The Rudolf Steiner Archive

7. Closing Remarks

[ 1 ] Although I will be giving a lecture at 8:00 p.m. tonight—one that is, so to speak, outside the program—for all of this week’s course participants, we have now reached the end of our spring lecture series. In the short time available to us, as is only natural, we were able to offer only hints and guidelines regarding the goal we have in mind. And this goal—as you will have sensed from these lectures—is none other than this: to show how what is called anthroposophically oriented spiritual science here is intended to have a fruitful influence on the various individual academic disciplines and also on the various branches of practical human life in the present. In order to indicate how we envision this goal, we have first examined, day by day, those sciences that lead into the life of the outer world, of outer nature. We have attempted to show how, everywhere, the intellectual endeavors of the present day erect barriers and boundaries—which, however, cannot be real barriers or boundaries to human spiritual activity at all, because if they were valid, that which must be the most essential goal of human knowledge—the insight into the human being itself—would never be attainable. And above all, there would be a lack of knowledge capable of becoming the driving force behind human will and human action. Human will and human action would be condemned to to continue shaping social life solely on the basis of instincts and drives, whereas a life worthy of human dignity can only be established if spiritual insight has the power to go beyond a mere view of nature and immerse itself in purely spiritual life, drawing from there the moral and social ideals that are powerful enough to impel the will.

[ 2 ] On the one hand, we had to point out how spiritual science seeks to transcend the boundaries that, according to the will—and indeed the opinion and belief—of our time, are supposed to be set for external science insofar as it relates to external nature and the external world. And on the other hand, we had to point to the other direction of human cognition: the one that turns inward, that seeks to grasp the human being and oneself, so that one can descend into what lives within the human being as its very core of being. And we have shown that only when this impulse truly penetrates into the inner being of the human being, living in this realization, can, for example, a true linguistics or a true historical science come into being; and that this impulse of inner knowledge is necessary to permeate and enrich the linguistic and historical sciences.

[ 3 ] Thus, we have pointed out two directions in which we must move beyond the boundaries that contemporary specialized science seeks to impose: outward and inward. And we have emphasized in recent days how the call for such spiritual insight resounds to us from the most important signs of the times.

[ 4 ] On the one hand, we have numerous signs that people in the broadest circles are striving to delve deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the human inner life in order to find a secure foothold there—within that inner life—and to maintain a proper balance with external social life. And when we listen to the most important voices of the human heart and the human mind, we must say: it resounds everywhere from the demands of the present that scientific knowledge must lead to what must be found for the inner security of the human soul. No prospect of such a goal can be found in current mainstream science. Because it cannot be found there, spiritual science believes it must take the step of showing these other sciences how they can be enriched through true spiritual scientific research.

[ 5 ] From the other side come the sounds of social turmoil. The people of our age face great and formidable social challenges. We will only be able to cope with them if we realize that, after all, only what we can gain in insight into human life and in understanding of the human essence can give us the strength to tackle the great social challenges of the present. Insights must once again take the lead; what emerges from genuine, true spiritual scientific research must take the lead, for that alone can also provide direction for the social endeavors that are so necessary.

[ 6 ] We are criticized—precisely because of our intentions—for having to interpret the question referred to here in a somewhat different way than many of our contemporaries. I have already had to point out this difference on a wide variety of occasions. But this is something that must be reiterated time and again. That is why I wish to say it here today, at the conclusion of our event. Certainly, there are already many people who say: Understanding and knowledge must extend beyond the broadest segments of the population; knowledge must be popularized, for it must live on in a sufficiently large number of people; only when it lives on in them will social insights also develop. — And the good will that undoubtedly underlies this is evident in everything that is undertaken toward the establishment of adult education centers, public libraries, and the popularization of science, as it is cultivated in our educational institutions today. The prevailing view is that if we simply disseminate what is taught at our educational institutions to the widest possible circles, this will prevent us in the future from entering into such catastrophic eras as the one we are currently experiencing.

[ 7 ] But can one really believe that what was available to the people directly involved in the causes of this current catastrophic era—that is, what our educational institutions have conveyed to the ruling circles, yet which has failed to inspire them to act any better than they have—can one hope that this same “intellectual heritage” —as it is also called—will now take effect when it is scattered out among the masses? One can only believe such a thing if one wants to pull the wool over one’s own eyes. Because we do not want that—we who feel connected here to the aspirations of Goetheanism—we must therefore say, despite all the hostility and opposition that will immediately be stirred up: No, something else is still necessary! — It is not enough for something to be carried out from our educational institutions; something must be carried in. What must be carried in is that which can only be carried in if one is willing to recognize spiritual research alongside external sensory and intellectual inquiry. What is then brought into our educational institutions will surely capture the hearts and minds of people, because it is drawn from the very essence of human hearts and minds; because what lies dormant unconsciously in the depths of the human soul is thus brought to light as guiding forces for human endeavor. We find ourselves once again in the position—unpopular with many—of having to profess the view that not only must something be removed from our educational institutions, but above all, much, much more must be brought into them. And the fact that we presume to point out such things is what earns us so much hostility.

[ 8 ] Well, you may take my word for it: personally, I would love nothing more than for the drive toward such an intellectual calling in the sciences to arise, above all, from the very institutions of our existing education system, if only there were those who would point out what is necessary. Nothing would make me happier, nothing would satisfy me more, than if I could see such an endeavor. Yes, that is why I actually—please forgive this brief digression—felt some joy when I was recently in Basel and discovered a book in a store window titled “University Reform,” written, as it soon turned out, by a university professor himself. “That,” I thought to myself, “might make the effort to establish the World School Association quite unnecessary, if such voices are coming from that quarter.” And the pamphlet also begins in an extraordinarily promising way. One gets the feeling that such sentences are meant to strike a chord with those who understand the signs of the times pointing in a certain direction: “The organization of our universities suffers from major shortcomings. A reform is urgently needed here. However, only those who know the university system from the ground up should participate in this work.”

[ 9 ] One might also be pleased about this if those who know the university system from the ground up were to participate. However, since I wish to characterize a symptom in what I have learned further in this treatise, you must allow me to speak very briefly about my experience with this treatise. On page 4, the author states what he is excluding from his discussion of this reform project concerning the universities: “For example, I will not comment on the question of the division of semesters and university vacations. For these matters are not yet ready for discussion.”

[ 10 ] Another point to be excluded from this discussion: “I will also leave the legal status of the assistants at our clinics or our natural science institutes undiscussed. For I do not consider myself qualified to offer an expert opinion on the matter.”

[ 11 ] Well, one could certainly be quite satisfied if these two points were excluded from any consideration of how necessary university reform is.

[ 12 ] The matters now in need of reform are then addressed in individual chapters. The first chapter is titled: “The Classification of University Faculty into Different Categories.” From it, one learns that there are full professors, associate professors, private lecturers, honorary professors, lecturers, and assistants. It explains that it is necessary to undertake a major reform here; for example, it is necessary that certain individuals who, under current practice, have remained associate professors their entire lives—because, for instance, they were responsible for only a minor subject, such as otology or Egyptology—must now also be appointed as full professors; however, to avoid going too far, we learn that for all those who are to be promoted from associate professor to full professor, their salary must still be set at a lower level than that received by full-fledged full professors.

[ 13 ] Let us now move on to the next chapter on the appointment of university professors. Among other things, it points out the extraordinary and significant fact that discrepancies have indeed arisen between the governments and the faculties or the professors’ councils, and that it would be somewhat cause for concern if one were to rely too heavily on the idea that appointments could come solely from the professors’ councils themselves. In this regard, the governments have sometimes acted more wisely than the professorial councils.

[ 14 ] One must look for a way out. Admittedly, the text was written with German conditions in mind, but I believe it is at least symptomatic of global conditions and may therefore be cited here. It seeks a way forward—a means of overcoming the discrepancies between the academic bodies and the governments—and points out that an important institution, a “Reich University Council,” must be established!

[ 15 ] We come—and I’ll go over these points quite quickly—to the third chapter: University Faculty Salaries. Well, this chapter discusses the various proposals regarding salary regulations. I’ve already mentioned one small point about this to you.

[ 16 ] We now come to the fourth chapter: The allocation of lecture fees to university professors. It is pointed out that some professors, who are very capable, have only a very small class, while others, who happen to teach a popular subject, have a large class and thus receive a great deal in lecture fees. It is pointed out that, for example, someone who would only need to teach three hours on his subject is assigned five or six hours so that the seminar fee would be higher. In short, there is no other way out of this than to subject this matter to a thorough reform.

[ 17 ] Then, in the fifth chapter, the text discusses the awarding of honors to university faculty, which is also a matter that requires thorough reform.

[ 18 ] The sixth chapter discusses the manner in which university professors are dismissed from their teaching positions. It points out that many injustices could occur in this regard. However, if a “University Service Court” is established, consisting in part of the most distinguished members of the “Reich University Council,” then these matters will be handled appropriately.

[ 19 ] It then points out how, through bodies such as the “Reich University Council” and the “University Disciplinary Court,” order can finally be brought to what is discussed in Chapter 7—the “disciplinary law governing university faculty”—specifically, what procedures must be followed if a faculty member is to be dismissed or if they are to receive merely a reprimand or similar sanction.

[ 20 ] Then we find a specific chapter on “Special Duties of University Faculty Members.” We find a chapter on the “Administration of University Affairs,” which, however, deals only with matters that necessitate discussion as to whether associate professors and private lecturers should perhaps participate through a representative, and in what manner this should take place in accordance with what is agreed upon.

[ 21 ] The eleventh chapter discusses “university assets.” The twelfth chapter addresses how to handle situations where people apply who have not fully completed their preliminary examination. The thirteenth chapter points out that, due to various circumstances, the title of “doctor” is a farce, and that in the future, one should not earn a doctorate through examinations; rather, anyone who has passed the state examination, the assessor examination, the philological teacher certification examination, and similar tests should be entitled to call themselves a “doctor” in the future. But that, in turn, leads to difficulties: namely, if those employed by the state can call themselves “doctors”—I do not understand the internal logical connection; it has eluded me—then there would be no guarantees that they are actually scholars, and therefore a separate scholarly examination would have to be introduced. Of course, one cannot expect people to be particularly eager to take this additional scholarly examination; however, one could introduce a substitute measure, for example, that for those who have taken it and subsequently earn a doctorate, the year in which they took this scholarly examination would count double toward their years of service.

[ 22 ] Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking of a very serious matter; I am speaking of a book on university reform that begins as follows: The organization of our universities suffers from major shortcomings; reform is urgently needed. And when I had worked my way through thirteen chapters—I had already reached page 43, with only a page and a half left—I hoped, “Now it’s finally coming!” But lo and behold, here comes a fourteenth chapter: “Scientific Research Institutes.” It states that, admittedly, there is also work to be done in this area—that, for example, only those who have previously been university professors should be hired as true researchers, since only they are real researchers. And then, on page 44, this treatise concludes with the following: “It is therefore advisable not to set the salaries of members of research institutes quite as high as those of full university professors with the same length of service; after all, they have no reason to complain, since they are completely exempt from the heavy teaching load. Provision must also be made to ensure that members of research institutes do not use their position as honorary professors to secure excessive lecture fees.”

[ 23 ] Yes, that really is the end of the text. And I actually left out quite a few things without even realizing it. However, when I had finished reading the text, I had this feeling: So, universities consist of professors—full and associate professors—as well as private lecturers, lecturers, and teaching assistants. But then it occurred to me: at the university, there are also students, and I wondered, do these students perhaps have something to do with the purpose of universities after all? I was then able to ascertain that seven and ten—that is, seventeen—lines are dedicated to the students in this text, which comprises nearly forty-four pages. But the first seven lines on page 5—I couldn’t make anything of them. For they actually say so very little that is positive: “Therefore, I will not go into further detail on whether the relationship between university faculty and students could be made more intimate and, above all, whether the faculty’s office hours could be organized more productively than is generally the case at present. For administrative regulations would be of no use whatsoever here. Any coercion coming solely from the outside would be hopeless.”

[ 24 ] Then I wanted to set aside the section on the student body, which discusses students in ten lines. But there was nothing I could do about it, since they only deal with “disciplinary law for students.”

[ 25 ] Well, I didn’t actually share what I shared to be ironic, to provoke laughter, or anything of the sort; rather, I shared it as a sign of the times, and I would like to expressly note that I consider the man who wrote this to be an exceptionally good, exceptionally intelligent person who simply cannot bring himself to reflect on anything other than—as he himself says—those aspects of his reform efforts that can be implemented through administrative measures. Well, I think we need other things today besides those that can be implemented through administrative measures. The signs of the times certainly call for something else.

[ 26 ] But the author of this treatise on “university reform” is not only a well-meaning, intelligent person; he is also someone who knows himself well, and he reveals why he does not, in fact, go beyond such matters. And there we find something very curious on page 4: “Thus, I shall pass over in silence the reform of university education in the narrower sense. It is, of course, very close to my heart and is at least as important as all the other reforms, which I will discuss in more or less detail shortly. My silence is therefore difficult for me. However, what I could say knowledgeably on this subject would essentially apply only to the teaching of law and economics; it would, on the other hand, be of little significance for the teaching of philology, medicine, and the natural sciences. An examination limited to the teaching of law and economics would not, however, fit within the scope of a treatise dealing with the reform of the university as a whole.”

[ 27 ] Yes, let’s imagine that if this hadn’t been written by a lawyer, it might read: “That is why it is difficult for me to remain silent.” However, whatever I might have to say on the matter from an expert perspective would essentially apply only to medical education and would therefore be of little significance for the teaching of law and economics. Yet a study limited to medical education would not fit within the scope of a treatise dealing with the reform of the comprehensive university.”

[ 28 ] And now, if I were to change the subject, I could read this sentence to you quite often, and you would see from it—if you bring the underlying fact to mind—what, in particular, specialization, as it has become rampant, has led to. It has condemned the scientist to inaction. No one knows how to speak about what must happen on a grand scale, because he is a lawyer, an economist, a physician, a philologist, and so on. In a sense, one becomes a scientist today only to have to admit, regarding the very matters of human knowledge, that one knows nothing about them. Such a symptom is significant because it comes from an intelligent, well-meaning person who, moreover, possesses the necessary humility. But I think it points all the more to the necessity that something must be brought into the fields in question—not merely that something can be extracted from them—in order to achieve the goals I spoke of earlier.

[ 29 ] That is why, I believe, we had to—not merely were allowed to, but had to, and must continue to do so time and again—point out what, from the perspective of the humanities, should have a stimulating effect on the individual branches of specialized knowledge, but ultimately also on the individual branches of practical thinking. For the way in which we have gradually arrived at abstractions in the sciences has led to a conception of scientific rigor that is confined to a dry, impractical, and alienated sphere of existence. And one can see this even in the social sphere: a man like Schumpeter—who is, after all, an extraordinary, wise, and intelligent man and who has written an insightful treatise on imperialism—concludes with the words: “An ethical, aesthetic, political, or cultural evaluation of this process lies beyond the scope of these studies. Whether this process heals ulcers or extinguishes suns is, from their standpoint (namely, the scientific standpoint), completely irrelevant. It is not the task of science to judge this.”

[ 30 ] In other words, the task of science is to produce something that stops short of life, something that does not lead to value judgments in ethical, aesthetic, or cultural life. We have seen throughout this lecture series what a remarkable phenomenon has arisen as a result of this abstract formulation of the definition of science. We have seen how the philosophy of value—the philosophy of value espoused by Rickert, Windelband, and others—has emerged. I believe it was clear to you from Dr. Stein’s remarks what this was all about. The issue was that, on the one hand, the natural sciences now lay claim to Being, yet on the other hand, the natural sciences—which lay claim to Being in its totality—are absolutely unwilling to engage in any kind of philosophical inquiry. They want to take their seat on the throne of science, which represents Being, and they want to determine everything there is to be determined about Being from the perspective of the natural sciences. On the philosophical side, there is no inclination—forgive me, the image is not meant to be as harsh as it sounds—to turn the chair into a bench, push the other aside, and sit down on the chair of Being themselves. No, because the task of evaluation is left to us—since scientists say that ethical, aesthetic, and cultural evaluations are foreign to science and are not its concern—we take our seat on the chair of evaluation so that we have a clear demarcation. One specializes even into the realm of the spiritual and loses the ability to truly connect with human beings, who certainly cannot help but, by living in existence, embody something that for them must constitute an ethical, aesthetic, and cultural judgment.

[ 31 ] The issues at hand today really go deep. And that is why the wider world should be willing to answer the fundamental question: Is this spiritual science—which claims that it can enrich the individual specialized sciences as well as branches of practical life—is this spiritual science itself scientific? — And in this regard, the spiritual science will take the position that any engagement with it—carried out with full scientific rigor and sound scientific knowledge drawn from the individual sciences of the present day—but, of course, not out of dilettantism—any such engagement with sound scientific principles is welcome. It does not shy away from the scrutiny of those who know something, and it will be all the more pleased the more those who wish to examine it from the standpoint of the individual sciences actually know.

[ 32 ] That is the first thing I would like to say to you today as our spring courses come to a close.

[ 33 ] The second point, however, is what many accuse us of: that we are striving for the supernatural in an unwarranted way, that we speak to people about an exploration of the supernatural, but that this is unscientific from the outset, since, after all, one cannot know anything about the supernatural.

[ 34 ] Well, the gist of this week’s remarks was I would say, as if it were a matter of course, to show that we wish to engage in supersensible research not because we want to go beyond science to some nebulous nonsense, not because we strive for the supersensible in order to be unscientific, but because we stand on the ground of science as it is now—and we stand on this ground honestly. And by standing honestly on this ground, we find, throughout these sciences, the gates that lead from within them into the supersensible world. It is not because we want to place ourselves alongside the sciences, nor out of a lack of scientific rigor, that we speak of the supersensible, but because we are led into the supersensible from within science itself, on scientific grounds.

[ 35 ] We are advocates of a scientific understanding of the supersensible. Not only is our suprasensory knowledge scientific and subject to verification by any scientific method, but because we recognize what the other sciences ought to recognize in their respective fields, we strive—out of a scientific spirit, since we must do so out of this very scientific spirit—toward knowledge of the suprasensory.

[ 36 ] But this truly leads us to an understanding of the whole human being. For what I just hinted at as the path outward leads to clarity regarding the so-called limits of scientific knowledge. But it also leads us to gain an insight into what the whole human being becomes when he immerses himself in a form of knowledge that accepts such limits. After all, it is not merely that we engage in science; rather, in engaging in science—even if we do not take it into account—we are human beings. We become something as human beings through the practice of science. We may erase the concepts of human nature from our consciousness, but in truth we cannot, so to speak, dehumanize ourselves in the background within science. We must penetrate to the core of human nature. We cannot do this if we impose upon ourselves those barriers and limits that are spoken of today in mainstream science and that are also demanded in the practical practice of science. We are held back, causing us to lose abilities. If you do not use the muscles in your hand, they grow weak. If you do not use certain abilities because you imagine that limits exist and that these abilities must not be applied—lest they cross those limits—then you lose those abilities.

[ 37 ] Well, my esteemed audience, from what has been presented to you here over these eight days, you will have seen what a connection exists between the development of these abilities—which are not bound by the commonly assumed limits of nature—and that which lives in the natural world itself. For whatever seeks only to reach the limits of the sensory world in external nature cannot unfold those forces that lead down beneath the surface of the sensory being—and from which something must also be gained for human life.

[ 38 ] Goethe points to this—what must be gained—in his most meaningful, I would say, weighty statement: “To whom nature begins to reveal her manifest secret, that person feels an irresistible longing for her most worthy interpreter, art.” Here we have the path where that which is living knowledge does not stifle the artistic, but leads directly into the artistic.

[ 39 ] When the last university courses were held here in the fall, I pointed out how what is said here is meant to help us rediscover what was instinctively present in humanity in ancient times: a unification of science, art, and religion. This is discovered. For if one does not cut oneself off from one’s own abilities or dull them by scientifically accepting “limits to the knowledge of nature,” then one will notice how, little by little, what one comprehends in nature regarding the laws of formation must be allowed to flow into that which, out of this comprehension of the laws of formation, takes artistic shape of its own accord. One cannot understand the human form—which is also shaped by nature—unless one transforms, within one’s own understanding, what are otherwise merely general rules into artistic perception. When people then come and say to you: “Yes, but an analysis of the faculty of cognition shows that we must not go beyond logic in our understanding, but that we must grasp everything through abstract logical rules, and through observation and experimentation—” then one must reply: “But an insight—a spiritual-scientific insight into the facts of the world—shows something else.” — It shows that we can talk at length about how knowledge must be, how we must shape it; but nature itself does not yield to such insights. For it creates artistically on its own, and from a certain point onward, it wants to be understood artistically.

[ 40 ] There is a continuous path from science into art. And this bridge is not an unnatural one; it is a natural and self-evident one. The other path, however, is meant to lead across the boundaries that are erected within the human being. It has been suggested over the course of this week that one does not arrive at some nebulous, vague, mystical depth, but rather at a clear understanding of the human constitution. But by taking this other path—spiritual science demonstrates this by, in turn, ascending to insights along this other path—one arrives at something that one would now like to express with a phrase similar to the one just quoted from Goethe. Goethe says: “To whom nature begins to reveal her manifest secret, there arises an irresistible longing for her most worthy interpreter, art.” In light of what one can truly recognize inwardly when developing scientific truth through thought, one can say: “Whoever begins to have the mysterious nature of the human inner being revealed to them feels a deep longing for the most worthy accompanying feeling of religious veneration for creative existence.”

[ 41 ] And so, as we step outward into nature, we find the path to art; as we step inward into the human being through knowledge, we find the path to religion. What has become specialized in these three areas must, after all, work together in a unified way within the human soul. The possibility of this unified interplay must be found. If, then, knowledge is once again enabled to delve into the mysteries of things—which, as you have seen, has been the aim here over these eight days—only then will it be able to approach what wells up from the human being: the social question. Here—because the human being is the outward embodiment of the spiritual-soul—the impulses we can gain from an understanding of the spiritual-soul must come to our aid. The burning, pressing social question that must be so close to our hearts today—especially if we belong to today’s youth—can, insofar as it must be addressed, only be addressed if we find our way, so to speak, into the very heart of the social question: into the human being who thinks, feels, desires, and strives for a life worthy of human dignity. That spiritual science strives in this direction is part of its very nature.

[ 42 ] And once one understands what it has to say about human beings, one will no longer be able to say: An ethical, aesthetic, political, or cultural evaluation of the social process is far removed from the goal of such a study. Whether this process heals ulcers or extinguishes suns is, from a scientific standpoint, completely irrelevant. — The only thing missing is for someone to say: Medicine has the task of understanding the human organism; whether medicine succeeds in healing the sick is, from a scientific standpoint, completely irrelevant. — The way of thinking that underlies statements such as the one just cited, and the way of thinking behind such an absurd statement as the one I have just cited to you, are, in essence, one and the same. We have reached a point where absurdities are no longer recognized as such when they are clothed in common scientific formulas, when they are articulated by authorities and resound throughout the masses.

[ 43 ] That is what loosens our tongues here at the Goetheanum—the fact that we must speak. No matter how many enemies and adversaries there may be, we have no choice but to work together in this direction, even with the student body.

[ 44 ] We know what it means to be a student. It means carrying in one’s heart that which must flow as a force into the future—yes, this future that now awaits humanity; it will need powerful souls whose will and emotions are guided by a clear understanding of the nature of the world and human life. Because we know that you will need something like this, we are speaking to you, provided you are willing to meet us with understanding. We have truly called you here—although, as you can believe me, we are all very happy to see you personally—we have called you here because we hope that you will become collaborators on a path that we regard as necessary for the present and for the near future, and because we want to put this to the test—and we will do so more and more, I hope it will be possible to carry it out despite all opposition—because we wanted to test how many people can be found in whose hearts there is an echo of what we believe must be established as a necessity of our time.

[ 45 ] We must now part ways once again, my esteemed course participants. Yet I believe there is one thing in which we can be together, remain together, and stay together despite all physical distance: in the realization that we must indeed move forward in the direction indicated here, that we must work, and that we must develop the will to move in this direction, each to the best of our ability. Once one gains the necessary insight, one will develop this will.

[ 46 ] We are not yet in a position—and I say this to you, my dear fellow students—to bring what we can offer you here to a successful conclusion by providing you with final exams that will secure you positions in life. In this regard, we are poor souls who can appeal only to what reigns in human souls and hearts as a sense of truth and an enthusiasm for knowledge. We can only hope that, alongside all that has crept into the exams and career opportunities in an unhealthy way, there are still, among a sufficiently large number of young people, hearts and souls that yearn for the truth—for the sake of truth itself, and for what, judging by the signs of our times, is believed to be necessary—for the sake of this purely human necessity. We believe that there is still enough free feeling present that these two aspirations can arise from this pure urge for freedom.

[ 47 ] Because we must believe this, we—who have given these lectures and organized these events over the past week—are all standing here to bid farewell to you, who are now returning to the rest of your lives. But we stand here hoping that you will be our helpers, accompanying you with the thoughts we have allowed to flow through our souls together, accompanying you with our best wishes that your will for clarity and your will to act accordingly may be strong. With this hope and these wishes, we part ways—hoping to see you again—and from this place, we bid you a heartfelt farewell and goodbye!