The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Seventh Lecture

[ 1 ] When we gathered here a year ago, our thoughts were, in a sense, still occupied with the intention that existed at that time—to gain some understanding of the foundations and underlying forces behind the current catastrophic events. Some time before that, several of our friends had expressed the wish that more be said—beyond what had been said up to that point—about the concrete, deeper forces that have contributed to these catastrophic events. And at that time, from the standpoint of spiritual science, we had been examining the intentions and aspirations of certain circles that— one might say, seek to introduce into the world in a hidden way, and which stem from certain goals that, as we have seen, are by no means general human goals, but rather the group-egoistic goals of certain narrow circles—circles that, however, know how to calculate—in the sense that one must calculate in the world if one wishes to carry out certain things—and that know how to calculate over long periods of time.

[ 2 ] We have been able to trace back to certain endeavors that should be pursued; they can be traced even further back, but for now they can be traced in a continuous progression all the way back to the 1880s—endeavors that took into account the trends and forces asserting themselves in the contemporary cultural world. And perhaps, based on these observations, we have been able to gain some understanding of the course of events—an understanding that is independent of what dominates the world today, independent of the national and other group-egoistic endeavors that lead to such sad consequences. We may have been able to form a perspective that is independent of the narrow horizons that dominate almost everyone today, and—even if this has perhaps been less explicitly stated—we have been able to form within ourselves certain views of what is necessary for the welfare of humanity in the present age.

[ 3 ] The other endeavors currently being pursued within the framework of our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science also stemmed from what is necessary in the present age. In particular, over the past year, my public lectures—as my friends may well have noticed—have had a certain underlying theme. Their underlying theme was to draw attention to certain important, hidden aspects of human nature. Everywhere I was able to speak this year, I strove to awaken a deeper understanding of the human being from this perspective—insofar as the human being is embedded within the universal human process of the world order. We need only look back at the public lectures that have been given here in Switzerland over the course of the last few months. My aim everywhere—including in the more detailed reflections I was able to present in Zurich—was to show how the human being, as a human personality, as a human individual, possesses within himself forces that actually belong to different states of consciousness—how he possesses not only the forces belonging to his waking consciousness but also other forces that remain in the subconscious, forces that are by no means meaningless but play their part in the historical development of humanity and in social and ethical life. Such endeavors were intended to awaken the realization of how necessary it is in the present to strive for a deeper understanding of human nature. References to the connection between the so-called dead and the living were always deliberately interspersed throughout these lectures, even in the public ones. Although such references must still be made subtly in public lectures, they have been presented in a more forceful manner, particularly in recent times.

[ 4 ] The aim was to set a fundamental tone within these lectures, one that stems from what I believe to be the justified insight that salvation in the development of humanity today can come about only if humanity truly takes certain spiritual-scientific impulses to heart. And in the public lectures, an attempt was indeed made to build a bridge between what humanity currently chooses to believe and what leads into realms of deeper truth. The attempt was made to build this bridge in such a way that one can see from it that a path could indeed be found—if good will were applied—away from what individual scientists do not advocate, but toward what contemporary science as such does advocate. An attempt was made to show that contemporary scientists are actually at odds with the findings of their own science, and that science itself opens up a direct perspective into the truths of spiritual science. In particular, an attempt was made to show how these truths of spiritual science have significant consequences for practical human life, for all its various branches. The tone of these reflections, including the public ones, was such that, provided there was a willingness to understand, at least a degree of understanding could be achieved whereby one would say to oneself: Something must happen with regard to the human understanding of the world; there must be a willingness to bring about a kind of reversal of certain directions that have been taken.

[ 5 ] It has indeed become clear that suggestions here and there have fallen on soil that is not entirely barren. Yet even today, a significant obstacle remains, even in the broadest sense, to taking a new direction. And this obstacle stems specifically from the complacency of human thought that is so prevalent today—from the self-imposed difficulty many people find in breaking free from old ways of thinking, in truly activating their minds, in banishing certain deep-rooted prejudices from their souls, and in embracing certain new concepts—concepts that will eventually be necessary for the further course of human development— to embrace certain concepts, certain ideas—above all, ideas that intervene in reality. The tone adopted in this year’s reflections was such that this necessary turning toward reality—toward reality imbued with truth—was emphasized and particularly highlighted everywhere.

[ 6 ] One might have thought that outside our circles there would be, here and there, a larger number of people who, inspired by such reflections, would have asked themselves: What paths should we take in this or that field? — that there would be people who feel that contemporary thought has lost touch with true reality.

[ 7 ] However, not much of that has actually come to light. The thinking, feeling, and sensibilities of people today are casual, comfortable, sluggish, and even arrogant; they are also complacent with what has been achieved so far. This is evident in the fact that few people ask: What can we learn from the events of recent years? How many, many people still take it for granted today that they are building on the very same principles—which they call ideals—whose collapse they could clearly see as a result of these catastrophic events. People still proclaim theories and views today that they could know have been shipwrecked by the events of recent years. Movements continue to operate under the same principles they once did, even though one could see that these movements, in their principles, are far removed from the forces that govern reality—and which will destroy reality if people do not set out to incorporate the nature of these active forces into their imagination and their ability to perceive.

[ 8 ] You don't say things like that just to criticize. Nor are such things said to foster pessimism; rather, they are said because it cannot be emphasized often enough that what is most necessary today is an understanding of true reality—a turning away from hollow, insubstantial abstractions that have plunged the world into misery! Such hollow, meaningless abstractions dominate the world today. And it is urgently necessary for the human soul to turn its attention in this direction.

[ 9 ] For example, some people today take it for granted when the so-called “clever” people repeatedly declare that it is not people who matter, but rather the guiding ideas—the ideas that are spread throughout the world. Such a statement is pernicious because it is a powerful temptation. In the real world, however, everything depends on people, and the best principles, the best tenets, can have no meaning if they are championed by people who lack the inner strength to bring about what, by the very nature of the times, must be brought about—people who lack the inner strength to connect with reality through their own hearts and minds. “Out of touch with reality”—that is the phrase one can use for almost everything that is often proclaimed as an ideal to the world with high-flown words. And a dawn—such as humanity must inevitably experience—can only break when, time and again, New Year’s reflections arise that, on the one hand, reject the impulse toward detachment from reality and, on the other, attempt to unite the human soul with reality.

[ 10 ] It is almost trivial to say, and yet necessary in the present: Humanity has placed itself under the influence of meaningless sounds of words, under the influence of meaningless phrases of principle. People are not inclined to examine, when they hear this or that, where this or that comes from, and as a result they fall into a tremendous discord with what is real and essential. For the world is not governed in the right way by the words that are spoken if these words are not spoken from the heart of reality, if these words are merely borrowed from the storehouse of words and ideas that flows today on the surface of human existence—words whose content can be repeated without being understood. If one looks beyond the things that, unfortunately, are corrupting the world today with this very character, and focuses on something—which may be insignificant in the face of the great world events, but is nonetheless characteristic because it recurs within those events—if one wishes to draw attention to such a thing, one can say: In the current cycle of human development, it is entirely natural today that numerous people write good poetry, because such good poetry simply arises from the impulses already rooted in languages and in human social relationships. In a sense, one need only bring together what is already there, and something good in the traditional sense will emerge. This is true of the other arts, and it is true in all other areas of life as well.

[ 11 ] Today, however, it is far more necessary to be able to pay attention to that which emerges as something new—perhaps in a stammering and imperfect way—than to keep an eye on what is pleasing and beautiful. That which holds the potential for the future may come to light in a rather imperfect way; but what is significant is to discover, within that imperfection, the impulsive seed for the future. If we were to make an effort in this direction—if we were to try to make a general method out of what we have, in particular, made our guiding principle here in the construction of this building in Dornach: breaking with the old, even at the risk of being quite imperfect in the new—if that were to become a general method, then some benefit for humanity would surely spring from such an endeavor.

[ 12 ] What is necessary above all else is to break free from what is rigidly fixed, for this rigidity is a dying thing. There are indeed things that are dying and things that are coming to life in the historical existence of humanity. And it is not without careful consideration that I have said in these times: There is something dangerous even in the use of words themselves. One need not go as far as Fritz Mauthner, who, in his *Critique of Language* and his *Philosophical Dictionary*, lists countless sins that people commit by engaging in the cult of the word everywhere. Certainly, Fritz Mauthner takes a valid idea to the point of absurdity; for example, one finds the assertion that Christianity in Europe is essentially a collection of twenty to thirty loanwords—that is to say, it developed in such a way that people fell in love with twenty to thirty words, to which they cling and which they regard as realities. Certainly, one need not go that far. Nor can one fully agree with Fritz Mauthner when he sees the most essential factor in bringing about these catastrophic events as people practicing idolatry with words, although it is certainly true that idolatry has been practiced with words.

[ 13 ] This is something that must stop. The word has gradually become something that floats on the surface of human life and to which people cling. The word has gradually become something that people accept as a given. When one tries to gain a deeper understanding of what today so often dominates thought and habits of thought, I am reminded, for example, of a debate I frequently encountered during my boyhood and up until I was twenty or twenty-five, among my friends from my youth and boyhood: I was often asked by one or the other—please forgive the perhaps somewhat risqué topic that comes up here—what the actual difference was, in the relationships between young men and young women, between love and friendship. And great importance was placed on defining the concepts of “love” and “friendship” as precisely as possible. These were supposed to be clearly delineated concepts. Back then, I really did—and I can say this without sounding silly—have the desire not to focus on such abstractions, but rather on reality, and I always said: In case A, I see a relationship between a male and a female individual; in case B, the same; these are all concrete relationships of the most varied kinds. Whether one calls it “love” or “friendship” is of no consequence to me, for what matters is the substance of the matter.

[ 14 ] However, in contrast to what must be lived as the objective reality among people—particularly in social relationships—another interest now comes into play. The interest in codification comes into play, and there, of course, one needs nested concepts, nested words. How could one possibly make laws without adhering to words! But the alternative cannot be to say: “So no fixed terms, but direct human life!” — Such an alternative would be about as sensible as it is to set forth the ideal of establishing a paradise on the physical plane. The physical plane, however, is not suited to establishing a paradise. One can make the demand, but one can never fulfill it.

[ 15 ] Of course, one can also make other demands. In recent times, there have been frequent calls for an intergovernmental organization. One can make such demands; one can even codify them; and, of course, it may well come to pass. But what reality will have to say about this ten years from now is another question entirely! Reality simply takes paths that one can only recognize if one is willing to grapple with reality in one’s understanding of it. Establishing guidelines, advocating principles—that’s easy enough to do. Founding associations, having programs within these associations—programs designed to bring happiness to people, beautiful, admirable programs against which no one can raise any objection—one can set them up. It’s actually quite a thankless task to have to point out that this is, in fact, quite easy to do. In specific cases—let me say this in parentheses—one sometimes even runs into quite bitter conflicts if one has no inclination toward such codification.

[ 16 ] For example, the Berlin branch of the Anthroposophical Society, in which I myself am somewhat involved, has not yet adopted any bylaws in the past fifteen years, because we have always considered real life to be more important than bylaws—than codified life. After all, one can have the most beautiful bylaws—wonderful bylaws, even. They can be quite good, but only for the purpose of dealing with certain external forces. They have no significance for the inner life of a cause. A truly living cause, in truth, resists bylaws and principles. I am not criticizing the drafting of statutes, but nevertheless, to me, drafting statutes and founding associations with grand ideals often seems about as sensible as when a father and mother have a baby a few months old and draw up a detailed life plan for that little child. There you already have the clash between life and codification, the clash between life and abstract principles. The world will not cease to be a living entity, even if a number of—let’s say, so as not to offend them—idealists are now devising all sorts of programs for the betterment of the world through intergovernmental organizations.

[ 17 ] Spiritual science does not seek abstract ideals or unrealistic ideas; rather, it strives to find the true impulses within the realm of life and to recognize what actually is, because social principles can only truly be established in the world on the basis of what actually is. To do this, a certain degree of discomfort is necessary—a certain degree of discomfort is necessary—in order to even take such things into one’s heart at all. It is easy for seven or eight people to get together today to found an association dedicated to making the world a happier place, with magnificent bylaws. That is possible. The bylaws will always be sound, provided the people involved are reasonably sensible. You can then also gain followers, and there’s nothing wrong with that, because these things are, of course, correct. But the people who often gather under such banners really need to first sit down for a few months and study the subject matter they wish to make a difference in. They do not do that. Instead of people spending a few months familiarizing themselves with the issues at hand, one finds that such organizations have had a global impact, and have gained thousands upon thousands of followers; yet after twenty years, not even five of those thousands have taken the time to study the subject matter—the very subject for which they publish a weekly newsletter, in which the same phrases are repeated over and over again whenever readers, who are quick to forget, have forgotten the story that has been told so many times before.

[ 18 ] Breaking free from the idolatry of words, breaking free from the idolatry of abstractions—this is an essential part of what anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is meant to offer people. “Words are excellent for arguing; words can be used to construct a system.” And one might add: And then one can live comfortably within that system. — But life is complicated, and this complicated life demands our attention. And perhaps now is a very good time to draw attention to such a contemplation of life, as we stand at the end of a year that brings to a close a series of such sad years for humanity. At such a time, our gaze should once again turn to what the fundamental ideas of spiritual science can inspire within us. These fundamental ideas of spiritual science, after all, urge us again and again to truly study the character of our era.

[ 19 ] We are trying various approaches to study the character of our era. Yesterday I referred to Dante’s great teacher and friend, Brunetto Latini. In Brunetto Latini, we have a figure who, during Dante’s time, pointed out in a compelling way what was to come for humanity. The initiatory text—one might well call it that—which comes from Brunetto Latini, contains roughly the following: He returns from his diplomatic mission to Alfonso of Castile. On his way back, he learns that events have taken place in Florence, his city, which, in his view, must bring an end to Florence’s former splendor and glory. In uttering these words, Brunetto Latini senses the approach of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch. After all, this initiatory text was written at a time when, even in the broadest sense, there was still an awareness of humanity’s connection to the spiritual world—a time when numerous human mysteries concerning the spiritual world were still known—and thus a time when there was not yet the inclination toward such insubstantial abstractions as there is today. For in a time when spiritual life is vibrant, in a time when emotional life is truly present, people do not have a tendency toward insubstantial abstractions. Insubstantial abstractions are always linked to a tendency toward materialism.

[ 20 ] Brunetto Latini has before him this age in which we now live. He approaches Florence. He knows that what Florence has become—under the impulse of immediate human life and immediate intellectual drives—is destined to be buried beneath the rise of institutions born of abstraction. He approaches Florence. The pain, he describes, causes him to lose his way in a forest, a desolate forest. When he comes to his senses, he notices, in the midst of a magnificent creation—which is his imagination—a path and a gigantic female figure. We hear that he addresses this gigantic female figure as “true nature”—not the nature described by modern science, but “true nature.” This “true nature” imparts to him teachings about what lives within the human being, about the mysteries of the human soul, about the mysteries of the four human temperaments, about the mysteries of the human senses, about the mysteries of the elements, and about the mysteries of the planets. She then leads him beyond the realm of the planets into the ocean of cosmic existence all the way to the Pillars of Hercules—mind you: at a time when Copernican astronomy did not yet exist, at a time when America had not yet been rediscovered. Then his attention is drawn to the fact that he must leave all of this behind—that is, the entire visible world. Only then will he come to recognize the mysteries of good and evil; only then will he come to recognize the God of Love, and so on. One might say that this perspective of Brunetto Latini is a true New Year’s reflection on the fourth post-Atlantean epoch during the cosmic New Year period marking the approach of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch.

[ 21 ] In the circles from which Brunetto Latini and others emerged, it was understood that human beings have a connection to the spiritual world, and that merely grasping the spiritual world through words alone must lead to disaster. In the 19th century, the mere belief in the literal meaning of words also reached a preliminary peak in science. Everything had been building up, but in the 19th century the phenomenon reached its zenith. And from science, these tendencies spread into the rest of human experience. But now the time has come when we must find the courage to break with the old idolatry of words—with the old idolatry of even those verbal connections and combinations that some regard as laws of nature.

[ 22 ] Simply having a word does not, in and of itself, accomplish much for the cause. At the beginning of the new era, the Mystery of Golgotha took place. Christianity has existed ever since. There were, however, centuries during which people sought to grasp this Christianity with their whole human soul. But then other times came. Then came the times when human capacity for understanding grew weak and was no longer sufficient to comprehend the Mystery of Golgotha. And now, in the broadest sense, virtually nothing remains of the Mystery of Golgotha except the name of Christ Jesus. But I have shown in these reflections that what people associate with the name of Christ Jesus is, from the perspective of spiritual science, little more than an angelic being. And the fact that people do not realize this stems solely from the idolatry of words. This idolatry of words possesses a suggestive power. Anyone who has felt this suggestive power—without becoming an idolater—has been able to experience it in the most diverse fields. It is sometimes good to draw on personal experiences without becoming silly. Allow me, in this case, to set an example.

[ 23 ] Whenever I try to characterize the underlying tone of our times, I am often reminded of the lectures on constitutional law I once attended. Let me highlight just a very small part of those lectures on constitutional law: Well, gentlemen, what is judicial sovereignty? Judicial sovereignty is the sovereign right inherent in the omnipotence of the state. — And then came the list of everything that falls under this omnipotence of the state. Gentlemen! What is fiscal sovereignty? Fiscal sovereignty is the sovereign right inherent in the omnipotence of the state. What is political sovereignty? Political sovereignty is the sovereign right inherent in the omnipotence of the state..., — and then he proceeded to list what falls under the omnipotence of the state. What is religious sovereignty? Religious sovereignty is the sovereign right inherent in the omnipotence of the state.

[ 24 ] Now imagine the human soul, laid bare, presented with these contrived concepts and developing social impact—what do you have then? What you see all around you now and to which you close your eyes, so that you can be sure to regard it as something quite sensible—something that has merely gone a bit off track in recent years, but which is, after all, good and must be continued! But the truth is not recognized by words; the truth is recognized by realities. One can speak at length in beautiful—and, of course, true—words about the excellence of a democratic government, about the exemplary nature of a democratic government. But reality is not revealed by an insight into whether this is right or wrong; rather, reality is revealed in the fact that such a democratic system of government brings a Mr. Wilson to the helm of nearly the entire world. That is where reality is revealed. And talking about reality still finds little resonance. It was not without purpose that, before this war, I pointed out in my Helsinki lecture series the utter hollowness of Mr. Woodrow Wilson’s personality. You can read about it in the series of lectures given on the Bhagavad Gita and its occult foundations. One of our friends happened to be present at the end of that lecture and remarked that it was indeed terrible that such a person should come to hold influence and power.

[ 25 ] Nothing in the world happens because of principles. In the world, things happen because of realities. In social life, these realities are personalities. This is something that spiritual science, in particular, must emphasize strongly and forcefully, because spiritual science is committed to the development of humanity in an honest and sincere way, and because it refuses to align itself in any way with the empty rhetoric that dominates the world today. And by this “flurry of empty phrases,” I do not mean merely that people utter empty phrases, but I mean something far worse: that they seek to put empty phrases into practice, that they turn empty phrases into institutions, that they fail to call things by their real names.

[ 26 ] So much would be accomplished in the world if people were willing to call things by their proper names. This would lead us to realize something I have often pointed out: that we should not place so much importance on outward appearances, as if the most essential aspect of the current catastrophic events were that the so-called Entente is waging war against the so-called Central Powers, and that peace must be restored! As I have often pointed out: That is not the most essential thing; that is not the most important thing, for it is often mere appearance. What the world is actually fighting over is something fundamentally different. Fundamentally, something far more universal is at stake: the struggle between the phrase that strives for reality and living reality itself. The only way to transcend these things is to look inward and examine the extent to which one clings to the convenience of the phrase.

[ 27 ] There is indeed ample opportunity for this right here in this place. For us, who are bound by love to this building and all that is connected with it, what lies in the times ahead is, in a sense, symbolically expressed by the fact that this building has been begun as one of the centers from which is to radiate that which humanity must carry forward into the future in accordance with the demands of the present, and how this building has been interrupted—and remains interrupted—by that which now lies in the background of all human contemplation and all human endeavors: the great collapse of humanity’s institutions, which have grown out of a love of rhetoric for centuries.

[ 28 ] It was not without careful consideration that, during the weeks when we were once again able to be together—up until now, as the year draws to a close—I have maintained a serious tone in our reflections here at the construction site itself, repeatedly emphasizing the necessity of seeking, at least in the matters where we have freedom of choice, the essential seriousness of life; in what is within our power—in our understanding, in our unbiased observation of events. The fact that this building, too, has been delayed indefinitely may be a minor event amid the catastrophic events of the present, but it is symptomatic; in a certain sense, it is symbolic; symbolic because one could draw a line between what is cherished for humanity based on the intention behind this building and what is cherished based on the term “idolatry” and everything associated with it.

[ 29 ] At this time of year, as we turn the page to a new year, that great catastrophic event still looms in the background of everything we can observe and do. And as we mark this turn of the year, we must look back on the previous one. One month after that previous turn of the year, we parted ways. I still have to think about the contrast that my words—which often described the situation with harshness—met even within our own circle. Anyone who knows the impulse that gave rise to those catastrophic events could not have imagined, at the turn of the year, that this year, 1917, would not turn out to be even worse than the previous ones. That is what one had to tell oneself at the time. Although, on the one hand, one had to—and could—say how infinitely sad it was that a well-intentioned proposal—as I said at the time in my Christmas and New Year’s reflection—was drowned out by the clamor of what calls itself “four-fifths of humanity,” and how, amid this uproar, the mood was not right for looking optimistically toward the year 1917—yet when one looks back again, it is still only an unbiased view if one asks oneself: Is there anything for which there is a prospect that this or that person might achieve it out of their own selfish group interest? Is there anything for which there is any prospect that it might be attainable for such interests, and for which this prospect has increased following a recent bloody, terrible year? — No, no! The world situation at the end of 1916 was exactly the same as it is today; for this world situation will only change when reason enters into our thinking.

[ 30 ] Anyone who believes that something fundamental has changed over the past year is mistaken; they are mistaking the external for the internal. This does not mean that this or that—which, in a complacent view of life, is initially described as something favorable—cannot be done, at least until people realize after a few months that it is not favorable at all. But the issues run much deeper; they run so deep that, given the experiences we have had—especially with regard to current events—it is not even possible to speak the decisive word on this matter. Humanity has a task to fulfill at the present time. And after a year like this one, it is already possible to say a few words about this task.

[ 31 ] The fact that these catastrophic events have come to pass was certainly not humanity’s task. Nor is it humanity’s task to allow these catastrophic events to continue. Humanity’s task is this: to emerge from these catastrophic events; to truly emerge from them and to recognize that emerging from them is a task.

[ 32 ] It doesn’t matter whether one wants to continue doing this or that in the old style. It can certainly be said: If some socialists believe that what they believed seventeen years ago to be the salvation of humanity can now be used as a panacea to escape the great calamity facing humanity, then that is a mistake—a mistake that stems precisely from a lack of touch with reality.

[ 33 ] These catastrophic events are, in fact, composed of two elements, neither of which can truly be understood today within anything that exists outside of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. On the one hand, these catastrophic events have only become possible because of the way in which, for certain goals, people have exploited the great contrast that has developed within humanity over the course of the last three to four centuries between everything that constitutes industrial, commercial, and so on, imperialism, and socialism, which is its opposite. That is one aspect. The other is what has emerged through national psychology, which plays a major role particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Europe. Both of these factors encompass problems of humanity of the most far-reaching kind.

[ 34 ] We simply have to start where we are least disturbed by the outside world today, where external codification still has the least influence—in science and in art. Or we could establish a bank based on our principles.

[ 35 ] Many examples could be cited that, alongside this wood-and-concrete structure, would illustrate a kind of ideal building—one that is, however, rooted in life and a love of reality. Today, this wood-and-concrete structure stands unfinished; this is a symptom, this is a symbol. These things—neither the real building nor the ideal building, nor the ideal buildings—can be completed if the world has understanding only for the opposite, for that which must eradicate all individualism and all impulses of personality from humanity. If what is lost in abstract institutions—what is lost in the tyranny of abstract institutions—must be reclaimed for humanity, then this will require a great deal of time.

[ 36 ] Some things, if I may put it that way, simply have to be said in a roundabout way; everyone is free to draw from these matters whatever they can. But above all, we should take to heart what becomes clear when we consider that it is not for nothing that certain things have been repeated over and over again this time: the admonition to turn away from all that is mere rhetoric—even if that rhetoric has acquired the appearance of reality—and to turn toward the truth, toward true reality. For it is this true reality that we seek through our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Through it, we wish to penetrate to an understanding of what is, of that which must take effect. And we wish to free ourselves from that false idealism—false idealism because it is an abstract idealism—which believes it can effect anything in the world without study, without knowledge, and without love for reality.

[ 37 ] At this time of year, as one year gives way to the next, it is only natural for the human soul to turn to more serious reflections on how one’s own soul relates to life and to the essence of being. Today, one cannot entertain more serious thoughts than those that arise from the contrast between a world that is alien to reality and so falsely proud of its affinity for reality, and that which should be strived for through a genuine affinity for reality, as pursued by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 38 ] If—in addition to what we can so easily develop—we possess a certain inclination to absorb spiritual truths because they present to our souls, in a pleasant way, our relationship to eternity and the like, then we also contribute to what is a kind of inclination to engage with spiritual scientific truths a genuine, inner, strong, and devoted impulse: to view life—all life—in the light of this spiritual science. Let us try to carry forward from a year that was truly not easy to live through into the next, which will also not be easy to live through; let us try to carry forward the will to view life in the spirit of spiritual science, the will to free ourselves from the mere rhetoric that dominates the world today. For something has already been accomplished if there is at least a small group of people in the world who can engage in a New Year’s Eve reflection aimed at not participating in their thoughts with the idolatry of empty phrases. This is something. Let us accustom ourselves to new words, new concepts, and new ideas for the many things that need them!

[ 39 ] Let it be said—since we were once again able to hold a New Year’s Eve reflection within this unfinished building, whose forms and reality we associate with so many thoughts of the future— so that we may grasp the idea of stepping into this New Year in such a way that there is within us a burning impulse, a fire—that this spiritual science is not merely a theory we cultivate in the quiet privacy of our own rooms, but becomes something that permeates our minds, our hearts, our hands, and everything that is to come to be and happen through us in life.

[ 40 ] From these words—which may have sounded harsh but were spoken solely out of love for humanity—I would like to offer you an impulse, to point you toward the impulse to reflect deeply on this turning point of two years, so that this reflection may serve as the starting point for a truly unbiased discernment of what is real and what is unreal. For more—more than humanity realizes today—depends on this. And one would truly like to have something more than mere words for a small circle at a time when, in New Year’s reflections, so many other things would be more necessary than what is most certainly spoken of today as New Year’s reflections. But let us be aware that spiritual science has a certain right to demand this desire for otherness from us!