The Rudolf Steiner Archive

8. Health Issues in the Light of the Humanities

[ 1 ] The topic we are to address today encompasses a number of questions that rightly interest people to the very core. Questions of health are, after all, those related to everything that enables people to live fully, to everything that helps them fulfill their purpose in the world without hindrance; and therefore, when viewed in the proper light, health is certainly, for most people, something they strive for, so to speak, just as one strives for external goods. But health must also be regarded as an inner good, just as external goods are not, at first, sought by the sound-minded person for their own sake, but as a means of work, as a means of action and creation. We can therefore well explain why the urge, the longing to gain insight into the mysteries and questions of healthy and diseased life is so profound, especially in our present age. However, the mindset that is most likely to make people receptive to precisely those answers needed to resolve such questions—which are so intimately connected with the very essence of human beings—is not widely prevalent in general thinking.

[ 2 ] Today, as on a similar occasion in the past, we should recall an old saying that comes to mind for many when speaking of health and illness: “There are so many illnesses, but only one kind of health!” — To some, this saying seems, in essence, as self-evident as possible, and yet it is a fallacy—a fallacy in the truest sense of the word—for there is not just one form of health, but as many forms of health as there are people. This is precisely what we must take to heart if we wish to view the questions of health and illness in the proper light. We must accept that human beings are individual beings, that every person is different from the next, and that what may be beneficial to one person but harmful and disease-inducing to another depends entirely on that person’s individual constitution.

[ 3 ] The fact that these perspectives are not widely held is demonstrated by an experience each of us can have every day. One is missing this or that. The mother notices it or senses it; she remembers that in similar situations, this or that once helped, so she immediately begins treating the child in that way. Then the father comes along, remembering that something else once helped him. Then comes the aunt, then the uncle; they might say: Fresh air, light, or water will help. — These prescriptions are often so contradictory that they cannot possibly all be followed. Everyone has their own remedy they swear by, and that must then be unleashed on the poor sick person. Who hasn’t experienced that this barrage of well-meaning advice, coming from all sides, is actually quite a predicament when a person is lacking this or that! All these things stem from an unrealistic way of thinking, from an abstract way of thinking, from a dogmatism that completely fails to take into account that a human being is an individual, a unique being. Every person is a being in their own right, and this is what matters above all else: to face this reality of the human being head-on when dealing with the manifestations of health and illness.

[ 4 ] Now, a need for help such as that which a person experiences when ill certainly stems from a quality of their inner being that must evoke compassion and sympathy from those around them. We can understand that everyone would like to rush to help, for this is merely an expression of the profound interest that these very questions evoke in connection with human nature as a whole. However, if, on the one hand, we take this deep interest into account, but on the other hand look even just a little into the various views on health and illness that prevail in our time, we may well find ourselves quite disheartened. One might say that illness is such an important matter in human life, and yet why is it that educated and uneducated people, medical professionals and laypeople alike, argue over the most diverse theories—not only regarding remedies for individual illnesses, not only regarding the proper paths to health, but even regarding the very nature of being ill? It sometimes seems that in our age of intellectual and scientific activity, the sick—and perhaps even the healthy—are more than ever exposed to partisan views that assert themselves from all sides regarding important questions of human development and the human condition.

[ 5 ] May we now—this is the question we wish to ask ourselves today—cherish the hope that spiritual science, which has been characterized from a wide variety of perspectives in these lecture series and will continue to be characterized, can in a certain sense also shed light on the theories and partisan nuances we see all around us today, if we allow the views on health and illness to truly take root within us? It has, after all, been emphasized here on numerous occasions that spiritual science strives for a higher perspective, one that makes it possible to bridge the divisions that split people into factions—divisions arising from their having only certain narrow circles of perception and observation—and to show how one view conflicts with another because it is one-sided. We have often shown that spiritual science exists precisely to seek the good in these one-sidednesses and to establish harmony among the various one-sidednesses. One-sidedness—as anyone who looks at the matter more than superficially must admit—is likely what we encounter when this or that school of medicine preaches this or that dogma with a pretentious air of authority. You have all experienced the multitude of factional nuances that stand in opposition to one another regarding these questions. Everyone knows that on one side stands what is today, unfortunately, often even referred to in a derogatory sense—conventional medicine with its allopathic approach—and on the other side, the approach known as homeopathy. But broad circles have also come to trust what is called naturopathy, which often takes a different view of illness and health and recommends not only what pertains to the sick person, but also what is considered beneficial for the healthy person, so that they may remain strong and vigorous. Everything is influenced by one approach or the other—either conventional medicine or the approach that leans more toward naturopathy.

[ 6 ] If we consider the perspectives from which such a dispute over illness and health exists—for example, between proponents of conventional medicine and proponents of naturopathy— then we hear the advocates of naturopathy say that conventional medicine seeks a specific remedy for every illness and holds the view that illness is something that affects a person as an external factor—as if caused by an external source—and that there is also this or that external remedy for the illness. In considering such characterizations, let us not forget that what is said by one side or the other often goes too far, and let us not forget that in many respects both sides do each other an injustice. But let us highlight a few specific criticisms that can serve to clarify the issue. The proponent of naturopathy will point out that the conventional physician alleviates inflammation in certain cases with ice packs, and that salicylic acid and the like are used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Particularly ardent advocates of naturopathy will level strong accusations. They will say: If the stomach secretes too much stomach acid, then conventional doctors will attempt to neutralize this stomach acid. The naturopath says that this misses the true nature of the disease and, above all, the true nature of the human being. None of this hits the nail on the head. Let’s assume that the stomach really does secrete too much stomach acid; this is proof that something is not right in the organism. In a properly functioning organism, too much stomach acid is not secreted. Therefore, if one neutralizes the stomach acid that is secreted, this does not eliminate the underlying force—the tendency—to produce too much stomach acid. One should therefore not focus simply on eliminating the stomach acid. — That is what those who polemicize against conventional medicine say. If one eliminates the stomach acid, one would actually provoke the body to produce even more of it. One must therefore dig deeper and seek out the actual cause. In particular, a naturopath—especially one who has become fanatical—will rail against giving a sleeping pill to someone suffering from insomnia. Sleeping pills eliminate insomnia for a certain period of time; but the cause is not eliminated. Yet the cause must be eliminated if one truly wants to help the patient.

[ 7 ] Among those who place greater emphasis on the medicinal aspect, there are two camps: the allopaths, who prescribe and use a specific remedy for certain diseases—in other words, a remedy designed to eliminate that disease. They therefore proceed from the view that disease is a disturbance in the organism, and that this disturbance must be eliminated by a remedy. In contrast, homeopaths object that this is by no means the true nature of disease; rather, the true nature of disease is a kind of reaction of the entire organism against an injury within it. An injury has occurred in the organism, and now the entire organism is defending itself against this injury. One must recognize from the symptoms that appear in the sick person—and take them into account—that what causes fever and so on is a kind of call to the forces within the organism that can drive out the intruding enemy. — Therefore, proponents of this method of healing will say that one must turn specifically to those natural remedies which, when ingested by a healthy organism, induce the disease in question. Of course, these remedies—which cause specific disease symptoms in a healthy organism—should not be administered to the sick organism in large doses, but only in an amount just sufficient for the remedy in question to elicit a reaction from the organism against the damage that has occurred. This is the principle of homeopathy: that which can induce a specific disease in a healthy organism also holds within itself the potential to restore the sick organism to health. The remedy used is the one that the organism itself indicates through its disease symptoms. One can think of it this way: when the organism is in a diseased state, it shows through its symptoms that it is striving to overcome the disease. Therefore, we must support it with precisely this remedy.

[ 8 ] This is why, in many cases, the homeopathic physician will prescribe exactly the opposite of what an allopathic physician would prescribe. The naturopath often—though not always—takes the view that what matters most is not whether a specific remedy reverses the damage caused by a disease, but rather supporting the organism and its functions so that it can mobilize its inner healing powers to counteract the disease process. Thus, the naturopath will be particularly concerned with advising even healthy people to support the body’s functions. For example, he will emphasize that even for healthy people, what matters is not so much whether a food gives a person a particular opportunity—say, to stuff themselves with this or that—but whether a food gives a person the opportunity to mobilize their inner forces so that they become active. The naturopath will emphasize the function of the organs above all, even in healthy people. He will say: You will not strengthen your heart by constantly trying to stimulate it with stimulants, but you will strengthen your weak heart by putting it into action—for example, by going on hikes in the mountains and so on. — Thus, those who focus on the activity of the human organs will also advise healthy people to engage their organs in an appropriate manner.

[ 9 ] If you have given thought to such questions—since they are, after all, so very much a part of “the present day”—you may have noticed the vehemence and dogmatism with which the debate is often waged on one side or the other, and how each side emphasizes the arguments that support its own viewpoint. For example, so-called conventional medicine can point out how, over the course of the last few decades—particularly the last three to four decades—it has made tremendous progress precisely by focusing on how external pathogens affect people and, so to speak, destroy their health. Conventional medicine can point out how it has been concerned with improving external living conditions and the circumstances of life to such an extent that there has indeed been an upturn in recent times. It is precisely that branch of medicine that focuses primarily on external pathogens—let us say, the world of bacteria and germs so feared today—that, by intervening in the fields of hygiene and sanitation in ways not entirely transparent to the layperson, has done an immense amount to improve health conditions.

[ 10 ] It is certainly emphasized—again, not entirely without reason, but only from one perspective—by some quarters that conventional medicine has virtually instilled a fear of bacteria and germs. On the other hand, however, research has led to improvements in public health over the course of the last few decades. Adherents of this school of thought proudly point out by what percentage mortality has actually decreased in various places over the past decades. However, those who argue that it is not so much external causes that are important in understanding disease, but rather, above all, causes inherent in the individual—his or her predisposition to illness, so to speak, their sensible or unsensible way of life—will in turn emphasize in particular that, while mortality rates have undeniably declined in recent times, the incidence of disease has increased in an alarming manner. They point out how certain forms of disease have become more prevalent: heart disease, cancer, forms of illness not even recorded in the writings of earlier times, diseases of the digestive organs, and so on. The reasons put forward by one side or the other are certainly worthy of consideration. From a superficial standpoint, one cannot argue that germs or bacteria are not the most dreadful of pathogens. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that, in a certain sense, human beings are either resilient and protected against the effects of such pathogens or they are not. They are not so if they have deprived themselves of their resistance through an unhealthy lifestyle.

[ 11 ] In many respects, the achievements of conventional medicine in recent times are admirable. Let us consider, for example, how subtle and refined the research on yellow fever is, particularly regarding the way it is transmitted from person to person by certain insects. How excellent are the studies on malaria and similar diseases! But on the other hand, we can see that the legitimate claims of conventional medicine can very easily interfere with our entire lives, which in a certain sense can lead to tyranny. Let us consider that—and with some justification—it is claimed that in a disease that has occurred frequently in recent times, namely stiff neck, the pathogen is by no means transmitted from one sick person to another, but rather that people who are completely healthy—who are entirely removed from what is referred to as stiff neck— might, in a certain sense, carry the pathogens within themselves and transmit them to others, so that people walking among us are carriers of pathogens, from whom those who are susceptible may then contract the disease, while the others who carry the pathogens need not necessarily be afflicted by the disease at all. — This could lead to the demand that carriers of pathogens be isolated; for if someone contracts stiff neck, they may not even be as dangerous as those who care for them, who may in fact be the actual carriers of the disease. The consequences of restricting these people’s social interactions can be seen from the following example: One can cite—and it has already been cited—a case where a large number of children at a certain school suddenly fell ill with this or that disease. No one knew where the disease had come from. It then turned out that the teachers were the actual carriers of the disease. They themselves did not contract the disease, but the entire school was infected by them. The term “germ carrier” or “germ catcher” is one that can even be used with some justification from a certain perspective. That a layperson in this field has very little understanding of everything that might confront them from one side or the other is almost self-evident from the little we have been able to cite.

[ 12 ] Now we must say: Precisely what we set forth at the beginning of our discussion today should serve as a guide to what, among all the sound arguments put forward by one side or the other, can truly lead to salvation. The principle that must be upheld in the deepest and most significant sense is that, above all else, we must place before us the individuality of the human being as a unique reality, as something that is different from every other human being. We can best bring this to mind, so to speak, through a concrete example. Let’s take a person—I’m recounting events that actually happened—who, from childhood onward, had an utterly insurmountable aversion to anything that involved meat. He couldn’t stand meat; he couldn’t eat it. Nor could he eat anything that was in any way related to meat. He developed quite healthily on his plant-based diet. This continued until some well-meaning, good friends stepped in and devoted all their energy to trying to dissuade this person from his paradoxical aversion. It was they who first advised him—or, so to speak, pressed him—to try a little meat broth to start with. He was pushed further and further, all the way to ham. The more he ate, the sicker and sicker he felt. After some time, he began to exhibit symptoms of what appeared to be an excessive accumulation of blood. A peculiar drowsiness set in, and the good man perished from encephalitis. If people hadn’t constantly reminded him every day what he was actually supposed to eat, if they had left him to his natural instincts, if they hadn’t believed that “one thing suits everyone,” if they hadn’t clung to dogmatism but had instead respected the individual nature of the person, then he would have remained healthy.

[ 13 ] However, we should not draw any further lessons from such a case other than to respect the individual nature of human beings. We should not derive a new dogma from it; doing so would lead us into one-sided thinking. If we consider what caused death in this case, we can answer the question as follows. If you recall what was said last time in the lecture on nutritional issues, you can deduce the following: What are called life processes guide the plant up to a certain point; they transform inanimate matter into a living organism. In the human organism, this process continues. In a certain sense, what the human and animal organisms do is a breakdown of what the plant has built up. In a certain sense, the human and animal bodies are based on the breakdown and destruction of what the plant has built up.

[ 14 ] Now, an organism may be constituted in such a way that it, so to speak, requires precisely the point at which the plant has ceased its activity as the starting point for itself. In that case, it can be harmful to it in the most profound sense if it allows the part of the process that the animal has already carried out with the plant products to be taken away from it. The animal carries the plant process forward to a certain point; humans can then only continue it. When they consume animal food, this task is taken away from them. And if their nature possesses precisely the forces capable of absorbing plant food fresh and vigorously and then carrying it forward, then they will have forces within themselves that are now left unused for any kind of food intake or digestion. These forces are present. We do not eliminate these forces by giving them nothing to do, for then they will turn their attention to something else. They are at work within the human organism. The consequence of this is that, as excess activity, they destroy the organism from within.

[ 15 ] If one has even a slightly more discerning eye, sharpened by spiritual science, one can see how this excess of active energy has overwhelmed the entire human being, throwing itself upon his blood and nervous system. One can see how the organism has come to resemble a house under construction into which unsuitable materials have been thrown, so that one must strive to organize and arrange these unsuitable materials. One does not redirect the forces needed to process nutrients inward without consequences. If we realize this, we will become more tolerant and will not oppose nature. Nor should we then swing in the opposite direction, resorting to a one-size-fits-all approach and becoming fanatics of vegetarianism for everyone. Just as, in the case of the man I have just cited as a radical example, the inwardly diverted active force became overwhelming, so, on the other hand, there may be people who do not possess this force at all—who, so to speak, cannot continue the plant process directly from where it left off. If such people were expected to become vegetarians without further ado, they would find that they would have to draw the necessary forces from their own organism in a makeshift manner. In doing so, they would, in a sense, consume their own organism and, in a sense, starve it. So this situation can certainly exist on the other end of the spectrum as well. What matters is that we turn our attention away from this or that dogma when we speak of healthy and unhealthy conditions—away from the idea of eating only this or only that. What really matters is the individual human being and the need to understand their own needs. Above all, it is essential that this individual have the opportunity, in a certain sense, to feel and recognize their own needs.

[ 16 ] If a materialistic worldview focuses too much on the purely material, it would nevertheless be necessary for that materialistic worldview to move in the direction that has just been indicated. For such a worldview in particular, it would actually be impossible to stereotype and standardize. And how much stereotyping goes on in our time! For example, it is readily claimed that this or that food, or this or that medicine, is harmful. A veritable epidemic of stereotyping has broken out, and this is, of course, inevitable unless all one-sidedness is ruled out in the struggle against various healing methods. An epidemic has broken out under the buzzword “force,” so that, for example, at gatherings of naturopaths, it is said that this or that is “force.” People believe this is enough to denigrate this or that approach and claim that they are based solely on the material. Those who claim, above all else, to view human beings as individuals should also take this into account. But even when one considers, for example, other living beings, the word “force” essentially loses all meaning. Our views regarding such matters must be revised. Who would not be inclined to assume that human beings possess a special power when they hear, for example, that rabbits can eat hemlock without harm, while Socrates died from it? Goats, too, can eat hemlock without harm, as can aconite and monkshood—and horses as well. In all these cases, then, we must generally always keep the individual organism in mind. When we keep the individual organism in mind, we come to realize: In a particular case, something may be right for one person, but “one thing does not suit everyone”!

[ 17 ] The question, then, is: How can a person find within themselves a yardstick for their own health? A child could serve as a kind of beacon for us. We must therefore bear in mind that children express their likes and dislikes for this or that food in very specific ways. Careful observation of these things would be of extraordinary importance for each of us. It is sometimes entirely misguided when the person responsible for guiding and raising the child attempts to suppress the instincts that arise in the child and manifest as a specific desire, viewing them as bad behavior. Rather, the truth is this: What the child expresses as a drive or instinct is an indication of the nature of the child’s inner being. What the child feels, what it finds appealing, and what it craves—these feelings and desires are nothing other than an expression of the fact that the organism demands precisely this or that. Indeed, this guiding instinct of the child can serve as a pointer—or, to put it more radically, a beacon—for our understanding. We can journey through life and find everywhere the necessity for a person, in a certain sense, to develop precisely this inner certainty within themselves regarding what their organism needs. This is more inconvenient than having one’s direction dictated by this or that party and being told what is good for all people. People do not have it as easy as those who come up with a specific, universal formula that one need only tuck into one’s pocket to know what makes people healthy and what can make them sick. Precisely when one views health through such a guide, one must also realize, with regard to illness, that the conditions for health and healing vary greatly from person to person.

[ 18 ] Let’s assume someone has a migraine. Anyone who dogmatically holds the view—even if conventional medicine no longer wants to acknowledge it—that there are specific remedies for this or that illness will say: “There are specific remedies for migraines.” The patient will feel better, and the migraine will disappear. — Anyone who adheres to the principles of naturopathy and has become a practicing practitioner will say: This approach only treats the symptom, and in many cases has done more harm than good; what matters is addressing the deeper causes; then one will encounter all sorts of things that do indeed get to the heart of the matter—things that may not bring about a sense of well-being as quickly in individual cases, but that truly address the core of the illness more deeply. — If one takes a dogmatic stance on one position or the other, one will either oppose one approach or consider the other useful. But, strange as it may sound, it is once again about the person. There could, after all, be someone who says to themselves: When I have a severe migraine, it would certainly be nice to wait until naturopathy has gotten to the root of the illness—to identify its deeper causes and then do what is necessary to eliminate it. But I don’t have time for that. It’s much more important to me that I get rid of the migraine as soon as possible and get back to my work.” — Now let’s assume this person has a health-promoting occupation of such a nature that he would have been able to get rid of the ailment even without medication. In that case, the migraine medication would do him little harm, because he would be only briefly torn away from his work, which benefits him. He would then be treated according to a prescription that compares a person to a machine in need of repair. But this comparison must be taken to its logical conclusion. We must not forget that there must be someone who works just like the engineer on the locomotive. Let’s suppose that, on a locomotive, a crank turns with particular difficulty. Someone might say: “I see that the engineer can’t turn the crank because he’s too weak; I’ll bring in another engineer who can apply more force to turn it.” Another might say: “Perhaps we can file down whatever is making the crank hard to turn, so that it turns more easily; then the current engineer can stay on the job.” — So you improve the machine. Of course, you can’t apply this as a universal solution, because if you were to say, “If the locomotive is lacking something, you have to file it down,” that wouldn’t always be correct. Perhaps what’s needed at that particular point isn’t to remove something, but to add something.

[ 19 ] In the case of a person who had a migraine, the migraine medication simply repaired the damage, and if the person has the inner strength to do so, the problem will resolve itself as long as they are not disturbed. Of course, it could be problematic under certain circumstances to think in the same way about someone who wants to get rid of their migraine but then fails to engage in activities related to their physical well-being. They would have been better off if they had addressed the underlying causes.

[ 20 ] We must therefore have thoroughly grasped and understood this point: that there are indeed specific remedies for what is called disease, and that the use of specific remedies is, in a certain sense, connected to the fact that our organism is an independent entity and can be restored in many ways. If one can trust that, following the restoration, a genuine, vigorous force will be present to drive the person forward, then there is no need to emphasize that one is merely treating the symptoms, for that would simply be thinking in materialistic terms once again. The naturopath may know many things that would be entirely appropriate for eliminating this or that illness, but it is equally true that this or that person lacks the time and the strength to carry them out, and that, above all, the priority for them is to quickly repair the damage.

[ 21 ] You see that we must not speak here in a one-sided way, but in a comprehensive way, and that we must accept the inconvenience of not merely being theorists, but of addressing the facts and considering the whole person. That is what matters. When we speak in this way, we must be clear that if we wish to regard the human being as a reality, we must take the whole human being into account. For spiritual science, the whole human being is not merely the outer physical body—especially not when our health is undermined not only by external but also by internal causes. What is far more important is the health of the etheric body, which fights against disease right up to death; the health of the astral body, which is the bearer of passions, drives, desires, and ideas; and finally, the health of the “I”-bearer, which makes the human being a self-conscious entity. Anyone who wishes to take the whole human being into account must certainly take into account the four members of the human being, and when the question of health arises, it is not merely a matter of eliminating disturbances affecting the physical body, but also of considering what is taking place in the higher members—the more soul-spiritual members. Here we must recognize that the fault lies not merely with this or that political faction, but with our entire contemporary mindset.

[ 22 ] You can see this from the fact that the question is very rarely asked: How is the issue of health related to mental and spiritual matters? — Today, one will find widespread agreement when discussing the caloric value of this or that food, or how this or that food affects the organism. People will also fully agree when you discuss what the air is like in this or that region where this or that sanatorium is located, and how the air and light affect people there. But you will not find a receptive audience if you point to psychological characteristics as possible causes of certain illnesses.

[ 23 ] Let us consider a child’s instincts, as they are expressed in sympathy and antipathy toward this or that food. Let us take the feeling of disgust with which the child rejects this or that as a sign indicating that not only must the physical body be healthy—but also the astral body, which consists of feelings and sensations, impulses, and desires—and that the spiritual-soul aspect must also be healthy, and that, when a deviation from health is observed in a person, one must also attend to the healing of the astral body. When these questions arise, does one really still ask today what the human soul experiences in relation to the external world? The spiritual scientist must point out that, fundamentally, it matters little whether one sends a person suffering from this or that ailment here or there, believing that the air or light will have a healing effect on them for external mechanical or chemical reasons. A different, far more important question is whether I can place them in an environment where they can experience joy, elevation, and, in a certain sense, a purification of their entire emotional life in a specific direction.

[ 24 ] If we look at this from a broader perspective, we will also understand that being healthy involves a person enjoying their food—that a person, so to speak, has in their sense of taste, in their immediate taste sensation, and in the pleasure and joy that food brings them, a gauge for what they should eat, and that, on the other hand, a person’s properly functioning sense of hunger serves as a guide for when their body needs to eat.

[ 25 ] It is not merely influences originating from the material world that destroy this inner sense of security in human beings; in the vast majority of cases, it is also influences from spiritual life that undermine the security provided by the hunger instinct. Instead of instilling a healthy hunger in a person at the right moment, spiritual influences on human nature can have the effect of causing not hunger but a lack of appetite. A person who has developed the needs of their organism in the right way—so that what is right tastes good to them, appeals to them, and also serves their organism—will also have the right, positive feeling to find the right environment that promotes their health in terms of light and air, so that the hunger for it arises at the right time.

[ 26 ] These are requirements that are closely connected with a healthy life and that lead to what the astral body and the ego have to contribute to this health. It is easy to raise the objection: if someone is hungry, they cannot live on feelings and sensations alone. It is true that if you set a delicious meal before someone, their mouth may water under certain circumstances, but you cannot satisfy them with it if the true taste of the food remains hidden from them. This objection is easy to make. Through what we can give a person—that which influences their soul in such a way that it allows sensations and perceptions to unfold properly—we cannot satisfy them or make them healthy; that goes without saying. But what is overlooked here is something else. We cannot regulate nutrition by explaining the foodstuffs themselves, but rather by regulating the taste, right down to the proper sensation of hunger. This is where what is currently fragmented—because it is approached solely from the standpoint of external, material observation—converges into the spiritual-psychic realm.

[ 27 ] It matters whether a person eats this or that food with pleasure or reluctance, whether they live in this or that environment, and whether they perform their work with pleasure or reluctance. What is known as one’s inner disposition toward health is mysteriously linked to this, more so than to anything else. Just as we see in a child that it develops proper instincts—and, if we have the opportunity to observe these instincts, we have a barometer for its inner needs—so too is it necessary for the adult to experience the spiritual and soul life in such a way that the right needs come to the fore at the right time, so that he feels and senses what kind of relationship he should establish between himself and the outside world. Life is, to the greatest extent, capable of leading people into one error after another regarding this relationship to the outside world. And our current way of thinking, in more ways than one, is the cause of such errors.

[ 28 ] To help us understand each other better, I would like to point out the small beginning we have made with a particular method of healing. In Munich, one of our colleagues in spiritual science is experimenting with a kind of treatment or healing method that arises from the principles of spiritual science. Anyone who believes today that only ‘material, physical-chemical, and physiological influences’ can have a healing effect on human beings might laugh at the idea that people are led into chambers with particularly peculiar colors, and that through the powers of a certain color and other factors—which need not be discussed further here—it is possible to influence the human soul, though certainly not on a superficial level. However, you must recognize the difference between this method of treatment in the chambers—a kind of chromotherapy, a kind of color therapy—and what is called light therapy. When a person is exposed to light, the underlying idea is to allow the physical light to act directly, so that one assumes that when this or that beam of light is directed at a person, the effect is exerted on the person from the outside. The color therapy mentioned above takes no account of this at all.

[ 29 ] In this healing method, derived from spiritual science and established by our friend Dr. Peipers, no account is taken of the effect that light rays as such, independently of the human soul, have on a person; rather, it takes into account what is brought about in the soul—indirectly through the imagination—under the influence of, let us say, the color blue (not the light itself), and how this in turn affects the entire physical organism.

[ 30 ] One must take into account this enormous difference between what is otherwise called light therapy and what can be called color therapy here. In addition, certain patients are filled with the content of a very specific conception of color. One must understand that colors contain forces within them that manifest when they not only shine upon us but also work within our souls. One must understand that one color has a challenging effect, that another color triggers forces of longing, that a third color lifts the soul above itself, and that yet another color presses the soul down below itself.

[ 31 ] When we consider this physical-spiritual interaction, we will see what the source of the physical and etheric realms is: that our astral body is the true shaper of the physical and etheric realms. The physical is merely a condensation of the spiritual, and the spiritual, in turn, can act back upon the physical so that it is permeated and lived through in the proper way. Then, when we keep the fundamental idea of such a matter in mind—and because we have a science that points to how the spiritual-soul aspect lives within the human being—we will also be able to hope to understand that what lives in the spiritual-soul aspect expresses itself in the physical realm in both health and illness.

[ 32 ] Anyone who realizes this can place their hope in the spiritual sciences when it comes to health issues. As easy as it is to say, “You cannot cure a person with a worldview,” it is nevertheless true that a person’s health depends on their worldview. For humanity today, this is a paradox; for the future, it will be a matter of course! I would like to discuss this a little further. One might say: Human beings must arrive at purely objective truth; they must make their concepts exact representations of external physical facts. As a theorist, one can make such a demand. One can hold up as an ideal a person who strives to think only what the eyes can see, the ears can hear, and the hands can touch. — But then spiritual science comes along and says: You can never grasp what is truly real if you look only at what is outwardly perceptible—what the eyes see, the ears hear, and the hands can grasp. What is truly real has the spiritual as its foundation. The spiritual cannot be perceived; one must experience it through active participation, through the creative activity of the spiritual-soul. One needs creative powers to access the spiritual. When the spiritual scientist speaks of the individual aspects of his science, he is not always able to demonstrate tangibly what leads to his concepts. He describes that which cannot be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, or grasped with the hands, because it must be perceived with the eyes of the spirit. One might then say: This is, after all, a description of something that does not exist at all in the sensory world. For us, truth is that which provides an inner reflection of external reality. One may put forward such a theory, but we do not wish to discuss its value in terms of truth and knowledge today; rather, we wish to speak of its value for healing. The fact is that all those concepts which we merely abstract from external sensory reality—which are, so to speak, merely images of what one sees with the eyes, hears with the ears, or touches with the hands—and which do not rest on the soul’s inner participation in the creation of images—all these abstractions, all concepts that cling faithfully to the reality of the external senses, lack inner imaginative powers; they leave the soul dead; they do not call upon the soul to bring its inner, slumbering powers into activity.

[ 33 ] No matter how much the fanatics of “external facts” may insist that reality should not be interwoven with images of the supersensible world, But as paradoxical as it may sound, these images restore our spirit to an activity that is appropriate for it. They bring it back into harmony with the physical organism. Those who cling to the purely abstract concepts of purely materialistic science do nothing for their health with their spiritual nature. Those who construct only abstractions in their concepts make their soul barren and empty, and they are always dependent on making the external instrument of the body the bearer of both health and illness. Those who live amid disordered and distorted ideas are also unaware of how they are, in a mysterious way, instilling within themselves the causes of their organism’s destruction. Therefore, spiritual science takes the position that through the perspectives it asserts regarding the supersensible world—that world which we do not perceive with our external senses but must powerfully evoke within ourselves—we make our soul so inwardly active that its activity is in harmony with the spiritual world from which our entire organism was created. Therefore, our organism is not restored to health through petty means; rather, spiritual science itself is the great remedy for healing.

[ 34 ] Those who form their thoughts based on the grand perspectives of the world and bring these thoughts to life evoke such inner activity that even their feelings and sensations flow in a harmonious way that brings bliss to the soul. Whoever influences their thoughts in this way also influences their impulses of will, and these then have a healing effect. But they do so only when a truly healthy worldview—a healthy harmony of thoughts—fills our soul. As a result, our sensations—and, in connection with them, our likes and dislikes, our sympathies and antipathies, our desires and aversions—are regulated in such a way that we face the world knowing, in every single case, what to do, just like a child whose instinct has not yet been corrupted. In this way, we will internally awaken within our soul those feelings, sensations, impulses of the will, and desires that serve as a sure guide in life, instructing us on what to do in order to establish the proper relationship between the outside world and ourselves.

[ 35 ] It is no exaggeration to say that clear, lucid thoughts—comprehensive thoughts of the kind that can only be brought about by a comprehensive worldview extending to the whole of the world, including the supersensible—are a prerequisite for health. Pure feelings and impulses of will that correspond to the objective reality of the spiritual—such as those that accompany such thoughts—will give people the ability to feel a healthy appetite. Even if one cannot “feed” people a worldview, this still offers them the opportunity to find what corresponds to their soul, to seek out what is appropriate for them, and to reject what is not. Thoughts—which are images of the supersensible world—are the best digestive aid—even if this seems paradoxical—not because the forces of digestion reside within the thoughts themselves, but because active thoughts awaken the forces that allow digestion to proceed in an orderly manner.

[ 36 ] As long as people do not heed this call from spiritual science, as long as they continue to believe that whatever afflicts them in this or that form of illness, in this or that way, has been cured once an appropriate remedy has been found, they will not have recognized the importance of spiritual science. Nor will they have recognized the extent to which health plays a role in the nature of evolution. Even those who say one should not treat symptoms do not go far enough. They, too, fail to grasp the spiritual core. Anyone who approaches spiritual science will find that it is a worldview through which inner bliss flows—a worldview of delight and joy—and that it is a prerequisite for fostering the great remedy for health. It is easier to use this or that remedy than to enter into the stream of spiritual science in order to find what will make people healthier and healthier. But once one enters into this spiritual science, one will realize that it is true what an old saying states: “A healthy soul dwells in a healthy body,” but that it is wrong to interpret this saying in a materialistic way. Anyone who believes they must interpret this saying materialistically should simply say: Here I see a house. This house is beautiful. Therefore, I conclude that, because this house is beautiful, it must also have produced a beautiful owner. The beautiful house makes for a beautiful owner. — Perhaps the person who says, “Here is a beautiful house; from this I conclude that a person of good taste lives there,” is a bit wiser. I see in the owner of the beautiful house a person of good taste, and in the house the outward sign that the owner is a person of good taste.

[ 37 ] But perhaps there is also someone wise who says: Because external forces have restored the body to health, the body has once again formed a healthy soul. — But that is not correct; rather, the one who says, “Here I see a healthy body,” is right. This is a sign that it must be built up by a healthy soul. It is healthy because the soul is healthy. — Therefore, one can say: Because we see the outward symptom of a healthy body, there must be a healthy soul underlying it. A materialistic age may interpret the saying, “A healthy body must be underpinned by a healthy soul,” in a purely materialistic way. Spiritual science, however, shows us that a healthy soul is at work within a healthy body.