The Rudolf Steiner Archive

at the Anthroposophical College in Zurich

Jakob Hugentobler opens the evening of disputations.

A student: A young, enthusiastic person wants to study astronomy, wants to learn what Kepler, Newton and all those men up to Einstein have produced. He wants to get a clear picture of what is going on in this field. This person wants to get to the bottom of things objectively. He is referred to the field of mathematics, and must either make the effort to penetrate the very complicated states of consciousness of higher mathematics, struggle through to what a Gauss or Beyer have produced, or he will stop halfway. A person in the present day can have worked through everything, can have read Plato, Feuerbach, Averroes, and yet he may lack certain soul dispositions that could open up a certain knowledge to him. He will have to say to himself that he has not yet learned anything about those spiritual worlds that are mentioned in anthroposophy. If you tell him that he needs to prepare himself in a certain direction, he will either be stimulated or not, because from an epistemological, purely psychological point of view, the most diverse variations and laws of life can occur. He thinks he has no right to doubt this or that. He does not wish to offend anyone present, but an aesthetic view of life is not suited to perceiving anything essential. A person who has to struggle through adversity and so on is much closer to the whole movement than those who devote themselves to things as a pastime because they have nothing else to do.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to make a few comments on what the previous speaker said. It has just been rightly emphasized that need and suffering actually lead the way that should go out into the world, which is characterized by anthroposophy. Now, I would like to take up this last remark in particular. I have often made a similar remark in the course of my lectures, only always, I might say, taken out of some context. I have often said: Man lives his existence in alternating states of joy and pleasure, of pain, need and suffering. If one believes to have attained a certain higher realization – in all modesty – then one must still admit that one tends to emphasize, perhaps for very understandable reasons, the joys and pleasures one has experienced in life and for which one is grateful to the Powers of the Universe. But one does not really owe this realization to them. One owes insight only to the sum of the pains one has gone through. And when one speaks of insight in the true sense, it is something that emerges from the sum of the pains.

However, it is certainly the case that in our external lives we can go through the most diverse pains and hardships - hardships that can weigh us down, that at times, I would say, can even stop us from breathing spiritually. But there are also those that experience the real pains of a worldview - pains that, without wanting to offend anyone, I would say, perhaps a large proportion of people do not know too much about. The experiences one can have on the path of knowledge are of such a nature that they can sometimes take more than just breathing of the soul. It was not in vain that in older times, on paths that we can no longer follow, the old - I would like to call them as they called themselves - the old initiates, that is, the old cognizers, were trained. It was absolutely the case that they were led through pain and suffering, because it is needed for the right preparation for knowledge. And indeed, from all the hopelessness that arises on the path of knowledge, pain and hardship arise, which a person, with a certain indifference in living, can perhaps resolve within himself.

But now it is still necessary for the human being to place himself in a way that is demanded by the time into existence. It has been emphasized in earlier lectures here in Zurich over the last few years that the time suffering, the time need, is ultimately connected with what has been omitted by people in the field of knowledge in recent times. It is just these discoveries, which have indeed celebrated the greatest triumphs in recent times and from which all kinds of technical advances can and have emerged and much more will emerge, but these discoveries were, because they only wanted to move in the realm of necessity, not in the realm of freedom, of which I spoke today, not suitable for generating sociological and social thinking.

This is the great task of our time: we must be able to think not only about nature, which gives us guidance through its solid structure of necessities, but we must also be able to think free thoughts that have strength because they in turn are immersed in necessities. Without such free thoughts, we will decline in the new civilization. We cannot find social ideas if we only have the kind of epistemological foundation that we have in modern times. It is quite true that man enters into certain complicated developments of consciousness when he follows the mathematical-naturalistic endeavors of Kepler, Galilei, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein. But we must not forget that, although all this has already been pushed beyond the merely mathematical by Gauss, for example, it has only opened up one-sided paths, and that all this does not contain the starting points for ideas that can deal with social need. The same applies to the epistemological positions that, for my part, go from Descartes to Mach and Avenarius. But there is another path, one that opens up through anthroposophical spiritual science! And this is already intimately connected with that which is significant as the kind of knowledge that has brought great triumphs in natural science, but which, as I have tried to show today, leads to anthroposophical research, anthroposophical observation.

The speaker before me was right about the aesthetic world view. But perhaps we need to look at the words 'aesthetic world view' a little more in terms of contemporary history. If we consider the thinking that has developed out of scientific endeavors, we must indeed say that it does not sink its roots into social necessities, that it does not penetrate to the spiritual foundations of existence. From this, a certain mood has arisen, which has been extraordinarily profound, especially in the last third of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th. Anyone who has observed how people have begun to take an interest in certain higher questions could see that people have begun to take an interest in higher questions in the broadest circles. I just want to point out how widespread the discussions were that were connected, for example, with Björnsons “On Our Strength” and so on; many examples could be given in this direction. It may be said that a certain interest in the transcendental world has taken hold precisely in this age.

But how? People preferred to receive things when they were presented to them in an aesthetic form, so to speak, when they did not have to engage with their knowledge, if I may put it that way, when they could enter into it as they could in a drama or a novella and say to themselves: Well, you can get involved with something like that with your imagination. But they didn't feel any kind of obligation to bring things into line with reality. People were happy if they didn't have to bring things into line with reality! There was a certain sensationalism about it, to a great extent. This need developed at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century, but people didn't want anything to do with relating it to real life. This flight from real life is something that has emerged more and more – this disconnection, this not taking something seriously, this having only a certain sensational interest in something. Above all, this is what must be taken away from humanity, I would say, if civilization is to continue, if we do not want to end up in the kind of conditions that Oswald Spengler describes in his 'Decline of the West'; that must come. Basically, it is really just a fleeing from the painful sides of existence, in a certain respect a setting aside of the painful side of existence.

It is, I would say, an extremely tragic phenomenon, which emerged in the last third of the 19th century in Friedrich Nietzsche. There is no need to go into what Friedrich Nietzsche says or what he means; one need only go into his life. Consider, my dear audience, the suffering that this soul went through in the succession of three stages of development, and put that in the context of the whole of contemporary history!

You see, Nietzsche grew out of a proper philologist's life, only that he did not devote himself to philology out of a certain external sense of duty, as other philologists did, but rather he sensed the constricting nature of this philological method early on. And from this constricting material he selected that which in the sixties, and even at the beginning of the seventies, and well into the seventies, was still flourishing in the circles in which Nietzsche lived. He immersed himself in what had emerged from Schopenhauer and which, in wide circles, was nothing more than pessimistic talk, talk about misery, in order to numb himself to the misery of life in a certain way. And Nietzsche suffered from all this. And it was really only a yearning to inwardly overcome this unidealistic mood of the development of the times by means of a certain kind of insight. So Nietzsche suffered, roughly until 1866, from what was then the immediate scholarly formation of the times. At first he wanted to counter this scholarly formation of the times with his 'Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music', with his 'Untimely Meditations'. These works were written out of deep pain. But around 1876, he had come to the point where he had to say to himself: This is just another deception; one must go much deeper into human nature. And then he came to say to himself that, actually, man devotes himself to many thoughts — many that are untruthfulness. And now he wanted to overcome untruthfulness through knowledge. Isn't it true that people have preserved ideals from ancient times? Nietzsche also still believed in these ideals in the early days of his work, but in the end he saw the instincts behind the ideals. And so he wrote something like “Human, All Too Human”. It was a second form of time development that he suffered from, only to finally come to the third, where he suffered the problem most deeply in his soul, so to speak, where he felt the emergence of the human from the subordinate natural being weighing on his soul. Because he was unable to penetrate to the spirit, the problem remained: Man is only a transition from worm to superman. And so he could only express this process of the soul in human terms lyrically in his “Zarathustra”, only vaguely hinting at something in his great conception of the “return of the same”, which is to be represented by anthroposophy as repeated earth lives and also as the successive metamorphoses of the world system. He was the personality who suffered most deeply from the education of modern times and was broken by it.

Nietzsche has undoubtedly – for me it is unquestionable! – proved that one can break the body from the soul, because it is, after all, characteristic that an excellent psychiatrist could only give the verdict that it was an atypical case of paralysis regarding Nietzsche's illness. And what was later fabled about Nietzsche's illness, going beyond the usual medical schematizations, is, for anyone who truly looks into what was suffered there, what was suffered under the tension, to grasp the supersensible – it is, for anyone who can look at it impartially, quite unquestionable that this tension could break the body. I would say that it is immediately apparent how this organism was actually destroyed by the soul. And the external symptoms also correspond to this.

Consider this tragic situation as it arose. I will describe it. Nietzsche studied together with Paul Deussen, who later became a scholar of Indian antiquity and Indian philosophy, at the Gymnasium in Schulpforta in Thuringia, and they were very close friends. When Nietzsche was already quite ill in his nineties, Deussen visited him once. Deussen stood before Nietzsche and spoke with him; Nietzsche did not participate in what he said. Then Deussen began to speak of old times, telling all sorts of stories from the past. Nietzsche said, “Yes, you know, I can tell you that a person you don't even know took part in those times; the good, dear Deussen took part in those times.” He said this to Deussen himself, who was standing there before him! What he had experienced in his youth was present in Nietzsche, but what had been at work in his environment in the immediate present had been extinguished.

I cite this one scene – it could be multiplied by many – to make a point. What was being acted out there, of course, is pathological, and can be traced in Nietzsche from a very early stage. Twenty years ago, I wrote a paper, “The Psychopathological in Nietzsche's Writings,” and I was able to go back to his earliest writings, which are ingenious and magnificent, but in which one can see that the dissociation of ideas is already present. But these were ideas that arose entirely from the splitting apart of the time's culture for those who, from the center of human being, wanted to bring this time's culture into harmony with the supersensible. And one would like to say: It is precisely in such a personality, who is broken by the culture of the time - for that is the real problem of Nietzsche - that one sees what it means to struggle, to struggle inwardly with inner needs and sufferings. And it is actually in overcoming such suffering that the path to knowledge lies.

And it was already difficult to walk in the old days, because the aesthetic world view – which is certainly extremely justified in its field, but which does not want to take it seriously with the reality of that for which it has a certain sense, a certain sensationalism —, because this aesthetic world view had become so widespread in the period in which, on the one hand, people were quite willing to struggle through from Newton to Einstein, from Descartes to Mach or Avenarius. But for our time it has now become necessary to struggle through to the other — which is precisely what is being attempted through the anthroposophical path — to struggle through to what every human being can struggle through to. If one says that not every human being can struggle through to it, then that can only be said “cum grano salis”, because after all, not every human being struggles through to higher mathematics either. And I believe that anyone who not only struggles through to higher mathematics but also to a certain inner understanding, for example, of the transition from ordinary geometry and mathematics to synthetic geometry, is, in terms of his soul situation, just as well on the way to finding his way into imaginative knowledge as one has to find the way into function theory.

And it would be possible to proceed much more quickly along this path if the prejudices of the time did not always work against it so much. The belief that it takes a very special mind to make progress in anthroposophy is actually much more widespread than it should be. The truth is that every person can advance along this path just as much as they can along any other scientific path. And I would like to emphasize this because it is absolutely true: hardship and misery lead people to the gate of knowledge, but the point is not only to find, I would say, a certain inner mood, but the real spiritual world. Only through the knowledge of the real spiritual world can one then also achieve, in a social sense, what is necessary in today's world in terms of material life, provided one finds understanding, because, of course, that is what it is all about. Therefore, on the one hand, one must have understanding for the meaning of pain and suffering, but on the other hand, one must also gain understanding for the implementation of spiritual knowledge in concrete terms.

Dear attendees, we have actually had enough of the general talk about a spiritual being in the pantheistic sense – that does not really lead anywhere. Those who only speak in general terms about a spiritual world and want to establish it epistemologically are like someone walking across a meadow and saying: Oh well, I'm not interested when people say that this is a meadow saffron, that one is a lily, that one is a tulip, and so on. I'm not interested in all that, because everything is unified life, everything is plants. So people who have more pantheistic thoughts always want to say: Spirit, spirit, spirit! One can be satisfied if one recognizes the spirit. One can satisfy a certain inner voluptuousness with this pantheism in what I call “modern mysticism”. But what the world needs today is concrete knowledge about the supersensible worlds. And that is what is most resented about anthroposophy today: that it strives for this concrete knowledge. And so people want to believe that it proceeds in the same way as other mystical paths. But anyone who wants to approach this anthroposophy will see that it really does follow paths that can be presented in such a way that anthroposophy can be held accountable before the strictest science, albeit in worlds that one must first open up.

This is only in connection with the very interesting remarks of the previous speaker.

Another speaker: When I first heard about spiritual science, I took the matter seriously as a whole, I would say. Today in the lecture, one had the feeling of simply listening to a scientific lecture. A scientist could have come to such a scientific lecture, but I am a painter or a musician and have to work productively in my field. Someone could have come who says to himself: I want to acquire knowledge in the natural sciences in a higher scientific sense. My question now is: Must not anthroposophy be understood in a much broader sense?

Now I would like to know how one should relate to Anthroposophy in practice. Is it enough to have any profession, to have any mission, is it enough to acquire this knowledge? Or is it necessary to follow this path of how to enter the spiritual worlds and how Dr. Steiner described it, oneself? I would like to ask how one should relate to this.

Rudolf Steiner: May I just make the preliminary remark: In the last lecture, which is announced here, I will speak about the building in Dornach - not only externally about the building, but in such a way that it will be very interesting for a painter or sculptor in particular, but it can also be of interest for all people.

I would compare what one can acquire anthroposophically with climbing a high mountain. You can start from a variety of different points below and you will always reach the summit. In the same way, you can start from a variety of different points in your development. And one still likes to do it even after one has started from one point. We built this Dornach building because we wanted to create something, artistically as well, that is the expression of this anthroposophical world view, just as the nutshell is the expression of the nut itself. Anyone with a sense of morphology will say to themselves: actually, the nut could only have the shell that it has. The same formative forces are contained in the shell as in the edible part of the nut itself.

Now, when the anthroposophical world view is represented at our Goetheanum in Dornach, for me that is the actual nut, the other is the shell. So it had to be built out of the same impulse from which the speech is given inside and so on. It is indeed the case that one can start from the most diverse points. For example, one can follow up the things Dr. Kolisko has said today about the threefold human being. The strange thing about it is that if you follow it up, you will see that, in the end, you enter into a completely different state of mind than the one you started with. The principles that are being discussed are so rooted in life that they not only lead the human being to all kinds of conclusions in the logical process, but they actually work in his soul in a real way. And when one carries out these things - which are real principles - one's soul is brought to life with real forces. And in the end one gets an insight into the human form. What initially appears to be a theory is transformed all by itself into a vivid perception of the human form, and one gets to know and understand the human form from the inside out. This is how an attempt was made to work on the sculpture at the Goetheanum in Dornach in order to understand the human form from the inside out.

And it goes even further! Attempts were also made to treat the material. Only then do the principles of spatial design emerge. It is particularly interesting, for example, when working by hand, to see what a big difference there is between working on a human head, for example when carving out an eye, between a material like clay or marble and a material like wood. You realize: with wood you have to scrape, and it is important that you work into the concave. What is worked in clay must be worked into the convex; you must always keep your eye on working into the convex when you are working in a solid material. By contrast, with soft wood, the idea is to scrape things out.

In this way, I would say, what at first seems theoretical is transformed into a certain artistic creation, into a living into those formative forces that one would like to say are the formative forces of nature itself. And that is the inner transition between our starting point and our final goal, for example, the transition to the artistic. That is the remarkable thing about it: anthroposophy does not stop at a particular soul situation, but leads to other soul situations. And it is the case that in understanding the human being, one first finds the transition from anatomy and physiology, which work abstractly or at most sensually, to the inner formative forces of the human being. Science becomes artistic perception. This transition can certainly be doubted: nature itself is not only in the metaphorical sense, but actually in the real, true sense an artist.

Now, one finds oneself drawn to the artistic. Good, say the people, the epistemologists – knowledge, that must happen logically! Knowledge must not somehow work visually in some sense as intended here, but knowledge must proceed from conclusions – one must, so to speak, proceed along the lines of logic. Fine, but that is only a subjective requirement. If nature does not create in the sense in which we prescribe it, then our logic will escape us precisely what the deeper meaning of nature is. And so we can only come close to nature by entering into this metamorphosis of the soul situation with complete impartiality. That is one thing.

The other aspect, for example, is the transition to the practical. You see, I have written these “Key Points of the Social Question”, and they are widely read in this day and age. But understanding has not yet come far, otherwise people would have to say to themselves: The book is not really meant to be read – excuse me for saying something so paradoxical – but the book is written to be put into practice, to be done in some way, each one individually according to his or her situation. The book is actually written only from the perspective of observation, written in a very practical way. Of course, one has to express oneself through words and sentences, but that is only to point out what is actually meant. And there again is the transition to direct practice.

And that is what anthroposophy actually wants to be: anthroposophy leads to the most practical areas of life just as naturally as it leads to the artistic. It leads to skill. And in the end you actually come to things that some people naturally find quite contestable. I have often said in my lectures – because one feels compelled to express certain truths differently – that I cannot imagine that someone is a good philosopher who is not also a good chemist or potato digger when it comes down to it. It is actually not possible to reason about concepts and ideas if one cannot chop wood when it comes down to it, or perhaps when it does not come down to it. I believe that when you are chopping wood or digging up potatoes, for example, if you are fully present with your whole personality, you might do it more cleverly or at least learn just as much logic as you sometimes do in the logical colleges. You may find this paradoxical, but it is so. And above all, anthroposophy wants to assert that there is a unity in everything, a concrete unity.

Therefore, I would like to answer your question in a very positive way: if you look around at what is already available in our various fields today, you are bound to find points of contact somewhere. And from there, you can go anywhere. Anthroposophy does not want to be one-sided, but you can start at the wrong end, and by what you strive for as a human being, you will get into the right thing, even if you initially say to yourself that it is not really any of your business. The main thing is the will - if it is to make any sense at all to start - to continue now. And there is the window to get straight to my point. And because anthroposophy is far from being pedantic, it should actually be understood that you can start with it wherever you want, and you will reach a goal. One can start from more of such considerations as are given in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds,” and if one goes far enough, one can arrive from there at every field. Or, one can start more from the scientific point of view, as explained, for instance, in the lecture by Dr. Kolisko, and arrive from there at whatever you need.

The previous speaker explained that he meant something very specific. He finds it very logical that one can reach the summit from all points. One could take an example from artistic circles. It could be a sculptor or a painter: from both could arise what one already has today in terms of profound art, for example expressionism or futurism. He had found, however, that no universal human being such as Goethe, for example, emerged, even if one worked one's way into and lived in what the anthroposophist or the actual rose crosser has: the ascent to the Devachan level. He wonders whether it is necessary to take this one path in particular, to work one's way up through these levels – purely spiritually, intellectually – or whether one could also start from a different philosophical point.

Rudolf Steiner: If we take the examples you have mentioned – Expressionism, Futurism and so on – I would like to say that today one can sometimes find it a bit naive, quite childish, quite paradoxical and so on. Nevertheless, I would like to say that in all of this there is a healthy, justified impulse to turn to the spiritual from a more materialistic world view. I do not want to speak merely of theoretical materialism, but of the materialistic world view. And from this point of view, I can nevertheless, in the many attempts, which, compared to Goethe's versatile genius, may seem very one-sided, nevertheless only find things that have a future. You just have to give it time. I think things have a future. You see, I have to look at it this way: Take a contemporary expressionist; if he is a painter, he will paint a picture in such a way that you won't know whether it is a house or a tree stump, or whether it is supposed to be an elephant or something like that. But that is basically never a question of artistry, if I am to express myself paradoxically. It is really not an artistic question what it should represent – at least not the first question – but rather the question is why you are dealing with this color on this surface and so on. And then you do come across questions, for example, where you see: there is something that is of course not as universal as in Goethe, but which still has a future. Perhaps I may draw your attention to the following.

If I may make this personal comment: I have been thoroughly involved with Goethe for forty years, my first literary endeavor was directed towards Goethe, and since then I have not left this field again. Now, you see, at a very specific time, I became interested in very specific Goethe problems. These are the problems where Goethe did not cope with something, and he actually did not cope with many things. Think of Pandora, think of The Natural Daughter and so on, or something like Nausicaa. So, there is a lot that Goethe actually could not finish. Goethe was an honest man, and not being able to finish something always meant for him to struggle through to a certain point, where he then had to leave things as they were. He did not get through; he could not break through! It is very interesting to see how he got to a certain point with “Pandora”, for example. After that, only sketches came. He had wanted to continue writing Pandora, to carry out what we find hinted at in the sketches. One could say that he could have left it and then worked on the sketch later. But it couldn't have worked that way, because if he had written it eight days later, it would have been something completely different again. And there is no reason to say that Goethe should have worked from such a sketch; he would have changed the whole thing again. Yes, he reached the point where he just couldn't get any further, and it's easy to see why.

It was precisely for this reason that Goethe came very far in his contemplation of a certain external metamorphosis. It is truly magnificent to see how Goethe develops this idea of metamorphosis on his 'Italian Journey', how he applies it to the human being. But he cannot actually apply it to the shaping of the spiritual. And why not? Why can he not go where the spiritual shapes the material itself? For example, it lies perfectly in the direct line of Goethe's thought of metamorphosis – I am never afraid to express these things, they simply belong to what I call not only my conviction but also my knowledge, however be taken as it will, it lies in the direct line of this thought to arrive at the conclusion that the formative forces which today underlie the human head, the metamorphosed formative forces of the organism, are derived from an earlier earth-life. Thus this entire remarkable shape of the skull in relation to the rest of the human organism is the result of a very extensive metamorphosis. But Goethe could not break through to the spiritual! And this is also evident from the fact that he had to stop where he should have become spiritual. He was quite honest - he stopped there. Take the second part of “Faust” yourself: it is simply not quite finished! The fact is that it is simply not completely finished, because the last scenes are such that Goethe took the Catholic concepts and forced them into the matter. It has become something magnificent as a result, but it is something that has been artificially contrived. And when you compare this conclusion with certain other things, you can see the power that Goethe applied to get it done.

And I just said that in this most contestable, abstract final stage lies precisely this moment, where one comes to the breakthrough into the spiritual. No matter how little people are able to do it, it is a beginning, and that is why it is justified to say these things. And so I think one can say: Today it is really a matter of people being able to make something out of the most diverse points that are close to them today, if they are honest with themselves. I believe, for example, that the most natural way would be for people to start from the things they are currently involved in and then come together for something productive. People should start from the areas in which they are currently involved; they will then come together. It is not so bad that they do not understand each other at first - from a certain point on, they do understand each other. It is also a matter of, for example, waiting for the right moments and so on, and fate will see to that. But I cannot find – I have also experienced many things in this regard – that this abstract jumping up – forgive me for expressing myself somewhat clearly – this jumping up from 'plan' to 'plan' is now something particularly promising for the person. In most cases, it is something that does not arise from complete inner honesty. Of course, you can also achieve something in this way, but as a rule you become unworldly in the process. And that is what is actually needed least in our time, in today's difficult times. I do not mean it frivolously, but it is the case. I would like to put it this way: This rushing about from 'plan' to 'plan', there is so much coquetry mixed up in it, so much inner dishonesty, that I do believe that we should strive to start from the point where we are firmly grounded, and then people will also find each other. In a way, this has proved to be practical.

You see, there are some of us who are artists or doctors, such as Dr. Kolisko, for example, another is a philologist - perhaps you will hear one of them here in the course of this lecture - or a mathematician, and yet another is a complete practitioner. We have practitioners among us who are simply striving to create the most practical institutions possible in which the anthroposophical spirit can live. Mr. Molt, a member of the Council of Commerce, is among us today; he has endeavored above all in this direction. Is that not true? Today, it is indeed a problem of time, and so it is necessary to start from where we are today and then seek understanding. This is something that has already proved practical and in which I see something promising, whereas in a world-renouncing striving to go up into the higher worlds, I can see nothing that is really honest. It is quite true that one can only see through the world by striving for it, but it is also true that one must say: The one who starts from a particular area of life is much more likely to achieve a higher level of insight. Above all, he achieves it in a much more concrete way. He can then say something about the higher worlds; he knows what the higher worlds look like. It benefits him to start from a particular area of life, whereas the unworldly ascent does not really lead to anything real, at least not for humanity – for the individual it can lead to something. That is simply speaking out of what corresponds to the course of time. I will certainly not be against the development of the abilities of supersensible knowledge – I have myself described how it should be. But I think that in doing so, man must not neglect the area of life in which he is immersed. That is the case everywhere.

A speaker: Mr. Heisler said in his lecture that Dr. Steiner presumed to gain insights into the higher worlds, and he even quoted Goethe as proof. I have to say in advance that I have not yet read any of Steiner's writings. I would now like to ask whether, if one had knowledge of the deceased – for example, whether they are in agony – one would not also have a certain proof of the existence of God. Anyone who has studied Nietzsche and perhaps has long since lost their belief in a God might find it easier to accept it from within if they could regain their faith through Dr. Steiner's way of speaking about God. This occult field has been taken up again from various sides, for example by Schrenck-Notzing in Munich and so on.

Rudolf Steiner: Today I could only hint at some things in the lecture, but I want to say the following. You see, today we live in an age in which some people are striving to tear open an abyss between knowledge and belief. Some see something healthy only in a science that relates to the purely factual, to recording, systematizing, and permeating with laws. Others, on the other hand, believe that they can only exist in the realm of religion by demanding faith.

Now, this is nevertheless only a characteristic of a passing age. Just as in earlier times man's soul was divided into the most diverse soul powers, so today it is divided into a field of knowledge and a field of faith. But if the soul is completely honest with itself, it cannot really bear this division. One realizes what is at stake when one sees the reason for this division. You see, you can still speak today to a relatively large number of people about life after death or about the divine world teaching based on faith. You can do this without appealing in any way to those inner powers of conviction that lead to proof. You do appeal, though, when you speak of life after death, to human desires, to human fears and so on. The matter is quite different when you speak about what I also spoke about today: about preexistence, about human life, the soul-spiritual life of man before birth or, let us say, before conception. That, in turn, is done through anthroposophy in the broadest sense. We talk more about the prenatal, that is, about life before conception, that is, about the pre-existent life, which, of course, results in life after death as a matter of course.

We talk more about this pre-existent life because people's egoism reaches less into it. People are not at all indifferent to their egoism as to whether they live on after death or not; but out of their egoism they are much less interested in whether they have already lived before they descended to earth. However, if one opens the sources of knowledge for this life in the beyond, in which we were before we came to earth, then the other one arises. You will find it described in detail in my writings, if you look into them. We more or less take this for granted. But at the same time something else occurs. One can speak about the life after death out of a certain faith, but, as I said, it accommodates selfishness and arises from an egoistic knowledge. By speaking about pre-existent life, man is at the same time led into the spiritual-supernatural world through knowledge. And so, when we turn again to the pre-existent life, the abyss between faith and knowledge, which is actually destructive for the human soul, is overcome.

You see, in older worldviews we have knowledge of these things based on a certain instinctive knowledge - we cannot strive for this again, we must strive for conscious knowledge. I must emphasize again and again that anthroposophy speaks in an intense way of the pre-existent life, even of repeated earthly lives. And when Lessing took up this idea of repeated earthly lives in his 'Education of the Human Race', he said: This idea of repeated earthly lives arose in the most ancient times. Should it be any less valuable because it arose in the most ancient times, before it was corrupted by all the various schools? — You see, those who are literary researchers or the like today take it that way — well, let's say aesthetically. They do not respect it very much, they do not want to see it as reality. That is why they say: Lessing is a great man, but the 'Education of the Human Race' was a concoction of old age. Lessing was a great man. But if you read between the lines, it turns out that he actually always adhered to the idea of repeated earthly lives. And it is certainly the case that knowledge of the supersensible worlds and also knowledge of the concrete content of the spiritual, of the spiritual world government in general, is acquired by occupying oneself with prenatal life, not merely with post-mortem life. But in the more recent development of the times, this has gradually been completely lost. We can see this from an external point of view.

You see, we have a word that means “immortal”. We speak of “immortality” when we are properly prepared for it. We use the word “immortality”, but we do not speak of a word that means “unborn, being unborn”. Because as much as we live on after death and are immortal, as much we are unborn. And we should have a separate word for being unborn, a word as natural as “immortality”. But we don't have that. Because people in civilization have completely lost their way in understanding the immortal, it will only be understood again when one can look at being unborn in the same way as at being immortal, because just as as at one pole of life the soul is released when death occurs and ascends into the spiritual world, so birth or conception is the other pole through which the soul reenters the physical world. And just as the soul does not die, it is not born either. Only when one really considers this pre-existent life does faith join with actual knowledge. That is what leads further. This supersensible life must again deal with the pre-existent, it must lead over to the path that really leads to the goal.

As for the remark that anthroposophy is supposed to be presumptuous – yes, that depends, doesn't it, on how you look at it. Well, until 1827 the Catholic Church found it highly inappropriate to admit that a Copernicus once came along and said that the earth moves around the sun. So it was only in 1827 that Catholics were given permission to believe it. Today, official science does not yet give permission to believe in repeated earth lives, just as one was not allowed to believe in the movement of the earth around the sun back then. We can indeed wait until these people allow us to believe in and hold on to those things that are given to us through anthroposophy. Until then, we will have to accept the reproach of presumption, for that is how it is in the world.

Question: What is Anthroposophy's view of vaccination as a means of protection against epidemics?

Rudolf Steiner: This question is somewhat out of keeping with what has been said before. But I will try to say something anyway. The fact is, as has already been stated today, one must not believe that anthroposophy is polemicizing against the justified successes achieved in the newer fields of natural science and medicine. In some cases it can be shown that a certain success, such as that to be achieved through vaccination – for example, against smallpox – has actually been achieved. The fact remains that infectious diseases have been largely reduced by more external, more hygienic measures, which have of course become necessary, and by protective vaccination. Admittedly, numerous vaccinations were not such that one could say that they had had a similar success for other diseases. But one must certainly admit the effectiveness of this principle.

On the other hand, however, this question is something that can be viewed more psychologically. Today there are very many opponents of vaccination. These opponents of vaccination are actually parties whose psychology cannot be approached rationally. They are people who, out of an inner reluctance, act against the way in which it is attempted to work. And they cannot say, out of their realization, that the vaccination methods are ineffective, because there are effects. And anyone who resists is resisting these vaccination methods out of a certain unconsciousness.

Anthroposophy must start from deeper points of view. If you think about the nature of illness together with what has been explained to you here today, namely about repeated earthly lives, if you are convinced that there are repeated earthly lives, then you must also bring together what a person experiences in the case of illness in the present life with what he has experienced in a previous earthly life. When one is willing to see this, when one has the will to see this, regardless of what epidemiology has to say, in the science of infection, regardless of that, one must know that there is a certain connection between what a person has been through in a previous life and what happens when he is now exposed to a particular infection. It is said that something happens by chance. But it is not admitted that man is driven there from the subconscious, where he then comes into contact with the infection story. Regardless of some of what he may experience as a result, one can still come to many other views of what is connected with an illness.

When it is realized that certain illnesses have something to do with the peculiarities of the soul of the person, that in a certain respect they are an overcoming of what the person could not achieve in a previous life on earth, and that these physical disease processes , which one must endure, are a form of compensation – the disease process is also linked to psychological phenomena – then one can also understand why, out of a certain unconsciousness, instinct, some have an aversion to this healing elixir. They actually unconsciously say to themselves that, with what is present as illness, an inner soul development upwards to the spirit should go parallel with the outer healing. And if the vaccination that is used makes it possible for things to succeed completely as one imagines, one would still have to say: Even if one manages through appropriate procedures to extinguish all epidemics , that one limits the illnesses, but the question still arises as to whether something else is not also necessary, which must, so to speak, accommodate this process by simultaneously promoting an inner spiritual development. People should realize that such a procedure is possible. One can acknowledge everything that science says, but one must be clear about the necessity that, in addition to the external healing methods that are available, there must also be something that helps the soul to progress inwardly and that points to earlier spiritual connections, to earlier lives. Anthroposophy will never object to what science brings.

Question: How can one form an imagination oneself? Where can one take its content from, if it is not to be linked to a sensual or a memory-based presentation?

Rudolf Steiner: This is based on a misunderstanding! I said that what is to be used for meditation and what then leads to imagination should be manageable, one should have complete oversight of it, so that reminiscences do not occur, so that the subconscious does not participate in the corresponding soul process. You see, if you take, for example, some experience from the past and then meditate, many elements live in the image of such an experience that you have left more or less unconsidered. These elements emerge from the subconscious, and so you do not fully engage in what you have set out to do. It depends on the manageable. For example, one can meditate by calling up a circle with a triangle inscribed in it before one's soul. It is important that the soul does its exercises on something so manageable. It can also be qualitative things. If one lets such manageable things rest in the soul in order to meditate on them, then there is no danger of reminiscences arising from the subconscious. It is not important that one does not use something sensual or reminiscent for meditation - one can use both, but it must be manageable, it must not be one that then causes all kinds of conscious or unconscious processes. What matters is manageability, not imagining anything at all that encompasses many things.

If someone meditates on the concept of “city”, for example, he has been through so much in life, so much has accumulated in the concept of “city” that he cannot possibly know what is all emerging. An example that is also recorded in the literature: a learned naturalist is walking down the street in the city and comes to a shop window. He stops, looks into the shop window and sees the title page of a treatise on earthworms – something that must interest him, surely? But while he is looking and sees the book on the anatomy of earthworms, he suddenly has to smile. A naturalist who suddenly has to smile while looking at a book about earthworms! It seems quite unlikely to him that he has to smile, and yet he wants to find out how it happened. So he turns away, really away, closes his eyes and now tries to figure it out in the dark. Lo and behold, he hears the sounds of a barrel organ in the distance. He had not taken any notice of it, either unconsciously, where he had gone, or consciously, when he was looking at the book. But the sounds had reached his ears; they lived in him in a certain relationship and even made him smile, quite unconsciously. So, he now hears the tones of the barrel organ, and he thinks it is the same melody that he once learned to dance to thirty years ago. He has never thought of this important event again, that he learned to dance to this melody. But this event has lived in his soul in such a way that he now had to smile – even as a naturalist. So, there is a great deal in the subconscious of a person. And I can tell you: there are mystics who hear angels – which can certainly be reality – but with some mystics who somewhere think they hear something in the world of angels, it is still the case – because these things not only remain in the subconscious as reminiscences, but also undergo metamorphoses – that such supposed angels are sometimes transformed barrel organ tunes! And many a thing that appears to one as a significant revelation is merely the transformed notes of a street organ.

That is what one must know above all. The anthroposophical method is an absolutely reliable method. The more one enters into the spiritual world, the more one resists everything that, because it comes out of things, can bring all sorts of misleading and absurd things. So, it is not a matter of meditating on things that cannot be grasped, but on things that are composed by someone who understands such things, or are chosen by oneself as things that can be grasped. It depends on how you look at a triangle, of which you know it has three sides, it has three angles totaling 180 degrees – you can look at it, not much from the subconscious can come up in the process. The meditations must be so manageable that one does not descend from the arbitrary into the involuntary, into the unconscious, that there does not arise something merely from memory or something that was once a sensation, like the distant sounds of a barrel organ, but something must be present in consciousness that is as manageable as a mathematical idea. In this way one can practise imaginative recognition. Of course, everything that is formed from memory must be imagined in a materialistic way. It is not important that it is formed from memory, but the matter must be surveyed. A speaker at the discussion: Dr. Kolisko mentioned something today that interested me greatly. When he spoke of the three centers, he mentioned, as it were, that the head consumes everything that flows up from the lower organs as vital life force. So the lower organs always create something living, which the head, as it were, eats up again. I would like to know how Anthroposophy thinks about the actual physical body.

Dr. Steiner mentioned today in the case of Nietzsche that the physical body had broken the soul, that is, the soul was not strong enough to overcome the body. From the general point of view, without having the physical body, from one direction I have heard something about it - I got to know Dr. Hanish's method. What use is it to me if I know higher worlds and have a toothache? If I cannot help myself when I have a toothache, what use is it to me to know something about the spiritual world? Do you have to approach the physical body from the material or from the spiritual side?

Eugen Kolisko: First of all, one must become clear about the nature of man. Only then can one understand what health and illness of man actually consist of. If one says: What use is it to me if I know something about the world connection and still have a toothache and am at the mercy of all kinds of illnesses —, then one must realize that this is a very one-sided way of looking at it. What was said earlier can be applied to it in particular: that the human egoistic is present to an extraordinarily strong degree when one says, 'I want nothing to do with the spiritual, because it will not relieve me of my toothache'. Knowledge is something one must undergo, something that simply drives one not to let go, something one must simply continue with – even in overcoming the toothache.

So, a point of view that is so thoroughly permeated by a kind of materialistic, selfish striving – even if it were to speak of supersensible worlds – cannot be recognized. But it is important that we first grasp the essence of the human being in order to move beyond a merely materialistic view of the care of the body, because you cannot care for the body, nor can you work therapeutically, if you do not have an insight into the whole context of the forces that make up the essence of the human body.

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to take the liberty of making a few additional comments and illustrating them with examples. You are probably all familiar with a very frequently used saying that says: There are many, countless illnesses, but only one health. I believe there is nothing more wrong than such a saying. Indeed, there are countless illnesses, but there are also countless forms of health. Every person, no matter how healthy, has their own health, and such a sweeping statement is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is absolutely true to say, even from the most spiritual point of view, that a person must take care of the health of their organism in every way. My spiritual research has led me, for example, to regard the life of imagination in such a way that I see a radical error in believing that brain activity as such could somehow be the basis for mental activity. I see an error in this, which I would like to characterize by the following example: Suppose you have a road that has just been made soft by rain. People walk on it; footsteps dig tracks into it. And now someone comes along and says: Yes, this road is configured, you see all kinds of lines and so on. That must be brought about by forces that come from below, that is brought about by something that is inside, under the earth. When you hear something like that, you are likely to say: That's nonsense, the footprints are engraved from the outside and not from below. So, of course, spiritual research leads me to see something quite right in the brain configurations, and in the nerve configurations that the gentlemen physiologists demonstrate, but they are something that is engraved by the soul and spiritual life and can be felt as an imprint in it. But at the same time, it is a matter of the fact that this entire physical being between birth and death is the firm ground on which consciousness develops; the counterforce must be there. Otherwise, the life of the imagination could not develop in this way; in order for it to be able to reflect back, it must have the counterforce. The mirror needs a base. So, even from the most spiritual point of view, the physical organization of the human being is to be formed as healthily as possible. But now it is a matter of developing real views about a healthy physical constitution - and only this is meant when one has acquired a more comprehensive way of looking at things through spiritual science. A few examples of this - really not to boast, but only to suggest what is the basis of my view of life, which is founded on spiritual knowledge.

About 36 years ago, I was recommended to a family as a private tutor for one boy. Among the four boys in the family, one was about eleven years old at the time. He was considered by everyone, including the family, who were of course also prejudiced, to be a failure. They were unhappy about the boy because when he was supposed to take a test at school at the age of eleven, he could not do anything except draw a huge hole in his paper. And that was the extent of this eleven-year-old boy's knowledge in all subjects. The mother was terribly unhappy, the father somewhat skeptical. The family doctor, who was one of the most excellent practical physicians I have ever met – he was truly an excellent man – had already given up on the boy. Well, I was brought in to educate the three other boys. I took one look at the lad and said to the mother, who was the only one of the entire family who still had understanding, coming only from her motherly heart, that I couldn't promise her anything, but that I would use all my strength, as far as I had it, to make something decent out of the boy after all. “But he's been given up by the family doctor,” the other family members said, looking at me as someone to whom one had to ask whether the other three boys could be entrusted to him – after this opinion about the fourth boy! But the mother then pushed it through – it took some pushing before I got the boy for education. I said I had to have an absolutely free hand, had to be able to do and not do everything that I thought was good. The boy was extremely hydrocephalic. He was really in a very bad way.

Well, basically I just applied a method of mental hygiene. I actually only applied what I would call an economy in teaching concepts, skills and so on. I decided that the boy should be exposed to as much piano playing as I chose and so on, and that he should have other things to the extent that I wanted. I may say that I sometimes studied for three hours in order to be able to work with the boy for a quarter of an hour! But through such mental and pedagogical hygiene the boy could be brought to the point in two years where he could transfer to high school. The head had really become smaller. Now, you may say that it might have been good anyway. But truly, it is not the case that it could have been good on its own; the boy really was hydrocephalic through and through; before, his head did not want to and did not want to get smaller. If he had stayed alive anyway, he would certainly not have gone to high school after two years – based on the results that had been achieved with him so far. It was really a matter of being able to bring the boy so far through two years of intensive work – precisely in this individual care, in the hygienic response to this organism, which was completely out of order and which one had to treat. So, it was not a matter of general rules – although the general matter may be quite correct – but of an intimate knowledge of the human being in general.

As for the saying that only a healthy body can be the expression of a healthy soul, if you wanted to translate this saying into real life, it would be completely wrong. Another example: An important doctor came to me one day and said that he now had a special case that interested him very much. A patient had come to him who had fallen once - it was some time ago - and broken his nose, so that now the nose was somewhat narrowed as a result. He would like to operate on him, but he would like us to talk about it. With a certain deeper knowledge of human nature, one sees things differently than one necessarily sees them from a mere external examination of health. I could say nothing other than to advise the doctor: Do not operate on it, because this is a stroke of luck that rarely succeeds, because the man now gets just as much air as he can tolerate in his lungs. He has just the right width of nasal passage for his particular case, for his constitution. One should leave it just as it is. After all, it has been shown that the man is actually comfortable with the small constriction. There are many other things that could be mentioned. The general principle is quite correct: one must work towards a healthy body, but always in quite different ways.

It can make a strange impression – I have often observed it in naturopaths, who always come and say: Yes, this person has something, there is something irregular in the heart movement, you have to cure that. – In such cases, when you take a closer look, you often have to say: Let it be! Let the man have his heart defect, it may be just what he needs; if you try to cure him, he will become really ill. Because people have a very definite stereotype in front of them, a lot of unnecessary things are often done in this direction. You see, in many cases people apply general methods that are not much different - at least in terms of the logic of the matter, the factual logic of the matter - than it was, for example, with a lady who was a faith healer. A terrible thing! She said all kinds of things that you had to imagine; you would become strong and healthy if you believed in her. You would become hardened, she said. But I have never seen a person look as miserable as this faith healer, who was very careful to make sure there was not the slightest breeze, because every little draft caused her the most terrible conditions.

These are things that must be seen in their reality and not merely from a certain, I might say stereotyped point of view. On the other hand, it is certainly true that one must work towards physical health as much as possible; but the insight into what is healthy must arise from spiritual knowledge. Man must not only pay attention to his own health, but he must also know: I am actually a member of the Cosmos. And isn't it true that the air that is now inside me was outside in the Cosmos a short time ago? And so it is with everything else. As a member of the Cosmos, that is what man must actually look at in the world.

We can only interpret such general things in this way, and I would like to have pointed out only this with these remarks.

Jakob Hugentobler expresses his thanks and closes the event.

Dearly beloved! Ours is a time of doubt and mystery that are given to humanity. And one can say that it is good for anyone who, in their innermost being, can honestly and with strength say to themselves in the face of present-day events: Yes, for me this time is a time of doubt, of mystery and of questions that need to be answered. — For if he could not say this to himself and yet looked with an alert soul at the events of the time, there would actually only be the other pole for him: despair at the continuation of human civilization in the West. And if our time holds hidden doubts, questions and riddles that need to be resolved, then we need the strength of those people who can find their way in the present chaos of civilization and who can bring forth from the flood of questions and riddles that which can lead to a new progress, to a building up of our Western civilization. Everything that is undertaken from this Goetheanum wants to contribute to the forces that time needs so that the doubts and riddles can be resolved in human souls.

In such a time of questions and riddles, the necessity will also arise for much of the content of ancient tradition to appear in a new light. Now shines up to us — as it were, like an ancient sacred legacy of Greek culture — the oft-repeated Apollonian saying: Know thyself! And much of Western civilization since ancient Greek times has been influenced by this saying. But it seems to me that even such a seemingly rock-solid magic word in the development of mankind can only survive today, in our times of great transformation, if it undergoes a kind of transformation itself, absorbing the forces of our time. And so it seems to me that the ancient oracle of Delphi must now sound to people as follows: Know thyself, and become a free being! — We must be able to see world events, insofar as they relate to human beings, swinging back and forth between the two poles of self-knowledge and true human freedom.

Why did Greek wisdom write the significant words on the temple at Delphi: “Know Thyself”? To this Greek wisdom there shone forth, from ancient times, historically undefinable in its origins, an ancient, sacred wisdom and science. The origins of this science go back into the darkness of prehistoric times. In Egypt, people still had direct access to this ancient wisdom. In Greece, people only had a feeling for it, albeit one steeped in noble Greek humanity, and they felt that this wisdom had come to people from the world, from the world itself, which was full of wisdom. Within the world of wisdom, man had felt like a more or less instinctive, more or less unconscious link in the whole of the world. Then, in the Greek feeling, the sense of the independence of the human soul dawned. In addition to the old world knowledge, the self-knowledge of man should be striven for. The ancient wisdom was based on the motto: Know the world and, in the world, know man! This motto of ancient wisdom shone forth in Greek civilization. But the urge to strive for this knowledge of the world with man in it, to strive for independent human self-knowledge, now asserted itself. To the: Know the world! was added: Know thyself. The Greek stood as it were on the shore of the past, absorbing the full content of the past treasures of wisdom. We – and I believe that any impartial person can feel this – stand on a different shore. We stand on the shore of an indeterminate future, but a future that humanity must create in a spiritual sense. And we feel that we need a new motto to help us reflect with all our human strength on what can work from within us into the indefinite future as a creative force. On the shore of the past, the Greeks established the motto: Know Thyself! — On the shore of an indefinite future, we must establish the motto: Become a free being! This building and everything that is done in it is intended to speak about that which lies in the oscillation between the two poles of human contemporary tasks. The short series of presentations of knowledge and art that are to take place in the next few days also intend to speak about this. We stand at the starting point of the great scientific mystery. Humanity has not yet experienced the full courage within itself to face this great, mighty scientific riddle. Natural science has achieved great and mighty things. It has adopted a way of looking at things through which one of the events that our souls see in the chain of causes and effects is necessarily followed by the other. And it is natural science's most natural endeavor to include the human being in this chain of natural necessity. The great ideal of natural science is to study natural phenomena with this law of causation, to perceive them — in accordance with their essence — according to this law of causation, and thus also to understand from man what is to be understood from him according to this law of causation. One does not yet fully understand with living feeling what this striving, this ideal, actually means for human life.

If we completely absorb ourselves in what we, through correct knowledge of nature, take in as the world necessity, then we ourselves, with our consciousness, stand in this world necessity, then we must say to ourselves: everything that is experienced in ourselves is only one link in the chain of necessities. But when we have acquired such an awareness through a proper immersion in the scientific view of life, then our innermost being revolts against this feeling, then an experience that shines through our soul speaks against this feeling, then we say to ourselves: as a human being I am free and I must grasp my freedom, with my knowledge I must penetrate just as much into the fabric of natural phenomena as into the life of my freedom.

If we take up this inner riddle of freedom in the full sense of the word, then we come to say to ourselves: The significant knowledge, the development of which has been going on for the last three to four hundred years and which has so significantly illuminated nature, needs to be extended in order to also illuminate the experience of human freedom. For those would always appear justified who, out of the scientific consciousness of the present, have said and continue to say: We can only comprehend nature; we cannot help but stop short of comprehending human freedom. We must repeat the old Kantian saying: To make room for faith, we must destroy knowledge. Yes, as long as we are immersed in mere knowledge of nature, this saying is true. But then comes the rebellion of human consciousness. And it is precisely in the proper appreciation of the greatest scientific achievements of modern times that the urge must arise to know, to recognize the experience of human freedom. And this knowledge must at the same time be an experience. For, starting from it, we must carry the strength that we gain from it out into social life, which today presents us with no fewer riddles and questions than the life of knowledge and belief. Just as the riddles and questions of knowledge and faith are lived out in the lonely room in inner struggles of the soul, so the other riddles and questions, the social ones, work tumultuously through the world because they are not worked on by human forces that, out of a clear consciousness of freedom, out of a consciousness of freedom experienced in knowledge, know how to work against what surrounds us today as social chaos.

Only those who penetrate the riddle of freedom with living knowledge are capable of bringing the power of harmonious human coexistence into social life. Because in recent centuries we have lost this power precisely by penetrating into the depths of external events, we now live in social chaos. Light will only dawn in this chaos when we step into it with the inner strength that comes from knowing how to see through the riddle of freedom. Just as the ancient Greek once stood questioning before all that an ancient wisdom handed down to him, standing questioning before: Know the world! — and passed over to the: Know thyself! —then we must stand questioning today before the saying: Man, become a free being!

Between these two poles of human activity, between the pole where the Greek sage threw into the multitude of thinkers and unbiased minds the word: Know thyself! - and the other pole, which expresses itself in the words: Man, become a free being! - lies, at bottom, an episode of human development.

It is tangible how an episode of human development lies between these two poles. Take the most modern of people, from whom this School of Spiritual Science borrows its name, Goethe. He found himself in the then already dawning and pressing modern life, sensing it in a time when most still lived fully in the traditions of the old. How did it affect Goethe's soul on the one hand in terms of true knowledge, and on the other hand in terms of true art, and in art in his case also in terms of religious deepening, of religious inwardness? All these impulses surged through his soul – which at that time were actually noticed only by him, at most by some of his friends, but which have since emerged into general human life – all these impulses tend towards the social life grasped in freedom. And when he felt strongly enough what lived in him like the dawn of a new era, he turned his back on the Nordic world and went to the south to sense from what remained of ancient Greek culture what the deepest essence of that Greek culture was. This modern man, Goethe, had wanted to build the wide-spanned bridge in his own soul across the episode between the future tasks of modern humanity and the comprehensive résumé of the past, as it was drawn in Greek culture.

And does not that which Goethe so vividly portrayed in his own personality live today in every human being who wants to strive upwards to that sphere where the great questions of the world can come to meet him in their true forms? Do not those who devote themselves to our education still draw from Greek culture that which should give this education its formal foundation? Is not the heart and mind of those who are educated in our grammar schools still imbued with Greek? We must feel this episode as Goethe felt it, first tragically and then redemptively for humanity. But then we shall also understand how we must turn to the other pole, the pole of human self-knowledge, in a new way, how we must approach it in the moment of world-historical development when the word resounds from our deepest innermost being: Man, become a free being! — also the: Know thyself! — differently than the Greek approached it.

Let us look around us, especially at those who have immersed themselves with all their soul in the modern scientific world view, who have become so great on its soil. We see how man, in observation as well as in experiment, through which so many puzzles have been solved for modern man, immerses himself in material existence. And we should listen more attentively than we are accustomed to to such a saying as was uttered by a Du Bois-Reymond, for example, out of this modern consciousness: where matter haunts, human knowledge can do nothing! — Modern knowledge has become accustomed to penetrating material existence. It has achieved great things in this field. Everywhere it follows how the material world is structured in material phenomena. But in order to decipher the fabric of material phenomena, it must presuppose that which it can never penetrate if it remains on its own ground: the world of matter itself.

It is a long story of what has taken place between the pursuit of human knowledge and the mystery of matter. What has taken place in the theoretical field is of little interest to us at this moment. But attention must be drawn to what has remained as a residue in the human mind, in all human life. No matter how much one believed that one was walking on mere paths of knowledge when dealing with material phenomena, no matter how much one established, by presupposing matter as such, a basis of feeling in the depths of the soul that permeates all human life. And we have such a basis of feeling. We can see it in the best of our contemporaries. They struggle with the material riddle; they wrestle with this material riddle. And a good number of them could not help but rise above this struggle and admit that the human riddle cannot be found, cannot be solved in this way, not even in a relative sense. And yet this solution is necessary for the security of the human soul. One would now like to get to the true essence of man “in the inner being of man”, but one has become accustomed to thinking and feeling one's mind on the outside world, “which cannot be seen through”, on the “conditions of material existence”. What one has become accustomed to doing there renounces seeing through. And if one turns this mind, which renounces seeing through, inwards, then one becomes a mystic in the modern bad sense.

Unfortunately, all too few people realize today that the best ones, who turn away from our knowledge of nature and come to a striving for knowledge of the human interior, have acquired their habits of thinking and feeling by observing “which is inscrutable”, and now they carry into the human interior what they have acquired as habits of thinking and feeling by observing the outside world. But when we turn our gaze, which we have first trained on dark and gloomy “matter”, inwards, it becomes nebulous mysticism, and nebulous mysticism bars the door to the knowledge of ourselves!

This is what everything that is done within this School of Spiritual Science seeks to emphasize. We must avoid the path of nebulous mysticism, as well as the path that leads only to outer scientific necessity and thus to the destruction of the knowledge of freedom. We can avoid these paths only if we seek real spiritual science, not that spiritual science which dare not stop short before the human soul, and which then, having stopped, continues the path by casting mystical fog into this human soul. This spiritual science, as it is meant here, must not do this! With the training that has been gained in bright, clear, light-filled knowledge of external facts, it must be possible to shine a light into the human interior, free of mysticism but in a spiritual scientific way. The: Know Thyself! must not be grasped in a mystical, dark way of life, but in a bright, clear clarity. Then will be united that which springs from man's inner knowledge, from the fulfillment of the word: Know Thyself! — and that which springs from his behavior of recognizing himself in relation to outer nature, under the watchwords: Man, become a free being!

These two words of truth may be seen as two pillars that stand ideally in the spirit when one enters this building: the pillar of truthful, light-filled human self-knowledge and the pillar of human freedom. The first is suited to remind people of that which can provide them with security and support, artistic activity and religious satisfaction. The second is suited to equip them with the strength to contribute to the pressing social issues of the present and the near future. From all that is aimed at here in the fertilization of the individual specialized sciences, as should become particularly apparent in the next few days, the world-historical moment should be grasped, as well as it can be grasped in all modesty, which places us on the shore of an indeterminate future, just as the Greek was placed on the shore of a fulfilled, overwhelming past.

But to do this, we must come to feel the light-filled grasp of the human interior in the knowledge itself, that we no longer merely drag the knowledge from external observation and external experiment, but that we freely raise it and, by permeating it with the inner being of the human being, we place ourselves with this knowledge in the life of freedom, in which mere scientific observation can never place us. From a scientific point of view it is honest to deny freedom, but it is human to protest against this denial and to see in this protest the starting point of a free spiritual science born out of the human soul and its organs.

This spiritual science, because it penetrates not into the dead but into the living, need not be feared as having a deadening effect on art, as does the dead science of the intellect. It will be able to fertilize art with what it draws from the spirit. This knowledge itself will be able to have an artistic effect on the outside, because it descends into human depths in clarity full of light. It will lead from true knowledge to the worship of that which can reveal itself in the human interior. And such knowledge, which only retains the form of mysticism but strives for the light, will at the same time lead human knowledge to religious

worship of the Highest, which lives and moves through the world. New artistic powers and new religious depths will be able to arise out of such knowledge, which grasps the inner being of man. And the life into which such knowledge may enter will be a life in freedom. It will first of all assure man of the consciousness of freedom. Man will no longer need to lose himself in the outer necessities of nature, as he does when he is merely aware of nature scientifically, because this is only a matter of necessity and not of freedom.

And the artist will become free from the mere model in the imitation of external nature, which he can never achieve anyway. From spiritual heights he will draw what he wants to impress on matter. A weak beginning of such a drawing of forms that reveal themselves to the free spirit, that are not linked to imitation in the model, should be what speaks from the forms and the artistic and the other artistic aspects of this structure.

And religious experience should be free from everything that is merely traditional, which approaches the human being as an external, unfree thing: freely grasping what reveals itself as the divine within the human being himself, freely connecting within with that power which, according to its true nature, only truly wants to connect with this human inner being in freedom: the power of Christ.

Knowledge in the most diverse fields – in the outer natural world, in the inner life of man, and in the all-embracing unity of both – that is the new striving for the fulfillment of the word: “Know thyself!” – a threefold step towards freedom: freedom in the inner experience of the most human, freedom in creative work, including artistic work, and freedom in religious experience. That is the other.

The cross-fertilization of the individual sciences and human endeavors, and of all of social life, is intended to lead to this, and will be discussed here over the next few days. It will be shown that not only can certain propositions be derived from the individual sciences, as a modern philosophy that is dying to death would have it, and then pieced together into an abstract world-view, but that a world-view can be gained through spiritual observation that embraces all sense impressions, and that this general world-view, grasped in the light of spirit, can shine into the individual specialized sciences.

It has also been demanded that the world view should draw nourishment from the individual sciences and their results. The time has come when the results of a spiritually experienced world view radiate into the individual sciences. However little the world may realize it today, what happens here in this place should never come from a different tone than the one that is itself impulsed on the one hand by the true: know yourself! - on the other hand from the: man, become a free being! — But this does not only call out to us from the lonely contemplation of science within the human being. This calls out to us in all of our catastrophic time today. And if we summarize what lies deepest in the riddles and questions of the times, that is what I have tried to suggest today.

We may speak in this way to the age about what is given to us by the signs of the times and by the sentient human being who stands within that time. These older people have experienced what it means to live in a catastrophic time. They feel how the ideals of their youth have been lost. They feel how they have poured out into a civilizational chaos what they believed in their youth they were contributing to modern Western civilization. To them, who have experienced such things, we may speak as we have today. For such a word must find the side in the life of the human soul that says: We must still use the rest of our lives to point out to humanity something stronger than what we have done.

And such words may also be spoken to young people. For they still see with full strength what is collapsing, what is living in catastrophe. They can feel, with their full human strength and enthusiasm, that something new and powerful must happen. And the right old person of today will seek out the word that can ignite in youth, so that other times see the souls that look out into the world from the eyes of today's youth, as the souls that look out into the world through today's old eyes must see.

And so one can speak to people of any age. One can speak to those who are called the “old houses” of all kinds in a certain language, and one can speak to young fellow students. Because one can speak not only out of the tasks of the times, but out of the greatest tasks of the human being itself. And we live in a time when the greatest questions of human life have become tasks for our time. We live in a time when we can look into the deepest interior of human beings. And we will see the call to action written there, to act in a direction that we will also find indicated when we look at the outer signs of the time with their clear language.

What lies in this twofold direction of view, I would like to speak about in the next few days. I would like the spoken word to find attention. Because in today's world, to understand the human being means to sense and feel an important thing in human life itself. Only he can rightly and justly place himself in the human activity of our time who is able to say: the signs of the time contain the challenge to look into the depths of the human soul with insight and spiritual recognition. And what the human being can fathom in his or her inner life today is at the same time what the clearly speaking signs of the time challenge us to recognize, feel, will and accomplish.

Rudolf Steiner's opening speech was followed by a lecture by Albert Steffen on “The Becoming of the Work of Art”.

Then Marie Steiner spoke the words of Hilarius, which Rudolf Steiner had already transformed for the opening ceremony of the First School of Spiritual Science: “The Guardian of the Threshold”:

In the name of that spirit which
Announces itself to the souls in our striving,
I appear at this moment
Before people who from now on want to hear
The word that sounds earnestly to the souls here.
Not earlier times could those powers,
that guide the aims of our earthly becoming,
could not reveal themselves in a fully conscious way.
For just as in the child's body,
the powers that are destined to be the vehicles of knowledge
must first gradually mature and grow stronger,
so humanity in its earthly course also had to unfold as a whole.
At first the soul impulses lived in dullness,
which were later to prove worthy of
seeing spiritual light from high worlds.
But when men were wise leaders
In the beginning of the earth, souls devoted to the spirit
Were chosen by higher powers of existence.
They used to send, in the places of knowledge,
The powers of the spirit, the rays of knowledge
Into souls that were only dimly aware
Of their ability to penetrate each other through their vision.
It was only later that spiritual researchers
were able to recruit students from the ranks of humanity
who, through the trials of life, had shown strength of will
proved themselves mature, in the brightness of consciousness,
striving towards spiritual knowledge.
And when the first disciples of the leaders
were later able to cultivate the noble good with dignity,
the unconscious leadership disappeared,
so that free souls were allowed to strive knowingly.
And free souls then chose people
Who were allowed to follow them in the care
Of the treasure of the spirit; and so it went on
From one generation to the next.
All seats of knowledge so far,
Which in truth are, have just arisen
from the highest, which stands in the spiritual spheres.
In earnest seeking we strive here
for the true spiritual human heritage.
We will never speak of knowledge
that does not bear the spirit's own seal,
but only of the light from the spiritual worlds,
which, by beholding, can be opened up to people
Who, aspiring, want to entrust themselves to it
To fathom the depths of their soul.
To strive worthily towards this light
The seriousness of the turn of time
And its need shows us; the signs are truly
Full of meaning, which in the plan of the world
Now clearly reveal spiritual eyes.

The lectures this week are to be arranged in such a way that each day is devoted to a different subject, so that it can be seen what is to be achieved as a fertilization of the individual subject areas and branches of practical life by spiritual science. Today we shall begin with the subject that is most closely related to spiritual science as it is meant here: the subject of philosophy. What I myself will have to say here is intended as a kind of introduction to the questions that will be dealt with in the course of today.

I would like to start from one of the most interesting and even most significant phenomena of recent philosophical development. It is certainly not always the case that the most significant and interesting phenomena are those that are soon recorded in the usual historical works. And so I would like to start from a phenomenon that has yet to be expressed historically, from the whole meaning of a philosophical work published in 1888 by Ludwig Haller, a government councilor and public prosecutor, entitled “All in All: Metalogic, Metaphysics, Metapsychics». I may all the more base myself on this phenomenon in the life of philosophy, as anyone who has followed my own literary career can see that I myself have remained quite uninfluenced by this phenomenon, because that which constitutes my position on philosophy already contained in my writings that appeared before this “Metalogik, Metaphysik, Metapsychik,” and what I said later is only a proper and consistent elaboration of what was contained in my first writings.

Above all, in the prosecutor and government councilor Ludwig Haller, who wrote nothing but the aforementioned work, we encounter a person for whom what is called philosophy is not just a specialized science—although in a certain respect he is thoroughly qualified to engage with this specialized science—but for whom what he presents comes from direct personal philosophical experience. We are dealing with a personality for whom philosophical endeavor has become the most intimate personal experience. And if we go straight to the most significant thing about Ludwig Haller, then we have to note that he is actually at loggerheads with the whole way of philosophical thinking in modern times. He has obviously been around a lot in all kinds of philosophy and also in those works of literature in which “philosophy of life” bubbles. He has familiarized himself with the philosophical thinking of his time and he has found – this is, as I said, his opinion – that with this philosophical thinking one actually goes around in a kind of unreal circle, that with this philosophical thinking one never comes into a position to delve into reality itself.

Ludwig Haller wants to penetrate into spiritual reality with his philosophy, which he, having evidently outgrown more religious ideas due to his education, calls “the divine” or even “God”. In this “divine” or in “God” he seeks the source of all that which, as the actual essence, also lives in the human soul and of which the human soul must also become aware. But he comes to the conclusion that this soul, by processing the conceptual fabric that is customary in his time, cannot penetrate into this center of its being, where it is one with the divine-spiritual of the world.

Since the thought-weaving of philosophers at the end of the 1980s, when the aforementioned work was published, was still influenced by Kant in many ways and thus Kantian thought lived in this thought-weaving, Ludwig Haller felt compelled above all to deal with Kantianism and all that stems from Kantianism. But precisely in all the thoughts in which something Kantian somehow flows in, he saw the unreal, that which can never be immersed in the reality of the world. And he was actually unhappy about the fact that he, because he wanted to speak philosophically in his time, had to deal with this thinking, which was thoroughly infected by Kantianism, that he had to keep coming back to it, to deal with Kantianism. He found very sharp words, first to characterize Kantianism itself, and then also for the having to deal with Kantianism, which he found so unappealing. I would like to share with you two samples from this assessment of Kantianism, so that you can see what a person for whom philosophy is an innermost personal matter struggles with in our times.

On one occasion, Ludwig Haller speaks of Kantianism in such a way that he says of it: the “pseudo-dialectical, half-true, deeply dishonest character of this misosophy, which tries to steal the weapons from the arsenal of light in order to use them in the service of darkness”. On another occasion, he becomes, I might say, literarily enraged that he repeatedly finds himself compelled to deal with Kantian thought because he must engage with his contemporaries , and he says: “I, who could and would like to talk about God and his glory, see myself condemned again and again to talk about Kant and his wretchedness – I, a dandy's dandy.”

I wanted to point out this phenomenon because it is an imprint of the struggles that a truly philosophically inclined nature had to endure at the end of the 19th century. Today, what is meant by philosophical speech and writing is also taken to mean that it is a matter that, so to speak, hovers a bit above people's heads, and that one is not personally involved in it. That is why the inner tragic phenomena of philosophical life are far too little appreciated in our time. And I believe that this phenomenon, which is one of the most tragic inner philosophical experiences of our age, is actually quite unknown in wider circles.

Those who are truly familiar with the intellectual life of our time know how much of such moods has been lived in people of our age. And actually, if one wants to explain the essence of philosophical thought in our time, one must speak precisely of these phenomena, which are not considered by the philosophical experts, but which are all the more important for the actual human experience.

Now, building on this phenomenon, I would like to characterize another one that is basically also only a subjective, personal philosophical experience, so to speak. The philosopher Eduard von Hartmann, who became better known as Ludwig Haller, dealt with Ludwig Haller. In this discussion, one point is of particular importance. Ludwig Haller, who makes a lot of work for himself, as you saw, he calls himself “a dandy dandy” because of this making-a-lot-of-work-for-himself, with the introduction into the Kantian-infected thought-weaving of his time, of our age - he he feels, namely, by going from concept to concept with his thinking, by abandoning himself to philosophical thinking, which can be clearly seen to permeate his book from cover to cover — he feels that the concepts he is now following with his thinking take on a remarkable inner life. It is as if the concepts in his mind began to lead an independent life. He emphasizes this in the most diverse places in his “Metalogic, Metaphysic, Metapsychic”.

If we want to explore this interesting phenomenon from a psychological perspective, we cannot do other than say the following: Ludwig Haller puts all his energy into the particular nature of contemporary philosophical thinking. But his inner human experience actually wants something different; he cannot come to this other because in the 1880s there was not even a trace of a truly modern spiritual science. What could fill this human inner life with real spiritual science is lacking. But I would like to say that he lives in it in a strangely instinctive, unconscious way. He is unaware of this, but he notices from this strange phenomenon that the world of concepts comes to life for him and leads an independent life.

Anyone who is able to conduct research in the sense of the spiritual science represented here is very familiar with this independent life of concepts. But they can also master it. They can master it in the sense that one can master the transition from one mathematical concept to another mathematical concept in the ordinary process of mathematization. But this mastery must be achieved through inner practice. It is quite natural that one enters into a life that is very far removed from ordinary consciousness when one suddenly notices – something that otherwise only the food in our organism does, that they lead their own life in digestion without our intervention – that the absorbed concepts begin to lead their own inner life. It is not incomprehensible, but very, very understandable, that a philosopher like Eduard von Hartmann, who was indeed brilliant, who also achieved something quite penetrating in some areas, but who had completely outgrown the philosophical thinking of his time, could not do anything special with this experience of Ludwig Haller. And when Eduard von Hartmann writes his critique of Ludwig Haller, one notices that on the one hand he feels quite queasy. What is to become of it, the modern philosopher asks himself, when the concepts to which I devote myself suddenly begin to dance like goblins within me, to embrace each other or the like? That is something terrible, one cannot expose oneself to it! And so, as a true contemporary philosopher, he also offers this criticism in a very significant way by saying that he never noticed anything of this playful, goblin-like activity of concepts that have come to life independently.

We can readily believe Eduard von Hartmann when he says that he felt this inner sultriness when reading Ludwig Haller's “Metalogik, Metaphysik, Metapsychik”. However, as his critique shows, this did not stop him from reading the whole book, and in a sense he even found it very significant. I believe that many others who have been professionally involved with philosophy in the period since 1888 have hardly got beyond the first pages of this book, if they have even seen the title page!

What I am pointing out to you is a very significant phenomenon. And we can only understand it if we follow the philosophical development of the West as I have tried to do in my book “The Riddles of Philosophy”. If we go into what I have explained in detail there with reference to the history of philosophy, and what I can only hint at here, we see that in the age of Greek philosophy the whole human soul was different from what it later became and especially from what it is in our time. We see how in Greek philosophizing, what we call thinking, what we call imagining, is linked in a similar way to the conditions of the external world, insofar as it presents itself to man, as for us only the qualities of sensory perception. When we perceive, we ascribe, at least in naive consciousness, the sensual qualities to what we perceive. Certainly, the epistemological discussions since Locke and others think differently, but they need interest us less at this moment; I want to refer only to naive consciousness for the fact that has been brought up. In this naive consciousness, one attributes the sensory qualities red, blue, white, warm, cold, lukewarm, sweet, bitter, etc., to things, and today it is clear that what one thinks and imagines about sensory objects is separated from the objective in the process of becoming conscious, that it is experienced subjectively. But the Greeks attributed their thinking, their ideas, to the object just as we attribute red, blue, sweet, bitter and so on to the object; they had what they experienced in knowing, to an even greater extent, so to speak, in perceiving than we have. They were fully aware that they perceived the conceptual content at the same time as the red, green and so on.

And what emerged in the most logical way in Greek thought, I would say, was basically a peculiarity of the general enquiring consciousness right up to the 13th, 14th, 15th centuries, up to the Galilei-Copernicus period. Anyone who delves into what has come to light in scientific achievements, which, after all, were still one and the same with philosophical research for that time, anyone who delves into the corresponding literature, insofar as it exists, will say that these older researchers and thinkers, when they talk about things, still describe the objective aspects of things, whereas today's researchers think entirely separately from things and ascribe them to the subject.

One can follow, and this pursuit is extraordinarily interesting, how in the age of scholasticism, philosophical life takes the direction of becoming clear about how what we call thinking in concepts may still be thought of as connected to the objective. Before the scholastic age, the connection between what is experienced as an idea and concept in things was self-evident. This connection only became a question, a mystery, when the conceptual and the imaginative were separated from what is called objective perception in human experience. And it was out of this philosophical experience that scholasticism arose, the problem of which should be studied much more thoroughly today than it is studied, the problem of 'realism' and 'nominalism'. Today, these words conjure up completely different ideas than they did in the scholastic era. In the age of scholasticism, a realist was, for example, Ihomas of Agquino, who attributed an objective reality to concepts and ideas, so that he said: Concepts and ideas have something objective in their content, something that does not merely belong to the subject, that is not merely thought. A nominalist was someone who sought reality only in that which lies outside the conceptual, who saw in the concepts only something by which man summarizes what is given to him as perception, so that for the nominalist, the concepts were mere names.

Such a problem always arises in the development of humanity when something is experienced inwardly. In the Middle Ages, people had to undergo this inwardly, that they became more and more familiar with the conceptual life in their own inner being, that they saw what is called the external world only in the perceptible. Hence the question arose for him: How can one justify relating to external perceptions in some way that which one basically has only as a name within oneself, which one grasps only by associating it with external perceptions? A significant skepticism emerges from nominalism.

And basically, what then emerged in Kantian philosophy is nothing other than, I would say, the last consequence of this scholastic problem. It is just that Kant arrived at his formulation of the scholastic problem in a peculiar way: in the age in which Kant, as a young man, was pursuing his philosophical studies, a somewhat diluted Leibnizianism prevailed in the circles in which Kant was pursuing his studies. Leibnizianism, which is something great in its own way, albeit somewhat abstract, and which still has a connection to the spirit of reality, was philosophically sublimated and diluted in Wolffianism, which formed the stage of Kant's youth. During this time, people were already dealing with the demands of mathematizing science, with the demands of science, which is precisely composed of the results of external observation of the world. But out of the old habit that man has something to say when something is being determined about the world, one had established the broad doctrine of reason alongside this empirical science, alongside this science of experience. It was decreed that uncertain judgments can be gained through experience, through empiricism, about everything that is transitory; but these judgments are directed only at the transitory and are uncertain. One cannot know whether what one recognizes through observation and intellectual knowledge about any fact of the transitory world must necessarily be so for all time. We cannot even know that the sun must rise every morning, because we have only the one piece of empirical evidence that it has risen every morning so far. From this we can conclude that it will also rise in the future; but it is just an empirical conclusion. Beyond this empirical science, Wolffianism, and Kant in his youth, were looking for a rational science, in complete harmony with Wolffianism. It is characteristic that one of Wolff's books is called: “Rational Thoughts about God, the World, and the Soul of Man, and about All Things in General.”

So the aim was, on the one hand, to gain empirical knowledge about the world, insofar as it is accessible to experience, and, on the other hand, to gain rational knowledge that extends over everything, which, so to speak, is to be gained from reason alone. And so, alongside, say, revealed theology, a rational, a rational theology was established, alongside empirical psychology a rational psychology, alongside the knowledge of the world gained through experience, a rational geology, and so on. The underlying reason for this search for a particular science of reason was that people said: there is no certainty for scientific research in an external world. But if one wants to have such certainty, it can only be gained by deriving it from reason itself.

However, the whole research of Wolffianism is still based on the fact that a reality has first been placed in this reason, from which man then derives his “truths of reason”, in some transcendent way.

In Kant's work, two things occurred, and anyone who studies Kant with an open mind will be sharply reminded of what emerges in his work from two sides: on the one hand, he had become accustomed to searching for “certain judgments”. For example, he had said to himself: in mathematics we have such judgments that always apply quite necessarily, that cannot come from experience because experience does not give rise to such judgments. We also have such judgments in some areas of scientific thought, which are valid forever, and which can only be gained from the human being itself. There must be certainty in philosophy. That was one side of what Kant wanted. And anyone who does not grasp how firmly Kant stood on the ground: there must be certainty — also in the sense of Wolffian philosophy — does not understand Kant, because he cannot engage with Kant's insistence on the certainty of certain judgments.

But Kant had become disillusioned with Wolffianism, in terms of its content, through his study of Hume, the English philosopher who wanted to be a mere philosopher of experience. And he said to himself, precisely under the influence of Hume: there is no such thing as spinning a reality out of reason; there is actually only experience. — That was the second side.

On the one hand, there must be certainty; but everything that appears in experience, which is the only basis for real knowledge, does not provide certainty. How can we escape from this dilemma? And the very compulsive search to escape from this dilemma is basically the main impulse of Kantian thinking. I have presented this in detail in my writing “Truth and Science” and have further illuminated it in my “Philosophy of Freedom.” Kant's search did not actually lead to the recognition of anything essential, but to the question: How do you achieve absolute certainty?

Kant's problem is not a problem of truth, nor of knowledge, but of certainty. And if you don't grasp it as a problem of certainty, you can't really understand it. Kant seeks the solution by saying: the human soul is certainly not suited to distilling judgments of reality out of reason, but these judgments do come about; they are applied to external experience, as can be seen, for example, in mathematics. We do not merely look at such figures (it is drawn), but we look at them mathematically and say: there are two triangles or, drawn differently, it is a hexagon. We mix what we spin out of reason inwardly with what comes to us through external experience. We impose what we recognize inwardly a priori over what we experience a posteriori.

Thus Kant came to say: Knowledge of truth cannot be gained from reason. But human reason is applied to experience. It imposes its judgment on external experience. It itself makes its judgment on external experience. Because Kant said: There must be certainty in philosophy, one must be able to find certainty, but one does not find it by searching in a Wolffian way, by believing that one can gain a reality in reason and let experience run alongside – because Kant could not could not bring it together, so he said: Man spins out of his reason that which experience then takes up; man makes knowledge himself; the things of experience are therefore certain and certain to the extent that we make them certain out of our minds.

You see, actually the essence of knowledge is dethroned. Actually, knowledge is eliminated. And it is eliminated in such a subtle way that the Kantians still adhere to this subtlety today and do not realize what is actually involved. When someone like Ludwig Haller comes along and feels how Kantian thinking has actually lost touch with reality, how it snaps at certainty in the unreal, then he finds words like the ones I have shared with you. He finds that human ingenuity is being applied to an impossible problem, to a problem that does not shed light on knowledge but shrouds it in fog. That is why Ludwig Haller says, as he feels it: This misosophy tries to steal its weapons from the arsenal of light and use them in the service of darkness.

But on the other hand, one must also recognize how this whole development of modern times was basically necessary. The development of human thinking and human research since Greek times was not a line of development that can only be followed in the way I have just done, but can also be followed in another direction. I also pointed this out in my book 'Riddles of Philosophy'. Today, we have a knowledge of nature that attempts to understand natural phenomena purely in terms of their essence.

It may be said, however, that the very knowledge of nature which today always prides itself on understanding natural phenomena purely, hardly succeeds in understanding natural phenomena purely, that is, in no longer penetrating them with the web of thoughts of that which is only made in the concept, inwardly subjectively. — All kinds of hypotheses are still being put forward about the external course of phenomena, not only justified ones but also unjustified ones.

But one person did emphasize in modern times, and relatively early on, that in terms of observing external natural processes, this modern age must strive towards the pure phenomenon, towards pure phenomenology. And that person was Kant's opposite number, Goethe. He demanded that phenomena and appearances express themselves purely. He emphasized that what takes place in the development of understanding must remain completely separate from what is presented as a description of phenomena and of the phenomenal process itself. And in the most stringent and admirable way, Goethe repeatedly demands this pure phenomenalism.

But the more one strives towards this pure phenomenalism, the more one must strive for a special peculiarity of the conceptual world. And this peculiarity of the conceptual world is also highly achieved. This peculiarity is thoroughly justified for a certain age of human development. Anyone who, since the age of Cartesius, has not limited himself to studying philosophy, but who has an organ for also entering into the good sides of

of scholastic philosophy and medieval philosophy, and who does not see Aristotle and Plato through the spectacles of modern philosophers and historians of philosophy, but can place them before his soul in their original form, he knows that the way in which the world of concepts and ideas lives in the human soul is quite different today than it was in ancient Greece and even in the scholastic Middle Ages. In the scholastic Middle Ages, the soul still felt that, in experiencing the concept, there was something substantial in this concept, just as there is still something substantial in the red and blue that one perceives. Only in recent times has the concept become a complete image. Only in recent times has the concept been completely emptied of its content. Only in recent times has it become possible in the development of humanity and in philosophy to do what I have called pure thinking in my “Philosophy of Freedom”.

If one tries to eavesdrop on the problem of freedom, as I attempted in my “Philosophy of Freedom,” one simultaneously becomes acquainted with this modern character of thinking. One becomes acquainted with a thinking that is basically emptied of all external experiential content. It is brought up on this external experiential content, but lives only as subjective fact.

It is just as true to say of this pure thinking, and I made this clear in the new edition of my Philosophy of Freedom, that it takes place in the realm of the will. But the will has been transformed into thinking, as it were. It is the result of the kind of thinking that has stripped away all external experience. This pure thinking is only an image, and is entirely an image. And if one is at all to arrive at a philosophical understanding in our age, one must reach the soil in which this pure thinking is found.

Goethe sensed what lies in this pure thinking. Others can only feel it with him. That is why they always quote a Goethe saying incorrectly, which says something like that the kind God has saved him from “thinking about thinking”. As Goethe meant it, it is already correct. Goethe never “thought about thinking” because, admittedly, one cannot achieve this pure thinking with the thinking that one has become accustomed to. One must look at it as an image. So that one can say: the thinking itself that one wants to recognize, pure thinking, becomes a looking at this pure thinking. Pure thinking can be achieved not dialectically but vividly. One arrives at this point in philosophical development at the problem of freedom, which is why freedom, real freedom, is not possible at all without attaining this pure thinking, which is a mere image.

As long as a reality within us motivates our actions, our actions cannot be free. Therefore no instinctive action, no traditional action, no action under a habit is really free, but only an action that can follow the images that weave in pure thinking. As soon as you follow a reality, you are pushed. If you want to be free, you must include the unreal in your will. When you bump into something, you feel that the object has an effect on you. When you perform an act under an instinct, under an urge, you must feel that there is something pushing, that there is no freedom. But when you stand in front of a mirror, see the image in the mirror, you will be clear about the fact that the mirror image can never give you a slap in the face, that the mirror image can never push you. The image cannot do anything on its own. It is he who must act, who must act when he confronts this image. But since the image does nothing, the act then becomes a free act. Only a thinking that is not rooted in reality, but is pure image, can motivate a free act. That is why the problem of freedom is the problem of modern thinking, of pure thinking. But in this thinking, one is standing in a world of images.

Modern philosophy, everything that lives in this modern philosophy through Kant and the Kantians, comes instinctively, although it usually does not understand this pure thinking, to this pure thinking. When one begins to think in modern times and trains one's thinking in natural science, which claims all authority for itself and would be real natural science, real science of reality, if it stuffed anything else into us than mere images, one must, when one moves one's thinking in this direction, first approach an unreal. In the thinking through whose peculiarities we are passing with our modern philosophical and scientific development, we have no reality; we have only an image of reality. And in looking at this thinking, we come on the one hand to the problem that concerns the newer epistemologists. They would like to build a bridge from what is inwardly experienced to what outwardly exists in being. They do not realize that they are not building a bridge from one reality to another, but from something that lives in images to something that is supposed to be reality.

And on the other hand, we come to the point where conscientious natural philosophers admit to themselves: with this unrealistic thinking, with this thinking that is absorbed in the pictorial character, we cannot immerse ourselves in reality. The point “where matter haunts” cannot be reached. Because one weaves in pictures. Modern philosophy weaves in images, is unaware of it, and seeks reality in these images. Hence the feeling of a “misosophy” in Ludwig Haller, hence the feeling that one cannot enter into reality if one moves in this thinking.

That is the problem of the more recent development of philosophy: that human history must necessarily drift towards a pure comprehension of unreal pictorial thinking. For the sake of the development of freedom, modern humanity had to rise to this unreal pictorial thinking. But one cannot remain in it if one is a fully human being, if one feels reality in all human beings. For one must feel the contradiction between what is pressing and living and weaving in the human being, and what stands before consciousness as a mere environment of unreal images. We are not dealing with a merely logical or formal problem, but with a real one, which has arisen because man has gradually withdrawn his thinking, his imagining, from external reality.

In the external world there remains for him the dark, obscure matter that he cannot grasp. But his thinking has not become a reality, it has become an image. And he must go further in this image. Thinking, which today is a mere image, was still the content of perception for the Greeks. This thinking has moved in the direction from outside in. It proceeds in such a way that man first submerges into the outer world by thinking. Now, with his philosophizing, he has reached the point where he is weaving in the thinking that has been peeled from the outer world. He must continue in this direction. He must seek reality again. Matter has given man in ancient times and up to our age the support for thinking by making thinking real for him. But thinking, because it had to become the basis for the development of human freedom, has passed into the pictorial character. Thus it hovers between external experience and inner experience. It must submerge into this inner experience. It must in turn become reality. Man must plunge with full consciousness into the regions where Eduard von Hartmann and with him all modern philosophers feel so sultry, because thoughts seem to begin to dance like goblins.

When the human being with his thinking goes out of the pictorial character – where, if he weaves and lives in it, because they are only images, he does not need to be so sultry – when he steps out and enters into his own reality, then, through the exercises of spiritual science, he must indeed include the possibility in his inner abilities to move around in this self-life of the conceptual world, as otherwise in mathematical thinking. He must acquire the ability to grasp reality independently in this self-life. Just as we do not feel stifled when things out there in space do not stand still — lest our knowledge be disturbed — but when they move, run, so man must, in the ascent to spiritual explanation, to spiritual revelation, become capable of giving his image-concept a content again.

If one grasps the actual, pressing philosophical life of the present at this point, then one comes away from all the talk that the philosopher cannot understand what the spiritual researcher is saying. He can understand it as soon as he has understood the pictorial character of his thinking, but also as soon as he has understood that thinking has come to this pictorial character because it moves in world history from the outside in, from the direction of the spirit in matter to the contemplation of the pure spiritual world.

In this way, philosophy must be continued by receiving it from spiritual science, from spiritual research, by immersing thinking in what spiritual science, spiritual research, has to say. This is what I wanted to show you, even if only in a sketchy way with a few lines: in what way philosophy is to be fertilized by spiritual science. In the next few days, we will talk about how other branches of human thought and action can be fertilized by this spiritual science.

Closing words on the occasion of the disputation on philosophy

In the course of the disputation, questions arose that naturally required a broad discussion from a technical point of view. Since we cannot discuss everything in one evening, I would just like to make a few methodological suggestions regarding the questions that arose and that, at least in my opinion, were not formulated very clearly. These suggestions point in the direction in which certain solutions to such questions must be sought.

In view of such questions as, for example, that of the “subjectivity of perception”, there is a lot of confusion of ideas in the most recent philosophical development, an accumulation of concepts that tend to obscure and tangle the problems rather than to illuminate them and lead to a certain solution.

For when one wishes to raise questions concerning the relation between object and subject in perceiving in terms of representation and knowledge, it is always a matter of arriving at the questions by means of the most careful analysis of the facts. For often the questions themselves are wrongly formulated from misconceived ideas. And so it is often the case with questions about the “subjectivity of perception”.

The difficulty was indicated by the example of the partially color-blind person, who is assumed to see a, say, green landscape differently than the so-called normal-sighted person. The difficulty lies in this idea of the partially color-blind person: to what extent must one ascribe subjectivity to what the so-called normal-sighted person, I say quite explicitly, the so-called normal-sighted person, sees?

Well, the first thing to do is to present the whole problem in such a way that it appears correct. “Correct” means that the way in which the elements that have to be brought together to form the problem, that this how of bringing together is done in the right way. Just suppose someone says: Yes, the external world, which appears to me, say, in a green landscape with a green tint, gives me cause to reflect on whether the quality “green” is objective, whether I can ascribe it to the world of objectivity, or whether it must be addressed as subjective. In order to even formulate the problem, one must consider such things as, for example, this: Yes, how does it actually behave when I look at something that is white or yellow, for my sake, through green glasses? There we see it tinged green. Is that now to be ascribed to the sphere of objectivity, or must one speak of subjectivity here? We will soon realize that we certainly cannot ascribe this green, which I see through green glasses, to what is out there. We cannot speak of objectivity in relation to the external environment. But it will certainly not be possible to say that this green tint, which I have seen through green glasses, is based on something subjective. It is objectively determined in a perfectly lawful way, without what I am designating here as green actually being green.

You see, by forming this idea, I am putting the problem in a special light, where I have to consider that which certainly does not belong to the external world, but objectively, as having arisen in an objective way; because the glasses do not belong to me, so they certainly cannot be included in the sphere of subjectivity. Such things might even appear to be sophistry. And yet such sophistries are very often what leads one to put the elements that are supposed to lead one to the questions in the appropriate way, to bring them together. For if one sees through such apparent sophistries in the right way, one will see through the whole threadbareness of the everyday concepts of “subject” and “object”, which have gradually been introduced into modern philosophical reflection. And if one gets into the right line of questioning, one will probably be led more and more to the path that I believe in, which I have taken in my writings “Truth and Science” and “Philosophy of Freedom,” where one does not take the starting point from the concepts of “subject” and “object”, but seeks something independently of these concepts that must lie beyond the sphere of subjectivity and objectivity: that is the function of thinking.

The function of thinking! If you look at the matter independently, thinking actually appears to go beyond the subjective and the objective. And with that, you have gained a starting point from which you can then be led in the appropriate way to where the problem of “subjectivity” and “objectivity”, which presents such difficulties, is at stake. For one is led—and you will find this path thoroughly followed in these two books of mine—not to ask: How does an external “objective” world affect some “subjective” world, for which, say, the mediator is the eye? —but one is led to something quite different. One is led to ask: What is the fact of the senses themselves? What essence does one sense show? For example, the constitution of the eye?

One will then find that in the problem one sets oneself in this way, something comes to light that I want to make clear through a comparison, because I have to be brief – it could, of course, be encompassed with the adequate concept in an explanation lasting hours: I can also look through a pair of glasses and still see the world around me as the naive consciousness perceives it, with its color tinglings, with all its sensory qualities. I must only look through colorless transparent glasses; I must not look through glasses that change the outer world itself for me. And I must now find my way into the difference between glasses that change the outer tinting and glasses that are colorless and transparent and avoid any outer tinting. From this comparison – as I said, long-winded considerations could be used instead of the comparison – I will find: if I take the structure of the so-called normal eye, I have given it a structure that proves to be transparent, that can be compared to the transparent-colorless glass. I find nothing in the normal eye that indicates that the external world is qualitatively changed in any way. But I must not conduct this investigation with the ordinary concepts that I have in everyday consciousness, but with the imaginative consciousness that can truly penetrate the structures of the eye.

For the imaginative consciousness, a so-called normal eye is a transparent organ. An eye that is partially colorblind proves to be comparable to colored glasses for the imaginative consciousness, as something that does, however, make a change in the “subject”.

Thus, by conceiving of subjectivity in a higher sense, one comes precisely to regard the sensory apparatus in the broadest sense as that which can be compared to the transparent, which is precisely designed in such a way that it suspends the production of sensory qualities within itself. One learns to recognize as pure fantasy the idea that in this ideationally transparent sensory apparatus – which is precisely arranged in such a way that it cancels out any production of the sense qualities within itself – something could arise that would first evoke sense qualities, that would be there for something other than the sense qualities.

As I said, I only want to point in this direction. And at the same time, I want to point out that ordinary philosophizing should be aimed at saying: the facts of the world, when examined without prejudice, show me results that are simply insoluble for ordinary mind-consciousness; the facts themselves show me that I must go beyond this ordinary mind-consciousness. It is not honest to conclude, let us say, from the fact of partial color blindness that color qualities are subjective. For every such conclusion contains some logical error that can always be somehow demonstrated. It would be honest to say: one simply does not come to any result with ordinary philosophizing if one wants to solve the difficulty that arises from the comparison of partial color blindness with the vision of the so-called normal eye. The usual consciousness has the task, at this point, of presenting the difficulties and saying, “There they are.” And if one were to become truly aware of the scope of logic, of real-logical thinking within consciousness, one would, I might say, find problems lying everywhere and say, There is one more, insoluble for ordinary consciousness, the second, the third --- and would be glad that in many respects ordinary philosophy is nothing more than a hint at problems and a creation of an atmosphere of waiting for these problems to be solved from a higher level of consciousness. It is only the urge to come to terms with ordinary consciousness that spreads a fog over the problems and does not want to admit that one can only raise the problems with it and that one must point out that the human soul must now undergo a development and exercises to solve these problems. The law of specific sensory energies is certainly not something that can be dealt with within ordinary consciousness.

As I said, I only wanted to point out the main point of the discussions on the subject of colors, and to point out that, above all, philosophy and also philosophical physiology, philology and so on, in the present day would need a very conscientious delineation of what they actually bring before ordinary consciousness through their thinking.

This is the one thing I would like to draw attention to, as I said, quite inadequately. It should only point in one particular direction; but more cannot be done in such a short discussion.

The second point I would like to make – again, purely from a methodological point of view – is the problem of categories that arises here. Of course, one could talk for hours about the categorial nature of human thought, but I would like to point out just one thing for now: within the actual table of categories, “subjectivity” and “objectivity” do not appear at all. And the fact that within the actual category table, the actual, the original category table, “subject” and “object” do not occur at all, this in itself constitutes a kind of proof of the essence of categorical thinking: if one takes the categories in the way not as they arise from some sort of proof, but simply, I might say, as they are derived from logic, then, by dint of being posited, they must be applicable to that which is above 'subjective' and 'objective'. That to which the categories are applicable must be supersubjective and superobjective. But the fact that the categories are applied by man himself is a clear proof that in categorical thinking there is not a subjective, but a subjective-objective.

This is the problem that Goethe also thought about so much. And the way he thought, which led him to always seek out the point where subjectivity and objectivity disappear for the human being in human experience, this endeavor actually made him the opposite of Kant.

Of course it is perfectly true that, as has been said, one could also work out of Kant in a positive sense; but one can work out of everything in the world in a positive way, even out of the greatest error! For there is nothing in the world from which one cannot also extract something positive. We have this positivity, this seeking out of the positive, listed among the basic exercises for those who want to attain higher knowledge. I need only remind you: you will find it discussed in the second part of my “Occult Science”. Of course, this should not blind us to the recognition of aberrations. And finally, if we consider the historical, we can say that a great deal has been worked out positively from Kant. There are not only the critical Kant philologists, not only the neo-Kantians of the likes of Liebmann, Volkelt and so on, but there is the very active Marburg School – Cohen, Cassirer, Dilthey and so on – which tried to work out the positive from Kant in a certain sense.

Now, I have shown how little this 'positive elaboration from Kantianism' can lead to a realistic view: in my 'Riddles of Philosophy', where I also briefly discussed these efforts of the Marburg School. So it is also the case with the category problem that it is necessary to present it correctly in its entire inner essence before the soul in order to see how, precisely through the category problem, the question of the “subjective” in contrast to the “objective” cannot be posed as it has been done by more recent philosophy under the influence of Kantianism. This almost epistemological harnessing to subjectivity is something that has introduced countless unjustified ideas into our modern philosophy and caused us to lose ideas that were already there and that, if developed in a correspondingly straight line, could have led to something quite fruitful.

I must repeatedly draw attention to the fact – which I have already done several times – that an extraordinarily talented 19th-century philosopher, Franz Brentano, published the first volume of his “Psychology” in 1874. It is basically an ingenious book. This volume of Brentano's “Psychology” was published in the spring of 1874. He promised the second volume for the fall of the same year. The three following volumes were then to appear shortly thereafter. Brentano had initially calculated this “psychology from an empirical point of view” to consist of five volumes. The first volume was only a preparation. In it, however, there is a highly remarkable passage in which Brentano indicates how he was in fact aiming at the most significant psychological problems. He says: If all modern thinking should lead only to the examination of how representations arise and fade away, how they associate with each other, how memory is formed, and the like, and if one could only come to uncertainty about about the actual psychological questions of Plato and Aristotle, for example, whether the soul remains when its external physical body decays, then one would not have gained much for the needs of man through modern science! Well, from everything else that Brentano suggests in the first volume of his “Psychology from an Empirical Point of View,” one can already see how he wanted to bring the problem through his five volumes to these fundamental questions of Plato and Aristotle.

The strange thing is that the second volume did not appear in the fall. It did not appear the next year either. And in the nineties, Brentano promised once again that he would now set about creating at least a kind of surrogate in a kind of descriptive psychology. So the second volume of “Psychology” was supposed to appear in 1874. Nothing appeared until the nineties; then a second promise appeared, but was not fulfilled! Franz Brentano died in Zurich a few years ago. The promise has not been fulfilled to this day. It has remained with the first volume of “Psychology from an Empirical Point of View.” Why? Because Brentano, in his Privatdozentenschrift, posited the sentence, “Philosophy has to follow the same methods that are applied in natural science,” because Brentano wanted to remain true to this methodological sentence that he had posited at the time, and with which one could not make any progress. Brentano was much too honest a nature to want to make headway by any other means than by the means of the external scientific method. Therefore, he simply remained silent about what came after the first volume.

I have expressed this in my book “Von Seelenrätseln” (Mysteries of the Soul). Brentano's pupil Kraus has indeed said that there were all sorts of other reasons why Brentano did not publish the later volumes; but it must be said that if the reasons were only those that Kraus pointed out, then Brentano must have been a real philistine. And he certainly was not that. He was a personality who followed the impulses of his inner being and only those impulses! But there was something in Brentano that at least gave him hope that one could penetrate into the things of the world. And basically every such philosopher – and there are few who have had this hope in a well-founded way in modern times – has turned against Kant, and of course Franz Brentano as well.

There was something in him that justified this hope. And I find that in a concept that, I might say, occasionally emerges from Brentano's philosophy, and which he borrowed in the sense of an older philosophy – of the kind that still drew from reality, as I suggested this morning: it is the concept of intentional inwardness, which he applies to the concepts of cognition and perception.

This concept must be formulated. Then, from there, one will get an approximation of what I just hinted at: to examine the extent to which the human sense organ is a self-extinguishing one, to which one must not ascribe that it could be the producer of sense qualities. And this concept – now not of the real interiority of some process, but of intentional interiority – contains within itself the life of pointing, which then becomes observable for the imaginative conceiving. And this life of pointing, which is given with the concept of intentional inwardness, then brings the possibility of grasping what, since Johannes Müller, the physiologist from the first half of the 19th century, has been so inadequately grasped in the doctrine of “specific sensory energies”. So that one would like to say that the comparison with the transparent, colorless glass is not quite appropriate for the reason that one has to imagine not an inanimate colorlessness, thus a self-abolition, but a living and precisely through its liveliness and thereby standing in a corresponding process within, which allows an objective experience by not taking in the objective, but by grasping out of itself the process of pointing through and in pointing to this objective.

I have found what lies in a renewal of this concept of intentional interiority, in the sense of a modern world view, only in some recent American philosophers who—probably even without knowing the concept I have just mentioned—try to grasp the continuity of human consciousness. Let us say, for example, that in the twenty-ninth year of life a person looks back, with the help of memory, on what he went through in the eighteenth year of life. Then, if we grasp it inwardly, what returns to the person in the twenty-ninth year of life is something similar to what could be described as an intentional innesein. And in relation to this process, this concept appears again in some recent American epistemologists.

It is precisely in such phenomena that one can see how conceptual work is alive in contemporary philosophical endeavor. But this work must become honest in the way I have described, by coming to show clearly that problems exist; but ordinary consciousness, ordinary intellectual activity, can only pose the problems; and now one must move on to the solution of the problems. If one were to develop scientific honesty in this way, it would be the basis for moving on to the imaginative and the other stages of knowledge.

These are only very inadequate, methodological suggestions.

If I attempt today to make the transition from the actual philosophical field to the field of the specialized sciences, then in our present epoch this transition is to be accomplished quite naturally through a consideration of the mathematical and physical, chemical, that is, the inorganic natural world , because by far the majority of present-day philosophical conceptions are constructed in such a way that philosophers base them on concepts and ideas gained from the field of science that is considered the most secure today, namely from mathematics and inorganic natural science.

If we wish to discuss the mathematical treatment of inorganic natural science, which is so popular today, we must always remember something that has already been mentioned in the opening speech: the connection that current thinking believes it can make with Kant, precisely with the introduction of mathematics into inorganic natural science, indeed into science in general.

What must be emphasized in this and also in a later context from the negative side, I say expressly from the negative side, has already been noticed by individual thinkers who are very far removed from the use of supersensible knowledge. Thus, the negative, that is, the rejection of the purely mathematical treatment of natural science, can be found, for example, in a thinker like Fritz Mauthner, who, out of a certain acumen in a negative sense, that is, in rejecting what appears as false claims of a false science, is not at all unhappy. And with regard to the question: What can current science not do? – we can learn a lot from a thinker like Fritz Mauthner, learning through the negative that he presents, and learning through the fact that he does not want to stop at this negative, but would like to advance to a positive realization.

Why shouldn't you also learn from such a negative thinker? If I was able to quote Ludwig Haller as saying yesterday that, in his opinion, Kant took the weapons from the arsenal of light to use them in the service of darkness, why should you not also borrow the weapons from the arsenal of darkness, even the deliberate darkness of knowledge as found in Fritz Mauthner, to use them in the service of light?

Attention is to be paid, as I said, to Kant's saying that there is only as much actual science in each individual discipline as there is mathematics in it.

If you study the history of the use of this Kantian saying up to the present day, you get an interesting example to answer the question of how to be a Kantian at all in modern times. For the people who refer to this saying believe that as much real science as there is mathematics in it is brought into every single science. But Kant means something quite different. Kant means: as much as he brings mathematics into science, that much is mathematics, that is, real science, and the rest is not science at all in the individual sciences.

You see, you become a Kantian if you thoroughly misunderstand a Kantian saying. For the Kantian approach in this area has something like the following logic: if I say, in a gathering in which there are a thousand people, there is as much genius in it as three ingenious people have contributed, I certainly do not mean that the thousand people have now been given the genius of the three people. Nor does Kant mean that the rest of science has acquired the scientific character of mathematics; rather, he means that only the small part that has remained mathematics even in the sciences is real science, but the rest is not science at all.

We must study such things seriously – and in an empirical age we must do so empirically, not a priori – so that such questions are not answered as they often are today, but so that we may come upon the truth.

Now, however, one can point out something else: the most outstanding mathematical thinkers of modern times define mathematics something like this: it would be the “science of sizes”. Well, today it is the science of sizes. But go back just a few centuries to the time when Cartesius and Spinoza found great satisfaction in presenting their philosophy “according to a mathematical method,” as they say, and you will find that what Cartesius and Spinoza wanted to bring into their philosophy as a mathematical method is quite different from what is to be brought into natural science as mathematics in more recent times.

If we go back to Descartes and Spinoza, we find that these two philosophers want to construct their philosophical system in such a way that there is just as much certainty in the transition from one proposition to another as there is in mathematics. That is to say, they want to build their philosophy according to the pattern of these mathematical methods; but not by introducing into their philosophy what is understood by mathematics today. So, by going back to Descartes and Spinoza, we have already associated a completely different meaning with the word mathematics. If we disregard the aspect that merely refers to quantities, we have associated the sense of the inner, secure transition from judgment to judgment, from conclusion to conclusion. We have considered the nature of mathematical thinking, not what we can call a science of quantities.

And let us go back even further. In ancient times, the word “mathematics” had a completely different meaning altogether. Then it was identical with the word science. This means that when one meant 'science', one spoke of 'mathesis' or 'mathematics', because in mathematization one found the certainty of an inner insight into a 'fact' present in consciousness. One associated the sense of 'knowledge' and 'science' with this word. And so a much more general concept has been transferred to the narrow field of the theory of quantities. Today we have every reason to remember such things, because we are faced with the necessity of looking again at what actually lies at the basis of mathematical thinking. What is the essential feature of mathematical thinking? The essential feature of mathematical thinking is precisely the transparency of the mathematical content of consciousness. If I draw a triangle and consider its three angles, alpha, beta, and gamma, and want to prove that the sum of these three angles is 180 degrees, then I do the following (see figure r): I draw a parallel to the base line through the uppermost point of the triangle, look at the ratio of the angles alpha and gamma to the alternate angles that arise at the parallel, and then, by observing how the three angles that arise at the parallel – gamma', alpha', and beta – are positioned in relation to one another and how they form an angle of 180 degrees, I have the proof that the three angles of the triangle are also 180 degrees. That is to say, what is present in the mathematical as a conscious fact right up to the lines of reasoning is manageable and accompanied by inner experience from beginning to end. And this is the basis of the certainty one feels in mathematical thinking: that everything that is present as a conscious fact is accompanied by inner experience right up to the judgment and the proof.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

And when we then look at the external world, whose material foundations cannot be penetrated with such clarity, we still feel satisfied when observing external nature if we can at least follow its phenomena in the experience that first met us in clarity.

The certainty that one feels in this clarity of consciousness in mathematics becomes particularly apparent when one looks at what is universally recognized as a major advance in mathematics in the 19th century century: what emerged as “non-Euclidean geometry”, as “metageometry” in Lobatschewskij, Bolyai, Legendre and so on.

There we see how, based on the inner certainty of intuition, the Euclidean axioms are first modified and, by modifying the Euclidean axioms, possible other geometries than the Euclidean one are constructed, and how one then tries to cope with an inscrutable reality using what has been constructed as an extension of intuitiveness. All the ideas that have entered modern thought through this “meta-geometry” are basically factual proof of the certainty that one feels in the comprehensibility of mathematization.

And with regard to Euclidean space – for the spaces of the other geometries are simply other spaces – which is characterized by the fact that three coordinate axes perpendicular to one another have to be imagined , that what has been presented here as proof of the 180-degree nature of the three angles of a triangle applies to this Euclidean space. And everyone will realize that if the Euclidean axioms are modified, this may have a bearing on our space, in which we are – which is then precisely not Euclidean space, but perhaps an internally curved space – but that for Euclidean space, which can be comprehended, the Euclidean results must be assumed to be certain because of their comprehensibility. No one will doubt that.

And just when you see through these facts, then you will find: the application of mathematics to the field of natural science is based on the fact that one finds in the external world that which is first found internally, that, so to speak, the facts of the external world behave in such a way as corresponds to the mathematical results that we first found independently of this external world in inner contemplation.

But one thing is absolutely certain: I would say, the precondition for this inner vision of the mathematical is that this mathematical first appears to us as an image. The inner free activity of constructing, which we experience in mathematizing, is such an inner free activity only because nothing of what otherwise prevails within our human beingness, when, for example, we want or the like, following an instinct. From this, what arises as a stock of consciousness in the process of mathematization is, as it were, elevated to the point of becoming pictorial. In relation to what is “external natural reality”, the mathematical is unreality. And we feel the satisfaction in the application of the mathematical to the knowledge of nature precisely because we can recognize what we have freely grasped in pictorial form in the realm of being.

But precisely for this reason it must be admitted that on the one hand it is justified when such minds, which do not merely want to go to what natural reality as such shows in human observation as real, but want to go to the full, total reality, like Goethe, when such spirits — as Goethe particularly showed in his treatment of the “Theory of Colors” — do not want a total application of the mathematical to all of external reality. Goethe's rejection of mathematics arose precisely from the realization that, although what corresponds to the pictorial vividness of the mathematical can be found in external nature through mathematics, at the same time one thereby renounces everything qualitative. Goethe did not want to treat only the quantitative in external nature; he also wanted to include the qualitative.

On the other hand, however, it must be said that the whole inner greatness of mathematics is based on its pictorial nature, and that it is precisely in this pictorial nature that we must seek what gives it the character of an a priori science, a science that can be found purely through inner contemplation.

But at the same time, by mathematizing, one is actually outside of nature, in contrast to which mathematics is of particular interest. Nowhere does one grasp something that is effective in itself, but only the relationships of this effectiveness that can be expressed by mathematical formulas. When you calculate a future lunar eclipse in mathematical formulas, or, by inserting the corresponding variables in negative form, a lunar eclipse that has passed in the past, you must be aware that you never penetrate into the inner essence of what is happening, but only grasp the quantum of relationships with mathematical formulas from a certain point of view. That is to say, one must realize that one can never penetrate into the inner essential differentiation through mathematics if one understands mathematics in the narrow sense in which it is still often understood today.

But even within mathematics we can already see a kind of path that leads out of mathematics itself. From what I have just said, you can see that this path, which leads out of the mathematical, should be similar to the path we take when we submerge into nature, which has been thoroughly penetrated and is penetrating, with the purely pictorially mathematical, with the unpenetrated, ineffectively pictorially mathematical. There we submerge into something that, in a sense, intercepts us with our free mathematizing activity and constricts mathematical formulas into an event that is effective in itself, that is in itself something to which we have to say: we cannot fully grasp it with mathematics; in the face of the inner transparency of mathematics, this thing asserts its essential independence and its essential interiority.

This path, which is taken when one simply seeks the transition from the unreal mathematical way of thinking to the real scientific way of thinking, can in a certain way already be found today within the mathematical itself in a certain relation. And we see how it can be found if we look not outwardly but inwardly at the attempts that thinking has made in the transition from mere analytical geometry to projective or synthetic geometry, as presented by more recent science. I would like to explain what I mean by the sentence I have just uttered using a very elementary, an extremely elementary and well-known example of synthetic geometry.

When you do synthetic, newer projective geometry, you differ from the analytical geometer in that the analytical geometer works with mathematical formulas, that is, he calculates, counts, and so on. The synthetic geometer uses only the straightedge and the compass, and that which can arise in consciousness through the straightedge and the compass as a fact, which first emerges from intuition. But let us ask ourselves whether it also remains purely within intuition.

Let us imagine a line – what is called a line in ordinary geometry – and on this line three points. Then we have the following mathematical structure (see Figure 2): a line on which the three points I, II, III are located.

Now, there is – I can, of course, only hint at what I have to present here in the main lines, so to speak appealing to what you already know about the matter – there is another figure which, in a certain way, in its entire configuration, corresponds to the mathematical figure just drawn. And this other figure is created by treating three lines in a similar way to the way I have treated these three points here, and by treating a point in a similar way to the way I have treated the line here. So imagine that instead of the three points ], II, III, I draw three lines on the board, and instead of the line that goes through the three points, I draw a point (see Figure 3); and to create a correspondence, I take the point where the three lines intersect: I have drawn another figure here (Fig. 3). The point that I have drawn above with a small ringlet corresponds to the line on the left, the three, as they are called, rays that intersect at one point, and which I denote by I, II, III, correspond to the three points I, II, III, that lie on the line on the left (Fig. 2).

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

If you want to feel the full weight of this ruling, you have to take the exact wording as I have just pronounced it. You have to say: the point on the right (Figure 3), which I have marked with a small ring above, corresponds to the line on the left (Figure 2) on which the three points lie; and the rays I, II, III on the right correspond to the points I, II, III on the left. And in that the three rays I, II, III on the right intersect at the one point above, this intersection corresponds to the position of the three points I, II, III on the left on the straight line drawn on the left.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

Thus stated, there is a very specific cognitive fact and a corresponding structure on the left opposite the structure on the right.

One can now – by remaining purely within the realm of the visual, that is, what can be constructed with compass and straightedge, without the need for calculation – proceed to the following state of consciousness: I draw a line again on the left, and again three points on this line (the lower line in Figure 4).

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

I have now – I ask you to please consider the way I express myself, which I will follow, as decisive for the facts – I have now drawn the line on the left, on which the three points i, 2, 3 are located. I will proceed and assume – please note the word I pronounce: “and assume” – I will proceed and then assume the following. I will connect the points to the left of one line with the points on the other line in a certain way and will thus obtain connecting lines that will intersect (see Figure 5). I will connect the point I with the point 3, the point III with the point i, the point I with the point 2, the point II with the point 1, the point III with the point 2, the point II with the point 3, and will get intersection points by these lines, which I can then again - I now assume - connect by a straight line. So my construction is carried out in such a clear and transparent way that I can actually do what I have just described. You can actually carry out this construction as follows (dotted line in Figure 5): You see, I have the three points of intersection, which I got in the way I described earlier, so that I can draw the dashed-dotted straight line through them.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

I now assume that by adding another to the right-hand bundle of rays (Figure 3), as it is called, I have the same ratio in the ratio of the radiation as in the distance of the points lying on the left straight line. I shall therefore draw a second bundle of rays on the right (Figure 6), which, in relation to its radiating conditions, corresponds to the positional conditions of the points on the lines on the left. So I have drawn in another bundle of rays here (Figure 6) and call it I, 2, 3, assuming that i, 2, 3 corresponds to i, 2, 3 in relation to the points on the left.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

And now I will perform the corresponding procedure on my two ray structures on the right, which I performed on my line and point structures on the left (Figure 5), only I have to take into account that a line on the left corresponds to a point on the right: while on the left I looked for a line connecting two points, on the right I have to look for a point that arises when two rays intersect. The intersection on the right should correspond to the connection on the left (the points of intersection in Figure 6 are marked by small circles, see Figure 7). You can see what I have done: if I connected III with i and 3 with I as points on the left, I brought I with 3 and i with III as lines to the intersection here on the right.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

And if I have drawn two lines from the points on the left and brought them to the intersection at one point, I will now draw a line through the two points that I have obtained on the right (dotted line in Figure 7), and I will now carry out the same procedure with respect to the other rays. That is [the lecturer once again illustrates the correspondence between the circled intersections of Figure 7 and the connecting lines of Figure 5], I will bring II into intersection with i, I with 2, III with 2, II with 3; I will therefore look for the points of intersection on the right as I looked for the connecting lines on the left; and, as you see, I have sought these points of intersection on the right by bringing the rays to the intersection in order to draw lines through these points of intersection (dashed lines in Figure 7), just as I sought lines on the left by connecting the points in order to obtain the points of intersection of these intersecting lines (dotted lines in Figure 5).

The connecting lines – but the points of intersection that I obtained on the right – also intersect at a point indicated here by a small ring at the top (P in Figure 7), just as the three points that I obtained on the left lie on a straight line (dashed in Figure 5). That is to say, in the figure on the right, where lines are used instead of points and the connecting lines are intersections, I get a point where the three lines intersect, just as I got a line that passes through the three points on the left. I get a point for the line on the left.

Here I remain, proceeding purely from the realm of the intuitive, although within that which proceeds from intuition but which nevertheless leads to something else. And I ask you to consider the following. Suppose you look in the line, in the direction indicated by the (dashed) line on the left, which goes through the three points of intersection – Alpha, Beta, Gamma. Then you will look up at an intersection point that obscures the others, in relation to which the others are behind it (Figure 8). Here, in the line, you have not only “three points.” But as soon as you move on to a relationship of reality, something quite vivid occurs in relation to these three points: the point gamma is the one in front, and behind it are the points beta and alpha. You have clearly laid this out in the left-hand figure in the illustration.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

If we now go through a completely legitimate procedure, which I have described, to the corresponding structure on the right, we have to consider a point instead of a line (P in Figure 9). When we consider this point, we must say that just as on the left an intersection point gamma arises from the connection of III with 2 and the connection of 3 with II, covering the other intersection points, so on the right the necessity arises to introduce what follows and thus, through the law of connection, to pass from the concrete to the non-concrete: On the right (Figure 9), the necessity arises to imagine the curled point (P) in such a way that the ray (Gamma), which is formed by connecting the points of intersection of the lines III and 2, II and 3, first intersects at the curled point with the ray (Beta) that is formed by the preceding ratio ( III with 1, I with 3); and we must imagine that within this curled point the intersections that arise through the three dashed lines also lie as three internally differentiated entities, just as on the left on the dash-dotted line the three points gamma, beta, alpha. That is, I must find the intersections arranged in the individual point on the right so that they coincide one above the other.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

That means, in other words, nothing less than: Just as I have to think of the dashed-and-dotted line on the left in such a way that a front and back arises for the points gamma, beta, and alpha for an observing eye, so I have to think of a differentiation within the point, that is, a spatial expansion of zero, in all three dimensions. Seen from the way it has arisen out of this structure, I have to think of this point, not as something undifferentiated, but as having a front and a back. Here I am confronted with the necessity of not thinking of a point as neutral in all directions, but of thinking of the point as having a front and a back.

I am making a journey here, through which I am forced out of the free formation of the mathematical and into something where the objective passes over into an inner determination, into an inner being. You see, this journey is similar to the one through which I pass from the mathematically free formation to the acceptance of this formation from the inner determination within the natural order. And by passing from analytical to synthetic geometry, I get the beginning of the path that is shown to me from mathematics to inorganic natural science.

Then, basically, it is only a small step to something else. By continuing these considerations, to which I have now pointed, one can also come to an inner understanding of the following state of consciousness: if one pursues purely with the help of projective, synthetic geometry how a hyperbola relates to an asymptote, then one finds purely intuitively that on the one hand, say at the upper right, the asymptote ptote approaches the hyperbola but never reaches it, but you still get the idea that the hyperbola comes back from the lower left with the other branch, and the asymptote also comes back from the lower left with its other side. In other words, through this relationship between asymptote and hyperbola I get something that I could draw on the board for you in something like the following (Figure 10): at the top right, the asymptote, the straight line, approaches the hyperbola ever closer. I have added a shading there to express what kind of relationship the asymptote actually has to the hyperbola. It is getting closer and closer to him, it wants to get to him, it is getting closer and closer to the essence of its relationship to him. If you now follow this relationship upwards to the right, you will finally come to the conclusion, through purely projective thinking – I can only hint at this here – that the direction of the line that you have upwards to the right, be it the hyperbola or the asymptote, coming from the lower left, , coming from the lower left, the hyperbolast and the asymptote, and this in such a way that it leaves the hyperbolast more and more with its being in the hatched suggestion.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

So that we can say: this asymptote has a remarkable property. As it ascends to the right, it turns towards the hyperbola with its relationship to the hyperbola; as it comes up again from the bottom left, it turns away from the hyperbola with its relationship to the hyperbola. This line, the asymptote, when I look at it in its entirety, in its totality, has a front and a back again. That is why I was able to draw the shading on one side one time and on the other side the next. I come again into an inner differentiation of the linear, as I come into an inner differentiation when I force the purely mathematical pictorial into the realm of natural occurrence. That is, I approach what occurs as differentiation in the natural occurrence when I want to grasp the mathematical structures themselves in the right way with the help of projective geometry.

What happens through projective geometry can never be done in the same way through mere analytic geometry. For mere analytic geometry, by constructing in coordinates and then searching for the end points of the abscissas and ordinates in its computational form, remains, in its form, completely outside the curve or outside the structure itself. Projective geometry does not stop at the curve and the figure, but penetrates into the inner differentiation of the figure: to the point where one must distinguish between front and back – to the straight line where one must also distinguish between front and back. I have only indicated these properties because of the limited time available. I could also mention other properties, for example, a certain curvature ratio that the point extended in the three spatial dimensions has within itself, and so on.

If you really follow the path from analytical geometry into synthetic geometry with an open mind, if you see how you are, I would say, caught up in something that already approaches reality is already approaching reality, how this reality is present in the external nature, then one has the same inner experience, exactly the same inner experience that one has when one ascends from the ordinary concept of the mind, from ordinary logic, to the imaginative. One must only continue in imaginative cognition. But one has given the beginning when one begins to move from analytical geometry to synthetic. One notices there the interception of what arises from the determination by external reality, after which one has grasped the result, and one notices the same in imaginative cognition.

And now, what is the opposite path within spiritual science to that which leads from ordinary objective knowledge to imaginative knowledge? It would be the one that led from intuition down to inspired knowledge. But there we already find that we are standing inside the real. For with intuition we stand inside the real. And we move away from the real. Descending from intuition to inspiration, we again move away from the real. And when we come down to imagination, we have only the image of the real within.

This path is at the same time the one that the real undergoes in order to become our object of knowledge. Of course, in intuition we are immersed in reality. We move away from reality to inspiration, to imagination, and arrive at our objective knowledge. We then have this in our present knowledge. We make the path from reality to our knowledge. In a sense, we first stand within reality and depart from this reality to arrive at unreal knowledge. On the path we take from analytical geometry into projective or synthetic geometry, we try to move in the opposite direction again, from purely intellectual analytical geometry to where we can begin to think in real terms if we want to achieve anything at all. We are approaching the re-realization of nature, which it undergoes by wanting to become knowledge, by realizing unreal knowledge.

You see, there is no need to assume that our modern spiritual science, as it appears here, wanted to do mathematics differently than mathematicians do when they do mathematics in their own way. There is no need to do much else in the fields that a quantitative natural science has already entered today, except to look for special experimental setups that lead from the quantitative into the qualitative. And when this external quantitative natural science today presents modern anthroposophy with its 'sound results', it is a bit like when someone reads a poem that touches on completely different regions, and someone says: Yes, I cannot decide through my state of mind whether one can live in a poem, but I know something for sure: that two times two is four! No one doubts that two times two is four; nor does anyone doubt what modern inorganic natural science provides who wants to advance to spiritual science. But there is no particular objection to the content of a poem, for example, if you hold up two times two is four to it.

What is at issue, however, is that the individual sciences should seriously and courageously take the path towards a true knowledge of reality that Anthroposophy offers, towards which they are already particularly tending, towards which they want to go. And while some people today, in fruitless scepticism, want to create darkness over what they, often rightly, perceive as the limits of knowledge of nature, anthroposophy wants to start to ignite the light of spiritual knowledge where natural science becomes dark.

And so it will perhaps not make much of a departure from the methods of the sciences mentioned today; but it will present the significance, the inner value of the sciences that have been spoken of today to humanity and will thereby ensure that people know why they penetrate into existence with mathematics, not just why they arrive at a certain certainty with mathematics. For in the end it is not a matter of developing mere products of certainty. We could close ourselves in the narrowest circle and go round and round in the narrowest circle if we only wanted to hold on to “the most certain”. Rather, it is a matter of expanding knowledge. But this cannot be found if one shies away from the path out of inner experience into the outer, into being differentiated in itself. This path is even hinted at in many ways in present-day mathematics and mathematical science. One must only recognize it and then act scientifically in the sense of this knowledge.

Closing Remarks on the Disputation

Dear attendees! Partly because of the late hour and partly for other reasons, I will not say much more than a few remarks related to what has been presented and discussed this evening.

I would like to return very briefly to the question regarding Professor Rein for the reason that one circumstance in this matter should be emphasized sharply.

I am well aware that not much of approval can be said about my “Philosophy of Freedom” by a Herbartian, especially one who has gone through the historical school. This was evident almost immediately after the publication of The Philosophy of Freedom in 1894. One of the first reviews that appeared was by the Herbartian Robert Zimmermann. But I must say that, despite the fact that this review was extremely critical, I was pleased with it because some really great points of view were put forward in opposition at the time. As to how necessary the relationship must be between a Herbartian evaluation and what my Philosophy of Freedom contains, I have not the slightest doubt. But it is a pity that I do not have Professor Rein's review of The Philosophy of Freedom here and could quote the passage as I would like to. It has just been brought to me, and I can therefore say some things even more precisely than would otherwise be possible on the basis of the review. So let me quote from this review, which begins with the words: “In times of such a low level of morality as the German people have probably never experienced, it is doubly important to defend the great landmarks of morality, as established by Kant and Herbart, and not to allow them to be shifted in favor of relativistic tendencies. The words of Baron von Stein, that a nation can only remain strong through the virtues by which it has become great, must be considered one of the most important tasks in the midst of the dissolution of all moral concepts.

The fact that a writing by the leader of the anthroposophists in Germany, Dr. R. Steiner, is involved in this dissolution must be particularly regretted, since one cannot deny the idealistic basic feature of this movement, which aims at a strong internalization of the individual human being, and in its plan of the threefold structure of the social body can find healthy thoughts that promote the welfare of the people. But in his book “The Philosophy of Freedom” (Berlin 1918), he takes his individualistic approach to such an extreme that it leads to the dissolution of the social community and must therefore be fought.

You can clearly see here that the “Philosophy of Freedom” is said to have emerged from the dissolution of all moral concepts and so on – and one can believe that, that it can be the opinion of one man.

Now, a large part of those present here know my views on scientific accuracy, on scientific conscientiousness, and above all, that one should first properly educate oneself about what one writes. To associate the Philosophy of Freedom, which appeared in 1894, even stylistically, with what is implied in the first sentences, is a frivolity. And such frivolity cannot be excused by the fact that the author, who works as a professor of pedagogy at a university, has by no means — as I believe has been said — “gone beyond the bounds of truly objective judgment.” The point is that we can only bring about a recovery of precisely those conditions, which have been discussed here this evening in a rather hearty way, if we do not make ourselves guilty of the same carelessness, but if we strictly exercise scientific conscientiousness precisely towards those who, by virtue of their office, have the task of educating young people. We must not allow those who have this profession to overlook the circumstances and times in which a work was written that they want to judge. That is the first thing I have to say.

Then there is the way of quoting. In this article you will find an incredible way of tearing sentences out of context and then not taking up what is said in my “Philosophy of Freedom”, but rather what the author of the article thinks he is entitled to take up, based on his own opinion, and what can be inferred from his interpretation of the sentences he has quoted.

Anyone who takes the trouble to really read The Philosophy of Freedom will see that it deals in a completely clear way with how to avoid the misunderstandings that Professor Rein criticizes when sentences are taken out of context in any way.

His description of how the Philosophy of Freedom is taken out of its historical context is matched by his placing it in impossible contexts: “If we listen to Dr. Steiner speak, we might be tempted to see him as an apostle of ethical libertinism. He also felt this and countered the objection, which goes: If every person only strives to live out and do as he pleases, then there is no difference between good action and crime. Every crookedness that lies in me has the same claim to be realized as the intention to serve the general good. Dr. Steiner seeks to refute this objection by pointing out that man may only claim the freedom demanded if he has acquired the ability to rise to the intuitive idea content of the world. To acquire this ability is the task of the anthroposophist, who is to rise to the standpoint of ethical individualism.

Now, please ask yourself whether someone is allowed to write such sentences as an assessment of Philosophy of Freedom. Philosophy of Freedom was published in 1894, before the term anthroposophist was coined. Professor Rein also places the “Philosophy of Freedom” in a milieu that was an impossible one for the “Philosophy of Freedom” at the time of its publication, apart from the trivialities that come later, where he speaks of it as an ethics for anthroposophists and angels and the like, and so on.

It is not at all my intention to cast a slur on what I might call the opposing point of view, but to show that this way of judging spiritual matters is part and parcel of the whole world of the person who has to leave our culture behind if the conditions that should be discussed here today are to improve. I may well say that I have carefully considered whether or not I should finally speak these words here. But it seems to me that the matter is important enough, and I believe that I have not crossed the boundary of objectivity, that I have actually confined myself essentially to characterizing the way of judging and not the “point of view” before you here. I know that it is always somewhat precarious to discuss family matters. However, I cannot change my approach, although I am not bound by it anyway, as I have no father-in-law among my colleagues!

Now I would like to make a few other comments, taking up a sentence that has also been discussed here today. Just to speak symptomatically, I would like to relate a small experience, but only to illustrate.

It has been said that it is true that not all students who come to a university or college are ready for that college; but the professors at the colleges cannot be held responsible for that, and these students are simply sent to them by the secondary schools. Yes, but I really could not help but think of a conversation that had once been held in my presence with one of the most famous literary historians at German universities. This literary historian was also on the examination board for grammar school teaching. – I don't really like to do it, but today times are so serious that one must also bring up such things. – He said: Yes, with these grammar school teachers, we know them, we have to examine them, but we sometimes have very strange thoughts when we have to let these camels out as grammar school teachers!

Well, as I said, it is just an illustration that I would like to give through this experience. I don't know if it speaks very strongly for the university teachers when an examiner and famous university teacher deigns to call the teachers of youth who are sent to the grammar schools “camels”. I'm not saying it, but the man in question did say it. I am only quoting. Well, every thought must be thought through to the end. And I believe that when the thought is thought through to the end, university teachers should not complain when incompetent high school graduates enter the university gates; after all, it was the university teachers who sent out the high school teachers who prepared these graduates for them. So in the end it is necessary, as I said, to think the idea through to the end. And that shows us that, if with some indulgence, we may already apply the concept of guilt in a certain respect.

But today some very strange words have been said, you see. And I must say that one of the strangest words, almost one of the little piquant ones, was this: that it was said that a university teacher had said: We expect deliverance from the student body! I am just surprised that he did not also say: From the moment we sit down on the school benches and promote the students to the professorship. You see, it is necessary to follow up the worn-out judgments that are buzzing around the present and that are nevertheless the cause of our current conditions. Of course, in doing so, one does not fail to recognize that there are exceptions and exceptions everywhere, and one can, for example, subscribe to much, very much, of what has been said with regard to art instruction at the academies. But on the whole, one must say that there is not so much reason to have good hopes for the future if one is not prepared to join forces, not only externally, through some association or the like, to join forces to move towards some vague goal, but when one is prepared – only when one is prepared – to truly engage in a thorough renewal and revival of our spiritual life itself. The actual damage is already encroaching on our spiritual life itself. And anyone who is familiar with the whole structure of anthroposophical life, how it has led, for example, to this School of Spiritual Science, certainly does not need to be told that “everyone must be free to express their worldview and to speak out of their own free conviction!” The many malicious natures who are here today to say all kinds of inaccurate things about the anthroposophical movement and related matters will immediately take advantage of this and say: These anthroposophists want their world view to be represented everywhere.

Now, the Waldorf school was founded by our community, without in any way founding a school of world view. The opposite of a world view school should be founded. This has been emphasized time and again. And anyone who believes that the Waldorf school is “an anthroposophical school” does not know it at all. And nor can it be said here at the Goetheanum that anyone is restricted in their free expression of their most deeply held convictions.

But what I will always fight for, despite all freedom, individuality and intellectualism, is scientific conscientiousness, thoroughness, being informed about what one is writing about, not just putting forward one's own opinion because one believes that under certain circumstances damage could arise from something that one has not really taken the trouble to understand, and from which one has plucked a few sentences in order to write an article.

I say this quite dispassionately. You know that I usually use the things that are done as “reviews” of anthroposophy only as a proximate occasion to characterize general conditions. I am not really interested in the personal attacks, only to the extent that they point to what needs to be changed in our circumstances. And here I do believe that the fellow student from Bonn, in his hearty way, has struck the right note, a right note to the extent that the students he meant really cannot find what they are looking for at the universities or colleges today.

But not “because of the curriculum”, not “because the right choices are not being made”, but because today's youth quite instinctively – without being fully aware of it – craves something from the bottom of their hearts that is not yet present within the general scientific framework, but which must be created within the general scientific framework. This is what awaits young people. This youth will certainly not fail to grasp with both hands when it is offered what it really wants: a truly new spirit. For such a new spirit is needed in the present.

This is basically the reason for the aversion to what emanates from anthroposophical spiritual science, even if one uses the phrase “one wants to accommodate every new thing”. When it asserts itself, then one does not do it after all. Because basically one cannot do it at all. It would be of no use to conceal these things in any way, but rather they must be pointed out clearly and distinctly.

Then the question of the World School Association was raised here. I believe I expressed very clearly what I have to say about this World School Association in terms of its intentions at the end of our last School of Spiritual Science course here in the fall. I then again expressed in roughly the same way the necessity of founding such a general world school association in The Hague, in Amsterdam, in Utrecht, in Rotterdam and in Hilversum: that the possibility of working in a world school association depends on the conviction that a new spirit must enter into the general school system spreading in as many people as possible. I have pointed out that today it cannot depend on founding schools here or there that would stand alone and in which a method is applied that is widespread in this or that respect, but that the school system of modern civilization must be taken into hand on the basis of the idea of a self-supporting, liberated spiritual life, the school system for all categories, for all subjects.

As far as I am aware, the words and calls that I have spoken so far are the only things I have to report on. These words were intended to find an echo in the civilized population of the present day. I have no such response to report. And I think the fellow student from Bonn spoke a true word when he pointed out that ultimately the student body from whose hearts he spoke here is in the minority. I think it is very, very much in the minority, especially in Germany. But also otherwise – I don't want to be unkind to anyone – otherwise, from where we are not far away at all. This is shown by the attendance at this college course. He said: the majority of the student body is asleep! Yes, it also rages at times. But one can also sleep while raging with regard to the things at stake.

And with regard to the matters for which this demand for the World School Association has been raised, everyone is also sleeping peacefully in the broadest circles. And it must be said: people have not yet really become accustomed to how necessary it is to bring anthroposophical work into modern civilization. We must become accustomed to it, and I long for the day when I can report more fully on the question of the world school association. Today I still could not say much more than what I said at the end of the School of Spiritual Science courses here last fall, although what I said was intended to allow something completely different to be reported today.

But the same applies to other things, and it is very difficult to raise awareness of the issues that really matter in today's world.

In a lecture in Berlin, after Lloyd George had called a general election in England in the wake of a strike that had already broken out, I pointed out that you don't achieve anything with such things, that it's just a postponement. It seems that people took it as a mere catchphrase at the time. Now, please, see for yourself today, you could have done so for a few days already, whether what I said back then was just a catchphrase or whether it was perhaps born out of a deeper understanding of social interrelations and the necessity of social interrelations.

The difficulty is that today there are so few people with the enthusiasm that really makes them feel inwardly involved with what they are saying. And so I am always pleased when young people come forward who have something to say about how they find what they are looking for here or there. For I believe that from such impulses will emerge what we need for all insight, for all understanding: inner participation, inner participation that knows how strong the metamorphosis must be that leads us from the declining forces of an old civilization to the impulses of the new civilization. Yes, we need conscientious understanding, we need penetrating insight. But above all, we need what youth could bring out of its natural abilities. But we need not only insight, not only penetrating understanding of the truth, in the broadest circles of present-day civilized humanity, we need enthusiasm for the truth!

The field I shall be discussing today is so extensive – even if it is to be illuminated from only a single point of view – that what I will be able to give today can only be a few brief indications, and I would ask you to take this into consideration. The point is that in the progression from the inorganic natural sciences to the organic natural sciences — and then further to psychological and spiritual observation — on the one hand, the necessity of spiritual-scientific anthroposophical observation arises more and more, but on the other hand, as this progression continues, it becomes more and more apparent how what is called spiritual science here can have a fertilizing effect on the individual specialized sciences.

What has been said about the nature of mathematics and the nature of the inorganic natural sciences was not so much to suggest that spiritual scientific observation could somehow bring about a completely different way of treating them and, in particular, a different content from that already present in our current scientific understanding. From the lectures on mathematics and inorganic natural science that have been presented so far, you have been able to discern a certain underlying theme that has been hinting at how, in both mathematics and the inorganic, the beginnings of the approach to these sciences that is meant here, can be found everywhere, even if it goes unnoticed by most. You have seen how one must point to the transition from the analytical treatment of geometry to the synthetic treatment, and how one finds that if one does not stop at the formal, but moves on to a living grasp of what is actually present, then continuing along this path leads to imaginative observation. And then, when a purely mathematical consideration was presented, you saw how a certain more lively treatment of the problems should lead to what is to be thought in the mathematical and inorganic natural sciences as being correct in the anthroposophical sense. To a certain extent, we have immersed ourselves in these sciences and have sought in them the points of strength in the directions in which we should proceed. The only thing is that in these sciences one remains strictly within the objective approach, which is the peculiarity of present-day human consciousness, and that one does not need to arrive at anything other than a certain how in the treatment of this observation.

The same situation does not apply to the organic natural sciences, although something similar is also present here in another respect. When we speak today of mathematics, of inorganic natural sciences, of photometry, mechanics and so on, we have to point out the way of thinking that needs to be reformed, as was the case yesterday. In the organic natural sciences, however, one begins by pointing out not what is to be rejected, but what is to be included. This begins already within the world of facts itself. Nothing substantial can be achieved by a mere reform of the way of thinking.

I would first like to present a brief historical consideration to clarify how to proceed in this area in order to arrive at a fruitful view. We have already pointed out in our reflections that in the progressive development of humanity, only since the 15th century of the Christian era has there emerged what we call the special nature of our present consciousness. All earlier ways of looking at things were fundamentally quite different. It was only from the aforementioned point in time that humanity truly grasped that form of consciousness which, on the one hand, leads to the use of freedom, but on the other hand, by referring man back to himself, throws him into an abstraction through which he becomes, in a certain sense, alienated from reality in relation to the world of being. It is the approach that adheres only to external observations and their description, to the arrangement of tests, of experiments and observation of their results, that is, the answers that nature provides when questions are asked not only theoretically but practically, in the experiment.

What is applied by the powers of the soul, in that science comes into being in this way, is the combining power of the mind. This combining power of mind is, I might say, the great practical-scientific problem for the time being. It becomes so when one raises the question of its correct applicability. And this question of the correct applicability of the power of mind or of ordinary reason—in observation, in summarizing observations, in experimenting—this question arose particularly for Goethe. And anyone who delves into what actually became a problem for Goethe — you can read about this in my “Introduction to Goethe's Scientific Writings”, which is now almost forty years old — will find that Goethe did not want the power of understanding or reason to be applied that it gives science an actual content, that one says something about existence as such out of the power of understanding or reason, so to speak, but rather that this power of understanding or reason is used only to think of the phenomena in such an order that one phenomenon explains the other. Then, by using one's understanding or reason, one has contributed nothing to what the phenomena themselves express.

If one wants to apply pure reason, then one must proceed without reservation to a pure phenomenology, that is, use reason only to look at a phenomenon purely, to do nothing but just to bring it to pure looking, and then to place the other associated phenomenon next to it; so that through this arrangement of the phenomena - which is then also carried out in practice in the experiment - the phenomena themselves are caused to explain each other. The intellect, then, has only an ordering, a real methodological significance, so to speak, but no qualitative significance. In the Goethean sense, nothing may emerge from it that says anything about being itself.

I believe that this is a precise definition of what Goethe saw as the use of the power of understanding, and that is also what the general consciousness of humanity has been striving for since the first third of the 15th century. It may be said that not everyone has yet learned to resign themselves to a certain extent when it comes to understanding, as Goethe wanted to do in his own research, even if he did not fully implement it everywhere. But unconsciously this way of life of the intellect lives in the striving for knowledge, out of which spiritual science wants to go forth, but in a different way than through the intellect.

And what I am saying now is obvious when one sees the progress that has been made in natural scientific thinking, say, from the beginning of the 19th century. I am not referring to the natural philosophers, but with the empirical naturalists, for example, with the likes of Johannes Müller, up to Mach or even to Poincare and the others, or to Fritz Mauthner, who is certainly not a naturalist.

Anyone who really wants to get an idea of what is at stake here must familiarize themselves with something that still played a certain role in the first half of the 19th century, but which was then completely abandoned around the middle of the 19th century, and which is now emerging again in scientific observation in a strange form here and there. This is the idea of the life force, what is called vitalism in scientific life.

If we go back to the idea of vital force that was held in older times, we see that the supporters of the existence of this vital force said to themselves: When we look at a thing of inorganic nature, we find in this thing of organic nature, we find all kinds of forces, thermal energy, light energy, electrical energy, and so on; but when we look at a being in the organic world, we find, in addition to these forces that constitute inorganic nature, the vital force, the life force. This life force is present in every living being, just as magnetic force is present in a magnet. It takes possession, as it were, of the inorganic forces in order to combine them and to produce effects from them that they cannot achieve on their own.

This vital force was given the final push to resign through the presentation of an organic substance in a synthetic way by Wöhler and Liebig, and it was abandoned as such in the second half of the 19th century. But in the so-called neovitalism, it has recently emerged from obscurity because certain thinkers have come to realize: If we apply the methods we have developed to explain the inorganic with the help of inorganic forces to the organic, then we will not get anywhere; we have to look for something else in the organic. And, I would like to say, with a clear echo of the old life force, something like this emerges again in neovitalism for the explanation in the organic sciences.

But anyone who really engages critically with what still appears as life force in Johannes Müller's work will find that there is something in this life force that cannot be grasped as a concept in reality. And I would like to say that, due to the impossibility of grasping life force as a concept, it died in the course of the 19th century in scientific observation. It could not be grasped. And why could it not be grasped? If we look very carefully at the organic-scientific methodology of the 19th century, we will see that those who wrestle with the idea of this life force find that they cannot do anything with it. What they want to do with it disappears as soon as they approach the phenomenon with their idea. They do not get to the root of the matter. The reason they do not get to it is that they do not clearly define the actual function of intellectual activity.

In our age, intellectual activity tends to look at only the phenomenon and place it alongside another phenomenon, so that one phenomenon explains the other. But this cannot be done with the life force. With the life force, if you want to do anything at all, you always have to push something into the phenomenon from the intellectual activity. You have to, as it were, insinuate something into the phenomenon. And therein lies the cause of the gradual disquieting doubt that arose in the use of the idea of the life force. This doubt was the reason why the idea was finally abandoned and why a certain ideal arose in the widest circles, namely to regard living beings as a confluence, a combination of those forces that also prevail in inorganic nature.

In other words, the idea of the life force has actually become a kind of changeling. It was decided to look for the constitutive element in the sciences only in the phenomenon. The life force did not emerge as a phenomenon. One had to construct the vital force from the intellect, which was actually not permissible in this age of human development. That was the negative part of the development in which we find ourselves today. For in neovitalism nothing vivid occurs. What neovitalism puts in the place of an explanation of life phenomena that combines only the inorganic is nothing more than a kind of rehashing of old vitalism. And one could say that in the outer workings of scientific life there is clearly a kind of reflection of what is actually going on in the inner life of the spirit. Today I can only point to this reflection in a few isolated phenomena. But anyone who can look at the phenomena that are close together in such a way that they shed light on each other will also see the truth of what I am talking about. Until recently, until the middle of the 19th century, what was retained from an older way of looking at things, what the concepts and ideas held back from it, still figured quite unattractively as philosophy. And I tried to at least hint at what was going on with this philosophy in my first lecture in this series. But in the second half of the 19th century, there were already some strange phenomena in the field of philosophical life.

We can see how a very conscientious thinker, who was just not able to think the problems he raised through to their conclusion – I have mentioned him here in recent days – how Franz Brentano called for the scientific method in philosophy. He was given nothing but the scientific method as it was customary in the present. In a sense, this provided the guiding principle for all those who no longer wanted to reflect on a particular intellectual method, but who submitted to the general authority of popular scientific thinking. But then there were other phenomena. At some faculties, where, let us say, old Herbartians were working, it came about that they left their chairs, and there were then faculties which did not appoint philosophers in the old sense to these vacant chairs of philosophy, but people who thought scientifically. This was the case, for example, in Vienna, where Mach, the naturalist, had to take up the chair of philosophy that had become vacant. This was still somewhat uncomfortable, and so they called the subject he had to represent “inductive philosophy,” and so they gave him the chair of inductive philosophy, but placed next to it a man — I hold this man in very high regard, but I am now characterizing cultural phenomena objectively, and so personal opinion plays no role here — who had previously been a professor of Christian philosophy at the theological faculty of the new university. This was a way of documenting that what should be in philosophy was not taken from some new way of research, but from the old tradition. And what took place there, I would say, in a certain striking way, is taking place again and again. Apart from the fact that people who think entirely in terms of natural science are brought to the psychological chairs and introduce an entirely scientific way of thinking into an area previously regarded as philosophical, we also see otherwise how people who think scientifically today function quite officially as the bearers of philosophy. In such phenomena, what I have to suggest here is also expressed externally: with what has emerged in recent times as the combining mind, which in its purity can only be applied as Goethe wanted it to be applied, nothing can be made out about the phenomena of life.

Here again is the point where honesty and impartiality of scientific thinking must be strictly demanded. And the methods that research with the help of external observation, external experiment, with the help of this combining mind, they can, if they are really critical with themselves, if they, out of their considerations, if I may say so, gain a full awareness of their own scope, can do no other than say: we are applicable only to the field of inorganic natural science; there we belong, there we can magnify the method; but we must not, without changing the whole meaning of the method, also change the content of the method, ascend into the field of organic natural science. That must remain untouched by this method.

Spiritual science must now speak from the other side. Spiritual science must say: There is also the possibility of a development of consciousness corresponding to the path taken by those forms of consciousness that had still blossomed before the 14th century. Just as these forms of consciousness have been developed into a purely objective consciousness that should not get stuck in phenomenality, so today, in order to take a scientific approach to the organic, it is necessary to develop inwardly through the soul to the other forms of consciousness: imaginative consciousness, inspired consciousness, intuitive consciousness.

For if the intellect is to come to terms with life phenomena, then, for the intellect, what takes place within the realm of life phenomena must become observation, must become phenomenon. It cannot do so within sensory observation. The intellect cannot become constitutive for a content of the organic natural sciences. The intellect must also behave combinatively there. But the intuition must be supplied to it. This intuition is supplied to it in imaginative cognition. In the training of imaginative cognition, as I have described it in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, apart from everything else that can be said about it, the possibility is gained of breaking with the old vitalism, which has provided a changeling of conceptuality, and of replacing it with the imaginative intuition of life.

Of course, the tremendously cheap objection that can now be made comes to mind. It can be said: Well, yes, but we normal people only have this combining mind. There may be some oddballs who progress to imagination, inspiration, and so on. We won't question that, but we don't have it. Therefore, a philosophy applies to us that rejects these contents of imagination and so on, that does not concern itself with taking these contents of imagination, inspiration and so on into itself as philosophy. This cheap objection can be refuted in the following way. I will clarify myself with an example that I have often mentioned. If spiritual research simply takes the facts that are already available to empirical organic science today, then, for example, in the study of the human heart, one comes to quite different views than those that are still held in popular science due to a false, traditional use of the mind that has been preserved from ancient times. There the heart is regarded as a kind of better pump that drives the blood through the organism. This view is only accepted as the “correct” one for the human being if reason is applied to the human organism as a living being, which is not applicable to it. As soon as one rises to imaginative contemplation, one comes to say to oneself: It is not the heart that drives the blood through the veins of the organism, but the movement of the heart is the result of the inner life of the blood. It is the blood itself, which, from its own intense life, centralized in the heart, causes this movement, so that the movement of the heart is the consequence of the movement of the blood, and not the other way around. This follows directly from the imaginative observation of the human and then also the animal organism. Now, anyone who sets out to teach about the heart and the movements of the heart without this imaginative observation must, if he is honest, come to find in this approach something inadequate to be relied upon. And if he then excludes what he himself has recognized as inadequate in his explanation, but retains the empirical knowledge of the facts, the entire world of facts of the human and animal organism, insofar as this world of facts relates to blood movement and heart movement, if he summarizes everything – spiritual science never shrinks from a truly thorough and conscientious examination by others — of what can be gained from the field of present-day anatomy, physiology, biology, etc., and especially, in explaining this problem, of what can be gained from embryology, he will say to himself: Now, the one who stands on the ground of imaginative knowledge gives this explanation. I know the facts; if I honestly presuppose the result of imaginative knowledge and test my well-known facts by it, then it is completely correct and there is every desirable reason to accept what is gained through imaginative knowledge.

As soon as progress is conscientiously and honestly made in this field in the direction of the development of scientific consciousness, the excuse can no longer be made that anyone who does not have imaginative knowledge himself does not need to recognize this imaginative knowledge. Instead, the other must take its place, that one says: I know well the facts that present themselves to sensory observation, but an explanation only comes to me from the side of imaginative insight. I can make sense of this explanation. The facts are understandable on this basis; so all the conditions for acceptance are met. — And basically, anyone who rejects supersensible knowledge in this area for the reason just given does not show that he does not have a command of supersensible knowledge. After all, it has not yet reached the point where it can be easily mastered. Rather, he proves that he cannot correctly evaluate the facts available to him. He proves the lack of his insight into the world of facts gained through sensory-empirical means. And this is most often the case in today's approach to organic natural science. The approach that is necessary for organic natural science is the one that rises from mere objective knowledge to imaginative knowledge. For it is only in imaginative knowledge that the secret of life is revealed.

Starting from pure phenomenology, which he wanted to see applied in the theory of colours and sounds, for example, Goethe strove towards what he called morphology, towards grasping the process of formation. He only came to a certain degree of knowledge. What he inaugurated must be continued. One can see how he only got to a certain point: after his approach had been sufficient to a high degree, if not completely, for the unconscious plant kingdom, he had to stop when he wanted to move from the plant kingdom to the consideration of the metamorphosis of the animal kingdom. Look at the treatises he wrote in relation to the metamorphosis of the animal kingdom. You will see everywhere how he, as a conscientious person, stops because it does not go any further, because from a certain moment of this Goethean morphology, if one wants to go further, one must arrive at something even more spiritual than mere form: at what the consciousness with the world of feeling and will can grasp inwardly – now in inspired knowledge.

If we look at it this way, then we will see that the essential thing is the way we look at it, the way we look at it, the way we develop the methodology. And, as I said, I can only hint at it today. If we look at the development of the theory of evolution from this point of view, we find the following: First, the series of living beings is followed empirically from the imperfect, so-called imperfect monad up to man, and it is proceeded in such a way that one always imagines the more perfect emerging from the more imperfect. If one proceeds in a somewhat different way, as Haeckel did to a certain extent, then one constructs, at least in the ancestral line of present-day beings, those which are in turn fairly accurate copies of present-day creatures. The constructed beings of the distant past in Haeckel's old family tree have the very character of what lives today.

But what presents itself to the imagination leads to a completely different way of looking at it. And I will – because the limited time available demands it – only sketch out this approach: If one starts from the standpoint of the imaginative way of looking at things, then, for example, the human head in relation to the spinal column can only be properly considered by saying: This human head formation, however dissimilar it may be in its outer form to the spinal column in its present metamorphosis, can only be imagined metamorphically as a transformation of the spinal column. One has to think that the nervous organization of the spinal cord is transformed, metamorphosed into what appears to us as the brain, and that the enclosing bones, the vertebrae of the spinal column, are also transformed into what becomes the skull.

11

But now it is important to bear the following in mind. One must imagine that in a certain respect what I have drawn here as a circle, in contrast to the line a-b, is, so to speak, a puffed-up dorsal spine and points to what it once was in an earlier metamorphosis: itself something like a dorsal spine, but under different external conditions. What I have drawn as a circle has, in a sense, developed out of a-b. But what is now the dorsal vertebra of the human organism only joined it later. In the case of humans, this is the later formation. After the skull had reformed from an arrangement of forces that now appears in a slightly different way in the dorsal vertebra, this dorsal vertebra joined it. What is less developed in the human being is therefore what is later, and what is more developed is what is earlier. And if we proceed in this way, we are led back to an age in which the forces that form the human head were already present in a different metamorphosis, but not the forces that form today's human spinal cord.

If, however, we consider these latter forces, then they are the same forces that we encounter, for example, in the animal kingdom, where skull formation is a process that exhibits only a lesser transformation compared to the spinal column than in humans. So we have to say: what is present in the human head points us back to older times as the earliest formation than what then already occurred as a human being with the dorsal spine, and also than what is present in the animal kingdom. In evolution, we do not have to derive man from the animal kingdom, but we have to say that an interpretation of the facts themselves shows us that man is an older being than animals, that animals originated later and that in only achieved in their evolution what is also found in humans today in their later form as a dorsal spine, but because they had a shorter time available, they did not manage to develop the skull metamorphosis in the human sense.

If you develop this idea, which I can only sketch out here, you will come to a truly analogous understanding of the theory of evolution. The magnificent facts that are available, which one only needs to be fully aware of, become explicable when based on this imaginative insight. And from these assumptions, one then arrives at very definite relationships and connections of what is presented in external science to our earthly conditions.

Do you think that by pursuing this thought further, one arrives at an understanding of the relationship between man and beast? But one can also proceed in this way and learn to recognize how man relates to the plant kingdom and ultimately to the mineral kingdom, which one can grasp in its phenomenal context through observation, experiment and the combining intellect.

With such a way of thinking, one comes to truly understand man's relationship to his environment, just as one comes to understand, in a certain way, the relationships of the fields that lead us to mathematical judgments in mathematical science. One comes to develop more and more what Goethe had in mind as an ideal when he said that his primeval plant had to become something in the idea, with which one can recognitively place every single plant in its corresponding character before the soul. Just as one, when one has the general concept of the triangle, also knows what occurs in any particular triangle. This metamorphosis of human knowledge into organic knowledge is what Goethe had in mind as an ideal.

But now I would like to illustrate myself again with an example. If we start from this point of view, we come to really take a closer look at what takes place in the human head as functions, for example. We learn to recognize how the functions of the human head, by undergoing evolution in the way I have described here, are already in the process of regressing today, how they have become the human head from other states, but how a mineralization process is taking place in the human head today through external influences. And this mineralization process is the parallel phenomenon to our intellectual knowledge, which also only knows how to grasp the mineral physical, because it is bound to a mineralization process in the human nerve-sense apparatus. One becomes familiar with how what one accomplishes in intellectual cognition is paralleled by a mineralization process that builds itself into the organic of the human being as its physical vehicle, a settling of the purely mineral within the organic. By settling this mineral within the organic, one comes to do for the soul what intellectual activity is for this human being. One comes to really understand the inner connection between the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily, not just to talk about it in abstract terms, as the “psychophysical parallelists” and similar phraseurs in the field of psychology do.

This is the way in which the present state of organic natural science can be pointed out as the path it must take. One cannot stop at demanding a particular way of thinking; one can only look for what is propelled in the empirical facts themselves, and one must really let another way of thinking take the place of the existing one, namely that of imaginative cognition.

But then one also comes to a truly fruitful application of this knowledge. If one seeks something in the external world that, when transferred to the external world, corresponds to what goes on in the human head as a process of mineralization parallel to intellectual cognition, then one finds outside in nature what takes place between the forces in the earth and what goes on in the root of the plant, and one finds the inner relationship between what is constituent in the root formation of the plant and what is constituent for what goes on in the human head.

In a similar way, we can then find relationships between, for example, what is going on in the herbaceous, leafy part of the plant and what is going on in the human rhythmic system, in the human organic. And we can find relationships between the functions in the flowering and fruiting part of the plant and what is going on in the human metabolic system, in the human sexual system, and so on. From this point of view, one can gain an overview of plant life.

If one knows how what I have called the mineralization process works in the human organism, so that this mineralization process takes place internally, in contrast to the external mineralization process, which also takes place in the upper part of the plant, then one notices the connection between what is going on internally in the main organization and what is going on in the root formation process, namely in what occurs as a mineralizing process in the root formation process. One also notices that in a certain way there is an opposition – despite the similarity, an opposition – as it expresses itself, for instance, when I have three and three, the one positive, the other negative. Then I have three times three, but there is still an opposition in it. Thus there is something that is the same in a certain respect and yet is opposed: in the internal mineralization process of the human head and in the external one of the plant root formation, and also in the external mineralization process of the earth planet itself. From here, the therapeutic connection between what is external and what is internal in the human being can be found in a rational way. And the transition can be found via pathology to rational therapy.

I can only hint at this last point here. Further information on this chapter will be given to those concerned, as it already happened in a spring course for doctors and medical students last year. But the important thing will be that it will be possible to give birth to real science out of spiritual science – which is not just theory, but a pointer to fruitful action, to deed.

Today, humanity is faced with the necessity, especially in the scientific field, of making not a small but a great decision: the decision to enter into organic life by not merely modifying the content of the old way of thinking to some extent, but by introducing a new element into this old way of thinking itself, the element of supersensible knowledge. What still stands in the way of this decision today for the majority of those who should make it, is not some defect in human cognitive ability, but a lack, an understandable lack, of courage for this strong, radical change. People would much rather suffer than move forward into the new. They would rather stick to the old and just reform it in some critical or other way.

But light will not come into what is available here for our present civilization in the field of knowledge until one has the courage to move forward from the way of thinking that is usual to a different way of thinking. As long as people content themselves with the excuse that 'one cannot achieve imaginative thinking after all', nothing useful will come of it. Only when people realize that they must not remain inert inwardly if science is to progress fruitfully in its approach will there be a change. One must become inwardly active and diligent. A decision of the will, not merely a theoretical consideration, is necessary here. And since, as every psychologist knows, mankind is more difficult to bring to decisions of the will than to theoretical considerations, in which one can remain quietly within, modern mankind has the opportunity to show how it rise from adversity to greatness by deciding to take a bold new approach, not to mention small considerations, in the fields of knowledge and the spirit.

It seems obvious to me today that what has been discussed here, from this point of view, during these days, the harmony of the subjective and the objective, is now emerging as an introduction to my lecture, also based, so to speak, on a feeling. Yesterday morning, the reflections concluded with the speech of Professor Römer, which gave me great satisfaction – that is the subjective aspect – for the reason that it showed how a specialist, who is thoroughly and fully immersed in his field, can feel the need for the spiritual science to shed light on such a specific subject. It will also have become clear to you from what Professor Römer has already been able to cite from his field of expertise today, that above all, for this interweaving, strong, vigorous work must be developed on the part of the relevant spiritual science itself. For what has been given so far - and this should be fully recognized - are initially individual guidelines that require verification with reference to external science.

In all that has been brought to me through this lecture to a certain subjective satisfaction, there was a consideration of the teeth. So yesterday we concluded with the teeth – now I come to the objective. And allow me to start with the teeth again today, though not with something that I want to tell you about the teeth on my own initiative, but with a saying that emerged from the scholarship of the 11th century, as it was in Central Europe at the time. This saying goes:

When thy tongue catcheth the wind

and draweth it into thy mouth,

and with thy teeth thou choosest

the word that thou shalt speak.

This means: just as the tongue catches the wind from its surroundings and draws it into the mouth, so it draws the word it speaks out of the teeth.

Now, that is a product of 11th-century Central European scholarship. It means that the tongue draws the word out of the teeth just as it draws air into the mouth from the outside world.

Now a sample of 19th-century scholarship, from the last third of the century, a word pronounced by the philologist Wilhelm Scherer, who was revered by a large number of students as a modern idol, and which you will find in his “Deutsche Sprachgeschichte” (History of the German Language), where he also uses this word that I have just read to you. The word he uses in contrast to this is this: “We laugh at such a word in the present”.

That is the scientific confession from the 19th century about this word from the 11th century; it expresses the scientific attitude that still prevails today in the broadest sense and that the representatives of the corresponding field are still likely to express today in further references.

If we first consider this contrast from the point of view that has been adopted here more often, that a complete change has taken place in relation to the state of mind of people since the first third of the 15th century, then we have in the time that lies between the first quoted saying and the saying of Wilhelm Scherer, we have contained approximately just what has elapsed in time since the dawning of that state of mind that existed until the beginning of the 15th century, and the direction that has emerged since then and has so far undergone a certain development.

Wilhelm Scherer now continues the sentences that he began by saying that he had to laugh at such a word from the 19th He says that all efforts in the present must be directed, with regard to linguistics, to bringing together what physiologists have to say about speaking and word formation based on the physiological organization of the human body with what philologists have to say about the development of language from ancient times to the present. In other words, physiology and philology should join hands in this field of science. And Wilhelm Scherer adds that unfortunately he has to admit that the philologists are very, very far behind and that it cannot be hoped that they will meet the physiologists halfway in terms of what they have to say about the physical organization for the formation of speech. So that physiology and philology are two branches of science whose lack of mutual understanding a man regarded as a man of his time acknowledges in no uncertain terms.

This points to a phenomenon that is a dominant one in our time: that the individual sciences with their methods do not understand each other at all, that they talk alongside each other without the person who is placed in the midst of this scientific activity and hears what the physiologists on the one hand and the philologists on the other have to say, and who hears what they say, is able to do something with it – forgive the perhaps somewhat daring comparison – other than to be skewered from two sides in relation to his soul by the formations of concepts.

In a sense, although I do not want to say much more with this than something analogous, a certain contrast is already expressed in the word designation, which, I would like to say, is unconsciously taken seriously by the newer currents of science. The word 'physiology' expresses the fact that it wants to be a logos about the physical in man, so to speak, that which grasps the physical in a logical, intellectual way; the word 'philology' expresses: love of wisdom, love of the Logos, love of the word; so the word designation is taken from an emotional experience. In one case the word designation is taken from a rational experience, in the other from an emotional experience. And what the physiologist wants to produce as a kind of intellectual Logos about the human body, that - namely the Logos - the philologist actually wants to love. As I said, I am only trying to make an analogy here, but if we pursue it further, if we follow it historically, it will take on a certain significance. I would advise us to follow it more closely historically.

But we can point out something else that comes to us from prehistory, from the forerunner of that which has emerged in human consciousness since the beginning of the 15th century. We know that what is called logic and which, in a certain respect, has its image in language, at least essentially, is a creation of Aristotle. And if one were to claim that, just as a person today who has not studied logic nevertheless lives logic in his soul activity, logic also lived in people's soul activity before Aristotle, one overlooks the fact that the transformation of the unconscious into the conscious nevertheless has a deeper significance in the course of human events. The elevation of the logical into consciousness is also a real process, albeit an inwardly real process, in the development of the soul of humanity: in older times there was an intimate relationship between the concept and the word. Just as there was such an intimate relationship between the concept or idea and the perception, as you will find explained in my “Riddles of Philosophy”, there was also an intimate connection, an interlocking, I would say, of words and ideas.

The distinction that we have to make today, psychologically, between the word and the content of the idea – particularly when considering mathematization, this emerges with all clarity – was not made in older times. And it was precisely this distinction that Aristotle first arrived at. He singled out, within the life of the soul, that which is conception or concept from the fabric of language and made it into something that exists separately for knowledge. But in doing so, he pushed that which lives in language further down into the unconscious than it was before. In a sense, a gulf was created for knowledge between the concept or the conception and the word.

The further back we go in the consideration of human language, the more we find that the word and the concept or idea are experienced as one and the same thing, that man, so to speak, hears inwardly what he thinks, that he has a word-picture, not so much a thought-picture. The thought is linked externally to the sense perceptions and internally to the word. But in this way, even in these early times, a certain intuitive perception was present, which can be characterized as follows: as people expressed themselves in words, they felt as if what resounded in their words had entered their speech directly from a hidden, subconscious, instinctive aspect of things. They felt, as it were, that a real process takes place between what lives in things, and especially in facts, and what inwardly forms the impulse for the sounding of the word. They felt such a real connection as a person today still feels a real connection between the substances that are outside, say egg, veal, lettuce, and what then happens inside with the content of these substances when they are digested. He will see a real process in this process, which unfolds from the outside of the substances to what happens inside in the digestion. He experiences this real process subconsciously. What one experienced in language was subconscious — even if much more clearly, already permeated by a certain dim awareness. One had the feeling that something living in the things is related to the sounds, to the words. Just as the substances of the materials one eats are connected with what happens internally in the metabolism of the human being, one felt an inner connection between what takes place in the things and facts, which is similar to words, and what sounds internally as a word. And in that Aristotle raised to consciousness what was felt to be a real process, where concepts come into play, the same was achieved for language as a person achieves when he reflects on what the substances of the materials in his organism do. Thinking about digestion is, of course, somewhat further removed from the actual process of digestion than thinking about language. But we can gain an idea of the relationship by clarifying this idea by moving from the more immediate to the more distant, and by becoming clearer in the distance.

Now, for us, if we replace today's abstract view of history with a more concrete one, the fact that things that happened in Greece in the pre-Christian era, also in the pre-Aristotelian era, happened later for the Central European population - who still perceived the Greeks as barbaric, that is, at a lower level of culture - is clear. And we will be right, and spiritual science gives us the guidance to raise this feeling to certainty, if we imagine that the mental state from which we speak is spoken emotionally, “the tongue draws the outer air into the mouth just as it draws the word out of the teeth,” that this way of looking at things , this remarkably pictorially expressed view was roughly the same as that which prevailed in pre-Aristotelian times within Greece, and in the place of which there arose what was bound to arise through the separation of logic, of the logos, through the separation of the conceptual from that which is expressed in language.

You are aware that in that erudition which developed first in the 15th century and from which the various branches of the individual specialized sciences have emerged, that in this erudition as education much has contributed what has asserted itself as late Greek culture. The philologists, in other words, those who are supposed to love the logos, were thoroughly influenced by what emerged from late Greek culture. And just imagine such a late Greek as a Germanic scholar, like Wilhelm Scherer, confronted with early Greek, and it tells him: the tongue pulls the language out of the teeth – then he naturally rejects it, then he wants nothing to do with it from his point of view. One must consider such facts in a light that tries to shine a little deeper into the historical context than what is often available in the ordinary popular science of history today, both in the field of external political or cultural history and in the field of language history.

Now the question is what paths must be sought in order to scientifically penetrate into the structure of the language organism itself, if I may express it in this way.

Even in external appearances, it is expressed how the soul, which has gradually been elevated into the realm of abstract concepts, has moved away from what was felt about language in the pre-Aristotelian period. What, for example, has been produced, as an opinion about the origin of language, by this research, which is in the sign of Aristotelism? Well, it was elevated into the abstract, and thus alienated from its direct connection with the external world, through which one could experience what really corresponds to the formed word in things. It was alienated from this, but still sought to understand what such a connection might look like, and it then also translated this connection into all kinds of abstractions. What she felt inwardly, she placed in the realm where concepts are formed externally, based on sensory or other external observations. Because it was impossible to delve into things to search for the process of how the word works from things into the human organization, an abstract concept was used in place of such an understanding, for example in the so-called Wauwau theory or in the Bimbam theory. The wauwau theory says nothing more than that what appears externally in the organic as sound is imitated. It is a completely external consideration of an external fact with the help of abstract concepts. The Bim-Bim theory differs from the Bow-Wow theory only in that it takes into account the inorganic way in which sound is released from itself. This sound is then imitated in an external way by the human being who is confronted with and influenced by external nature. And the transformation of that which children call — though not everywhere, but only in a very limited area of the earth — when they hear the dog bark: woof-woof, or that which comes into their sense of language when they hear the bell ring: ding-dong-dong, this transformation is then followed by a curious method. Thus, what has then formed into the organism of language can be seen in the indicated 'theories', which, it is true, have not been replaced by much better ones to this day.

We are therefore dealing with an inwardness of the observation of language. Above all, the aim of spiritual science, as it is meant here, is to make the study of language an inward one again, so that through what can be achieved in the ascent from sensory to supersensible knowledge, what was once thought about language through feeling and instinct can be found independently again, but now in a form appropriate to advanced humanity. And here I must point out (owing to the limited time I have only to indicate the directions in which the empirical facts can be followed) how spiritual science takes a strictly concrete path when it wants to understand how the human being develops from childhood to a certain age. You will find what I am trying to suggest here outlined, for example, in my booklet 'The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science'.

First of all, it must be pointed out how the entire soul-physical configuration of the human being in the period before the change of teeth is essentially different from what it becomes after the change of teeth. Anyone who has observed this fact knows how much is metamorphosed in the soul-physical life during the period when the second teeth replace the first. And anyone who does not seek the relationships between body, soul and spirit through abstractions such as the followers of psychophysical parallelism, but seeks them in concrete phenomena, seeks them according to a truly further developed scientific method, and is able to grasp the inner structure of the soul life in the concrete, will find just how what later, in a more soul-like way, in the peculiar configuration of conceptual life, in the implementation of that which is experienced conceptually, with will impulses, which then lead to the formation of the judgment, as something that has been working in the physical organization until the change of teeth. And he will not speculate about what can “work spiritually” in the physical organization from birth to the change of teeth. Rather, he will say to himself, what is then released during the change of teeth, released from a body in which it was previously latent, that has previously been active in a latent and bound state in the physical organization of the human being. And this particular type of physical organization, in which what can later be observed in the soul is active, comes to an end with the eruption of the second teeth, which you were also made aware of yesterday.

Now, the facts at hand must be considered not only from a physiological point of view, but also from the perspective of the human soul. Just as the physiologist, with his senses and the mind bound to them, penetrates into the physical processes of the human organism, so too does the soul, with its faculties of imagination and inspiration. If one really penetrates into these processes, then one must see in the real, which is first latent from birth to the change of teeth, and then becomes free, also in terms of imagination and knowledge. That is why my writing on “The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science”, in summarizing this process in a formulaic way, speaks of the fact that with the change of teeth, the etheric body of the human being, which previously worked in the physical body, is only born free to be active in the soul life. This “birth of the etheric body” is expressed in the change of teeth.

It is necessary to have such formulaic expressions at the starting point of anthroposophical spiritual scientific observation, such as “birth of the etheric body from the physical body”, which corresponds to an actual event. But when we seek to make the transition from spiritual science in the narrower sense — which is concerned with the observation of the human being's direct experience of the day — to the approach taken in the individual specialized sciences, then what is initially expressed in such a formulaic way becomes something similar to a mathematical formula: it becomes method, method for dealing with the facts. And that is why this spiritual science can have a fruitful effect on the individual sciences, without always merely continuing into the individual sciences that which, admittedly, must be clearly borne in mind at the starting point: that the human being is structured into a physical body, etheric body, and so on. At the beginning one can and must know such things; but if spiritual science is to bring about a fruitful influence, they must become active, they must become a method, a way of treating even the empirically given 'facts'. And in this respect spiritual science, because it rises from the inorganic, where it can do little, through the organic into the spiritual realm, I would like to say, not only in the way the individual sciences can fertilize can, but it will, as a result of its findings, have confirmations of facts to hand over to them, which will shed light on what is gained from the other side through sensory-physical observation and then seen through with the mind. Spiritual and sensory-physical research must meet. And it is one of the most important tasks for the future to ensure that this spiritual research and this sensory-physical research meet.

In the process that manifests itself externally during the change of teeth, it becomes clear that what is designated as the etheric body – but by taking a concrete view, not a word concept, into the eye of the soul – becomes freely active for the entire human organism, after previously having had an organizing effect in the physical body. Now it rises into the soul, becomes free and then consciously works back to the whole human being to a certain degree.

Something similar occurs again with what manifests externally as sexual maturity. There we see how, once again, something arises in human experience that expresses itself, on the one hand, in a certain metamorphosis of the physical organism and, on the other hand, in a metamorphosis of the spiritual. And an essential part of the spiritual researcher's work is to acquire a concrete way of looking at what occurs in the soul and spirit, just as someone who only wants to educate themselves through external observation acquires a concrete way of looking at what they can see with their eyes and combine with their mind. Soul cannot be looked at in this way, but can only be looked at in its reality through imagination. There is no true psychology that does not begin with imaginative observation, and there is no way to find the interrelationship of body and soul or physical body and spiritual soul other than to build a bridge between what is given to external physical sensory perception as the physical body, and what falls away from this perception, what can only be given as reality in the ascent to supersensible knowledge, the spiritual-soul.

If we now turn to what occurs during puberty, we must say: here we see, in a certain sense, the reverse process of what took place when the teeth changed. We see how what plays as the capacity for desire in man, what is the instinctive character of his will, takes hold of the organism in a way it did not take hold of it before. Summarizing the whole broad complex of facts that this involves in a formulaic way, it comes about that one says: the one in which the nature of desire slumbers, the astral body of the human being, becomes free when sexual maturity occurs. It is this body that now, if I may express it in this way, sinks freely into the physical organism, takes hold of it, permeates it, and thus materializes desire, which finds expression in sexual maturation.

Now, what does an appropriate comparison of these two processes show? We see, so to speak, when the change of teeth occurs, a liberation of the etheric body of the human being. How does what is happening actually express itself? It expresses itself in such a way that the human being becomes capable of further developing the formation of concepts, in general the movement in the life of ideas, which used to be more bound to his whole organism, bound to the organization of the head. To a certain extent we see, and spiritual science sees it not only to a certain extent but in its reality, that the etheric, which we ascribe to the human being as an etheric body, withdraws with the change of teeth to that which only lives in the rhythm of the human organism and in the metabolic limb-organism, and that it develops a free activity in the formation of the head, in the plastic formation of the head, in which the consciousness life of the human being participates in the imagination. In a sense, the organization of the head is uncovered during this time. And if I may express myself figuratively about a reality that certainly exists, I must say that what drives itself to the surface from the entire human organization in the second teeth is the soul-spiritual activity that previously permeates the entire bodily organization and then becomes free. Before, it permeated the whole human being right into the head. It gradually withdraws from the head; and it shows how it withdraws by revealing its no-longer-to-the-head activity in that it stops and produces the second teeth. You can visualize this almost schematically. If I indicate schematically what the human physical organization is with the white chalk, and what the etheric organization is with the red chalk, then the following would result schematically (see figure):

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

In the figure on the left, you see the human being in his spiritual, soul and physical activity as he stands before you until his teeth change. In the second figure, which is to your right, you see how the etheric element has withdrawn from the immediate effect of the head organization, how it has become free in a certain respect, so that from there it can freely affect the human head organism. And the last thing that happens in the physical organism as a result of this activity of the soul-spiritual is the eruption of the second teeth. I would say that you can observe in its image what is being communicated to you here as a spiritual view if you take the skulls that Professor Römer showed you yesterday, because you can compare the insertion of the first teeth with the insertion of the second teeth. If you want to follow this logically, then you have to take as a basis what has been gained here from spiritual science. Then you have to say to yourself, the first teeth, with all that is expressed in them, are taken out of the whole human organization, including the head organization. What is expressed in the second teeth is taken out after the inner soul organization, insofar as it concerns the etheric body, has slowly withdrawn into the rhythmic and metabolic organism and become free for the main head organization. In a similar way, we can say — as I said, I can only give guidelines — that something is happening with sexual maturity. What we call the astral body is sunk into the physical body, so that it finally takes hold of it and brings about what constitutes sexual maturity.

But now what happens in the human being takes place in the most manifold metamorphoses. Once one has truly understood a process such as that which is expressed through sexual maturity, which brings about a certain new relationship in human development, in the development of the human being to the outer world, once one truly understands such a process inwardly, one then also recognizes it when it occurs in a certain metamorphosis. What occurs at puberty, in that it takes hold of the whole person, in that it, so to speak, forms a relationship between the whole person and their environment, is, I would say, anticipated in a different metamorphosis at the moment when language develops in the child. Only what takes place with sexual maturation in the child takes place in a different metamorphosis in the formation of speech. What takes hold of the whole human being at sexual maturation and pours into his relationship with the outside world takes place between the rhythmic and limb human being and the human being's head organization. To a certain extent, the same forces that take hold of the whole person during puberty and direct their relationship to the outside world assert themselves between the lower and upper human beings. And as the lower human being learns to feel the upper human being in the way that the human being later learns to feel the outside world, he learns to speak. A process that can be observed externally in a person at a later age must be followed in its metamorphosis until it appears as an internal process in the human organism, in the learning to speak: the process that otherwise occurs in the whole person at puberty.

And once we have grasped this, we are able to comprehend how the interaction of the lower human being — the rhythmic and the limb-based human being — in its reciprocity develops an inner experience of something that is also present externally in the nature around us. This inward experiencing of what is outwardly present leads to the fact that what remains outwardly mute in things as their own language begins to resound as the human language in the human inner being. Please proceed from this sentence as from a regulative principle. Proceed from this sentence that what is in things, as they become external, material, falls silent, that in dematerialization it becomes audible in the human being and comes to speak. Then you will find the way in which you do not develop a yap-yap or a bim-bim theory, but on which you see that which is external to things – and cannot be perceived by external observation because it is silent and only exists in a supersensible way – as language in the human interior.

What I am saying here is like drawing a line to indicate the direction in which one would most like to paint a wide-ranging picture. I can only present this rather abstract proposition regarding the relationship between the things and facts of the external world and the origin of human language in the inner life. And you will see everything you can sense about language in a new light when you follow the path from this abstractly assumed sentence, which initially sounds formulaic, to what the facts connect for you in terms of meaning. And if you then want to apply what has been philologically obtained in this way to physiology, you will be able to learn about the connection between external sexual metamorphosis and linguistic metamorphosis by studying facts that are still present as a linguistic remnant of the sexual maturation metamorphosis in the change of the voice, that is, of the larynx in boys, and in some other phenomena that occur in women. If you have the will to engage with the facts and to draw the threads from one series of facts to another, not to encapsulate yourself in barren specialized sciences, but to really illuminate what is present in one science as fact , through the facts that come to light through other sciences, then the individual special sciences will be able to become what man must seek in them if he is to make progress on the path of his knowledge as well as on the path of his will.

In a context that might seem unrelated, we will see tomorrow in a very natural way how we can go from the change of teeth to the appearance of speech and then further back to what is the third on this retrogressive path: we see, so to speak, in what is expressed in the change of teeth, an interaction between the physical body and the etheric body. We see, in turn, in what is expressed in language, an interaction between the astral body and the etheric body. And thirdly, we must seek an interrelationship between the I and that which lives in man as an astral body, and we will be led to that which is the third in this retrospective consideration: to the embodiment of the spiritual-soul, to that which is born in the spiritual-soul. If one seeks the path from the change of teeth through the emergence of speech, the third stage is the stage of uniting the pre-existing human soul with the physical.

By walling up the way out of his consideration of the change of teeth to the consideration of language through his abstraction, Aristotle was forced to resort to the dogma that a new spiritual soul is born with each new human being. Due to a lack of will to continue on a path of knowledge, knowledge of human preexistence has been lost, and with it knowledge of all that truly leads to the knowledge of the human soul.

We see a historical connection, which, however, comes to expression in the treatment of certain problems, and we can say in conclusion: Today, according to the dictum of a philologist who is quite significant in the contemporary sense, philology and physiology are so opposed that they cannot understand each other. Why is this so? Because physiology studies the human body and does not come back to the mind in this study. If one pursues true physiology, then one finds the spiritual and psychological in man through the bodily in physiological observation. What happens when one pursues true philology? If one pursues true philology, then one does not reduce the logos to an abstraction, for which one then seeks to see through after-images, after-images in a scientific method, but one seeks to penetrate into that which one supposedly loves as a “philo”-logist, through imaginative and other forms of observation. But then, when one penetrates into that which has become shadowy and nebulous for today's philology, namely the genius of language, the creative genius of language, when one penetrates into it, then one penetrates through the spirit to the external corporeality.

Physiology finds the spirit by way of the inner body. Philology, when viewed correctly, finds what speaks and has fallen silent in things on the way out through the genius of language. It does not find bark and bim-bam, but rather finds the reason why words and language arise in us in the things that physically surround us. Physiology has lost its way because it stops at the body and does not penetrate inwardly through the body to the spirit. Philology has lost its way because it stops at the genius of language, which it then only grasps in the abstract, and does not penetrate into the inner being of the outer things from which what lives in the word resounds. If philology does not speak as if the wauwau and bimbam are imitated in an externally abstract way by man, but speaks about the external physicality in such a way that it becomes clear to it in imaginations, how the word arises from this external physicality, which echoes internally, so that when physiology has found spirit and philology has found physicality, they will find each other.

In this way I have traced the path that spiritual science in the anthroposophical sense wants to lead in conscientious work. I have only given a few hints in this particular field of introductory linguistics.

Now, these things are discussed among us, these things are striven for by us. While we strive for these things, so that they may bear witness to what is being striven for on a path of knowledge that arises entirely out of the spirit of our time. And while you can see from what is being striven for that there is probably a certain seriousness that can be measured against the seriousness that exists in other areas of life, Stuttgart, a meeting raged that trampled on most of our speakers, that had no intention of listening to anything, that did not want to engage with what we had to say, but that, through trampling and similar things, sought to crush what is being seriously pursued. And, addressing my fellow students, I may say: yesterday evening in Stuttgart, your colleagues were absent – not from the other faculty, but from the other attitude – they were not absent, they were present in the trampling.

Dear attendees, my dear fellow students! It will become ever clearer and clearer that there are those who, because they cannot be refuted – because they do not want to be refuted – because they do not want to engage with the new at all by inertly continuing with the old that has outlived itself, they will want to trample down on that with external force. Well, I would just like to appeal to you here in the sense that I do have faith in you, that you may say to yourself: We still have a say in this trampling down procedure! – But may this word become action.

Third evening of disputations

The questions did not relate to the theme of the day, “Linguistics”, but drew on problems dealt with earlier.

Dr. Steiner. Here is the question: It has been said that the three dimensions of space are not equal in structure – what is the difference?

In any case, the sentence was never formulated in this way: the three dimensions of space are “not equal in structure”, but what is probably meant here is the following. First of all, we have mathematical space, the space that we imagine – if we have an exact idea of it at all – as three mutually perpendicular dimensional directions, which we can thus define by the three mutually perpendicular coordinate axes.

In the usual mathematical treatment of space, the three dimensions are treated absolutely equally. We make so little distinction between the dimensions up-down, right-left, front-back that we can even think of these three dimensions as interchangeable. In the case of mere mathematical space, it does not matter whether, when we have the X-axis and the Z-axis perpendicular to each other, and the Y-axis perpendicular to them, we call the plane on which the Y-axis stands “horizontal” or “vertical” or the like. Likewise, we do not concern ourselves with the limitations of this space, so to speak. Not that we imagine it to be limitless. One does not usually ascend to this notion, but one imagines it in such a way that one does not concern oneself with its limits, but rather tacitly assumes that one can start from any point – let us say, for example, the X-direction and adding another piece to what you have already measured in the X-direction, to that again a piece and so on, and you would never be led to come to an end anywhere. In the course of the 19th century, much has been said against this Euclidean-geometric conception of space from the standpoint of meta-geometry. I will only remind you of how, for example, Riemann distinguished between the “unboundedness” of space and the “infiniteness” of space. And initially, there is no necessity for the purely conceptual imagination to assume the concept of “unboundedness” and that of “infiniteness” as identical. Take, for example, a spherical surface. If you draw on a spherical surface, you will find that nowhere do you come up against a spatial boundary that could, as it were, prevent you from continuing your drawing. You will certainly enter into your last drawing if you continue drawing; but you will never be forced to stop drawing because of a boundary if you remain on the spherical surface. So you can say to yourself: the spherical surface is unlimited in terms of my ability to draw on it. But no one will claim that the spherical surface is infinite. So you can distinguish, purely conceptually, between unlimitedness and infinity.

Under certain mathematical conditions, this can also be extended to space, can be extended to space in such a way that one imagines: if I add a distance in the X or Y axis, and then another and so on, and am never prevented from adding further distances, then this property of space could indeed speak for its unlimitedness, but not for the infinity of space. Despite the fact that I can always add new pieces, space does not need to be infinite at all; it could be unlimited. So these two concepts must be kept separate. So one could assume that if space were unbounded but not infinite, it would have an inward curvature in the same way as space does now, that is, in some way it would likewise recede into itself, like the surface of a sphere recedes into itself.

Certain ideas of newer metageometry are based on such assumptions. Actually, no one can say that there is much to be said against such assumptions; because, as I said, there is no way to derive the infinity of space from what we experience in space. It could very well be curved in on itself and then be finite.

Of course, I cannot go into this line of thought in detail, because it is almost the only one followed by the whole of modern metageometry. However, you will find sufficient evidence in the works of Riemann, Gauss and so on, which are readily available, to explore if you value such mathematical ideas.

From the purely mathematical point of view, therefore, this is what has been introduced into the, I would say rigid, neutral space of Euclidean geometry, which was only derived from 'unboundedness'. But what is indicated in the question is rooted in something else. Namely, that space, with which we initially calculate and which is available to us in analytical geometry, for example, when we deal with the three coordinate axes that are perpendicular to one another, that space is initially an abstraction. And an abstraction – from what? That is the question that must first be raised.

The question is whether we have to stop at this abstraction of “space” or whether that is not the case. Do we have to stop at this abstraction of space? Is this the only space that can be spoken of? Or rather, if this abstract concept of space is the only one that can legitimately be spoken of, then there is really only one objection that can be raised, and this is sufficiently addressed in Riemannian or any other metageometry. The fact of the matter is that, for example, Kant's definitions of space are based on the very abstract concept of space, in which one does not initially concern oneself with infinity or boundlessness, and that in the course of the 19th century, this concept of space was also shaken internally, in terms of its conceptual content, by mathematics. There can be no question of Kant's definitions still applying to a space that is not infinite but unlimited. In fact, much of the further development of the “Critique of Pure Reason” would be called into question, for example the doctrine of paralogisms, if one were obliged to move on to the concept of unlimited space curved in on itself.

I know that for the ordinary conception this concept of curved space causes difficulties. But from the purely mathematical-geometric point of view, nothing can be objected to what is assumed there, except that one is moving in a realm of pure abstraction that is initially quite far from reality. And if you look more closely, you will find that there is a strange circularity in the derivations of modern meta-geometry. It is this, that one starts out from the idea of Euclidean geometry, which is not concerned with the limitations of space. From this, one then gets certain derived ideas, let us say ideas that relate to something like a spherical surface. And then, in turn, by undertaking certain reconciliations or reinterpretations with the forms that arise, one can make interpretations of space from there. Actually, everything is said under the assumption of Euclidean coordinate geometry. Under this assumption, one arrives at a certain measure of curvature. One arrives at the derivations. All of this is done with the concepts of Euclidean geometry. But then one turns around, so to speak: one now uses these ideas, which can only arise with the help of Euclidean geometry, for example the measure of curvature, in order to arrive at a different idea that leads to a reorganization and can provide an interpretation for what has been gained from the curved forms. Basically, we are moving in an unrealistic area by extracting abstractions from abstractions. The matter would only be justified if empirical facts made it necessary to conform to the ideas of these facts according to what is obtained through such a thing.

The question, then, is: what is the experiential basis for the abstraction “space”? After all, space as such, as presented in Euclid, is an abstraction. What is the basis for what can be experienced, what can be perceived?

We must start from the human experience of space. Placed in the world, human beings, through their own activity of experience, actually perceive only one spatial dimension, and that is the dimension of depth. This perception, this acquired perception of the dimension of depth by the human being is based on a process of consciousness that is very often ignored. But this acquired perception is something quite different from the perception of the plane-like, the perception of extension in two dimensions. When we see with our two eyes, that is, with our total vision, we are never aware that these two dimensions come about through an activity of their own, through an activity of the soul. They are, so to speak, there as two dimensions. Whereas the third dimension comes about through a certain activity, even if this activity is not usually brought to consciousness. We actually have to first acquire the knowledge and understanding of how deep in space something lies, how far away from us any object is. We do not acquire the extent of the surface, it is given by observation. But we do acquire the sense of depth through our two eyes. The way in which we experience the sense of depth is indeed on the borderline between the conscious and the unconscious; but anyone who has learned to focus his attention on such things knows that the semi-unconscious or unconscious, never conscious, activity of judging the depth dimension is much more similar to an intellectual, or even a soul activity, an active soul activity than to everything that is only viewed on the plane.

Thus, the one dimension of three-dimensional space is already actively conquered for our objective consciousness. And we cannot say otherwise than: By observing the position of the upright human being, something is given in relation to this depth dimension — front-back — which is not interchangeable with any other dimension. Simply because a person stands in the world and experiences this dimension in a certain way, what he experiences there is not interchangeable with any other direction. For the individual, this depth dimension is something that cannot be exchanged for any other dimension. It is also the case that the grasping of two-dimensionality – that is, up-down, right-left, of course also when it is in front of us – is also tied to other parts of the brain, since it lies within the process of seeing, that is, within the sensory process of perception; while, with regard to localization in the brain, the emergence of the third dimension is quite close to those centers that are to be considered for intellectual activity. So here we can already see that in the realization of this third dimension, even in terms of experience, there is an essential difference compared to the other two dimensions.

But if we then move up to imagination, we get out of what we experience in the third dimension altogether: in imagination, we actually move on to two-dimensional representation. And now we have yet to work out the other imagination, the imagination of right and left, although this has been hinted at just as quietly as the development of the third dimension in objective imagining; so that there is again a specific experience in right and left. And finally, when we ascend to inspiration, the same applies to up and down.

For ordinary imagining, which is tied to our nervous sense system, we develop the third dimension. But when we turn directly to the rhythmic system by excluding the ordinary activity of the nervous sense system – which in a certain respect occurs when we ascend to the level of inspiration; it is not entirely precise to say this, but it does not matter for now – then we have the experience of the second dimension. And we have the experience of the first dimension when we ascend to inspiration, that is, when we advance to the third member of the human organization.

Thus that which we have before us in abstract space proves to be exact because everything we conquer in mathematics we extract from within ourselves. What arises in mathematics as three-dimensional space is actually something that we have within ourselves. But if we descend into ourselves through supersensible representations, it is not abstract space with its three equally valid dimensions that arises, but three different valences for the three different dimensions: front-back, right-left, up-down; they cannot be interchanged. From this follows yet another: if these three are not interchangeable, there is no need to imagine them with the same intensity. That is the essence of Euclidean space: that we imagine the X-, Y-, Z-axis with the same intensity – this is assumed for any geometric calculation.

If we hold the X-, Y-, Z-axis in front of us, then we must – if we want to stick with what our equations tell us in analytical geometry, but assume an inner intensity of the three axes – imagine this intensity as being of equal value. If we were to elastically enlarge the X-axis with a certain intensity, for example, the Y- and Z-axes would have to enlarge with the same intensity. That is to say, if I now grasp intensively that which I am expanding, the force of expansion, if I may say so, is the same for the X-, Y-, Z-axis, that is, for the three dimensions of Euclidean space. Therefore, applying the concept of space in this way, I would like to call this space rigid space.

Now, this is no longer the case when we take real space, of which this rigid space is an abstraction, when we take space as it is experienced by a human being. Then we can no longer speak of these three intensities of expansion being the same. Rather, the intensity is essentially dependent on what is found in the human being: the human proportions are entirely the result of the intensities of spatial expansion. And we must, for example, if we call the up-down the Y-axis, imagine this with a greater intensity of expansion than, for example, the X-axis, which would correspond to the right-left. If we were to look for a formulaic expression for this real space, if we were to express in formulaic terms what is meant by 'real' here, then again we would end up with a three-axis ellipsoid.

Now we also have the reason to imagine this three-axis space, in which supersensible thinking must live, in its three quite different possibilities of expansion, so that we can also recognize this space, through the real experience of the X-, Y- and Z-axis given to us with our physical body, as that which simultaneously expresses the relationship of the world bodies situated in this space.

When we imagine this, we must bear in mind that everything we think of out there in this three-dimensional cosmic space cannot be thought of as simply extending in different directions with the same intensity of expansion along the X-, Y- and Z-axes Z-axis, as is the case with Euclidean space, but we must think of space as having a configuration that could also be imagined by a triaxial ellipsoid. And the arrangement of certain stars certainly supports this. Our Milky Way system is usually called a lens and so on. It is not possible to imagine it as a spherical surface; we have to imagine it in a different way if we stick to a purely physical fact.

You can see from the treatment of space how little newer thinking is in line with nature. In ancient times, in older cultures, no one had such a conception as that of rigid space. One cannot even say that in Euclidean geometry there was already a clear conception of this rigid space with the three equal intensities of expansion, and also the three lines perpendicular to one another. It was only when people began to treat space in the manner of Euclidean geometry, in their calculations, that this abstract conception of space actually arose. In earlier times, quite similar insights had been gained, as I have now developed them again from the nature of supersensible knowledge. From this you can see that things on which people today rely so heavily, which are taken for granted, only have such significance because they operate in a sphere that is divorced from reality. The space that people use in their calculations today is an abstraction; it operates entirely in a sphere that is divorced from reality. It is abstracted from experiences that we can know through real experience. But today, people are often content with what abstractions are. In our time, when so much emphasis is placed on empiricism, abstractions are most often invoked. And people don't even notice it. They believe that they are dealing with things in reality. But you can see how much our ideas need to be rectified in this regard.

In every concept, the spiritual researcher does not merely ask whether it is logical. Although, in a certain sense, it is only a branch of Euclidean space, it is not really possible to grasp it conceptually, because one arrives at it through a completely abstract train of thought, in which one comes to a conclusion and, as it were, turns one's whole thinking upside down. When imagining, the spiritual researcher does not merely ask whether it is logical, but whether it is also in line with reality. That is the deciding factor for him in accepting or not accepting an idea. He only accepts an idea if this idea is in line with reality.

And this criterion of correspondence to reality will be given when one begins to deal with such ideas in an appropriate way, which is the justification for something like the theory of relativity, for example. It is logical in itself, I would like to say, because it only comprehends itself within the realm of logical abstraction, as logically as anything can be logical. Nothing can be more logical than the theory of relativity! But the other question is whether its ideas are realizable. And there you need only look at the ideas that are listed there as analogous, and you will find that they are actually quite unrealistic ideas that are just thrown around. It is only there for sensualization, they say beforehand. But it is not just there for symbolization. Otherwise the whole procedure would be in the air.

That is what I would like to say about the question. You see, it is not possible to answer questions that touch on such areas very easily. Now there is a question regarding the sentence: “The organism of an ancient Egyptian or Greek was quite different from that of modern man.

Dear attendees, I certainly did not say that! And at this point I must definitely draw attention to something that I often draw attention to, and really not out of immodesty: I am in the habit of expressing myself as precisely as I possibly can. And it is actually an extremely painful fact, not just for me personally, since it is tolerable, but from the point of view of the anthroposophical spiritual movement, that in the face of many things, for the formulation of which I have used all possible precautions to formulate the facts as adequately as possible, then everything possible is done, everything possible is said, and then these assertions are sent out into the world as “genuine anthroposophical teachings”. One of these assertions is that I am supposed to have said, “The organism of an ancient Egyptian or Greek was quite different from that of a modern man”.

It can be reduced to the following. I said: the modern way of thinking imagines too strongly that man, as a whole being, has basically always been as he is today, right down to a certain historical time. I usually only speak of “completely different,” of metamorphoses of man as such, where there are great differences, where man becomes “completely different” in a certain respect: in prehistoric times. But anyone who is able to penetrate to the subtleties of the structure and the innermost fabric – as a human being can in spiritual science – will find that a metamorphosis of the human being is constantly taking place, that, for example, the modern human being differs from the Egyptian or the Greek. Of course not in terms of external, striking characteristics, which are as striking as external physiognomy and the like. That is probably what is meant in the question, but that is not my opinion, because in terms of striking characteristics, modern man is of course not “completely different” from the Egyptian. But in terms of finer internal structural relationships, spiritual science comes to the following conclusion, for example. It has to be said that since the first third of the 15th century, humanity has become particularly adept at abstract thought, at moving more and more towards abstract trains of thought. This is also essentially based on a different structure of the brain. And through the method of spiritual science, the spiritual researcher can recognize the matter. Then it turns out that it is really the case that the brain has indeed changed in its finest structures since Egyptian times. The brain of the Egyptian was such that, to take one example, he also belonged to those of whom Dr. Husemann spoke, that the ancient Egyptian also had no sense for the blue color nuance and so on. In any case, we can see that the sense of abstraction occurs to the same extent as the nuances of blue emerge from mere darkness. What occurs in the life of the soul corresponds entirely to a physical metamorphosis. It is extremely important that we do not stop at the coarser aspects of human nature, as they are presented when we go back, for my sake, to the long periods of time that lie before history. Rather, if we want to consider human beings as humanity, we must also consider the finer structural changes during their historical existence.

Question: It would be interesting to hear, in a more intimate way, how this fact behaves.

Well, quite a lot has actually been said in these days, let us say, also through the things that Dr. Husemann has presented, about how this fact behaves. And if we were to go into other fields of fact, there would certainly be much that could be said about these other, very fine, intimate structural relationships of the human being.

Question: How do you explain the phenomenon of the well-known horse that solved all arithmetic and mathematical problems without difficulty, to the amazement of all scholars, and only then failed completely when the problems were written on pieces of paper in front of the examiner? If it is the case with the horse that none of those present in the room could see the problem, is this based on a strong suggestiveness on the part of the animal? And how does that come about?

I never want to talk about anything other than what I have investigated myself. And so, in answering this question, I would only like to share what I have experienced myself. For example, I don't know the famous Elberfeld horses. I also don't know the dog Rolf, I never had the honor of meeting him. Now, with regard to such things, I could always state that the story is all the more wonderful the less one is embarrassed by not really being able to see through it, to really get to know it. But I once saw Mr. von Osten's horse in Berlin. I can't say that the calculations that Mr. von Osten presented to the horse were extraordinarily complicated. But I was able to get an instant idea of what it was all about from what was going on there – although you had to look very closely.

I could only marvel at the strange theories that had been advanced about these things. There was a lecturer, I think his name was Fox or something like that, who was supposed to examine this whole story with the horse; and he now put forward the theory that every time the gentleman from the east gave some task, terribly small movements would occur in the eye or something like that. Another small movement would occur when Mr. von Osten says “three” like that, or when he says it like that; another movement would occur when he says “two”. So that a certain fine series of movements would come about if Mr. von Osten said, “three times two”; then the same sign of this movement would come again, six! And Mr. von Osten's horse should now be particularly predisposed to guess these fine movements, which the lecturer in question said he did not perceive in any way, but only assumed hypothetically. After all, the whole “theory” was based on the fact that Mr. von Osten's horse was much more perceptive, to a much greater extent in reality, than the lecturer who put forward this theory.

If you stick to the flashy blue thinking in hypothesizing, you can set up hypotheses in the most diverse ways. For those who have some insight into such matters, certain circumstances were of extraordinary value. During the entire time that Mr. von Osten presented his experiments to the amazed public with his horse, he gave the horse nothing but sweets – he had huge pockets in the back of his coat. And the horse just kept licking, and that's how it solved these tasks.

Now imagine that this has created a completely different relationship between the horse and Mr. von Osten himself. When Mr. von Osten continually gives the horse sugar, a very special relationship of love and intimacy develops between them. Now the animal nature is so extraordinarily variable due to the intimacy of the relationship that develops, both from 'animal to human and from human to animal'. And then effects come about that are actually wrongly described when they are called “mind reading” in the sense in which the word is often understood, but they are mediators for that which is not “subtle twitchings” that a private lecturer hypothetically posits, but which he himself says he does not see! No subtle twitches are needed to convey the solutions. It can be traced back to the following: imagine what went through the mind of Herr von Osten, who of course was vain enough to realize that the tension in the audience, made up of sensation-hungry people, was going through the most incredible twists and turns as he noticed it, and when he was then standing in front of the solution to the task, he gave the horse a piece of sugar. And add to that the effect on the horse of the mental relationship. It was truly not a command given by words or twitching, but an intimately given command that always went from Mr. von Osten to the horse when he gave him sweets to eat. Suggestion is probably not the right word. Relationships that take place between people cannot be transferred to every living being.

I have tried to show these things in concrete terms by highlighting a circumstance that many will consider trivial: the constant giving of sugar as something extraordinarily essential.

Question: Is there a possibility for pointing out a point of view that is just as stimulating for systematics in the field of mineralogy and crystallography as the idea of the primal plant is for botany or a new understanding of the periodic system of elements is for chemistry?

When we speak of crystal forms, we are dealing with forms that are actually different in their overall relationship to the cosmos, in their entire position in the world, than the forms that one can imagine in the Primordial Plant and, again, in the plant forms derived from the Primordial Plant, that is to say, in the possibility of real existence. For example, the principle applied to the design of the primeval plant could not be applied to the field of mineralogy or crystallogy. For there one is dealing with something that must be approached from a completely different angle. And one must first approach it by actually approaching the field of polyhedral crystal forms. And this approach, I can only hint at now. I have explained it in more detail in its individual representations in a lecture course that I gave for a smaller group. This approach is taken when one starts from the consideration, an internal dynamic consideration of the state of aggregation, let us say first of all from the gaseous state downwards to the solid. I can only draw the lines now; it would take too long if I were to explain it in detail, but I will hint at it. If one descends – if I may express it this way – from the gaseous state to the liquid state, then one must say: the liquid state of aggregation shows itself in that, as the one in the whole coherence of nature, a level-limiting surface, which is a spherical surface, and the degree of curvature of which can be obtained from any point on the surface by means of the transition to the tangent at that point. What you get there includes the shape that has its outer circumference in the spherical surface, and a point in the interior that is the same distance from this spherical surface everywhere.

If we now imagine the drop in an unlimited way, I do not say in an infinite way, but enlarged in an unlimited way, we get a level surface approaching the horizontal, and we have certain relationships in mind that are perpendicular to this level surface.

But we arrive at the same idea by observing the connections that arise when we simply regard our earth as a force field that can attract surrounding objects that are not firmly attached to it. If we regard the earth not as a center of gravity but as a spherical surface of gravity, then we arrive at the same result for this, I would say, gravitational figure as we need in another respect for the material constitution of the drop. So for a pure force context, we get something that corresponds to a material context. And in this way we arrive at a possibility for studying the formal relationships in the inorganic.

13

So that we can say that in this context of forces, which is present in the whole body of the earth, we are always dealing with the horizontal plane. If we now move from this state of forces to one in which, let us say, there is not a point in the center to which the level surface refers as in the 'drop to the one center point', but rather several points, we would find a strangely composed surface. These relationships of the line to these 'centers' I would have to draw in the diagram in something like the following way: But if we now proceed—and now I am taking a great leap, which is well-founded, but in the short time available I can only hint at the true content—if we now proceed to assume these points not inside, within the system we are dealing with, but outside, then perhaps we would get a diagram that can be made diagrammatically in the following way: If we transfer the points into immeasurable distances, not into infinite distances, but into very great distances, then these curved surfaces, which are indicated here by curved lines, by curves, pass over into planes, and we would get a polyhedral form, which approximates to what we have before us in the known crystal forms.

14

And indeed, spiritual scientific observation leads us to look at the crystal in such a way that we do not merely derive it from certain inner figurative forces in some material substance, but we relate it to the exterior of the cosmos, and we seek in the cosmos the directions that then, through the distribution of their starting points, result in what the individual crystal form is. In the individual crystal form, we actually get, so to speak, impressions of large cosmic relationships. All of this needs to be studied in detail. I fear that what I have been able to hint at, albeit only in a few very sparse lines, may already seem to you to be something very daring. But it must be said that today people have encapsulated themselves in their world of ideas in a very narrow area, and that is why they feel so uncomfortable when one does not stick to the conceptual world that is usually taken as a basis today, I would say is taken as a basis in all sciences. Spiritual science demands an - as experience makes necessary - immeasurable expansion of concepts compared to the present situation. And that is precisely what makes some people uneasy. They cannot see the shore, so to speak, and believe they are losing their way. But they would realize that what is lost through the expanse is gained again as a certain inner firmness and security, so that there is no need to be so afraid of what appears to be an expansion into the boundless.

Of course, it is much easier to make up some model or other — as was also mentioned today in a certain question — than to advance to such ideas. It is easier to say: the truth must be simple! — The reason why one says that the truth must be simple is not, in fact, that the truth really must be simple, because the human organism, for example, is incredibly complicated. Rather, the reason why it is said that the true must be simple is that the simple is convenient in thinking. That is the whole point. And it is necessary, above all, to advance to the fuller content if one really wants to understand reality bit by bit.

The question that was raised here still required that one should present three hours of theory. One cannot speak about the sun through “a brief answer to the question,” because one would be completely misunderstood. And I do not want that. — So, first of all, the answerable questions are answered provisionally.

Question: Does spiritual science find a transformation of the material earth with the entry of the Christ-Spirit into the earth? Is the effect of the power of Christ perhaps particularly expressed in one of the elements found in modern times?

What is the question? — Not true, one must only consider from which point of view such a question can be asked. The question is posed: Is the effect of the power of Christ expressed in the material earth? — You must only bear in mind that spiritual science, based on its research, has a very definite idea about the earth that does not coincide with what one imagines about the earth when one speaks of the “material earth” in the sense of the word “material” in today's language. So the question is actually without real content. If one speaks of something like an “influence of the power of Christ on the earth”, then, since this idea is in turn borrowed from spiritual science, one must also have the idea of the earth that applies to anthroposophy, to spiritual science. And how the power of Christ stands in a certain relationship to the whole metamorphosis of the earth can only be presented in the overall context that I have given in Occult Science. And there one also finds what is necessary to answer the question, if it is formulated correctly.

In response to requests from many course participants, a gentleman from Stuttgart will give a brief report on the lecture given the previous evening by the Pan-German General v. Gleich at a mass meeting in Stuttgart on “Rudolf Steiner as the prophet of a questionable teaching” (see Rudolf Steiner's reference to this at the end of the morning lecture, $. 139/140).

I would just like to add that the aforementioned General v. Gleich, quite a long time before, for weeks before, he proceeded to his lecture and to the writing of his pamphlet, wrote a letter to our friend Mr. Molt, as a concerned father, concerned about the misfortune that he, as the owner of a forty-year-old nobility, not only “handed over” his son to anthroposophy, but also to a completely un-noble lady who is an anthroposophist! As a concerned father, he wrote to our friend Molt, asking him to visit him. Mr. Molt did so, but said that he did not know what to do with him. This was clear to him from the fact that Mr. v. Gleich demanded that we “of the threefold social order movement” should henceforth pay the son of General v. Gleich, who was employed by us, so little that the young man would not be able to marry, and that we should at least protect General v. Gleich from this marriage of his son by paying him so little. After these events, it was understandable that one could not expect the best from General von Gleich's lecture. We then actually saw even the worst expectations exceeded! It was the case with this lecture that Gleich essentially presented the content of a brochure – somewhat more fully developed, we might say – that appeared in Ludwigsburg at the same time. It had already been arranged that this brochure should appear at the same time as the lecture. In this brochure, he makes various accusations against anthroposophy in the most uninformed way, without providing any evidence for what he says – anyone who reads this brochure can see that for themselves – by actually only using the opponents of anthroposophy. This is clear from the brochure's table of contents: a few references to literature where one can find out about anthroposophy. One would think that these would be the anthroposophical books, but no, there are about twenty opponents, with the most shameless one right at the front: Max Seiling! Von Gleich essentially brings nothing new to the table that cannot be found in Seiling's brochure, only in the way General von Gleich used to give his lecture. And it was the case that this lecture was announced “without discussion”. There were numerous followers of the anthroposophical movement in the audience. After he had finished the lecture, which was full of the harshest expressions and included some of the most crude slander, he simply left the hall without entering into any discussion. And when someone tried to get a word in edgewise, and when Mr. Molt, who was there and was also personally attacked several times in the lecture, shouted: “He hereby publicly declares – he shouted this into the hall, in which there was a raging was a raging crowd of Mr. v. Gleich's supporters, he did not consider it worth replying to anything. He had already left the hall. On the other hand, the supporters, who were equipped with whistles and other noisy instruments, tried to shout down the anthroposophists who wanted to object. And it was quite close to a brawl. It was very difficult to protest against the most serious defamations, since the whole meeting immediately took on a threatening character, and it was clear that it would come to a brawl.

There followed some reports about the previous lecture by v. Gleich in Ludwigsburg. Finally, a letter from General v. Gleich to his son was read out.

I would just like to say a few words. Can I have this letter again? I would just like to make a formal comment, a comment that does not concern the matter itself. So, in the letter from Mr. v. Gleich to his son, it says: “[...] If only God had willed that you, a decent Christian nobleman, had fallen for your fatherland, then I could at least mourn you with pride [...] I pray to God to take the blindness from you again, so that you may awaken from it again [...].” (space in the postscript).

As you can see, a lot has been said about Mr. von Gleich's own Christianity; I would like to emphasize this: his own Christianity, in comparison with the unreasonable demand that we have been made to pay our son so badly that he cannot marry. That seems to me a very Christian act! And I do not want to be distracted by these “little piquant matters”, which are also on this program, and talk about the seriousness of the situation. Because I know very well that what happened yesterday in Stuttgart is not an end, but a beginning, that behind it stands a strong organization. And it is precisely out of this feeling that I may thank such a personality as the one who has just spoken - out of a real inner feeling for what Anthroposophy at least wants to be. But I would like to point out the seriousness of the situation and the necessity to act in the spirit of this serious situation.

What I want to say must, of course, be distinguished from a certain understanding that one can also have of such Christians as General von Gleich, for example, who is a Christian! I do not want to make a comparison, not even a formal one, but I just want to say something that I had to remember with this kind of Christianity. There are, in fact, very different kinds of Christianity, even of Orthodox Christianity. When the criminal anthropologist Moritz Benedikt started working and writing in criminal anthropology, he initially found little understanding in Vienna. He then found extraordinary understanding in a director of a home for dangerous criminals in Hungary. He was given the opportunity to examine the skulls of criminals, including the skulls of the most dangerous Hungarian criminals. Among them were the strangest people, including a very devout Orthodox Christian, who, of course, could not behave towards Professor Benedikt in accordance with his Christian intentions. He was very angry with him because he was allowed to examine his skull. And he was especially angry about it because he had heard that the prison director had agreed that Professor Benedikt would get to study particularly characteristic criminal skulls after death. And since he was not released to the professor Benedikt in this institution, he wanted to be at least presented to this Benedikt in chains. During this presentation, he said that he could not admit that, given his Christian beliefs, he should allow his skull to be sent to the professor Benedikt in Vienna after his death; he would then be buried here, and his skull would lie around in Vienna! And he wanted to know how his body and his skull would be brought together at the resurrection. He believed so much in his bodily resurrection – he was a real criminal, I think even a murderer.

Allow me today to take up some of the material that I could only hint at yesterday and which will then lead us to our reflection today. Yesterday I had to take up a sentence that emerged from the worldview of the 19th century, insofar as it prevailed in Central Europe, to the sentence that the tongue draws the word, that is, the power to speak, from the teeth just as it draws in air from the environment. And I drew your attention to how the 19th-century scholar has only to add to this sentence that he can laugh at it. But I have also characterized the distance that lies between the time in which such an instinctive view as the one quoted yesterday falls, and the age in which this philistine-ironic criticism then asserted itself, the age that begins with the first third of the 15th century. That saying falls into the previous age and is, for that age, in a certain way extraordinarily characteristic, for the reasons that I gave you yesterday.

But it must also be felt as characteristic in terms of its content. For I explained to you yesterday how, in order to understand the ability to speak and language in general, one must first familiarize oneself with what spiritual science has to say in the sense of what I have explained in my small writing “The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science”. There I have shown what significant process takes place at the change of teeth, how that which later still fulfils the human being as a rhythmic human being and a human being with limb metabolism, but which had previously fulfilled him completely, withdraws from the nerve-sense organization and therefore brings about precisely this process, which is formulated there in my writing “The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science” as the birth of the etheric body. I then showed you how, in a similar way, we must grasp the process that occurs around the fourteenth or fifteenth year, namely sexual maturation, and I explained how what is involved here can be expressed in the formula: birth of the astral body. But I have said that the events that occur in this way in the life of a human being at any stage of life also take place in metamorphosis at other times — but then in metamorphosis — and that what takes place externally between the human being and the external world at the time of sexual maturity must be sought internally as a process that occurs between the soul and spirit and the physical body within the human being as the process that is essentially the physiological correlate of the child learning to speak, and that we must therefore also seek the clues to a truly rational linguistics by starting from a penetrating intuitive knowledge of this process.

I then said that through the establishment and development of abstract logic and abstract logical thinking, the sphere of experience in which what takes place between the spiritual-mental and the physical-corporeal , is, as it were, displaced, pushed down into the subconscious, and that precisely by leading consciousness into abstraction, Aristotle has cut off the possibility of looking towards the prenatal. For if one had had a vivid picture of the workings of the astral in sexual maturation and in speech, as one instinctively could in early antiquity, as we must now strive to achieve again, then one could also have gradually gained a visual understanding of what the connection is between the I itself and the whole physical-etheric-astral human being. That is to say, one could have advanced in this field through the knowledge of learning to speak to the knowledge of the integration of the human spiritual-soul I into its bodily-physical. And Aristotle established his dogma precisely for the reason that with every single human being born here, the soul-spiritual also comes into being. With that, he removed from the world of knowledge the concept of the pre-existing human soul.

Only the concept of this pre-existing human soul provides real knowledge of the eternity of the human soul. This knowledge is not provided by any kind of philosophical speculation, but solely and exclusively by an intuitive judgment in the direction that I have just indicated. This dogma of the non-existence of pre-existence was then adopted into the church doctrine of Christianity. And it must be emphasized that the denial of pre-existence, in that it was then confirmed by councils, is not Christian in the true sense of the word, but is Aristotelian, and with the penetration of Aristotelianism into Christian doctrine, it became a Christian dogma. The moment that Christianity is able to free itself from this element of Aristotelianism, the way will also be clear for an acknowledgment of pre-existence.

It must be said that this pre-existence, which was not doubted by Western Christian doctrine until Origen, disappeared from Western Christian doctrine as a result of the state decree of Justinian, who helped to have Origen condemned as a heretic. That is why the followers of this non-Christian Christian doctrine of the West are so uncomfortable when someone points out the historical facts in the first centuries of Christianity. They then conjure up all the untruths they can muster about the connections between anthroposophy and gnosis and so on.

Now, I cannot go into these things in more detail here. But what I want to say is this: if one bases the spiritual and soul life in man solely on what lives for the contemplation of consciousness since birth, then one gradually comes to what makes the teaching of immortality a mere article of faith.

It can be said that what was prenatal, what was pre-existent in man, comes through the process of birth into a completely unconscious state. This can only be looked at again when one rises up to imagination and inspiration. But at the other pole of the human being, it appears in his will and emotional nature. In the threefold human being, we have on the one hand the nerve-sense human being, who is connected with the imaginative human being, and on the other hand the limb-metabolic human being, who is connected with the will nature of the human being and with his emotional nature. Because the life of imagination is dampened, subdued to the point of objective observation, pre-existence is initially closed to this objective imagination in knowledge. But what is present with it lives in the sphere of the human being that emerges at the other pole. The nature of the will and the emotions comes to the fore. Initially, no knowledge can be gained from this, only mere belief. And if what is prenatal can become knowledge through the expansion of knowledge, then without this expansion of knowledge, what lives in will and emotion can become nothing more than an article of faith for the human being. Therefore, with the dawning of supersensible knowledge, there also comes the dawning of knowledge of the eternity of the human soul, even in language. It should be striking that we have a word for immortality in the more well-known languages of civilization, that is, for life in the afterlife, but that we do not have a word that would express the eternity of the human soul at the other pole of the human being, its being unborn. But modern humanity will have to reclaim this for itself in language: that the eternity of the human being can be expressed in a word like “unborn-ness” — which, of course, will become more sophisticated with increasing civilization — just as it is expressed on the one hand, on the side of death, in the word “immortality”. But then what can be said about the eternity of the human soul will no longer be a mere article of faith, but a content of knowledge. As long as one remains merely with the afterlife, the question of immortality must be a question of faith. As soon as one passes over to a real knowledge of the supersensible, the question of immortality becomes a question of real knowledge.

This is a connection that must be recognized, this is a Rubicon that must be crossed by modern civilization. For what follows from this crossing will not only have a theoretical effect, but will have an effect in a completely different way. We can say: if we learn to ascend appropriately from something like the understanding of the change of teeth, the understanding of language, to what we then come to, we thereby acquire a knowledge of the immortal nature of the human soul.

Those who in the 18th century thought and spoke of the tongue drawing language out of the teeth, they did not believe, as Wilhelm Scherer strangely enough assumes, that there are only dental sounds, but in their instinctive knowledge they were imbued with the fact that in order to understand language one must penetrate down into the human being, just as one must penetrate down in order to understand the change of teeth. Just as the forces arise there, so must one penetrate down to the origins of the path that, with the change of teeth, points to what appeared at a previous step in the development of man: the emergence of language. These insights were instinctive, subconscious. But anyone who brings the corresponding thing out of consciousness today will find what depth they breathe in a certain respect, and what philistinism such objections breathe, like those I discussed yesterday. But we also gain, by soaring to such insights as those about language, at the same time, I would say, access to the way to recognize immortality. Therefore, the recognition of this supersensible world is at the same time connected with the attainment of a sound judgment about that which surrounds us in life, such as language. And we cannot, without becoming inwardly dishonest, pretend to penetrate into something in our environment, such as language, if we do not at the same time admit: here there are limits that are not merely to be recognized as limits of ordinary knowledge, but which make it necessary to transcend them through a different kind of knowledge.

Thus, true knowledge of the external sense world is already connected with the ascent to supersensible knowledge. In truly healthy knowledge, supersensible and sensory perception must work together, with one supporting the other. Therefore, we may believe that with the attainment of sound judgments about the supersensible, sound judgments can also be obtained in relation to what surrounds us in another sphere as human beings, with which we are connected as human beings and with which we must enter into intimate relationships: social life.

In the style of my previous lectures, I have tried as much as possible to adhere to what could be called a completely scientific style. Today, as we move on to what follows from such an inner state of mind as a social science and social practice, as it must arise from spiritual science as it is meant here, we find ourselves in the midst of practice in the present day. For what is to be said in a social context cannot today be considered in the same way as what has gone before.

It is necessary to take the following into account. By rising to imagination, inspiration and so on, what would otherwise be conceptual and cannot directly motivate the will is pushed into the will. Therefore, supersensible knowledge motivates the will, and there is no moral or religious ideal that is not rooted at least unconsciously in the supersensible. What is gained through imagination only from the sense world can never be socially or morally motivating because it remains ineffective for the will. Therefore, one must say that it could perhaps be conspicuous that the people who got hold of my writing on the social life of the threefold order, when they read it, found nothing in it of what they were accustomed to finding as the basic tone, for example, in my anthroposophical writings. Perhaps some people expected that when someone who professes to be an anthroposophist writes on a subject such as the one contained in my Threefolding of Man, then all kinds of familiar “anthroposophical” judgments must flow into all the details that are discussed there; one must very much mystel to all sorts of admonitions and so on.

Even if such a judgment has been heard many times from the anthroposophical side, it is no different in quality from the judgments of those who wanted to find in my Theosophy, as I was writing it, a literal transcription of what was in my arguments with Haeckelianism, for example. People just cannot understand how real anthroposophy, when it passes over into the will, leads to the environment, that is, to the objective observation of every field that it undertakes, so that one does not simply need to carry the formulas that are found in one field into another. It is easy to believe that those who have been accustomed to hearing this or that word for word over long periods of time will then find it unusual and uncomfortable to hear the same thing in another language. However, the different areas of life require different languages. And the point is that when they are spoken about, they should be spoken about in the same spirit, but not that the same concepts and ideas should be expressed in the same words everywhere. And in anthroposophy it is important that it is not only taken in according to its wording, but that it is taken in according to its spirit. But then one will recognize, when it wants to be active in an eminently practical area, such as the social question: which activity is called for by the need of the time, by all the forces of decline that are coming to light in our time. Inwardly, this treatment of the social question is entirely connected with what flows from other aspects of knowledge, but not from other practical aspects, even through the more theoretical sides of anthroposophy. Therefore, I must ask you today to bear in mind that I will have to depart from the style of my previous lectures, which were kept within the bounds of objective science. For it is necessary that what must live in direct life as impulses of the will, and what must still fight for its position, be grasped in a different form, so that it approaches our souls in a different way from that which one can say: That is how it is! Please refer to what is given in my book 'The Core Points of the Social Question' about threefolding. And today I want to speak more from the point of view of great social practice. Not theoretically, but from the point of view of social practice, I want to speak of what must be done first in the broadest sense. What must be done is connected with what has been done in recent years with regard to the threefold social order, despite the fact that it has aroused such tramping disapproval from fellow students, as it did, for example, in Stuttgart the day before yesterday in such a repulsive form. Therefore, I would like to give you a characterization that is very much of our time, which is based on the content that you can read about in my book 'The Core Points of the Social Question', in my book 'In Practice: Threefolding', and which you will then find characterizing various aspects of the lectures that are still to be given here today. I just wanted to give a kind of introduction to the general tone that will be struck. But I would like to say that precisely because, in the course of more recent times, humanity, for the reasons that have already been developed, has increasingly — despite believing that it is so very practical, believing that it has to an abstraction that can never bear favorable fruit anywhere else than in the scientific consideration of the inorganic, that humanity thereby became utterly impractical. Humanity had settled into this abstraction and had gradually begun to speak out of this abstraction even about what directly surrounds us as socially concrete life. If you read through all the theoretical discussions that modern, learned economists usually precede their system, you will find how the question figures everywhere: To what extent can the scientific observer of the national economy see into what is happening around us in practical terms? And how should the political economist, in order to do justice to the scientific claim – but that means nothing other than the scientific claim that one has acquired out of habit from the scientific point of view – how should he, this political economist, act in order to meet these scientific demands?

The confusion surrounding this question, and the fact that this confusion expresses a lack of contact with real social life, was something I first had to show in my book “The Key Points of the Social Question”. I had to show how, in this more recent period, hurrying on to abstraction, the leading human personalities have indeed found the way to live in the technical and social workings of the capitalist system, but how, precisely because their sense for what is human has been lost, nothing has come from these leading personalities for that which is so closely connected with man and his knowledge as the social question. For the connection between theoretical knowledge and so-called practical knowledge had been lost philosophically, too; in spite of Schopenhauer's saying, or perhaps because of the meaning of it, which was so much alive in modern humanity. In spite of the saying, “It is easy to preach morals, but difficult to found them,” word, one could not see how necessary it is to search for those foundations of life that not only preach morality, as Schopenhauer says, and thus want to provide a theoretical proof for it, but that want to establish morality through facts, by pointing to what really lives in the world of facts.

In Kantian philosophy, the confusion in this area is expressed by the fact that a sharp distinction is drawn between what is theoretical reflection, what is criticized in the “Critique of Pure Reason,” and what is the content of a mere imperative and therefore of a mere belief, and what is criticized in the “Critique of Practical Reason.” No attempt should be made to bridge the gap, although, as you have heard from this platform in recent days, Goethe objected to this with his concept of “contemplative judgment,” of “intellectus archetypus,” and then tried to approach what is really practical in the justification of human action from a different angle. Schopenhauer could not find it because he regarded everything that lives in the world of ideas from the outset as something merely pictorial, as something that cannot be imbued with the content of being. He also only referred to the will, which, however, cannot be brought into consciousness for objective knowledge without higher supersensible knowledge. Thus he felt the inadequacy of the theoretical basis of practical action. Through mere theoretical reason he was incapable of pointing out the basis of practical action itself, because in the will he saw only a blind thing, never one to be penetrated by the light of knowledge. For this light can only be the supersensible. And to that Schopenhauer did not want to rise either.

Then came other attempts, such as that of Herbarts. In Herbart we find the attempt to find a kind of basis in practical life for what practical action is. But the characteristic feature of Herbart is that in his practical philosophy he seeks what is basically an aesthetic judgment, that he tries to found practical philosophy as a part of aesthetics. In this way — by implicitly going beyond what he has theoretically in his consciousness — the five well-known practical ideas of perfection, goodwill, inner freedom, right and equity emerge. But man's relationship to them is one of consent, which in turn also requires the motivating force. Here, too, I can only hint at how an attempt was made, I would like to say, to break through what was given with the merely abstracting intellect, but how this attempt, because it did not want to penetrate to real spiritual science, failed in all possible respects.

Therefore, I must point out that the reason why the leading personalities could not find what appeals to people lies in this development of modern historical life. And so they found the way to the machine, so they found the way into technology, so they found the way to capitalism. They did not find the way to the human being, whom they left standing beside the machine, just as the natural scientist leaves the real human being standing beside what he is investigating theoretically through his natural science.

What is being lived out in natural science is rooted in a deep habit of life and expresses itself in all areas. Therefore, the first chapter of my “Key Points” could only be such that it illuminates this effect of a life-alien spiritual life in modern times. It had to be pointed out sharply to me, not by a theoretical consideration, but by the life experience described in my book, that the personalities who were the leaders in all traditions in the artistic, religious and scientific fields, in addition to what mere conception in the imagination in modern times, they created a religious content of feeling that could not arise in the class that was removed from the life of tradition and placed at the machine, which, of what emerged in this modern time, only took on the theoretical abstraction, so that in addition to the life of toil and labor, this class was also confronted with what comes from the emptiness of the soul, which can theoretically be filled with what a theoretical scientific way of thinking can provide, but which cannot live with it.

Thus what was to live through my “Key Points of the Social Question”, and already in the “Call” that preceded it, was conceived in the most eminent sense in practical terms, conceived as something that must pass directly into life, that should not merely take hold of the intellects, but should take hold of the will. And it had emerged from what should take hold of the will.

When it became clear to a larger number of personalities in the outside world how the terrible catastrophic events of the second decade of the 20th century would unfold, something intervened in the events - I will only hint at the direction today, as I said, you can find more details in my books -– that was the most bloodless abstraction, something born entirely out of abstract spirituality. With this abstract type of spirituality, the man who had become President of the United States of America from a scholar had emerged, Woodrow Wilson. In his Fourteen Points, he presented to the world as an impulse for practical action something that emerged only from an abstraction that was alien to life. The practical proof of this was provided by the situation – you can read about it in Maynard Keynes – in which Woodrow Wilson found himself during the negotiations in Versailles, where what lived in his theory was increasingly eroded in the face of what had been worked out in Versailles from the most outdated traditional views. Historical development itself has provided the proof of the lack of life in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points. When they were drawn up, however, they testified that with such abstraction one can also introduce something into reality: one introduces something into it, but one introduces only error! It is not that abstractions, when they pass through human beings, cannot conjure up realities; but it is the case that they will always cause confusion or inadequacies in these realities, because they have not been taken from life. Thus the Fourteen Points were able to transport ships and armies across the sea, but these Fourteen Points could not send a vital impulse into modern civilization.

I fear that what is at stake within modern civilization has still not been grasped by a sufficiently large number of people. For in the post-war period in America, Woodrow Wilson was followed by Harding – and we were recently able to read this Harding's inaugural address: the same abstract phrases, the same talk of “human brotherhood” that cannot be motivating because it lives in abstractions, the continuation of Wilson's policy under a different name. I cannot find that there is sufficient understanding in a sufficiently large number of people for the inadequacies that are perpetuated here. It is as if modern man has lost all connection with any enthusiasm for truth, for living truth, and would pass by asleep even such a lack of contact with life as was again heard in the inaugural address of the American president.

At the time when the Fourteen Points first entered modern life, what was contained in these Fourteen Points in the way of alienation from life should be countered by a real practice of life, something that emanated from life, emanated at the same time from the most important components of modern public life, from real social practice, from an understanding of what pulsates through contemporary humanity as a social question.

In a Stuttgart lecture a short time ago, I pointed out such things in a way that was true to life, after Lloyd George wanted to prevent the then impending outbreak of strikes and smoothed over the circumstances. After this gluing of social conditions, I said in Stuttgart: You can use such things, which, despite coming from Lloyd George, are only theoretical, to glue conditions, but you cannot direct realities, and people will see that only theory has been gluing, but that nothing has been achieved in practical life, and that this will soon become apparent. — Now you have it! Now you can see for yourself, from what has actually happened, whether in that Stuttgart lecture the knowledge of social forces was spoken of or whether it was only spoken of in theory, whereas today one not only speaks in theory but also acts in theory in public and especially in social life, where it is truly out of place.

And so at that time, when, I might say, in a classical way, the political fruit of modern abstractism appeared in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, an attempt was made to awaken understanding in those who listened to it at the time, discouraged and reluctant to act , but who were curious about it in a certain way, to try to awaken understanding for the fact that from Europe - at first only Central Europe was accessible - in the form of the threefold social order, something concrete and practical was being opposed to the impractical Fourteen Points. And one could have been convinced if one had had a sense of realities, not just of beloved theories that had then become “practical”. One could have been convinced that just as the impractical abstractions in reality have set armies and ships in motion, that which would have been spoken out of a reality, if only it had been conveyed from the right place, would also have conjured up realities.

But those who had a say at the time did not want to listen. Social practice was far from their minds. They were accustomed to what had emerged in the course of modern times: to go the way to the machine, to the machinery of the social order, but not to go the way to the human being who stands at the machine, who lives as a human being within the machinery of the social order, and who, as a human being, is an active being.

Since people at that time did not understand what the necessities of life demanded, it was a necessary consequence that, immediately after the bloody catastrophe of war had ended, at the instigation of friends in Stuttgart, what is contained in my “Appeal to the German People and the World of Culture” and what is contained in my “Key Points of the Social Question” came about. And in the period when the old powers had disappeared in certain areas of modern civilized life, an attempt was made to speak to the broad masses of the people, to those who had suffered most from all the conditions that I have now indicated and otherwise described again and again. The beginning was basically a good one. It was possible to reach the broad masses of the people. They gradually understood the significance of the impulse of the threefold social order. For it is nonsense to say that it is difficult to understand in itself. The difficulty in understanding it lies only in the fact that one cannot escape from old habits of thinking, that one cannot refrain from imposing one's own habitual, rigid way of thinking on something that presents itself as something quite different. That is the reason, not the difficulty of the matter itself. Therefore, there was also the possibility of finding understanding precisely within those who, out of their own needs, were striving for a relative solution to the social question, and who had already seen that they could not arrive at a satisfactory organization of social life in modern times from the old dogmatic Marxism.

A spanner was put in the works by the fact that on the one hand, not the workers, but the leaders of these workers, and on the other hand, leading figures of the old bourgeoisie, reacted negatively. From all sides, one was, so to speak, left in the lurch with regard to the impulse of threefolding.

At first, in the spring of 1919, those in leading positions were gripped by a terrible fear and grasped at anything that had anything to do with the social question. As a result, some found themselves in the first stirrings of threefolding, as it came to them, but they did not have the strength or the courage to persevere with it. One of the celebrated leaders of the bourgeoisie of a Central European region said to me at the time, when we were in the midst of what was to happen: Yes, in the way you understand and speak to the broad masses of the people, one could indeed have high hopes; but such a thing, you will admit to a party leader of the old parties, must not be left to two people; others are not yet not yet – I am just quoting – that would be effective in this direction; therefore, we do not rely on this whole broad movement, but we want to hold the old order, despite the fact that it may only last for another fifteen or twenty years at most, with the cannons and rifles.

That was the response from one side. But let me also speak of the response from the other side, because I have to characterize practically what it is about. The working population, insofar as I was able to speak to them, tried to get involved in the threefolding movement with relative ease and with inner understanding. Then the labor leaders came, and they became, I might say, green with envy, because now they could be addressed from a different side than from the side of their instilled Marxism. And they, like the others, invented all kinds of slander and dirty tricks to prevent the workers, who are so credulous in their faith in authority in their relations with their leaders, from finding the right way to understanding. But the workers have not yet reached the point where they can find their way in the right way in their faith in authority, which has been handed down from past decades. The moment the workers realize what the lower and higher-ranking labor leaders are really after, much of the well-intentioned belief that still exists in this area will evaporate. They will realize that those at the top, of the Lenin and Trotsky, Lunach arskij, are at the head of the movement, they do not have the happiness and well-being of the masses at heart. They say to themselves and to each other: The broad masses of the people are stupid and will always be racked by passions; there is nothing to be done with them but to tyrannize them; therefore it must not be conspicuous that we also tyrannize, whether we are called Czar Nicholas or Lenin; for us, it is only a matter of those who used to sit on the curule chairs falling down and us now sitting on them; for us, it is a matter of conquering the seats of government!

The moment this realization dawns on the broadest sections of society, many things will change. But then the time will also have come when social practice can really be introduced into social life. Then people will look with practical understanding at what I have said in the second and third chapters of my “Key Points of the Social Question”, which I would like to say exemplifies what can be achieved from such a spirit. Then it will be seen that nothing here has been invented out of thin air, but that everything has been gained out of a hard-won practical life experience, just as in the past, after Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points had become known, this idea of the threefold social organism first appeared.

I speak as someone who spent half of his life, thirty years, in Austria, in this experimental country for social impossibilities. I speak as someone who knows well how people spoke in this Austrian experimental country in a ministry, a liberal ministry. At the height of Austrian liberalism, when the social question was already looming behind liberalism, the liberal Giskra said: In Austria we have nothing to do with the social question, because the social question stops at Bodenbach! — This was proclaimed in the parliament of liberalism in Austria by the responsible Minister of the Interior, in the last third of the 19th century.

Anyone who wants to study how the impossible mixing of the three parts of the social organism worked in this Austrian parliament – I would like to say in its purest form, which I have already expressed in my “key points” by stating that the composition of parliament was based on four economic curiae – can see how things gradually developed.

But what must emerge from every such consideration is that it is a matter of finding impulses for practical social life that speak from this life itself. Then we may come to the time when there will be a sufficiently large number of people who, uninfluenced by the old designations of direction, “right” and “left”, turn their attention to the factual and practical, which, because it flows from reality, may believe it has a right to have a say in the most important matters of life. And these are the social matters.

Today, many people take the view that the world will be put in order if only they can continue the old impulses, and for a long time now they have been trying again to see how it can work by letting the old continue. They turn their eyes away from the fact that under this unobjective, unrealistic approach, more and more comes about that must have a demoralizing effect on the whole of modern civilization.

But a possibility to move forward will not arise until people realize that, without looking to the left or right, they must look objectively at direct life. For only in this way can we develop an understanding of such practical and social ideas that can not only preach an ethical and social life, but also found it. For it is the foundation of this life that should be emphasized in the threefold social organism. Theorists have long repeated from their theoretical point of view that today we must look at what also lives in ethics in a “social” way. Since the division of labor, man has been placed entirely in the social sphere, and one must understand “from the social” what motivates man when he is to act.

As long as this judgment remains bloodless, as long as it remains an abstraction, it will achieve nothing. For as an abstraction it is just as true as it is false. That it is false I have shown in my Philosophy of Freedom. The other, truly alarming aspect is that man hands himself over more and more with his freedom to the objective economic process and the like, as is even theoretically expounded in Marxism. And in that man hands himself over to the economic process or the state process or the other social institutions that we have now, naturally more and more his motivation for action becomes a social one. This can and may be understood. For modern civilization aims at people learning to live with people in a division of labor. But if the social order is to motivate appropriate social action in the individual, then it must be a social organism that is capable of motivating the will through its own inner laws. In a living social organism, one must not only preach morals, but establish social morals. In this field, morals must be established not through words and ideas, but through the realities of the situation. These realities should be stimulated by the impulse of the threefold social organism.

The matter was so little understood that the abstract thinkers even mocked me because I kept using the word “impulse” instead of “idea” to suggest that there should be power in this tendency of the threefold social organism, not just talk. That should already be in the life of this work for threefolding: that there is reality in it, not just talk. Otherwise, one can also go around as an ethical traveling speaker, as there are so many of them now, trying to persuade people: Just become ethical again, just become good again, and social harmony will arise! I have always said to those who wanted to hear it, when speaking to the stove in the room: You stove, according to your nature, it is your categorical imperative to warm the room – it will not warm the room. But you don't need to preach if you put wood in and light it. You don't need to moralize in theory, mystify, aestheticize. What is needed is not just a “practical” mixture of ideas, but real impulses to stimulate social forces that are filled with ideas, if it is to be a social practice. And only when we have developed an understanding for this fact will we learn to think correctly about what threefolding actually wants.

But because this reaches down into the soul and will, an enthusiasm and commitment to the truth is required for this understanding of threefolding, not just a theoretical interest in the truth and in a theoretical discussion. As long as we are unable to take truth into our will, to extract it from theory and permeate our whole being with it, there can be no beginning to a fruitful treatment of the social question and social practice.

That is what it is about: that those who seek understanding for what threefolding wants to achieve may seek it with their whole being. Then enthusiasm will not come from blind instincts, but will be stimulated by light-filled knowledge. Then it will not remain blind itself, but will shine itself. When the impulses of the will do not come from instincts and drives, but from an overview of social life, then they do not remain blind and dark, but become themselves seeing and luminous. And the path of the impulse of the threefold social order depends on the will and enthusiasm for the truth becoming ever more luminous and radiant in this sense. And I would like to express the hope that what can be said here in this direction will contribute to inspiring not a blind and dark enthusiasm and will, but a light-filled, willed shaping of life.

Final Word on the Fourth Evening of the Disputation

In the course of the very lively disputation on the topic “Social Science and Social Practice”, a Dutch member of the Society came back to the “World School Association” (see p. 92 ff.). He called for “immediate action”, namely to proceed with the founding immediately (following a Dutch initiative that was supported by iso names). In doing so, it referred to the fact that in April 1912, members of the “German Section” of the “Theosophical Society”, at the suggestion of a member who had travelled from England, had founded a “bund” through such an “act”, from which “what is known today as the Anthroposophical Society originated”.

I do not wish to detain you much longer, but would just like to make a few comments, firstly in connection with what our friend v.L. has proposed here, which is certainly quite commendable, or will be if it leads to the promised goal. I would just like to note that it would be a questionable basis if the matter were built on the same foundation as the “bund”, to which reference has been made. At that time, work was indeed carried out with a certain zeal, in the way Mr. v.L. has roughly outlined it today: people sat down in small committees, discussed all sorts of things, what should be done and so on. But then Mr. v.L. made a statement which, of course, is a small mistake at first, but which, if it were to continue to have an effect, could lead to a big mistake. It was said that the Anthroposophical Society emerged from the work that was so tirelessly carried out that night. No, that is not the case at all: nothing emerged from that night and from that founding of the society! I would like to protect the intended “restless work of this night” from this fate. There was a lot of talk back then about what needed to be done, but nothing came of it. And the mistake that could arise is based on the fact that one might think that something should now be done in the direction indicated by that “covenant”. What actually happened was that those who had been involved in our anthroposophical work, who were already very much with us, founded the Anthroposophical Society quite separately from this federation, and this then developed further, while the “federation” gradually passed from a gentle slumber into social death, let us say.

So, it would be a small mistake! And this must be emphasized, so that the mistakes of that night committee are not repeated in its second edition. That is one thing.

The other point I would like to make is that the aim of a world school association should be based on something really broad and should be tackled from the outset with a certain courage and a comprehensive vision.

Our friend v.L. has quite rightly emphasized that what is to be advocated in relation to a free spiritual life in connection with the threefold social organism must be treated in different ways for the most diverse fields. But this must then also really

so that the way it is treated is appropriate for the territories concerned. I myself will always point out that, for example, in England it will be necessary to present things in a way that is appropriate to the English civilization. |

One must thoroughly understand what is imagination in the face of the great human questions of the present, and what is reality. So one must not present the matter in such a way as to create the belief that English intellectual life is freer than other intellectual lives. And you will see, if you really go through the “key points”, that less emphasis is placed on the negative aspect – the liberation of intellectual life from the state – and much less emphasis is placed on the establishment of a free intellectual life in general. And there it will always remain a good word: that it depends on the human being, that it really depends on the spiritual foundations from which the human being emerges, which spiritual foundations are created for his education. It is not so much a matter of emphasizing the negative aspect, but rather the positive. And I need only say this: if, let us say, spiritual life were formally freed from state control, and everything else remained the same, then liberation from the state would not be of much use.

The point is that positive spirit, as it has been represented here this week, as it has been tried to represent it, that this free spirit be brought into intellectual life internationally. And then things will happen as they should happen.

For example, the Waldorf School is not only a truly independent school, it does not even have a director, but the teaching staff is a truly representative community. It is not a matter of all measures being taken in such a way that 'nothing else' speaks except what comes from the teaching staff themselves, so that here we really have 'an independent spiritual community', but it is also a matter of the fact that in all countries there is a lack of the spiritual life that has been talked about here all week. And when one hears it emphasized somewhere that “intellectual life is free in this country” – I am not talking about Switzerland now, I am talking about England – that is another matter. And it is this positive aspect, above all, that matters. It must then be emphasized: Of course, this will only exist if one tries to actually respond to the specific circumstances in the individual countries and territories.

But one must have a heart and mind for what unfree intellectual life has ultimately done in our time. Not in order to respond to what was said here yesterday, but to show the blossoms of human thinking, both intellectually and morally, that our current intellectual life brings to light, I would like to read you a sentence. I do not wish to detain you for long, and I do not wish to speak from the standpoint from which there was such virulent opposition to anthroposophy and the threefold social order here yesterday; but I would like to read out a sentence from the brochure that had to be discussed here yesterday. General von Gleich writes about me: “At the turn of the century, which also marks a turning point in the supersensible world of Anthroposophy, Mr. Steiner, then almost forty years old, was gradually led to Theosophy through Winter's lectures on mysticism.”

Now you may ask who this Mr. Winter is, whom Mr. v. Gleich cites here as the person through whose lectures I was converted to Anthroposophy in Berlin. One can only put forward the following hypothesis: in the preface to those lectures that I gave in Berlin in the winter of 1901/1902, there is a sentence in which I say: the movement I want to talk about began with my lectures in the winter of 1901/1902. — From this winter, during which I gave my lectures, that Mr. 'Winter' was born, who converted me to theosophy in 1901/1902.

You see, I do not want to use the expression that applies to the intellectual disposition of a person who, because of it, is now called to lead the opponents of the anthroposophical movement; I do not want to use the expression; but you will certainly be able to use it sufficiently. This is the kind of intellectual product of the spiritual life that one could pass through in the present day to the extent of becoming a major general.

So one must look at the matter from a somewhat greater depth. Only then will one develop a heart and a mind for what is necessary. And just because the spiritual life must be tackled first and foremost through the school system, it is so desirable that this World School Association could be established, which would not be so difficult to establish if the will for it exists. But it must not be a smaller or larger committee, but must be established in such a way that its membership is unmanageable. Only then will it have value. It must not — I do not want to give any advice on this, because I have said enough about it — it must not, of course, impose any special sacrifices on an individual. It must be there to create the mood for what urgently needs a mood today! — That is something of what I still had to tie in with what has come to light today.

Finally, I must say something that I would rather not say, but which I must say, since otherwise it would not have been touched upon this evening and it might be too late for the next few days, when the pain of departure will probably set in. I must point this out myself. The point is that it is taken for granted that everything that has been said today will be worked for. But this work only makes sense if we can maintain the Goetheanum as it stands here, and above all, if we can complete it.

Now, however well things are going with “Futurum A.-G.” and however well things are going with “Kommenden Tag”, they will not be any economic support for this Goetheanum for a long time to come. Certainly not. And the greatest concern that weighs on me today, despite all my other concerns, is this: that in the not too distant future we may find ourselves with no economic support for this Goetheanum. Therefore, it is necessary above all to emphasize that each of us should work towards this, that each of us who can contribute something towards this, that this building can find its completion, may do so! That is what is needed above all: that we are put in a position by the friends of our cause to be able to maintain this Goetheanum, to be able to finish this Goetheanum above all. And that, as I said, is my great concern. I must say so here. Because ultimately, what would it help if we could do as much propaganda as we want and we might have to close the Goetheanum in three months from now? This is also one of the social concerns that, in my opinion, are connected with the general social life of the present day. And I had to emphasize this concern because the facts on which it is based should not really be forgotten: this makes it possible to strengthen the movement that emanates from this Goetheanum.

We can see the intellectual foundations on which those who are now taking up their posts against us are fighting. That will be a beginning. We must be vigilant, very vigilant, because these people are clever. They know how to organize themselves. What happened in Stuttgart is a beginning, it is intended as a beginning. And only then will we be able to stand up to them if we spark such idealism – I would like to say it again this time – that does not say: Oh, ideals are so terribly high, they are so exalted, and my pocket is something so small that I do not reach into it when it comes to exalted ideals. – It must be said: Only idealism is true that also digs into its pockets for the ideals!

Closing Remarks at a Student Assembly

At the suggestion of German students, a meeting was held on the afternoon of 9 April 1921 to discuss how anthroposophical work could be established at universities. Dr. Steiner spoke at the end.

Dr. S. has, however, pointed out the three most important issues at stake here: whether to organize or not, as desired. But above all, I would like to emphasize one thing: if you are involved in a movement like ours, it is necessary to learn from the past and to lead further stages of the movement in such a way that certain earlier mistakes are avoided.

What it will depend on in the first place is this: that anthroposophy, to the extent that it can already be accepted by the student body in terms of understanding and to the extent that it is at all possible through the available forces or opportunities, that anthroposophy in its various branches be spread among the student body as positive spiritual content. Our experience has basically shown that something real can only be achieved if one can really build on the basis of the positive.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to point out that years ago an attempt was made to establish a kind of world federation for spiritual science, and that nothing came of this world federation, which actually only wanted to proceed according to the rules of formal external organization. It ended, so to speak, in what the Germans call “das Hornberger Schießen” – a shooting match in Hornberg. But because a sense of cohesion and collaboration were needed at the time, the existing adherents of anthroposophy had to be brought together in the “Anthroposophical Society”. These were now more or less all people who had simply been involved with anthroposophy. It is only with such an organization, where there is already something in it, that one can then do something.

Of course it will be especially necessary for the student body not only to work in the sense of spreading the given anthroposophical problems in the narrower sense, but also to work out general problems and the like in the sense that Dr. S. just meant. Of course, at first it will not be so necessary to work towards dissertations with such things. It has often, really quite often, happened recently that I have been asked by younger students along the following lines: Yes, we actually want to combine anthroposophy with our particular science. How can one approach this in such a way that one works towards one's goal in the right way after the doctorate, after the state examination? What should one do? How should one set up one's work? — I have always given the following advice: Try to get through the official studies as quickly as possible, to get through them as quickly as possible – and I am always very happy to help with any advice – then choose any scientific topic that seems to emerge from the course of your studies, as a dissertation or state examination or the like. Whichever topic you choose, one of them is of course diametrically opposed to the other approaches in anthroposophical terms, there can be no doubt about that. Each is diametrically opposed. But now I advise you to write your dissertation in such a way that you first write down what the professor can censor, what he will understand; and take a second notebook, and write down everything that comes to you in the course of your studies and that you believe should actually be worked in from anthroposophy. You then keep that for yourself. Then you make your two sheets, that's how long a dissertation must be. You submit these. And try to finish them. Then you can really help anthroposophy with what you have acquired in addition to this one in the second issue, bit by bit. Because you actually only really notice what significant problems — special and specialist problems — arise when you are faced with the necessity of really working scientifically on a certain topic and the like. But there is a danger of, I would say, unclear cooperation with the professorship. And submitting dissertations to the professors that are written “in the anthroposophical sense” – these usually do not suit professors – I do not consider this to be a good idea because it actually slows us down at the pace that the anthroposophical movement should be taking.

We need as many academically trained co-workers as possible. If there is anything we lack in the anthroposophical movement today, it is a sufficient number of academically trained co-workers. I do not mean the externality of needing, say, people with degrees. That is not what I mean. But first of all, we need people who have learned to work scientifically from within. This inner scientific work is best learned in one's own work. Secondly, however, we need staff who come from the student body as soon as possible, and who are no longer held back by considerations for their later specialized studies. (You see, it is not at all wonderful that it is as difficult as it is in Switzerland, for example.) As a student, you naturally have the opportunity to join such a group in the first few semesters, if you are free-minded enough to do so. Then come the last semesters. You are busy with other things, and it becomes more difficult. And so the threads that you have pulled are constantly being torn away. This has just been emphasized.

So I would like to say, especially for scientific collaboration: the topics must be processed twice during such a transition period: one that the professor understands, and the other that is saved for later.

Of course, I am not saying that very special opportunities that arise are not seized, and that these opportunities, which arise, are not vigilantly observed by the student body in the most eminent sense and also really exploited in the sense and service of the movement: On the one hand, I hope, and on the other hand, I fear almost silently, that our dear friend, Professor Römer in Leipzig, will now be inundated with a huge number of anthroposophical dissertations! But I think that would also be one of the things he would probably prefer. And such a document of student trust would show that he is not one of the professors just mentioned. That would come from the foundation.

Now, however, we need an expansion of what has already been discussed here in Dornach, namely a kind of collaboration after all. You will work out among yourselves later how best to do this technically. It would be good if, with the help of the Waldorf teachers, who would be joined by other personalities from our ranks – Professor Römer, Dr. Unger and others – a certain exchange could take place, especially regarding the choice of topics for dissertations or scientific papers, without in any way compromising the free initiative of the individual. It can only be in the form of advice. It is precisely for this scientific work that a closer union should be sought – it doesn't have to be an organization, but an exchange of ideas – between you.

The economic aspect is, of course, a very, very important one. It is a fact that the university system in particular, but actually more or less the entire higher education system, will suffer greatly from our economic difficulties. Now it is a matter of really seeing clearly that it is only possible to help if it is possible to advance such institutions, as it is for example for Germany the “Kommende Tag”, as it is here the “Futurum”. So that a reorganization of the economic situation of the student body can also emanate from these organizations. I can assure you that all the things we are tackling in this direction are actually calculated on rapid growth. We do not have time to take our time; instead, we actually have to make rapid progress with such economic organizations. And here I must say that the members of the student body, perhaps with very few exceptions, can help us above all by spreading understanding for such things. It has indeed already happened in relation to other things that a student could achieve something for this or that with his father, or could achieve something with his relatives. Not everyone has only destitute friends. And then there really is something that works like an avalanche. Just think about how powerfully something like an avalanche works, based on experience: when you start somewhere, it continues. Something like this continues to have an effect when you act out of the positive: try to study these brochures that have been published by “Kommender Tag” and “Futurum”, and try to create understanding for something like this.

It is this understanding that the oldest people in particular find extremely difficult to work their way up to. I have seen how older people, I would say, have chewed on the desire to understand what “Tomorrow” or “Futurum” want, how they have repeatedly fallen back on their old economic prejudices, like a cat on its paws, with which they have rushed into economic decline, and how they cannot find their way out. I believe that there really is a bright understanding among our fellow students that could also have some effect on the older generations. We cannot make any progress in any other way. Because I can tell you: when we have come so far in relation to these economic institutions that we can effectively do something, that we first of all have enough funds to do something on a large scale – because only then does it help – and on the other hand can overcome the resistance of the proletariat, which is particularly hostile to an economic improvement in the situation of students, then it must indeed be the first concern of our economic organizations to work economically in relation to the student body.

The 'battle problems'! Yes, you see, that's the problem: the Anthroposophical Society, even if it wasn't called that before, has existed since the beginning of the century, and it has always actually only worked positively, at least as far as I myself am concerned. It let the opponents rant and do all sorts of things. But naturally then the opponents come with certain objections. They say, there it has been said, there that has been said, yes that, that has not even been refuted. It is already so that one finds understanding for it that actually the one who asserts something has the burden of proof, not the one to whom it is attributed. And we could really experience it again and again, that strange views emerged precisely among academics, I now mean lecturers, professors, pastors and those who had emerged from the ranks of academics. Just think, that from, I would like to say, for the outside world honorable - but I say it only between quotation marks: “honorable” - professors, things are put forward against Anthroposoph , and so on, that if one follows these proofs with reasons, it is a mockery, a bloody mockery of all possible methods of asserting something in science. Therefore, with someone like Professor Fuchs, I simply had to say: It is impossible that this person is anything other than a quite impossible anatomist! Am I supposed to believe that he examines things conscientiously when, after everything that has been presented, he examines my baptismal certificate in the way he has examined it? You have to draw conclusions about the way one area is treated from the way another is treated. Such things simply show – through the fact that people step forward and show their particular habits – the symptoms of how science is done today. Even the things that are presented at universities and technical colleges today are basically no better founded than the things that are asserted in this way; it is just that the generally loosened habits in scientific life are revealed in this way. And that is what is needed: to take the fight to a higher level, so to speak.

And there it is not necessary, as my fellow student wished, for example, which I understand very well, to play as a “fighting organization.” That is not necessary. Rather, only one thing: to avoid what has occurred so frequently in the Anthroposophical Society. In the Anthroposophical Society, this always came to the fore, as incredible as it is – not in everyone, of course, but very often: one was obliged to defend oneself against a wild accusation, and then to use harsh words, for example, we say in the case when a Mr. v. Gleich invents the term “Winter” for a lecturer by reading that I myself have given winter lectures, then invents a personality “Winter” and introduces it into the fight in a very nasty way. Yes, you see, I don't think that in this case one would say too harsh words if one spoke of Trottelisis! Because here, even if it occurs with a general, one is dealing with a genuine Trottelisis in its purest form. And in the Anthroposophical Society it was usually the case that it was not the person who was at fault who acted like Mr. von Gleich, but the person who defended himself. Until today! We have learned a few times that it was said: You must not become aggressive in this way. In the eyes of many people, becoming aggressive means defending oneself in this way. It is necessary that you, without emphasizing that you are a fighting organization or the like, still follow things with a watchful eye and reject them. You have to act positively in this regard; and then the others have to stand behind you, behind the one who is forced to defend himself. It is not a matter of our becoming fighting cocks ourselves; but it is a matter of the others standing behind him when it becomes necessary to defend himself. And it is a matter of really following the symptoms of the world-descriptive, scientific, religious, and so on, in this respect in our time, taking an interest in them.

Take this single phenomenon: I was obliged to characterize philosophical, or whatever you want to call it, scribblings by Count Keyserling in the appropriate way, because in his incredible superficiality he mixed in the madness that I started from Haeckel's views. This is not only an objective untruth, but in this case a subjective untruth, that is, a lie, because one must demand that anyone who makes such an assertion should search for the sources; and he could have seen that the chapter I wrote in the earliest years of my writing career is in my arguments with Haeckel, in the introduction to Goethe's scientific writings. You can all read it very well. Now Count Keyserling has had a small pamphlet published by his publisher: “The Way to Perfection”. I will not characterize this writing further, but I recommend that one or two of you buy this writing and pass it around; because if everyone wanted to buy it, it would be a waste of money; but I still recommend that you read it so that you get an idea of what, so to speak, goes against all wisdom in this writing “The Way to Perfection” by Keyserling. There is the following sentence, which he put together, more or less as I remember it: Yes, if I said something incorrect, that Dr. Steiner started from Haeckel, then Dr. Steiner could simply have corrected that; he could have set me right, because I have - and now I ask you to pay close attention to this sentence - because I have no time for a special Steiner source research.

So now, you see, we have already brought scientific morality to such a pass that someone who founds a “school of wisdom” considers it justified to send things out into the world that he admittedly has no time to research, that he has therefore not researched! Here one catches a seemingly noble thinker - because Count Keyserling always cited omnipotence in his writing - that is what is so impressive about Count Keyserling, that he always cites omnipotence. All present-day writing has reached a point where it is most mired and ragged. And despite the omnipotence, there is a complete moral decline of views here. And so people have to be told: Of course, nobody expects you to do Steiner source research either; but then, if you don't do any Steiner source research, if you don't have time, then – with regard to all these things about which you should know something: Shut up!

You see, it is necessary that we have no illusions, that we simply discard every conventional principle of authority and the like, that we face ourselves freely, really and truly examining what is present in our time. Then we will be able to notice quite a lot of it today.

I would certainly advise you to take a look at some of the sentences that the great Germanist Roethe in Berlin occasionally and repeatedly coins, purely in terms of form – I will completely disregard the view, which can certainly be respected. Then you will find it instructive. We do not need to be a fighting organization. But we must be ready and alert to take action when the things that are leading us so horribly into decline actually materialize. Do we need to be an organization of anthroposophical students to do that? We simply need to be alert, decent, and scientifically conscientious people, then we can always take a stand against such harm from our most absolute private point of view. And if we are also organized for positive work, then the number of those who are organized for it can stand behind us and support us. We need the latter. But it would not be very clever of us to present ourselves as a fighting organization. On the other hand, it is important that we really work seriously on improving our current conditions. And to do that, we first have to take note of the terrible damage that is coming to light in one field or another – and which really cannot be overlooked, because it involves enormous sums of money – and have the courage to take a stand against it in whatever way we can.

You have already done something if you can do just that: simply set the record straight for a small number of your fellow students with regard to such things, even if it happens only in the smallest of circles. Yesterday, I said to one of our members here with regard to the World School Association: I think it is particularly valuable, especially with regard to such things, to start by talking to one or two or three others, that is, to very small groups, even if there are only two of them; and, to put it quite radically, if someone cannot find anyone else, then at least say it to yourself! So these things are quite tangible in terms of what the individual is able to do. Some will be able to do much more, as has actually already happened with a doctor who was a member and whose fellow students proved to be very enthusiastic. The point is not to make enemies by appearing as fighting cocks in a wild form, but also not to shy away from the fight when others start it. That's it: we must always let the other start; and then the necessary help must stand behind us, which does not allow the tactic to arise, because it has arisen: that we would have started. If they start from the other side, then one is forced to defend oneself; and then you can always read that the anthroposophical side has used this or that in the fight as an attack and so on. They always turn the tables. That is the method of the opponents. We must not let that happen.

As for the World School Association, I would just like to say this: in my opinion, it would be best if the World School Association could be established independently of each other in Entente and neutral countries, but also in the German-speaking area of Central Europe. If it could happen at the same time, so that things could develop independently of each other, so to speak, it would be best. Of course, a certain amount of vigilance is required to see what happens. I believe that Switzerland, in particular, should mediate here. It would be good if we could do it right now. I can assure you: things are on a knife edge – and if the same possibilities for war existed today as existed in 1914, then we would have had war again long ago. Things are on a knife edge in terms of sentiment and so on. And we won't get something like this Weltschulverein (World School Association) off the ground if, for example, it is founded in Germany now, and then the others, for example, if only for a week, had to follow suit. It would simply not come about, it would be impractical to do so.

On the other hand, we must not allow any possibility of our in the least denying our position on these matters. This School of Spiritual Science is called the Goetheanum. We gave it this name during the World War, here and now. The other nations, insofar as they have participated in anthroposophy, have adopted the name and accepted it. We have never denied that we have reasons to call the School of Spiritual Science 'Goetheanum', and it would therefore not be good if in Germany things were allowed to appear as some kind of imitation from the other side.

So it would be a matter of proceeding in this regard — forgive the harsh word — a little less clumsily, of doing it a little more skillfully in the larger world cultural sense! Switzerland would now have to work with full understanding here. So it would actually have to be taken up simultaneously by Central Europe, by the Entente and by the neutral countries.

For the time being, I don't know whether it will take off in just one or two places. This morning I received the news that the committee, which was convened yesterday and which wanted to work so hard, went to bed a few minutes after yesterday's meeting left the hall; it was postponed until tonight. Whether they will meet tonight, we will wait and see. We have already had very strange experiences; and based on this knowledge, that we have already had the most diverse experiences, I have taken the liberty of speaking to you here about the fact that in the further course of the movement, the experiences made should be taken into account.

On the other hand, I am convinced that if the necessary strong impulse and proper enthusiasm can be found among our fellow students, especially for what I myself and other friends of mine have mentioned in the course of this lecture: enthusiasm for the truth – then things will work out.

I would like to say one more thing: I recently read an article from a feature page and I can assure you that what recently took place in Stuttgart is not the slightest bit an end, but only a beginning, and I can assure you that things will get much, much worse. I have often said this to our friends here – a very, very long time ago – and I recently read a piece from a feature page in which it says: “There are enough intellectual sparks that flash like lightning after the wooden mousetrap, there are plenty of sparks of intellectual fire, and it will take no little cleverness on Steiner's part to reconcile people and prevent a real spark of fire one day bringing the Dornach glory to an inglorious end.

I really do think that whatever must occur as a reaction against such action, which will grow ever stronger and stronger, will have to be better shaped and, above all, more energetically carried out. And I believe that you, my dear fellow students, need to let all your youthful enthusiasm flow in this direction, in what we have often mentioned here during this course: enthusiasm for the truth. Youthful enthusiasm for the truth has always been a very good impulse in the further development of humanity. May it be so in the near future through you in a matter that you recognize as good.

Although I will be giving a lecture this evening at eight o'clock for all course participants this week, which is to some extent outside the program, we are now at the end of our spring lecture series. In the short time available to us, we were only able to give hints and guidelines about what we have in mind for a certain goal. And this goal – as you will have been able to sense from these lectures – is none other than this: to show how what is referred to here as anthroposophically oriented spiritual science can have a fruitful effect on the various individual specialized sciences and also on the various branches of practical human life in the present day. In order to show how we envision this goal, we have first covered, day by day, those sciences that lead into the life of the outer world, of outer nature. We have endeavored to show how barriers and limitations are everywhere being erected by the cognitive endeavors of the present, but which cannot be real barriers and limitations to human soul activity at all, because if they could apply, that which must be the essential goal of knowledge for man, the insight into the human being itself, would never be attainable. And above all, there would have to be a lack of knowledge that can become the driving force of human will and human action. Human will and human action would have to be condemned to continue to shape social life only out of instincts and drives, while a dignified existence can only be established if spiritual insight has the power to dive beyond the mere contemplation of nature into the purely spiritual life and to bring from there moral and social ideals that are powerful enough to impel the will.

Thus, on the one hand, we had to point out how spiritual science seeks to overcome the limitations that are supposed to be placed on external science, insofar as it relates to external nature and the external world, according to the will and the opinion and belief of our time. And on the other hand, we had to point out the other direction of human knowledge: the one that goes inwards, that aims to grasp the human being and himself, so that one can descend into what lives in man as his actual core of being. And we have shown that only when this impulse truly penetrates into the inner being of the human being, lives in knowledge, can a real linguistics, for example, or a real historical science come about, and that this impulse of inner knowledge is necessary to penetrate and fertilize the linguistic and historical sciences.

Thus we have pointed out two directions in which we must go beyond the boundaries that contemporary science wants to set: outwards and inwards. And we have pointed out in these days how the appeal to such a spiritual knowledge resounds to us from the most important signs of the times.

On the one hand, we have the numerous signs that people in the broadest circles are striving to delve ever deeper into the mysteries of the human soul in order to find a secure hold there and maintain a proper balance with regard to their external social life. And when we listen to the most important voices of the human heart and mind, we must say that it sounds everywhere from the demands of the present that scientific knowledge must lead to what must be found for the inner security of the human soul. No prospect of such a goal can be found in current popular science. Because it is not to be found in this, spiritual science believes it must take the step of showing these other sciences how they can be fertilized by true spiritual scientific research.

From the other side, the sounds of social confusion can be heard. Great, formidable social tasks face the people of our time. We will only be able to cope with them if we realize that only what we can acquire in insight into human life, in knowledge of the human being, can give us the strength to approach the great social tasks of the present. The insights that arise from genuine, true spiritual scientific research must again become leading, because only that can also provide direction for the socially necessary endeavors.

It is precisely our intentions that are resented, that we have to approach the question indicated here in a somewhat different way than many of our contemporaries. I have already had to point out this difference on a wide variety of occasions. But this is something that must always be said again. Therefore, I want to say it here today, at the end of our event. Certainly, there are already many people who say: Insight must go beyond the broadest sections of the population; knowledge must be popularized, because it must live in a sufficiently large number of people; only if it lives in them will social insights also develop. And the good will that undoubtedly underlies it is evident from everything that is undertaken in the direction of establishing adult education centres, public libraries, popularization of science, as it is cultivated at our present educational institutions. It is believed that if we only spread what is cultivated at our educational institutions to the widest circles, then it should be avoided in the future that we enter into such catastrophic epochs as ours.

But can we believe that what was there for the people who were directly involved with the causes of this present catastrophic time, that what was broadcast by our educational institutions to the leading circles and did nothing has borne fruit in leading them to better deeds than those to which they have come, can we hope that the same 'spiritual knowledge', as it is also called, will now have an effect when it is spread among the masses? One can only believe such a thing if one wants to throw sand into one's own eyes. Because we do not want that, we who feel connected here with the aspirations of Goetheanism, therefore we must say, despite all that is immediately invoked in all possible enmity and antagonism: No, something else is still necessary! — Not only should something be carried out of our educational institutions, something should be carried in. What must be brought into them is that which can only be brought in if one wants to recognize spiritual research alongside external sensual and intellectual research. What is then brought into our educational institutions will already take hold of the hearts and minds of people, because it is drawn from the nature of the hearts and minds of people, because that which unconsciously slumbers in the depths of people is thus brought to light as a guiding force for human activity. We have already been put in the unpleasant position of having to admit that not only should something be brought into our educational institutions, but above all, much, much should be brought into them. And the fact that we dare to point out such things is what has earned us so much hostility.

Now, believe me: personally, it would be my dearest wish if the urge for such a spiritual calling of the sciences were to arise above all from the seats of our education to date, if there were those who would point out what is needed. Nothing would please me more, nothing would satisfy me more than to see such striving. Yes, that is why I really had some joy — forgive me for this interjected episode — when I was recently in Basel and discovered a writing in a shop window that was entitled “University Reform”, written by a university professor himself, as it turned out. That, I thought to myself, perhaps makes the pursuit of a foundation for the World School Association quite unnecessary when such voices come from such a source. And the writing begins in an extraordinarily auspicious way. One has the feeling that something must be struck with such sentences, which understands the signs of the times in a certain direction: “The organization of our universities suffers from great deficiencies. A reform is urgently needed here. But only those who know the university system from the ground up should participate in this work.

One could also be pleased about this, if those who know the university system from the ground up would participate. But because I would like to characterize a symptom in what I have further learned in this writing, you must allow me to speak briefly about the experience of this writing. On page 4, you will find an expression of what the author now excludes from his consideration of this reform work with regard to the universities: “For example, I will not comment on the question of the semester schedule and university vacations. Because these things are not yet ripe for discussion.”

Another thing that is to be excluded from this consideration: “Furthermore, I will leave the legal status of the assistants in our clinics or our scientific institutes undiscussed. Because I do not trust myself to make an expert judgment on this.”

Now, one could be quite satisfied if these two points were excluded from a consideration of how necessary a reform of our universities is.

Then the actual reforms are discussed in individual chapters. The first chapter is entitled: “The Division of University Teachers into Different Classes.” From this we learn that there are full and associate professors, private lecturers, honorary professors, lectors and assistants. One learns from this that it is necessary to start here with a major reform, that it is necessary, for example, that certain people who, according to current practice, have remained associate professors all their lives, because, for example, they only had to represent a minor subject – otolaryngology or Egyptology – must now, well, now, have to be appointed full professors too; only that one should not go too far, one learns that for all those who are to be appointed from associate professor to full professor, one will have to allow the salary to be less than that received by the real full professors.

Then we move on to the next chapter on the appointment of university teachers. Among other things, attention is drawn to the extraordinary and significant fact that discrepancies have arisen between the governments and the faculties or the professorial colleges, and that it would be somewhat questionable if, for example, too much reliance were placed on the fact that the professorial colleges themselves could be solely responsible for the appointment. Governments have sometimes done better than the professorial colleges.

One must look for a way out. It is true that the writing is written for German conditions, but I believe that it is at least symptomatic of world conditions and can therefore be cited here. They are looking for a way out, for a way to get around the fact that the discrepancies between the colleges and the governments are disappearing, and they point out that the important institution of a “Reich University Council” must be brought into being!

We come – I will quickly go over the things – to the third chapter: the salary of university teachers. Well, there is a discussion of the wishes regarding the salary regulations. I have already told you a little about it.

We come to the fourth chapter: the transfer of lecture fees to university teachers. It is pointed out that some who are very capable only have a very small college, while others who happen to read something popular have a large college and thus receive a lot of college fees. It is pointed out that, for example, someone who only has to read three hours on his subject is given five or six hours so that the lecture money is higher. In short, the only way out is to subject this matter to a thorough reform.

Then, in the fifth chapter, the awarding of prizes to university teachers is discussed, which is also a matter that requires thorough reform.

In a sixth chapter, the way in which university teachers leave their teaching positions is discussed. It is pointed out that many injustices could occur in this regard. However, if a “University Service Court” is set up, which consists in part of the most worthy members of the “Reich University Council”, then these matters will be taken care of.

Then it is pointed out how such instances as the “Reich University Council” and the “University Service Court” can bring order to what is stated in the seventh chapter, the “Service Criminal Law of University Teachers”, which has to be done if one wants to dismiss them or if they are only to receive a reprimand or something similar.

Then we find a special chapter on “Special service assignments for university teachers”. We find a chapter on the “administration of university affairs”, but it only talks about things that require discussion, including whether associate professors and private lecturers should perhaps participate through a representative, and how this should happen, in terms of what is decided.

In an eleventh chapter, the “university assets” are discussed. In a twelfth chapter, how to deal with people who have not quite passed their preliminary examination. In a thirteenth chapter, attention is drawn to the fact that, due to various circumstances, being a doctor is nonsense, and that in the future, therefore, one should not do a doctorate through exams, but that those who have passed the state exam, the assessor exam, the philological school teaching exam and the like should be entitled to call themselves a doctor in the future. But that in turn leads to difficulties, namely, if those who are employed by the state can call themselves doctors – I don't know the inner logical connection, I don't understand it – then there would be no guarantee that they would also be scholars, and therefore a scholars' examination would have to be introduced. Of course, one cannot expect people to be particularly keen on taking this additional academic examination; but one could introduce an extra substitute for it, for example, that the year in which the examination is taken should be counted double towards the period of service for those who have passed it and are subsequently awarded a doctorate.

Yes, my dear audience, I am talking about a very serious matter, I am talking about a book on university reform that begins: The organization at our universities suffers from major deficiencies, a reform is urgently needed, and I saw when I had gone through thirteen chapters, I had already reached page 43, now there were only one and a half pages left; I hoped, now it will come! But lo and behold, now comes a fourteenth chapter: “Scientific Research Institutes.” It says that there is indeed something to be done for these too, that, for example, only those who have been university professors should be employed as real researchers, because only they are real researchers. And then, on page 44, this document concludes: “It is therefore recommended that the salary of members of research institutes should not be set quite as high as that of full university professors of the same seniority; they cannot complain about it, since they are quite exempt from the heavy teaching load. Some kind of provision must also be made to ensure that the members of the research institutes do not use their position as honorary professors to secure excessive lecture fees."

Yes, that really is the end of the writing. And I actually left some things out without noticing. However, when I had finished reading the writing, I had the feeling that the universities consist of professors, ordinary and extraordinary professors, private lecturers, lecturers and assistants. But then I realized: at the university, there are also students, and I wondered if perhaps these students are also somehow connected with the purpose of the universities? I was then able to state that seven and ten lines are devoted to the student in this writing, which covers almost forty-four pages. But the first seven lines on page 5—I couldn't make anything special out of them. Because they actually say so terribly little positive: “Therefore, I will not go into whether the relationship between university teachers and students could not be made more intimate and, above all, whether the office hours of university teachers could be made more fruitful than is now generally the case. Because here administrative regulations would achieve nothing. Here any compulsion that came only from outside would be hopeless.”

Then I wanted to refer to the page about the student body, which deals with students in ten lines. But I couldn't do anything about that either, because they only deal with the “student disciplinary code”.

Now, I didn't actually share what I shared in order to be ironic, to provoke laughter or the like, but rather as a sign of the times, and I would like to make it explicitly clear that I consider the man who wrote this, I consider him to be an extraordinarily good and extraordinarily clever man who just can't decide to reflect on his reform work in terms of anything other than what – as he himself says – can be implemented through administrative measures. Well, I think we have more pressing needs today than those that can be implemented through administrative measures. The signs of the times demand something completely different.

But not only is the author of this paper on “University Reform” a well-meaning, clever person, he is also a person who knows himself well, and he reveals why he does not actually go beyond such things. And there we find something very strange on page 4: “Thus I shall pass over in silence the reform of university teaching in the narrower sense. It is, of course, very close to my heart and is at least as important as all the other reforms, which I will discuss in more or less detail in the near future. Therefore, I find it difficult to remain silent. But what I know about it would essentially only apply to teaching in law and economics, and would have little significance for teaching in philology, medicine, and the natural sciences. However, an investigation limited to teaching in law and economics would not fit into the framework of a treatise that deals with the reform of the university as a whole.

Yes, we think to ourselves, if a lawyer hadn't written the thing, it could say here: “My silence is therefore difficult for me. But what I would have to say about it would essentially only apply to teaching medicine and would therefore be of little importance for teaching law and economics. But an investigation limited to medical instruction would not fit into the framework of a treatise dealing with the reform of the university as a whole.

And now, with a change of subject, I could read this sentence to you quite often and you would see from it – if you call the underlying fact to mind – what specialization, in particular, has led to, as it has become rampant. It has condemned the scientist to inaction. No one knows enough about the big picture to talk about it because they are a lawyer, an economist, a medical doctor, a philologist, and so on. Today, one becomes a scientist in order to have to admit that one knows nothing about the actual matters of human knowledge. Such a symptom is significant because it comes from a clever, well-meaning person who also has the necessary modesty. But I think it points all the more to the necessity that something must be brought into the places in question, not just that something can be taken out to the ends I mentioned earlier.

Therefore, I believe that we not only had to, but must always point out what, on the part of spiritual science, is to have a fruitful effect on the individual branches of specialized knowledge, but ultimately also on the individual branches of practical thinking. For the way in which we have gradually arrived at abstractions in the sciences has given science a position in a dry, impractical, and unrealistic zone of existence. And one can experience it even for the social area that a man like Schumpeter, who is again an extraordinary, clever, clever man and has written a clever essay on imperialisms, concludes with the words: “An ethical, aesthetic, political or cultural evaluation of this process is far from the goals of these studies. Whether this process heals ulcers or extinguishes suns is, from their point of view (namely from a scientific point of view), completely irrelevant. It is not for science to judge.

That is to say, it is the business of science to produce something that stops short of life, that does not lead to evaluations in ethical, aesthetic, or cultural life. In the course of this lecture series, we have seen what a remarkable fact has emerged as a result of this abstract shaping of the definition of science. We have seen how the philosophy of value, the Rickertian, Windelbandian, and so on, has been drawn up. I think it was clear to you from Dr. Stein's remarks what it was about. The point was that on the natural science side, being is now being claimed, but that on the natural science side, where being is being claimed in its totality, one does not want to engage in any further philosophical work. They want to sit down on the chair of science, which represents existence, and they want to make out everything that can be made out about existence from the scientific point of view. On the philosophical side, they make no effort – forgive me, the image is not as bad as I mean it when I say it – to turn the chair into a bench, to push the others aside a little and sit down on the chair of being themselves. No, because the evaluation is left to you, because scientists say: ethical, aesthetic, cultural evaluations are far removed from science, are not a matter for science, you sit on the chair of evaluations so that you have a clear demarcation. One specializes to the point of intellectualism and loses the possibility of really approaching the human being, who certainly cannot help but, by living in being, to experience something that must represent an ethical, aesthetic, and cultural evaluation for himself.

The issues at stake today are truly profound. And that is why the contemporary world should develop the inclination to answer the fundamental question: Is this spiritual science, which claims that it can fertilize the individual specialized sciences and also branches of practical life, is this spiritual science itself scientific? And in this respect, spiritual science will take the view that any engagement with it from the individual sciences of the present day, with full scientific thoroughness and with good scientific prior knowledge — but of course not with dilettantism — is welcome to spiritual science, any engagement with it from a good scientific standpoint is welcome. It does not shrink from the scrutiny of those who know something, and it will be all the more pleased the more those know who want to scrutinize it from the point of view of the individual sciences.

That is the first thing I would like to say to you today at the end of our spring courses.

But the second thing is what many people reproach us for: that we strive for the supersensible in an impermissible way, that we talk to people about an investigation of the supersensible, but that this is unscientific from the outset, because one cannot know anything about the supersensible.

Now, the tenor of this week's lectures was, I might say, automatically directed towards showing that we do not want to go in for supersensible research because we want to go beyond science to some nebulous stuff, not to strive for the supersensible because we want to be unscientific, but to place ourselves on the ground of science as it is now, but to place ourselves honestly on this ground. And by placing ourselves honestly on this ground, we find where in these sciences the gates are out of themselves and into the supersensible world. Not because we want to go beyond the sciences, not because of unscientificity, we speak of the supersensible, but because we are led out of science itself into the supersensible on scientific grounds.

We profess a knowledge of the supersensible that is based on science. Not only is our supersensible knowledge scientific and can be tested by any scientific method, but because we recognize what the other sciences should recognize in their fields, we strive — out of scientificness, because we must out of this scientificness — to the knowledge of the supersensible.

In this way, however, we are truly led to an understanding of the human being as a whole. For what I just mentioned as the way out leads to clarity about the so-called limits of knowledge of nature. But it also leads to an insight into what the human being as a whole becomes when he immerses himself in a knowledge that assumes such limits. It is not just that we do science, but by doing science we are human beings, even if we do not take it into account. We become human beings through the practice of science. We can strike out of our consciousness the concepts of the human essence, but we cannot, in truth, dehumanize ourselves within science. We have to penetrate to the human essence. We cannot do this if we set ourselves the limits and boundaries that are spoken of today in popular science and that are also demanded in practical scientific work. We are set back, so that we lose abilities. If you do not use the muscles of a hand, they become weak. If you do not use certain abilities because you imagine that there are limits and that the abilities must not be applied because otherwise they would exceed the limits, you lose those abilities.

Now, dear audience, from what you have seen here over the past eight days, you will have realized what a connection exists between the development of these abilities, which do not bind themselves to the commonly assumed limits of nature, and that which lives in nature itself. That which only wants to go as far as the limits of the sensory world in the external nature, cannot develop those forces that lead down below the surface of the sensory being and from which something must also be gained for human life.

Goethe points to this, to what must be gained, in his very meaningful, I would even say weighty, statement: “When nature begins to reveal her secrets to anyone, he feels an irresistible longing for her most worthy interpreter, art.” Here we have the path where that which is living knowledge does not kill the artistic, but leads directly into the artistic.

When the last university courses were held here in the fall, I pointed out how what is said here should lead to what was instinctively present in humanity in ancient times: a unification of science, art and religion. This is found. For if we do not cut ourselves off from our abilities, if we do not paralyze them by accepting the “limits of natural knowledge” scientifically, then we will notice how, little by little, what we understand of the laws of education in nature must give way to what, out of this understanding of the laws of education, shapes itself artistically. One cannot understand the human form, which is also formed out of nature, if one does not convert into artistic intuition what are otherwise only general rules in one's own knowledge. When people then come and say: Yes, but an analysis of the cognitive faculty shows that we must not go beyond logic in cognition, but that we must grasp everything with abstract logical rules, and with observation, with experiment — then one must reply to them: But insight, spiritual-scientific insight into the facts of the world, shows something else. It shows that we can talk at length about how knowledge must be, how we must shape knowledge; but nature does not yield to such knowledge. For she herself creates artistically, and from a certain point on she wants to be understood artistically.

There is a continuous path from science into art. And the bridge is not an unnatural one, the bridge is a self-evident one. And the other way should lead across the boundaries that are erected within man. It has been hinted at during this week that one does not come to some nebulous, spongy mystical depth, but that one comes to a clear understanding of the human organization. But one comes to it by going this other way – spiritual science shows this by also ascending to insights on this other way – to something that one would now like to express with a word similar to the Goethean word just quoted. Goethe says: “To whom nature begins to reveal her secret, he feels an irresistible longing for her most worthy interpreter, art.” With regard to what one can really recognize when developing scientific thought truth, one can say: When the human soul begins to reveal its mysterious essence, one feels a deep longing for the most dignified feeling of religious devotion to creative existence.

And so, by penetrating outward into nature, we find the path to art; by penetrating inward into the human being through knowledge, we find the path to religion. Whatever has specialized in these three fields must still interact uniformly in the human soul. The possibility of this unified interaction must be found. If, then, knowledge is once more able to immerse itself in the secrets of things, which, as you have seen, has been the aim here during these eight days, then it will be able to approach what wells up from the human being: the social question. Here, because the human being is the external embodiment of a spiritual soul, the impulses that we can gain from an understanding of the spiritual soul must help. The social question, which is so urgent and burning that it must touch our hearts today, especially if we belong to today's youth, can only be mastered, insofar as it must be mastered, if we find our way, so to speak, into the object of the social question, into the thinking, feeling, desiring human being, who is pushing for a dignified existence. That spiritual science strives in this direction is part of its essence.

And when one realizes what it has to say about man, then one will no longer be able to say: an ethical, aesthetic, political or cultural evaluation of the social process is far removed from the goal of such a study. Whether this process heals ulcers or extinguishes suns is completely irrelevant from the point of view of science. The only thing missing is for someone to say that the task of medicine is to understand the human organism, and that, from a scientific point of view, whether or not medicine succeeds in healing patients is completely irrelevant. The way of thinking that lives in sentences like the first one, and the way of thinking in such an absurd sentence as the one I have just quoted to you, is basically one and the same. We have come so far that we no longer recognize absurdities as such when they are clothed in popular scientific formulas, when they sound out into the crowd formed by authorities.

That is what moves us here at the Goetheanum to speak out. We cannot help it, even if there were so many enemies and opponents, but to work together with the student body in such a direction.

We know what it means to be a student. That means carrying in your hearts what must flow over as strength into the future. Yes, this future that now awaits humanity will need powerful souls in whose will and emotions a clear insight into the nature of the world and human life plays out. We know that you will need something like this, and so we speak to you, provided you are willing to meet us with understanding. We have truly called you here with us – although, as you can believe me, we all very much like to see you in person – we have called you here with us because we hope that you will become collaborators on a path that we see as necessary for the present and for the near future, and because we want to do the test – and we will do it more and more, I hope it will be possible despite all resistance – because we wanted to do the test to see how many people can be found in whose hearts there is an echo of what we believe to be a necessity of our time.

We now have to part again, my dear course participants. But I believe there is one thing we can all be united on, united in spite of the distance between us: the realization that we must move forward in the direction indicated here, that we must work, that we must develop the will in this direction, each to the best of our ability. He will develop this will if he gains the necessary insight.

We are not yet in a position – and this is addressed to you, my dear fellow students – to bring what we are able to offer you here to a conclusion by enabling you to pass final exams that will give you life-long positions. We are poor people in this respect, who can only appeal to the sense of truth and enthusiasm for knowledge that prevails in human souls and hearts. We can only hope that despite all the unhealthy influences at work in the examinations and job placements, there are still enough young people with hearts and souls who want to find the truth, for the sake of truth, in what can be believed to be necessary in the signs of the times, for the sake of this purely human necessity. We believe that there is still so much free feeling present that out of this pure desire for freedom, these two endeavors can arise.

Because we must believe this, we who have given these lectures and organized these events over the past week stand here to bid you farewell as you return to the rest of your lives. But we stand here, hoping that you will be our helpers, accompanying you with the thoughts that we have let pass through our souls together, accompanying you with the best wishes that your will to clarity, your will to appropriate action, be strong. In this hope and with these wishes, we part, hoping to see each other again, and from this place we say a heartfelt farewell and goodbye!

The terrible catastrophe of last New Year's Eve, the destruction by fire of the Goetheanum, which will remain as a painful memory for the many who loved it, may provide occasion to connect today's thoughts about the anthroposophical knowledge and conception of the world with this Goetheanum. But a connection is all I have in view; for the lecture itself that I am to present to you is not to be essentially different in kind from those I have been permitted to give here in Basel, in this same hall, for many years past.

That dreadful calamity was just the occasion to bring to light what fantastic notions there are in the world linked with all that this Goetheanum in Dornach intended to do and all that was done in it. It is said that the most frightful superstitions were disseminated there, that all sorts of things inimical to religion were being practiced; and there is even talk of all kinds of spiritistic seances, of nebulous mystic performances, and so on.

In respect to all this, I should like today to answer, at least sketchily, the question: What is this Anthroposophy to which the Goetheanum was dedicated?

Many people were scandalized at the very name, “Goetheanum,” because they failed to consider the fundamental reason for this name, and how it is connected with all that is cultivated there as Anthroposophy.

For me, my dear friends, this Anthroposophy is the spontaneous result of my devotion for more than four decades to Goethe's world-conception, and to his whole activity. Of course if anyone studies Goethe's world-conception and what he did by considering only what is actually written in Goethe's works, and from that deduces logically, as it were, what may now be called Goethean, he will not find what gave occasion to call the Dornach Building the “Goetheanum,” But there is, I might say, a logic of thinking and a logic of life. And anyone who immerses himself in Goethe, not merely with a logic of thinking, but who takes up actively his impulse-filled suggestions, and tries to gain from them what can be gained—after so many decades have passed over humanity's evolution since Goethe's death—he will believe—no matter what he may think of the true value of Anthroposophy—that by means of the living stimuli of Goetheanism, if I may use the expression, this very Anthroposophy has been able to come into being through a logic of life, by experiencing what is in Goethe, and by developing his conclusions, in a modest way.

Now this Goetheanum was first called “Johannesbau” by those friends of the anthroposophical world-conception who made it possible to erect such a building. The name was in no way connected with the Evangelist, St, John; but the building was named—not by me but by others—for Johannes Thomasius, one of the figures in my Mystery Drama; because, above all, this Goetheanum was to be dedicated to the presentation of these Mystery Plays, besides the cultivation of all the rest of the anthroposophical world-view. But of course it was inevitable that this name, “Johannesbau,” should lead to the misunderstanding that it was meant for the author of St. John's Gospel.

Hence, I often said, I think even here in this place, in the course of the years in which the Goetheanum was being built, that for me this building is a Goetheanum; for I derived my world-view in a living way from Goethe. And then this name was officially given to the Building by friends of the cause. I have always regarded this as a sort of token of gratitude for what can be gained from Goethe, an act of homage to the towering personality of Goethe; not because it was supposed that what was originally given by Goethe would be cultivated in the best and most beautiful way in the Dornach Goetheanum, but because the anthroposophical world-view feels the deepest gratitude for what has come into the world through Goethe.

If, then, the name “Goetheanum” is taken as resulting from an act of homage, an act of gratitude, then no one, as I believe, can take exception to it. For the rest, it is quite comprehensible that anyone unacquainted with the anthroposophical world-view, when approaching the building on the Dornach hill, would be at first peculiarly affected by the two dove-tailed dome-structures, by the strange forms without and within, and so forth. But this building proceeded as an inner artistic consequence, from the anthroposophical world-view. Therefore, I shall be able to form the best connecting link with what the Building stood for, if I try first—today in a somewhat different way from the one I have employed here for many years—to answer the question: What is Anthroposophy?

To start with, Anthroposophy claims to be a knowledge of the spiritual world, which can fully take its place beside the magnificent natural science of our time. It aims to rank with natural science, not only as regards scientific conscientiousness, but it also requires that anyone who wishes, not merely to receive Anthroposophy into his mind, but to build it up, must, before all else, have gone through all the rigid and serious methods used today by natural science.

In all this the purpose of Anthroposophy is the complete opposite of what I have cited as the opinions of the world about it. With regard to these opinions, which I have given only in part, we can only be astonished that it is possible for ideas about anything to become fixed in the minds of the public, which are the exact opposite of what is really intended. For it can be flatly said that all I have mentioned as opinions of the world is not Anthroposophy, but that Anthroposophy purposes to be a serious knowledge of the spiritual world.

You well know, my dear friends, that today anything claiming to be knowledge of the spiritual world is regarded somewhat contemptuously, or at least with great doubt. The scientific education that mankind has enjoyed for the past three or four hundred years was of such a nature that in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the opinion came gradually to be held that, by means of the strict methods employed today by natural science, man can know what is presented to the senses in his environment, and also what the human intellect can deduce from sense-perception, with the help of its methods of experiment and observation. But on the other hand, knowledge of the spiritual is declined, by those very people who are firmly convinced that they stand on the strict basis of this natural-scientific world-view. For it is said, whether with a certain arrogance or with a certain despondency, that with regard to the spiritual there are barriers to man's knowledge, that with regard to the spirit man must be satisfied with concepts of belief.

Because of this there results a serious inner soul-discord for very many people who get their education from the natural science that is everywhere popularized today. The concepts of belief are handed down from ancient times. It is not known that they also correspond to concepts of knowledge which humanity attained at earlier stages, and that' these are still contained in the traditions, in what has been handed down. If they are accepted just as concepts of belief, then the soul is brought into contradiction with everything it takes in when it accepts what in our day is won for humanity and for practical life in such a rigorous way by the methods of natural science.

What is won in this way cannot really be called the possession of a small group of educated people; rather, this special mode of thought derived from natural science has already penetrated the instruction of the primary grades of school. And we might even say that the condition of soul that results from natural science, if not natural science itself, has been spread everywhere, ever farther and farther, even into the most primitive, outermost human settlements. This brings it about that many people do not know that their soul-longing is for concepts about the spiritual world similar to those they have about the natural world; but this causes in many of them, nevertheless, a discord of soul which is expressed in all kinds of dissatisfactions with life. People feel a certain inner unrest and perplexity. With the concepts and feelings they have, they do not rightly know how to take their place in life. They ascribe the trouble to all sorts of things, but the real cause lies in what I have said.

People today long for real knowledge-concepts about the spiritual world, not for concepts of belief. Such knowledge-concepts are what Anthroposophy strives for; but in doing so it must, of course, vindicate an entirely different concept of knowledge from the one we are accustomed to today. And if I am to characterize this concept, I should like to do it by means of a sort of comparison, which is, however, more than a mere comparison, and is to lead directly to the way in which Anthroposophy strives to know the super-sensible-spiritual.

Let us think first of the strange world which each of you knows as the other side of human existence, as it were, the other side of human consciousness—let us think of the dream-world. Each of you can remember the variegated, diverse, colorful pictures that appear out of the dark depths of sleep. If you observe dreams from the waking state, you will find that these are connected in some way with what one is or does while awake. Even when at times they are prophetic dreams, which is by no means to be denied, they are nevertheless connected with what the dreamer has experienced—only a natural formative fantasy acts in the most extravagant way to metamorphose these experiences. In a different way such dreams are connected with the human bodily conditions; difficulty in breathing, rapid heart-action, disturbances in the organism, are experienced symbolically in dreams in many ways.

Let us imagine for a moment, merely to develop the thought that is needed here, that a person lived in this dream-world, that he had no other world; he would never be able to emerge from this world, but' would regard it as his reality. If through some kind of outer forces, the human life took its course exactly as it does now, that we went about in the cities and did our work, but did not consciously see this work, just always dreamed, then we human beings would regard the dream-world as the only reality, just as the dreamer in the moment of the dream regards his variously decked-out dream-world as his reality» Only when we wake up can we truly form a judgment, from the waking point of view, by means of the way we are then related to the world of our environment, about the real value and significance of the dream, While remaining in the dream, we can come to no such judgment. It is only possible from the point of view of the waking life to judge to what extent the dream is related to life-reminiscences, or to bodily conditions. To form a judgment about the dream, one must first wake up.

Now the human being lives also in his will, for it is particularly the will that, upon waking, is projected into the events of the outer sense-world; man lives now in the pictures which this sense-world transmits to his soul. We have no judgment whatever about the reality, except the feeling of being in the sense-world, the feeling of union with this sense-world; and from this point of view—I might say of insertion of the whole soul-being into this world by means of the body—we at first regard it as reality, and the deceptive pictures of the dream as not belonging to this reality.

But now, especially when anyone surveys all that the pictures of the outer sense-reality give to him, certainly at some time the question will appear: How is what he himself experiences within him as his soul-spirit-being related to the transformations and the variability of the outer sense-world?

The great questions of existence present themselves when a man compares what he sees in the outer sense-world with what he feels as his own being, in his thinking and feeling, his sensing and his willing, rising out of the depths of his humanness,—those great questions of existence which may perhaps be comprised in the one question: What value, as reality, has that which pertains to the soul? This then expands to questions of soul-immortality, of human freedom, and numberless others that spring up. For one will soon feel how entirely different the experience is when looking outward and receiving sense-impressions, from that of looking inward and having soul-experiences. And from such experiences the question must of necessity arises Is it perhaps possible, through some kind of second awakening, a higher awakening, to attain from a higher standpoint knowledge about sense-reality itself, in the same way that a man acquires from the sense-reality a judgment about the dream-world, when, as a matter of course, he awakes in the morning?

When a man is convinced that the imagination of the dream can be judged with regard to its value as reality, only from the standpoint of waking life, then he must strive to gain a point of view which can in turn reveal something about the value as reality, of the higher value, of sense-experience itself.

And now the great question concerning a knowledge of spirit may be put this way: Can we perhaps wake up in a higher sense from our everyday waking consciousness? and does' there result from such second waking a knowledge about the sense-world, just as from the sense-world comes knowledge about the dream?

Now we can, of course, have a feeling about it, but exact observation gives us certainty about how the dream works. When dreaming we feel that our whole soul-life is laid hold of by vague powers. At the moment of waking, we feel that we now have control of our physical body. We feel that the extravagant concepts of the dream are disciplined by the physical body. And the reason we feel that these dream-concepts are extravagant is that, when waking up or going to sleep, there is a moment ' when we do not have the physical body completely in hand. Can a higher, a second awakening, be brought about by conscious soul-activity, in the same way that we are wrenched out of the dream, out of sleep, by the forces of the organism itself?

This question can only be answered when we test, I might say in a higher sense, whether the soul finds forces within itself for such a higher awakening; and only by finding the answer to this can a different form of knowledge-concept be produced from that to which we are accustomed today, and which leads only to one's saying with regard to the spiritual world, “Ignorabimus,” “We shall not know.”

Now we shall have to turn first of all—and Anthroposophy proceeds in this way—to those soul-forces that we already have, and ask: Can something higher, still stronger, be developed out of these soul-forces, just as the waking soul-life is stronger than the dreaming life? We may reason that even this waking soul-life of the adult person has been gradually developed from the dreamy soul-life that we had at the beginning as very little children. If we had stopped with the soul-life that was ours during the first three years on earth, we should see the world in a sort of dream-form. We have grown out of this dream-form.

This may give courage, to begin with, to seek certain soul-forces which can be developed still further than the development achieved since earliest childhood. And anyone who deals with such a problem seriously will turn first to a soul-force concerning which even significant philosophers of the present admit, as a result of purely philosophic deliberation, that it points to a spiritual activity of man which is more or less independent of the body. This is our power of recollection, residing in the memory.

Let us picture to ourselves what exists in our ordinary memory. Of course this memory is not a force with which immediately to penetrate into the super-sensible, spiritual worlds. Above all, we know that this memory is only in perfect order when we can bring to expression in the corporeal what is in the soul. But nevertheless, there is something peculiar here. Among our recollections appear pictures of experiences which were perhaps decades in the past. Something experienced in our relation to the sense-world and to ordinary people appears in varying pictures—according to one's organization—which are really very similar to dream-pictures, only more disciplined. And if our memory is good, there comes today from the soul-depths a living knowledge of what occurred years ago, and is not now before us in sense-reality. This is expressed in a very popular way, of course; but we must start from a definite point of view. So we may say: There are images in the memory which portray inwardly something which was, indeed, once present, something experienced, which is not now present.

And so the question may arise which is still vague at first, and naturally acquires significance only when one can answer it—but we shall see that it can be answered. It is this: Is it possible for anyone, by soul-spiritual work, to acquire a further soul-force, a transformation as it were of the memory-force, whereby he pictures not only what is no longer present, though it once was, but whereby he depicts something which does not exist in the earth-life at all, either through sense-perceptions or any intellectual combinations? This can be decided only by serious inner soul-work; and this soul-work consists of an inner education of the essential element of memory; namely, the capacity for imagining.

How, then, do representations come about? and how is the activity of representation accomplished in ordinary life? Well, outer things make an impression upon us. First, we have sense-perceptions; then from these sense-perceptions we form our concepts, which we carry in the memory. And we know that a certain force is required when we wish to call up a memory-concept of something witnessed in earlier years in which we were involved. But we know too that man surrenders passively to the outer world, in order to have true concepts of this outer world, to bring nothing fantastic into the pictures of it. And this passive self-surrender, assisted besides by all possible experimental methods, is right for natural science. But we can do something more than this with the conceptual life. We can try to take up with inner activity concepts of any content whatsoever—only their content must be easily survey-able, so as not to work suggestively; an idea that is difficult to survey, such as one brought up from the depths of the soul, may easily work suggestively, We now try to ponder with inner activity upon such a concept, so that we surrender ourselves again and again with our whole soul-life to this thought,

I have minutely described what I might call the technique of such surrender to an active living in representation, in my books, “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds” and “Occult Science;” here I want to sketch the principle involved. If anyone devotes himself again and again to the content of an idea, quite independently of the outer meaning of the concepts he employs inwardly, upon which he inwardly rests, with which he unites himself, to which he allows his whole being to open—if anyone surrenders himself in this way to such an idea, he will gradually notice that in this inner work, in the thinking and representation, a notable aliveness is developed, an aliveness which one must first come to know before an opinion can be formed about it. But when anyone does come to know it, he begins to think somewhat as follows: A muscle we continue to use becomes stronger; in exactly the same way the thinking force of our soul-life is strengthened, if we do not surrender passively to the impressions of the outer world, but work inwardly; if in this way we again and again bring the soul-life inwardly and livingly into a certain condition with regard to an idea.

In this way we finally reach the point where the thinking—which otherwise appears shadowy, even in memory-pictures, and exhausts itself just in the mere presentation of pictures—is filled with a soul-spiritual content, just as in life we feel that we are filled with the breath, with the circulating blood. Life-force, if I may speak in this way, streams into thinking that has thus become active.

Truly, real Anthroposophy, as spirit-knowledge, is based upon intimate, inner methods of the soul, not upon any sort of necromancy? it is based upon the changing of the soul-forces of knowledge by the soul itself, making them into something different. And anyone who strengthens his thinking more and more in this way comes at last—it may be even years later—to a very special experience, an experience that may be described as follows: When we call to mind only outer objects or outer actions, we dive down to a certain depth of the soul-life, and from this depth we must then draw up the recollections. But when we actively work on our thinking in the way I have described, we finally come to the point where we know that with this thinking life we go farther down than the power of recollection reaches.

It is an important experience when we have reached the point of observing the recollections as at a certain level to which we dive down in the ordinary consciousness, and from which we bring up memory-concepts; and then when we glimpse that deeper down in the soul-life there is another level to which we have now penetrated, and from which, with our strengthened thinking, we can draw up concepts that are not the same as those to which we first submitted ourselves, but are entirely different. And while we can represent in recollections what was once present in the human life, but is no longer present, so we now learn that when we draw from this deeper level, we come to concepts that are beyond anything one otherwise ever has in life.

Through this gate of knowledge we have now penetrated into the spiritual world; and the first experience that results is this: we get a really tableau-like retrospect of our whole earth-life up to the present. We might say that in a flash—that is a somewhat extreme statement, but it is almost so—our earth-life up to this moment lies spread out in mighty pictures before the consciousness, with time changed into space, as it were. But these pictures are truly different from those we should get if we were to sit down and draw forth in recollection all that can be drawn out of our life, and should get continuous pictures of this earth-life almost to the time of our birth. This tableau is intrinsically different from the one described before. You see, in ordinary recollections the concepts are passively formed, and contain altogether not much more than our impressions from the outer world. For example, in recollections we call to mind how we met some one, the effect someone had upon us, how a friendship was formed; or again, we experience the effect upon us of some natural occurrence, what we experienced of pleasure or suffering from it, or from the influence of some one, and so on.

The content of the tableau, as I have described it, attained by strengthened, invigorated thinking, is this: A man sees himself—the way he approached another person, as a result of his temperamental qualities, or of his own character, or the desire, or the love, he had. While mere recollection gives to a man what is brought to him from outside, this memory-tableau brings to the fore what he himself has contributed to the experience, what has come out of himself. In the ordinary recollection, let us say of a natural occurrence, he has before him what this occurrence brought of pain or pleasure, that is, the effect upon him of the outer world. In the memory-tableau it would be rather his longing to be in whatever region of the earth he had this experience. The part a man himself has taken in an occurrence is what he experiences in the memory-tableau, In short, I might say that this total impression a man has of his life is diverted from the outer world, and that it contains all his activity during life. One really sees himself as a second person. When anyone has this memory-tableau, he has little impression of his physical space-body; but he feels himself within all that he has experienced, and he feels at the same time that it is all a flowing, etheric world, so to speak. And with this flowing, etheric world, which contains his own life in mighty pictures as in an onward-flowing stream, one learns at the same time that the moving etheric world of his own existence is connected with the universal etheric world. When as physical human being with his physical senses, a man confronts the outer world, he feels that he is enclosed within his skin. He feels other things as outer things. He feels a strong contrast between subject and object, to express it philosophically. This is not the case when, with strengthened thinking, one enters into what I may call the fluctuating world of the second man, of the time-man, in contrast to the corporeal, physical space-man.

We can really speak of a time-body, for a man becomes aware simultaneously of his whole previous life, and he feels this previous earth-life as moving in a universal world, like unto itself. He can say, that to the solid, dense, physical world is added a more rarified world, in which one has spent his life in flowing movement. Only now does he come to know what an etheric world is, and what man himself is as second man, as second human being in this etheric world. But with all this one has reached only the first stage of super-sensible knowledge.

It is only because one feels himself to be a spirit-soul being in a spirit-soul world that he knows from direct perception, as it were, that the whole world is interpenetrated and interwoven by a spirit-soul substantiality, which man also holds within himself, But as yet he knows no more than this. And most of all, he does not yet know of another spirit-soul world besides that one which unites him as earth-man with the surrounding etheric world.

But now we can go farther. If a man has acquired this ability to experience himself in the etheric realm, to experience the etheric world along with himself, then he can rise to another kind of development of the soul-forces.

This consists in bringing about in the soul what I might call the opposite process to the one first characterized. First we try to make the thinking inwardly very active, very much alive, so that, instead of passive thinking, we have within an active flow of forces, surging and weaving. Now we must try with the same inner force of free will to suppress again the freely soaring thought that we have put into the soul.

In the soul-exercises to which I am alluding, everything that I describe for you must be done in the same way that the mathematician works out his problems; so that it is all carried out with complete self-possession, with nothing whatever in it of false mysticism, of fantasy, even of suggestion, or anything of the kind. The exercises must be performed in the soul with the same objective coldness with which a geometric problem is solved—for the warmth and enthusiasm come not from the method, but from the results. Nevertheless, we experience the following: that when we acquire this strengthened thinking, it is difficult to dispel the representations we get by it, especially those of the previous life, with which we can be completely engrossed if we want to dwell on them. But we must develop in us the strength to disperse the images again, just as we can call them forth, by our own activity. In other words, we must acquire the faculty to extinguish in our consciousness all thinking and imagining, after having first most actively kindled it. Even extinguishing of ordinary concepts is very difficult, but this is relatively easy in comparison with the obliterating of those concepts that have been set up in the soul by spiritual activity.

Therefore this obliteration means something entirely different. And if one succeeds, again through long practice—but these exercises can be done along with the others, so that both capacities appear simultaneously—if one succeeds in producing these strong, active processes of thought in his consciousness, and then in obliterating them again, something comes over the soul that I might call the inner silence of the soul—for we must have expressions for these things you know. There is no knowledge whatever of this inner silence in the consciousness of the ordinary life.

Of the two things needed by the spiritual researcher who wants to make research in the anthroposophical way, the first is the strengthened conceptual life, the strengthened thought-life, by means of which he comes to self-knowledge in the way indicated; the other is that he must cultivate a completely empty consciousness; in which all the thinking, feeling and willing, otherwise in the soul, is silenced—but silenced only after this soul-activity has been enhanced to the highest degree. Then this silence of soul is something quite special. It represents the second stage, as it were, of spirit-knowledge; and I can describe it somewhat as follows:

Let us imagine that we are in a great city where there is a terrific uproar, and we become quite deafened by it. We leave the city, and when we have walked for some time, we still hear the roar behind us, but the noise has already become somewhat less, and the farther we go the quieter it becomes. If we finally reach the stillness of the forest, it may be that all about us will be quiet. We have experienced the whole range from raging noise to outer silence. But now I can go farther. This will not take place in outer reality, of course, but the concept is an entirely real one, when we come to what I have just designated as silence of the soul, I will for once use a very trivial comparison: We may have a certain wealth and keep spending it; we have less and less and finally nothing at all. Then our wealth is zero. But we can go still farther; we can go into debt; then we have less than nothing. We know from mathematics that one can have less than nothing.

Well, it can be the same with quiet, with silence. From the noise of the world complete silence can be restored, equal to zero. This can even become less; it can become more silent than the silence that equals zero, more and more silent, negative silence, negative quiet. And that is really the case when the strengthened soul-life is blotted out, when the silence in the soul becomes deeper than zero silence, if I may express it so. A quiet is established in the soul-life that tends toward the minus side, a stillness that is deeper than the mere silence of the ordinary consciousness.

And when we have penetrated to this silence, when the soul feels that it is removed from the world—not only when the world around it is still, but when the soul feels that the world-quiet can only equal zero, but that the soul itself is in a deeper silence than the silence of the world—then, when this negative silence sets in, the spiritual world begins to speak, really to speak, from the other side of existence.

Ordinarily, we ourselves as human beings interrupt the quiet of the world with our words projected into the air, When we have established in ourselves this quiet that is deeper than zero-quiet, this silence that is deeper than mere silence, the spiritual world begins to speak; but it is a language to which we must first become accustomed, a language utterly different from the language of words, a language formed in such a way that we gradually become accustomed to it by drawing upon our knowledge of the sense-world, of colors, of tones, in short, all that we know of the sense-world. We use this to describe the special impressions of the spiritual world according to our experiences of the sense-world,

I want to call attention to a few details. Suppose that in this inner silence of soul we get the impression of the presence of something out of the depths of spirit which attacks us aggressively, as it were, and excites us in a certain way. We know first of all that it is a spiritual experience, that the spiritual world is revealing itself. We compare this with an experience we have had in the sense-world, and learn that in the sense-world this experience has about the same effect upon us as the color yellow. In exactly the same way that we coin a word to express something in the sense-world, so now we take the yellow color to express this spiritual experience; or in another case we might take a tone to express it. As we use speech to talk about the things of the sense-world, so now we make use of sense-qualities and sense-impressions in speaking about what is spiritually received from the spiritual world in the silence of the soul.

This is the way to describe the spiritual world. I have described it in this way in my book “Theosophy” and in “Occult Science,” and the descriptions need only to be rightly understood. We must understand that for the silence of the soul there is a new language. While we have articulated speech for outward expression as human beings, something comes to us from the spiritual world which we must put into appropriate words, but it can be apprehended only in a subtle way, and must be translated into human speech by using words formed from sense-perception.

And when you have these experiences in the silence of the soul, you come to know that the world of invigorated thinking that you had at first is really only a picture,—a picture of what you see only now, for which you only now have a language, a picture by which you penetrated into the silence of the soul. The spiritual world now speaks to you through the silence of the soul. And now you are able also to efface this whole life-tableau, which you yourself have formed, which has brought the earth-life etherically before you, as by magic. This inner quiet of the soul appears now also in the personal life as you live it here on earth. The illusion of that ego which exists only in the physical body now ceases.

Anyone who holds too firmly to his ego, through a theoretical or a practical egotism, does not succeed in establishing this silence of soul in the presence of his own life-tableau. A man who combats theoretical and practical egotism comes to see that he first has this ego to enable him to make use of his body in the physical life, that the body gives him the possibility of saying “I” to himself. If he then passes from this corporeal sense of the ego into what I have described as the etheric world, where one flows together with the world, where the world is etherically united with one's own etheric being, he will no longer hold firmly to this ego. He will experience that of which this life-tableau, to which he has lifted himself, is a picture. He will experience his pre-earthly existence, in a spiritual world, before he descended through conception and birth into a physical human body,

Anthroposophy does not speak from philosophical speculations about the immortality, the eternity of the human' soul, but it tells how, through a special development of the soul-forces, one may struggle through to the vision of the soul-being before it descended to the earth. There actually appears now to the silenced soul a direct view of the soul as it dwells eternally in the world of spirit. As we look in recollection at what we have experienced on earth, as the past earth-life awakes in memory, so now, after we have learned in the soul-silence the language of the world of spirit, as I have described it, events appear that have not existed in the earth-life at all, events by which we have been prepared for this earth-life before we descended to it,

And now one looks upon what he was before he came down to the earth-life. As long as he was still beholding the life-tableau, he knew that he himself and the world are permeated and interpenetrated by moving, weaving spirit—though finer and more etheric, it is still a sort of nature-spirit, which he finds in the world and experiences as akin to himself. But now, when he looks into the pre-earthly existence, being united with what father and mother give at birth, he sees the unity of the moral world-order and the physical world-order. In this pre-earthly existence are all the forces that are prototypes of the forms produced during the physical earth-life. Here one sees that the spiritual forces reign and weave in the human body even in the physical earth-life. One marvels at the structure of the human brain as it gradually takes shape. One notices how undifferentiated this brain was when the child was born, what it became with the seventh year of life, about the time of the change of teeth. One turns his gaze upon the inner, plastic, formative forces; and does not stop short with the indefinite dictum about heredity.

We know that what the child works out in the first years of' life alone, in the plastic formation of the brain and the whole organism, is the after-effect, the imitation, of the far-reaching, universal events experienced in the spiritual world, where the soul was among spiritual beings, in just the same way that we live among the creatures of nature and human beings on earth. And one now comes to know that the spiritual world works into the physical earth-world, and that the after-effects of this pre-earthly existence are contained in all that is active in the inner organization of our being; one knows that he himself is a soul-spirit-being within the physical corporeal.

As we go farther, a third experience must be added to what I have already described, I have called attention to the necessity of first overcoming the illusion of the ego; one must overcome the ordinary, everyday, theoretical or practical egotism; and one must understand that this ego of our earth-life is bound up with the physical body, and comes to consciousness first of all in the sensations of the physical body. But there is something in the physical earth-life which, when I name it, may perhaps cause a little disturbance here and there in one's theory of knowledge, because it is usually not counted at all among the forces of knowledge, and it may be found distasteful to place it there. But it must be done nevertheless. And anyone who has come in the way described first to the invigoration of thought and then to soul-silence, will understand that it must be done. There must be added to these, as a third, a higher development, a more intensive development, of what exists in the ordinary life as love: love for people, love of nature, love of all our work, love for what we do. All the love that already exists in the usual life can be increased by doing away with theoretical and practical egotism in the way described. Love must be intensified, And when this love is increased, when the expanded love-force is joined to the strengthened thinking and the silence of soul, one comes to a third experience, Man comes now to the conscious laying hold of the true form of the ego, when he comes to know not only the pre-earthly existence, but when he now learns by means of this that an augmented love-force further energizes the other developed, strengthened forces of knowledge. He comes to an exact experience: All that has been won has nothing to do with the physical body; you experience yourself outside the physical body; you experience the world as it cannot be experienced through the body. Instead of natural phenomena you experience spiritual beings. You experience yourself, not as a natural being between birth and death, but as a spiritual being in a pre-earthly existence.

If a man has won this, and there is added to it a heightened, increased capacity of love, the possibility of dedicating himself, of surrendering himself with his whole body-free existence, to what he sees here, then there comes to him the knowledge of what exists within man in the immediate present, independent of the physical and even of the etheric body. He gets a direct view of what rests within him and goes through the gate of death into the post-earthly existence, when we enter again into a spiritual world. Because he comes to know what he is in a body-free state, he learns also of that which continues to exist, free of the body, when the physical body is laid aside at death.

You see the purpose of it all is to come to the perception of the eternity of the human soul. But in particular, one attains by means of it to the perception of the true ego, that ego which goes through birth and death, of which one cannot say that it dwells in the body, but that it rests in the body. One learns at the same time of the movement and activity of this ego in the pre-earthly existence in the spiritual world. One comes to know it in the same way that we know the human being here in the sense-physical existence through the sense of sight. Just as a man goes about here among the things of nature, among natural phenomena, among other people, so one learns to know, I might say, how the soul moves about in the pre-earthly existence in the spiritual world. But one learns also that the soul's movement and its relations there are dependent upon an earlier earth-life. I said that one learns of the oneness of the moral and the natural; one learns that in the pre-earthly existence man is permeated not only by spiritual but also by moral impulses, While one merely perceives, during the continuance of the etheric life-tableau, that spirit streams through the whole world, one now learns that in the pre-earthly existence there pulsated through our soul-spirit-being the moral impulses which appear in the memory during the physical life, and especially in the moral predispositions» One has now come to know the oneness of the moral and the physical world.

But now, in this moral-physical world (physical only in the pictures shining up into the spirit from the physical existence)—in this world experienced by the soul in the spiritual realm, one comes to know how the soul, as man's real ego, lives in the spiritual world in conformity with the previous existence. Truly when we come to spiritual vision and escape from the illusion of the ordinary ego, then we come to know how the ego has already passed through the spiritual world between death and a new birth; we learn how it comported itself, in conformity with its former earth-life, in this world endowed with moral impulses; and we learn that it is all carried into this earth-life as an inner determination of destiny. We see this expressed in the tendencies of a person, or in the special coloring of the desire which drives a man to one thing or another in the earth-life.

This does not encroach upon freedom. Freedom exists within certain limits, in just the same way that we are free, when we have built us a house, to occupy it or not; but we will occupy it because we have built it for ourselves for a certain reason. In the same way we are still free, even though we may know that there are impelling forces in our physical body which cause us to turn this way or that in life, or to live in one way or another. On the one hand we can regard this as a destiny that we have woven for ourselves out of earlier earth-lives, out of the world through which we have passed that contains not only spiritual but also moral laws. These have permeated what we were in a former life with definite spiritual impulses, and out of these have formed the destiny for our earth-life. But we notice also, when we look at what comes from the former earth-life, in the way described, that it is the eternal in the soul that has determined our earthly destiny» After we have passed through the gate of death, and have united what is of moral or soul-nature with our soul-being, in order to bring greater harmony into our relation with the demands of the moral world—we carry this into the world and come down again into a new earth-life, with what I might call the resulting total from what we were in life and what the spiritual world has made of us between death and a new birth.

So you see the really important thing is first to develop a certain perceptive faculty, with which one can look up into the spiritual world.

You must bear in mind, my dear friends, that not everyone has the gifts of a mathematician. It is very difficult for most people even to have these geometrical concepts, that are really to be formed only in the imagination. Geometry is not a spontaneous element of nature, but we understand nature by means of it. We must first produce geometry within ourselves, and by means of geometry we create the forms which will lead us into the structure of the lifeless world. With just such inner rigor do we produce inner vision, by developing strengthened thinking, silence of soul, and love which has become a force of knowledge, so that we may apprehend the living, the sentient, the self-conscious. In the same way that we apprehend the lifeless through mathematics, we come to an understanding apprehension of the living, the feeling, the self-conscious, when we proceed in a purely mathematical way, and develop a certain kind of vision with vigor and exactness.

So we may say that anyone who is serious about Anthroposophy pursues it as if he were required to give account of the use he makes of his forces of knowledge to the strictest mathematician. The forming of mathematical concepts is elementary Anthroposophy, if I may speak thus. And when anyone has learned to develop this self-creativeness of mathematics in order to apply it to the lifeless things of the world, he gets the impulse to develop further the kinds of knowledge which will lead to the vision I have described to you. We come to know that the lifeless world has a different content when we know it mathematically—mathematics is elementary Anthroposophy—and we know the living, sentient, self-conscious world when we study it with complete anthroposophical understanding.

Therefore, what in ordinary life is called clairvoyance, or anything of the kind, must not be confused with what we have in Anthroposophy for obtaining knowledge of the spiritual world. When we call this clairvoyance—and of course we can do so—we must mean exact clairvoyance, just as we speak of exact mathematics, in contrast with the mystical, confused clairvoyance, which is usually what anyone has in mind when this word is used.

Now you will perhaps have received the impression from my description that this is difficult. Yes, it is difficult] it is not easy. Hence, many people who presume to have an opinion about what goes on in Dornach do not try to understand what appears so difficult to them, but judge according to the trivial, confused clairvoyance. And then the result is all that I mentioned at the beginning of my lecture» But the Anthroposophy with which we are concerned is an exact kind of knowledge, which can actually be understood by anyone with sound human intelligence, just as anyone can understand a picture without himself being a painter. To get Anthroposophy one must be an anthroposophical researcher; to paint a picture one must be a painter; but everything I have described can be understood by anyone with good common sense, if only he does not himself put hindrances and obstructions in the way.

To paint a picture one must be a painter; to judge it one must rely upon sound human nature. To build up Anthroposophy one must be a spiritual researcher; to understand Anthroposophy one need only meet the more or less well-given descriptions of it with his healthy, free human spirit, undisturbed by natural-scientific and other prejudices. But Anthroposophy is only in its beginning, and what I have perhaps not described very well today will be described better and better as time goes on; and then the time will come which has always arrived ultimately for anything new in humanity. How long it was before the Copernican world-view was accepted! It has nevertheless upset all concepts previously held. Today it is accepted as a matter of course, and is taught in the schools. What is considered by people today the quintessence of fantasy, of nonsense, perhaps madness, will later be a matter of course—just as it was with the Copernican world-theory. Anthroposophy can wait until it is a matter of course.

This Anthroposophy, above all else, was to be cultivated at the Dornach Goetheanum. Therefore—permit me to say this in conclusion—more than ten years ago friends of our cause conceived a plan to build an abode for this Anthroposophy, and commissioned me to carry out the plan—I was only the one to execute it—and this abode is the Goetheanum. If Anthroposophy were a theoretical world-conception, or even a mere idea of reform, what would have happened the moment the idea appeared to build a home for Anthroposophy? An architect would have been consulted who would simply have erected a building in antique, or Renaissance, in Gothic or rococo style, or something of the sort. But Anthroposophy does not work merely theoretically, merely as scientific knowledge; it passes over into the whole human being, lays claim to the whole human being. This is very soon noticed by the anthroposophical researcher.

You see when a man wants to think about outer nature, he needs his head, and if he wants to indulge in philosophic speculations, he needs it even more. What appears before the silent soul, as pertaining to the spiritual world, in the way I have described it to you, is something that appears more fleetingly. One needs presence of mind in order to take it in quickly; but one needs for it also his whole human being. The head is not enough. The whole human organization must be placed in the service of the spirit, in order to bring into the memory, into the recollection, what one sees spiritually without the body. To illustrate this, let me give a personal experience.

I have never been accustomed to prepare any lecture in just the way lectures are usually prepared; but it is my custom to experience spiritually the thoughts that appear necessary for a lecture, as one must also experience spiritually what one wishes to hold as the result of spiritual research. What is experienced in strengthened thinking and in the human soul must be conveyed into thought and for this mere head-thinking will not suffice. One must be united more intimately with the whole human being, if one wishes to express what has been experienced in the realm of spirit. There are various methods by which such experience can really be brought into the ordinary consciousness, so that it can be put into words. It is my custom, with pencil in hand, to write down, to formulate, either in words or in some kind of signs, all that comes to me from the spiritual world. Hence I have many cartloads of note-books, but I never look at them again. They exist, but their only purpose is to unite with the whole human being what is discovered in spirit, so that it is grasped not only with the head, so as to be communicated in words, but is experienced by the whole human being.

Anthroposophy does indeed lay hold of the whole human being, therefore it is in still another regard an expression of the Goethean world-conception. It is, to begin with, an expression of the Goethean world-conception, in that it was induced by Goethe's method of observing the metamorphoses, the transformations of life in the plant and animal world. In this Goethean mode of observation the thought is so alive that one can then try to strengthen it in the way I have described. But Goethe is also that personality who built the bridge from knowledge to art.

Out of his artistic conviction Goethe voiced this beautiful expression: Art is a manifestation of secret laws of nature which without art would never be revealed. This means that Goethe knew one lays hold in real knowledge of the ruling and weaving of spirit, and then implants this into substance, be it as sculptor or musician or painter. Goethe knew that artistic fantasy is a kind of arbitrary projection of what man can experience in its pure form in the spirit.

Any knowledge which, like Anthroposophy, is rooted thus in the life of the spirit, flows of itself into artistic creativeness. It comes into artistic activity, when one knows the human being in the way I have described, and sees how the pre-earthly forces work into the earthly-corporeal existence. Then one has the feeling that the human being cannot be comprehended with the mere intellect, merely in concepts. At a certain point abstract concepts must be allowed to pass over into artistic seeing, so that you feel: Man is created by nature as a work of art.

Of course this can easily be ridiculed, for nothing seems more dreadful to people nowadays than to hear anyone say that to know something it must be comprehended artistically. But people may declaim as long as they please about the need to be logical rather than artistic when something is to be understood—if nature works artistically, then man simply does not find out about it by logic. He must pass over to artistic seeing to learn the real secrets of nature.

This is what Goethe meant when he said: “Art is a manifestation of secret laws of nature which without art would never be revealed.” And this is what Goethe meant also when, after years of longing, he reached Italy and believed he had attained his ideal of art. He said: “When I behold these works of art, I have the notion that the Greeks in the creation of their works of art proceeded by the same laws according to which nature creates, and I am on the track of those laws.”

Goethe was a personality who always aimed to transpose into a work of art whatever was comprehended as knowledge in the soul. Because Anthroposophy is of this same conviction, it was not possible simply to go to an architect and say: Build us a dwelling-place for Anthroposophy—and it would then have been built in Renaissance or antique or rococo style; our building has to be based on an entirely different conception of life and of art.

I have often compared the basic necessity here in a somewhat banal way with the relation of the nut-shell to the nut-kernel. The kernel of the nut, which we eat, is fashioned according to definite laws of form, but the shell is also made in accordance with the same laws. You cannot imagine a shell being fitted to the nut from the outside; the shell arises from the same laws of form as the kernel. So the forms of the outer visible building, what was painted in the domes, the sculpture placed in it, had to be fashioned as the shell, so to speak, of what was proclaimed within through the word, through art, spoken or sung. As the nut-shell to the nut, so this building had to be related to what was fostered within it. This was really the result not only of my conviction, but of that of many others. We have had eurythmy performances, the presentation of an art which has a special language in movement, in which the stage-picture consists of moving persons or moving groups? and the movements are not dance-movements, and not imitative movements, but an actual visible speech. We have developed here on the stage of the Goetheanum an expressive art of movement. The lines in which the human soul expresses itself harmonize in a beautiful way with the lines of the architraves, the lines of the capitals, the columns, with the whole form of the building, and with the paintings in it. What was cultivated within and the covering were one. When something was said from the platform, when what was learned in spiritual vision was put into words and sounded out into the audience-room, then what was spoken from the podium was the kernel which lived within. The artistic form had to correspond with the kernel. The style of the building in all its details had to come from the same impulse, from the same source as Anthroposophy itself. For Anthroposophy is not abstract, theoretical knowledge, but a comprehension of life, of the whole life. And therefore it becomes art quite spontaneously. It fulfils what Goethe said again: He who possesses science and art has also religion] he who possesses neither should have religion.

I might say, all that lived in the forms, all that may ever have been said or artistically presented in the Goetheanum, was intended to be comprised in a wood-carved group about 30 feet high, in which Christ, as the Representative of mankind, is portrayed in the Temptation by Ahriman and Lucifer.

This does not mean that Anthroposophy has anything to do with the forming of any kind of sect. Anthroposophy is far removed from hostile opposition to any religious conviction, or from any wish whatsoever to found a new religion. But Anthroposophy can show that real spiritual knowledge leads to the climax of religious development, to the Representative of humanity, Christ, to the incorporation of the Christ-God in the body of Jesus of Nazareth. It shows also how spirit-knowledge needs the picture of this central point of all earth-evolution, the picture of the Mystery of Golgotha. Quite certainly a man becomes religiously inclined through Anthroposophy, but Anthroposophy is not the founding of a religion.

What Anthroposophy wanted to offer artistically in the Goetheanum had to come from the same impulses from which the spoken word and the song proceed. It can even be said that when anyone stepped on the platform—I want to say this in all modesty—the forms of the columns, the whole form of the inner architecture, the inside sculpture and painting—all this was like an admonition to speak in a manner that would really approach the inner being of the listeners. It was like a continuous challenge to the speaker to put his word into this building in a worthy way.

To sum up: The building was to be an outer garment for Anthroposophy, which came wholly from the spirit of Anthroposophy, but was there for physical eyes to see» There was nothing symbolic, nothing allegorical. The whole building was created in its architecture, in its sculpture, in its painting, in everything connected with it, in such a way that what was livingly grasped in spirit-vision expressed itself, not in intellectual, symbolic forms; but living ideas and mobile thoughts about the spiritual world come to artistic expression in such a way as to be directly felt and seen. There was no symbol in the whole building, and if anyone maintains that the building had a symbolic meaning, he speaks as one who knows nothing about Anthroposophy.

And so the building was for the eye what Anthroposophy is to be for the soul of man. Anthroposophy has to be that kind of spirit which knows that a longing for the unveiling of the super-sensible vibrates and quivers through present humanity; that this humanity—made what it is by its scientific education, which intends to be generally popular, and already is to a certain extent—can no longer be satisfied with traditional concepts of belief; that concepts of knowledge must come, which tend upward to the spiritual world; and that unrest and dissatisfaction of soul result from the lack of such concepts of knowledge.

Anthroposophy wants to serve the present by providing in the right way what men need to take from this present into the near future. What Anthroposophy wants to be, invisibly, for human souls, the Goetheanum wanted to be, visibly, as vestment, as home. Had the Goetheanum been only a symbolic building, the pain at its loss would not have been so great, for then one could always bring it alive again in recollection. But the Goetheanum was not for mere remembrance. It was something intended to bring tidings from the spirit to the sense-world, and like any work of art, wanted to be manifested directly to the sense-world. Therefore with the burning of the Goetheanum, all that the Goetheanum wanted to be is lost.

But it has perhaps shown that Anthroposophy wants to be nothing one-sidedly theoretical, mere knowledge; it can be and must be a life-content in all realms. Hence, it had to build its abode in a style of its own. The Spirit, which Anthroposophy places before the soul, the Goetheanum wanted to place before the eyes. And Anthroposophy must place before the human soul what this soul really demands as the innermost need of the modern time; namely, a view, a knowledge, an artistic comprehension, of the spiritual world. Souls demand this because they feel more and more that only by experiencing the whole human destiny can they discover the complete human worth.

The Goetheanum could burn down. A catastrophe has swept it away. The pain of those who loved it is so great that it cannot be described. That structure which came from the same sources as Anthroposophy, and through it willed to serve mankind, had to be built for the sense-eye, had to be made of physical material. And as the human body itself, according to my description today, is the sense-image and the material effect of the eternal spiritual, but in death falls away, so that the spiritual can be developed in other forms, so also could that—permit me to close by comparing the Dornach misfortune with what happens in the usual course of the world—so could that be destroyed by flames which had to be made out of physical substance, in order to be seen by physical eyes. But Anthroposophy is built out of spirit, and only flames of spirit can touch this. Just as the human soul and spirit are victor over the physical when this is destroyed in death, so Anthroposophy feels alive, even though it has lost its Dornach home, the Goetheanum. It may be said that physical flames could destroy what had to be built of outer physical substance for the eye; but what Anthroposophy is to be for the further development of humanity is built of spirit. This will not be destroyed by the flames of the spiritual life, for these flames are not destroying flames; they are strengthening flames, flames that give more life than ever. And all that life which is to be revealed through Anthroposophy as life of knowledge of the higher world, must be tempered by the flames of the highest inspiration of the human being, his soul and his spirit. Then Anthroposophy will continuously evolve.

He who lives in this way in the spirit feels no less the pain caused by the passing away of the earthly, but he knows at the same time that surmounting all this depends upon the realization that the spirit will ever be victorious over matter, and in matter will be transformed ever anew.

Dornach, April 14, 1923

While this course is taking place for teachers and those interested in education, I will give the lectures that are taking place simultaneously with this course as special anthroposophical courses in such a way that they can also be understood by those personalities who have only recently found their way to anthroposophy, or who are at the very beginning of it. Therefore, some of what I will be presenting here in these lectures in the course of this week will be a kind of repetition for the “enlightened anthroposophists”. But I think that such a repetition can also be quite useful from one point of view or another.

What I am presenting today is first of all intended to be a kind of further elaboration of what I presented in the public lecture that I had to give last week in various places in Switzerland. It is intended to follow on from that lecture and expand on some of it.

When we look at human life in its entirety, we find that this life is divided into two strictly separate life contents: one life content, which we always go through in the time between waking up and falling asleep, i.e. in ordinary daytime consciousness; the other part of life, which is the shorter one in normal people, is the one we go through between falling asleep and waking up. It is that part which is immersed in unconsciousness and only shines forth into consciousness by allowing the colorful diversity of the dream world to flow into it. So that, when we speak from the point of view of human consciousness, we must say: This consciousness is filled during the waking hours with the content that our senses provide us with. What is made known to us of the world through our senses is, let us say, present in our consciousness in a pictorial way. We experience this. Whether in ordinary life or in science, we link our ideas, our thoughts, to what the senses deliver to us; that is, we combine the sensory perceptions and try to find laws in the world of sensory perceptions.

We do all this with our faculty of thought. We connect the thoughts, the ideas that we can obtain through our faculty of thought, to the sensory impressions. But then we develop something else within our waking life. We are pleasantly touched by one event, by one impression of the day, and unpleasantly touched by another; we sympathize with one impression, the other impression is antipathetic to us. This sympathy and antipathy exists in the most varied ways and in the most varied gradations. And we describe what we experience in things, I would like to say, according to our human inner being, in such a way that they give us pleasure, that they cause us pain, that they uplift us, that they make us upset, we describe this as our feeling with things, and we distinguish clearly between our feeling and our thoughts, which represent something external to us. Our thoughts do not merely live within us, they represent something external to us. Through our ideas we gain something about the external world. It is already in the word “imagination” that we thereby gain something about the outer world. That which we imagine, we do not place within, but we place before us. Thought therefore points us outwards. Feeling points us inwards. We have the clear experience that what we feel is experienced inwards, and that it does not have anything to do with the outside to the same extent as thought or imagination.

But we experience something else in the world. When it happens to some people that they encounter, say, a vicious dog here or there, they run away. Some people run away when they see a mouse; but something similar also happens under other impressions of the outside world. In this case we say that our will is aroused. While feeling proceeds in such a way that we remain calm, we set our whole organism in motion in relation to the outside world through our will, roughly speaking.

This is how we speak when we want to talk about our consciousness as it develops during waking hours. From this consciousness we clearly distinguish the unconsciousness, which also belongs to our life, and which we spend between falling asleep and waking up. But it is from this unconsciousness of sleep that the colorful diversity of the dream world streams forth.

Now let us enlighten ourselves a little about what has a certain value for the ordinary human consciousness. We can say: For this ordinary human consciousness, the dream world plays out of the unconscious. It shines into the conscious mind. And then thinking, feeling and willing emerge in consciousness from the experiences of the day, from the experiences of the waking state.

How can we first of all, I would like to say in a popular, external way, indicate this difference between the unconscious state of man, out of which dreams shine, and the fully awake state?

Well, you will not need to think about it for long, you will find that in the waking state man feels involved in that which he calls his physical organism.

Take the world of dreams. It runs before you in pictures. You must say to yourself that while the world of the dream runs in pictures before you, you are not switched into your physical organism. When a person wakes up, he feels above all that his will is penetrating his physical organism. We also need our senses when we are awake because we control them through our will. So we can say: The sleeping state, from which the dream emerges, passes into the waking state by switching the will into the physical organism, so to speak.

So let us now look at this physical organism. Even as I say: Let us look at the physical organism - I am actually appealing to your sensory faculty of perception. I am appealing to what you know through this sensory faculty of perception. First of all, you cannot know anything about this physical organism of the human being other than what the senses convey to you, what you can think about the physical organism. Even no anatomy, no physiology knows anything about this physical organism other than what the senses teach us to recognize and what can be grasped by man through thinking, combining the sensory perceptions.

This, however, draws our attention to the fact that it is first of all the senses - we also become aware of this in the use of our consciousness - to which we must turn if we want to know something about the world in general and about the physical organism of man - the senses and thinking.

Let us take a look at the senses and examine in a very popular way what we have through the senses in relation to the two characteristically differentiated states of waking and sleeping.

Man thinks all too little about what comes into consideration there because, if he is not exactly blind, the lion's share of what he is conscious of in his experience comes from the eyes, and the eyes are precisely those organs that are closed in the human sleeping state, whereby the external impressions are kept out. But think of the other senses. Can you believe that your ear, if you do not block it, gives you different experiences during sleep than during the day in relation to the physical body? If you keep the physical body properly in mind and do not block your ear at night, you cannot possibly think that something different happens through the ear in your physical organism when you are asleep than when you are awake. There is no reason for it. The fact that you don't know that is quite another matter.

Or let us ask in relation to the sense of warmth. We perceive warmth and cold. Yes, do you believe that the warmth you perceive during the day stops at your skin when you are asleep? It will of course have the same effect on your skin. So during sleep, with the exception of your face, you are exposed to exactly the same impressions that you are exposed to when you are awake.

If this were not the case, you would have to assume that during sleep you have a mantle of warmth around you that keeps the heat out. You would have to think that a good spirit is plugging your ears so that the processes that are otherwise caused from the outside are not brought about. When you think of all this, you will come to say to yourself: Well, the eye is so sensitive that the human organism has adapted itself to use its will to hang the curtains of the eyelids over the eyes during sleep.

However, the outside world does ensure to some extent that the sensory impressions are absent during sleep time. But even if we read in the newspaper the other day that it would be more pleasant for those people in Basel who want to sleep and live near pubs if the concerts were to end at half past ten instead of eleven, this clearly indicates that people want to protect their ears, but they have to be protected from the outside. Even if all this is the case, it must be said that just as the outside world is shaped as it is during sleep, so it affects our senses with the exception of our eyes.

And then we must ask ourselves further: what about our thinking, our thoughts? You see, in order to answer this question, one could start from many different points of view; but for today's man, modern science has become popular, and therefore modern man knows that from every sense there is a continuation to the inside of the organism, namely the nerve cords, and that because the nerve cords go inwards as a continuation of the senses, thinking, imagining, follows on from sensory perception.

Yes, if you now hear, even if it is only the relative silence in the night - and it is quite natural that you hear it, because your ear is open, what is in your surroundings is audible, that causes the same processes that it would cause if you were awake - why should that stop before the nerves, that is before thinking?

So you must say to yourself, through your physical organism you - as I said, always with the exception of the eyes - do not stop the sensory impressions. But you do not keep thoughts out either. And you can even imagine - it remains hypothetical for the time being for external observation - that even if there is a relative calm during the night for certain senses due to the social facilities, it is certainly not present for other senses; certainly not for the sense of warmth and cold, for example, and certainly not for the sense of touch either, because, isn't it true, when you press your thumb on the blackboard, you perceive the pressure. Why should the perception of pressure not be the case when you lay your back on the bed? You must of course perceive this pressure, which is conveyed by the sense of touch, throughout the night. Likewise, if you place something on your hand, you will feel it. Why shouldn't you be aware of the comforter you put on yourself throughout the night and so on? But not only that, but the continuation inwards, the formation of ideas and thoughts, why should we stop at them? Because they are mediated by the organism.

So that if we look impartially at what is actually there, we must say to ourselves: Even when the physical body lies in bed during sleep, it has the usual impressions through the senses. It also has the usual experiences that appear to us as conscious ideas when we wake up during the day. Just as we know nothing of sensory impressions at night and yet they can be there, so we know nothing of our thoughts; but they are there.

A person does not usually realize that when he is asleep he is constantly thinking. But he knows nothing about it. Just as he knows nothing of the pressure of the blanket that lies on him, so he knows nothing of the thoughts that go on continually in his sleep. They are there. Man thinks the whole time of his life, not only during the day. Even if he does not consciously have thoughts, he still thinks, but these thoughts are in him. So that we are guided to how man is permeated by a world of thoughts from the moment he falls asleep until he wakes up.

Now take the person who wakes up. He wakes up. He wakes up from his dreams, we say. By studying certain dreams one can very easily perceive how quickly the dream runs its course, so that it has actually taken place immediately upon waking. You need only remember that you can dream - of course I don't want to put anyone through this, every individual is exempt, but it could happen to someone - that you get into a heated exchange of words with someone which degenerates into a brawl. You know that sometimes people are much naughtier in their dreams than during the day. It degenerates into a brawl; the other person smacks you down, as they say, and lo and behold, you wake up: You realize that a raindrop has fallen on your cheek. It even woke you up, the raindrop. The whole dream, which looks as if it has lasted a long time, is only caused by this raindrop at the moment of waking up.

You can experience this with countless dreams. They actually happen in a flash, caused by something, and have a very dramatic content. So we can say: you wake up with a dream. You will find, if you really go to work properly, that the dream gives you something that you could otherwise have thought according to your experiences, but you would have thought it differently when you were awake. We know that dreams clothe what they bring to experience in a certain fantasy.

Take the example I have just given. If a drop of rain falls on your cheek during the day, you have different images of the whole process than the dramatic process where you get into an exchange of words with someone and begin to scuffle; the exchange of words can perhaps last a very long time, the scuffle also a relatively long time, and then comes, let's say, the cheek strike, and that's the end, that's when you wake up. During the day you would have had a very simple experience, a sensory perception and an associated idea. When you wake up, you have a very dramatic experience. It is embellished. But you see, you will hardly dream anything other than what is made up of sensory experiences that you have somehow already had or could have had, or inner bodily experiences and the like. That's what you dream.

If you look at the whole process, the more dreams you observe, the more you will realize what dreaming actually consists of. When you are awake, you see colors through your eyes - light, dark; you hear this or that, you perceive warmth and cold. You combine this through your mind. You have the clear feeling that when you do all this, you are working from the inside out. You have the will inside with which you penetrate all of this. You work from the inside out. Let us leave untouched for the moment what is working from the inside outwards; but you have the feeling that you are seizing your sensory impressions, that you are somehow bringing them into order through your ideas. You combine these sensory impressions and so on. But you do it all from the inside. Yes, when you dream, just think about it once, you have similar images to the sensory impressions. You only need to remember a vivid dream and you will say to yourself: there are similar images. You see colors, you see someone moving and so on; images are there just as they are in the sense world. Only that in the sense world these images are, so to speak, superimposed on the hard objects; in dreams they float freely, these sense images. And ideas are also present in dreams, even cause and effect, of which natural science is so proud. One does not merely dream images, one dreams connections. It's all in there.

Only if you look closely at the dream, you will have to say to yourself: Yes, what I experience in dreams is actually the opposite of what I experience when I am awake. It is the other way around. When I am awake, I know that I am receiving sensory impressions, I control them through my thoughts. When I am not dreaming, the sensory impressions assail me first, and then a kind of connection lives within the sensory impressions, as it otherwise lives through the thoughts. Just as if the context were behind the sensory images, so it is in dreams. And if you think about these things properly, you will find that this dreaming is actually the other way round. It is as if you first encountered the sensory perceptions and then could not quite grasp the thinking. That is why the sensory images are so inconsistent, so illogical. You cannot grasp thinking. When you are awake, you have more or less, depending on whether you are more philistine or more imaginative, the sensory images in your power, in your strength. You know that thinking is within you, and with thinking you control the sensory images that are somewhat further away from you. In dreams, you encounter the sensory images. Thinking is now further away, you cannot catch it. In short, if you look at the matter rationally, you get the impression that when you are awake, you live from the inside out, the sensory images are on the outside (yellow arrows), and thinking is on the inside (violet arrows). This makes itself felt.

When you dream, it is the other way around (red arrows), then you first approach the sensory images, but cannot catch the thinking behind them; you cannot get to it properly. This is why the thinking inside the dream is so colorful.

You can distinguish between dreams and sensory reality through proper observation. In ordinary waking sensual reality you live from the inside out. You are quite intimate with your thoughts. Thinking is closer to you. With this thinking you combine the sensory impressions.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

When dreaming - it follows from observation - you have to be outside, because you cannot properly approach thinking. That is why dreams have such a curious logic, because thinking is beyond. So when you are awake, you are there, and when you are dreaming, you are out there (see drawing). But you have just come in, because this then passes over into the ordinary waking state, where you are intimate with thinking. Just feel that when the dream runs its course, it runs into ordinary daytime consciousness. You rush into your ordinary thinking, you pass through the surface of your body. You pass through your eyes, but from the outside. You do not yet have the optic nerve. You have the eyes, they pass through you. And the optic nerve, which works from the other side, from a kind of beyond, is still playing around with the images when you slip in; then you are intimate with the nerve, which makes an orderly world out of the images. It is the same with all the other senses.

So you can see, simply by stating the facts, how awakening really consists of slipping into the body. So what must sleep consist of? You only need to place these facts properly before the eye of your soul and you will say to yourself: I must somehow be outside my body.

And now let us go through the ordinary consciousness of the day. The “enlightened ones” will only have a repetition of what I have to say now. If we go through the imaginations, we will find: In the imagination we are really awake, there we are intimately together with our thinking, there we are really awake. So we are intimately together in waking with that which sits within us as our thinking, with reference to which we are really awake.

But now let's take feeling. If you observe properly what you experience, you will not be able to say to yourself that feeling is just as intense as thinking. You will have to say to yourself: Feeling is already less logical than thinking. One allows oneself much less logic in feeling than in thinking. We allow ourselves much greater freedom and arbitrariness about what we like or dislike than about what is mathematical. It is clear that if it were a matter of feeling, housewives would prefer to take two francs and two francs again, that would be five francs instead of four, and not only housewives, but I think all people would probably prefer it. However, in thinking it is not indeterminacy but determinacy that matters.

In short, even if we see how different feeling is from dreaming in terms of the content of experience, feeling is not inferior to “dreaming in terms of indeterminacy. When we feel, we are in the same state as when we dream. Only that dreaming gives us images, whereas feeling gives us that peculiar content of life which we call feelings. In its state, feeling is definitely a waking dream.

We also know that if we want to immerse our logical ideas in the artistic, we have to use feeling. Without feeling there is no artistry. We have to immerse it in feeling. We feel, we have to give it an element that is similar to dreaming. In this way we create something similar on the inside to what the dream world creates on the outside. We do not create logical ideas internally, but images of the imagination. And this has been felt at all times, how dreams from the outside are filled with all the unfamiliarity and all the astonishing things that come from the outside, but are nevertheless similar to the fantasies that go inwards.

And let's move on to the will - well, let's just be very clear about this: the waking consciousness knows nothing of the will. It first has the thought that you want to go there or there. Even if we have to speak of wanting just then, when we wake up, because we feel that we are then taking possession of our body, we still know nothing about wanting. We have a thought: you want to go here or there. How this now shoots down into the organism and moves the legs so that it becomes will remains unknown. You only see in yourself how you move. What passes between the thought and the manifestation of the will is unknown to the consciousness, as unknown as what you sleep through. In fact, by developing a will, you sleep into your organism.

We can therefore say: Feeling is dreaming during the waking of the day; willing is sleeping during the waking of the day. With regard to the will, one does not wake up at all with the ordinary daytime consciousness. This also takes place in sleep during daytime consciousness. So that we can say: If we are decent people, we sleep on average only a third of our lives - quite seriously - some more, some less. But on the other hand we are compensated by the fact that we also carry sleeping within us while we are awake, namely in our will. And if you add this up, you will get something other than a third.

And the feeling, that is the dreams that arise out of the will, that is again out of sleep, and arouse the imagination. Just as dreams reveal themselves out of sleep, feeling reveals itself out of the will. You can also observe this in a certain way. Just think for a moment that you have, say, a flower in front of you. If you are able to pick it and take it with you, then you have it. You have applied an impulse of will. If you are not able to take it with you, then you are content with the fragrance, with the pleasantness of the fragrance, with the pleasantness. You only experience the flower internally, in your emotional life. But you could almost say: what is a pleasant feeling? A pleasant feeling is the inner, attenuated experience of that for which the strong experience you are actually striving is a decision of will. One wants to have what is pleasant to one; if one does not come to have it, it remains merely pleasant to one. So feeling is a weakened will. Dreaming only comes about in a different way during waking hours than during sleep. Dreaming during sleep is a restrained sleep. Feeling during daytime waking is a will that has not fully materialized.

If we did not have inhibitions within us, we would want everything that is pleasant to us, we would push everything away from us, even an expression of will that is not pleasant to us. We only hold on to the will when we feel. We merely dream of wanting instead of really wanting when we feel.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

Now, we can say: If we draw the boundary between sleeping and waking with an ordinary line, then we have thinking during waking. We have nothing for it during sleep; that is gone. During sleep we have dreaming. Feeling corresponds to this during waking. During waking we have the will. The real sleep, the sleep state, the dreamless sleep corresponds to this during sleep.

Now take a look at this. We have found out: Feeling and dreaming, willing and sleeping actually live in the same element. In a way, dreaming is what we do at night and feeling is what we do during the day. It is the same, the same state. So that which feels by day must dream, and that which wills by day must sleep dreamlessly. So in order for me to feel and want during the day, to dream while sleeping and to live out this sleeping state of wanting, it must be inside the body. So you get an idea of a human being that can be inside and outside in relation to the body. If it is outside the body, it sleeps dreamlessly or lets its dreams arise; if it is in the body, it wills or feels. Only when it enters the body does it encounter thinking. You cannot see thinking externally. It is therefore something that is in man throughout life, as we have said, but as something invisible. Now, because it is an invisible thing - we shall see that it can also be called so for another reason - let us call that which thinks, in addition to the physically visible, the etheric body. This etheric body remains asleep and awake in the physical body throughout life.

That which feels does not remain in there; it wanders out during sleep and gives the possibility of dreams. We call it the astral body.

And that which wants, and which remains in dreamless sleep, we call the ego. And so we get these three invisible parts of the human being through mere observation: etheric body, astral body and ego. We need not doubt the physical body.

Now it is a matter of this: we see the physical body with the physical senses. What else is in the human being cannot be perceived with the physical senses. Can it somehow be made visible, perceptible, visible? This can be done by bringing about the following in the human being.

I told you that if you live awake, you live from the inside out. Now imagine that for my sake you have the eye or some other sense organ. That's where the nerves come from. They end inside the eye, they have ends somewhere. Now let's look at this waking state. We live intimately together with our thinking, that is, in the physical body with the nerve. We live together with this nerve. But we not only live in thinking, we live in the sensory impression. The nerve radiates, so to speak, into that which is the sensory image. It can also be expressed physiologically: The nerve comes into contact with the blood circulation, and through this it enters the sensory image. There we perceive the outside world.

But remember, we do not perceive the outside world, we merely develop life in the nerve itself and only reach the end of the nerve. We do not go into the blood circulation of the eye, but we stop where the nerve has its stumps; we only go to the end of the nerve. There we have an idea of a sensation, thus also a thought. The thing remains a memory. It is therefore shadowy because it does not reach the blood.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

You see, in ordinary life, you do it in such a way that you have perceptions. They pass into the nerves. The nerves end inside the body. Then they are experienced in the memory up to the final state of the nerve. That's where the imagination starts, that's where it becomes memory-imagination. If it penetrates to the end of the nerve, it becomes perception; if it only reaches the stump, if it does not penetrate, it becomes memory. But at first one can remember nothing other than what one carries within oneself. Now imagine that through certain exercises you not only bring what you carry within you to the end of the nerve, but also what you take in from the other side, from outside. Imagine that you not only push to your nerve endings what you first let into your head, but that what you take in from the world without perception, or what you take in through your spinal cord nerve without perception, then the experience enters the nerve on the other side. It hits here. (See drawing.) That does not go to perception. Then you get those images that we call the content of the imagination. And then you perceive this etheric body, which contains the activity of thinking within it.

And in the same way, as we will see tomorrow, you can also take into feeling that which does not first come from outside and is reflected, but which you take into the body from backwards, so to speak. Then comes the inspiration. It does not go into the nerves, it goes into the breathing process and the circulation process. In this way one understands the astral body. And when one finally develops intuition, when one not only feels what one has learned in life as walking, but when one feels oneself as the other person who works and is, when one passes completely over into the other person, then intuition comes. And through this one understands the ego and the will. So that one can say:

The etheric body is grasped through imagination,
the astral body is grasped through inspiration,
the ego is grasped through intuition.

In ordinary life one does not have the ego, but the ego sleeps. One only knows something of one's I, which is asleep, just as one knows in the dark that it is dark. But one does not have the objects that are there. So the I is also asleep.

In the most intense thinking you can find, so to speak, those things that you find described in my “Theosophy” from the beginning: Physical body, etheric body, astral body, I. And then you can point out how these members of human nature can also be grasped in a visible way through imagination, inspiration and intuition.