which has shown itself to be so particularly practical in the ruining of European civilization in the last five to six years!

Certainly, in the free school of spiritual science referred to here, people's attention should not only be directed to what confronts man in the external material world, but humanity should once again be made aware that everything material is based on the spiritual, and that one cannot understand the material if one does not understand the underlying spiritual. But how the spiritual world is to be opened up, which paths the individual person has to take to come to this real, actual spiritual world, that is not what I want to talk about today. That has been discussed in the various books that have been published on this subject. But what I would like to talk about is the fact that the particular kind of spiritual activity that must be cultivated in order to achieve something in man through this particular kind of spiritual activity and effort, something that is not impractical but practical, in that it opens up a healthy, illusion-free view of reality. However strange it may sound, the aim of the Dornach School is not to escape from reality, but quite the opposite. The aim of the Dornach School is to acquire a healthy view of reality, the acquisition of such a healthy view that can see what is going on in every reality, which must be directed by man himself, above all in economic reality.

And to express myself even more clearly, I would like to illustrate what I have to say with the following comparison.

You see, my dear audience, if a chemist were to claim to have invented a new way to bleach laundry, and then tried to use this method, and lo and behold, the laundry turned a dirty brown from this method, he would probably not be considered a good chemist, and it would be said that he actually understands nothing of real chemical science. This is certainly true today in the fields of technology and external life, insofar as these fields depend on scientific thinking. But it is not at all true when it comes to the technology that arises in economic life, in the management of economic life, and that is supposed to depend in some way on healthy economic thinking, on a real, let us say, national or social economy or the like. Let me give you an example of this. A long time ago, there was a lot of arguing in the international world among those people who thought about economic issues, about how best to give validity to the economic movement called the free trade movement. From a certain point of view, they examined the damage that international economic life suffers as a result of customs duties and the like being levied at national borders; customs duties that are based on the most diverse intentions. In short, there were once parliaments - now they are long gone, the times - in which the free trade movement was seen as an ideal, as an economic ideal. Then, in certain circles, they thought about a way to promote free trade, especially tariff-free trade. They argued so fiercely that they said: love and the protective tariff issue are the greatest cause of madness in the world. At that time the supporters of the gold standard and the supporters of metallism, the gold and silver standard, were at loggerheads. The supporters of the supposed gold standard were those people who said, based on their scientific economic insight: By promoting the gold standard, we promote free trade. That was an economic and scientific conviction.

What did reality show, then? It so happened that just after these scientific-economic declamations were let loose, significant gold finds were made in Africa, and those countries that had little of the areas where gold was found were able to mint the gold in particularly abundant amounts. But one would always have to expect such things, and above all the chemist would have to calculate with the analogy of what I have mentioned for clarification. But in reality, what happened? It turned out that the introduction of the gold standard led to the introduction of protective tariffs everywhere, that is, reality showed exactly the opposite of what was predicted theoretically from economic thinking.

It is exactly as if a chemist, with a product that is supposed to bleach the laundry, made the laundry a dirty brown color. As I said, there are many examples where economic thinking does not come close to reality, where reality takes an opposite course. There are many such examples.

Anyone who raises the question today: Is there an economic crisis, an international economic crisis? – they truly only need to look at the conditions. This economic crisis is everywhere on the doorstep. However, people have very different ideas about its specific nature and causes. But can we really hope that with such thinking, in the face of reality, such a complicated phenomenon, such a complicated fact as the international economic crisis, can be readily understood?

Surely that cannot be the case! Now you will say: Aha, there is someone who claims that the economic thinkers are all stupid, they all know nothing; the economy is running, and the economic thinkers are all stupid. No, I do not claim that they are all stupid, I claim rather that there are very clever people among economists, in some respects much cleverer than in all the other professions of life, but that what what the monometallists, the supporters of the gold standard, said and what happened was the opposite of what the very clever people advocated in very clever sentences and turns of phrase and theories. No, I am not saying that all economists are stupid. Rather, I want to start from the strange fact that modern civilization has brought about the peculiar phenomenon that one can be a brilliant economic thinker and think exactly the opposite of what is reality in economic life! This is a remarkable phenomenon, but one that is also evident from the fact that people are actually quite helpless in the face of today's European confusion, especially in the circles of those who have learned economic thinking best in the traditional way.

And here you see, I would just like to claim that what one has simply acquired as a thinking technique can be seen through by the healthy spiritual science that is practiced in the movement for which Dornach is the external representative , it is possible to see through things in their outer reality, of which one can easily prove by countless examples that they are not seen through by those who are regarded as experts.

You see, above all when economic crises are being discussed – people usually think of the things that lie in the constellations between consumption and between production – one talks about an economic crisis occurring when there is overproduction that cannot be used up by consumption. It can just as well be proved that the economic crisis does not come from overproduction but from underconsumption, simply from the fact that people, who perhaps do not have enough money to buy what has been produced, buy too little. And the strange thing is, you can prove one thing or the other. If you go back only as far as the economic crises of 1919, you will find that one was caused by overproduction, the other by underconsumption, and the third by entirely different causes, such as an imbalance between capitalism and labor, or, which also applies to individual cases, that economic crises are bound to occur when there is too much saving in a large community of people, and so on. Now, all these things do not take into account what is most important for the economic life of the present day.

Here I can really speak from a kind of personal experience. It was a long time ago, at the end of the nineties of the last century and the beginning of this century, that I got to know the Central European working class thoroughly. I was a teacher at a workers' educational school, but it was only through this that I was really able to get to know the labor movement from all sides. And I got to know it, firstly, because the various lectures I had to give were sometimes followed by very lively discussions that showed what was being thought in the broadest circles of the growing workforce. On the other hand, I was received with my own lectures and was able to see how one can take in what is not just economic and so on. And anyone who, I would say, has lived with a certain observant sense of human conditions and without prejudice in such a way knows how to say what the error is when one thinks today that mere economic categories, such as capital and wages and the like, or import and export, trade, finance, balance of payments, currency and other things, there is more than what is only on the surface. No, in these things there is really, for the present crisis, what is only on the surface. For everything that happens in economic life ultimately originates with people, with people's thoughts, and what people do, so that qualifications of capital and wage relationships arise, of import and export and so on, of currency fluctuations. Ultimately, this depends on what arises from people's thoughts.

You see, I can speak without prejudice, because I was a teacher among workers for five or six years and I managed to get a large following among the workers, but one fine day the leaders of the workers' movement realized that there is one who cannot be tolerated, that there is one who teaches not orthodox Marxism, that there is one who endeavors to instill into the hearts and minds something quite different from the orthodox teaching.

A meeting was held with my students. Hundreds of my students were present at the meeting at the time, along with labor leaders, second-string players, but sent by the first string, who said all sorts of things, including that I was an impossible personality in the labor movement. I said: Yes, but do you want to cultivate something in the future that is good for the future, and you do not understand the simplest thing, freedom of teaching? Then one of the leaders managed to utter the word: freedom of teaching? No, we only know reasonable compulsion! And yet, although the vote was unanimous against the four, against the four leaders, my activity was of course completely impossible.

That, you see, that entitles me, precisely on the basis of the facts, to speak with some impartiality about what is actually taking place today in economic life in the context of an increasingly international Europe.

But one must also really be able to study that which comes from within the human being himself, and which the categories I have mentioned, which are usually enumerated, actually bring about. One must first ask oneself: what peculiarities does the belief have that has gradually spread among the European proletariat?

You see, the most characteristic feature of the way millions of people think is that, first of all, they think of the spiritual life in such a way that everything that man produces spiritually, including what he produces out of his spirit as law, as custom, as religion, as science, that this is nothing more than something that the human brain gives birth to in an abstract way, which is a kind of ideological superstructure on the only reality, the substructure, the only reality: the economic life of production and consumption.

This has become established in the minds of millions upon millions of people. I do not want to examine now to what extent this can be traced back to the theory of Marx and Engels, but it has become established in millions upon millions of people: the whole of intellectual life is an ideology, something that has merely grown out of economic life.

Yes, perhaps in the circles of those who feel very clever about economics, people will think little of this belief of the proletariat with regard to the current economic crisis in international life. But that is precisely the great mistake: today people think little of the most important things. For one does not learn to recognize the source of the crisis, namely, what lives in the unconscious of men, and from which the economic disaster arises, if one does not turn one's gaze to the soul life of the masses. One must take into account the spiritual life of the masses; for it may be possible to believe that intellectual life is only an ideology, but it is impossible to live with that, and the human being becomes desolate, the human being loses his footing in life.

And this is the strange thing: with an unparalleled fanaticism the great masses cling to these doctrines. The masses, especially those who today set the tone in certain economic circles of laborers, cling with fanaticism to these doctrines; but in so doing they become more and more desolate.

How did this come about? Materialism did not arise from the working class itself; materialism arose in the leading circles over the last four centuries. Only, the leading circles have preserved the old traditions out of a certain half-heartedness. On the one hand, they have begun to think materialistically about the external life in which they are immersed, but on the other hand they have preserved the old traditions as their religion, as their morality and so on, and basically lead a double life.

The worker cannot do this, having been called away from what he used to stand by, what he had grown together with: from the trade, the products of which he loved, into which he put his life. He has been called to the abstract machine, placed in the abstract factory. He seeks his salvation in that which the others only take halfway. You can only judge it when you have stood in it. This has gradually emerged. And so that great lack of understanding arose in Europe.

This lack of understanding hangs over Europe like a terrible fate today. There are those at the top who have to manage the capital, there are those at the top who have to direct economic life, who could direct it if they only wanted to, who could also transform materialism into a healthy world view, who could also be practical. There are those who could do anything if they wanted to.

Then there are those at the bottom who have taken seriously the materialism that has developed in these leading circles, who can do nothing, who believe that by saying, “Capitalism must be fought,” they can achieve something with this phrase; who do not know that economic life in the modern sense of the word cannot be had at all without capitalism, that without capitalism one can only return to barbarism. The worker has become helpless in his thoughts, helpless in the face of reality, throughout Europe, the worker who has been forced into the machine, who seriously imagines those theories that, I might say, arise as by-products of life with the others, with which one cannot live and certainly not manage, as shown by such things as metallism and monometallism and the like.

This great misunderstanding, what has brought it about? Well, you can see what it has brought about in the development of European conditions. Look at Russia. In Russia, something has arisen in accordance with the peculiarities of the people that is difficult to study for someone who looks at these things impartially and without prejudice, without being an agitator. There were many differentiations of socialist and social ideals in Russia. What was there in this Russia until 1914? The broad masses of people, held down by Russian militarism and the hated tsarism, had something that could not be bridged to the other thing that existed in the ruling circles. They did not want to achieve what they should have achieved: to build the bridge, as leaders, as intellectuals, to build this bridge. We see the emergence of modern capitalism. We see the emergence of modern individualism with the calling in of a million-fold crowd into factories, to machines. What would have been necessary there was to resort to a new practical thinking, and it would have been necessary for the intellectuals to make themselves leaders, to gain trust, to make the masses understand that they understand, to actually carry out the airs and graces of economic life in earnest. They did none of that. They lived for themselves, an upper class. They let the others study. The proletariat, in particular, studied an extraordinary amount, simply devoted to what were the waste products of education, materialistic waste products of education.

Today the fruits of this are present in the economic crisis in Europe. It is a spiritually conditioned, tragic fate.

Then, out of what held it down, what one did not want to penetrate spiritually, what one did not want to penetrate spiritually with reasonable views, what one wanted to hold down through the external physical violence of militarism and that of the absolute monarchy or of any other powers, out of what was needed to neutralize that which one did not want to conquer spiritually, out of that came the European war catastrophes.

And what came about then? For Russia, Leninism and Trotskyism emerged. Not out of Russian socialism, oh no, Leninism and Trotskyism were born out of Russian socialism. Nothing like Leninism and Trotskyism could ever have been born out of Russian socialism. Something quite different would have emerged if the intellectuals had sought to reach an understanding with the broad masses of the population in a reasonable way. No, Lenin and Trotsky did not grow out of the revolution! Lenin and Trotsky grew out of the circles of those who were affected by the war, of those who were affected by the war as the ultimate consequence of militarism. The results of the war have taken root in Russia and have once again suppressed that which wanted to come from below, with which one should have come to an understanding. Lenin and Trotsky are not heroes of socialism; they are the sons of the European war catastrophe and only became possible because the misery of the war's aftermath spread across Russia. And what happened in the rest of Europe – read Keynes's very fine book (you can find it in a very good English translation), The Economic Consequences of the Peace. What happened in the rest of Europe – what was it? Is it the confession of economic thinking? Is it the economic striving up to 1914 that brought us into the terrible catastrophe? No, it is not that, but what we are experiencing, including all the exchange value worries of individual countries, is not a healthy return to healthy views that one believes can be obtained by the fact that the disease has been reduced to absurdity by the catastrophes. What we are experiencing is the result of the war. Out of a very, very short-sighted judgment, a German general coined the words that have been repeated many times during this war catastrophe: “War is only politics carried out by other means.

During the war, I repeatedly compared this dictum with the word: Divorce is just marriage continued by other means! But with a certain correct variant, one could still say: This peace is, especially in the field of economic life, just the continuation of the war by other means. This is not said by someone with an agitational or one-sided view of the current economic situation, but by even the most objective critics, from the side that would have the most reason to judge objectively today, from the side of the English, Keynes says this in his book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace Agreement”.

Now, if you really look at these things, you have to say: Oh, the causes of the current economic disasters run much, much deeper! And finally, you just have to look at today's economic life as it has developed to see that. There is no need to be captivated by the one-sided declamations about capitalism and anti-capitalism; instead, one only needs to surrender to the objective facts, which are certainly justified by modern conditions, that our economic life is intimately intertwined with what we have to call the money economy.

Now, of course, I am far from entertaining the foolish idea of wanting to fight the money economy. That is out of the question, because I would consider that a foolish idea, just as I would consider it a foolish idea to want to reform money in some way. No, but the issue is that, as a result of all the modern economic conditions, what money represents in economic life has become abstract.

An English economic journalist said quite rightly: the functions that money actually performs in our economic life are extremely complex and cannot really be teased out for examination.

You see, my dear audience, if someone is a thinker of a rather abstract nature, if he always goes from the particular to the general, if he sees all kinds of flowers out in the meadow with a specific name and then says: plants or flowers – and compares “flowers” with animals and so on, he thinks abstractly. He brings abstract thoughts that encompass many things and spreads them out like a carpet over the concrete parts.

This is how it is in real economic life with money. Money brings a completely abstract element into real economic life, into reality. Just think, if I am the owner of 50 francs, then I am the owner of these 50 francs, and it is initially irrelevant whether I have 50 francs in my wallet, whether I buy a rabbit for 50 francs tomorrow, or whether I buy flour or a silver watch, or whether I buy a skirt or something similar. The concreteness of economic life is lost to the abstractness of money. This comes to light in the moment when money is exchanged for money, when you buy with money. You can see best how, just as abstractions hide from the reality of thinking, the abstractness of money hides from reality. If you have followed the newspapers in Germany in the last few weeks, you could see that people were very pleased with the slight improvement in the value of the currency. But then it went down again. And anyone who knows the deeper connections will not be very impressed by a temporary improvement in this currency. Well, the blame was shifted to all sorts of causes, although in the background nothing else stood, than that German notes available in Spain were bought by Americans on the stock exchange through some special constellation, through some special intention, and that this caused the little bit of a surge in the German currency. This escaped notice for the simple reason that whenever money as such circulates in trade, when money as such is traded, it is far removed from the concrete economic life, and one no longer sees the connections. Just as when someone speaks in abstract terms, a mill wheel goes around in your head and you no longer have any idea what he actually means by his abstractness, so you no longer know with the money manipulations what is actually going on in economic life.

You see, in these matters it is essentially a matter of the medium of exchange becoming alienated in actual economic life; and that is the reason why we have entered into such a terrible economic crisis. For this economic crisis was actually already there before the war, and the war was only the expression of this economic crisis. [Gap.]

You see, someone in, say, 1865 could have had the greatest possible facilities for air travel, but he could not use them because there was no air travel yet! It does not help to be clever in just any area of life. When circumstances lead one away from the direct experience of that which is to be experienced, then every clever thought helps nothing. And the fact that one has been driven away from real life in the economic field, as in other fields, is what modern civilization has produced by welding the three main areas of life – spiritual life, political or legal life and economic life – more and more into a unified state.

The money economy was favorable for welding together in the unitary state. As I said, I beg you not to misunderstand me at all, that I might want to object to something about the money economy. I just want to point out how what has not been grasped by the money economy must lead precisely to the recovery of our economic life!

It has been repeatedly asserted in modern times that the centralized state is a panacea. This panacea has been held up as an ideal by the leading people so far, but also by the socialists; for what do the socialists want? Use the framework, the fully developed framework of the state, to build their socialist fallacies. Even Lenin and Trotsky did nothing other than to use the war to pour their socialist abstractions over what was left of the old Russian tsarist state. The idea of a unified state has only emerged in the last three or four decades (those who really know their history know that it was only a short time ago) among those who believe they want what is best for all public affairs and who, as a result, fail to to see what is maturing in the reality of humanity: that what is maturing in the reality of humanity is the urge towards spiritual life, the urge towards legal or state life and towards economic life to come to completely different constellations than we have had so far. I want to touch on one corner, I would like to say.

In many areas of European life, what we call inheritance law stands out from old institutions. Inheritance law is connected with the relationships of blood ties between people. If you follow the lines of inheritance law into the whole of public life, including the configuration of state and social contexts, you will see how much of economic life depends on this law. Inheritance law has an effect on certain people in these or those economic sectors; it brings people into it, they are in it, and individual things become out of their abilities. But ultimately, a large part of the economy as a whole is made up of these individual things. In short, we have inheritance law closely tied to blood ties, to that which is organized in humanity by nature.

What has happened in those states that have considered themselves the most exemplary in the last three to four centuries? They have learned to organize from nature. Organizing is attributed especially to the Germans. They were only so good at it that they distorted it to the point of mechanization. But it has been poured out over the whole civilized world. Organizing, which is inherent in humanity by nature, has also been carried into social life. And this organizing, which is connected with blood ties, this organizing, which has a very symptomatic one - there are many others - in inheritance law, this organizing, it comes out basically very clearly also in the organization of intellectual life. And finally, although the Catholic Church wants to be a democratic institution that also allows those at the bottom of the social ladder to rise to the highest positions of the church hierarchy under certain circumstances, in practice, what has welded together such things, such as the old organizations that depend on blood ties, has also crept into Catholic church organizations; because, after all, more high-ranking nobles had become archbishops than others, and so on. In short, we see in many respects how what comes from blood ties extends into the modern social order; and what is particularly evident in such things as inheritance law, but the human race, with its innermost consciousness, has actually outgrown. If someone says, “Man is man,” and points to a seven-year-old child and to a forty-year-old adult, you will laugh. You will not say that the forty-year-old person is only the consequence of the thirty-five-year-old, the thirty-year-old and so on, but you will look at the person as if what is in his being develops from his depths. It is only in history that the foolish view has arisen that the following is always only the effect of the preceding, whereas for a long time the human race has been such that the successive phases in its innermost being arise in the same way as, for example, the change of teeth or sexual maturity in the individual. Thus, during the last period, while the elements that arose from the old blood ties and the conditions caused by them have remained as inheritances in the spiritual, economic and legal life, while the old public rights have remained, the urge for a new order has unconsciously taken hold of people, for something different to occur.

So you see, if you want to try to find out what people really want, then something like in my “Key Points of the Social Question” appears. One only does not pay attention to how these things are overheard in true reality and true practice, in what life demands today. Inheritance rights have their origin in the old development of humanity. People want to keep them as if they wanted to keep their twelve or fourteen years of development, just as someone who is twelve or fourteen does not understand that at twenty one must be different than at twelve or fourteen. Of course, in detail, such follies will not be wanted. There we have the right of inheritance. It has become something that people's consciousness does not want to accept. Today, people think too highly of their individuality to cling to the conventional means of inheritance out of convention, even if it is only out of convention. If we are honest and listen to what humanity actually wants, we come to what you find set out in The Essential Points of the Social Question, where it is shown that humanity tends towards a social order in which the individual, who has certain abilities, is connected with the means of production, or, let us say, with capital. If he can no longer combine these abilities with it, then the sum of the means of production or the capital must pass from him to someone else who is qualified. This shows how the old age must grow into the new age. The old age made the economic configuration dependent on blood. The new age makes dependent - in the consciousness of man it already exists - wants to make dependent the configuration of economic life on what is consciously experienced. So that in the new order inheritance law is not spoken of in the usual sense. For this reason, for example, inheritance law is often doubted today; it is doubted that inheritance law can be spoken of at all. It is only to be said that if I have acquired a sum of means of production through my abilities, through which I can achieve something, have accumulated a capital, then I have the obligation, when I myself can no longer be the steward, to transfer it to another, who in turn, according to his abilities, must be connected with it. What was only dependent on blood must be replaced by reason and human individuality.

This may sound radical to some, but it is not spoken out of any radicalism, but only heard from what mankind unconsciously actually wants.

If we look at the development of humanity from this point of view, we see that people have reached such a point in the general science of the human race, in spiritual life, in legal and political life and in economic life through the standpoint they have adopted that they can no longer be compressed into the unified state.

This is where the impulse for the threefold social organism comes in, demanding that spiritual life be completely left to its own devices. This is perhaps the most controversial point today, because it is considered particularly clever to make the state the guardian of spiritual life. But this must be demanded by those who today recognize what humanity unconsciously wants: that spiritual life be completely left to its own devices.

Let us take one of the most important parts: the public school system. From the teacher of the lowest school class up to the highest teacher, everything must be self-governing.

You see, I was called upon to found the Waldorf School in Stuttgart because of the pedagogical and didactic principles that arise from such a way of thinking. Emil Molt, the local factory owner of the Waldorf-Astoria factory, set up this Waldorf School. It was my responsibility to give the Waldorf School its spiritual foundation, and to this day, although it is not always apparent from the outside, the actual management and leadership of the school has been entrusted to me. And so, for weeks, I gave a pedagogical course for the teachers, in order to point out the direction in which this school should work.

Yes, I was also obliged – you will still have the opportunity to see how far we have come so far – I was also obliged, you see, to recognize the slippery slope on which spiritual life finds itself in its most important area, the school system. Of course, I also had to develop curricula and, in order to orient myself, I had to see what was there in order to do justice to the current school teaching goals and curricula.

Now, esteemed attendees, I can still remember – though it was a long time ago when I was at school myself or interacted with teachers – that everything in the school program was something printed on one page; now it has become thick books and everything is specified down to the last detail. On the one hand, we have what the pedagogical artists and pedagogical scientists put into their books, what they convey to the teacher. On the other hand, there is what comes from expertise and specialized knowledge. Then there is the bureaucratic aspect, which comes from the state. This is much more important than one might think! There is no justification for anything other than the factually specialized to have a say in the administration of intellectual life. This is clearly evident, for example, in the field of education. How differently people would be educated and introduced to economic life if spiritual life were completely free to govern itself only on the basis of its own foundations! This can only be appreciated by someone who has really formed a sound judgment about the connection between free spiritual life, the development of human abilities out of free spiritual experience, and its significance for economic and state life. The question here is to finally realize: How does spiritual life fit into the whole process of human development?

Well, my dear audience, spiritual life is organized. And the more elementary a field is, the more organized is the spiritual life. Consider the example of the family. Look at how the individual grows out of the family, how a son grows into the artistic, out of what was similar to father or mother, not only outwardly physically, but spiritually and mentally. The further back you go in the years, the more you can see from what grows out of the family, how nature organizes spiritual life.

What exactly do we have to do for the spiritual life? With regard to the individual, we have to bring the individual out of the organization: we have to overcome the organization, the organization that is given by nature; we have to educate the individual into freedom. Freedom must first be acquired in earthly life. Then freedom can only be acquired if we, as teachers, educators or participants in intellectual life, are truly able to understand the human being, to work from the most individual abilities of the human being, and to place the human being in economic life according to the abilities with which he reveals himself to us in the context of nature.

That is the peculiar thing about intellectual life, that one has to say: The very person who thinks honestly about democracy thinks precisely in the way that comes over people in their fourteenth or sixteenth year, when they reach sexual maturity. And so, over the course of the last three to four centuries, humanity has been taken over by the tendency towards democracy. The very person who thinks honestly demands that all the matters that people develop when they come of age be treated in such a way that they, as equals among equals, have to organize things. This will be evident in the education of people in the field of intellectual life. It depends so much on the individual human ability and expertise that it must never be the subject of democratic administration or constitution, but must be left to the self-administration of this intellectual life.

And economic life? Economic life cannot be organized [gap]. Ideological, unworldly people, in all kinds of utopian ideals, indicate which forms economic life should be organized according to, whereby economic life should be brought into this or that structure. That would be the death of economic life! This nonsense began when the so-called German Republic first tried to get itself up and running. The way the planned economy thinks is just as nonsensical: economic life can be organized! But anyone who understands economic life knows that economic life cannot be organized! Economic life can only grow together into a whole in associations. That means: Economic life cannot be organized from above or from any direction, from any side, but economic life can only be successful in associations that grow out of the professions, out of those who belong together in a certain area of production and consumption.

That which has similar interests is linked in associations with that which has related interests. Related interests are linked together. However, a chain or a structure is not formed by organizing it from the outside, but rather by one link attaching itself to these associations through other links. It is a matter of a concatenation and interweaving of such people who stand in it in life, who grow out of life, who have expertise and ability in a certain area of economic life, who have grown into economic life in a certain way, who can also gain trust because they stand in it, because they are related to a branch in a certain sense. But it is necessary that this branch is associated with the next, so that one is not forced in a random way to come out of the abstractness of making money, but because one knows that by being involved in an associative economic work, one turns to the representative of another association for this purpose. He in turn knows how it is.

Yes, you see, my dear audience, that is what happens when you have an economic life built on association, that the cleverness of economic thinking helps you a little! What does cleverness help you when you are faced with an opaque economic life? You can see that in monometallism, in free trade. They have just resulted in protective tariffs. Today, we cannot see through economic life. First, living conditions must be created that allow us to see through connections. We will understand economic connections when, through an association, someone, for all I care, from a different crossroads, can communicate with someone who is part of a different association. If he can turn to this or any other association directly, then cleverness helps a little, as it is connected through the associations, and these connections, these measures must be grasped somehow, and even so far as reality allows through the chain of associations. That was the peculiarity of the previous economy, that there was no possibility of progressing in this way and letting things grow. That, ladies and gentlemen, has still not been understood today.

I am not saying this out of any kind of hubris, but because I believe that everyone can see this today. It has not been recognized that this threefold social order must stand for the independence of spiritual life, of that economic life that is built on associations and on nothing but associations, entirely on associations growing out of the economic underground itself, while the state must remain for what is in between, must have nothing to do with economic life, must have nothing to do with free spiritual life. Spiritual life must be based on the knowledge of the individual human being and on his or her abilities. The economic system must be built on the practical experiences and practices of economic life, which can be acquired in the lively interaction of association with association. The state has nothing to do with either of these. The state has something to do with the people who stand in this way in economic life, on the other hand stand in spiritual life, who will find themselves with all mature people in democratic state life, where public law is established, which then radiates on the one hand into spiritual life, on the other hand into economic life. There is no need to fear that the three members of the social organism will fall apart. They will connect through people. One person is in one circle, the other in the other. The three organizations are separate only for the good of humanity, because the more complicated circumstances of modern times demand this structure of the social organism.

This is what can really intervene to heal the economic life that has been shaken by crises. I said in my book The Core Problems of the Social Question: the threefold idea is not some utopian fantasy; the threefold idea can be linked to immediate reality everywhere. This immediate reality should be taken as it is; but it should in turn grow into a healthy state through state-free, associative life in the economic sphere. To separate economic life from the organization of the state and to base this economic life on its own laws, which can only arise from association to association, that is what is necessary. This looks abstract, but my dear attendees, it is not abstract, it is the most concrete thing.

The economists are there, it is only a matter of their striving for the appropriate association, regardless of political boundaries, according to the related relationships that prevail between production and consumption, between one branch of industry and another. And in the long run, a unified effort by people internationally involved in economic life should actually succeed in overcoming the efforts that are currently being made here or there to improve the value of currencies and so on. Just think how mere abstract economic activity in money can become detached from real conditions. Take Germany before 1914. In one year, about five to six billion capital was saved and earned. New issues, including mortgage bonds, land registry debts and everything that was spent on luxury buildings, new apartments and the like, together amounted to about 11 billion marks before 1914. A capital of 5 to 6 billion was earned or saved, new issues amounted to 1 billion, twice as much! What does that mean? It means that one is moving beyond the real economy, because the real economy has to be earned. Beyond the real economy is the capital value, double that of the real capital value. Because the earned capital value should only have appeared from new issues and mortgage bonds totaling 5 to 6 billion marks. That was actually there. Imagine where this leads when the abstract money economy emancipates itself in this way from the concrete economy of economic life!

The only way to cure this is for people to come into contact with the experiences of economic life itself, that is, for someone who is active in a particular area of economic life to associate with the system in which another person is involved, with the system in a different area. What the threefold social order shows is not a dilettantish thing, it is not utopian, it is something that directly affects practical life everywhere. And people today cannot come to terms with this idea of threefolding for a very specific reason: they do not yet want to reckon with the fact that we are in a state of great confusion. They always want to help with little mixtures and little remedies. That will not work, my dear attendees! When someone is seriously ill, they must also resort to strong medicines. We shall not manage with the social remedies that are otherwise recommended. It must be admitted that what is proposed under the idea of the threefold social organism wants to be a strong remedy. But the saying applies not only that a rough wedge belongs on a rough log, but also that a severe illness also requires a radical remedy. And I believe that anyone who can see through the ever-increasing confusion of international economic life in Europe, this slide into barbarism, will be serious enough to take a closer look at what he believes can lead out of this decline to a new ascent, what he believes can be achieved precisely by a real study of the conditions, not as the monometallists did, but from a real study of the conditions, so that one stands, as the one who treats the laundry with a chemical agent and then makes it black or brown - opposite reality -, I believe that when one realizes the magnitude of the European danger, one will then seriously approach the study of the remedy. That is what matters, and that is what I have wanted to draw attention to in a variety of ways for so long, and what I once again wanted to point out in the most serious way today, ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I was asked:

Will capital ownership be abolished in the threefold social organism?

You see, in reality it is about something different from capital ownership. The point is that it is possible to work on a capital basis in the first place. It is not possible to abolish capital as such in our complicated modern life, as so many incomprehensibly demand. Of course capital is needed, even if only in the form of the means of production. Capital is needed to set the modern economic apparatus in motion. So capital must be there.

I have explained this in more detail in my book “The Crux of the Social Question”. But the point is to find ways of managing capital that are indicated in my book ” The Key Points of the Social Question in the Necessities of Life Today and in the Future” about this capital, that he administers this capital, or rather production, only as long as he himself can be present. Then, whether it is land or other means of production, it passes to someone else in the way that the person concerned can still manage it, who is now linked to it through his abilities. In this way, it will gradually become clear that the more capable people there are, the more fruitful economic life can become, because the management of capital can really pass to capable people.

You see, it is not a matter of being anything other than the steward of that which is to be understood as capital. People cannot yet imagine this. But just take something that, I would say, is already exemplary in a certain way, like the Dornach building, which I had to mention several times in the lecture.

The question may arise: Who does it belong to? It does not really belong to anyone in the old sense. It only makes sense if it passes to those who can manage it in the appropriate way. The means and ways must be found to manage it.

What can be achieved with a more or less ideal institute can also be achieved with every practical institution, with every factory, especially if it is done in a practical spirit. And you can easily imagine a social structure that replaces the old ownership based on blood ties with a new ownership based on the management of those who have capital based on skills.

I would like to link this directly to the question that was asked orally by a gentleman earlier:

To what extent will these institutions be able to eliminate so-called exploitation?

It is quite clear that this exploitation can only exist as long as personal power also exists in the economic sphere. In my book 'The Core of the Social Question', I explain how the social organism appears in three parts, and how economic life is shaped entirely from an economic point of view. Let us say, for example, that a company has a manager and employees, perhaps also hierarchically structured with a senior manager, middle managers and so on, right down to the manual workers. In economic life, no one has power over another. This is because the relationship between an adult and an adult is not regulated in economic life. In economic life, we are dealing with economics. But the position of the emancipated person in relation to the emancipated person is precisely the subject of the state or legal system; the measure, the duration of work, is somehow mutually ordered in the state, political or legal sphere. This threefold structure of the social organism, I have been told, is what Plato already advocated when he divided human society into the nourishing, defending and teaching classes. No, dear attendees, it is the exact opposite of what Plato said.

No, esteemed attendees. It is the very opposite of what Plato said when he said that human society is divided into the productive, the military, and the learned; there he divided people into these three groups, and the individual belonged to one of the three groups. Today, it is not a matter of dividing people up, but of the organization presenting itself as a three-part structure, with each person and their interests represented in all three organizations, in one way or another.

Imagine a person has children. Through the school system, he is part of the spiritual organization. From the outset, like every person who has come of age, he is part of the legal organization, like everyone else, regardless of what he is or whether he has any other profession or activity than anyone else. And he is part of the economic organization, because the teacher, in so far as he must eat and drink, belongs to the economic organism. That is what comes into consideration: it is not that human beings are divided into sections, but that the social organism is divided into sections.

But this makes impossible everything that leads to exploitation in the modern sense. Today, exploitation is caused, firstly, by external political power, including that of the human individual, that is, political power that is politically regulated. Secondly, by economic power. Economic power, for example in the wage relationship, that is impossible. Because in the future – I mean, if one could think of it, that a sufficient number of people would really come together and thereby the healthy conditions would be imprinted on the three-part social organism if it were given a place – there would be no real exploitation in this three-part social organism. But one thing would be recognized: You see, all social ideals are more or less, when they appear so comprehensively today, more or less quackery, for the simple reason that they do not happen taking into account the real conditions. People always think: How must the social organism be organized so that all people are well? Of course, everyone still has their own subjective views on this. The idea of the threefold social order does not ask that question at all! Because of course, if you look at a natural organism, the lion organism or something like that, you can ideally think of something much better organized than the lion organism. You just have to think about its possibilities based on its conditions. In the same way, the ideas of threefolding do not think of a thousand-year Reich, do not believe in a paradise on earth, but the idea of threefolding asks what social structure is possible if human beings are as they are. From this it deduces the social structure that lies in the threefold social organism. It is precisely from the associative organization of economic life that you can see how things are conceived entirely out of reality.

Yes, it is basically quite easy to draw up social programs, comprehensive programs! Oh, I still remember in the eighties of the 19th century: I was quite often in the so-called Café Griensteidl in Vienna, which was so famous because the old 48ers had already frequented it; during the revolution it became the café of the literati. Karl Kraus, who is well known in Switzerland, wrote his little book 'Die demolierte Literatur' (Demolished Literature) about this rather famous Café Griensteidl. It was indeed the case that everyone who went to Café Griensteidl fancied themselves to be a great man. So actually at every table in the afternoon, when you drank your coffee, at every table the social question was solved three times, between two and four o'clock, and by the same people at night, until after midnight, if you didn't exactly attach great importance to the “Sperr-Sechserl”!

So programmatic solutions to this social question can be found very easily!

You see, if you don't look at reality at all, but work from programs and abstract ideals, then organizations can be thought up in abundance.

Goethe satirized the abstract design of worldviews so beautifully in his poem: “The world is an anchovy salad!” You can just as well say that the world, instead of consisting of abstract atoms, as the monists, for example, do, you can just as well say that the world is an anchovy salad, and prove it; or you can go as far as Gustav Theodor Fechner, who proved quite exactly in a very nice little brochure, a small writing, that the moon consists of iodine. You will find very exact proof there. So basically, if you think abstractly, you can prove anything. That is precisely how people fall into so many errors, by pursuing the abstract instead of entering into reality. But it is not enough to be logical. You also have to be realistic. Real thinking must have two things: logic and conformity to reality. One is inconceivable without the other. But above all, conformity to reality is necessary.

And so it is also necessary not to imagine some arbitrary state of the world and then forge programs based on that, but rather to ask: What is possible? That is the fundamental question for the threefold social organism! And there is no possibility at all that exploitation in the modern sense will take place. You see, there are two sides to everything! From his point of view, even the capitalist can say that he is being exploited. Isn't that right? The point is to look at what is possible. Then there is another interesting question:

What has to be done to avert the danger of Bolshevism based on the ideas presented?

You see, it must be said again and again – and it is not for nothing that I repeat it again and again in the Stuttgart Dreigliederungszeitung, which appears every week and I have already expounded the idea in the newspaper dedicated to the threefold order of the social organism here in Switzerland : in the “Social Future”, which is edited by Dr. Boos here and is particularly adapted to Swiss conditions, and in which the threefold order is represented here in Switzerland, that it is necessary above all that the threefold idea take hold in a sufficiently large number of minds. It must first be understood. People must be there to understand it so that it can take root. For, my dear attendees, then this idea of threefolding, or rather what comes from it, is the only real way to avert present evil.