The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. The Nature of Spiritual Science and Its Significance for the Present

[ 1 ] For several years now, I have been attempting, from this very place throughout the winter months, to give lectures on a field that I take the liberty of calling “spiritual science.” This winter, too, as part of the series of lectures I have announced to you, I shall once again present a picture of the realities of the spiritual world from this perspective. We shall examine some of the great questions of existence: the relationship between life and death, between sleep and wakefulness, between the human soul and the animal soul, the human spirit and the animal spirit, and the spirit in the plant kingdom. We shall then examine the nature of human development through the various stages of life—childhood, youth, and later years—and the role of education in shaping a person’s fundamental character. The spiritual life will be illuminated by turning our attention to great individualities in the development of humanity—Zoroaster, Moses, Galileo, and Goethe. An attempt will be made to show, using specific examples, the relationship between what is here called spiritual science and the natural sciences, using the examples of astronomy and geology. And then an attempt will be made to explain what can be said about the mysteries of life from the sources of spiritual science itself. Each year, these reflections have been preceded by a kind of introductory, general overview. This tradition will be followed again this year, as today’s talk will address the significance of spiritual science, its nature, and its relationship—or, one might also say, its role—within the various spiritual needs of the present.

[ 2 ] In the sense in which the term “humanities” is used here, it is fair to say that the humanities remain a rather unpopular subject among broad segments of humanity today. Admittedly, the term “humanities” is also used outside the framework of the perspectives to be adopted here. For example, the term is used to refer to history, as well as to other contemporary fields of knowledge. Here, however, we shall use the term “humanities” in a sense different from the usual one. When people today speak of “humanities” and apply the term to history, for instance, they will, at most, admit that alongside what is accessible to human observation, sensory and intellectual experience, certain major tendencies must also be taken into account in history—tendencies that manifest themselves as forces at work within the current of world events and, as it were, shape the destinies of individual peoples and individual states. One also speaks of general ideas in history and in human life. Anyone who reflects on what is meant in such cases will soon realize that abstract ideas are meant—those to which one appeals when speaking of forces, of the essential, of that which guides human destinies. In a certain sense, these are general ideas with which the human intellect can establish a relationship of understanding.

[ 3 ] In another sense, the term “spiritual science” is used here to refer to a spiritual world that is assumed to be essential in nature, just as the human world is essential within physical existence. It will be shown that when one goes beyond the limits of human cognitive faculties—beyond what is presented to external sensory observation, and turns to the guiding forces of human and cosmic existence in general, one does not merely arrive at abstractions or concepts devoid of vitality and power, but at something essential—something that is alive, rich in content, and spiritually imbued with existence, just as the human being itself is. So what is being spoken of here is a spiritual world with a real existence. And that is precisely why spiritual science is not a popular subject among the broadest circles of our present spiritual striving. After all, it is the least of it when those who embark on such paths of spiritual scientific research are labeled as chatterers, dreamers, or fantasists. And it is still common today to say that anything that appears as a rigorous method or as true scientific rigor in this field—or that purports to be such—is a rather dubious matter.

[ 4 ] Great, tremendous advances have, after all, always—at all times—had a profound influence on humanity, including in terms of all thought, feeling, and perception. And when we look at the great advances in human life in general in recent times—we might almost say in recent centuries— they do not lie in the field of the spiritual sciences, which is the subject of this discussion, but rather in the field of which humanity today—as will be emphasized shortly—is quite rightly so proud and on which it still pins great hopes for the future development of humanity. These advances of the last few centuries, extending right up to the present day, lie in the field that has grown out of the natural sciences. When one considers how immense is all that has been gained for human knowledge today—not merely in theory—in the field of the natural sciences, and what still promises to be gained from this scientific foundation, and when one also takes into account the great significance these scientific achievements have for external life, one must say: the blessing and significance of this scientific progress could and had to exert a suggestive power on the human mind in our time. And so it has come to pass that this suggestive effect has also manifested itself in another direction. Had it manifested itself only in such a way that the human spirit felt, above all else, something akin to a kind of secular cult toward these tremendous advances, who could possibly say a single word against it? But this suggestive power has also manifested itself in such a way that not only is the significance of scientific research and the resulting progress for our time acknowledged, but it has also led to the emergence, in the widest circles, of the belief that all human knowledge and understanding can be gained only on the very foundation that is today recognized as the scientific one. And because people feel justified in concluding from this belief that the methods of the spiritual sciences contradict those of the natural sciences—that it is impossible for anyone standing on the ground of the natural sciences to speak at all of the exploration of a spiritual world—the prejudice is widespread in the broadest circles that spiritual science must be rejected in the face of the legitimate demands of the natural sciences. What is particularly striking about this rejection is that it invokes an argument that carries extraordinary weight.

[ 5 ] The scientific method, it is said, is one in which the results of research and the findings can be verified by anyone at any time, and in which nothing that prevails in the subjective human being—such as feelings, sympathy or antipathy, longing, or desires—may play a role in the acquisition of these findings and research results. Nothing may interfere based on the assumption that one wishes to arrive at a particular result; the human element must be excluded from research, and the objectivity of things alone must be allowed to speak when it comes to the results of scientific research.

[ 6 ] The humanities cannot simply make this claim. For anyone who is quick to form an opinion about the universal validity of this claim, the mere fact that the humanities cannot meet this requirement will be reason enough to reject them. Why is that so? Natural science finds the objects of its research—the things it discusses—all around us. It proceeds from what can be presented to any person, what any person can reflect upon using the methods of natural science when confronted with the subject matter. And it seems entirely irrelevant what assumptions a person brings to bear when approaching what presents itself to their view in their surroundings. This is precisely what is expressed in the general requirement: Scientific knowledge must be verifiable by every person at any given time.

[ 7 ] True spiritual science cannot proceed in the same way that the natural sciences arrive at their results—that is, through the methods they employ. For one thing, it cannot say: It is necessary that its findings be verifiable by every person at any time. For it must assume that these findings—these results of research—are obtained precisely because human beings do not regard their inner selves as something fixed or complete, that they do not view their subjective being as something finished, but rather say to themselves: ‘My subjective being—this entire sum of my soul life, as I can set it in contrast to the world—is not something closed off, not something finished; it can be developed, and the life of the soul can be deepened.’ Spiritual life can unfold in such a way that what one finds when one directs the senses toward the external world and applies the intellect to what the senses convey serves, as it were, merely as a foundation for further spiritual experiences. Further spiritual experiences arise when the soul delves into itself, works on itself, when it regards the immediate perception of life merely as a starting point, and then—through forces that initially lie dormant within it but can be brought to the surface—struggles through stages of existence that cannot be viewed in such a way that they could be verified by an external eye. What the spiritual researcher must therefore undergo in preparation for his studies is an inner struggle of the soul that is entirely independent of what the human being himself possesses within. If, then, science in general demands that the human being contribute nothing to the results that present themselves to him externally, there could be no question of spiritual science at all. But anyone who reflects a little and asks themselves: What, then, is the most important aspect of the requirements asserted for spiritual science? — might conclude that its findings are valid for every human being, that they are not subject to the personal whims of this or that individual, and that they are not merely significant for the inner life of this or that person, but are significant for all human beings.

[ 8 ] That is, after all, what is significant about all scientific inquiry: it does not apply merely to those who are directly confronted with the objects of science, but rather, once these objects have been investigated, this can lead to insights that may be valid for all people.

[ 9 ] If it were true that what has been characterized as human development were merely subjective—applicable only to one person or another—and that it were therefore merely a matter of personal belief, then one could not truly speak of spiritual science. However, this winter will also show us that this inner life of the human being—the soul’s struggle arising from forces that are initially dormant but can awaken, unfold, and develop, and can then lead the human being from one experience to another—and that this soul life can still rise to a level where its experiences possess a very specific character. When we consider human life as it unfolds within the human soul, it is at first a wholly personal matter—one way for one person, another way for another. Anyone with a healthy sense of self-awareness will be able to recognize, in this or that feeling of sympathy or antipathy that arises in their soul—which, as it were, has only a personal character—that this is indeed the case. But inner experience leads to a certain point where precisely a methodically driven self-knowledge—a pure self-knowledge unaffected by the personal—must acknowledge: the personal has indeed been set aside, forming a distinct realm; but one then reaches a certain point where, for inner experience—for supersensory experience—arbitrariness ceases just as it ceases when one encounters this or that sensory phenomenon, and where one cannot think as one pleases, but must think in accordance with the object. Thus, the human being also enters, inwardly and spiritually, into a certain sphere, a certain realm, where he becomes clearly aware that it is no longer his personal subjectivity that speaks, but that now beings and forces—not perceptible to the senses but supersensory—are speaking, for whom his individuality is just as insignificant as it is for what the external sensory objects convey. This insight must, of course, be gained if one is to speak of the right for what is said about the spiritual world to bear the name “science” at all. These lectures this winter, too, are intended to serve as further proof that the study of the spiritual world may rightly be called a science.

[ 10 ] Thus, it must be said that spiritual science is, by its very nature, grounded in what can be explored by the human soul when, through its inner struggles and experiences, it has reached a point where the personal no longer influences its contemplation of the spiritual world, but rather allows the spiritual world itself to reveal its characteristics. If one were to compare spiritual science with natural science, some might say: But then spiritual science lacks the important characteristic of being able to make a convincing impression on all people—a characteristic that exists in natural science for the reason that, wherever scientific results appear, one has the awareness: Even if you haven’t researched and observed this yourself, you could still—if you went to the observatory or the laboratory and used the telescope and the microscope—recognize it in the same way as the person who reported it to you. And one could go on to say: While in spiritual science the proof is a purely inner one, and the soul wrestles with itself until it says, “Now you are not contributing anything of your own personality to what the objects are telling you”—it remains, nevertheless, an individual struggle. And to the one who has arrived at certain results along this path, or to whom the spiritual scientist communicates these results, one ought to say: “For me, these results remain an unknown land until I myself ascend to the same point!”

[ 11 ] This, too—as we shall yet see—turns out to be a false objection. Certainly, this solitary struggle of the human soul, this uncovering of the forces slumbering within it, is part of the process of ascending into the spiritual world, where it speaks to us objectively. But the spiritual world is such that when the findings of spiritual science are communicated, the results do not simply remain without effect. What emerges from a human soul—examined through spiritual scientific research—as messages to other souls can, in a certain sense, be verified by every soul in turn; not in the sense that one can see in a laboratory what another has discovered, but in the sense that one can comprehend it. For within every soul lives an unbiased sense of truth, a sound logic, and a sound rationality. And when the findings of spiritual research are clothed in sound logic—in that which speaks to our sound sense of truth—then a chord resonates within every soul, or at least within every unbiased human soul, in harmony with the communicating soul. One might say: Every soul is inherently predisposed—even if it has not yet devoted itself to the solitary struggle described—to take in, through an unbiased logic and a sound sense of truth, what is communicated by spiritual science. Although it must certainly be admitted that, within the broadest circles in which this or that aspect of spiritual science is pursued today, this healthy sense of truth and this healthy logic do not prevail everywhere in the reception of the findings of spiritual research—this is a shortcoming of every spiritual movement. In principle, however, what has been said is entirely correct. Indeed, in principle, one should even bear in mind that it is bound to lead to error upon error if what is so often presented to humanity today as spiritual science is accepted lightheartedly and with blind faith. Anyone who truly stands on the ground of spiritual science feels strictly obligated to communicate what they have to say in a logical and rational manner, so that it can truly be tested by a sound sense of truth and by all logic. — Thus, we have described the nature of spiritual science from one perspective by showing how its results must be arrived at.

[ 12 ] That such an objective fact of the spirit exists can, of course, only be demonstrated by this science itself. However, it should be pointed out at this very moment that this science leads precisely to what we call the real, actual content of the spiritual world—a content that is vividly imbued with such essentiality as a human being itself is imbued with. From this perspective, spiritual science is clear that underlying all external, physical-sensory existence, all existence of which our senses and intellectual experience speak, is ultimately grounded in a spiritual world; that human beings, just like all other things, are born from this spiritual world and have developed from it, so that behind the world perceptible to the senses—behind what is commonly called physical, external existence—the realm of the spiritual world extends. Now, when spiritual science gradually proceeds to show, on the basis of its observations, what this spiritual world is like and how it underlies our sensory world, then in many circles of our present time the aversion and antipathy begin that were described at the outset of today’s discussion: In many circles today, spiritual science is a rather unpopular subject. And it is by no means difficult to understand that spiritual science still faces tremendous resistance today. It is entirely natural—and not merely natural simply because, in a certain sense, anything new that is incorporated into human cultural life, such as spiritual science, has always been met with a certain degree of resistance, just as all of humanity’s achievements, great and small, have been; but because there is, in fact, quite a great deal within the realm of ideas that people today derive, for example, from scientific observation, which precisely creates the necessity that anyone who believes they stand entirely on the ground of natural science finds themselves entangled in utter contradictions when they hear what spiritual science has to say. Anyone who stands on the ground of spiritual science himself has no doubt whatsoever that, with a certain degree of justification, hundreds upon hundreds of so-called refutations of this spiritual science can be brought forward. Just as an aside, I would like to mention that I myself will be giving two lectures in the near future—in various places and also here once—in order to bring clarity to the question that has been raised; the first will be titled: “How Does One Refute Theosophy?” and the other: “How Does One Justify Theosophy?” This is to be done on a trial basis, so that it may be shown how one who stands on the ground of spiritual science can truly compile everything that can be brought up as refutations against spiritual science. Indeed, I would say that even more so than what has already been stated, the refutations of spiritual science—as refutations are commonly referred to today—are, in terms of their various results, not particularly difficult at all. It is easy to refute spiritual scientific research.

[ 13 ] I do not wish to compare these refutations directly, but to clarify my point, I will refer to something that often strikes one when reading works by certain philosophers on Hegelian philosophy. — I do not wish to discuss here what is significant about Hegel’s philosophy, what is true, and what is false; let us leave that aside for now. — There are surely few among Hegel’s connoisseurs who do not acknowledge that they are dealing with a significant mind in Hegel. Now, there is a curious statement in Hegel’s writings that can, so to speak, make a deep impression on those who lightly set out to refute Hegel. And this statement reads: “Everything real is rational!” Now let us just imagine—one might say—what inner laughter such a statement must evoke in someone who delights in refuting! A philosopher who utters such nonsense—“Everything real is rational!”—must be a great one. One need only cast a single glance at the world to see how irrational this statement is! There is a simple method to refute the truth of this statement, and it consists in committing a blunder as thick as a club oneself. For one can assert that such a blunder is certainly not rational. Should the fact that a refutation is easy, then, also lead to it being taken lightly and easily regarded as significant? That is an entirely different question, which might be answered by considering the following: Could Hegel—whatever one’s stance on Hegel may be—really have been so foolish as not to have realized what arguments exist to refute this statement? Could he really have believed that no human being is capable of committing a blunder as glaring as this? Shouldn’t one be prompted to consider, for once, in what sense Hegel might have meant this proposition, and that such a refutation does not at all address what was actually intended?

[ 14 ] This could also be the case with many aspects of the humanities. To take a concrete example: The humanities must assume — and this can only be stated today — that what we recognize in human beings as the instrument of thinking, imagining, feeling, and willing—namely, the nervous system together with the brain—is built up from a spiritual substance; that the brain and nervous system are instruments of an essential reality that cannot be demonstrated in the sensory world, but must be investigated through the characteristic methods of the humanities. Spiritual science must therefore move beyond what external science—based on sensory phenomena—has to say about the brain and nervous system, toward something that operates within the human being as a spiritual-soul element, something that can no longer be investigated with the senses, but only through the inner paths of the soul. It is, in fact, child’s play to refute what spiritual research says about a supersensible realm that underlies the human brain. One might say: Everything you are talking about here is itself merely a product of the brain. If you do not see this, then consider how spiritual faculties increase in the course of evolution. In lower animals, spiritual faculties are still quite imperfect; in higher animals, and especially in higher mammals, they are already more significant and more perfect; and in humans, they appear to be the most perfect because the human brain has attained the highest degree of perfection. This shows that what appears as spiritual life arises from the brain. And if you still do not believe this, turn to someone who can show you how, in certain cases of illness, certain parts of the brain become inactive and certain abilities can no longer be exercised by the human being, so that, as it were, certain parts of the brain are eroded and the spiritual life is shut down. There you see, then, how your spiritual life can be eroded bit by bit by what is a sensory organ! Why, then, do you still speak of spiritual beings who are supposed to stand behind the things perceptible to the senses?

[ 15 ] This objection is really very easy to raise. However, the fact that it is based not on scientific findings but on the suggestion that many people derive from certain scientific theories must seem self-evident to us today. All of this is connected to the fact that our age is under the suggestive influence of the idea that truth and knowledge can only be attained by directing the senses outward and allowing the intellect to be inspired by what is perceived. Even if—and this must be said with regard to spiritual science—these findings are bound to give rise to refutations of the findings of spiritual science on every point, one can still say that, on the other hand, there exists in our present age a deep need, a deep longing, to hear something from those realms about which spiritual science has something to report. At the same time, a deep longing for this has emerged and is alive and consciously present among a group of people. In the majority of people, it lies dormant, so to speak, beneath the surface of consciousness, but will increasingly come to the fore. The need for results from spiritual science will grow ever greater. This longing, this need for results from spiritual science arises—we might say—as a side effect alongside the admiration and devotion for the achievements of the natural sciences. Precisely because the achievements of the natural sciences necessarily direct human attention outward, the longing for the results of spiritual science awakens as a counterpoint. In this regard, within the course of development as it has unfolded in the nineteenth and in our own century, we have arrived at a perspective quite different from the one humanity held even a century ago. If one wishes to speak of the value of research in the humanities for the present, it is significant to bear in mind that even the greatest minds a century ago did not yet feel the need to speak of findings in the humanities in the manner intended in this series of lectures. And since great individuals merely set the tone for humanity—in a certain sense, they merely express what the need of the entire age is, including that of lesser individuals—such a matter can become vividly clear to us when we look to these greater individuals.

[ 16 ] It can rightly be said that a man like Goethe, a century ago, felt no need whatsoever to comment on the findings of the humanities, as is often done today in the field of the humanities. Whenever the question arose of discussing something that lies beyond what is outwardly perceptible to the senses, Goethe, like so many people, often maintained that this was a matter of faith, but not of rigorous science. And Goethe also frequently expressed the view that, fundamentally, the communication of universally valid findings in this field could hardly be very fruitful when conveyed from one person to another. Over the course of a century, we have not only advanced so far in terms of humanity’s overall development that Goethe lived in an age that had no telegraphs, telephones, railroads, or prospects such as those offered by air travel; we also stand, in terms of intellectual development, before results that are different from those of Goethe’s time. You can see this in a specific example. There is a beautiful conversation that Goethe had with a certain Falk on the occasion of Wieland’s death. In it, he spoke about the realms from which a certain understanding is to be drawn regarding what in human beings survives beyond birth and death, what does not perish with the physical body, and what is immortal in contrast to the mortal part of the human being. The immediate occasion of the death of Wieland, whom he held in such high esteem, had prompted Goethe to express himself in accessible terms to someone like Falk, who showed him understanding in this regard. And what he said there is highly significant when we address the question of the significance of spiritual science for the present day.

[ 17 ] “...You have long known that ideas which lack a firm foundation in the sensory world, for all their other value, do not convince me, because when it comes to nature, I want to know, not merely surmise or believe. As for the personal survival of our soul after death, this is how I see it: It is by no means at odds with the many years of observations I have made regarding the nature of our own and all other beings in nature; on the contrary, it even emerges from them with renewed evidential force. However, how much—or how little—of this personality, incidentally, deserves to endure is another question and a matter we must leave to God. For the time being, I will merely note this first: I assume various classes and hierarchies of the ultimate constituents of all beings—as it were, the starting points of all phenomena in nature—which I would like to call souls, because the animation of the whole proceeds from them; or, better yet, monads—let us always retain this Leibnizian term! There could hardly be a better term to express the simplicity of the simplest being. Now, as experience shows us, some of these monads or starting points are so small, so insignificant, that they are suited, at most, only to a subordinate function and existence; others, on the other hand, are extremely strong and powerful. The latter therefore tend to draw everything that approaches them into their sphere and transform it into something belonging to them—that is, into a body, a plant, an animal, or, even higher still, a star. They continue this process until the small or large world, whose intention lies spiritually within them, also manifests itself physically outwardly. It is only the latter that I would actually call souls. It follows from this that there are world monads, world souls, just as there are ant monads and ant souls, and that both are, in their origin, if not completely one, then at least related in their primordial essence. Every sun, every planet carries within itself a higher intention, a higher mission, by virtue of which its developments must take place just as regularly and according to the same laws as the developments of a rosebush through its leaves, stem, and crown. Whether you call this an idea or a monad, as you wish, I have no objection; suffice it to say that this intention exists invisibly and prior to the visible development that arises from it in nature... »

[ 18 ] In a certain sense, then, Goethe was speaking at that time about what we will discuss more often in these lectures: the reincarnation of the human soul. And he remarks: based on everything he had formed for himself as a view of the human world, the animal world, and so on, such a view would not contradict what he had established as science.

[ 19 ] It is easy to imagine what such a statement means coming from Goethe, when one considers that in 1784 Goethe had made a discovery that alone would have been enough to ensure his name’s survival for all time, even if he had accomplished nothing else: the discovery of the so-called intermediate jawbone in the human upper jaw. The human upper jaw—just like that of animals—contains an intermediate bone. This was denied precisely at the time when Goethe entered the field of natural science. When it came to distinguishing between humans and animals, people looked only for external distinguishing features and believed that animals had an intermediate bone in the upper jaw, whereas humans did not. This, it was believed, distinguished the human from the animal organism. Goethe refused to accept this; he could not believe that the difference between humans and animals lay in such a subordinate anatomical feature, and he set out by every means to demonstrate that what is called the intermaxillary bone, although it fuses in humans shortly after birth, is nevertheless present in embryonic form and is not absent in humans. He had indeed succeeded in proving that the difference between humans and animals does not lie in such an external feature.

[ 20 ] From this starting point, Goethe explored all fields of natural science and was thus well acquainted with the scientific mindset of his time. Indeed, he was so far ahead of his time that Darwinists, who sought to reinterpret Goethe in the spirit of Darwin, can claim today that Goethe was a precursor to Darwin. Although Goethe is so deeply rooted in the scientific thought of his time and yet transcends it, he can nevertheless say that the view he had formed regarding the immortal part of the human being—which echoes the idea of reincarnation—is entirely compatible with his scientific concepts. And what Goethe was able to say back then is, in essence, something every person could say to themselves. Other researchers who sought to satisfy life’s need for knowledge through scientific means were in the same position. It is characteristic of this that, on Haeckelian grounds, one invokes a great achievement of Kant’s—namely, Kant’s foundation of the mechanical worldview—and refers to Kant’s *General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, or An Attempt at an Explanation of the Constitution and the Mechanical Origin of the Entire World Structure*, written in 1775. All you need to do is pick up the Reclam booklet, look at the conclusion, and then ask: What is the stance of those who stand on the ground of mere Haeckelism toward Kant when he speaks of the immortality of the human soul, when he discusses the great mysteries of the human soul, the prospect of other celestial bodies being habitable, and the continued existence of the human soul on other planets? What is the stance of such followers of Haeckel regarding the possibility of human reincarnation, as it appears in this work by Kant published in 1775? People refer to these things today in such a way that one would be astonished if those very same people who invoke Kant had actually read them!

[ 21 ] Things are different today than they were a century or a century and a half ago. It was a product of the spirit of the times that people spoke about matters of intellectual life in a certain way that sought to have nothing to do with science, because they felt they were speaking of something that was not in contradiction to what science could assert. Anyone who allows the science of the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to take hold of them—even if they absorb scientific knowledge only through popular accounts—feels that they could speak as Goethe did: The convictions I have formed about intellectual life, even if they are merely a personal belief, will in no way contradict what is presented as science today.

[ 22 ] Things have changed, and today the situation is becoming very difficult for science. One must bear in mind that, after Goethe’s death, Schleiden and Schwann made their great discoveries regarding human and animal cells, and that it was only then that an elementary organism presented itself in a way that was perceptible to the senses. Why even talk about “life on other celestial bodies” and so on, when one can see how, in an animal or a plant, bodies are built up through the interaction of purely material, perceptible cells!

[ 23 ] Then came the other tremendous achievements. We need only consider what an impression it must have made on human thought when Kirchhoff and Bunsen introduced spectral analysis, which broadened humanity’s view to distant worlds, and where it became possible to conclude that the material existence we find on Earth is the same on even the most distant celestial bodies, so that one could speak of a unity of matter throughout the entire universe. And every day brings new discoveries in this field. I could point to hundreds and hundreds of such things that have had a revolutionary effect—not on the world of facts, but on people’s ways of thinking—so that the conviction had to arise that, in the face of what the scientific method offers, one has no right to speak any other way than this: Wait and see what scientific research has to tell you about the foundations of life, about the origin of spiritual life from brain activity, and do not speak in fanciful terms of a spiritual world that is supposed to underlie all of this! — All of this is far too easy to understand.

[ 24 ] Thus, the way in which the natural sciences are perceived has changed in terms of their power to convince people. In this regard, Goethe is truly a precursor to Darwin. Nevertheless, in keeping with the spirit of his time, he moved from his scientific research—from the evolution of living beings from the imperfect to the perfect—to a purely spiritual worldview that seeks the supernatural and the spiritual behind all that is sensory. People who proceed in the same way in our time believe that the findings of natural science compel us to stop short of what these findings are supposed to be, and that everything belonging to the realm of the spirit seems to well up from the sensory background. Today, people simply cannot say—as they could a century ago—that what they know, or believe they know, or have come to accept through their personal convictions about the supersensible world is not in contradiction to the findings of natural science; rather, it seems that it must indeed be in stark contradiction to them. And it is not only this or that serious, dignified seeker of truth and striving individual who perceives it this way.

[ 25 ] If that is the case, then we must say: For our present time, the persuasive power and the arguments that could be put forward even a century ago—or even later—without contradicting external scientific findings are no longer directly decisive. Today, more substantial impetus is needed to uphold what is said about the supersensible world in the face of the rigorous scientific findings of science. What we consider ourselves justified in believing about the spiritual world, we must be able to present in the same way, to establish in the same objective manner, as the findings of natural science—only on a different foundation—can be established. Only a spiritual science that works with the same logic and the same sound sense of truth as natural science will be perceived as capable of standing alongside the vastly advanced natural sciences. When one considers this, one understands in what sense spiritual science has become a necessity for our present time. One also understands that this spiritual science alone can satisfy the longings that have been described. And these longings exist because what has just been described is at work unconsciously in many human souls—precisely among the finest seekers of truth and in a realm where one least expects it—when one points out how the human drive for knowledge reaches beyond whatever has previously been said in the scientific realm.

[ 26 ] Certainly, the field of mathematics—the field of geometry—seems to be one in which what is gained appears to be secure in its application to the sensory world. Who would be willing, so to speak, to believe without a second thought that anyone could claim that what the world has to say about mathematics, about geometry, could in any way be called into question? And yet it is characteristic that, in the course of the nineteenth century, there were minds who, purely mathematically and through rigorous mathematical investigations, rose to the level of conceiving geometries and mathematics that have no validity within our sensory world, but rather apply to entirely different worlds. So let us consider: there have been minds with a strictly mathematical way of thinking who felt they could go beyond what had hitherto existed as mathematics and geometry within the realm of the sensory world—that they could invent a geometry applicable to an entirely different sensory world! And there is not just one, but several such geometries. Those trained in mathematics are familiar with the names Riemann, Lobachevsky, and Bolyai. We do not wish to go into further detail here, for what matters to us is simply that human cognition could give rise to such things. — For example, there are geometries that do not accept the theorem that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, but in which triangles have an entirely different property, so that, for instance, the three angles of a triangle are always less than 180 degrees. Or consider another case: In our Euclidean geometry, one can draw only one parallel line through a point to a given line. Geometries have been devised in which one can draw an infinite number of parallel lines through a point to another line. This means, then, that there have been minds that felt compelled not merely to dream of other worlds, but even to devise geometries for them! This strongly suggests that even in the minds of mathematicians, there was a longing to go beyond what exists in the world immediately surrounding us.

[ 27 ] There is just one more point to be made regarding the fact that our time needs something that can be derived from spiritual science. It will become clear to us that, in fact, the human being—in terms of what constitutes his true spiritual-soul nature—appears again and again in renewed lives on our Earth itself. That what is called reincarnation is, in the spiritual-soul realm, a fact similar to the theory of evolution at a lower level for the animal kingdom. That is to say, the human soul develops through incarnations it has experienced in the distant past and will continue to live through those it will experience in distant future incarnations. Certainly, the art of refutation will still be directed very strongly against such ideas in the present. But one can already assert that the present has a deep need for such insights, which are connected to what enables human beings to orient themselves regarding their purpose and their entire relationship to the external world.

[ 28 ] It is only recently that human beings have truly begun to position themselves as historical beings within the development of the world. This has come about through external means of education. Consider the limited perspective of humanity in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, before the art of printing had disseminated the means of education. As a result, questions such as the following had not yet arisen in the human heart: How can our soul find fulfillment in the face of what we recognize as historical progress? Herein lies the origin of a question that has already become a matter close to the hearts of many people today. Historical progress shows us that ever-new achievements—which also hold value for the inner development of the soul itself—and that new and ever-new realities are entering the stream of humanity’s progress. Here, one must ask: What, then, is the situation regarding human beings in their innermost essence? Were the people of the past condemned to live out their lives in a dull existence, unable to share in the fruits of later progress? What, then, is the role of the human essence in the successive developments of the human race?

[ 29 ] While this may be a question to which some might raise objections—the point here is simply to note that the question, the mystery, does indeed arise from a deep feeling within the human soul: Is it possible that there exists today a human soul which, because its life is confined between birth and death, cannot incorporate achievements that will only be imprinted on the stream of human development in the future?

[ 30 ] This question takes on fundamental significance for those who profess the Christian faith. Those who stand on the foundation of a purified Christianity distinguish, in the development of humanity, between the pre-Christian and post-Christian eras, and speak of how a stream of new spiritual life flowed from the Christ event—a stream that had not previously been available to humanity on Earth. For such a person, the question must naturally arise: What of the souls who lived before the Christ event, before the proclamation of what radiated from the Christ event?

[ 31 ] A person can ask such a question. Spiritual science answers it not only theoretically, but in a way that is also satisfying to the person, by showing that the very same people who, in the time before the Christ event, absorbed the achievements of the pre-Christian era, are reincarnated after the current of Christian development has begun, so that nothing that enters into culture can be lost. Thus, for spiritual science, something emerges from history that is not merely general, abstract ideas—intended to force their way through the stream of humanity as cold and abstract as rigid forces—but rather, spiritual science speaks of history as something in which human beings participate everywhere with their innermost being. And since the human horizon has broadened through modern means of education, this question is now posed in a completely different sense than, say, a century ago, when people’s horizons were more limited. There is a longing for an answer that can only be satisfied by spiritual science.

[ 32 ] When we take all this into consideration—and we could go on like this for hours, citing many arguments in favor of the idea that spiritual science is significant for the present precisely because the present is in such great need of its findings—we begin to grasp the significance of spiritual science for the present. And all the lectures to be held here over the course of this winter are intended solely to gather material from a wide variety of perspectives in order to demonstrate the findings of spiritual science and their significance for human life, as well as for the fulfillment of humanity’s highest needs in general.

[ 33 ] Let me just say this in closing: One of the most common objections to the humanities—though it is based merely on a catchphrase—is the claim that the natural sciences have successfully managed, through a unified principle provided by scientific methods, to explain the world in monistic terms. And it has almost become a phrase that automatically evokes antipathy in many people—that the humanities are now returning to propose a dualism in opposition to this monism, which is so beneficial from an epistemological standpoint! Such catchphrases are indeed a source of much error. Is the principle of explaining the universe in a unified way really undermined simply because two currents interact within the universe, one coming from the outside and the other from within the soul? Can we not at all assume that what approaches the soul from these two sides—namely, sensory experience on the one hand and spiritual scientific research on the other— is nevertheless grounded in a unified existence and merely appears, at first, as two currents to human perception? Must monism be taken strictly at face value? If it were the case that the monistic principle were thereby violated, then one might as well claim that the monistic principle is also violated whenever one acknowledges that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen can nevertheless have a unified origin, even as they unite in what we call water. Similarly, the sensory and supersensory worlds can have a unified origin, even though the facts of natural science and spiritual science compel us to say: In the human soul, two currents unite, one of which flows in from the sensory realm and the other from the spiritual realm. Although one cannot immediately point to the unified whole—the “monon”—this does not contradict the conception of a monistic world. That which reveals itself in this way from two sides only attains the power of full reality when we recognize it as composed of these two currents. When we turn our gaze to the external world, we perceive—through the structure of our senses and our intellect—a worldview that does not show us what it grows out of: the spirit. When we follow the paths of spiritual scientific research and experience the spiritual ascent within the soul, we find the spirit. And it is in the soul that spirit and matter meet. It is in the union of spirit and matter within our soul that the true spiritual reality—filled with both spirit and matter—is found!

[ 34 ] Perhaps what has just been said can be summarized in words that, while expressed in poetic form, convey the same idea that has nevertheless been felt at all times by everyone who has made an unbiased effort to gain an understanding of mind and matter. Spiritual science, in relation to natural science, teaches us to recognize that it is true:

It presses upon the human senses
From the mysterious depths of the world
The rich abundance of matter.
It flows into the depths of the soul<
From the lofty heights of the world, full of meaning
The clarifying word of the spirit.
They meet within the human being
To become a wise reality.