The Rudolf Steiner Archive

10. Hygiene as a Social Issue

Roman Boos: Distinguished guests! The aim of these lectures was to demonstrate, from the perspective of the individual academic disciplines, how anthroposophically oriented spiritual science might contribute to the enrichment and further development of those disciplines. Visitors will have been able to gain the thoroughly consistent impression from this entire event that what is taking place here is not something hatched within a narrow circle, but rather that, from a central point, a genuine spiritual enrichment can take place within the individual academic disciplines. Even if perhaps not everyone was able to recognize this right at the outset of these efforts, everyone who looked, as it were, at the driving forces present here—who focused on the enriching forces radiating from them rather than on the value of the initial formulations—has surely been able to convince themselves that there is something here pertaining to our spiritual life that deserves attention and, as far as possible, cooperation and receptiveness from broad circles—especially here in Switzerland. This is because it is precisely here that a spiritual force is struggling to come to light, one that may indeed lay claim to having a spiritually enriching effect on the social community.

Following Dr. Steiner’s lecture on “Hygiene as a Social Issue,” there will be an opportunity for discussion.

[ 1 ] Rudolf Steiner: My dear friends here today! There is no doubt in the broadest circles that the social question is among the matters most pressing in our time, and wherever there is even a little concern for what is currently emerging from the course of human history—for the impulses facing us now, whether threatening or requiring our attention for the future—all of this can be summarized under the heading of the social question. One must realize, however, that the consideration and treatment of this social question today suffers from the fundamental flaw that afflicts so much in our intellectual life, our moral life, indeed our entire civilized life—namely, the intellectualism of our time—and that it suffers from the fact that its problems are so often viewed solely from the perspective of an intellectualist approach. The social question is discussed from this or that standpoint, situated more to the right or to the left. The intellectualistic nature of these discussions is evident in the fact that they proceed from certain theories—assuming that this or that must be one way or another, or that this or that must be abolished. In doing so, little consideration is given to the human being himself. People are treated as if there were such a thing as a general concept like “human beings,” as if there were nothing that is individually and uniquely developed in each person in a certain respect. Attention is not directed toward the individuality and uniqueness of each person. Consequently, our entire approach to the social question takes on an abstract quality—one that today finds little resonance in the social sentiments and attitudes that interact between people. One notices what is here a deficiency in social analysis most clearly when one focuses one’s attention on a specific area—one that is perhaps more suited than many others to being subjected to social analysis—for example, when one looks at the field of hygiene, insofar as hygiene is a public matter that concerns not the individual but the human community.

[ 2 ] Admittedly, even today we certainly do not lack hygiene guidelines, treatises, and writings on health care—including as a matter of public policy. Yet one must ask: How do these guidelines and these reflections on hygiene fit into social life? — And here one must say: They fit in such a way that individual discourses on proper health care are published as the result of medical, physiological, and clinical science, whereby—in a sense—the trust one places in a field whose inner nature one is unable to verify is supposed to form the basis for accepting such rules. Solely on the basis of authority, the broadest circles—which are, after all, concerned by this matter, since it concerns all people—can accept what, in a sense, emerges from the study rooms, examination rooms, and laboratories of medical professionals regarding hygiene and is presented to the public.

[ 3 ] But if one is convinced that, in the course of recent history—over the past four centuries—a longing has arisen among humanity for a democratic order in all matters, then one is confronted—even if this seems grotesque to many today—with the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the blind faith in authority that is demanded in the field of public health. The undemocratic nature of this belief in authority stands in contrast to the yearning for democracy, which in the present day has often—albeit, one might say, in a very paradoxical way—reached a climax.

[ 4 ] I am well aware that the statement I just made is perceived by many as paradoxical, because people simply do not associate the way someone accepts matters pertaining to health care with the democratic demand that public affairs—which concern every person who has attained legal age—must also be judged by the community of those who have attained legal age—whether directly or through their representatives. Certainly, it must be said: It may not be possible to fully realize something like a hygienic perspective—a hygienic approach to public life—in a completely democratic manner, because it depends on the judgment of those who seek knowledge in a particular field. But on the other hand, the question must surely arise: Should we not strive for a greater degree of democratization—greater than is possible today under current conditions—in a field as closely, as infinitely closely, related to every individual and thus to the human community as public health care? We certainly hear a great deal today about the way in which people should live their lives with regard to air and light, with regard to food, with regard to the disposal of waste products generated either by people themselves or by their environment, and so on and so forth. But the rules regarding these matters that are imposed on humanity are, for the most part, unverifiable for the very people to whom they are supposed to apply.

[ 5 ] Now, I do not wish to be misunderstood; I do not wish to be misunderstood as taking a particular stance on anything in this lecture, which is, after all, intended to be devoted to the topic “Hygiene as a Social Issue.” I do not wish to treat in a one-sided manner what today tends to be addressed, in a sense, from a party standpoint or from the standpoint of a certain scientific conviction. I would like—perhaps you will allow this slight, apparent departure from the script in the introduction—I would like to take no side whatsoever in favor of the old superstition that devils and demons roam about, entering and leaving people as diseases, nor would I like to take sides in favor of the modern superstition that germs and bacteria enter and leave people and cause diseases. Whether we are dealing with a spiritualist, spiritual superstition of old or with a materialistic superstition is of less concern to us today. But I would like to touch on something that permeates our entire conception of time, namely insofar as this conception of time depends on the fundamental scientific convictions of our age.

[ 6 ] Even though many today assert that, scientifically speaking, materialism—as it prevailed in the middle and even in the last third of the 19th century—has been overcome, this claim cannot hold true for anyone who truly understands the nature of materialism and its opposite, for this materialism has been overcome, at most, only by a few people who see that today’s scientific facts no longer permit one to declare across the board: Everything that exists is merely some mechanical, physical, or chemical process taking place in the material world. — It is not enough that, compelled by the force of the facts, some people have arrived at this conviction. For standing in contrast to this conviction is the other fact that, despite this conviction, even those who hold it—and the others all the more so—when it comes down to explaining something concrete or forming a view on something concrete, still adopt a materialistic orientation in their way of thinking. It is also said that atoms and molecules are harmless counting tokens, about which one intends to claim nothing more than that they are mental constructs. Yet the perspective has nonetheless remained an atomistic, a molecular one. We explain the phenomena of the world based on the behavior and mutual relationships of atoms or molecular processes, and it does not matter whether we imagine that that some thought, feeling, or other process is connected solely to the material processes of atoms and molecules; rather, what matters is the direction our entire mental state takes, the direction our mind takes, when it bases its explanations solely on what is conceived atomistically—on what arises from the smallest, the fictitiously smallest. What matters is not whether one holds the conviction—whether literally or conceptually—that there is something other than atomistic effects, other than material atomic effects—but rather whether one has the possibility of making explanations of the world other than the derivation of phenomena from atomism the guiding principle of one’s mind. It is not [what] “we believe,” but how we explain things, how we conduct ourselves in our souls—that is what matters. And here, in this place, the conviction must be upheld that only true, genuine spiritual science—anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—can provide a way out of the evil that can be characterized in the manner I have just described.

[ 7 ] I would also like to provide concrete evidence that this can indeed be the case. There is hardly anything more confusing to us than the distinctions frequently made today between the human physical body and the human soul or spirit, between what constitutes physical illness and what are so-called mental or spiritual illnesses. It is precisely the proper distinction and the proper interrelation of such facts of human life—such as the sick body or the seemingly sick soul—that suffer in terms of understanding under the materialistic-atomistic mode of thought. For what, in fact, is the essence of that materialism which has gradually emerged as the modern worldview of many people—a worldview that has by no means been overcome but is, in fact, in its prime today? What is its essence? The essence of materialism is not that one observes material processes, that one observes what takes place in terms of material processes within the human body, and that one devotedly studies the marvelous structure and activity of the human nervous system and other human organs, or the nervous system of animals, or the organs of other living beings; it is not the study of these things that makes one a materialist, but rather the fact that, in studying material processes, one is devoid of spirit—that one looks into the world of matter and sees only matter and material processes.

[ 8 ] But this is precisely what spiritual science must assert—I can only speak briefly on this point today—that wherever processes appear to us externally as material to the senses, those processes that modern science alone wishes to regard as observable and exact—that everywhere these material processes are merely the outward appearance, the outward manifestation of spiritual forces and powers at work behind them and within them. It is not a characteristic of spiritual science to look at a human being and say: “Ah, there is his body; this body is a sum of material processes, but the human being cannot consist solely of it—he has, independent of it, his immortal soul; and the fact that one now begins, in a rather mystical way, to formulate all sorts of abstract theories and conceptions about this immortal soul independent of the body—this in no way characterizes a spiritual worldview. One can certainly say: In addition to his body, which consists of material processes, a human being also has an immortal soul that is carried off to some spirit realm after death. — Yet this does not make one a spiritual scientist in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 9 ] One is only a scholar of the spiritual sciences when one realizes that this material body, with its material processes, is a creation of the soul; when one understands in detail how the soul—which existed before birth, or let us say before the conception of the human being—works, how this soul shapes and molds the structure indeed, in the substantiation of the human body. When one can truly perceive the immediate unity of this body and the soul in every respect, and when one can perceive how, through the activity of the spiritual-soul in the body, this body as such is worn down, how this body dies in part every minute, and how then, at the moment of death— I would say the radical manifestation of that which takes place at every moment through the influence of the spiritual-soul aspect on the body—if one can perceive this living interplay, this continuous activity of the soul within the body, in its concrete details; if one strives to say: the soul breaks down into very concrete processes—thus it passes into the processes of liver function, thus into the processes of respiration, thus into the processes of heart function, thus into the processes of brain function—in short, when, in describing the material aspects of the human being, one understands how to portray the human body as the result of a spiritual force, then one is a spiritual scientist. Spiritual science arrives at a true appreciation of the material precisely because it sees in each individual concrete material process not merely what modern science sees, what the eye observes, or what is then recorded in abstract terms as the result of external observation; rather, spiritual science is spiritual science only insofar as it demonstrates everywhere how the spirit works within the material world, and that it devotedly focuses on the material effects of the spirit.

[ 10 ] That is what matters on the one hand. On the other hand, it is important that this very fact protects us from all the abstract, verbose rambling about a soul independent of the [physical] human being—about which, insofar as life unfolds between birth and death, one can only fantasize. For between birth and death—with the exception of sleep—the spiritual-soul aspect is so devoted to physical processes that it lives within them, lives through them, and manifests itself in them. One must come to be able to study the spiritual-soul aspect outside the course of human life and accept the course of human life between birth and death as a result of the spiritual-soul aspect. Then one looks upon the real, concrete unity of the spiritual-psychic with the physical-bodily. Then one pursues anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, for then one has the prospect of seeing this human being, with all his individual aspects, standing before one as a result of the spiritual-psychic, including for the sake of knowledge. The mystical theosophical view, which constructs beautiful theories about all manner of non-physical spiritual beings, cannot serve the concrete sciences of life; it cannot serve life at all; it can only serve intellectual or psychological indulgence, which seeks to wants to dispense with outer life as quickly as possible and then, in order to attain inner satisfaction and indulge in inner sensual pleasure, weaves all manner of fantasies about the spiritual and soul-life.

[ 11 ] Here, in this anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement, the aim is to work with the utmost seriousness to cultivate a spiritual science capable of truly enlivening physics, mathematics, chemistry, physiology, biology, and anthropology—so that the point here is not to simply assert, on a religious or philosophical level, that human beings possess an immortal soul within themselves, and then to pursue anthropology, biology, physics, and chemistry as if one were dealing only with material processes; rather, the aim here is to apply the knowledge one can gain about the soul and spirit to the details of life, to look into the marvelous structure of the body itself. One can certainly say—even if it sounds paradoxical to some—that there are those who want to be good mystics or good theosophists and want to prattle on about all sorts of things, such as how the human being consists of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, the “I,” and so on, but they do not even have the slightest idea of what kind of expression of the soul it is, for example, when one blows one’s nose. What matters is to see matter not as mere matter, but as the manifestation of the spirit. Then one gains healthy, meaningful insights into the spirit, and one also develops a spiritual science that can be fruitful for the life sciences.

[ 12 ] But this also achieves something else. It makes it possible to overcome what, in recent times—precisely because of the materialistic turn in scientific knowledge—has driven us toward specialization. I truly do not wish to deliver some kind of tirade against specialization, for I am well aware of its justification. I know that certain things today must be carried out by specialists simply because they require specialized techniques. But the point is that those who cling to the material world can never, once they become specialists, gain a worldview applicable to life, for material processes constitute an infinite field. They are an infinite field out in nature; they are an infinite field within the human being. If one studies only the human nervous system based on everything that is available today, one can spend a long time doing so—at least as much time as specialists usually wish to devote to their field of study. But if, in what happens in the nervous system, one has before one only the material processes—only what is expressed in the abstract concepts that are the subject of science today—then nothing leads one toward anything universal that can become the foundation of a worldview. The moment you begin to view, say, the human nervous system from the perspective of the spiritual sciences, you cannot look at this nervous system at all without what you find active within it as spirit immediately leads you to what underlies the muscular system, the skeletal system, and the sensory system as a spiritual-soul aspect; for the spiritual is not something that breaks down into individual parts like the material, but the spiritual is something—and this is merely a minimal characterization of it—that extends like a limb structure, like an organism. And just as I cannot observe a human being by merely looking at his five fingers while covering the rest of him, so too, from a spiritual-scientific perspective, I cannot observe a single detail without what I perceive in that detail as spiritual-soul elements leading me to a whole. If we are led to such a wholeness—though it may, of course, be only a specialist in brain or nervous system research—we will nevertheless be able, through the observation of this single part of the human organism, to gain an overall picture of the human being; then we will be enabled to truly grasp something universal for a worldview, and then the distinctive feature is that we can begin to speak of something that can be understood by all people who possess sound judgment and sound reason.

[ 13 ] That is the major difference between how the humanities can speak about human beings and how specialized, materialistic science must speak about them. Look, let’s take the simple case of how specialized, materialistic science is presented to you in any of the textbooks in common use today. If you, as an ordinary person who hasn’t learned much about the nervous system, pick up a textbook on the nervous system—well, you’ll probably stop reading it pretty soon, or at any rate, you won’t gain much that can provide you with a foundation for viewing human beings as genuine human beings in their value and dignity. But if you listen to what can be said about the human nervous system from the perspective of spiritual science, such a discussion is always followed by insights that lead to an understanding of the whole human being—insights that shed such light on the whole human being that, in the idea that dawns upon you, you find something of the value, essence, and dignity of the human being with whom you are dealing. And nowhere is this more evident than when we do not merely consider the healthy person in relation to any one of their limbs; rather, it becomes particularly evident when we consider the sick person—this sick person with their many deviations from the so-called “normal”—especially when we are able to consider the whole person as they are under the influence of this or that illness. What nature presents to our soul in the sick person is capable of leading us deep into the interconnections of the worlds, of showing us how this person is organized and how, because of this organization, atmospheric, even extraterrestrial influences may affect this person, and how this human constitution relates to certain substances in nature that then prove to be remedies, and so on.

[ 14 ] We are led into broader contexts here, and it can be said that when we supplement what can be understood in this way about the healthy human being with what can be understood through the sick human being, this gives us a deep insight into the entire context and the deeper meaning of life. But everything that becomes clear to us in this way forms the foundation for an understanding of human nature—the foundation for something that can then be expressed in ways that speak to all people. Of course, we are not yet that far along today, because spiritual science, in the sense intended here, has only been in practice for a short time. Therefore, as Dr. Boos mentioned just now in his introductory remarks, the lectures given here can in many cases be regarded only as a beginning. But the aim of this spiritual science is to develop what exists in the individual sciences into a form such that what every person should know about humanity can truly be conveyed to every person.

[ 15 ] And now imagine: if spiritual science were to have such a transformative effect on science, and if this spiritual science were then to succeed in develop forms of knowledge for both the healthy and the sick human being that can be made accessible to the general human consciousness—if that succeeds—how differently people will relate to one another in social life, how much more understanding each individual will show toward the other than today, when everyone passes each other by and has no understanding of the other person’s unique individuality. The social question will only be freed from its intellectualism when it arises from expert knowledge in the most diverse areas of life, when it is grounded in concrete life experiences. This is particularly evident in the field of health care. For just imagine the social impact of instilling in people an understanding of what is healthy and what is sick in their fellow human beings; imagine what it means for all of humanity to take charge of health care with understanding. — Certainly, this is not about cultivating some kind of scientific or medical dilettantism—that much must be clear—but imagine: it simply awakens in us a sympathetic response to what is healthy and what is sick in our fellow human beings—not merely an emotion, but understanding, an understanding born of a vision of the human being. Imagine the social impact of such an endeavor, and you will have to admit: Here we see that social reform and social reconstruction must arise from expertise in the individual fields, not from general theories—be they Marxist, Oppenheimian, or theories of any other kind—that overlook the human being and seek to shape the world based on abstract concepts. Salvation cannot come from these, but rather from the devoted understanding of individual fields. And health care—hygiene—is one such very special field, for it brings us, I would say, closest to everything our fellow human beings experience—whether joy through their healthy, normal way of life, or pain and suffering, or limitations caused by whatever lies within them that is more or less diseased.

[ 16 ] This is precisely the kind of thing that immediately points to the unique social contribution that the spiritual sciences can make in the field of health. For when a practitioner of the science of humanity—one who studies healthy and sick human beings, including those who go on to specialize as physicians—is placed within human society with such insight, then he will be able to bring enlightenment to that society, for he will find understanding. And the relationship between the physician and society will not merely be such that—unless one is his friend or relative—one walks past his house and has him summoned only when something hurts or when one has broken a leg; rather, the relationship with the physician will develop in such a way in which the doctor is the constant teacher and guide in preventive health care, so that there is, in fact, a continuous role for the doctor—not only to heal those whose illness has progressed to the point where they notice it, but also to keep people healthy as far as possible. A vibrant social interaction will take place between the physician and the rest of humanity. Then, however, the healthfulness of such an insight will radiate out onto medicine itself, for it is precisely because materialism has spread even to the medical view of life that we have truly run aground in strange conceptions.

[ 17 ] On the one hand, we have physical illnesses. These are studied by identifying organ degenerations or whatever else is supposed to be physically perceptible or physically conceivable processes within the human body, and attention is focused on the possibility of repairing any damage found there. In this regard, the human body—in both its normal and abnormal states—is viewed in a thoroughly materialistic way. Alongside these are the so-called mental or psychological illnesses. These mental or psychological illnesses have, on the one hand—because of materialistic thinking—been reduced to mere brain diseases or other disorders of the nervous system, and one has likely also sought their underlying causes in the rest of the human organ system. But because no conception was developed at all regarding the way in which the spirit and the soul act within the human physical body, it was impossible to gain any insight into the relationship between mental illnesses—the so-called mental illnesses—and the rest of what a human being is. And so, I would say, mental illnesses stand there on one side; even today they are encompassed by a peculiar hybrid science, psychoanalysis, which thinks materialistically but does not understand materialism at all; these mental and psychological illnesses stand there without any reasonable way to reconcile them with what is actually taking place within the human organism.

[ 18 ] Spiritual science can now demonstrate—and I have drawn attention to this—that what I am stating here is not merely a program, but that it is being carried out in detail—precisely on the occasion that has now presented itself with the holding of a course for physicians, which took place here in recent weeks. Spiritual science can indeed demonstrate in detail how all so-called mental and psychological illnesses are based on organ disorders, on organ degeneration, organ enlargement, and organ atrophy in the human organism. Somewhere in the heart, in the liver, in the lungs—somewhere—something is not right when, at the same time or later, a so-called mental illness manifests. A spiritual science that penetrates to the point of recognizing the spirit in its normal functioning within the heart—such a spiritual science is also capable—and need not be ashamed of this—of seeking a cause for the so-called diseased spirit or diseased soul in the degeneration of the heart and in the defects of the heart.

[ 19 ] The most fundamental flaw of materialism does not lie in the fact that it denies the spirit—in which case religion could ensure that the spirit is still recognized—but rather in the fact that it fails to recognize matter because it observes only its outward appearance. This is precisely the shortcoming of materialism: that it fails to gain insight into matter—for example, in purely psychoanalytic treatment, in the mere observation of whatever has taken place in the soul and which psychoanalysis refers to as “islands of the soul,” that is, an abstraction. Rather, one must trace how certain psychological impressions—which a person receives at this or that time in their life and which are normally bound to the healthy organism—encounter defective organs—for example, a diseased liver instead of a healthy one; such an encounter may manifest itself at a time entirely different from when the organic defect first became apparent.

[ 20 ] Spiritual science need not shy away from showing how so-called mental or psychological illnesses are always connected to something in the human body. Spiritual science must emphasize quite strictly that if one studies only the psychological, the psychological complex—the deviations of the psyche from so-called normal psychological life—one has nothing more than, at best, a one-sided diagnosis. Therefore, psychoanalysis can never be anything more than, at best, a diagnostic tool; it can never lead to true therapy in this field. For this reason—because therapy for mental illnesses must begin precisely with physical treatment— therefore one must know, down to the individual parts, the ramifications of the spiritual in matter if one wishes to know where to begin in the physical body—which is, however, spiritualized—where to begin in order to cure that which manifests itself only symptomatically in abnormal psychological conditions. This is precisely what spiritual science must emphasize most strongly: that so-called mental and psychological illnesses must be traced all the way down to the organology of the human being. However, one can only gain insight into the abnormal organology of the human being if one can trace the spirit down into the smallest parts of matter.

[ 21 ] And conversely: That which appears to be merely psychological or manifestations of life acting within the soul—that is, what emerges in a person’s temperaments and in the expression of those temperaments, what emerges in the entire way a person plays as a small child, how they walk, what they do—all of that which is understood today solely in spiritual-psychological terms, also has a physical aspect. And a mistake made in certain aspects of a child’s upbringing can later manifest itself in the form of a quite ordinary physical illness. Indeed, in certain cases—particularly when dealing with mental illnesses—one is led to look at the physical aspect in order to investigate what is truly at stake, and in the case of physical illnesses, to look at the spiritual aspect and investigate what is truly at stake there. For this is the essence of spiritual science: that it does not speak in abstractions of a nebulous spiritual realm, as the mystics and the one-sided theosophists do, but rather that it traces the spirit into its material effects, that it never understands the material in the same way that today’s external science does, but rather, in its consideration of the material, always penetrates to the spirit and can thus also observe where an abnormal soul life must manifest itself through the presence of an abnormal physical life—even if this is perhaps hidden on the outside.

[ 22 ] Today, in the broadest circles, people have completely false notions about the seriously intended, anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—perhaps sometimes with good reason, when one hears those who do not truly wish to engage with what this is actually about, and who speak only of abstract theories, such as that the human being consists of this and that, and that there are repeated earthly lives, and so on. These things are, of course, of the utmost importance and very beautiful. But when it comes to working particularly earnestly within this spiritual science movement, one must delve into the individual chapters, into the individual areas of this life. And in the broadest sense, this in turn leads to a socially minded community of people. For when one sees how the seemingly sick soul radiates its impulses into the organism, when one can feel this connection between the organism and the seemingly sick soul—feel it with understanding— if, on the other hand, one knows how the structures of life also affect a person’s physical health, how the spiritual aspect—which in social institutions seems to exist only externally—influences the care of a person’s physical health, if one surveys all of this, then one is engaged in human society in an entirely different way. As a result, one begins to gain a true understanding of human nature, and one treats other people quite differently; one perceives their character in an entirely different way. One knows that certain characteristics are connected to this or that; one knows how to behave toward these characteristics; and one knows—especially when tasked with related responsibilities—how to properly integrate people’s temperaments into human society and, in particular, how to develop them in the right way.

[ 23 ] One social sphere in particular will have to be profoundly influenced, in terms of hygiene, by such an understanding of human nature—namely, the sphere of education, the sphere of instruction. Without a truly comprehensive understanding of human nature, it is actually impossible to fully grasp what it means when children sit in school with hunched backs, causing their breathing to be constantly disrupted, or when children are not encouraged to speak loudly and clearly, with distinct vowel and consonant pronunciation. A child’s entire future life essentially depends on whether the child breathes correctly in school and whether the child is encouraged to speak loudly, clearly, and articulately.

[ 24 ] In such matters—I am merely citing a few examples, for similar principles could be applied to other areas—the specialization of general hygiene in the school system becomes evident, and it is precisely here that the full social significance of hygiene is revealed; yet it also shows how life demands that we not specialize further, but rather that we bring together these specialized fields into a holistic view. We need not only what enables the teacher to know that, according to certain pedagogical standards, a child should be educated in one way or another, but we also need what enables the teacher to form a judgment about what it means when he has the child clearly articulate this or that sentence, or when he allows the child, after saying half a sentence, to take a breath again, and so on—and does not ensure that the child takes a breath while the sentence is being spoken. Certainly, there are also many guidelines and rules regarding this, but the proper kind of mutual recognition and the proper application of these things only take root in our hearts when we grasp their full significance for human life and for social well-being, for only then does the matter become a social impulse.

[ 25 ] These considerations formed the basis when, at the very beginning of the founding of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, I gave the teachers there a course on pedagogy and didactics—the consideration that we need teachers who can work from the full depth of a worldview that understands human beings, for the education and instruction of children. Everything that was embedded in the statements expressed as the art of pedagogy and didactics is directed toward making the children who are being educated and taught into human beings in whom, later on—because they are encouraged as children to perform the functions of life in the right way— their lungs, liver, heart, and stomach will be in good working order, because the soul has worked on them in the right way.

[ 26 ] This worldview will never interpret the old saying in a materialistic way: “A healthy body houses a healthy soul.” — Interpreted materialistically, this would mean that if one has a healthy body—if one has made it healthy by every possible physical means—then it would automatically become the vessel of a healthy soul. That is nonsense. The meaning is this: “A healthy soul dwells in a healthy body” only if one proceeds in the following way—that is, if one says to oneself: Here I have a healthy body before me, which shows me that the power of a healthy soul has built it up, shaped it, and made it healthy. I recognize from this body that an autonomous, healthy soul has been at work within it. — That is the meaning of the saying. But only in this way can this saying also form the basis for sound hygiene; in other words: We do not need, in addition to teachers who work solely from an abstract pedagogical science, a school doctor who, at most, makes the rounds of the school once every fourteen days and does not know what to do with himself—no, we need a living connection between medical science and the art of education. We need an art of education that, in all its measures, raises and instructs children in a hygienically sound manner. This is what makes hygiene a social issue, for the social issue is essentially an educational issue, and the educational issue is essentially a medical issue—but only a matter for that medicine which is enriched by the humanities, a hygiene enriched by the humanities.

[ 27 ] These things also point to something that is extraordinarily significant, particularly in relation to the topic of “hygiene as a social issue.” For, ladies and gentlemen, when the science of the spirit is cultivated and when the science of the spirit is something concrete for human beings, then they know that what they receive through the science of the spirit contains something that differs from what they find in mere intellectualism —and even contemporary natural science is mere intellectualism—what they have in mere intellectualism or in natural science, history, or jurisprudence of today, which are trained purely in an intellectualistic manner. All sciences today are intellectualistic; if they claim to be empirical sciences, this is based solely on the fact that they interpret the results of sensory observation in an intellectualistic manner. What is offered by the science of the spirit differs quite fundamentally from these intellectualistically interpreted scientific or other results. It would indeed be quite sad if what lives in our intellectualistic culture were not merely an image but a real power that affects human beings more deeply. For everything intellectualistic remains only on the surface of the human being. This statement is meant in a very comprehensive sense.

[ 28 ] Anyone who approaches spiritual science merely as an intellectual exercise—that is, who merely takes notes: there is a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, an “I,” repeated earthly lives, karma, and so on— and who notes these down just as one does in the natural sciences or in today’s social sciences—such a person is not pursuing spiritual science in earnest, for they are merely transferring the way of thinking they otherwise have to whatever they encounter in spiritual science. The essential point about spiritual science, however, is that it must be thought in a different way, felt in a different way, and experienced spiritually in a way entirely different from the intellectualistic approach. That is why spiritual science is something that, by its very nature, maintains a living connection to both healthy and sick people—albeit in a somewhat different way than one often imagines. Surely people have by now become sufficiently convinced of how powerless one is with what one attempts—be it as admonishment or as persuasion—in a purely intellectualistic culture when dealing with the so-called mentally ill. The mentally ill person claims that voices speak to him; you tell him all sorts of things that you can come up with based on your intellectual reasoning—to no avail, for he has all sorts of objections to offer. This alone could indicate that we are not dealing with a disorder of the conscious or even the subconscious soul life, but rather with a disorder of the organism. Spiritual science teaches us to recognize that one cannot, however, treat so-called mental or psychological illnesses through such methods—which are supposed to be “spiritual,” such as hypnosis and suggestion—but rather that they must be treated through so-called physical means, that is, through the healing of organs; for this, however, one needs, more than ever, a spiritual understanding of the human being. Spiritual insight knows that, particularly in the realm of so-called mental illnesses, one should not intervene at all with mere spiritual or psychological procedures, because mental illness consists precisely in the fact that the human spirit has been forced out—as it otherwise is only during sleep— and is weak in this state of being pushed aside; rather, one must cure the organ so that it may once again take in the soul and spirit in a healthy manner. In contrast, that which arises not from the intellect, from the head, but from the whole human being as a result of spiritual science—when it manifests as imagination, inspiration, or intuition, and when it is absorbed by the human being—penetrates the entire organism. What spiritual science truly is actually intervenes in a healing way in the physical organization of the human being.

[ 29 ] On the other hand, there is no evidence that some dreamers in the humanities feel out of place within the humanities or, in fact, demonstrate the exact opposite of what I have just stated. There are just as many—indeed, an infinite number—who are not humanities scholars but rather intellectualistic collectors of notes on the findings of the humanities. But truly disseminating spiritual science in its essence is in itself a form of social hygiene, for it affects the whole human being; it, in turn, normalizes his organology when it threatens to develop—whether through dreams or some other influence—this or that tendency toward a deviation into the abnormal. This is the immense difference between what is offered in the humanities and what occurs in purely intellectualistic science: that the concepts that emerge in the realm of intellectualism are far too weak—because they are merely figurative—to intervene in the human being or to have a healing effect on him. The concepts of spiritual science, on the other hand, are such that they are drawn from the whole human being. In the formation of spiritual scientific concepts, it is truly not merely the brain that has been involved, but the lungs, the liver, the heart, and the whole human being; and what they derive from the power of the whole human being permeates them, if I may say so, in a plastic form. And when one immerses oneself in these spiritual-scientific concepts, absorbing them with clear understanding through sound common sense, they in turn exert a hygienic influence on the whole human being. This is what, originating from spiritual science, can play a guiding role in the field of hygiene as a social matter.

[ 30 ] But in many other ways as well—I can only cite a few examples—spiritual science will play a guiding role in the entire health of humanity once this spiritual science truly takes root among humanity in all its seriousness. I want to point out just one thing. Among the topics that must be studied again and again through spiritual science is the relationship between the waking human being and the sleeping human being, including the enormous difference that exists between the human constitution in wakefulness and the human constitution in sleep. How the spirit and soul relate to one another in the waking state, when the physical, spiritual, and soul aspects of the human being interpenetrate one another, and how they relate when they are temporarily separated from one another, as in sleep—this is studied carefully precisely through spiritual science.

[ 31 ] Now I can—I would say merely by way of reference—cite a certain statement, which is, however, a well-established finding of spiritual science. In life, we see so-called epidemic diseases arise—diseases that affect entire masses of people and are therefore, in every respect, a social phenomenon. Conventional materialistic science studies them in relation to the human physical organism. It is unaware of the immense significance—particularly for epidemics and for predispositions to epidemic diseases—of abnormal human behavior regarding waking and sleeping. What occurs in the human organism during sleep is something that, when it occurs in excess, for example, predisposes a person to so-called epidemic diseases to a high degree. People who, by sleeping too long, induce processes in the human organism that should not be present—because sleep should not interrupt waking life for so long—are predisposed to epidemic diseases in an entirely different way, and they also experience epidemics in a completely different manner.

[ 32 ] Now you can judge for yourself what it means to educate people about the proper balance between sleep and wakefulness. You can’t do that through regulations. At most, you can order people not to send their children to school if they have scarlet fever; you cannot give lectures when the flu is going around: people will resist—because people today tend toward freedom, I mean, because the sense of authority isn’t as strong as it was in earlier times—so people will resist. I’m not saying they’re wrong to defy such rules; I have no objection to what happens as a result, but you simply cannot dictate to people in the same way: “You must sleep seven hours.”—Nevertheless, it’s more important than other regulations that people who need to sleep seven hours do so, while others who don’t need to may sleep much less, and so on. But such matters, which are so intimately connected with the most personal aspects of human life, have a tremendous social impact. It actually depends on what is most intimate within a person as to how these social effects play out—whether, for example, a larger or smaller number of people are drawn away from this or that profession, which may, under certain circumstances, have an effect on an entirely different place. In fact, hygiene intervenes in social life in a tremendous way. Quite apart from what one may think about contagion or non-contagion, this factor intervenes in social life during epidemics. You cannot achieve results through external regulations; you can only be effective if you bring into human society a lay audience that, with its understanding of human nature, stands alongside physicians who work to educate the public about prevention—wherever a lively collaboration between the expert physician and the lay person with an understanding of human nature can take place to maintain health.

[ 33 ] When we take a broad view of all these things, we will say to ourselves: Here we have described one aspect of hygiene as a social issue that, in the most profound sense, depends on our having a free spiritual life—on our actually having a spiritual life—where, within the realm of the spirit, those who are engaged in the cultivation of spiritual life —including insofar as it extends into its individual practical domains, such as hygiene—are, in the cultivation of spiritual life, completely independent of everything else that does not constitute pure knowledge or the cultivation of spiritual life itself. What the individual can accomplish for the benefit of his fellow human beings must arise solely from his own abilities; there must be no government regulations governing this, nor may there be any dependence on economic powers; this must be placed within the sphere of personal autonomy of the individual and must furthermore be grounded in the understanding trust that others—who need the application of his abilities—can place in the capable individual.

[ 34 ] What is needed here is an intellectual life that is entirely independent of all forms of authority—whether governmental or economic—and that acts competently on its own, drawing purely from its own intellectual powers. Precisely when you think through what hygiene can truly achieve—something that is intimately connected with insightful knowledge of human nature and with insightful social behavior—and when you expertly address the specific field of hygiene, you will come to realize—and this is precisely what this specific field demands, and just as it can be demonstrated for hygiene, so it could be shown for other fields—that the spirit must be placed under the stewardship of those who are involved in its cultivation. Whatever abstract theories may say against the independent status of spiritual life—this specific, concrete field demands that the stewards of the spiritual realm not merely be experts employed by government ministries, but that those who are active in spiritual life must also be the stewards of that spiritual life, and indeed the sole stewards of that spiritual life. Then, when—out of social insight arising from free spiritual life—there exists a hygiene that truly functions as a social institution, it will be possible to work economically for this hygiene in an entirely different way, precisely within an independent economic life, an economic life structured as I have described in my *Key Points of the Social Question*, as has been repeatedly described in the journals dedicated to this idea of the threefold social order, for example in the Swiss journal *Soziale Zukunft*, published by Dr. Boos.

[ 35 ] If, in fact, those forces for the promotion of hygiene—which lie latent and dormant within the bosom of human society—are received by society with human understanding, and if this becomes the general order, then everything that can emerge from this independent economic life—without any regard for dependence on profit motives or government intervention, and which can function purely out of this independent economic life—that which must be cultivated in the service of genuine, true hygiene—will be able to be carried into economic life, into independent economic life. But then—and only then—will that higher sense of purpose, which is necessary for hygiene to be upheld in human life, be able to enter economic life. If the mere profit motive of our economic life—which increasingly tends to be incorporated into the unitary state—prevails, and if the general opinion is that one must produce whatever yields the greatest profit, then the self-directed impulses of a free spiritual life cultivated in the realm of hygiene cannot assert themselves; then this spiritual life becomes dependent on non-spiritual factors—on the state or the economy—and the economic sphere becomes the master of the spiritual. The economic sphere must not become the master of the spiritual. This is most clearly evident when we are called upon to bring forth what the spirit demands in economic life, when we are called upon to serve genuine, true hygiene.

[ 36 ] The forces of economic life—of free economic life—will contribute, within the threefold social organism, to the insight that becomes a matter of public concern and to the understanding of human nature that becomes a matter of public concern. And when, on the one hand, people are immersed in a free spiritual life in which a truly objective hygiene can be cultivated, and when, on the other hand, people develop that elevated sense through which, in economic life, everyone will in turn approach production with understanding—but with an understanding that arises not merely from the drive for profit, but from the insights that emerge in free spiritual activity —then, once this insightful social understanding of humanity is in place, people will be able to come together democratically in parliaments or elsewhere; for then the insight into the necessity of hygiene as a social phenomenon will be shaped by the free spiritual life. And what is necessary for the maintenance of hygiene will be shaped by economic life—grounded in practical and technical matters—through the higher sense that will be developed within it. Then, people who have become mature will be able to negotiate on the basis of legal life: on the one hand, from their insight and understanding of humanity; on the other hand, from their relationships to economic life, which serves hygiene. Then people will be able to negotiate as equals on the basis of political and legal life regarding the measures that can be taken with respect to hygiene and public health care. It will not, however, be the laypeople or the dilettantes who will restore health, but with understanding, the person who has attained maturity will stand as an equal before the one who tells him this or that: the expert physician. For the layperson, however, his or her understanding of human nature makes it possible—in the context of what is cultivated together with the physician in social life—to approach specialized knowledge with understanding, so that in a democratically conceived parliament, he or she can say “yes” not merely on the basis of authority, but on the basis of a certain understanding. Precisely when we objectively examine, in a specific field such as this, how the three members of the social organism interact, then, my esteemed audience, we find full justification for this idea of the threefold social order. One can only oppose this idea of the threefold social order if one has initially grasped it merely in the abstract.

[ 37 ] Well, even today I could offer you nothing more than a rough outline of what, in a specific concrete field—the field of hygiene, if one thinks about it correctly—necessarily follows from the threefold structure of the social organism. But if the paths I have been able to hint at only in their beginnings today are pursued further, it will become clear that, while someone who approaches the impulse of the threefold social organism with a few abstract concepts may, in a certain sense, oppose it—they generally put forward reasons that one has long since raised as objections oneself— But whoever engages with the individual spheres of life with full inner understanding and with the lived reality of these individual spheres—with all the individuality they bring into human life—for this is what social life is all about— whoever truly understands something in a concrete sphere of life, whoever makes an effort to understand something of true practical living in any sphere, will be led more and more in the direction indicated by the idea of the threefold social organism.

[ 38 ] This idea truly did not arise from a daydream or from abstract idealism; it arose as a social demand of the present and the near future precisely from a concrete, objective examination of the individual spheres of life. And again, when one permeates these individual spheres of life with what arises from the impulse of the threefold structure of the social organism, one finds in all these spheres precisely what they need today, as it seems to me. And this evening I wanted to offer you just a few hints as to how what follows from spiritual science for social life—namely, the threefold social order—can enrich the sphere in which, even today, belief in authority and completely blind submission must still be tolerated, so that it can take root and be nurtured in human society as a social concern arising from a genuine understanding of the human being. For this reason, it may be said here: Through this enrichment that the field of hygiene can receive from a form of medicine expanded by spiritual science, hygiene in particular can become a social—a truly social—matter, and it can also be cultivated in the truest sense to a high degree democratically as a matter of general public concern.

Following his lecture, Rudolf Steiner answers a series of questions submitted in writing.

[ 39 ] Ladies and gentlemen! When it comes to matters such as those discussed today, the key is to first grasp the overall spirit of what has been said. It is sometimes difficult to answer questions—when they are phrased in a way that reflects current ways of thinking and attitudes—appropriately without rephrasing them or, at the very least, without providing an explanation. Take, for example, this first question, which probably seems terribly simple to you or to many of you, so much so that it could be answered with a few sentences or even a single sentence:

How can you break the habit of sleeping too long?

[ 40 ] Well, to answer this question, I would have to give a lecture even longer than the one I have already given, because I would first have to bring together the various elements in order to answer this question properly. But perhaps the following can be said: Today, there is an intellectualistic state of mind prevalent among humanity that affects almost everyone. Those who believe they judge or live based on feeling, or who believe they are not intellectualistic for some other reason, are in fact precisely the ones who are. Now, the fundamental characteristic of an intellectualistic state of mind is that it ruins our instincts. Humanity’s true instincts are ruined. In fact, if one wishes to point to instincts that are not entirely ruined today, one must look either to prehistoric humanity or even to the animal kingdom.

[ 41 ] You see, on another occasion recently, I was able to point out an example that speaks volumes. There are birds that, out of greed, eat insects—for example, cross spiders. However, by eating these cross spiders—which are poisonous to them—they fall into convulsions and spasms; they die a miserable death very soon after swallowing the cross spider. But if henbane is nearby, the bird flies over to it, sucks out the healing sap, and thereby saves its life. Now consider how something has developed there that has shrunk in us humans to the few reflex instincts we possess; for example, when a fly lands on our nose, we make a movement—without first engaging in deep deliberation—to make it fly away. A defensive instinct responds to the offensive stimulus. In the case of the bird that eats the cross spider, the effect that the cross spider has on its organism—this insult—is followed by such an instinctive defense that drives it to act in a perfectly reasonable way. We can still find such instincts in people who lived in ancient times, if we know how to interpret their history correctly. But in our time, we have different experiences. I have always found it immensely distressing when I visited someone who had sat down to lunch and had a scale next to their plate—literally a scale, you really do see such things—I was otherwise used to seeing a knife, fork, and similar utensils next to the plate—a scale, and there he would weigh out his piece of meat, because only then, after weighing it, would he know how much meat he should eat according to his body’s needs. Just imagine how devoid of all true, primal instincts humanity has now become, that it must be prescribed such a thing.

[ 42 ] The point here is not to remain stuck at the level of intellectualism, but to rise to a spiritual-scientific understanding. You may now think that I am speaking pro domo—even if it is pro domo of this great institution—but I am not speaking pro domo; rather, I am actually expressing what I believe I have recognized as truth, quite apart from the fact that I myself uphold this truth. One can already see that when one penetrates not merely into the purely intellectual, but into what is to be grasped through the science of the spirit—which therefore presents itself to humanity more in a pictorial sense—one realizes: By grasping such insights—which are not accessible to the mere intellect—one is led back to healthy instincts, if not in individual cases, then more so in the things that lie in the depths of life. Anyone who devotes at least some time—no matter how little—to developing the entirely different state of mind that is necessary if one truly wishes to understand spiritual science will, in turn, be led back to healthy instincts in matters such as, for example, the need for sleep. After all, animals do not sleep too much under normal living conditions. Primitive man did not sleep too much either. One need only train oneself to return to healthy instincts—which are weaned away from us in today’s overly intellectualized culture—so that one can say: A truly effective way to break the habit of sleeping too long is to be able to absorb spiritual scientific truths without falling asleep in the process. So if one falls asleep immediately upon encountering spiritual scientific truths, one will indeed not break the habit of sleeping too long. But if one succeeds in truly engaging with spiritual scientific truths—which one is working through—with one’s inner human nature, then this inner human nature is activated in such a way that one actually determines the amount of sleep that is currently beneficial for one’s organism.

[ 43 ] Again, it is incredibly difficult to lay down intellectual rules—for example, to say that a person who has this or that condition affecting their liver or kidneys—which doesn’t exactly make them sick in the usual sense, but which is nevertheless present—must sleep for a certain amount of time. As a rule, this doesn’t really lead to anything in particular. And artificially inducing sleep is, in turn, not the same as when the body, out of its own need for sleep, simply denies the mind entry for as long as it needs to. So one can say: Proper hygiene based directly on spiritual science will indeed lead people to regulate their sleep in the right way. That is why the other question raised here cannot be answered so simply:

How can you tell how much sleep you need?

[ 44 ] I would like to say that one does not need to know this in discursive thinking—it is not necessary at all—but one does need to acquire such instincts, which one acquires not by collecting notes from the humanities, but through the way one understands the humanities when one absorbs them with full engagement. Once you have acquired this instinct, you can then determine the right amount of sleep for yourself in your own individual way. So that is generally what can be said about this. As I said, I can only offer guidance on how to answer this question—not necessarily what might be expected. But what is expected is not always correct.

Is it healthy to sleep with the window open?

[ 45 ] Even questions like these cannot always be answered in general terms. It is entirely conceivable that for one person, sleeping with the window open is very healthy, depending on the specific characteristics of their respiratory system, while for another person, for example, a room that is otherwise well-ventilated before bedtime but has the windows closed while they sleep might be better. It is indeed a matter of gaining an understanding of the relationship between humans and their external environment, so that one can then make judgments based on this understanding in each individual case.

From a humanities perspective, how do you explain the development of mental disorders as a result of crimes committed—that is, how can we identify the physical illness underlying these mental disorders?

[ 46 ] Well, in order to address this question exhaustively, it would be necessary here to delve into the entire field of criminal anthropology—and, essentially, psychiatric anthropology as well. I would just like to say the following: First, when considering such matters, one must assume from the outset that there are abnormalities among the physical dispositions of a person who becomes a criminal. You need only examine the truly objective studies conducted in this area by Moriz Benedikt, the first major criminal anthropologist, and you will see how, through pathological examination, the forms of individual human organs can indeed be linked to a predisposition toward crime. So there is already an abnormality present there, although, of course, materialist thinkers like Moriz Benedikt draw the wrong conclusions from this, for someone who exhibits such signs is by no means a born criminal from the outset. The point is that one can address the defects present in the organism—specifically organ defects, not preexisting mental illness—precisely through education and later through appropriate spiritual influences, that is, in a spiritual-psychological way, provided that the facts are investigated from a spiritual-scientific perspective. Thus, the conclusions that Benedikt draws from the pathological examinations are incorrect. One can certainly point to such organ defects, but then one must be clear that in ordinary human life, it is precisely those things that are not intellectual in nature but rather emotional or affective that have a reciprocal effect. These do indeed initially affect glandular activity or similar processes, such as secretory functions, but in turn also affect the organs. In this regard, I advise you to read, for example, an interesting little book written by a Danish physician on the mechanics of emotional states. It contains a great deal of useful information along these lines. And now imagine the physical constitution that one can observe in anyone considered a criminal, and consider all the emotional upheavals that follow for the caught criminal—and how these emotional upheavals, in turn, affect the organs—then one has the means to identify the defective organs responsible for the mental illness that may arise as a consequence of the crime committed. One must, in this way, gain an understanding of such connections.

What is the relationship between Theosophy and Anthroposophy? Is the Theosophy that was previously advocated here no longer fully recognized?

[ 47 ] I would just like to say this: Nothing other than anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has ever been represented here, and what is represented here today has always been represented here; and if this has been identified with what is presented in many quarters as so-called theosophy, that is simply due to a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding will remain a misunderstanding precisely because the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, within certain limits, operated for a time within the framework of the Theosophical Society; but even within the framework of that Theosophical Society, the representatives of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science advocated nothing other than what I am advocating here today. It was simply that the Theosophical Society turned a blind eye as long as the matter did not appear too heretical. But when it became apparent that anthroposophy is something entirely different from the abstract mysticism that often presents itself as theosophy, the anthroposophists were expelled. This procedure was carried out entirely by the other side, whereas what is advocated here has never taken any form other than the one it has today.

[ 48 ] Of course, those who deal with these matters only superficially, or who have derived their knowledge solely from those members of society who themselves have dealt with them only superficially—for one need not always stand on the outside to grasp anthroposophy superficially or to confuse anthroposophy with theosophy, one can do so even from within the Society—those who, therefore, acquire their knowledge only through such a superficially understood approach are the ones who fall into such misunderstandings. But what is represented here is precisely what I have once again characterized today for a specific field, and nothing else has ever been represented here, even though, of course, work is ongoing and certain things can be characterized today more precisely, more fully, and more intensely than they could, of course, have been specified fifteen, ten, or five years ago. That is precisely the nature of this work: that one makes progress, particularly in the formulation and clarification of something as difficult as spiritual science. As for those people who, out of malice, have twisted the fact that what was once expressed more imperfectly is later expressed more perfectly into a snare—those who derive all manner of shifts in worldviews from this—there is really no need to engage with such malicious people and their statements. For spiritual science, as it is understood here, is something living and not something dead, and anyone who believes that it cannot move forward—who wants to pin it down where it once stood, as often happens—does not believe in what is living, but rather seeks to turn it into something dead.

Please explain how an epidemic such as the flu or scarlet fever could have arisen if not through the transmission of germs. For many diseases, the pathogen has been scientifically identified. What is your view on this?

[ 49 ] Well, if I were to discuss this very question—about which I have indicated that I do not wish to take sides—I would have to give an entire lecture. However, I would like to draw attention to the following. Someone who, based on his findings, is compelled to point out that for diseases accompanied by germs or bacteria, there are deeper underlying causes than the mere presence of the germs themselves—such a person is not claiming that the germs are not there. It is quite a different matter to assert that the germs are present and appear in the wake of the disease than to seek the primary cause in the germs themselves. I have elaborated in detail on what needs to be said in this regard precisely in this course for physicians that is currently being held. But that certainly takes time. The same applies to certain elements that would need to be addressed first. This cannot be dealt with so quickly in a Q&A session. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following: The human constitution is not as simple a matter as is often imagined. Human beings are, after all, multifaceted beings. In the opening of my book *The Mysteries of the Soul*, I described the human being as a threefold being—a being that can be called, first, the nervous-sensory human; second, the rhythmic human; and third, the metabolic human. That is what a human being is. And these three aspects of human nature interact with one another; and if a person is to be healthy, they must not interact in any other way than such that, in a certain sense, there is also a separation of these spheres. For example, the nervous-sensory human—who is more than what modern physiology conceives of—cannot simply transmit his effects to the metabolic human in any other way than through the rhythmic movements of the circulatory and respiratory processes, which extend all the way to the outermost periphery of the organism. This interaction, however, can be interrupted in a certain way.

[ 50 ] Now, this interaction has brought about something very specific. For example—when such questions are asked, please forgive me for having to answer them appropriately, and I do want to be as discreet as possible, but it is nevertheless necessary to say certain things that must also be heard in the proper context—it is certainly the case that processes take place in the human abdomen that are integrated into the entire organism. If they are integrated into the entire organism, then they function properly. If, due to certain processes, they are either heightened directly in the lower abdomen—so that they become more active there—or if the corresponding processes—for such processes are always present—in the human head or in the human lungs decrease in intensity, then something very peculiar occurs. It then becomes apparent that, in order to function normally, the human organism must develop processes within itself that are permitted to develop only to a certain extent, so that they engage the whole person. If the process is intensified, it becomes localized, and then, for example, a process occurs in the human abdomen whereby there is no proper separation between what is taking place in the human head or lungs and what corresponds to certain processes in the abdomen. The processes always correspond to one another in such a way that they run parallel. As a result, however, what is only meant to be present in the human being to a certain extent—so that it sustains his vitality, the vitality supported by spirit and soul—is, so to speak, raised above a certain level. Then this becomes, so to speak, the atmosphere for all manner of lower organisms, for all manner of small organisms, and these small organisms can then develop there. That which constitutes the creative element of small organisms is always present within the human being; it is simply spread throughout the entire organism. When it becomes concentrated, it serves as a breeding ground for small organisms, microbes; they find a habitat there. But the reason why they can thrive there lies in extremely subtle processes within the organism, which then prove to be the primary factor.

[ 51 ] I am truly not speaking out of antipathy toward the germ theory; I fully understand the reasons people have for adhering to the germ theory. You can believe me when I say that if I were not compelled by objective reasons to speak as I am now, I would certainly acknowledge those reasons; but it is precisely this insight that leads to the recognition of something else and then compels one to say this. [For example, I can say:] I see a certain landscape with a great many exceptionally beautiful cattle, well cared for. I now ask: Why are the living conditions in this area what they are? They stem from the beautiful cattle. I explain the living conditions of this area by saying that beautiful cattle were brought in from somewhere else; they have spread out there. — I won’t do that, will I? Instead, I’ll examine the primary causes—the diligence and understanding of the people—and that will explain to me why these beautiful cattle thrive in this region. But I would be offering a superficial explanation if I were to simply say: “It’s beautiful here, life is good here, because beautiful cattle have moved in.”

[ 52 ] It is essentially the same logic when I find the typhoid bacillus and then explain that someone has typhoid because the typhoid bacilli have entered the body. To explain typhus, entirely different factors are necessary than merely invoking the typhus bacilli. But one is misled in an entirely different way when one succumbs to such flawed logic. Certainly, the primary processes that provide the basis for the existence of the typhus bacilli are, in turn, the basis for all sorts of other things that are not primary. And it is very easy to either completely confuse what is secondary with the actual original clinical picture or to conflate the two. These are the factors that lead to the correct understanding on this point or that demonstrate how something that is, in a certain sense, justified must be brought within its proper limits.

[ 53 ] Perhaps you can see from the way I’ve phrased this answer—even though I can only sketch it out, and it’s therefore easily misunderstood—that this really isn’t about the all-too-common bashing of the germ theory, but rather about examining the issues very seriously.

Could you please give me some examples of how physical, organic disorders can cause mental and emotional distress?

[ 54 ] Well, if I were to answer that in detail, it would of course take us far too far afield today. But I would just like to point out one thing. You see, the development of human medical thought is not as it is portrayed today in the history of medicine—namely, that medicine began, so to speak, with Hippocrates and that Hippocratic medicine then developed further. As far as we can trace it, we know that Hippocrates represented much more the final vestiges of an ancient, instinct-based medicine than merely the beginning of today’s intellectualized medicine. But we find something else as well. You see, within this ancient instinct-based medicine—as long as it was still in practice—people did not, for example, speak of a certain kind of mental depression, which is, after all, a very abstract way of expressing it, but rather spoke of hypochondria—abdominal cartilaginousness. So it was understood that when hypochondria occurs, it involves disturbances in the lower abdomen—specifically, hardening in the lower abdomen. One cannot say that the ancients were more mystical than we are.

[ 55 ] Likewise, it is very easy to show how certain chronic lung disorders are indeed related to what one might call a false mystical sense in people. And so one could point to all sorts of things, quite apart from the fact that—as is again in keeping with a correct instinct—the ancients certainly pointed to organic factors in connection with the temperaments. They derived the choleric temperament from bile, specifically white bile; the melancholic temperament from black bile and all that black bile causes in the lower abdomen. They then derived the sanguine temperament from blood and the phlegmatic temperament from what they called phlegm. But when they observed deviations in the temperaments, they regarded these as clear indications of deviations in the corresponding organic functions. The way this was approached in instinct-based medicine and instinct-based hygiene can certainly be incorporated into the study of the psychological constitution in a strictly scientific manner and cultivated from the standpoint of our current understanding.

Here's a question that could lead to even more misunderstandings: Are you familiar with eye diagnosis? Do you recognize it as a science?

[ 56 ] Well, it is generally true that, when it comes to an organism—and especially the complex human organism—one can infer the whole from all manner of individual details, provided one understands them correctly. And, in turn, the specific location of these individual details within the human organism is of great significance. In a certain sense, what the iridologist examines in the iris is, on the one hand, so very isolated from the rest of the human organism, yet on the other hand, it is integrated into the rest of the organism in such a unique way that it is indeed an expressive organ. But it is precisely with such matters that one must not resort to schematization; and the mistake in such matters lies precisely in this schematization. For example, it is certainly true that people with different constitutional and physical constitutions exhibit different characteristics in their irises than other people do. If one wishes to apply such a method, an intimate knowledge of what occurs within the human organism is necessary; and once one possesses this intimate knowledge, it is actually no longer necessary to search for clues in a single organ. And if one is compelled to adhere to certain rules in an intellectualistic manner and to approach such matters schematically, then not much of value will come of it.

What role do diseases play in the course of world history, particularly those that are emerging now?

[ 57 ] A chapter in the history of an entire culture! Well, I just want to make the following point. When studying history, one must have a knack for symptomatology—that is, to view much of what is taken as history today merely as a symptom of something much deeper lying beneath it, which is truly the spiritual current that merely carries these symptoms. And so what lies in the depths of human development does indeed manifest symptomatically in this or that ailment of the times. It is interesting to study the relationships between what prevails in the depths of human development and what plays out in the symptoms of this or that illness. One can also infer from the existence of certain diseases impulses in historical development that escape a symptomatology of a different nature. The question, however, might also point to something else that is by no means insignificant when tracing the historical development of humanity. This is the following: Diseases, regardless of whether they occur in individual human beings or appear epidemically in human society, are in many cases also reactions to other forms of degeneration—which, from a health perspective, may be regarded as less serious, but which, from a moral or spiritual perspective, must nevertheless be regarded as very serious. One must not, however, apply what is being said here to medicine or hygiene—that would be entirely wrong. Diseases must be cured. In the field of hygiene, one must act in a way that promotes human well-being. One must not say, for example: “I will first examine whether it is perhaps your karma that you have this disease; if so, I must let you have it; if not, I can cure you.”—Such views do not apply when it comes to healing. But what does not apply to us humans in our intervention in nature does, nevertheless, apply objectively in the outside world. And here one must say that, for example, many things that exist as a predisposition to moral excesses become so deeply ingrained in the human constitution that reactions occur which then manifest as certain illnesses, and that the illness is the suppression of a moral excess.

[ 58 ] For the individual, it is not even all that important to keep track of these matters, for they should be left to one’s individual fate, and one should, in essence, interfere in them just as little as one interferes in the privacy of other people’s correspondence—unless, of course, from a standpoint that is particularly close to one’s heart right now: “Officially opened under martial law.” Just as one should not interfere with the privacy of a person’s correspondence, so too should one not interfere with their individual karma. But in world history, this is a different matter altogether. There, it does matter, because in world history, the individual plays only a—I would say—statistical role in relation to its laws. One must always point out that statistics provide life insurance companies with a sound basis for assessing mortality rates; after all, that is how they calculate their premiums. This makes perfect sense, and the calculation is entirely correct; it’s all very scientific. But then again—one doesn’t necessarily have to die at the exact moment calculated by life insurance statistics, nor does one have to live as long as the calculations predict. When the individual is considered, other factors come into play. But when groups of people—or even the development of humanity as a whole—are taken into account, it may very well be that one is not a superstitious person, but rather a very scientific one, when one examines the extent to which symptoms of illness, and illnesses that arise serve to correct other excesses—so that one can indeed see a certain counteractive effect of the illness itself, or at least that the illness was brought about by something that, had the illness not occurred, would have developed in an entirely different form. These are just a few ways in which one might consider the issues touched upon by this question.

[ 59 ] But surely our time has now progressed so far that we, too, will follow the others who have already departed in such great numbers.