The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Karma of Materialism IX

[ 1 ] The time has now come for humanity when the mysteries of human life are making a profound impact on people’s souls. One can indeed see that this or that person has taken notice of these mysteries; yet there is little inclination to seek out ways and means to uncover the secrets behind them. Today I would like to begin by pointing out one of these mysteries—a mystery of immediate life—that many encounter in the present. Today, some people ask themselves: How is it that such a disharmony exists between the intellectual and moral development of people across the earth? — Intellectual development, which finds its expression in what is—well, let us say, with more or less justification—also called scientific development in recent times, and which, after all, underlies the worldview of most people—this intellectual development: what has it not brought forth! It has produced all the external, material products of civilization, which I need not list in detail. When we think of all that this intellectual development has brought to the surface so far, enabling people to destroy one another—all the magnificently devised means of human destruction it has brought to light—then, setting aside all the moral underpinnings involved, one cannot help but conclude that this intellectual development has reached a pinnacle. Just imagine what scientific knowledge was necessary to bring about all the instruments of murder under which humanity currently suffers, with which it is tearing itself apart. One may reflect on many positive aspects, and on many negative aspects, of intellectual development, but one really cannot say anything other than this: this intellectual development has progressed along an unparalleled upward trajectory, especially in recent centuries. Some have noted that this stands in glaring disharmony with what is called the moral development of humanity, and here and there one encounters statements by contemporary thinkers who point to this disharmony. Years ago, in his notorious book on the mysteries of the world, Ernst Haeckel pointed out how humanity has advanced intellectually, yet in many respects has not progressed beyond the most primitive stage in terms of moral concepts; and now, once again, some are drawing attention to this discrepancy between the two. These matters press themselves upon the human mind—provided, as I have often explained, that this mind does not remain oblivious to the present. But the fact that only spiritual science can provide an answer to such weighty questions—questions that penetrate to the depths of the human being—is something that people today, out of the spiritual and psychological complacency I have often described to you, are unwilling to accept. And yet, a way to find one’s bearings in the present’s so tangled circumstances will only be possible if people are willing to engage with such matters—to engage from perspectives that can only be attained through spiritual insight. Is it not true that it cuts deeply into a soul endowed with healthy sensibility when it must admit to itself the unease that is now spreading across the entire globe—an unwillingness to look clearly and truthfully at the things that are unfolding or that lie beneath the surface of these unfolding events? One might say: What a disparity there is between the way people have long dwelled on so many measures from bygone times that appear immoral; how strange this seems when one contrasts it with what people now judge—or fail to judge—even though the scale of what is unfolding across the earth today is more terrible than anything that has ever occurred in the course of human development. Let us consider the relationship between humanity’s intellectual development and its moral development from the perspective that can be gained through spiritual science.

[ 2 ] First, we must ask the question: What aspect of the human being is intellectual development actually dependent on? What is it that is at work within us when we think in a scientific sense—when we think in order to explain nature to ourselves, when we reflect in order to describe the laws of nature, and when we form concepts about the world in accordance with the laws of nature? What is actually at work within us in these moments? Well, what is at work within us are the oldest aspects of human nature—those we can observe when we begin with the Saturn evolution as we know it, and proceed through the Sun evolution, the Moon evolution, and on to the Earth evolution—when we look at what has been instilled in and imagined by humanity. These constitute the tools of intellectual development today. If, on the other hand, we wish to deal with moral development from a cognitive standpoint, we cannot point to these ancient components of the human being; rather, with regard to moral development, we are dealing with relatively much younger aspects of human nature—indeed, in the truest moral sense, only the “I” itself can be considered. But how often have I said that the “I” is the baby among the elements of the human being; not even in the case of the astral body—which was incorporated into the human being during the Lunar evolution—can one yet speak of moral impulses. One can speak of moral impulses in connection with the astral body only to the extent that the “I” is in intimate connection with this astral body during life, and thereby the impulses of morality that assert themselves in the “I” are transmitted to the astral body. But just consider that the “I” and the astral body possess a relatively high degree of independence and detach themselves from the physical body and the etheric body every night during sleep, after which they live in a state of complete unconsciousness. In this state of unconsciousness, they are not yet capable of receiving moral impulses.

[ 3 ] Now consider the following, which is important, even if it is still somewhat difficult for people today to grasp. Every time we wake up, our ego and our astral body enter our physical body and etheric body—which are the oldest aspects of human evolution. Through their Saturn, Sun, and Moon phases of development, these have become, above all, the instruments of intellectual evolution and, in this regard, have flourished to a certain degree of perfection. This degree of perfection is, of course, innate to them, and what is innate to them manifests precisely as intellectual development. In a certain sense, we would be thinking machines, scientific machines, if the “I” and the astral body were not added to our physical and etheric bodies. But just as our physical body and our etheric body are, they are also, in a certain sense, automatic. Fundamentally, they are capable of further development on Earth only because they are inhabited by the “I.” But this “I” would be able to do little to perfect even the intellectual capacities of the physical and etheric bodies if it were not led into sleep every night. We receive our greatest strengths—including those for intellectual development—during sleep. What we receive during sleep we then carry into the physical and etheric bodies, and because these are, so to speak, developed, perfect instruments, it follows that when, upon waking, the I immerses itself in the etheric and physical bodies, the established pathways of intellectuality can be further developed by this I from the spiritual world. Then, during the day, the necessary consciousness is added—the consciousness that is, of course, attained through the physical and etheric bodies. With regard to the actual “I” and the astral body, however, we do not yet have the same level of consciousness in the present time. I ask you to take this into account very particularly. Human beings believe they know their “I,” but how do they know their “I”? If you have a red surface and make a hole in it, but the background is dark—that is, there is nothing there—then you see red, and you see the hole as a black circle; you perceive nothingness where the black circle is; there is nothing there. Just as with the surrounding red, so too do you see the “I” in your soul life. In truth, what a person believes to be their perception of the “I” is merely a hole in their soul life. Because there is still nothing there—or at least not much—the person believes they are perceiving their “I” there, while all around them they perceive only what their brain shows them through their physical and etheric bodies. For in the present stage of human development, while a person dwells in the physical body between birth and death, the perception of the “I” is not yet very advanced. During sleep, we are unconscious. But with regard to the “I,” we are also unconscious during the day, while awake, and yet the moral must be instilled in the “I.” So you see, with regard to the instillation of morality, human beings are still quite infantile in relation to their intellectuality. This is the deeper reason why, during Earth’s evolution, human beings make such extraordinarily difficult progress in moral matters, while intellectual development proceeds relatively easily.

[ 4 ] Recently, an essay appeared in a magazine—which, though it is called “Die Glocke” (“The Bell”), does not always ring very wisely, and which was founded during the war—that addressed precisely this discrepancy between intellectual and moral development. According to the sentiment of this “ringing bell,” any discrepancy between intellectual and moral development is attributed to the fact that intellectual development has thus far taken place under the banner of capitalism, under the rule of the few, and that moral development can only come about once socialism takes hold. Now, idealists establish worldviews so that they may culminate in the dogma: There will be a paradise on earth once idealism prevails. Materialists establish worldviews that culminate in the dogma: There will be a paradise on earth once materialism universally prevails. In the age of liberalism, worldviews were established that promised paradise in the universal realization of liberalism; socialism, of course, sees paradise in the realization of socialism. These things are, after all, extraordinarily simple, but they are, of course, just as many banal illusions; they show that although people today are confronted with these problems, they are not capable of enduring the inconvenience of truly entering the realm of spiritual experience through thinking—and thinking is what matters first and foremost. For anyone who truly wishes to think can already enter the realm of spiritual experience.

[ 5 ] Our age, which is so proud of its thinking, is in fact the least familiar with thinking. The question, however, of the discrepancy between intellectual and moral development can only be answered from the very broad perspectives we have just touched upon. But that bell, which rings as if one had just heard it toll but not strike, holds that intellectual life can proceed even if only individual people are intellectually developed, whereas moral life can attain a corresponding level of development only when a socialist system encompasses all people. Individual-capitalist development would have been beneficial to the scientifically-minded intellectual; the social order will be beneficial to moral development.

[ 6 ] The real issue is this: if the moral order is truly to develop in the world to the same extent that the intellectual realm has developed, then people must turn their gaze toward the spiritual world. Then it must be possible for people to truly look up to the spiritual impulses and forces that surge through and permeate the world. Today, this is still something quite uncomfortable for people. Uncomfortable for many reasons. Anyone who undertakes to train their thinking in the way I have often described here—so that this thinking enables them to live in the spiritual world and to experience the spiritual world as reality—must develop within themselves something that has greatly diminished under the materialistic development of recent times. Indeed, I would say that this inner sense of responsibility—which is so sorely lacking in modern times—develops of its own accord within the individual. People who seek to form a worldview based solely on their scientific observations are, after all, guided in their conceptualization by external facts, and they then allow themselves to be easily led by the hand by these external facts. They arrive at certain concepts that, to a certain extent, are sufficient for understanding this or that aspect of nature, but which are by no means sufficient for establishing connections within the moral and social order of humanity, or for truly comprehending the reality of that moral and social order. To truly comprehend it, one must be connected to spiritual reality. This, however, generates within the soul a strong sense of responsibility toward thought, so that one does not permit oneself to form just any connection of thoughts, but only those connections that one can, so to speak, present in one’s soul before the beings of the higher hierarchies. With concepts such as those held by humanity today regarding the individual human being and his or her relationship to the people, one cannot present oneself before the beings of the spiritual worlds. One cannot make a case before the spiritual worlds with all the rhetoric about the freedom of nations, for freedom—as one recognizes from spiritual science—is a concept applicable only to the individual human being, but not to the nation with its group soul. Other concepts apply there in place of freedom. Nevertheless, people today continue to proclaim, all over the world, Woodrow Wilson’s twenty-seven-year-old concepts of the freedom of nations and the like, and they take these things seriously. People take them seriously even in the very cultural sphere in which we ourselves live—a sphere in which, after all we have gone through over the centuries, we might have clearer concepts that could already rise to some understanding of spiritual science in this area. Responsibility not only toward other people, but also toward concepts which, if they are moral concepts, enter into our “I” and, at most, into our astral body—concepts that thus, if I may say so, swim and live entirely in the spiritual world. One cannot have this responsibility if one lives solely within external materialistic conceptions—and indeed, one does live within materialistic conceptions, even if one often does not realize it. Simply by saying that God sent us this war because of our mistakes—by uttering such a phrase—one is not yet a spiritual knower; one has not yet transcended materialistic concepts. One has only transcended materialistic concepts when one can form ideas of what the spiritual world looks like and how things unfold there.

[ 7 ] Phrases that have no basis in reality are, after all, found in abundance today. In particular, they are found in abundance when people attempt to respond to this or that political rally. The fact that people speak of a “new spirit” on such occasions does not mean they have even the slightest inkling of what the spirit actually is.

[ 8 ] The spirit must be grasped in its concreteness, in its reality; it must not remain an abstraction, otherwise we will not be able to escape the devastating conditions of the present. As I said, one or another natural phenomenon can be understood using the concepts one acquires by letting oneself be led by the reins of external perception. But one can only intervene in the workings of human life itself if one has concepts from the spiritual world. You might ask, how is it, then, that here and there people still intervene in human life? These are the old, ancient concepts that people are now rehashing, but these ancient concepts are no longer fit for the times. The times demand new concepts, new ideas—new, of course, only in the sense that they are new to humanity. But these new ideas are sometimes quite uncomfortable for people. In particular, the ideas that arise when one views human morality in a truly spiritual-scientific sense are quite uncomfortable. Isn’t it infinitely more comfortable to tell oneself: “Goodwill is a virtue, therefore one must acquire goodwill; justice is a moral concept, therefore justice must be established.” Then one can be a lawmaker and enact measures through which goodwill and justice are regulated. One can also elect parliaments where intelligent people come together to establish all sorts of institutions in the spirit of a benevolent and just order and the like. But if things are handled as they have been handled so far, the only outcome can be what we now see spreading across the earth. If only people had the courage to recognize the connection between the system of ideas that has gradually developed and the terrible events of the present! Benevolence is a virtue, and one can take great pleasure in living out that benevolence, in writing it down, as it were, in a catechism: “You shall be benevolent, you shall be just,” and so on;—then one has it, but one has no insight!

[ 9 ] One has just as little understanding of this as one has of a pendulum if one merely knows that when it is at the top, gravity pulls it down to the lowest point, without considering that once it has reached the bottom, it is inclined—precisely because of the force accumulated during its descent—to swing just as far in the opposite direction. In the physical realm, these things present themselves of their own accord; in the moral realm, however, it does not even occur to people to think as forcefully as they must in the physical realm, where they are bound by the laws of nature. When a person develops goodwill, that is certainly a good thing. But just as the force to swing upward develops in the pendulum as it falls, so too does the force of prejudice—the force of an inappropriate preference for this or that and all manner of things—develop under the force of goodwill. No virtue can develop without the predisposition toward the opposite vices arising in the human soul as an inclination alongside the development of that virtue. You see, these truths are uncomfortable, but they are truths nonetheless. The individual may notice this less, but in the social order, what has just been indicated emerges as a fact. If people take too much pride in cultivating this or that virtue one-sidedly for a time, then the next era will inevitably bring the corresponding vices to the surface, unless the connection is recognized. For here, if we wish to view matters in their proper light, we arrive at a profound truth of Jesus Christ—a truth that people, however, are absolutely unwilling to admit to themselves.

[ 10 ] A strange current is now sweeping through the world, gradually taking hold of people’s souls like an epidemic. One would not really expect people to have arrived at this view, but here it is. People seem to have resolved to continue this war until eternal peace has been won, until this war offers the absolute guarantee that there will never be another war. For that is, in fact, the best way to ensure this war never ends; then, of course, eternal peace will be won through it. One need only strive for this ideal of so-called “perpetual peace,” as one does today, and then one will most certainly never be able to bring this war to an end. For we live in physical human bodies on the physical plane, and the physical plane cannot be perfect—it is not perfect; and even if you were to establish the most perfect state possible on the physical plane—whatever that might be at any given time—it would, after a few centuries, become something entirely imperfect, because progress does not move in an ascending line but rather in an oscillating pattern. Just as a pendulum swings up and down, so does evolution move in an alternating pattern of ascent and descent; and when an age has developed something perfect, it has no choice but to wait for people who will know something more perfect in another age. What matters is human freedom, not the perfection of institutions on the physical plane, which is an impossibility, a figment of the imagination, an illusion. Liberalism, socialism, conservatism—they all seek to establish paradise on earth, that is, to realize perfection in the institutions of the physical plane. But Christ said that the Kingdom of God is everywhere within you. — To attempt to shape the physical world into a perfect paradise is to seek something entirely impossible, for it consists of constant fluctuation. Only by imbuing this physical world with the spiritual, and by recognizing that human beings are participants in the Kingdom of the Gods—the Kingdom of the Spiritual—can one do justice to the Christ principle. Anyone who wants to turn the physical world into a paradise—whether in a socialist sense or in any other sense—understands nothing of reality. They fail to see what must enter into human souls if the unreal concepts of the present are to give way to real ones. But one cannot arrive at real concepts unless one turns one’s gaze upward toward the great spiritual contexts. How people today mock the grand perspectives asserted by the Saturn, Sun, Moon, Earth, Jupiter, and so on—stages of development! What is the point of all this? It is needed in order to gain even the slightest insight into life, for human beings are truly a microcosm. Within them live the Saturn, Sun, Moon, and other developments, and if they want to know nothing of these concepts, it would be just as if you were to tie a child’s hands for the duration of its life during its first year, so that it could never use them. In the same way, human beings do not make use of their abilities if they are unwilling to turn their gaze upward toward the spiritual. But this is what has been lacking—very much so—and it has been lacking precisely where it should have been least lacking.

[ 11 ] I would like to point out an example that some may find strange, but which might nevertheless help you understand more clearly what I mean by all the things I’m only briefly touching on today. I have recently spoken with various people about things that are necessary for humanity today if it is to emerge from its calamities and various dead ends; things that simply consist of a certain set of practical concepts through which one would need to refresh one’s thinking today if one—it is difficult to discuss the details today—wishes, let’s say, to respond to the Pope’s notes. But these concepts, however much they are rooted in the most immediate practical aspects of life, can only be grasped and understood if one is inspired by spiritual science. For these concepts relate to the way one must think today if one is to emerge from the confusion surrounding the coexistence of peoples and states, and the arrangements that peoples and states must make if they do not wish to declaim in unrealities—in illusory, abstract concepts of national freedom and the peaceful coexistence of small nations, and whatever else all that stuff is called. One can develop very concrete, practical concepts that alone would be capable of leading us out of the misery of the present day. But what do we actually experience? You may have read in the newspapers that the rector’s inauguration took place today at the University of Berlin. The newly appointed rector, Privy Councilor Penck, spoke about political concepts of borders using geological terminology. I cannot tell you how heavy one’s heart becomes when one “witnesses something like this.” Why is that? Because in the most enlightened spheres of contemporary intellectual endeavor, the most obscure and elementary notions emerge—notions from which, if one were to engage with spiritual science, higher concepts useful for life would arise. Just imagine: one realizes that spiritual science could provide developed concepts for today’s comprehensive way of life—concepts that would, in fact, represent higher connections—yet recognized, official science is still groping its way through the ABCs of the matter and cannot move beyond them. This is precisely what can make it difficult today, especially on such occasions, to even bring oneself to understand what is actually meant. For what people pay attention to today—what they are compelled to regard as the highest authority—is far removed from what is so desperately needed, and which could only be gained from spiritual science. Where official science runs rampant, we witness this clumsy ABC; yet the path to understanding could be there, were it not for the fact that spiritual science is regarded as a fanciful notion by those who refuse to understand it. There, however, one must again and again—and without any arrogance, without any violation of the humility befitting a human being—point to the early days of Christianity, when, down in the catacombs beneath the earth in early Roman times, Christians performed their worship while above, the ancient world unfolded its social order. What had become of that ancient world a few centuries later—a world that offered nothing to this emerging Christianity other than what we learn from the history of ancient Rome! That ancient world was wiped out in a few centuries, and what had been down in the catacombs spread out above ground. If only a sufficiently large number of people could understand that something similar is already necessary today—even if not for something as world-shaking as Christianity itself. What currently prevails as official science, as official thought and imagination, cannot remain as it is. This stands in relation to what the centuries require just as ancient Rome stood in relation to Christianity, which developed down in the catacombs. But one must attune one’s feelings and sensibilities to this contrast in world history; one must attune them in such a way that one sees through—and has the will to see through—all that is inadequate in today’s declamations about the new spirit, or in the guarantees offered in all manner of incomprehensible concepts regarding intergovernmental organizations, arbitration tribunals, and the like, where one can never know who is supposed to be the arbitrator. Today is the time when these grand concepts belong in the most immediate aspects of everyday life, when humanity is not permitted to say: “Yes, these concepts are certainly very beautiful for understanding the world, but one cannot bring them into everyday manifestations!” — Either we will incorporate them, or these everyday manifestations will be nullities and have no significance for practical life—not the life of decades hence, but that of today and tomorrow. Wherever there are differing opinions today, one finds a relative degree of objectivity, at least to a certain extent. But try to find anything objective among the attacks on spiritual science, on anthroposophy! When a person such as Max Dessoir, a professor at the University of Berlin, sets out to attack spiritual science, he serves up distortions and fabrications to his readers, as I have demonstrated in my book, which has now been printed and will be published shortly. What is supposed to be an honest, objective struggle is always reduced to the personal realm—to the realm of personal denigration—especially when it comes to spiritual science. Why? Not because people can refute it, but because they do not want it; because people today refuse to seek the true human being within themselves. For that is inconvenient. People want, for example, moral concepts they can take pleasure in. But concepts such as those stating that virtues will, after some time, spontaneously transform into the predispositions for the corresponding vices—if people do not remain vigilant toward their own souls—are not suitable for this purpose. How often have I drawn attention to the concept of selflessness? In a public lecture, I once chose a hypothetical example: a society had been founded to promote selflessness. A custom had developed within it whereby members would approach the person leading the society and say: “I would like this and that, but not for myself, rather for someone else”—for they had promised one another that the other person, too, would not want the corresponding thing for themselves, but for the first person. No one wants anything for themselves. But what matters is not whether one wants something for oneself or for another, but whether it is a selfless request in and of itself. The essential point here is that when people strive to become selfless, they eventually become quite selfish due to the inner power of selflessness. The pursuit of selflessness makes one selfish. One must then be vigilant so that the pendulum swings back down; one must not take delight in one’s own selflessness.

[ 12 ] Such ideas were already close to Luther’s heart. That is why we find many passages in Luther’s writings in which he shows very little respect for virtues such as selflessness and the like, because he knows that selflessness is usually a mask behind which hypocrisy lurks. Sometimes Luther becomes blunt on such matters; as when he once advised Melanchthon not to try to be so terribly selfless, but rather, if he felt inclined to do something bad, he should go ahead and do it, for it is better, when one is inclined to do something bad, to actually do that bad thing than to become a hypocritical Pharisee and ostensibly do good while inwardly desiring to do evil. Luther, precisely because of that spiritual capacity for experience I have already spoken to you about, had a great deal of insight into this polarity of human life. In 1510, he was in Rome. At that time, it was considered a meritorious deed there to slide up a staircase; I do not know what the correct Catholic technical term for it is. Each time one slid up a step, a certain number of days in Purgatory were remitted; if one slid up the entire staircase on one’s knees without standing up, that resulted in many days of remission for Purgatory. Luther took part in this, for at that time he was firmly of the opinion that one could promote one’s salvation through such practices. But as he slid up the stairs, he had a vision that told him: “Seek righteousness through faith!” — It was precisely through such experiences that he became the Luther we know. The polar opposition to what he was doing opened up within his soul. He had experienced such polar opposites.

[ 13 ] To look more deeply into human life—that is what our time needs above all else. Part of this deeper look involves realizing that a word is not yet a thing. Many people use the word “spirit” today, but one can speak at length about spirit and yet have not a trace of it. People don’t even need to notice this. There is, for example, a man living today who has written an entire library of works, and I wouldn’t even want to count how often the word “spirit” appears in that library. People also believe that this man is truly speaking of the spirit—for his name is Rudolf Eucken. That is precisely what matters: distinguishing reality from appearance in this realm. This is, of course, inconvenient. Above all, it breeds a fear of spiritual life; it even breeds a fear of thinking. Today, people are fleeing from thinking and wish to find salvation—in the spiritual, social, and political spheres—through all manner of unthought ideas. The times are too serious not to take such matters seriously. It would be a good day if more people came to realize what has been hinted at again today—unfortunately, only hinted at. If one were to address these matters in depth, one would have to speak in ways that are not permitted today. That is why it would be good if you, in particular, were to turn your thoughts to these matters from time to time after these lectures, for thinking, after all, is not yet subject to censorship. I said it last time as well: people today would often tear to pieces anyone who, with a perspective gained through initiation, were to speak openly about the immediate events of the present. Certain things may not even be said, let alone done. Thus, many opportunities pass us by in the present that could point to just how necessary it is to deepen and strengthen the human soul. Just imagine what would have become of the Lutheran movement if Luther had possessed only the powers of some of today’s leading figures—and not greater, stronger, more penetrating ones. One might ask: Why do people today want to hear so little about true spiritual insight? The most accurate answer is, after all, the one I have already mentioned repeatedly and alluded to today: that this spiritual insight is uncomfortable for people. The modern scientific worldview presents these concepts in a more comfortable way. Certainly, it is admirable; but one need only face the world and let oneself be led by the hand of external facts; one need not rouse oneself, one need not draw upon the depths of the soul to make progress. This, however, is the demand that spiritual science places upon people. Moreover, it cannot help but tell people that whoever does not make such an effort is not truly human at all. But this, in turn, is something that those who are regarded as authorities today—by virtue of the circumstances—do not like to hear. That, for example, a professor or a privy councilor might not be fully human is, of course, extremely difficult for people today to comprehend. But they will have to understand it if we are to emerge from the misery of the present.

[ 14 ] In 1613, Johann Valentin Andreae wrote *The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz*. The book was then published in 1616. In the next issue of the journal *Das Reich*, I will begin a series of essays focusing specifically on *The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz*. Between 1614 and 1617, Valentin Andreae also authored other works that were conceived and felt from the perspective of that era. One of these works bears the subtitle: “To the Princes and Rulers of All States.” Andreae wanted to show people that what they believe about themselves and what they believe about others is merely an illusion, a great deception; he wanted to give people the opportunity to get to know themselves and others. Johann Valentin Andreae had a great spiritual movement in mind. It was conceived and felt through long preparation. Two things existed at that time: what Valentin Andreae wanted, and what led to the Thirty Years’ War, which began in 1618 and lasted until 1648. But what led to the Thirty Years’ War made the movement that Johann Valentin Andreae wanted to initiate impossible. There is much to be said if one were to characterize the causes of the failure of that attempt. After all, some attempts are made, fail, but are destined to succeed later. Well then, at that time there was an opportunity to make progress. Today, once again, there is a need to stand within two currents that must interact with one another: on the one hand, what anthroposophy seeks to achieve based on the impulses of human development; on the other hand, what led to an event similar to the Thirty Years’ War. It will be up to humanity to ensure that what is meant to happen is not undone once again. Complacency and inattention could very easily paralyze the current endeavor once again. Whether, however, things would turn out the same way as when Valentin Andreae’s attempt was paralyzed is another question.

[ 15 ] In any case, no one today should ask: “Well, how is it that the spiritual powers do not intervene in the affairs of the physical plane to restore order?” — One must not ask that, for what people do is often a rebellion against these spiritual powers; it is often directed against the spiritual powers themselves. This struggle against the spirit is often waged most fiercely by those very people who constantly talk about spirit, spirit, and spirit. I recently read something on the cover of a magazine—I’m not sure if it was a monthly or a biweekly—that looked like an advertisement, where they kept talking about the Spirit, the Spirit; the Spirit is supposed to govern current events. It makes one shake one’s head. The spirit is supposed to manufacture the cannons, the gas masks, and so on; everything is called “spirit” there. The only question is whether people realize what kind of spirit this is. You know, we distinguish between the spirit of normal evolution and the Luciferic and Ahrimanic spirits. I recently drew your attention to how Ricarda Huch, in her book on Luther, practically longed for the Devil—though what she actually meant was the recognition of the Devil. In the face of certain “spiritual” proclamations, one can certainly say: the common folk never notice the Devil, even if he were already on the cover of their magazines.

[ 16 ] Today I was able to point out only a few things and had to leave others veiled; yet these will reveal themselves in your soul as you reflect on what has been said today. In any case, you will have noticed one thing: that I wanted to speak in a serious manner—in a truly grave and solemn manner—and it is in this spirit that I would like to conclude these lectures for the time being.