The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Lecture

[ 1 ] You will surely believe me when I say that it gives me the deepest satisfaction to be able to resume work here among you, on and around our building. Indeed, it is true that today—not only upon deeper reflection, but, one might say, even upon more superficial reflection—the thought might occur to anyone who has come into contact with the entire aura of this building that something is connected to it that relates to the most significant and weighty tasks of humanity’s future. And after a prolonged, forced absence, it goes without saying that one feels the deepest satisfaction at once again finding oneself at the site where this building stands as a symbol of our cause.

[ 2 ] I might well add to what has been said that, for me personally, every time I return after a long absence, I derive the deepest satisfaction from seeing just how beautifully and meaningfully the work on this building has continued to progress thanks to the dedicated efforts of those working on the site. Especially during these past months of my latest absence, when work was carried out under such difficult conditions, a particular aspect of the artistic work has advanced in an incomparable way—advancing in the very spirit that is meant to permeate the entire project.

[ 3 ] But it is also with deep satisfaction that, as I follow the spirit of our work and observe what is taking shape here, I see the shared sense of loyalty among many of our friends—a loyalty to what is embodied in this very building. And what then reveals itself to the soul when it allows this matter to work upon it once more is that there is a place here connected to such a loyal spirit among a number of friends of our spiritual movement—a spirit so loyal that it promises the best impulses of our spiritual movement will endure into the future of humanity, where they will be so necessary. Even within the work dedicated specifically to this building, there is something that could serve as a model for what is actually intended in general by what is known among us today as the Anthroposophical Society.

[ 4 ] But on the other hand, I often have the feeling that the positive, the truly meaningful good that can be found here in this building—through the interplay of human labor and human emotion—lies precisely in the fact that this building is, in a sense, something whose objectivity detaches what is intended by our movement from the subjective interests of individual people.

[ 5 ] Regarding this very topic just touched upon, there have been—and still are—certain peculiar views in all similar societies, including the Anthroposophical Society, which are really nothing more than strange illusions. There is much talk of selflessness and universal love for humanity; but these are often mere masks for certain, merely sophisticated egoistic interests of individual people. Certainly, the individuals themselves are unaware that these are merely egoistic interests; in a sense, they are innocent in their own consciousness; but that is nevertheless the case. The building itself, however, demands of a fairly large number of our friends a selfless devotion to something objective—to something that stands as a symbol of our cause, detached from any individual personality. And in this respect, what is connected with this building may well serve as a model for what our movement seeks.

[ 6 ] My dear friends, as we greet one another once again today, we should focus in particular on the fruitful and all-encompassing nature of our spiritual movement, and we should bear in mind as we do so that we can be serious about our faith: However it may come to pass—the “how” can, of course, play out in one way or another, depending on the circumstances—humanity will not emerge from the terrible impasse into which it has fallen at the present time until it resolves to seek, in whatever way, points of connection for fruitful work and fruitful action within a spiritual movement such as ours. We will certainly not selfishly insist that the truth lies solely within our narrow, limited circle; but we may consider ourselves part of a community that recognizes that humanity has brought itself into this terrible present situation by neglecting its spiritual substance. We can recognize ourselves as those who are united with the ideas that alone can lead us out of the impasse into which humanity has fallen.

[ 7 ] There is, after all, an immense amount that remains unclear in the souls of people today. If, on the other hand, one has been able to learn here and there about the needs that prevail within our spiritual movement, then one can say, on the one hand: Yes, the number of souls thirsting for the kind of spiritual life we have in mind is indeed growing rapidly. The longing for such a spiritual life—it must be said—has increased tremendously. The attention paid to our impulses has undeniably grown in recent years, at least in the areas that have been outwardly accessible to me in recent years and especially in recent months. It is also not entirely insignificant to note that such an increase and intensification of this longing in human souls for spiritual life is quite clearly present. However, this intensification and deepening of the longing for spiritual life is counterbalanced by something else: that terrible delusion from which the vast majority of humanity suffers, that terrible delusion brought about by time-honored ideas—or, one might better say, by the time-honored lack of ideas within humanity—which, one might say, a complacency toward every strong, every sharp thought—that complacency which simply stems from the laxity, from the inertia with which intellectual life has been conducted across the earth for many decades. This laxity, this inertia, misleads souls in their existing yearning for spiritual life. On the one hand, people are filled with a genuine longing for spirituality, for supersensory, powerful impulses. On the other hand, souls are held back by all those old forces that are unwilling to step down from the stage of human activity, even though they could see, given how far they have come, that they no longer belong on this stage of human activity. One might say that this dark impression, this ambivalent impression, is felt everywhere.

[ 8 ] I have, in fact, spoken to our members in various places—in Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, and many other locations—about our group, which is to be situated at the heart of our project, using photographs to illustrate my points. On the one hand, one could see how powerful impulses are indeed entering the souls of even those who, due to the circumstances of recent years, have never been able to catch a glimpse of what is happening here. A new understanding of humanity is already emerging from the way in which the Ahrimanic-Luciferic is conceived in conjunction with the Christian, and is presented and revealed through our group. It moves the souls when what is conveyed through these things reaches them. Yet, on the other hand, the inhibiting influences of what remains of the old, decayed elements of so-called cultural life are evident everywhere, spreading across humanity.

[ 9 ] This was particularly evident in the—and one may truly say, in the deepest sense of the word—humorous manner in which the lectures I gave at the art gallery of our friend, Mr. von Bernus, in Munich were received; in these lectures, I attempted to convey the inner impulses of our artistic perspective, as practiced here, to a wider audience. Yes, this aroused an extraordinary amount of interest among the people, for I gave such lectures in Munich in February and May, and I had to give each of these lectures twice; Mr. von Bernus, however, assured me that there were so many requests that I could have given each of these lectures—in which I expounded the principles of my artistic philosophy as they are manifested here in this building—four times to a public audience. There was certainly interest. But where one would naturally expect to be unhappy if there were approval—namely, among the Munich newspaper critics—there was, one might say, a humorous baring of teeth in the noblest sense. It was humorous in particular because the inner resentment toward something they simply could not understand made itself felt so strongly there: It was all such—not spoken, but spat-out—rubbish! Please forgive the harsh expression. And it was precisely evident in the interest shown in the matter—in which honesty and sincerity were expressed—in contrast to what was otherwise evident from this artistic hub—that is, of course, Munich itself, isn’t it? That is well known—it was thus evident how, in this artistic hub, both the most intelligible and the most incomprehensible stuff was being discussed. It was precisely this discrepancy that illustrated, through a single example, how these two currents I spoke to you about are present today; how we may truly be aware that we are involved in something quite essential and important that must be fought for on behalf of the world and the future.

[ 10 ] I certainly am not saying all this because I am somehow hoping to get what people call “good press” if things become public; for the moment “good press” appears, I would believe: “Of course, something must be wrong here; something must have gone wrong on our part.”

[ 11 ] All these things are, after all, likely to awaken in us the realization that we very much need to stand firm on the ground of our cause. For nothing could lead us into greater confusion than if we were to make any compromises with what the outside world believes is right for us. It is only in the principles of our cause itself that we must find what guides our actions.

[ 12 ] Even for something like this—which is more indirectly connected to our cause, yet intrinsically linked to it—even for eurythmy, there has been a steadily growing interest in a wide variety of places in recent times. And when we who were there recall, for example, how eurythmy was received in a place like Hamburg—where it had hardly ever been seen before, and where it was, in some respects, even something new for those who witnessed it—we cannot help but look back on the way it was received with deep satisfaction. In Hamburg in particular, one could see just how significant the impulses are that can emanate from such an event. And there were people who, in essence, were seeing a true eurythmic performance for the very first time. And perhaps the opportunity will also arise for eurythmy to enter the public sphere. But precisely then we must stand on the firmest ground with such an endeavor, doing nothing other than what follows solely from the nature of our work itself. Otherwise, it would very soon become clear that, from a certain point onward, no one can believe that I am flexible in a particular matter when it comes down to me personally. Most of you already know that, of course, wherever it is not a matter of principle but rather a matter of being human—of putting the human aspect first—I go along with everyone in every way; but where it comes to the point where even the slightest principle would have to be denied, I would not prove to be flexible. So in the present day, when there is so much dancing to be seen—for people are dancing everywhere, which is truly dreadful— one could attend a dance evening every night if one lives in a larger city, where people are showing off their dancing everywhere—if one were to believe, and I’m not saying this without reason, even though I’m not pointing to anything specific, that if our eurythmy were to appear in public now, we would somehow be bound by a journalistic lack of understanding that imposes all sorts of demands, I would object to this in the most decisive manner. What constitutes a style, what constitutes a trend in taste, must arise solely from our art itself.

[ 13 ] We must sometimes remind ourselves—especially when we greet one another again—of the necessary, straightforward movement that flows from the will, in accordance with our spiritual impulses. These spiritual impulses will, after all, have to contend with many things. Today, one can no longer simply call it “prejudice,” for these forces are too powerful to be described by the weak term “prejudice”; these impulses will have to contend with many things. Time and again, we must point out the great illness of our time, which consists in a lack of restraint toward the life of thought. For the life of thought is already a spiritual life, if one grasps it correctly. And because humanity is so unwilling to adhere to the life of thought, it finds so little of a path into the spiritual worlds. And I must touch upon one thing again and again from the most diverse angles: People today place an awful lot of importance on the mere content of thoughts. But the content of thoughts is the least important aspect of thought. Isn’t it true that a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat; there’s no denying that. But even if a grain of wheat is just a grain of wheat: if you plant a grain of wheat in good, fertile soil, you’ll get a lush ear of wheat from it; if you plant a grain of wheat in completely barren, stony soil, you’ll get either nothing at all or a very stunted ear of wheat. In either case, you are dealing with a grain of wheat.

[ 14 ] Let’s say something else instead of “grain of wheat.” Instead of “grain of wheat,” let’s say “the idea of free humanity,” which is talked about so much today; “the idea of free humanity” is “the idea of free humanity,” some might say. That’s just like saying: a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat. There is a difference between whether the “idea of a free humanity” flourishes in a heart, in a soul—exactly the same idea with the same rationale—where that heart and that soul are fertile ground, and whether the “idea of a free humanity” flourishes in Woodrow Wilson’s head! Just as a grain of wheat cannot thrive if it is planted in stony ground or even in rock, so all the so-called beautiful ideas that appear in Woodrow Wilson’s programs mean nothing if they come from that mind. Yet this is something that is so incredibly difficult for present-day humanity to grasp, because present-day humanity holds the view that: People cling to the content of programs, to the content of ideas. But the content of programs, the content of ideas, has just as little significance as the germinative power of a grain of wheat has before that grain is sown in soil that is fertile specifically for it.

[ 15 ] Thinking realistically—that is what humanity so desperately needs. And the unrealistic thinking of the present is connected to something else: namely, that humanity is taken by surprise by almost every event. One might well ask: What, after all, has not taken humanity by surprise in recent years? — It has been surprised by everything, and it will continue to be surprised by much more than it has been so far. But humanity does not engage in any meaningful way with what is actually at work in the world. That is why it is impossible even today to lead humanity to any kind of foresight regarding any matter.

[ 16 ] If one works with mere ideas, then one can justify anything from every angle using anything. If one works with the mere content of ideas, one can truly justify anything using anything. This, too, is something that, fundamentally speaking, must be understood more and more and ever more deeply—yet it is something that people are reluctant to understand.

[ 17 ] Usually, when one speaks of such things and then gives examples, people find it hard to believe, because the examples seem too grotesque. But our entire present emotional and spiritual life is interwoven with such things, which come to light in such grotesque examples. I know that quite a few of you may listen with resentment when I cite a rather outlandish idea as an example. I will cite a truly outlandish idea.

[ 18 ] There is a university professor—an elderly, distinguished university professor—who stumbled upon the fact that Goethe, throughout his long life, had romantic interests in various women. This was discovered by a university professor who has made it his mission to thoroughly study Goethe’s life and the lives of the intellectuals associated with him. And lo and behold, even though he is not exactly a European university professor, he naturally made it his mission to approach these studies with the same thoroughness that is usually characteristic only of Central European university professors: he reviewed in his mind the entire gallery of Goethe’s female figures and their relationships with him. And what did he discover? I can quote it to you almost verbatim. He discovered this: What can be said about each of the women Goethe loved in his life is that each one was, for Goethe, a kind of Belgium—toward which he violated neutrality—and then he sighed that his heart bled because he had to pounce upon a radiant innocence. But he also did not forget, each time anew, to assert—like the German chancellor—that the territory of violated neutrality would have deserved a better fate, but that he, Goethe, could not have acted otherwise, since his destiny and the rights of his spiritual life obliged him to sacrifice his beloved—indeed, to sacrifice the pain of his own heart on the altar of the duty he owed to his own immortal self.

[ 19 ] Well, I could present you with quite a few more outlandish ideas from this book. You might ask, “What’s the point?”—But there are good reasons for it, because such ideas are scattered all over the earth today. That’s just how the ideas of today’s humanity are. And it is no coincidence that such ideas appear where the essence of human thought is expressed in literature, for this view is espoused by Santayana, the professor at Harvard University in America, a highly respected Spaniard who has, however, become thoroughly Americanized, whose book was written during this catastrophe of humanity, and whose French edition was prefaced by Boutroux, who, shortly before the war, delivered a grand eulogy on German philosophy from Heidelberg. This book is titled *L’erreur de la philosophie allemande* and is truly no coincidence; rather, it is entirely characteristic of contemporary thought, for indeed, with the very same ease with which Professor Santayana compares the violation of Belgian neutrality to Goethe’s actions toward various women, this humanity holds together the most disparate elements. For if you are truly observant, you will encounter this way of thinking in all fields of so-called modern science.

[ 20 ] Indeed, it is the very task of those spiritual impulses to which our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is dedicated to combat three fundamental evils in contemporary so-called human culture. It cannot help but combat these three fundamental evils. One of these fundamental evils manifests itself in the realm of thinking, another in the realm of feeling, and the third in the realm of willing.

[ 21 ] In the realm of thought, it has gradually come to pass that people can think only in the manner dictated by a mode of thinking that is closely bound to the physical brain. But this kind of thinking—which is closely bound to the physical brain and refuses to rise in a free ascent toward the spiritual—is, under all circumstances, doomed to become narrow-minded and limited. And the most significant characteristic, particularly of contemporary scientific thinking, is this narrowness and limitation. Certainly, one can achieve great things within the realm of the limited and the narrow-minded. Contemporary natural science, for example, does just that. But natural science, as it is conceived today, does not require any genius. So: narrow-mindedness and limitation—that is what must be combated, especially in the intellectual realm. I want to outline more today; we will discuss these things in greater detail.

[ 22 ] In the realm of feeling, the issue is that humanity has gradually come to embrace a certain philistinism—there is no other word for it—narrow-mindedness, philistinism, and confinement to certain narrowly defined circles. That is, after all, the most distinctive characteristic of the philistine: that he is incapable of taking an interest in the great interconnections of the world. Politicians with a parochial outlook are always philistines. Of course, this cannot suffice in the realm of spiritual science, for there one cannot limit oneself to the narrowest circles. One must even take an interest in the extraterrestrial; one must take an interest in very broad spheres. And it does annoy people when someone even pretends to want to know anything about such broad spheres as the Moon, the Sun, or Saturn. But philistinism must give way in all areas of non-philistinism if the humanities are to make inroads. This is sometimes uncomfortable, for it demands unreserved engagement with the subject matter—and an engagement that is more free of prejudice.

[ 23 ] Something rather unpleasant has happened here recently; but I took precautions, so nothing bad actually happened—it just could have! You will recall—from last year’s lectures in Zurich—that among the various examples of how a kind of overcoming of Darwinism can emerge from the natural sciences themselves, I referred to Oscar Hertwig’s excellent book *The Development of Organisms*. I have referred to this excellent book here and everywhere else I’ve had the opportunity. Now, very soon after this book was published, a shorter book appeared in which the same Oscar Hertwig discusses social, ethical, and political life, and I had already thought to myself: It may happen that some of our members, having heard me say that Oscar Hertwig’s book *Das Werden der Organismen* is an excellent book, now believe that I regard this same Oscar Hertwig as an infallible authority. This book, which was Oscar Hertwig’s second publication, is a worthless book, a book written by a person who, in the field in question—that of social, ethical, and political life—is absolutely incapable of forming a single coherent thought. I was already afraid that some of our members might have thought that this book, too, could have some value simply because it comes from the same Oscar Hertwig. So I had to take the initiative and have seized every opportunity I’ve had so far to point out that I consider this second book by the same author—who has written an excellent book on the natural sciences—to be utterly fruitless, foolish drivel, written by a person who is completely incapable of speaking about the very things he is discussing. Our anthroposophically oriented spiritual science does not permit us to conveniently deduce one thing from another without each time confronting the facts anew and without prejudice. It truly demands that people examine the concreteness of each individual case. Philistinism is something that will fade away as the impulses of spiritual science spread. This applies to the realm of feeling.

[ 24 ] And in the realm of volition, this is what has so particularly gripped humanity in the broadest sense in recent times, and which I can only describe as clumsiness. Because of the limited scope of what one learns—confined to a narrow circle—people today generally know a great deal within that narrow circle, yet they are quite clumsy when it comes to anything outside of it. One can meet men today who cannot even sew on a button to their pants! Clumsiness outside a very narrow circle—that is what is particularly widespread in the realm of the will.

[ 25 ] Whoever approaches what is called spiritual science here not with mere abstract thoughts but with their whole soul will see that this spiritual science permeates the dexterity of the hands, that it makes people more skilled, that it enables them to truly expand their interest to broader spheres and their will to a wider world. Of course, spiritual science is still too weak, especially when it comes to clumsiness, but the more we embrace it, the more it will become a force against clumsiness.

[ 26 ] So this is what stands in the way of today’s reception of spiritual science—I would say, as a trinity: narrow-mindedness in the intellectual realm, philistinism—that is, narrow-mindedness in the realm of feeling—and clumsiness in the realm of the will. And these three are cherished today, even if people are not fully aware of it. Nothing is more cherished in the whole world today than clumsiness, philistinism, and narrow-mindedness. And by loving these three, one will not easily be able to advance toward the great aspects toward which humanity must advance: toward the aspects connected with the names Ahriman and Lucifer. And it is precisely here that something important must be understood in our time, for in our time, among many other things, there is also a very important transition from the Luciferic to the Ahrimanic. And since this transition is evident not only elsewhere but also quite clearly here in Switzerland, we can certainly speak of it here as well. In this area, the first aspect may have gained less significance here precisely because of Swiss customs, but the second has every prospect of gaining greater significance on this very soil. For humanity is, in regard to certain things, in a transition from Luciferic to Ahrimanic vices, from Luciferic counter-impulses regarding human development to Ahrimanic counter-impulses.

[ 27 ] Certain impulses that were promoted in the education system in earlier times were decidedly Luciferic in nature. In the field of education—as we all know very well from our own youth, with the exception of the youngest among us—ambition and vanity were taken for granted. So—perhaps less so here in Switzerland, but quite a lot elsewhere in the world—ambition and vanity, along with the system of orders, titles, and so on, were taken for granted, weren’t they! The entire career of many people was built upon these Luciferic impulses of vanity, ambition, the desire to be more important than another person, and so on. Try to think back to how the educational system was already structured around these Luciferic impulses.

[ 28 ] In the present day, there is a striving to replace these Luciferic impulses with Ahrimanic ones. Today, they are cloaked in the cute term “talent tests.” This aims to achieve in the Ahrimanic realm what the emphasis on ambition and vanity in children already achieved in the Luciferic realm. Today, the aim is to identify the most gifted—those who are already the most capable in their classes—and to single out individuals from among them. Then they resort to these giftedness tests—tests of intellect, tests of memory, tests of comprehension, and so on. And this is something for which the Swiss mindset has a strong predisposition. And even if the Luciferic played a lesser role here, this Ahrimanic aspect is already evident in very subtle seeds: an appreciation for these aptitude tests. For these aptitude tests are, after all, rooted in intelligence, in science, and in contemporary scholarly psychology. So you sit down—don’t you—with those whose aptitude you wish to test, and you write down for them: Murderer — Mirror — Victim of the murderer.

[ 29 ] Now there they sit, the poor little lambs, faced with the three words “murderer,” “mirror,” and “murderer’s victim,” and they’re supposed to find connections between them. One child comes up with this: The murderer sneaks up on his victim, but the victim has a mirror, and the murderer is reflected in it at that very moment, so the victim is still able to save himself. — That’s the first child. Their understanding leads them to connect the three words in this way.

[ 30 ] Now here’s another one: A murderer creeps up on his victim, looks at himself in a mirror; there, his face looks to him like that of someone with a guilty conscience, and the murderer lets go of his victim because he sees his face in the mirror. — That is the second child.

[ 31 ] The third child comes up with a different scenario: A murderer creeps up. This murderer finds a mirror. He bumps into the mirror; the mirror falls, making a terrible noise and crashing to the floor. The murderer’s victim hears the crash and is able to prepare to defend himself against the murderer just in time.

[ 32 ] The last child is the most gifted! The first child came up with only the most obvious combinations of ideas, the second with an obvious moral point, but the third child came up with a very complex connection of ideas. That’s the most gifted one! Well, it’s something like that. Of course, if you want to describe everything briefly, you have to present it a bit in its own unique essence. But that’s how they plan to test the children’s talents in the near future, so they can identify the most gifted ones.

[ 33 ] One thing is certain: If the people who invent these methods were to consider who the great figures are that they revere—such as Helmholtz, Newton, and so on—they would have to admit that, in these aptitude tests, all of them, without exception, would have been regarded as the least gifted of the lot! — Nothing would have come of it. For Helmholtz, who is certainly regarded today by the people who administer these aptitude tests as a great physicist, had hydrocephalus and was very ungifted in his youth.

[ 34 ] What, then, is the point of such testing? The mere external organism—simply that which is regarded as the physical instrument of the human being—the purely Ahrimanic aspect of human nature! If the fruits of these aptitude tests ever come to mean anything to humanity, then even more horrific thought-forms will arise than those that have led to the current catastrophe facing humanity. However, if one speaks to people today about what may only lead to catastrophic events a hundred years from now, it simply does not interest them. But we are now living through this transition from the Luciferic educational system to the Ahrimanic educational system, and we must be among those who understand how to take such matters into account.

[ 35 ] People must transform that which is a driving force for the future into forces of the present. For that is what is demanded of us today: We are called upon to confront concrete, immediate reality in a genuine, truthful, and unbiased manner.

[ 36 ] One can indeed have some very peculiar experiences there. I’m not sure if I’ve already mentioned an experience here that is quite interesting. There are writings by Woodrow Wilson—one on freedom, and another titled “Only Literature”—that have been greatly admired and are still highly admired by many today. In the essay titled “Nur Literatur,” there is an interesting essay by Woodrow Wilson on the historical development of America. The collection also includes other interesting essays by Woodrow Wilson that offer broad historical perspectives. When I read these essays, I had an interesting experience. In these works, there are individual sentences that seemed incredibly familiar to me, and yet they were certainly not copied from anywhere; nevertheless, they seemed extraordinarily familiar to me. And I very soon realized that these sentences, which appear in Woodrow Wilson’s work, could just as easily appear in Herman Grimm’s—indeed, that some of these sentences even appear verbatim in Herman Grimm’s work. I love Herman Grimm; Woodrow Wilson—as you well know—I do not exactly love. But I cannot therefore conceal the objective fact that, with regard to the content of the sentences, one could simply take sentences from Herman Grimm’s lectures and essays and insert them into Wilson’s essays, and conversely, one could take sentences from Wilson and insert them into Herman Grimm’s works. On the surface, the two are saying exactly the same thing. But in the present day, one must learn: When two people say the same thing, it is not the same! For here lies the interesting fact: Herman Grimm’s sentences have been personally fought for, have been won, step by step, from the depths of his soul. Woodrow Wilson’s identical sentences stem from a peculiar obsession. The man is possessed by a subconscious self that drives these sentences up into his conscious life.

[ 37 ] Anyone capable of judging such matters will realize that this is what it comes down to: a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat; but there is a difference between whether that grain of wheat is sown in this soil or in that soil. There is a difference between someone who has an idea so deeply as their own that they have fought for it, piece by piece, in their own, most personal way, and someone who has this idea because a subconscious mind has made them possessed by it: in the latter case, everything emanates from a possessed subconscious, from a consciousness that is possessed by the subconscious. So what matters today is to understand this: It is not the content of thoughts or the content of programs that matters, but rather the living life that humanity lives.

[ 38 ] One can teach materialist philosophy; one can teach mere philosophy of thought; one can teach mere materialist natural science; one can be an outstanding European scholar through mere materialist natural science, a credit to the university, and at the same time a model citizen: after all, this type is not so rare, is it? They are to be found everywhere—the adornments and luminaries of science who are at the same time entirely irreproachable, upstanding citizens! It is quite possible to be that way. But take any specific idea, such as the struggle for existence—to name a trivial one—or an idea as espoused even by more moderate figures like Oscar Hertwig, or ideas as espoused by Spencer, Mill, Boutroux, and Bergson, who certainly do not seek to penetrate spiritual life but remain within the realm of mere philosophical speculation—but even more so: Take what materialistic scientific ideas are; take these ideas—certainly, they can take root in the minds of law-abiding citizens; fine, but a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, yet there is a difference between a grain of wheat growing in fertile soil and one growing in rocky soil, and there is a difference between the same scientific idea—which in Europe can be attained as a jewel of science and is accepted at universities, growing in the minds of university professors—and whether it grows in the mind of a man who has a brother who, already as a young man, in the late 1880s, was regarded as a luminary of science in a St. Petersburg laboratory brimming with fruitful chemical ideas, was awarded a special medal, and was already highly revered as a young man by all who worked with him—and this brother is suddenly no longer there! Just moments ago honored by the university authorities, suddenly no longer there! Through all manner of roundabout channels, his colleagues are said to have learned that he had since been hanged for having taken part in conspiracies against Alexander III, the reactionary. Such facts shed light on the events unfolding in the present, like flashes of lightning. Now, there is a difference between whether the same idea enters the mind of a respectable Western European university professor or the mind of the brother of this man who was hanged under such circumstances. When it enters the mind of this brother, then this brother is transformed into a Lenin—for the brother of this hanged man is Lenin—and then the same idea becomes the driving force behind everything you now see unfolding in Eastern Europe.

[ 39 ] An idea is an idea, just as a grain of wheat is a grain of wheat, but one must discern whether something is the same idea and is now emerging—whether in the mind of a university professor or in the mind of the brother of the man who was hanged back then. One must have the will to look into those depths of existence where the real impulses of events lie. And one must have the courage to reject all the empty rhetoric of programs and the ideas of scientists who believe that if they advocate this or that, it makes a difference. One can advocate for this or that in terms of content; but what matters is in which realm of living reality this advocacy takes place, just as it matters in which realm the grain of wheat falls—whether into fertile soil or into barren soil. Humanity must seek, in all areas, the path from abstraction—which, under today’s grave circumstances, leads everywhere to illusion or chaos—to reality, which can be found solely in spirituality. And no matter how long it takes: it is only on this path that humanity can find salvation and blessing amid the present confusion.

[ 40 ] This is what we should take to heart, what should unite us. This is how we should greet one another in a sincere welcome: with the knowledge that we belong to that which must heal humanity’s ills. These ills are curable, but they must not be treated with quackery. They must be healed by the very thing whose absence has led humanity into chaos in the first place.

[ 41 ] Leninism could never have taken root in the East if materialist science—which sometimes does not even consider itself materialist—had not been taught in the West. For what is being done in the East is directly a product of materialist science. A changeling has emerged through Karl Marx. The true child of materialist science already exists in the East. But one must have the will to truly look into all these things.

[ 42 ] That, my dear friends, is, so to speak, the backdrop against which—I would say—our project now stands out. And the individual people here involved in this project are working and thinking about it in a way that is truly quite removed from the ideas that move humanity in so many parts of the world today. It’s easy to imagine that out there in other spheres, there are many people who believe that here live people who set themselves apart from what moves the world today—and, as people believe, what should move it as well. One might imagine that people look upon this place with reproach. Those who are devoted to this project with all their heart and soul need not concern themselves with this reproach. For even if this project were to fail to fulfill its purpose, even if it were to fall short of its goal: what is being accomplished through this project—and what is being accomplished by those who work on it with devotion—is precisely what is most important in the present; it is precisely what must lead humanity out of all that it has become entangled in. And if people on the outside believe, for example, that “people here are working apart from the tasks of present-day humanity”—then one must be able to tell these people: “Here, work is being done precisely for what is most important, for what is most essential in the present; it is just that the others do not know about it, that the others are not yet aware of it.” But it will depend precisely on this that humanity will want to know something about what is happening here.

[ 43 ] Let it be emphasized once again: What matters is not whether this project achieves its goal—although it would be good if it did—but rather that work on this project has been carried out based on certain ideas, and that people have come together to work on it. And it is not the content of these ideas, but the way in which these ideas live—that is what constitutes the impulses of humanity for the future, whereas what many believe in today is nothing other than the ideas of the past that are bending toward the grave, passing into dissolution, and ripe for dissolution. We will talk more about this tomorrow.