Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Aspects of Human Evolution
GA 176

24 July 1917, Berlin

Lecture VIII

Alongside the content of these lectures I am concerned to show that truth, in the spiritual sense, is a living reality. It is especially essential in our time that a feeling should develop for the fact that truth is something living. What has life is different from one time to another; at one stage it may be formless, at another it may have a definite structure. A young child is very different from an old person. What is alive is continually changing. The human being who is perhaps to unfold his activity sometime in the future cannot be spoken of now as someone existing, as far as the physical plane is concerned. These things are so obvious as to be trivial. However, they cease to be trivial when one has learned to cherish the feeling that truth is a living entity.

I spoke to you last time about a contemporary statesman, Lloyd George.1 David Lloyd George, see note 3 and note 9 to Lecture VII. If someone in England in 1890, when Lloyd George was 27 years old, would have spoken about the whole significance of that age in our epoch, as we did last time, it would, in the spiritual-scientific sense, have been wrong. He could have spoken about it in relation to Lloyd George, though of course without the biographical details which had hardly begun to happen. But to do so would have been wrong.

People have the notion that truth can always be expressed at any time in the same way, but that is not the case, especially when one is dealing with certain higher truths. It is only now that the time is right for speaking about the relation that exists between the individual human being's age and the age of mankind as a whole. This kind of truth is also an active force. To speak about Lloyd George in 1890 when he was aged 27, giving an outline of his life—which could have been done within certain limits—would have been irresponsible. It could be compared with planting something in the wrong season. It is important not only that such truths do not reach the human soul as abstractions, but even more that they come at a time when they can be effective. This holds good not only in regard to historical facts, facts related to world evolution in the widest sense, but to truth in general in its effect upon the human soul. I gave some indication of this last time, but attention must continually be drawn to it because we are at present at a stage of transition in the conception of truth. Science of the spirit should create a certain condition of the comprehension of truth. The relationship which man has to truth must alter, must go through a certain development.

In the last lecture I drew attention to the fact that nowadays the human soul easily feels dissatisfied. Let us look at some of the reasons for this dissatisfaction of modern man. We know that the human soul needs concepts and ideas in life which can throw light on certain basic questions, such as the immortality of the soul, the meaning of world evolution, and so on. The human soul needs ideas with which it can live. If it cannot develop such ideas, or only unsatisfactory ones, then it remains dissatisfied and becomes ill in a certain sense. Many human souls today are in fact in a condition of sickness to a far greater extent than is admitted. The near future will see many more such souls than it is at present possible to imagine, unless people turn to the kind of knowledge that can fill the soul with spiritual content.

Nature itself does in many ways present an image of the loftiest and most secret spiritual reality; it is a question of understanding the image rightly and not interpreting it materialistically. The difficulty arises because people want ready-made formulas, sets of concepts with which they can live and be satisfied once and for all. When such are not discovered they may seek advice. However, it is clear that what is expected is a short description of some kind, a book perhaps, that in a short time can be assimilated and that gives the person something that satisfies him for the rest of his life. If one is able to experience even to some degree truth as a living reality, then such a demand is felt to be the equivalent of demanding a food that will sustain the bodily organism for the rest of life. He wants an advice that he can “eat” so that spiritually he never needs to eat again. That is an impossibility in either realm.

Spiritual science cannot hand people something which, once assimilated, is enough for the rest of life. I have often pointed out that there exists no short summary of a world view which can be kept at hand in one's pocket. In place of ready formulas, science of the spirit provides something with which the human soul must repeatedly unite itself, which must be repeatedly inwardly assimilated and digested. External truths such as those provided by natural science we can, if we have a good memory, take in and then possess them once and for all. That is not possible with spiritual-scientific truths, the reason being that the truths of natural science are lifeless concepts. The laws of nature are dead once they have been formulated into concepts, whereas spiritual-scientific truths are living concepts; if we condemn them to lifelessness because we accept them as if they were external truths, then they provide no nourishment; then they are stones the soul cannot digest.

In view of what the science of the spirit is today and what it really ought to be, it is worth remarking that in the cultural life of the 19th century there were trends struggling towards it. But much has happened in the last decade to cause what was then achieved to be swept away and forgotten. Today I would like, by way of introduction, to point to something that was much misunderstood in the second half of the 19th century. It was usually referred to as “Eduard von Hartmann's kind of pessimism.”2 Eduard von Hartmann, 1842–1906, German philosopher. Philosophie des Unbewußten, 12th edition, Leipzig, 1923. However, the fact is that his pessimism is not meant the way it was usually interpreted. People set out from the fixed notion that pessimism means a view that considers the world to be less than perfect, having many unsatisfactory aspects, being in fact quite bad. That view can never do justice to Hartmann's pessimism, but it was usually assessed in the light of this general view. Today it is still difficult to clarify this issue which deals with something basic and deeply rooted in the human soul.

Today every child is taught at school about the impenetrability of bodies. When the teacher asks, “What is impenetrability?” the children have learned to answer, “Impenetrability is the property by virtue of which two bodies cannot occupy a place at the same time,” which is true of physical bodies, but today no one imagines that it is a sentence which one day will have to be unlearned or rather be interpreted differently. Here I shall only indicate what the issue is about. The day will come when the sentence will no longer run, Impenetrability is the property by virtue of which two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time; rather, it will be said, Entities whose property is such that when they occupy a space from which other entities of the same kind are excluded are physical bodies. Thus the basic definition will be different. The day will come when the approach will no longer be dogmatic, but based on reality. Much is said nowadays about old dogmas being superseded. The future will prove that there never was an age more steeped in dogmas than our own. Our sciences are stuffed with dogmatism, even more so are public opinions, not to mention political views.

If we take a positive view of pessimism—for the moment that of Eduard von Hartmann—we shall discover what follows. He says, Many people strive for happiness; they want instant inner contentment which they call happiness. But that can never be the foundation, in a higher sense, for an existence worthy of man. Striving merely for one's personal satisfaction can only lead to isolation; it is bound to lead to a greater or lesser degree of egoism. Man's task cannot consist in striving merely for his own satisfaction; rather, must it be to place his living being into one process of the world, to work with and for the development of the world. However, complete satisfaction with external life or harmony within himself would prevent him from fulfilling that task. Only when we are not satisfied with conditions do we strive to further the upbuilding processes in the world. Thus Eduard von Hartmann's pessimism is in the realm of feeling. It is his view that without this pessimism which makes us dissatisfied, we would lack the incentive to cooperate in the work of furthering evolution. Thus Eduard von Hartmann, expressing himself philosophically, states that he stands for both empirical and teleological evolutionism. It is clear that we are here dealing with a pessimism that is very different from the usual dogmatic view of pessimism. With his concept of pessimism, which I won't pursue further at this time, Eduard von Hartmann is in a certain sense on the path that spiritual science must follow.

This spiritual science, however, shows us much more; it shows us what a fully satisfying mental image would really be for our soul life. It would be for our soul life exactly what external food would be for us if we ate it but then had no way to digest it, and instead carried it around with us undigested. It could not really be called nourishment. It is actually so that someone who takes a book of Trine or Johannes Muller and wanted to be satisfied with it, would be attempting the same as someone who wanted to eat food which could then only be carried around undigested in the body.3 Ralph Waldo Trine, see note 1 to Lecture VI. Johannes Muller, 1864–1919, Protestant theologian.

If it were not simply carried, it would be digested, but then it disappears; it loses its essential identity. This never happens with a fully satisfying mental image. A fully satisfying mental image remains with us forever, if I may express it so, lying in the stomach of our soul. And the more we believe we receive at a given moment from such a mental image, the more we hope to voluptuously satisfy our soul with it, the more we will see that once we have lived with it awhile it cannot satisfy us anymore. Instead it develops in us so that it bores us, becomes annoying to us, and the like.

These things have another side which is connected with what some people regard as contradictions in spiritual science; namely, the fact that new viewpoints are continually sought from which to develop our concepts. We could, as it were, speak forever from different points of view. These do not contradict one another; rather, they prove that spiritual truths have a capacity for continuous transformation, which is an indication of their living quality. Science of the spirit cannot be molded in rigid concepts. Single facts can certainly be presented in a straightforward manner, but the content of what is to satisfy us as a world view must be presented in thoughts that are full of life and can be understood from ever new aspects. Whoever takes in the thoughts of some aspect of spiritual science and lets them dwell in his soul will find that they speak to him. If at another time the same thoughts pass through his soul, they will speak to him again but quite differently. When he is happy, they will speak differently from when he is sad and troubled, but insofar as he receives them in their living quality they will always speak to him.

Spiritual-scientific concepts do not just provide an image of something; they establish a living connection between the human soul and the whole endless spiritual aspect of the world. Because the spiritual aspect is endless it can never be exhausted. Science for spirit will in every single case bring about a connection between the soul and the spiritual world, provided we retain an open receptivity for what comes to meet us from the world. We must above all become accustomed to the fact that certain concepts which today seem basic and beyond dispute may in the future have no relevance at all. Take the example of the countless philosophies; a problem that emerges in them all concerns “being” or “existence.” Existence as such is always debated and already the form in which the problem is presented creates great difficulty for the mobile human soul to deal with. Especially through these lectures it is my hope to kindle in you a feeling for the fact that whatever we look upon as “existing,” whatever entity we ascribe the state of “being” to, is directly related to the process of coming into being. The truth is that neither what Parmenides said about immutable existence nor what Heraclitus said about the coming into being is correct.4 Parmenides, approx. 450 B.C., Greek philosopher. Heraclitus, 540–470 B.C., Greek philosopher. In the world things exist and things become, but only what is in the process of becoming is alive; what is already in existence is always dead. What is in existence is the corpse of what was becoming. You will find more about this in my Occult Science.5 Occult Science, see note 7 to Lecture IV. In nature all around us we find “existence,” and spiritual science confirms that this existence has arisen because once it was in a process of becoming. The “becoming” left behind its corpse. What is in the state of existence is dead; what is becoming is alive.

This has special significance for man's inner life. We do not attain a satisfying view of things through concepts that are finished and complete, because they belong to what exists, not to what is becoming. A satisfying view can only be derived from what is in the process of becoming; it must act on the soul so that as we absorb it, it becomes unconscious, but in uniting with the soul stirs in us again questions concerning the becoming. This is also an aspect of the science of the spirit which causes difficulty for many because they prefer what is finished and complete. While the science of the spirit points to what will truly nourish the human soul, the inclination is towards the very opposite.

What people want today is to attain as quickly as possible a complete and finished view of the world. Much of what comes to expression as inner disturbances and dissatisfaction will be alleviated only when, instead of demanding finished truths, our interest awakens for participation in the coming-into-being of truth. Certainly truths must be clearly defined, but what is expressed in finished concepts always refers to something that belongs to the past. However, the truths deposited, as it were, by the past we can absorb; by so doing they live in us, and we can in this way participate in truth.

All this is going through a process of transformation in our time, which shows itself in the extreme polarity between Western and Eastern Europe. We in Central Europe are placed in the middle of this polarity. The Western pole has already reached hypertrophy, over-ripeness. The Eastern pole is only just coming into being; it has hardly reached the embryonic stage. It is very important that we be clear about the fact that what shows itself as strange and chaotic conditions in Eastern Europe is very little understood in Central Europe and not at all in Western Europe. How many discussions are not going on about the nature of the Russian people, about what is happening in Eastern Europe! Recently I read about an opinion, put forward by a gentleman who no doubt thinks himself very clever, that the Russian people are going through a stage resembling the one Central and Western Europe went through in the Middle Ages. At that time there was, he said, in Central and Western Europe more faith, more of a kind of dreamy, mystical attitude, just as there is now in Eastern Europe. Thus Eastern Europe must be passing through its Middle Ages whereas in the rest of Europe reason and intellect, and with it the natural sciences have meanwhile progressed. The Eastern Europeans will have to catch up with all of this development.

None of this has any bearing on reality. The truth is rather that the Russian is by nature mystically inclined, but this mystical inclination is at the same time intellectual. What meets us here is intellectual mysticism, or mystical intellectualism; that is, an intellect that expresses itself mystically. And that is something which never existed in the rest of Europe. It is something quite new, new in the same sense as a child is new when compared to an old man, perhaps his grandfather, whom he will come to resemble. It is so important that modern man wakes up and recognizes these things instead of passing them by in a state of sleep. To understand the polarity of Western and Eastern Europe is in particular for Central Europe a pressing necessity. Unless attempts are made to understand it, the chaos that exists at present will not be overcome.

It is rather difficult to become altogether clear about the contrast between Eastern and Western Europe, basically because what comes to the fore in the West is in a sense too mature, whereas what appears in the East has, as I said, hardly reached the embryonic stage. Yet we must try to understand. We have in Western and also in Central Europe what might be called a specific kind of superstition which does not exist in Eastern Europe, or when it appears there, it is an adoption from the West. This superstition, so prevalent in Western and Central Europe is, to put it bluntly, concerned with the printed word, with everything to be found in books. This may sound somewhat grotesque but it does illustrate what encompasses a whole complex of cultural attitudes. In the West we cling to what can be pinned down and put into print. We place the greatest store on what we can objectify by detaching it from the human being. To do so is regarded so highly that our libraries grow into gigantic monstrosities, immensely appreciated more particularly by those working on some branch of science. However, there is another reason why libraries are so appreciated: they keep in storage thoughts which have become divorced from their human source. A sum of such thoughts we call liberalism; when a group of people profess them it is called a liberal party. A liberal party is what results when, over a number of human beings a liberal theory is spread, like a spider's web, i.e., what can be preserved in books. The same applies to many other things. The superstitious belief in theories leads to the attitude that, for things to be dealt with efficiently they must first be pinned down in this way.

In the West there has emerged in quick succession a whole number of theories such as liberalism, conservatism and others, and also wider, more universal theories, preserved in books, such as Proudhon's and Bellamy's utopias.6 Pierre Joseph Proudhon, 1809–1865, French socialist and anarchist. Edward Bellamy, 1850–1898, U.S. author. These things become more numerous the further West we go. Central Europe has produced comparatively few such utopias, strictly speaking, none. Some may have appeared in Central Europe because these things get transferred, but they are all products of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin races. A feature of Western superstition—adopted to some extent in Central Europe—is that what originates in man, i.e., his thoughts, must first be externalized, must be detached from him, before being of use. This procedure has led to evil practices in certain movements usually of a mystical nature. Such practices are facilitated by the fact that great value is placed on producing something, not directly from contemporary life, but from what can be derived from ancient writings and old traditions, in short, from what has become divorced from man. Many people are not interested when told about the spiritual worlds related to today. But if told that what they are hearing stems from ancient Rosicrucian wisdom they are pleased, and even more pleased if told about ancient temples, or better Oriental mystic temples, and it is emphasized how old everything is, how long it has all been deposited, how truly fixed it has become.

This tendency continues to develop to extremes in the Western world. It is a tendency that is intimately connected with a certain despotic power that is being wielded over human beings by the spirituality that has become detached from them. The spiritual element that has become independent exerts its power, in the last resort, over man's elemental forces. The human being himself is then excluded; in one way or another, what he has separated off takes control. Furthermore what has in this way been thrust into the world seeks materialization; it does not just seek to be understood in a materialistic sense, but actually to materialize. The Western world has already gone a long way in this respect. The phenomena are there, but no attempts are made to understand the inner laws that govern them; however, they exist and the day is not far off when man will regret that he did not seek knowledge of them.

A former commoner known today as Lord Northcliffe is a British newspaper magnate, and he is on his way to becoming one in America.7 Viscount Alfred Charles William Northcliffe (actually Harmsworth), 1865–1922, English newspaper publisher. He started by pondering the question of whether it would be possible to make society—that is, the ideas and views people generally share—independent of human beings as such. In other words, he wondered how one could get what has detached itself from man to gain dominance over him. He began by formulating a theory saying: Every province has its own newspaper; it carries articles written by local individuals; consequently the papers differ from one province to another. How splendid if one could gradually pour into all the provincial presses a uniform model newspaper. One could establish a central office which collected all the best articles on chemistry, written by famous chemists, all the best written on physics by eminent physicists, all the best on biology by famous biologists, and so on. This material could be distributed to the various local papers which would then all carry the same articles. Even where of necessity something had to be different, it could be arranged from the central office. Of course, due to different languages, absolutely everything could not be the same, but everything could be centralized.

You will find that this man has come a long way towards his aim. He is today the unseen power over a great part of the British, French and American press. Certain newspapers in Britain, France and America carry nothing that has not been issued from the same central office. Those newspapers which are still independent have to fight for survival, faced with competition from all that flows through his channels. His real aim is to get rid of everything that is not issued from one and the same source. In view of Western man's blind belief in what has become detached from him and which now comes to meet him in this way, you will realize what possibilities this opens up for exerting tyrannical power over individual human beings.

People in Eastern Europe have a natural inclination to restore to the individual his full human dignity and independence. Their inclination is towards overcoming what has become entombed in the printed word and replacing it by man himself. What is striven for in the East as an ideal is to read less, to be less influenced by what has become inert and fixed and rather to let influence come from what is directly connected with individual human beings. Man is once more to listen to his fellow man and to know that it makes a difference whether speech comes directly from the human being or whether it has become detached from him and made a detour via printers' ink or the like.

Meanwhile in the West a dreadful use is made in many spheres of what has become detached from man, especially in the realm of art where it has led to methods of reproduction that are most efficient in extinguishing the sense for the artistic. The ability to recognize the unique aspect in a work of art has to a great extent been lost. This applies especially to objects in everyday use. When objections are made to this modern malady, they are not met with much understanding. You may have noticed that some of the ladies present are wearing rings or other ornaments, every item different, because value is placed on individual design, and on the fact that a connection exists in the ideal sphere between the object and the person who made it. At a time when everything is mass produced, that is, has become detached from man, has been objectified, there is not much understanding for such things. The intention behind much that is developed in our time really springs from this tendency, although it may be thought that things are done from preference. On the other hand, what is preparing in the East is based on what is individual, on enhancing man's intrinsic value, though as yet this tendency is only in the earliest embryonic beginnings.

Marxism (I could just as well choose a number of other examples) originated in the West. But what is Marxism? It is a theory which presents in conceptual form a social structure within which all human beings are supposed to live together in harmony. To the spiritual outlook gradually preparing in the East it will seem an absurdity that a theory of this kind, supposed to have universal validity, could ever have been spun out. It will be recognized that it is impossible to decide in an arbitrary manner how people are to live. That is something which each individual must determine for himself, just as people's lives within a community must be worked out between the people themselves. What is preparing in the East is creative individualism—I hesitate to use yet another stereotyped phrase, but no other possibility exists than to make use of certain concepts.

It is so very important that these things are understood. They indicate the forces which at present are shaping the world, and we are placed in their midst. Unless these things are taken into account sufficiently, it is not possible to arrive at an adequate view of world events. For example, without such insight it is not possible to recognize what is behind the fact that Lord Northcliffe bought up not only British, American and French newspapers, but a Russian one as well. A newspaper called Nowoje Wremja is completely under his control. This enables him to throw a net across to the East, instigated no doubt by human beings who have a certain insight into what will result from gathering into the same net what constitutes the past and what constitutes the future. Something of far deeper significance than is imagined lies behind this East-West union into which we in Central Europe are wedged. These things are worked at far more thoroughly and systematically than people are aware of. Similar things are taking place in other spheres. The idea of implanting the dying forces of the West into the germinating forces of the East is dreadful. Some are aware of what is taking place, but who today can rightly judge the meaning of the fact that at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries there suddenly appeared in the British press a whole series of fictitious names, names such as Ignotus, Argus, Spectator and so on? Who recognizes from a comprehensive viewpoint that an issue of Nowoje Wremja purchased in Russia is written in London by representatives under various pseudonyms, thus ensuring a complete interchange between what is overripe in the West and what is still embryonic and germinating in the East? These are things that go on behind the scenes of our everyday lives, things that have a direct connection with laws governing the evolution of mankind and the earth.

At the beginning of the 20th century the spirit of Eastern Europe was joined to the spirit of Western Europe. Systematic work was done to create a general public opinion. Work on this started in the editor's office and spread to parliament before entering more subterranean channels. Anyone who believes I am imagining things in maintaining this should read and really take in the content of letters published at the beginning of the 20th century by Mrs. Novikoff, the wife of the Russian envoy in Vienna.8 Olga Novikoff: The M.P. for Russia, Reminiscenses and Correspondence of Mme. Olga Novikoff, edited by W.T. Stead, Vol. I 1841–78, Vol. II 1878–1908, London, 1909, Andrew Melrose. These letters were written by Mrs. Novikoff to Mrs. Campbell-Bannerman, with whom she became acquainted in England. In reading these letters you will find that I am not imagining things and you will find much that explains what seems inexplicable, especially to people in Central Europe.

If we are really to understand the significance of the deep changes occurring in our time, we need concepts that are different from those carried over from the past. We must recognize that we have an inherent inclination and ability to formulate such concepts. We must not sleep through the significant events that are taking place. We could cite hundreds upon hundreds of such events. Take for example what took place at Oxford in the summer of 1911. There was a large gathering at which were present, in their official attire, a splendid procession of all the dignitaries and professors of the University of Oxford. They had gathered because Lord Haldane was to deliver a speech.9 Viscount Richard Burdon Haldane, 1856–1928, English statesman, Education and Empire, 1902; The Pathway to Reality, 1903–04. You must bear in mind that this is the Secretary of State for War giving a speech. And his subject? He discussed in strictly scientific terms how greatly the German spirit had contributed to the furtherance of mankind's evolution. He stressed that it had demonstrated that civilization is furthered not through brute force but rather through moral and ethical influences. The whole speech was a eulogy in praise of the intrinsic value of German culture.

Once war had broken out, Lord Haldane fully agreed with and even emphasized the view that the German spirit came to expression mainly in militarism that created hell for the rest of the world. Yet that same Lord Haldane had in his youth, while in Göttingen, sat in reverence at the feet of the philosopher Lotze who had written some fine books on Education and the State and one entitled A Path to Truth.10Rudolf Hermann Lotze, 1817–1881, physician and philosopher. Metaphysics, Vol. 1, 1841–79, Vol. 2, Leipzig, 1879. That same Lord Haldane had in beautiful words spoken about the difference between Hegel and Goethe. He pointed out that while Hegel said that we would be able to hear nature express the highest secrets if we only had the sense, Goethe made a still loftier saying the foundation for his whole world view, namely, that if nature could actually express everything man needs to hear, then she would have had the ability to speak. A deep meaning is contained in these words. They imply nothing less than that Goethe professed true spiritualism, for if nature contained all there is in the world, then she would reveal it to us; the fact that she does not proves that there is more; there is something beyond nature, namely the spirit. All this Haldane had been able to express because of his experience of German cultural life. Yet like hundreds of other instances, we see him suddenly change.

These phenomena are not of a kind that can be brushed aside with trivial remarks like: Once peace has been signed all these things will even out.—Many people do believe that, but what is needed is a fundamentally different approach. The basis for this approach we do not even have to acquire; in a sense, we possess it already, and if we have the will, we can act accordingly. We in Central Europe have by nature the ability, if we would only exert it, to look with understanding towards both the East and the West. What we must do is overcome the habit of approaching things especially spiritual science theoretically. We must enter into it with all our heart, with all the inner forces at our disposal.

Allow me for a moment to turn to something of a personal nature; after all, we know one another and these things concern us all. As you know, I have written about Nietzsche, and from my book you will have seen that I value and admire him greatly.11Rudolf Steiner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom (Rudolf Steiner Publications, Blauvelt, NY, 1985). Lately, when lecturing in various places, I have expressed my respect and admiration for the Swabian aesthetician Friedrich Theodor Vischer.12Friedrich Theodor Vischer, 1807–1887, German poet and philosopher. I also mentioned the fact that he was among the; first to whom I turned after I had for thirty years been concerned with laying the foundation for what I now call the science of the spirit. He was the first to approach me in saying: Your conception of time is a most fruitful foundation on which to build up a science of the spirit.” As I said, I respect Nietzsche, and I tried to do him justice in my book, Friedrich Nietzsche, Fighter for Freedom. I also respect Vischer. But how do the two regard each other? You will find that Nietzsche wrote an interesting passage on Vischer. He also coined the much used expression “bourgeois philistine” which is what he called David Friedrich Strauss, the author of Life of Jesus and The Old and the New Faith.13David Friedrich Straul3, 1808–1874, German theologian. Vischer was a great admirer of David Friedrich Strauss, a remark I add merely by way of explanation. Concerning Vischer, Nietzsche had the following to say:

... Lately the assessment of an idiot concerning historical facts has been circulating in German newspapers to the joy of the pale aesthetic Swabian Vischer. This assessment, to which every German will agree, is the so-called “truth,” that “Renaissance and Reformation—aesthetic rebirth and moral rebirth—must be taken together to form a whole.” Such a sentence tests my patience too far. I feel it to be my personal duty, once and for all, to tell the Germans what they all have on their conscience: four centuries of crimes against culture; that is what they have on their conscience.14Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844–1900, Ecce Homo, “The Case of Wagner: A Musician Problem,” in several editions in English.

Thus it is possible to have respect for both personalities and their philosophical approaches; but one calls the other an idiot. That does not in the least alter my regard and respect for them both. I do not feel obliged to swear by the one or the other when I acknowledge what they have to say. Nor do I feel obliged to make whatever view each has of the other my own. I accept that that is his view, just as I accept that the gentleman sitting across the room will have a different view of the pile of books in front of me than I have. Judging things from one aspect only is a common tendency, which some develop to a remarkable degree. That is something that has to be reckoned with. There is the example of what Hölderlin puts into the mouth of Hyperion in his “Hyperion in Greece”; it is so interesting because, as those will be aware of who know Hölderlin, he identifies with Hyperion. The views expressed by Hyperion are his own. The Germans he describes as follows:

They always were barbarians right from ancient times, and became more so through diligence, learning, and even religion. Completely devoid of pious feelings, lacking every grace, subject to every excess and shabbiness insulting to a fine soul, dull and without harmony like the fragments of a discarded vase—these, my Bellarmin, were my comforters.—These are hard words and yet I say them because they are true: I cannot think of any people more torn apart than the Germans. You will find artisans, thinkers, priests, masters and servants, young folk and mature ones; all these you will find, but no human beings ...15Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin, 1770–1843, Hyperion, oder der Eremit in Griechenland, 2 parts, Stuttgart, 1797–99, in Sämtliche Werke, Insel Verlag, Leipzig o.J., p. 580.

One can imagine authors of the entente wanting to copy such a passage. But there is another important aspect: the same Hölderlin who had these convictions also called Germany “the heart of Europe.” In other words, he was capable of having both views. We must be able ever more to recognize that not only is it possible, but it is also a deeply rooted disposition in man. If one clings to the abstract opinion that it is contradictory to hold different views about the same thing, one is clinging to one-sidedness. The views and outlooks that led to the greatness of Western Europe are no longer capable of understanding what is beginning to evolve in Eastern Europe. The day will come when to the people of Eastern Europe it will seem incomprehensible that one should not be able to have two completely opposite views of something. Many-sidedness is what' is developing in the East, and it will seem obvious that to understand things one must view and describe them from all sides.

All this is connected with what I began with today, the necessity to attain a new relationship to truth. An essential aspect of this is the recognition that our life of thinking, that is, our life in mental pictures and concepts, is already a life in the spirit. In order to recognize that thinking is a spiritual activity it is necessary to overcome the materialistic and quite unscientific attitude which says, When I think, I use my brain, so thinking must issue from the brain.—That is just about as clever as someone saying, Along this road there are footprints; where can they have come from? There must be forces beneath the ground that have caused them. I must study these footprints so that I can build up a theory as to the nature of the forces that push and pull from beneath the ground and form the footprints in the soft soil. That is comparable to seeking in the formations and processes of the brain the forces that create thinking. Just as the footprints, though found in the soil, originated from people walking over it, so are the formations of the brain—just as biology and physiology describe them—the imprint of thinking which is spiritual.

Naturally the brain must be there, just as the ground must be there if people are to walk over it. Like the ground, the brain offers resistance as long as we live between birth and death. What lives in us as spirit must be reflected from something during our existence between birth and death. The reflecting apparatus is the brain. But this reflecting is an active process, as if in a mirror in which light was not thrown back from a smooth surface, but one which contoured itself so that one could recognize from the resulting shape what had been reflected. One must understand that thinking as such is spiritual, that we already stand within the spiritual world when we think. We become fully conscious of this only when thinking frees itself, when thinking, as it were, is able to catch hold of itself. Such a refined thinking can follow a course that enables it to take hold of the more hidden connections between events in life. It is able to seek out the more delicate links beneath the surface. I spoke of these things in the two previous lectures.

What thinking is in its spiritual nature one becomes aware of only when it has freed itself from matter. Only then does one attain to a thinking that is truly creative. The natural world can be grasped by a thinking that passively assimilates what the natural phenomena of themselves reveal. If one is to find ideas that can be effective in society, ideas that are, so to speak, to govern people's affairs, they must arise out of a thinking that has become independent. We lack to a high degree the ability to rise above dependence on external phenomena, to rise to a thinking that formulates thoughts independently, within its own essence. That is why our political life is so sterile, so unfruitful; only thinking that has freed itself from matter can deal effectively with social problems. If one wishes, it could be called the next necessary step to be taken in mysticism. But what is meant is not a vague mystical something so often pursued nowadays. What matters is not the awareness of oneself within a divine essence or some such lovely phrase. The God within is an experience common to all creatures. To be in connection with the unity of the world, with the divine element within, one need only to utter words like mysticism or theosophy. A June bug has that kind of connection too, though in its own special way. What matters is that we begin to experience thinking as something active and alive, expressing itself in concrete concepts. Such concepts are able to take hold of and deal effectively with social problems.

At the beginning of today's considerations I spoke about the importance for man not only to regard his relation to truth in the light of the science of the spirit, but also to recognize that the relation itself must become different. It must become an active union with reality; this will have immense significance, not only for the understanding of world events, of history and social problems now and in the future, but also for the individual. What needs to be done now, is to continue certain important spiritual streams and endeavors which have been forgotten. There were good reasons—we still have to speak of them—that in the second half of the 19th century much was forgotten or abandoned. When a new edition of my book The Riddles of Man is published, I shall indicate many phenomena which belong to these forgotten aspects of spiritual life.16Rudolf Steiner, Vom Menschenrätsel, see note 4 to Lecture VI. Many endeavors, now forgotten, existed in the first half of the 19th century to which spiritual science has a direct link. Had they endured—which is of course purely hypothetical, for things could only develop the way they did—but if they had, man would not have been so helpless in face of the present tragic events.

I have mentioned before the remarkable fact that, for egoistical purposes, the strength of the various nations in Europe was carefully monitored in the West, especially in Britain. It was through this that the storm clouds gathered from whose effects we are still suffering. In past lectures I have explained many things which brought about the present catastrophe. You will realize from much of what I have said lately that it is by no means enough to reckon only with the events usually talked about. It is necessary to dig much deeper and to take account of the much greater significance of what happens beneath the surface of external events. It is this which pours over mankind like some dreadful deluge. Many of these things can as yet not be called by their true name, because human beings are not ready to accept them. But if evolution is to be understood, if light is to be thrown on the hidden secrets directly connected with present events, then they must be touched upon. Understanding of these things is possible only if the science of the spirit is taken ever more seriously.

The aim of the science of the spirit is to unite with all that is best in the forces and impulses of the Occident; above all it wants to further evolution. It can achieve its aims only if it ceases to be confused with all the foolish nonsense that appears nowadays in the guise of some spiritual or mystic impulse. Things have come to such straits that in future the difference must be made abundantly clear between everything spiritual science stands for, everything our anthroposophically-orientated spiritual science aims to be, and all the many movements that wish to identify with it.

In conclusion I ask you to look for a moment at the Orient; certainly it did have in the past a high degree of insight into repeated earth lives. This insight was attained through a special training of man's own being. From a certain point of view it must be said that no description of the individual soul's connection with the cosmos surpasses that of the Bhagavad Gita. But we, in our time have different tasks. In his Education of Mankind, Lessing inaugurated one of these tasks.17 There the concept of repeated earth lives reappears in the Occident. But how did the idea come to Lessing? He knew of course that it had been a teaching among primitive peoples. But the idea came to him while contemplating the consecutive epochs in mankind's evolution, and noticing how one epoch develops out of the preceding one. He considered that the reason no break in evolution occurred between the epochs could only be because human souls themselves carried the forces and capabilities they had attained over from epoch A to epoch B, to epoch C, etc. Just think, if our souls were present back in darkest antiquity and continued to incarnate again and again, that would mean that we ourselves have carried over from antiquity right up into our time what runs like a thread through the whole of history and evolution. Then human beings themselves would have created the various epochs. History gains sense and meaning when it is recognized that the human souls themselves carry over impulses from one epoch to the next. Through such a comprehensive historical survey the idea of repeated earth lives came to Lessing, not as in the Orient from the individual human soul.

Historical thinking and history, history in its highest sense, that is the task of the Occident. However, this requires that we recognize it in every moment. History confronts us when individual facts unite in the understanding of the different ages of man. We have history when a child stands before an aged person. Here we grasp the historical sense by recognizing that the old person was once a young adult and before that a child. What is consecutive in history can also appear side by side in space. Eastern, Western and Central Europe, though next to one another in space, can be understood only when also seen in a historical sense as following one another. This, of course, must be done in the right way.

These tasks stand before each one of us. When we widen our horizon to encompass such matters we shall in our living relationship with what is around us attain that gratification for which our soul longs.

Achter Vortrag

Neben dem Inhalte desjenigen, was ich durch diese Betrachtungen anschaulich machen möchte, liegt mir auch noch daran, ersichtlich zu machen gerade durch diese Betrachtungen, daß im geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne Wahrheit etwas Lebendiges ist. Und es scheint insbesondere für die Gegenwart notwendig zu sein, sich eine Empfindung dafür anzueignen, was das eigentlich heißt: Wahrheit ist etwas Lebendiges. Denn sehen Sie, ein Lebendiges ist ein anderes zu einer Zeit und ein anderes zu einer anderen Zeit. Ja, ein Lebendiges ist zu einer gewissen Zeit vielleicht in einer bestimmten Form gar nicht vorhanden, zu einer anderen Zeit hat es eine bestimmte Form. Ein Lebendiges als Mensch, wenn es Kind ist, ist noch kein Greis. Ein Lebendiges ist in einem fortwährenden Wandel. Und derjenige Mensch, der vielleicht in den letzten Jahrzehnten des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts seine Tätigkeit entfalten wird, ist so, daß wir eben jetzt von ihm noch nicht als von einem Seienden für den physischen Plan sprechen können. Das alles sind triviale Selbstverständlichkeiten. Aber sie hören auf, triviale Selbstverständlichkeiten zu sein, wenn man die Empfindung von der Wahrheit als von etwas Lebendigem wirklich in sich hegen lernt.

Ich habe Ihnen das letzte Mal hier von dem Wesen eines gewissen Staatsmannes der Gegenwart, von Lloyd George gesprochen. Wenn jemand dieselben Dinge, mit Ausnahme des Biographischen, mit Ausnahme des rein Äußerlichen, Tatsächlichen, das dazumal noch nicht hätte erzählt werden können, weil es zum geringsten Teil erst geschehen war, in England 1890 hätte erzählen wollen -, also damals, als Lloyd George 27 Jahre alt war -, wenn er damals von der ganzen Bedeutung dieser Siebenundzwanzigjährigkeit hätte sprechen wollen, wie wir hier vor acht Tagen, so wäre das im geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne ein Unding gewesen. Man hätte es nicht können und nicht sollen.

Wahrheit ist für die Menschen zumeist etwas, wovon sie glauben, daß es zu allen Zeiten in der gleichen Weise ausgesprochen werden kann. Das ist aber nicht der Fall, sobald es sich um gewisse höhere Wahrheiten handelt. Die ganze Anschauung von dem Lebensalter des Menschen in Beziehung zu dem Lebensalter der Menschheit ist gewissermaßen erst jetzt in dieser Zeit reif, gesagt zu werden. Denn Wahrheit in diesem Sinne soll zu gleicher Zeit etwas Wirksames sein. Sie brauchen ja nur die Äußerlichkeit in Betracht zu ziehen, die darin besteht, daß, wenn jemand 1890 von Lloyd George als dem Siebenundzwanzigjährigen mit dem ganzen Lebensprogramm gesprochen hätte — wie man es in gewissen Grenzen schon hätte tun können, wenn man es eben hätte sollen -, so würde man etwas hingestellt haben ungefähr so, wie wenn man eine gewisse Pflanze in die Erde zur Winterszeit setzen wollte, während sie nur zu einer andern Jahreszeit in die Erde gesetzt werden soll. Bei solchen Wahrheiten handelt es sich nicht darum, daß sie nur in abstrakter Form an unsere Seele herankommen, sondern darum, daß sie in der Zeit an unsere Seele herankommen, in der sie wirksam sein können. Das ist etwas, was nicht nur für geschichtliche Wahrheiten gilt, für Wahrheiten, die sich auf die große Weltenentwickelung beziehen, sondern das ist etwas, was sich auch durchaus anwenden läßt auf die Wahrheit in ihrer Wirksamkeit zu der individuellen Menschenseele. Ich habe schon das letzte Mal einige dahingehende Andeutungen gemacht.

Ich muß dies immer wieder und wiederum erwähnen aus dem Grunde, weil wir wirklich in der Gegenwart in einem Übergangszustand des Wahrheitsbegriffes stehen. Ein gewisser Zustand in der Auffassung der Wahrheit soll überhaupt durch die Geisteswissenschaft herbeigeführt werden. Gewissermaßen das Verhältnis der Menschheit zur Wahrheit muß sich in einer gewissen Beziehung ändern, muß eine gewisse Entwickelung durchmachen.

Ich habe das letzte Mal darauf hingedeutet, wie die individuelle Menschenseele leicht zu der Empfindung kommen kann, insbesondere in unserer Gegenwart, sie sei unbefriedigt. Und wir wollen uns zunächst nur zu schaffen machen mit dem Unbefriedigtsein der Menschenseele durch gewisse Vorstellungen. Wir wissen ja, die Menschenseele braucht gewisse Vorstellungen über die Welt, über ihr eigenes Wesen, über solche Grundfragen wie die Unsterblichkeitsfrage, über die Frage der Weltentwickelung. Die Menschenseele braucht Vorstellungen, mit denen sie gewissermaßen leben kann. Kann sie nicht solche Vorstellungen entwickeln, kann sie darüber nur unbefriedigende Vorstellungen entwickeln, dann bleibt sie selber in einem Zustand der Unbefriedigtheit, gewissermaßen in einem kranken Zustand. Denn in einem solchen kranken Zustand sind viele Seelen der Gegenwart, mehr als sie es zugeben wollen. Und viel mehr solche Seelen wird die nächste Zukunft zählen, als man sich heute einen Begriff davon macht, wenn sich nicht die Menschen hinwenden wollen zu einer solchen Erfüllung des Seelischen, wie sie durch eine geistige Wissenschaft kommen kann.

Die Natur in ihrem Wirken und Wesen ist in vieler Beziehung ein Abbild der höchsten, geheimnisvollsten Vorgänge, man muß nur den Begriff des Abbildes in der richtigen Weise nehmen, muß ihn nicht zu einem materialistischen Begriff auswachsen lassen. Das kann sich uns in dem Folgenden zeigen. Die Menschen streben sehr leicht danach, eine gewisse Summe von Vorstellungen zu bekommen, von denen sie sagen können: Sie befriedigen meine Seele, sie geben meiner Seele etwas, womit sie leben kann. — Am liebsten möchten die Menschen fertige Vorstellungen. Wenn man irgend jemand raten soll, der unbefriedigende Vorstellungen in seiner Seele trägt, und damit eine unbefriedigte Seele in sich, so hat er oftmals die Empfindung, man solle ihm dieses oder jenes, ein Buch oder dergleichen, das in verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit durchzumachen ist, raten, damit er dann etwas hat, was seine Seele befriedigt, mit dem er befriedigt durch das weitere Leben ziehen kann. Für denjenigen, der das Wesen der lebendigen Wahrheit in sich selber nur ein wenig erkennt, ist eine solche Zumutung gerade so, wie wenn jemand käme mit dem Verlangen, man solle ihm als lebendigem Menschen eine Speise reichen, die er essen kann und die dann seinen Organismus für den Rest der übrigen Lebenszeit unterhält. Man soll ihm etwas raten, das er essen kann, damit er fortan nicht mehr zu essen brauche. Das ist selbstverständlich ein Unding. Hier haben Sie ein Naturabbild desjenigen, was man eigentlich nur geistig geben kann. Geisteswissenschaft kann nicht dem Menschen etwas reichen, was er nur einmal so hinnehmen und wovon er dann sein ganzes Leben lang genug haben soll. Ich habe oftmals gesagt: Es gibt keine Weltanschauung in der Westentasche, es gibt keinen kurzen Abriß einer Weltanschauung, sondern Geisteswissenschaft setzt an die Stelle fertiger Begriffe, fertiger Vorstellungen etwas, was in immer neuen und neuen Verarbeitungen von der Seele durchgemacht werden muß, womit die Seele immer von neuem und neuem zusammen sein muß. Äußere Wahrheiten, wie sie uns die Naturwissenschaft gibt, wenn wir ein gutes Gedächtnis haben: die bekommen wir und wir haben sie dann. So kann es nicht bei geisteswissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten sein. Denn naturwissenschaftliche Wahrheiten werden in Begriffen gegeben, die gewissermaßen tot sind. Die Naturgesetze als Begriffe sind tot. Geisteswissenschaftliche Wahrheiten müssen in lebendigen Begriffen gegeben werden. Wenn wir die geisteswissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten aber zu toten Begriffen verurteilen, das heißt, wenn wir sie so hinnehmen wollen, wie wir die natürlichen Wahrheiten hinnehmen, dann sind sie für die Seele keine Speise, dann sind sie für die Seele Steine, die nicht verarbeitet werden können.

Es ist merkwürdig, wie nach dem, was Geisteswissenschaft eigentlich in unserer Zeit sein und werden soll, doch die geistige Entwickelung des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts in gewissem Sinne hingearbeitet hat. Aber die letzten Jahrzehnte haben vieles von dem, was so erarbeitet worden ist, verschüttet und vergessen gemacht. Ich möchte heute einleitungsweise auf eines hinweisen: Viel mißverstanden worden ist in der zweiten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts dasjenige, was man zum Beispiel genannt hat den «Eduard von Hartmann’schen Pessimismus». Und dennoch war der Eduard von Hartmann’sche Pessimismus eigentlich nicht so gemeint, wie man ihn gewöhnlich aufgefaßt hat, denn man ist ausgegangen bei dieser Auffassung von der Begriffsschablone: Pessimismus, das ist die Anschauung, daß die Dinge der Welt nicht restlos gut seien, daß sie unbefriedigend seien, also daß die Welt eigentlich schlecht sei. Und so beurteilte man nach diesem Begriff, den man sich vom Pessimismus gemacht hatte, dann auch die Hartmann’sche Philosophie mit ihrem Pessimismusbegriff. Man konnte ihr von dem Gesichtspunkte aus nie gerecht werden. Es ist heute eigentlich noch schwierig, klarzumachen, um was es sich handelt, denn es wird sich gerade auf diesem Gebiete, ich möchte sagen, um etwas recht Radikales handeln, aber etwas Radikales, das in den Tiefen der menschlichen Seelen vor sich gehen muß.

Jeder Schulbub und jedes Schulmädchen lernt heute in der Physik den Begriff der Undurchdringlichkeit der Körper. Es müssen die Kinder das so lernen, daß, wenn der Lehrer fragt: Was ist Undurchdringlichkeit? — sie dann sagen: Undurchdringlichkeit besteht darin, daß an dem Orte, wo ein Körper ist, nicht zu gleicher Zeit ein anderer sein kann. — Die physikalische Undurchdringlichkeit! Man kann sich heute gar nicht denken, daß man vielleicht über solche Dinge wird umdenken lernen müssen. Ich will in bezug auf diese Sache nur kurz anführen, um was es sich handelt. Man wird in künftigen Zeiten nicht mehr sagen: Undurchdringlichkeit besteht darin, daß an dem Orte, wo ein Körper ist, nicht zu gleicher Zeit ein anderer sein kann, — sondern man wird sagen: Körper, welche diejenige Eigenschaft haben, daß an dem Orte, wo einer ist, nicht ein anderer zu gleicher Zeit sein kann, sind physische Körper, physische Wesen, Wesen, die also solche Eigenschaften haben, daß sie, wenn sie einen gewissen Raum einnehmen, von diesem Raum ein anderes Wesen gleicher Art ausschließen, sind physische Körper. Das Urwesen der Definition wird sich schon ändern. Man wird in der künftigen Zeit nicht mehr von dem dogmatischen Begriff ausgehen, sondern man wird ausgehen müssen von dem unmittelbaren Leben. Heute redet man ja sehr viel davon, daß man den alten Dogmenglauben überwunden habe und dergleichen. Die Zukunft wird zeigen, daß mit Bezug auf die feinere Begriffsbildung keine Zeit so in Dogmatik drinnen steckte, wie unsere Zeit. Wir sind ganz vollgepfropft von Dogmatik, insbesondere unsere Wissenschaften und noch mehr unser öffentliches Denken; nichts mehr als zum Beispiel unser politisches Denken.

Fassen wir den Pessimismusbegriff so lebendig auf — und jetzt nur in bezug auf den Hartmann’schen Pessimismusbegriff —, so stellt sich etwa folgendes heraus. Eduard von Hartmann sagt: Es gibt viele Menschen, die streben nach Glück; sie streben nach unmittelbarer Befriedigung in ihrer Seele und nennen das Glück. Das aber kann niemals im höchsten Sinne ein menschenwürdiges Dasein begründen, denn es würde das bloße Streben nach Befriedigtsein des eigenen Wesens einen zu nichts anderem führen als zu einem Abschließen des eigenen Wesens gegenüber der Außenwelt. Es würde das zu einem mehr oder weniger groben oder feinen Egoismus führen. Es kann nicht dies die Aufgabe des Menschen sein, bloß nach der Befriedigung seines Wesens zu streben, sondern es muß die Aufgabe des Menschen sein, sein lebendiges Wesen hineinzustellen in den ganzen Weltenprozeß, sich hinzugeben an den Weltenprozeß, mitzuarbeiten, mitzuwirken an dem Weltenprozeß. Davon würde er abgehalten, wenn er in irgendeinem Momente seines Lebens von dem äußeren Dasein oder der inneren Harmonie im vollsten Sinne befriedigt sein könnte. Nur dann streben wir, selber mit dem Bildeprozeß der Welt weiter zu arbeiten, wenn wir mit keinem Zustand zufrieden sind. Das aber ist Pessimismus in der Empfindung. Hätten wir diesen Pessimismus nicht, meint Eduard von Hartmann, mit keinem gegenwärtigen Zustand befriedigt zu sein, so würde uns der Impuls fehlen, an der Evolution mitzuarbeiten. So daß also Eduard von Hartmann in seiner Zeit sich noch recht philosophisch ausdrücken und sagen mußte, er vertrete den empirischen Evolutionismus, um damit den teleologischen Evolutionismus zu begründen. Aber man sieht, hier wird gewissermaßen der Pessimismus etwas anderes, als wenn man vom dogmatischen Begriff des Pessimismus ausgeht und daraus schließt. Mit diesem Begriff des Pessimismus, den ich jetzt nicht weiter ausführen will, ist aber Eduard von Hartmann doch schon in gewissem Sinne auf der Bahn, welche von der Geisteswissenschaft eingeschlagen werden muß.

Denn diese Geisteswissenschaft, die zeigt uns noch viel mehr! Diese Geisteswissenschaft zeigt uns, was eine uns völlig befriedigende Vorstellung für unser Seelenleben eigentlich wäre. Eine uns völlig befriedigende Vorstellung ist für unser Seelenleben genau dasselbe, wie ein äußeres Nahrungsmittel — man kann es nicht einmal Nahrungsmittel nennen — das wir aufessen würden, und bei dem wir keine Möglichkeit hätten, es zu verdauen, sondern das wir unverdaut in uns tragen würden. Wirklich ist es so, daß derjenige, der ein Buch von Trine oder von Johannes Müller nimmt, und damit befriedigt sein will, genau dasselbe Bestreben hat wie jemand, der ein Nahrungsmittel nehmen wollte, das er nun in seinem Körper mittragen könnte. Ja, wenn er es aber nicht mitträgt, so wird es verdaut, dadurch aber verschwindet es, löst es sich in seine Wesenheit auf. Das aber ist bei keiner uns voll befriedigenden Vorstellung der Fall. Eine uns voll befriedigende Vorstellung, die bieibt uns immer, wenn ich so sagen darf, in dem Magen der Seele liegen. Und je mehr wir von einer Vorstellung im Augenblick zu haben glauben, je mehr wir glauben, von einer Vorstellung gleichsam die Befriedigung so zu unserer seelischen Wollust einsaugen zu können, desto mehr werden wir sehen, daß, wenn wir nur mit dieser Vorstellung eine Weile leben wollen, sie uns nicht mehr befriedigen kann, sondern daß sie sich in uns so entwickelt, daß sie uns langweilt, daß sie uns ihrer überdrüssig macht, und dergleichen. |

Damit hängt zusammen das, was man gerade der Geisteswissenschaft, wie wir sie hier vertreten, vielfach zum Vorwurf macht. Diese Geisteswissenschaft, wie wir sie hier vertreten, sucht auch bei den Vorstellungen, die sie über die Welt entwickelt, immer neue und neue Gesichtspunkte. Wir könnten sozusagen immer reden und reden, wir würden immer neue und neue Gesichtspunkte finden. Das nennen gewisse Leute dann Widersprüche. In Wahrheit handelt es sich um Umbildungen, die auf die Lebendigkeit dieser geisteswissenschaftlichen Wahrheiten hindeuten. In dieser Weise starre Begriffe, wie man sie heute gewöhnt ist, kann diese Geisteswissenschaft gar nicht geben. Sie kann einzelne geisteswissenschaftliche Tatsachen in einer eindeutigen Weise hinstellen, aber dasjenige, was uns befriedigen soll als Weltanschauungsinhalt, das gibt sie in lebendigen Begriffen, die immer von neuem von uns aufgenommen werden können. Derjenige, der diese Begriffe aufnimmt, der wird finden, wenn er sie einmal durch seine Seele ziehen läßt, so sagen sie ihm dies; dann läßt er sie ein andermal durch seine Seele ziehen, dieselben Begriffe sagen ihm etwas ganz anderes. Und wiederum sagen sie ihm etwas ganz anderes, wenn er sie im Zustand der Freude, des Glückes durch seine Seele ziehen läßt, und wenn er sie im Zustand der Traurigkeit, im Zustand des Leides durch seine Seele ziehen läßt. Aber wenn er sie richtig in ihrer Lebendigkeit erfaßt hat, so sagen sie ihm immer etwas. Weil diese geisteswissenschaftlichen Begriffe nicht bloß ein Abbild geben sollen, sondern weil sie eine lebendige Verbindung herstellen sollen zwischen der Menschenseele und der ganzen unendlichen Welt, und weil die Welt unendlich ist, so sind sie nie ganz auszuschöpfen, so sind sie unendlich. Sie sollen immer, in jedem einzelnen Falle eine Verbindung zwischen der Seele und der Welt herstellen. Aber wir müssen uns auch gewissermaßen die freie Empfänglichkeit für alles das bewahren, was aus der Welt an uns herantreten kann, und wir müssen uns vor allen Dingen im Denken daran gewöhnen, daß wir gewisse prinzipielle, grundlegende Begriffe, die der Menschheit heute selbstverständlich erscheinen, für die Zukunft gar nicht mehr gebrauchen können. Nehmen Sie sich unzählige Philosophien: Sie finden in diesen unzähligen Philosophien fast immer wieder eine Frage hervortreten, die Frage nach dem Sein. Das Sein, das einheitliche Sein, das ist etwas, was immer wieder und wiederum hervortritt. Und schon aus dieser Frage, wie man sie stellt, entspringen unzählige Unmöglichkeiten für die lebendige Menschenseele. Ich möchte gerade durch diese Vorträge in Ihnen eine Empfindung hervorrufen, daß alles dasjenige, was wir als das Sein bezeichnen, oder was wir als das Sein den Dingen, den Wesen beilegen, in einem lebendigen Verhältnis zum Werden steht, und zwar in einem eigentümlichen Verhältnis zum Werden. In Wahrheit ist weder der alte Satz des Parmenides von dem starren Sein, noch der Satz des Heraklit von dem Werden, wahr. Es ist in der Welt Sein und Werden, aber nur: Das Werden ist lebendig, das Sein ist immer tot; und jedes Sein ist ein Leichnam des Werdens. Finden Sie irgendwo ein Sein, zum Beispiel in der sich um uns ausbreitenden Natur, so antwortet Ihnen die Geisteswissenschaft darauf: Dieses Sein — lesen Sie das in der «Geheimwissenschaft» — ist dadurch entstanden, daß einmal ein Werden war, und dieses Werden hat seinen Leichnam zurückgelassen, dasjenige, was uns gegenwärtig als Sein umgibt. Das Sein ist das Tote, das Werden ist das Lebendige!

Das Merkwürdige ist nun, daß dies Bedeutsame Anwendung findet im Leben der Seele. Wenn wir durch eine bestimmt abgeschlossene Vorstellung oder Vorstellungsreihe Befriedigung in der Seele haben wollen, so wollen wir durch ein Sein Befriedigung haben. Das können wir nicht! Wir können nur durch ein Werden Befriedigung haben, wir können nur durch dasjenige Befriedigung haben, was auf unsere Seele so wirkt, daß, indem wir es in unsere Seele aufnehmen, es wiederum unbewußt wird, aber indem es sich mit unserer Seele vereinigt, ganz neu uns anregt, diese Fragen an das immer dauernde Werden zu stellen. Das ist gewiß etwas, was an Geisteswissenschaft viele auch wiederum unbefriedigt sein läßt, weil sie gerne etwas Fertiges haben wollen. Während Geisteswissenschaft nur eine Anleitung zum «Essen des Geistigen» geben kann — Sie werden mich verstehn —, möchte man fertige Nahrung haben. Das ist schon etwas, womit unsere Zeit rechnen muß, weil sie voll steckt von der entgegengesetzten Empfindung.

Wovon steckt unsere Zeit voll? Von der ganz entgegengesetzten Empfindung steckt unsere Zeit voll, von der Empfindung, man müsse nur so schnell als möglich irgendeine fertige Weltanschauung in sich aufnehmen. Vieles von dem, was, ich möchte sagen, an Krankhafligkeit in unserer Seele lebt, wird seine Heilung nur dadurch erfahren können, daß man Interesse gewinnt für das lebendige Leben mit der Wahrheit, nicht die Gier entwickelt nach fertigen Wahrheiten. Klar umrissene Wahrheiten aber, dasjenige, was man in fertigen Begriffen ausspricht, bezieht sich immer auf ein Vergangenes. In irgendeiner Weise ist dasjenige, was in fertige Begriffe geprägt wird, immer auf ein Vergangenes bezüglich. Dasjenige Wahre, was die Vergangenheit gewissermaßen abgesetzt hat, können wir in uns aufnehmen, es lebt dann in uns; und indem es in uns lebt, leben wir mit der Wahrheit.

Nun ist aber unsere Zeit in dieser Beziehung mitten in einem Umbildungsprozeß darinnen, und dieser Umbildungsprozeß zeigt sich uns in einem merkwürdig polarischen Gegensatz, dem Gegensatz zwischen Westen und Osten in Europa; und wir in Mitteleuropa sind mitten in diesen polarischen Gegensatz hineingestellt. Dasjenige, was der eine Pol ist, das Westliche, das ist gewissermaßen schon bis zur Hypertrophie, bis zur Überreife gelangt; dasjenige, was der Osten bedeutet, das zeigt sich noch nicht einmal in seinem ersten Anfang, kaum embryonal. Seien wir uns nur klar darüber: Was uns in diesem merkwürdigen, heute uns so chaotisch anmutenden Osten ansieht, das versteht man schlecht in Mitteleuropa, und am schlechtesten in Westeuropa. Wie vielerlei Auseinandersetzungen findet man jetzt über das Wesen des russischen Volkes, über dasjenige, was sich im Osten Europas, bleiben wir dabei stehen, geltend macht. Ich habe zum Beispiel neulich gelesen, wie ein Herr sehr geistvoll, wie er selbst selbstverständlich glaubt, auseinandersetzt, daß das russische Volk gewissermaßen jetzt diejenigen Zustände durchmacht, die Mittel- und Westeuropa im Mittelalter durchgemacht habe. Da war im Mittelalter in den mittel- und westeuropäischen Völkern mehr Glaube, mehr wie ein gewisses mystisches Hindämmern herrschend; dasselbe ist im Osten jetzt. Also der Osten macht das Mittelalter durch. Aber bei uns ist seither die Intellektualität, die Verstandeskultur mit ihrem naturwissenschaftlichen Anhängsel gekommen, das müssen die Menschen im Osten nun erst nachholen.

Nichts von dem ist eine Wirklichkeit! Die Wahrheit ist vielmehr diese, daß der russische Mensch allerdings mystisch veranlagt ist, daß aber diese Mystik zu gleicher Zeit intellektuell wirkt — intellektualistische Mystik — und der Intellekt mystisch wirkt — Mystischer Intellektualismus, der überhaupt in Mitteleuropa gar nicht vorhanden war. Es ist etwas ganz anderes, etwas Neues, das herankommt, so wie das Kind heranwächst und etwas anderes wird als der Greis, der neben ihm steht, der vielleicht sein Großvater ist. Aber es geht nicht für den heutigen Menschen, an diesen Dingen schlafend und träumend vorbeizugehen. Und gerade wir in Mitteleuropa haben die dringende Notwendigkeit, nach Verständnis dieser Dinge zu suchen. Und wenn wir nicht versuchen, nach einem Verständnis dieses polarischen Gegensatzes zu suchen, so kommen wir wirklich nicht über das Chaos der Gegenwart hinaus.

Es ist allerdings sehr schwierig, sich diesen Gegensatz zwischen Osten und Westen ganz klarzumachen, denn das, was im Westen ist, ist gewissermaßen schon über die Reife hinaus; das, was im Osten ist, ist, wie ich gesagt habe, kaum embryonal; und dennoch müssen wir uns ein Verständnis davon verschaffen. Wir haben im Westen und auch in Mitteleuropa einen ganz bestimmten, nennen wir es Aberglauben, den man im Osten nicht hat, und wo man den hat, ist er nur angelernt vom Westen. Wir haben einen ganz bestimmten Aberglauben im Westen und in Mitteleuropa. Nun, am groteskesten ausgedrückt, möchte ich sagen, es ist der Aberglaube für das Buch, für dasjenige, was im Buche steht. Das ist nur etwas grotesk ausgedrückt, aber es umfaßt einen ganzen Komplex von Kulturtatsachen. Wir im Westen hängen an dem, was ins Buch gebracht werden kann, was gewissermaßen niedergeschrieben, fixiert werden kann, was, mit anderen Worten, als menschlich vom Menschen losgelöst und objektiviert werden kann, und das schätzen wir vor allen Dingen. Wir schätzen es nicht nur darin, daß unsere Bibliotheken sich wirklich schon zu Riesenungetümern auswachsen, und diese Bibliotheken für uns, insbesondere wenn wir wissenschaftlich arbeiten wollen, etwas Ungeheures bedeuten, sondern wir schätzen es auch in anderer Beziehung: Wir schätzen es zum Beispiel darin, daß wir eine gewisse Summe von Begriffen haben, die die Menschen gedacht und die sich vom Menschen losgelöst haben. Eine Summe von Begriffen nennen wir Liberalismus, und wenn sich eine Anzahl von Menschen, eine Menschengruppe dazu bekennt, so nennen wir diese Menschengruppe eine liberale Partei. Eine solche liberale Partei ist in Wirklichkeit nichts anderes als dasjenige, was sich dann darstellt, wenn sich über eine Anzahl von Menschen wie ein Spinngewebe ausdehnt etwas wie eine liberale "Theorie; das heißt etwas, was im Buche stehen kann. Und so ist es mit anderem auch. Und wir erlangen es sogar immer mehr und mehr unter dem Aberglauben dieser Theorie, daß alles festgesetzt wird in dieser Weise, damit man weiß, womit man es zu tun hat.

Wir haben im Westen aufdämmern sehen in ganz schneller Folge eine ganze Anzahl von nicht nur gewöhnlichen Theorien, wie: Liberalismus, Konservatismus und so weiter, sondern wir haben auch umfassende universelle Theorien in Büchern geschrieben gefunden: Proudhonische, Bellamysche Weltgestaltungen; eine große Summe von Utopien, und je weiter nach Westen, desto mehr. Mitteleuropa hat verhältnismäßig wenig, sogar, wenn man der Sache nachgeht, keine einzige Utopie hervorgebracht; die Utopien sind alle Ergebnisse der angelsächsischen und romanischen Rasse. Sie sind nur, weil die Dinge auch versetzt erscheinen, auch in Mitteleuropa zuweilen erschienen. Dieses Loslösen desjenigen, was eigentlich im Menschen lebt, es zu etwas Äußerem machen, das man fixieren kann, und das Leben mit dem Fixierten, das ist dasjenige, was zum Aberglauben des Westens gehört, und was Mitteleuropa bis zu einem gewissen Grade von diesem Westen angenommen hat. In gewissen, namentlich so mystischen und allerlei anderen Bewegungen, hat das sogar einen recht schlimmen Charakter angenommen, indem man großen Wert darauf gelegt hat, nur ja nicht irgendwie gegenwärtig Lebendiges zu haben, sondern irgend etwas Altes, was aus alten Büchern oder aus alten Überlieferungen geschöpft werden kann, kurz, was sonst losgelöst ist vom Menschen, obwohl es im Menschen einmal gelebt haben muß. Manche Menschen interessiert es gar nicht, wenn man diesen oder jenen Begriff über geistige Welten in unmittelbarer Gestalt an sie heranbringt. Wenn man ihnen aber erzählt: das haben die alten Rosenkreuzer gedacht, das ist rosenkreuzerische Weisheit - oder wenn man eine gewisse Sekte, will sagen, Gesellschaft gründen will, von «alten Tempeln, mystischen Tempeln», «mystischen orientalischen Tempeln» und so weiter und hinweist, wie alt die Dinge sind, das heißt, wann sie abgelagert sind, fixiert worden sind, dann fühlen sich manche außerordentlich befriedigt.

Dies ist, ich möchte sagen, das allgemeine, aber es hat wirklich hypertrophiert im Westen und wird sich immer mehr und mehr zum Extrem ausgestalten. Denn dieses hängt zusammen, innig zusammen mit einer gewissen Despotie des vom Menschen losgelösten Geistigen über den Menschen selbst. Zuletzt erscheint die Herrschaft des hinausgeworfenen Geistigen über das unmittelbar Elementarisch-Menschliche. Der Mensch soll dann ausgeschaltet werden, und dasjenige, was er hinausgeworfen hat, das soll in irgendeiner Form herrschend werden. Aber dasjenige, was in die Welt hinausgeworfen wird, das strebt nach Materialisierung, nicht nur nach Auffassung im materialistischen Sinn, sondern nach Materialisierung. Und in dieser Beziehung ist die westliche Welt ja schon sehr, sehr weit gegangen. Man sucht in solchen Dingen nur gewöhnlich die inneren Gesetze nicht, aber diese inneren Gesetze sind vorhanden und es wird sich in der nächsten Zukunft der Menschen sehr rächen, daß sie nicht die inneren Gesetze suchen.

Da gibt es einen Menschen in der Gegenwart, der, nachdem er früher einen bürgerlichen Namen getragen hat, jetzt den Namen Lord Northcliffe trägt; der große Zeitungsmagnat Englands und jetzt nach und nach auch Amerikas. Der Mann fing vor einiger Zeit an, sich die Idee vorzulegen: Wie kann man das soziale Leben, das Zusammenleben der Menschen unabhängig machen von dem Menschen selbst? Wie kann man gewissermaßen die Herrschaft des vom Menschen Losgelösten über die Menschen begründen? — Er hat angefangen gewissermaßen zuerst mit Theorien, indem er sagte: Jede Provinz hat ihre Zeitung; da schreiben immer einzelne Menschen in diese Zeitungen hinein, dadurch ist die Zeitung einer jeden Provinz anders als die einer anderen Provinz. Wie großartig wäre es doch, wenn man es nach und nach dahin brächte, daß man eine einheitliche Schablone ausgösse über die verschiedenen Provinzpressen, so daß man in einer Zentrale sammelt alle guten chemischen Artikel, die von berühmten Chemikern geschrieben sind, alle guten physikalischen Artikel, die von guten Physikern geschrieben sind, alle guten biologischen Artikel, die von berühmten Biologen geschrieben sind und so weiter. Und die werden dann verteilt an die einzelnen Zeitungen und die bringen dann alle das gleiche. Und auch wenn sie verschieden sein sollen, so ordnet man schon von der Zentrale die Verschiedenheit an. Natürlich kann man nicht überall, schon weil die Sprache verschieden wäre, dasselbe anbringen, aber man kann alles zentralisieren.

Und siehe da: jener Mann hat einen weiten Weg nach dieser Richtung gemacht, und heute ist er gewissermaßen der unsichtbare Herrscher eines großen Teiles der britischen, der französischen, der amerikanischen Presse überhaupt, indem nichts in einer gewissen Presse Englands, Frankreichs, Amerikas erscheint, was nicht aus dieser Zentrale stammt. Und sehr schwer hat es die andere Presse, die noch von ihm unabhängig ist, neben dem, was durch seine Kanäle fließt, zu bestehen. Aber sein Ideal ist, alles wegzuräumen, was nicht aus einer einzigen solchen Quelle fließt. Denken Sie, welche Möglichkeit, bei dem Glauben, der heute herrscht an dasjenige, was zwar sich vom Menschen abgesondert hat, was aber dann an die Menschen auf diese Weise herantritt! Denken Sie, welche Möglichkeiten eine ungeheure Tyrannis von dieser Seite her über den einzelnen individuellen Menschen auszuüben!

Den individuellen Menschen in seiner vollen Gültigkeit wieder einzusetzen, den individuellen Menschen wieder ganz auf sich selbst zu stellen, das ist in der Tat die Anlage der Menschen des Ostens; das Buch zu überwinden, das Fixierte zu überwinden und den Menschen an die Stelle zu setzen. Der Idealzustand, nach dem der Osten strebt, ist der, daß man weniger lesen, weniger das Fixierte auf sich wirken lassen wird, dafür aber alles dasjenige, was mit dem unmittelbaren individuellen Menschen zusammenhängt. Der einzelne Mensch wird wieder den anderen anhören; der einzelne Mensch wird wissen, daß es ein Unterschied ist, ob das Wort vom Menschen selbst kommt, oder ob es sich abgesondert hat und den Umweg durch die Druckerschwärze und dergleichen gemacht hat. Gewiß, auf manchem Gebiet sind in dieser Beziehung erst Anfänge gemacht, aber sehr, sehr bedeutsame, schreckliche Anfänge, ich meine: im Westen sind in diesen Dingen mit der Absonderung Anfänge gemacht, aber schreckliche Anfänge.

Daß es das Absondern vom Menschen gibt, das hat uns auf vielen Gebieten, insbesondere der Kunst, zu Reproduktionsverfahren gebracht, die nun wirklich geeignet sind, den Sinn für Künstlertum auszutreiben. Vielfach hat man dadurch die Möglichkeit verloren, im Kunstwerk das Individuelle noch zu sehen, insbesondere im Kunstwerk des alltäglichen Gebrauches, und schwer versteht man das Sich-Stemmen gegen den Unfug der Zeit. Vielleicht werden Sie gesehen haben, daß einzelne unserer Damen wiederum Ringe tragen oder anderes Ähnliches, aber jede ein anderes, weil ein Wert darauf gelegt wird, daß etwas Individuelles drinnen ist, etwas, was eine unmittelbar individuelle oder ideelle Beziehung darstellt zwischen dem einzelnen Objekt und dem, der es gemacht hat. Man hat nicht mehr viel Verständnis für solche Dinge in der Zeit, wo alles in Vervielfältigung hergestellt wird, das heißt, objektiviert, losgelöst wird vom Menschen. In unseren Dingen sind eben sehr häufig Intentionen, die wirklich mit der Zeitentwickelung zusammenhängen und die man vielleicht nur für Liebhabereien hält, die aber aus solchen Zusammenhängen heraus gewollt sind. Aber dasjenige, was sich im Osten vorbereitet, das Bauen auf das Individuelle, das Erhöhen des unmittelbaren Wertes des Menschen, das ist eben erst in dem embryonalsten Anfange. Was bereitet sich denn da vor? Im Westen hat sich herausgebildet nun, sagen wir: der Marxismus. Was ist der Marxismus? — Ich könnte ebensogut etwas anderes nennen — was ist der Marxismus? Eine Theorie, die eine solche Gestaltung der Wirklichkeit in Begriffe darstellt, daß unter dieser Gestaltung der Wirklichkeit alle Menschen richtig zusammenleben können in sozialer Beziehung.

Im Osten bereitet sich eine geistige Art vor, die überhaupt so etwas als einen völligen Unsinn ansieht, daß man überhaupt etwas ausspinnen kann, was eine allgemein gültige Theorie über menschliches Zusammenleben ist; das wird der Weltanschauung, die sich im Osten herausbildet, als ein völliger Unsinn erscheinen. Denn man wird sagen: Man kann doch nicht die Art fixieren, wie die Menschen zusammenleben sollen; das muß doch jeder einzelne selbst sagen, das muß jeder einzelne Mensch zeigen, das muß im menschlichen Zusammenleben selber sich entwickeln. Ein gewisser, wenn ich nun wiederum ein Wort brauchen darf, das einen Schablonenbegriff darstellt — ich tue es ungern, aber man muß ja gewisse Begriffe anwenden -, ein gewisser Individualismus, aber ein wirklich schöpferischer Individualismus bereitet sich im Osten vor.

Diese Dinge muß man fassen können, muß man verstehen können, denn diese Dinge stellen die Kräfte dar, unter denen sich gegenwärtig dieWelt gestaltet. Wir stehen mitten darinnen in dieser Weltgestaltung. Man kann nicht zu einer fruchtbaren Idee von Weltgestaltung kommen, wenn man diese Dinge nicht berücksichtigt. Man durchschaut dann nicht, wie einem andere zuvorkommen. Denn jener Lord Northcliffe hat nicht nur britische, amerikanische und französische Zeitungen gekauft, sondern er hat zum Beispiel auch russische Zeitungen gekauft. Die «Nowoje Wremja» ist völlig in seinem Besitz, und damit spannt er seine Netze nach dem Osten hinüber, spannt, wohl unter der Anleitung solcher Menschen, die in gewissem Sinne die Dinge schon kennen, dasjenige, was Zukunft ist, in das Netz seines Vergangenen hinein. Und das steckt als etwas viel Tieferes, als man heute ahnt, in dem ostwestlichen Bündnis, in das wir hineingekeilt sind. An diesen Dingen ist gründlich und viel — auch noch auf anderen Gebieten — gearbeitet worden, mehr als sich die Menschen heute vorstellen, und viel systematischer als man sich oftmals heute denkt. Denn es ist eine furchtbare Idee, dem absterbenden Westen das Keimhafte des Ostens einzuimpfen. Aber wer beurteilt denn heute in der richtigen Weise bemerken tun es manche-,, daß plötzlich um die Wende des neunzehnten, zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts in der englischen Presse eine ganze Reihe von Pseudonymen auftaucht: Ignotus, Argus, Spektator und so weiter; wer beurteilt es von einem gewissen höheren Gesichtspunkte aus, daß auf der einen Seite die «Nowoje Wremja» gekauft wird, aber der Vertreter der «Nowoje Wremja» unter einem solchen Namen in London schreibt, so daß ein völliger Austausch desjenigen stattfindet, was im Westen an Hypertrophie herrscht, und dem Embryonalen, Keimhaften des Ostens. Das steckt hinter den Kulissen unseres gegenwärtigen Lebens, und das hängt zusammen mit den Gesetzen des Menschheitswerdens; das hängt zusammen mit den Gesetzen der Erdenentwickelung.

Wer glaubt, daß ich phantasiere, indem ich geradezu die Behauptung aufstelle: Im Beginne des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts wurde der europäisch-Östliche Geist mit dem europäisch-westlichen Geist zusammengekoppelt, und es wurde systematisch an dem Aufkommen einer öffentlichen Meinung gearbeitet — zunächst in den Redaktionen, von da aus in den Parlamenten, von da aus in unterirdischen Kanälen, aber zunächst auf ganz anderen Gebieten -, wer glaubt, daß ich phantasiere, der lese jene Briefe, die veröffentlicht worden sind von Frau Novikoff, der Gattin des russischen Gesandten in Wien, im Anfang des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, die die Frau Novikoff geschrieben hat an Mrs. Campbell-Bannerman, mit der sie in England bekannt geworden ist, und versuche sich dasjenige so recht vor die Seele zu führen, was er aus diesen Briefen lernen kann. Man wird sehen, daß ich nicht phantasiere, aber man wird dann für vieles die Erklärung finden, das heute wie unerklärlich, insbesondere vor den Seelen Mitteleuropas steht.

Wir brauchen andere Begriffe als diejenigen, die uns von altersher übertragen sind, wenn wir die bedeutsamen Umschwünge in unserer Zeit wirklich fassen wollen. Und was das Wichtigste ist: wir sind dazu veranlagt, uns zu erziehen, uns solche Begriffe zu bilden. Die Tatsachen, die heute geschehen, sollen wir doch nicht verschlafen. Hunderte und hunderte solcher Tatsachen könnten wir anführen, wie zum Beispiel diese: Im Sommer 1911 war eine große Versammlung in Oxford. Anwesend waren in ihren Amtskleidern in prunkvollem Aufzuge alle die Würdenträger und Professoren der Universität Oxford. Denn Haldane, der Lord Haldane hielt eine Rede. Und was war der Inhalt dieser Rede? Also der Kriegsminister des Ministeriums in England hielt eine Rede, und der Inhalt dieser Rede war ein streng wissenschaftlicher und er befaßte sich damit, daß er auseinandersetzte, welche ungeheueren Fortschritte die Entwickelung der Menschheit durch das Wesen des deutschen Geistes gemacht hatte; indem Lord Haldane den Leuten auseinandersetzte, daß da in erster Linie ein Beispiel ist, woran man sehen kann, daß die menschliche Kultur nicht durch brutale Gewalt, sondern durch die sittlichen Kräfte, die in der Kultur wirken, weitergetragen wird. Die ganze Rede war ein Panegyrikus auf die Zuverlässigkeit und das innere Gediegene des deutschen Geisteslebens. Als der Krieg ausgebrochen war, gehörte Lord Haldane zu denjenigen, welche völlig einstimmten in die Anschauungen, daß das deutsche Wesen sich eigentlich durch seinen Militarismus auslebe, und daß der deutsche Militarismus die Hölle für die Welt ist. Er betonte das stark. Derselbe Lord Haldane, welcher als junger Mann in Göttingen erschienen ist, verehrend zu Füßen des Philosophen Lotze gesessen hat, der die schönen Bücher über «Erziehung und Staat», und das schöne Buch «Ein Pfad zur Wirklichkeit» geschrieben hat; derselbe Lord Haldane, der das schöne Wort gesprochen hat über den Unterschied zwischen Hegel und Goethe: daß Goethe höher stünde, weil Hegel sage, so ungefähr, daß die Natur die höchsten Geheimnisse aussprechen würde, wenn man sie nur hören könnte, während Goethe das höhere Wort als Grundlage seiner ganzen Weltanschauung hat, daß, wenn die Natur wirklich alles, was der Mensch braucht, auszusagen hätte, so würde sie reden können. Es ist dies ein tiefes Wort, ein ungeheuer tiefes Wort, denn damit ist nichts Geringeres gesagt als: Goethe bekennt sich zum wirklichen Spiritualismus. Würde die Natur alles enthalten, was in der Welt ist, so würde sie es uns sagen; sagt sie es uns nicht, so ist es ein Beweis dafür, daß es noch anderes, nämlich Geistiges außer dem Naturdasein gibt. Das alles hat Haldane aus seinem Zusammenhang mit dem deutschen Geistesleben gesprochen. Dennoch — wir können hundert und hunderte von Beispielen angeben — sehen wir ihn plötzlich umschlagen.

Diese Erscheinungen sind keine solchen, über die man hinweg kommen wird mit der trivialen Auskunft: Wenn wir mal Frieden machen, wird das wieder gut sein, da gleicht sich das alles aus! — So glauben sehr viele Menschen. Es wird nicht so sein! Wir brauchen etwas wesentlich anderes. Wir brauchen es uns aber nicht zu erwerben, denn wir haben es im Grunde; wir können es doch, wenn wir nur wollen. Denn wir haben in Mitteleuropa dasjenige Wesen in uns, das es uns möglich macht, wirklich nach Westen und nach Osten hin zu verstehen, wenn wir wollen. Wir können verstehen, wenn wir wollen. Aber, wir müssen uns etwas Gewisses abgewöhnen, und das Abgewöhnen, das gibt uns das wirkliche Verstehen der Geisteswissenschaft. Aber man muß dann mit seinem Gemüte, mit seiner ganzen Seele, nicht mit dem theoretischen Geiste in der Geisteswissenschaft stecken.

Verzeihen Sie, wenn ich da etwas Persönliches spreche, aber das liegt uns Ja allen jetzt nahe, weil wir uns gegenseitig gut kennen, ich habe über Nietzsche geschrieben, und man sieht aus dem Buche, daß ich Nietzsche sehr verehre, daß ich ihn voll würdige. Nun, ich habe erst neulich an verschiedenen Orten davon gesprochen, wie sehr ich den Schwaben-Ästhetiker, den «V»-Vischer schätze und verehre, und wie er zu den Ersten gehörte, an die ich mich gewendet habe, als ich vor mehr als dreißig Jahren die ersten Keime legte zu dem, was ich jetzt Geisteswissenschaft nenne, wie er dazumal der Erste war, der mir entgegenkam, indem er mir sagte: Ihre Auffassung des Zeitbegriffs ist wirklich etwas, was fruchtbar ist für die Begründung der Geisteswissenschaft. — Also, ich verehre Nietzsche, ich versuchte ihn darzustellen in meinem Buche «Friedrich Nietzsche, ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit»; ich verehre den V-Vischer. Aber, nehmen wir jetzt die beiden. Eine interessante Stelle, die wir bei Nietzsche finden über den V-Vischer. Sie wissen, Nietzsche hat ja das dann vielfach gebrauchte Wort «Bildungsphilister» geprägt, indem er es auf David Friedrich Strauß angewendet hat, den Verfasser des «Leben Jesu» und «Der alte und der neue Glaube». V-Vischer war ein starker Verehrer von David Friedrich Strauß. Das ist das, was ich nur dazu sage, damit der Sinn hingelenkt wird. Aber über den V-Vischer machte Nietzsche die folgende schöne Bemerkung:

«. .. Jüngst machte ein Idioten-Urteil in historicis, ein Satz des zum Glück verblichenen ästhetischen Schwaben Vischer, die Runde durch die deutschen Zeitungen als eine ‹Wahrheit›, zu der jeder Deutsche Ja sagen müsse: «Die Renaissance und die Reformation, beide zusammen machen erst ein Ganzes — die ästhetische Wiedergeburt und die sittliche Wiedergeburt.» — Bei solchen Sätzen geht es mit meiner Geduld zu Ende, und ich spüre Lust, ich fühle es selbst als Pflicht, den Deutschen einmal zu sagen, was sie alles schon auf dem Gewissen haben. Alle großen Kulturverbrechen von vier Jahrhunderten haben sie auf dem Gewissen! .. .»

Man kann es also erleben, daß man den einen verehrt, den andern verehrt, daß man in gleicher Verehrung zu der beiden Vorstellungssystem steht, daß aber der eine den anderen einen Idioten nennt. Das ändert aber mein Urteil über keinen von beiden, weil, wenn ich dasjenige anerkenne, was der eine spricht und der andere spricht, ich mich nicht veranlaßt fühle, auf den einen oder anderen zu schwören, mich nicht veranlaßt fühle, dasselbe Urteil, das der eine über den anderen hat, auch zu dem meinigen zu machen, sondern es als seines zu verstehen. So, wie ich ganz gut weiß, daß ich, wenn ich hier diese Bücherlage ansehe, sie mir anders erscheint, als sie dem Herrn erscheint, der sie von dort ansieht.

Wir sind dazu veranlagt; wir sehen nur, daß bis jetzt vielfach Geister, die diese Veranlagung in sich recht zum Ausdruck gebracht haben, gewissermaßen seelisch gescheitert sind an dieser Anlage. Aber diese Anlage muß mit voller geistiger Gesundheit von uns aufgenommen und entwickelt werden.

Interessant ist, weil ja Hölderlin in einer gewissen Weise mit seinem «Hyperion in Griechenland» sich identifiziert hat, was da Hölderlin seinen Hyperion über die Deutschen sagen läßt. Und derjenige, der Hölderlin kennt, der weiß, daß das nicht nur Hyperions, sondern daß es, nur ganz stark, Hölderlins Ansicht ist. Er charakterisiert die Deutschen folgendermaßen:

«Barbaren von alters her, durch Fleiß und Wissenschaft und selbst durch Religion barbarischer geworden, tiefunfähig jedes göttlichen Gefühls, verdorben bis ins Mark zum Glück der heiligen Grazien, in jedem Grad der Übertreibung und der Ärmlichkeit beleidigend für jede gutgeartete Seele, dumpf und harmonielos, wie die Scherben eines weggeworfenen Gefäßes — das, mein Bellarmin, waren meine Tröster. — Es ist ein hartes Wort, und dennoch sag ich’s, weil es Wahrheit ist: ich kann kein Volk mir denken, das zerrissener wäre, wie die Deutschen. Handwerker, siehst du, aber keine Menschen; Denker, aber keine Menschen; Priester, aber keine Menschen; Herren und Knechte, junge und gesetzte Leute, aber keine Menschen und so weiter.»

Es könnten ja die Entente-Schriftsteller solche Dinge abschreiben, nicht wahr. Aber um etwas anderes handelt es sich: Derselbe Hölderlin, dessen Überzeugung dieses durchaus war, derselbe Hölderlin nannte Deutschland «das Herz Europas». Das heißt: es war ihm möglich, das eine Urteil und das andere Urteil zu haben. Und wir müssen diese Möglichkeit immer wieder und wiederum als mit unserer innersten Anlage zusammenhängend erkennen. Jenes abstrakte Haften an Widersprüchen müssen wir als das Haften an Einseitigkeit erkennen. Denn dasjenige, was sich im Osten entwickeln will, das wird überhaupt derlei Dinge, unter denen Westeuropa groß geworden ist, gar nicht mehr verstehen können. Daß man nicht ein Urteil und das entgegengesetzte auch haben kann, das wird man im Osten zukünftig nicht mehr verstehen können, weil sich im Osten die Vielseitigkeit herausentwickeln wird und man begreifen wird, daß man ein jegliches Ding nur dadurch erkennt, daß man ringsherum geht und es in vielen Gestaltungen zu schildern vermag. |

Das hängt aber mit dem zusammen, womit ich heute begonnen habe: mit dem notwendigen Verständnis, daß wir ein neues Verhältnis zur Wahrheit gewinnen müssen. Wir werden es nicht anders gewinnen, als wenn wir verstehen werden, daß das Leben in den Vorstellungen, in den Begriffen schon ein Leben im Geiste ist. Dieses nichtnaturwissenschaftliche - denn naturwissenschaftlich ist es nicht. —, aber dieses materialistische oder monistische Vorurteil müssen wir uns abgewöhnen, welches da besagt: wenn ich denke, brauche ich mein Gehirn, also geht aus meinem Gehirn das Denken hervor! - es ist das gerade so gescheit, als wenn jemand sagt: Hier ist eine Straße, da sind Fußspuren, — woher können diese Fußspuren nur kommen? Nun ja, da müssen selbstverständlich unten in der Erde Kräfte sein, welche diese Fußspuren gemacht haben. Jetzt studiere ich die Fußspuren und mache eine Theorie darüber, welche Kräfte da unten sind, welche herunter- und heraufstoßen, so daß die Erde, wenn sie weich ist, sich so bewegt, damit diese Fußspuren herauskommen. — Diese Leute wären geradeso gescheit wie derjenige, welcher in der Struktur und in den Bewegungen des Gehirns die Kräfte sucht, die das Denken bilden. Gerade so wie die Fußspuren etwas sind, was in der Erde gefunden wird, aber herrührt von dem Menschen, der darüber gegangen ist, so ist dasjenige, was Struktur des Gehirns ist, selbstverständlich so da, wie es die Biologie und Physiologie schildert, aber das Denken hat das eingegraben, und das Denken ist schon ein Geistiges.

Ja, aber das Gehirn muß doch da sein? — Selbstverständlich, der Erdboden muß auch da sein, wenn ich darüber gehen will! Das Gehirn muß als eine Widerlage da sein, solange ich zwischen Geburt und Tod lebe; es muß sich dasjenige, was in mir lebt, geistig lebt, nach den Bedingungen des Daseins zwischen Geburt und Tod an etwas zurückspiegeln. Dieser Spiegelungsapparat ist das Gehirn, nur daß- die Spiegelung eine lebendige ist, so wie wenn in einem Spiegel nicht bloß eine glatte Fläche das Licht spiegelt, sondern wie wenn sich alles eingraben würde, und man an der Struktur noch sehen könnte, was sich gespiegelt hat; so spiegelt es sich vom Gehirn aus. Man wird begreifen müssen, daß das Denken als solches schon etwas Spirituelles ist, daß wir bereits in der geistigen Welt drinnen stehen, wenn wir denken. Das volle Bewußtsein davon wird aber erst kommen, wenn das Denken sich befreit, wenn das Denken gewissermaßen in sich selbst sich wird erfangen können, so daß es so wird verlaufen können, wie ich das das vorige und vorvorige Mal geschildert habe, wo der Mensch sich feinere Zusammenhänge sucht, wo er versucht, dasjenige, was nicht nur an der Oberfläche, sondern unter der Oberfläche in feineren Zusammenhängen vorhanden ist, in sein feineres Denken hineinzunehmen.

Denn mit dem so von der Materie sich befreienden Denken wird man erst gewahr werden, was eigentlich das Denken als Geistiges ist. Dann wird man aber erst zu einem solchen Denken kommen, welches auch in der Welt schöpferisch sein kann. Denn sehen Sie, die Natur kann man allenfalls mit einem Denken erfassen, welches das aufnimmt, was die Naturerscheinungen selber sagen; wenn man aber Ideen finden soll, die sich in das soziale Leben einleben, die gewissermaßen die Menschheit regieren sollen, dann müssen diese Ideen wirklich im freien Denken selber entstehen. Daher ist unsere Zeit politisch so unendlich unfruchtbar, so steril, weil unserer Zeit das freie, das von der Materie losgetrennte Denken fehlt, das allein fähig ist, dem sozialen Leben etwas zu sein. Es fehlt uns eben zu stark die Möglichkeit, uns zu erheben von der Abhängigkeit dessen, was uns von außen erscheint, und uns zu erheben zu dem lebendigen Eigenweben des Denkens. Und das ist im Grunde genommen das nächste, wenn wir es so nennen wollen, mystische Bedürfnis, nicht das dunkle mystische Zeugs, was heute so vielfach immer wieder und wiederum getrieben wird, das Sich-selbstErleben im göttlichen inneren Sein und dergleichen, wie die Dinge so schön klingen; denn den Gott in seinem Innern erlebt jedes Wesen. Wenn man nur sagt: Mystik, Theosophie, das ist inneres Erleben seines Zusammenhanges mit der Einheit der Welt, mit dem Gotte in sich: der Maikäfer erlebt ihn auch, aber in seiner Art. Es handelt sich darum, daß wir zunächst beginnen müssen mit dem Erleben eben dieses lebendigen Webens des Denkens, das sich in konkreten Begriffen auslebt. Dann werden diese Begriffe auch konkret werden, werden sich einleben können in die soziale Struktur des Daseins.

Es ist sehr wichtig, sagte ich im Beginne der heutigen Betrachtung, daß wir nicht nur das Verhältnis des Menschen zu einer neuen Wahrheit als geisteswissenschaftlich ansehen, sondern daß wir zu der Empfindung durchdringen, daß dieses Verhältnis des Menschen zur Wahrheit selbst ein anderes werden muß, nämlich ein lebendiges, ein lebendiges Verbundensein mit der Wirklichkeit. Das ist für die Auffassung der großen Welterscheinungen, für die Auffassung des geschichtlichen Werdens, für die Auffassung der sozialen Gegenwart und Zukunft und auch für das Leben der einzelnen Menschenseele von ungeheurem Wert. Man wird nur beginnen müssen, die großen Linien und Strömungen fortzusetzen, welche begonnen haben, aber eben nicht fortgesetzt worden sind. Es hat seine guten Gründe — und wir werden auch von diesen noch sprechen -, daß in der zweiten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts vieles vergessen worden ist, verschüttet worden ist. Wenn ich eine Neuauflage meines Buches «Vom Menschenrätsel» werde erscheinen lassen, so werde ich wiederum auf so manche Erscheinung hinzuzeigen haben, die noch zu diesen vergessenen Klängen des Geisteslebens gehört. Man entdeckt da ganz außerordentlich vieles, wovon man sagen kann, daß unsere Geisteswissenschaft unmittelbar an dasjenige anknüpft, das schon da war in der ersten Hälfte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts und ganz vergessen worden ist. Hätte es fortbestanden was natürlich nur eine Hypothese ist, denn die Dinge hätten sich nicht anders entwickeln können, als sie sich entwickelt haben -, aber hätte es fortbestanden, dann würde der Mensch heute ganz anders den merkwürdigen, den schmerzvollen Ereignissen gegenüberstehen, denen er gegenübersteht, nicht so hilflos. Denn hilflos steht er ihnen in gewisser Beziehung eigentlich doch gegenüber.

Es ist merkwürdig — ich habe es wiederholt gesagt -, wie man vom Westen aus, namentlich von britischer Seite aus, mit den in Europa vorhandenen Kräften, aber in britisch-egoistischer Weise gerechnet hat, und wie dadurch sich die Gewitterwolken zusammengezogen haben, in deren Wirkungen wir jetzt leben. Ich habe auch hier in verflossenen Zeiten schon manches von den Ereignissen dargelegt, die unsere so traurige Gegenwart heraufgebracht haben. Aber aus mancherlei von dem, was ich auch wieder in der letzten Zeit gesagt habe, werden Sie ersehen, daß es wirklich nicht genügt, bloß diejenigen Ereignisse und Ereigniszusammenhänge anzusehen, die heute so vielfach geschildert werden, sondern tiefer zu schürfen, wirklich einzugehen auf manches so ungeheuer Bedeutsame, das sich zugetragen hat unter der Oberfläche des äußeren Geschehens, und das sich jetzt entlädt in den schwerwiegenden, so furchtbar über die Menschen hinflutenden Gegenwartsgeschehnissen. Manche Dinge sind so, daß sie heute wirklich noch nicht beim rechten Namen genannt werden können, weil sie die Menschen noch nicht würden hinnehmen wollen, aber es muß, wenn Licht in die Menschheitsentwickelung hineinkommen soll, möglich werden, auch an solche tieferen Geheimnisse, die mit dem Werden der Gegenwart zusammenhängen, heranzukommen, daran zu rühren. Das wird aber nur möglich sein, wenn man es aufrichtig und immer aufrichtiger meinen wird mit demjenigen, was hier eigentlich als Geisteswissenschaft gemeint ist.

Dann wird man allerdings diese Geisteswissenschaft nicht mehr verwechseln dürfen mit all dem törichten Zeug, das heute vielfach als mystische Strömungen, als mystische Gründungen und dergleichen sich geltend macht. Und ich muß schon immer wieder und wiederum betonen: Die Ereignisse gestalten sich so, daß ich in der Zukunft immer gründlicher und gründlicher das Tischtuch werde zerschneiden müssen zwischen dem, was in dieser Geisteswissenschaft, in dieser anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft gewollt und getan wird und zwischen all dem, was sich so gerne verwandt fühlen möchte mit diesem. Das, was in dieser Geisteswissenschaft gemeint ist, das will durchaus an die besten Impulse, die im Abendland gegeben worden sind, anknüpfen, aber es will eine Weiterentwickelung sein!

Ich bitte Sie, um das zum Schlusse zu sagen, nehmen Sie das Morgenland. Gewiß, es hat in einer ungeheuer hohen Ausbildung in alten Zeiten die Anschauung von den wiederholten Erdenleben gehabt. Es wurde diese Anschauung von den wiederholten Erdenleben, aus einer gewissen Entwickelung des menschlichen Innern herausgeholt, gewiß. Und es kann keine tiefere Auseinandersetzung über den Zusammenhang der einzelnen Menschenseele mit dem Weltenall, von einem gewissen Gesichtspunkte aus, geben, als zum Beispiel die Bhagavad Gira. Aber wir haben eben andere Aufgaben. Und nehmen Sie die Aufgabe, die inauguriert worden ist durch Lessing in seiner «Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts», in- welcher im Abendlande wiederum die Idee von den wiederholten Erdenleben auftritt. Wie springt sie da aus Lessings Denken hervor! Gewiß, auch er erinnert daran, daß es eine Lehre gewesen ist, die primitive Völkerschaften gehabt haben, aber er betrachtet die aufeinanderfolgenden Epochen der Menschheitsentwickelung, er betrachtet, wie sich eine spätere Epoche der Menschheitsentwickelung aus der früheren heraus entwickelt hat, und er versucht zu erkennen, wie das immer abgerissen würde, wenn nicht die Menschenseele selber es wäre, die von der Epoche A in die Epoche B, in die Epoche C dasjenige hinübertragen würde, was sie sich an Kräften errungen hat. Denken Sie, wenn wir als Menschenseele im grauesten Altertum der Erde gelebt haben und dann immer wieder und wiederum, dann sind wir es selber, die hinübertragen aus früheren Zeiten in die gegenwärtigen Zeiten dasjenige, was als Fäden, die durch die ganze geschichtliche Entwickelung getragen werden können, sich spinnt. Dann sind es die Menschen selber, die diese Epoche schaffen. Aus dieser historischen Anschauung, daß die Geschichte einen Sinn gewinnt, wenn die Menschen immer wiederkommen — denn es sind die Menschen, welche die Impulse aus der einen Epoche in die andere hinübertragen -, aus dieser großen historischen Betrachtung, nicht aus der einzelnen Menschenseele, wie im Orient, sondern aus geschichtlichem Überblick über die Menschheitsentwickelung springt bei Lessing der Gedanke über die wiederholten Erdenleben heraus.

Ein historisches Denken, Historie, Geschichte im höchsten Sinne, das ist die Aufgabe des Abendlandes. Dann müssen wir sie aber in jedem Augenblicke verstehen können. Geschichte — und Geschichte tritt uns ja auch entgegen, wenn die einzelnen Tatsachen uns zum Beispiel in dem Verstehen der verschiedensten Lebensalter vor Augen treten -, Geschichte ist es doch, wenn hier das Kind steht, hier der Mann, der Greis. Das, was geschichtlich ist, kann auch nebeneinander dastehen, aber begriffen kann es doch nur werden im Sinne der Geschichte, indem man weiß, wie der Greis Kind war, und wie der Greis Mann war, und wie das, was nacheinander lebt, auch nebeneinander steht. Ost-, West- und Mitteleuropa sind zwar nebeneinander, verstanden werden können sie aber nur dann, wenn wir sie im geschichtlichen Sinne auch als ein Nacheinander fassen können, aber dann im richtigen Sinne.

Das sind Aufgaben, die an jeden von uns gestellt werden, und wir werden im lebendigen Zusammenhang mit dem, was um uns ist, die Befriedigung unserer Seele gewinnen, wenn wir unseren Horizont über solche Dinge erweitern.

Eighth Lecture

In addition to the content of what I would like to illustrate through these reflections, it is also important to me to make it clear, precisely through these reflections, that in the spiritual-scientific sense, truth is something living. And it seems particularly necessary for the present time to acquire a sense of what this actually means: truth is something living. For you see, something that is alive is different at one time and different at another. Indeed, something that is alive may not even exist in a particular form at a certain time, but at another time it has a particular form. Something that is alive as a human being, when it is a child, is not yet an old person. Something that is alive is in a state of constant change. And the human being who will perhaps unfold his activity in the last decades of the twentieth century is such that we cannot yet speak of him as a being on the physical plane. All these are trivial self-evident truths. But they cease to be trivial self-evident truths when one learns to truly cherish the feeling of truth as something living.

Last time I spoke to you here about the nature of a certain contemporary statesman, Lloyd George. If someone had wanted to tell the same things, with the exception of the biographical details, with the exception of the purely external, factual details that could not have been told at that time because they had not yet happened, even in the slightest detail, in England in 1890 — back then, when Lloyd George was 27 years old — if he had wanted to speak then about the full significance of being 27, as we did here eight days ago, it would have been absurd in the spiritual-scientific sense. It could not and should not have been done.

For most people, truth is something they believe can be expressed in the same way at all times. But this is not the case when it comes to certain higher truths. The whole view of the age of human life in relation to the age of humanity is, in a sense, only now ripe to be expressed. For truth in this sense must be something effective at the same time. You need only consider the external aspect, which consists in the fact that if someone in 1890 had spoken of Lloyd George as the twenty-seven-year-old with his whole life program—as one could have done within certain limits, if one should have done so— one would have presented something like planting a certain plant in the ground in winter, when it should only be planted at another time of year. Such truths are not only accessible to our soul in abstract form, but they come to our soul at the time when they can be effective. This is something that applies not only to historical truths, to truths relating to the great development of the world, but it is also something that can be applied to the truth in its effectiveness for the individual human soul. I already made some hints to this effect last time.

I must mention this again and again because we are truly in a transitional state with regard to the concept of truth at present. A certain state in the understanding of truth is to be brought about by spiritual science. In a sense, humanity's relationship to truth must change in a certain way; it must undergo a certain development.

Last time, I pointed out how the individual human soul can easily come to feel, especially in our present time, that it is unsatisfied. And we want to concern ourselves first with the dissatisfaction of the human soul through certain ideas. We know that the human soul needs certain ideas about the world, about its own nature, about such fundamental questions as the question of immortality, about the question of world evolution. The human soul needs ideas with which it can, so to speak, live. If it cannot develop such ideas, if it can only develop unsatisfactory ideas, then it remains in a state of dissatisfaction, in a sense in a sick state. For many souls of the present day are in such a sick state, more than they are willing to admit. And there will be many more such souls in the near future than we can imagine today, unless people turn toward the kind of spiritual fulfillment that can be achieved through spiritual science.

Nature in its workings and essence is in many ways a reflection of the highest, most mysterious processes; one must only take the concept of reflection in the right way, not allow it to grow into a materialistic concept. This can be seen in the following. People very easily strive to acquire a certain set of ideas about which they can say: They satisfy my soul; they give my soul something to live on. People would prefer to have ready-made ideas. If one is asked to advise someone who has unsatisfactory ideas in their soul, and thus an unsatisfied soul within themselves, one often has the feeling that one should recommend this or that, a book or something similar, which can be read in a relatively short time, so that they then have something that satisfies their soul, with which they can go through the rest of their life satisfied. For someone who only slightly recognizes the essence of living truth within themselves, such a demand is like someone coming with the desire that, as a living human being, they should be given food that they can eat and that will then sustain their organism for the rest of their life. One should advise him to eat something that he will not need to eat again. That is, of course, absurd. Here you have a natural image of what can only be given spiritually. Spiritual science cannot give people something that they can accept once and then have enough of for the rest of their lives. I have often said: there is no worldview in your back pocket, there is no brief outline of a worldview, but spiritual science replaces ready-made concepts and ready-made ideas with something that must be processed by the soul in ever new ways, with which the soul must constantly engage anew. We obtain external truths, such as those provided by natural science, if we have a good memory: we receive them and then we have them. This cannot be the case with spiritual scientific truths. For natural scientific truths are given in concepts that are, in a sense, dead. The laws of nature as concepts are dead. Spiritual scientific truths must be given in living concepts. But if we condemn spiritual truths to dead concepts, that is, if we want to accept them as we accept natural truths, then they are no nourishment for the soul; they are stones that cannot be processed.

It is remarkable how, in accordance with what spiritual science should actually be and become in our time, the spiritual development of the nineteenth century worked toward this in a certain sense. But the last few decades have buried and forgotten much of what had been achieved. I would like to begin today by pointing out one thing: much of what was called, for example, “Eduard von Hartmann's pessimism” was misunderstood in the second half of the nineteenth century. And yet Eduard von Hartmann's pessimism was not actually meant in the way it was usually understood, because this understanding was based on the stereotypical concept that pessimism is the view that things in the world are not entirely good, that they are unsatisfactory, and therefore that the world is actually bad. And so, based on this concept of pessimism, Hartmann's philosophy was also judged with its concept of pessimism. From this point of view, it could never be done justice. Today it is actually still difficult to explain what this is all about, because in this area, I would say, something quite radical is at work, but something radical that must take place in the depths of the human soul.

Every schoolboy and schoolgirl today learns in physics the concept of the impenetrability of bodies. Children must learn this in such a way that when the teacher asks, “What is impenetrability?” they answer, “Impenetrability means that where one body is, another cannot be at the same time.” Physical impenetrability! Today, it is impossible to imagine that we may have to learn to rethink such things. I will briefly explain what I mean by this. In future times, people will no longer say: Impenetrability means that where one body is, another cannot be at the same time — but they will say: Bodies that have the property that where one is, another cannot be at the same time are physical bodies, physical beings, beings that have such properties that when they occupy a certain space, they exclude from that space another being of the same kind; they are physical bodies. The original essence of the definition will already change. In the future, we will no longer start from dogmatic concepts, but will have to start from immediate life. Today, there is much talk about having overcome old dogmatic beliefs and the like. The future will show that, with regard to the formation of more refined concepts, no age has been as mired in dogmatism as our own. We are completely stuffed full of dogmatism, especially our sciences and even more so our public thinking; nothing more than our political thinking, for example.

If we take the concept of pessimism so vividly — and now only in relation to Hartmann's concept of pessimism — the following emerges. Eduard von Hartmann says: There are many people who strive for happiness; they strive for immediate satisfaction in their souls and call this happiness. But this can never, in the highest sense, constitute a dignified existence, for the mere striving for the satisfaction of one's own being would lead to nothing else than a closing off of one's own being from the outside world. It would lead to a more or less crude or refined egoism. It cannot be the task of human beings merely to strive for the satisfaction of their own being; rather, it must be the task of human beings to place their living being into the whole world process, to devote themselves to the world process, to cooperate and participate in the world process. He would be prevented from doing so if, at any moment of his life, he could be satisfied with his external existence or his inner harmony in the fullest sense. Only when we are dissatisfied with our condition do we strive to continue working with the image process of the world. But that is pessimism in feeling. If we did not have this pessimism, says Eduard von Hartmann, of not being satisfied with any present state, we would lack the impulse to participate in evolution. So Eduard von Hartmann, in his time, still had to express himself quite philosophically and say that he represented empirical evolutionism in order to justify teleological evolutionism. But we can see that pessimism here becomes something different than when we start from the dogmatic concept of pessimism and draw conclusions from it. With this concept of pessimism, which I do not wish to elaborate on further here, Eduard von Hartmann is already, in a certain sense, on the path that spiritual science must take.

For this spiritual science shows us much more! This spiritual science shows us what a completely satisfying conception of our soul life would actually be. A completely satisfying conception of our soul life is exactly the same as an external foodstuff — one cannot even call it food — that we would eat and have no possibility of digesting, but would carry around inside us undigested. It is really the case that someone who picks up a book by Trine or Johannes Müller and wants to be satisfied by it has exactly the same desire as someone who wants to eat food that they can then carry around with them in their body. But if they do not carry it around with them, it is digested, and in the process it disappears, dissolving into its essence. But this is not the case with any idea that fully satisfies us. An idea that fully satisfies us always remains, if I may say so, in the stomach of the soul. And the more we believe we have an idea at the moment, the more we believe we can suck the satisfaction out of an idea, as it were, for our spiritual pleasure, the more we will see that if we want to live with this idea for a while, it can no longer satisfy us, but that it develops within us in such a way that it bores us, that it makes us tired of it, and so on.

This is related to what is often criticized about spiritual science as we represent it here. This spiritual science, as we represent it here, always seeks new and new points of view in the ideas it develops about the world. We could talk and talk, so to speak, and we would always find new and new points of view. Certain people then call this contradictions. In truth, these are transformations that point to the vitality of these spiritual scientific truths. In this way, rigid concepts, as we are accustomed to them today, cannot exist in this spiritual science. It can present individual spiritual scientific facts in an unambiguous way, but what is supposed to satisfy us as the content of a worldview is given in living concepts that can always be taken up anew by us. Those who take these concepts in, once they have let them pass through their souls, will find that they say one thing to them; then they let them pass through their souls again, and the same concepts say something completely different. And again they will say something completely different when he allows them to pass through his soul in a state of joy or happiness, and when he allows them to pass through his soul in a state of sadness or suffering. But if he has grasped them correctly in their liveliness, they will always tell him something. Because these spiritual scientific concepts are not meant to be mere images, but because they are meant to establish a living connection between the human soul and the whole infinite world, and because the world is infinite, they can never be fully exhausted; they are infinite. They should always, in every single case, establish a connection between the soul and the world. But we must also, in a sense, preserve our free receptivity to everything that can come to us from the world, and we must above all accustom ourselves in our thinking to the fact that certain fundamental concepts that seem self-evident to humanity today may no longer be of any use to us in the future. Take countless philosophies: in these countless philosophies you will almost always find a question emerging, the question of being. Being, unified being, is something that emerges again and again. And already from this question, as it is posed, countless impossibilities arise for the living human soul. Through these lectures, I would like to awaken in you the feeling that everything we call being, or what we attribute to things and beings as being, stands in a living relationship to becoming, and indeed in a peculiar relationship to becoming. In truth, neither Parmenides' old statement about rigid being nor Heraclitus' statement about becoming is true. There is being and becoming in the world, but only this: becoming is alive, being is always dead; and every being is a corpse of becoming. If you find being anywhere, for example in the nature that spreads out around us, spiritual science will answer you: this being — read this in The Secret Science — came into being because there was once becoming, and this becoming left behind its corpse, that which now surrounds us as being. Being is dead, becoming is alive!

The strange thing is that this significant fact applies to the life of the soul. If we want to find satisfaction in our soul through a definite, complete idea or series of ideas, we want to find satisfaction through being. We cannot do that! We can only find satisfaction through becoming; we can only find satisfaction through that which affects our soul in such a way that, when we take it into our soul, it becomes unconscious again, but by uniting with our soul, it stimulates us in a completely new way to ask these questions of the ever-lasting becoming. This is certainly something that leaves many people dissatisfied with spiritual science, because they want to have something finished. While spiritual science can only give instructions on how to “eat the spiritual” — you will understand me — people want to have finished food. This is something our age has to reckon with, because it is full of the opposite feeling.

What is our age full of? Our age is full of the completely opposite feeling, the feeling that one must absorb some ready-made worldview as quickly as possible. Much of what I would call sickness in our souls can only be healed by developing an interest in living life with truth, not by developing a greed for ready-made truths. Clearly defined truths, however, that which is expressed in ready-made concepts, always refer to the past. In some way, what is expressed in ready-made concepts always refers to the past. We can take in the truth that the past has, as it were, set aside, and it then lives in us; and as it lives in us, we live with the truth.

Now, however, our time is in the midst of a process of transformation in this respect, and this process of transformation is manifesting itself to us in a strange polar opposition, the opposition between West and East in Europe; and we in Central Europe are placed in the midst of this polar opposition. What constitutes one pole, the West, has, so to speak, already reached a state of hypertrophy, of overripeness; what the East represents is not even in its infancy, hardly even embryonic. Let us be clear about this: what we see in this strange East, which seems so chaotic to us today, is difficult to understand in Central Europe, and least of all in Western Europe. How many different arguments are there now about the nature of the Russian people, about what is asserting itself in Eastern Europe, let us stick to that. I read recently, for example, how a gentleman, very intelligently, as he himself naturally believes, argues that the Russian people are now, in a sense, going through the same conditions that Central and Western Europe went through in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, the peoples of Central and Western Europe had more faith, more of a certain mystical reverie; the same is true of the East today. So the East is going through the Middle Ages. But since then, intellectualism and rational culture with its scientific appendage have come to us, and the people of the East now have to catch up.

None of this is true! The truth is rather that the Russian people do indeed have a mystical disposition, but that this mysticism has an intellectual effect at the same time — intellectualistic mysticism — and the intellect has a mystical effect — mystical intellectualism, which did not exist at all in Central Europe. It is something completely different, something new that is coming, just as a child grows up and becomes something different from the old man standing next to him, who may be his grandfather. But it is not possible for people today to sleep and dream their way through these things. And we in Central Europe in particular have an urgent need to seek understanding of these things. And if we do not try to seek an understanding of this polar opposition, we will truly not be able to overcome the chaos of the present.

However, it is very difficult to grasp this contrast between East and West clearly, because what is in the West is, in a sense, already beyond maturity; what is in the East is, as I have said, barely embryonic; and yet we must gain an understanding of it. In the West, and also in Central Europe, we have a very specific, let's call it superstition, which does not exist in the East, and where it does exist, it has only been learned from the West. We have a very specific superstition in the West and in Central Europe. Well, to put it in the most grotesque terms, I would say it is a superstition for the book, for what is written in the book. That is just a grotesque way of putting it, but it encompasses a whole complex of cultural facts. We in the West are attached to what can be put into a book, what can be written down, fixed, so to speak, what, in other words, can be detached from humanity and objectified, and we value that above all else. We value it not only in that our libraries have grown into gigantic monsters, and these libraries mean something tremendous to us, especially if we want to do scientific work, but we also value it in another respect: we value it, for example, in that we have a certain sum of concepts that people have thought up and that have become detached from people. We call a collection of concepts liberalism, and when a number of people, a group of people, profess this, we call this group of people a liberal party. Such a liberal party is in reality nothing more than what emerges when something like a liberal “theory” spreads like a spider's web over a number of people; that is, something that can be written down in a book. And so it is with other things. And we are even more and more under the superstition of this theory that everything is fixed in this way so that we know what we are dealing with.

In the West, we have seen a whole series of not only ordinary theories emerge in rapid succession, such as liberalism, conservatism, and so on, but we have also found comprehensive universal theories written in books: Proudhonian and Bellamy world designs; a large number of utopias, and the further west, the more. Central Europe has produced relatively few, even, if you look into it, not a single utopia; utopias are all the result of the Anglo-Saxon and Romanic races. They only appear in Central Europe from time to time because things also appear displaced there. This detachment of what actually lives in human beings, turning it into something external that can be fixed, and living with the fixed, is what belongs to the superstition of the West, and what Central Europe has adopted to a certain extent from the West. In certain movements, especially mystical and other such movements, this has even taken on a rather serious character, in that great importance has been attached to not having anything that is alive in the present, but rather something old that can be drawn from old books or old traditions—in short, something that is detached from human beings, even though it must once have lived within them. Some people are not at all interested when you present them with this or that concept about spiritual worlds in a direct form. But if you tell them, “That is what the ancient Rosicrucians thought, that is Rosicrucian wisdom,” or if you want to found a certain sect, that is to say, a society, and refer to “ancient temples, mystical temples,” “mystical Oriental temples,” and so on, and point out how old these things are, that is, when they were deposited, when they were fixed, then some people feel extremely satisfied.

This is, I would say, the general situation, but it has really become hypertrophied in the West and is becoming more and more extreme. For this is closely connected with a certain despotism of the spiritual, detached from human beings, over human beings themselves. Ultimately, the rule of the spiritual that has been cast out appears over the immediately elementary-human. Man is then to be eliminated, and that which he has cast out is to become dominant in some form. But that which is cast out into the world strives for materialization, not only for conception in the materialistic sense, but for materialization. And in this respect, the Western world has already gone very, very far. People usually do not look for the inner laws in such things, but these inner laws do exist, and in the near future, humanity will suffer greatly for not seeking them.

There is a man in the present day who, having formerly borne a bourgeois name, now bears the name Lord Northcliffe; the great newspaper magnate of England and now gradually of America as well. Some time ago, this man began to entertain the idea: How can social life, the coexistence of human beings, be made independent of human beings themselves? How can one establish, so to speak, the rule of something detached from man over man? He began, so to speak, with theories, saying: Every province has its newspaper; individual people always write in these newspapers, and thus the newspaper of each province is different from that of another province. How wonderful it would be if, little by little, a uniform template could be imposed on the various provincial presses, so that all the good articles on chemistry written by famous chemists, all the good articles on physics written by good physicists, all the good articles on biology written by famous biologists, and so on, could be collected in a central office. These would then be distributed to the individual newspapers, which would all publish the same articles. And even if they were to be different, the differences would be determined by the central office. Of course, it would not be possible to publish the same thing everywhere, simply because the languages would be different, but everything could be centralized.

And lo and behold: that man has come a long way in this direction, and today he is, in a sense, the invisible ruler of a large part of the British, French, and American press in general, in that nothing appears in certain press outlets in England, France, and America that does not originate from this central office. And the other press, which is still independent of him, has a very difficult time surviving alongside what flows through his channels. But his ideal is to remove everything that does not flow from a single source. Think of the possibilities, given the prevailing belief in something that has separated itself from human beings but then approaches them in this way! Think of the possibilities for exercising enormous tyranny over the individual human being from this side!

To restore the individual human being to his full validity, to put the individual human being back on his own feet, that is indeed the disposition of the people of the East; to overcome the book, to overcome the fixed, and to put the human being in its place. The ideal state to which the East aspires is one in which people read less, allow themselves to be influenced less by the fixed, but instead focus on everything that is directly related to the individual human being. The individual will listen to others again; the individual will know that there is a difference between words that come from the person themselves and words that have been separated from them and have taken a detour through the printing press and the like. Certainly, in some areas, only the first steps have been taken in this direction, but they are very, very significant, terrible first steps. I mean that in the West, the first steps toward separation have been taken, but they are terrible first steps.

The fact that there is a separation from man has led us in many areas, especially in art, to reproduction processes that are now really capable of driving out the sense of artistry. In many cases, this has made it impossible to see the individual in a work of art, especially in works of art for everyday use, and it is difficult to understand the resistance to the nonsense of the times. Perhaps you will have noticed that some of our ladies are once again wearing rings or other similar items, but each one is different because importance is attached to the fact that there is something individual in them, something that represents a direct individual or ideal relationship between the individual object and the person who made it. There is not much understanding for such things in an age when everything is mass-produced, that is, objectified, detached from human beings. Our things very often contain intentions that are really connected with the development of time and which one might consider mere hobbies, but which are desired because of such connections. But what is being prepared in the East, the building on the individual, the enhancement of the immediate value of the human being, is only in its most embryonic stage. What is being prepared there? In the West, let's say Marxism has developed. What is Marxism? — I could just as well call it something else — what is Marxism? It is a theory that presents such a conception of reality in terms that, under this conception of reality, all people can live together properly in social relationships.

In the East, a spiritual type is preparing itself that regards it as complete nonsense to be able to spin out something that is a universally valid theory about human coexistence; this will appear to the worldview that is developing in the East as complete nonsense. For people will say: You cannot fix the way in which people should live together; that is something each individual must decide for himself, each individual must demonstrate, it must develop within human coexistence itself. A certain, if I may use a word that is a stereotype—I do so reluctantly, but one must use certain terms—a certain individualism, but a truly creative individualism, is preparing itself in the East.

One must be able to grasp these things, one must be able to understand them, because these things represent the forces that are currently shaping the world. We are standing in the midst of this world shaping. One cannot arrive at a fruitful idea of world shaping if one does not take these things into account. One then fails to see how others are getting ahead of one. For Lord Northcliffe not only bought British, American, and French newspapers, but also Russian newspapers, for example. The “Nowoje Wremja” is entirely in his possession, and with it he is spreading his nets toward the East, spreading, probably under the guidance of people who in a certain sense already know what the future holds, the future into the net of his past. And this lies much deeper than we suspect today in the East-West alliance in which we are wedged. A great deal of thorough work has been done on these things, including in other areas, more than people today imagine, and much more systematically than is often thought today. For it is a terrible idea to inoculate the dying West with the seeds of the East. But who today can judge correctly—some people do notice it—that suddenly, at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a whole series of pseudonyms appeared in the English press: Ignotus, Argus, Spektator, and so on; who can judge from a certain higher point of view that, on the one hand, the “Nowoye Vremya” is being bought, but the representative of the “Nowoye Vremya” writes under such a name in London, so that a complete exchange takes place between what prevails in the West in the form of hypertrophy and the embryonic, germ-like elements of the East. This is what lies behind the scenes of our present life, and it is connected with the laws of human evolution; it is connected with the laws of the Earth's development.

Whoever believes that I am fantasizing when I make the following assertion: At the beginning of the twentieth century, the European-Eastern spirit was coupled with the European-Western spirit, and systematic work was done to bring about the emergence of a public opinion — first in the editorial offices, then in the parliaments, then in underground channels, but initially in completely different areas — anyone who believes that I am fantasizing should read those letters published by Mrs. Novikoff, the wife of the Russian ambassador in Vienna, at the beginning of the twentieth century, which Mrs. Novikoff wrote to Mrs. Campbell-Bannerman, with whom she had become acquainted in England, and try to really take to heart what he can learn from these letters. You will see that I am not fantasizing, but you will then find explanations for many things that today seem inexplicable, especially to the souls of Central Europe.

We need different concepts than those handed down to us from time immemorial if we really want to grasp the significant upheavals of our time. And what is most important: we are predisposed to educate ourselves to form such concepts. We must not sleep through the events that are happening today. We could cite hundreds and hundreds of such events, such as the following: In the summer of 1911, there was a large gathering in Oxford. All the dignitaries and professors of Oxford University were present in their official robes in a magnificent procession. For Haldane, Lord Haldane, was giving a speech. And what was the content of this speech? Well, the Minister of War of the British Ministry gave a speech, and the content of this speech was strictly scientific, and he dealt with the tremendous progress that the development of humanity had made through the essence of the German spirit. Lord Haldane explained to the people that this was a prime example of how human culture is not carried forward by brute force, but by the moral forces at work in culture. The whole speech was a panegyric on the reliability and inner substance of German intellectual life. When the war broke out, Lord Haldane was among those who fully agreed with the view that the German character was actually living out its militarism and that German militarism was hell for the world. He emphasized this strongly. The same Lord Haldane who appeared in Göttingen as a young man, sitting reverently at the feet of the philosopher Lotze, who wrote the beautiful books on “Education and the State” and the beautiful book “A Path to Reality”; the same Lord Haldane who spoke the beautiful words about the difference between Hegel and Goethe: that Goethe was superior because Hegel said, more or less, that nature would reveal its highest secrets if only we could hear them, while Goethe's higher word, which was the foundation of his entire worldview, was that if nature really had everything that man needs to say, then it would be able to speak. This is a profound statement, an enormously profound statement, for it says nothing less than this: Goethe professes real spiritualism. If nature contained everything that is in the world, it would tell us so; if it does not tell us so, this is proof that there is something else, namely something spiritual, beyond natural existence. Haldane spoke all this from his connection with German intellectual life. Nevertheless — and we can give hundreds and hundreds of examples — we suddenly see him change his mind.

These phenomena are not such that can be dismissed with the trivial explanation: Once we make peace, everything will be fine again, everything will balance itself out! — This is what many people believe. It will not be so! We need something fundamentally different. But we do not need to acquire it, because we already have it within us; we can do it if we only want to. For we in Central Europe have within us the essence that enables us to truly understand both the West and the East, if we want to. We can understand if we want to. But we have to unlearn certain things, and it is this unlearning that gives us a real understanding of spiritual science. But then you have to be involved in spiritual science with your whole mind, with your whole soul, not just with your theoretical mind.

Forgive me if I say something personal, but it is close to all of us now because we know each other well. I have written about Nietzsche, and you can see from the book that I greatly admire Nietzsche, that I fully appreciate him. Well, I spoke recently in various places about how much I appreciate and admire the Swabian aesthete, the “V” Vischer, and how he was one of the first people I turned to when, more than thirty years ago, I sowed the first seeds of what I now call spiritual science, how he was the first to come to me at that time who came to meet me and said: Your conception of the concept of time is truly something that is fruitful for the foundation of spiritual science. — So, I revere Nietzsche, I tried to portray him in my book Friedrich Nietzsche, a fighter against his time; I revere the V-Vischer. But let us now take these two. There is an interesting passage in Nietzsche about V-Vischer. As you know, Nietzsche coined the much-used term “Bildungsphilister” (educated philistine) by applying it to David Friedrich Strauss, the author of “The Life of Jesus” and “The Old and the New Faith.” V-Vischer was a great admirer of David Friedrich Strauss. That's all I'll say about that, just to give you some context. But Nietzsche made the following beautiful remark about V-Vischer:

”... Recently, an idiotic judgment in historicis, a sentence by the fortunately deceased aesthetic Swabian Vischer, made the rounds in German newspapers as a ‘truth’ to which every German must say yes: ‘The Renaissance and the Reformation, both together make a whole — the aesthetic rebirth and the moral rebirth.’ Such statements test my patience to the limit, and I feel compelled to tell the Germans what they have on their conscience. They have all the great cultural crimes of four centuries on their conscience! ...”

So it is possible to revere one person and revere another, to hold both systems of thought in equal esteem, but for one person to call the other an idiot. But that does not change my opinion of either of them, because when I acknowledge what one says and what the other says, I do not feel compelled to swear allegiance to one or the other, I do not feel compelled to adopt the same opinion that one has of the other as my own, but rather to understand it as his. Just as I know very well that when I look at these books here, they appear to me differently than they appear to the gentleman who is looking at them from there.

We are predisposed to this; we only see that, up to now, many minds that have expressed this predisposition in themselves have, in a sense, failed spiritually because of this disposition. But this disposition must be taken up and developed by us with complete mental health.

It is interesting, because Hölderlin identified himself in a certain way with his “Hyperion in Greece,” what Hölderlin has his Hyperion say about the Germans. And anyone who knows Hölderlin knows that this is not only Hyperion's view, but also, very strongly, Hölderlin's. He characterizes the Germans as follows:

” Barbarians from time immemorial, made even more barbaric by diligence and science and even by religion, deeply incapable of any divine feeling, corrupt to the core to the delight of the holy graces, offensive to every good-natured soul in every degree of exaggeration and poverty, dull and lacking in harmony, like the shards of a discarded vessel — that, my Bellarmin, was my consolation. — It is a harsh word, and yet I say it because it is the truth: I cannot imagine a people more torn apart than the Germans. Craftsmen, you see, but not human beings; thinkers, but not human beings; priests, but not human beings; masters and servants, young and old, but not human beings, and so on."

The Entente writers could copy such things, couldn't they? But there is something else at stake here: the same Hölderlin, whose conviction this was, the same Hölderlin called Germany “the heart of Europe.” That means it was possible for him to hold one opinion and the other. And we must recognize this possibility again and again as being connected with our innermost disposition. We must recognize this abstract adherence to contradictions as adherence to one-sidedness. For what wants to develop in the East will no longer be able to understand the things that made Western Europe great. In the future, people in the East will no longer be able to understand that one cannot hold one opinion and its opposite at the same time, because diversity will develop in the East and people will realize that one can only understand something by looking at it from all sides and being able to describe it in many different ways.

But this is connected with what I began with today: with the necessary understanding that we must gain a new relationship to truth. We will not gain it in any other way than by understanding that life in ideas, in concepts, is already a life in the spirit. We must rid ourselves of this non-scientific—for it is not scientific—but this materialistic or monistic prejudice, which says: when I think, I need my brain, therefore thinking comes from my brain! This is just as clever as someone saying: here is a road, there are footprints—where can these footprints come from? Well, of course there must be forces in the earth that made these footprints. Now I study the footprints and develop a theory about what forces are down there, pushing down and up, so that when the earth is soft, it moves in such a way that these footprints appear. These people would be just as clever as someone who looks for the forces that form thinking in the structure and movements of the brain. Just as footprints are something found in the earth but originate from the person who walked over it, so the structure of the brain is of course there as biology and physiology describe it, but thinking has engraved it there, and thinking is already something spiritual.

Yes, but the brain must be there, mustn't it? — Of course, the ground must also be there if I want to walk on it! The brain must be there as a support as long as I live between birth and death; that which lives in me, lives spiritually, must be reflected back onto something according to the conditions of existence between birth and death. This mirroring apparatus is the brain, except that the reflection is a living one, just as when in a mirror it is not merely a smooth surface that reflects the light, but as if everything were engraved in it, and one could still see on the structure what has been reflected; so it is reflected from the brain. We will have to understand that thinking as such is already something spiritual, that we are already in the spiritual world when we think. However, full awareness of this will only come when thinking frees itself, when thinking can, as it were, catch itself in itself, so that it can proceed as as I described last time and the time before, where people seek finer connections, where they try to take into their finer thinking that which is present not only on the surface but also beneath the surface in finer connections.

For it is only with thinking that is thus freed from matter that one will become aware of what thinking actually is as something spiritual. But only then will we arrive at a way of thinking that can also be creative in the world. For you see, nature can at best be grasped by a way of thinking that takes in what natural phenomena themselves say; but if we are to find ideas that can take root in social life, that can, so to speak, govern humanity, then these ideas must really arise in free thinking itself. That is why our time is so infinitely barren, so sterile politically, because our time lacks free thinking, thinking that is detached from matter, which alone is capable of being something for social life. We lack too strongly the ability to rise above our dependence on what appears to us from outside and to rise to the living fabric of thinking itself. And that is basically the next, if we want to call it that, mystical need, not the dark mystical stuff that is so often driven again and again today, the experience of oneself in the divine inner being and the like, as beautiful as these things sound; for every being experiences God within itself. If one simply says: mysticism, theosophy, that is the inner experience of one's connection with the unity of the world, with the God within oneself: the May beetle also experiences this, but in its own way. The point is that we must first begin with the experience of this living web of thought, which lives itself out in concrete concepts. Then these concepts will also become concrete and will be able to take root in the social structure of existence.

It is very important, as I said at the beginning of today's reflection, that we do not merely regard the relationship of human beings to a new truth as something belonging to the spiritual sciences, but that we penetrate to the feeling that this relationship of human beings to truth itself must become something different, namely a living, living connection with reality. This is of immense value for our understanding of the great phenomena of the world, for our understanding of historical development, for our understanding of the social present and future, and also for the life of the individual human soul. We will simply have to begin to continue the great lines and currents that have begun but have not been continued. There are good reasons — and we will speak of these later — why much was forgotten and buried in the second half of the nineteenth century. When I publish a new edition of my book “The Mystery of Man,” I will again have to point to many phenomena that still belong to these forgotten sounds of spiritual life. One discovers there an extraordinary amount of things about which one can say that our spiritual science directly ties in with what was already there in the first half of the nineteenth century and has been completely forgotten. Had it continued to exist—which is of course only a hypothesis, because things could not have developed differently than they did—but had it continued to exist, then human beings today would face the strange, painful events they are facing in a completely different way, not so helplessly. For in a certain sense they are indeed helpless in the face of these events.

It is strange—I have said this repeatedly—how the West, especially Britain, calculated with the forces available in Europe in a British-egoistic manner, and how this caused the storm clouds to gather, the effects of which we are now living through. I have already explained here in the past some of the events that have brought about our sad present situation. But from some of what I have said again recently, you will see that it is really not enough to look only at the events and connections between events that are so often described today. but to dig deeper, to really get into some of the incredibly important stuff that happened beneath the surface of what was going on, and that's now coming out in the serious events that are hitting people so hard. Some things are such that they cannot yet be called by their proper names, because people would not yet be willing to accept them, but if light is to shine into human evolution, it must become possible to approach and touch upon such deeper mysteries that are connected with the becoming of the present. But this will only be possible if we are sincere and increasingly sincere about what is actually meant here by spiritual science.

Then, of course, we will no longer be able to confuse this spiritual science with all the foolish stuff that is widely accepted today as mystical currents, mystical foundations, and the like. And I must emphasize again and again: events are shaping themselves in such a way that in the future I will have to draw an ever clearer line between what is intended and done in this spiritual science, in this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, and between everything that would like to feel related to it. What is meant in this spiritual science certainly wants to build on the best impulses that have been given in the West, but it wants to be a further development!

I ask you, to conclude, to take the Orient. Certainly, in ancient times, it had a highly developed view of repeated lives on earth. This view of repeated lives on earth was certainly derived from a certain development of the human inner life. And from a certain point of view, there can be no deeper discussion of the connection between the individual human soul and the universe than, for example, the Bhagavad Gita. But we have other tasks. Take the task inaugurated by Lessing in his “Education of the Human Race,” in which the idea of repeated earthly lives reappears in the West. How it springs forth from Lessing's thinking! Certainly, he also recalls that it was a teaching held by primitive peoples, but he considers the successive epochs of human development, he considers how a later epoch of human development has developed out of the earlier one, and he tries to recognize how this would always be interrupted if it were not the human soul itself that carried over from epoch A to epoch B, to epoch C, what it had acquired in terms of powers. Think about it: if we as human souls lived in the gravest antiquity of the earth and then again and again, then it is we ourselves who carry over from earlier times into the present times that which can be spun as threads that run through the entire historical development. Then it is human beings themselves who create this epoch. From this historical view, that history gains meaning when human beings return again and again—for it is human beings who carry the impulses from one epoch to another—from this great historical perspective, not from the individual human soul, as in the Orient, but from a historical overview of human development, Lessing's idea of repeated lives on earth springs forth.

Historical thinking, history in the highest sense, is the task of the West. But then we must be able to understand it at every moment. History — and history does indeed confront us when, for example, individual facts appear before our eyes in the understanding of the most diverse stages of life — history is when the child stands here, the man here, the old man here. What is historical can also exist side by side, but it can only be understood in the sense of history if we know how the old man was as a child, how the old man was as a man, and how what lives one after the other also exists side by side. Eastern, Western, and Central Europe may exist side by side, but they can only be understood if we can also grasp them in a historical sense as a succession, but then in the right sense.

These are tasks that are set for each of us, and we will find satisfaction for our souls in the living context of what surrounds us if we broaden our horizons to include such things.