The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Third Lecture

[ 1 ] We have become acquainted with some of the driving forces at work in the development of modern history. Of course, only a few; it would take us very, very far afield if we were to discuss all of these forces—for there are, of course, an infinite number of them once we go into detail. But even discussing only the most important ones would take us too far afield. There seems to be a desire to give special consideration to specific impulses of a symptomatic nature. We can do that next time, so I would like to speak one of the days next week about such symptoms that relate specifically to Switzerland. So let us try to paint a picture of Swiss history in our minds’ eye, so that we may have that as well.

[ 2 ] Today, however, let us try to move at least a little further beyond the starting points on which we have based our discussion. Yesterday, I concluded by giving you a picture—albeit a very meager one—of how socialism, one of the most significant phenomena of recent historical development, fits into the development of modern times. Now, for many people who strive to understand the true motives behind this development, this social—or rather, socialist—movement has overshadowed everything else, and they have not really been able to consider anything else alongside it. As a result, the attention of our time has not been directed intensely enough toward the very significant influence of something that is more hidden from view. This is true even where people were genuinely searching for modern driving forces. Attention has not been directed toward anything of a spiritual nature. Is it not true that those figures who, in the sense of what we discussed yesterday, largely slept through modern developments—particularly during the 19th century and as it drew to a close, and even more so in the 20th century— those figures who belonged to circles that paid little heed to the impulses inherent in the course of historical development—they are, after all, hardly taken into account from the outset when one asks: What symptomatic impulses of recent development have come to the fore for people? — Historians, insofar as they belonged to the old estates, limited themselves to recording the genealogy of the ruling houses, the history of wars, and at most a few other things that could be linked to these subjects. Cultural history has certainly been written as well, but these works of cultural history—I would say, from Buckle to Ratzel—remain quite distant from the truly driving forces. Alongside all this, however, there was an extraordinary amount of recent educational striving among the proletariat in the direction I characterized yesterday—an educational striving that spread farther and farther, posing the three questions I spoke of yesterday. But within this proletariat, there was no desire to delve into the finer interconnections of historical development. And so, until now, the historical significance of the scientific way of thinking as a historical symptom has not emerged strongly enough.

[ 3 ] Of course, one can discuss the scientific way of thinking in terms of its content; one can discuss it in relation to the transformation of modern thought. But it is important to also consider the extent to which this scientific way of thinking has become a historical symptom, just like the others I have listed—such as the nationalist impulse, the accumulation of intractable political problems, and so on. For in fact, since the beginning of the Age of Consciousness, the scientific way of thinking has become increasingly prevalent in the broadest circles. And it is simply wrong to believe that only those who know something about the natural sciences think scientifically. That is completely wrong. The opposite is true. People who are natural scientists think in the scientific way that people think today because the vast majority of civilized humanity today leans in this direction; because people think this way even in their most mundane daily activities; because this is how the farmer thinks when he’s working in the fields, the factory worker when he’s doing his job, and the financier when he’s conducting his financial ventures. Scientific thinking is present everywhere, and that is why science itself has gradually adopted this scientific way of thinking. So we must set right something that, in people’s minds, has been turned upside down in this regard. We must not look to the way of thinking of natural scientists or even of monistic fantasists, but rather we must look today to the way of thinking of the general public. For natural science does not provide a sufficient impetus for opposition to the Roman Catholic universal impulse; rather, it is the general way of thinking of civilized humanity—ordered according to nature and the natural order—that forms the impetus for opposition. And this impetus must be viewed as a symptom in connection with the entire remaining development of modern humanity.

[ 4 ] You see, the history taught in schools—which, from its own perspective, is largely a thoughtless one—usually begins the modern era with the discovery of America, the invention of gunpowder, the invention of the printing press, and similar events. But anyone who takes the time to examine the course of modern history will encounter these phenomena — the discovery of America, the invention of the printing press, and so on — and realizes that, while they do indeed lead people out into the wider world on voyages of discovery, and while they make the ancient knowledge possessed by humanity immensely popular and widespread, they do not, in essence, significantly alter the fundamental character of European civilization in the centuries following their emergence. One comes to the conclusion that the old political impulses—which had indeed been revitalized in various countries but which nevertheless remained the old political impulses in the sense I explained yesterday and the day before—were not at all in a position to make any significant impact, for example, on the voyages of discovery. At most, they had the opportunity to make conquests in these newly discovered lands, just as conquests had been made in other regions in the past; they had the opportunity to bring gold back from there and thereby achieve some enrichment. They had the opportunity to gradually tighten censorship in the field of printing. But the old political forces were unable to draw from what is usually regarded as the beginning of modern history anything that could be called a decisive impetus. It was only through the combination of the scientific way of thinking—once this scientific way of thinking had led to certain results—with the inventions and discoveries that emerged, even before modern science had fully taken hold, that what has become a truly significant and important impetus of modern times in this direction came about. For it is impossible to imagine that the colonization efforts—insofar as they originated in a wide variety of countries in modern times—could have taken place without modern scientific achievements; and only what science was able to translate into technology led to these modern colonization efforts. Only scientific discoveries could conquer the Earth in the way it had to be conquered in the course of modern colonization efforts. And that is why we see these colonization efforts, in essence, only truly begin in the 18th century, when science began to translate into technical achievements.

[ 5 ] But this also marks the beginning of the Machine Age. The Machine Age begins when the natural sciences are translated into technical achievements. And with this begins a new era of colonization, which gradually extends its reach across the entire Earth. This marks the beginning of an extraordinarily important impulse in modern development within the soul of consciousness. For anyone who understands the circumstances at play here knows that precisely those impulses inherent in colonization—in the colonization that spans the entire Earth—and those movements and aspirations belong specifically to the age of the soul of consciousness. And this Age of the Consciousness Soul—which, as you know, will come to an end in the fourth millennium and give way to the Age of the Spiritual Self—will bring about a different configuration of humanity across the entire Earth. This configuration will emerge from the efforts of colonization. Isn’t it true that the Age of the Consciousness Soul has encountered so-called civilized, highly civilized, and utterly wild people—so wild that Rousseau fell in love with their wildness and devised an entire theory based on the ideal of the wild man? This entire differentiation among human beings will come to an end in the course of the Age of the Consciousness Soul. As for how it will come to an end—we cannot, of course, go into the details today. But it is one of the impulses of the soul of consciousness to essentially abolish this differentiation, which is rooted in tradition.

[ 6 ] Only when one knows this do wars such as the one between the Northern and Southern states of America, and so on, take on their proper context within modern endeavors, and only then, when one views things in this way—when one grasps the importance of colonization efforts for the period of consciousness—does one gain insight into the full significance of the individual symptoms that arise in this area. And these efforts are unthinkable without humanity thinking in scientific terms.

[ 7 ] Well, thinking in scientific terms—that is precisely what one must truly take into account if, so to speak, one wishes to penetrate the true reality of human development from the perspective of the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, the Age of the Conscious Soul. This newer scientific way of thinking has the peculiar characteristic—I have now sufficiently characterized it here—that it can grasp only the dead, the ghostly aspect of reality; that it focuses everywhere on the dead. Let us be perfectly clear about this important fact. The newer scientific way of thinking strives from observation toward experimentation. In all fields, the aim is to move from observation to experimentation. There is an important difference between the observation of nature and the knowledge proven through experimentation. The observation of nature, in one form or another, has been characteristic of all ages. But when a person observes nature, they are connected to nature; they immerse themselves in nature; they share in the life of nature. Herein lies the peculiarity: their coexistence with nature numbs them in a certain way. One cannot live with nature and at the same time gain knowledge in the modern sense of the conscious soul. One cannot do both, any more than one can be awake and asleep at the same time. If one wishes to live in harmony with nature, one must, in a certain sense, allow oneself to be numbed by nature. For this reason, even the observation of nature cannot penetrate the mysteries of nature, for as a person observes nature, they are lulled to sleep a little; they are numbed. As a result, the mystery of nature falls out of their understanding. They must awaken in the realm of the supersensible if they wish to penetrate the mysteries of nature.

[ 8 ] But when one is numbed, one cannot reach the soul of consciousness. That is why modern natural science instinctively strives to gradually move beyond observation and to gain everything through experimentation. After all, people are also seeking to experiment in the fields of biology and anthropology. But when one experiments, the main thing is to design the experiment and to determine the order in which one observes. How things are actually arranged—for example, when conducting experimental embryology—is not determined by nature, but by the human intellect, by the human mind; it is determined by that which I have told you moves away from nature in order to be inwardly present within the human being. We set nature aside in order to learn to understand it through experimentation. But we can apply technically only what we gain through experimentation. Knowledge of nature only becomes ripe for technical application when it matures for that purpose through the detour of experimentation. What previously constitutes the introduction of knowledge of nature into social life is not yet technology. It would even be barbaric to speak of technology if one were not dealing with the pure implementation of an experiment into the social order or into those things that serve the social order.

[ 9 ] But then modern humanity incorporates the results of experimental science—in the form of technology—into the social order: lifeless things. And that is the crux of the matter: we incorporate lifeless things into our efforts at colonization; we incorporate lifeless things when we build our machines for industry. But not only then—we also do so when we bring our workers to these machines within a certain social order. We introduce lifelessness into our more recent historical order by developing our financial system across smaller or larger territories. We introduce death when we seek to build a social order at all according to the model of modern natural science, as modern humanity has instinctively done. We introduce death everywhere into human coexistence when we bring natural science into this human coexistence—death that kills itself.

[ 10 ] This is one of the most important symptoms. We can make very sincere and honest statements—and I don’t mean merely rhetorical statements, but genuinely sincere ones—about the great achievements of modern times, about everything that the natural sciences have developed, incorporated into technology, and then integrated into social life. But we are telling only half the truth when we speak of these achievements, for the essential nature of all these achievements is that they introduce into modern life something that is absolutely lifeless and incapable of developing on its own. The greatest thing that has been introduced into the development of modern civilized humanity over the centuries—since the 15th century—is something that, if left to its own devices, leads itself to death. And that was inevitable. For one might ask: If modern technology is merely the seed of death—as it is and must be—why did this modern technology come into being? — Modern technology certainly did not come into being over time simply so that people might be given the spectacle of machines and industry; rather, modern technology came into being for an entirely different reason. It came into being precisely because of its death-leading character, for only when human beings are placed within a dead, mechanical culture can they develop the soul of consciousness through the counter-reaction. As long as human beings lived in harmony with nature, without the intrusion of machines, they were predisposed to a certain form of suggestive influence, because they were, to a certain extent, numbed. One could not stand entirely on one’s own two feet when one had not yet been placed within death. Self-reliant consciousness and that which brings death are intimately related. I have already tried to make this clear to people in a wide variety of ways. I have tried to make it clear to people: When they imagine and perceive, this is not tied to the sprouting, burgeoning forces of the human being, but precisely to the breakdown of the organism. I have tried to make it clear to people that it is the regression of the organism—that it is the processes of breakdown and dying—that enable us to think in a self-conscious sense. If we were unable to develop a “hunger for the brain”—that is, processes of decay, decomposition, and destruction within us—we could not be intelligent human beings, but would merely be staggering, sleeping, dreaming people. We are intelligent human beings because of the processes of decay in our brains. And the age of the conscious soul had to give human beings the opportunity to experience decay in their environment. Modern, self-conscious thinking did not flourish because flourishing life processes were introduced; rather, the very core of the human being—self-conscious thinking—flourished precisely because processes of death were introduced into this life through modern technology, modern industry, and the modern financial system. For this is what life in the soul of consciousness demanded.

[ 11 ] This is also evident in other areas. Take, for example, the initiatives we have been considering. Let’s start with England, where we have seen how parliamentarism has developed over the centuries as a certain nuance of how the self-reliant individual seeks to realize itself. After all, the individual wants to emancipate itself; it wants to stand on its own two feet. But this means that, while at the same time wanting to be a social individual, it also wants to assert itself as an individual. Parliamentarism is merely one way of asserting oneself as a personality. But as the individual participating in parliamentarism asserts himself, he destroys his personality the moment his will is transformed into a vote. The personality ceases to exist the moment the will becomes a vote. And when properly studied, the maturation of parliamentarism in English history over the centuries—since the Civil War in the 15th century—means nothing other than this. At the starting point of this parliamentary life—this life oriented toward parliamentarism—we see estates, the most diverse estates. These estates do not merely wish to assert themselves as estates, but as votes; they want to speak by asserting themselves as estates. Well, they could speak. But people are not satisfied with speaking and reaching an understanding; rather, they then want to vote. By voting—by allowing speech to flow into a vote—one kills what lives in the soul, no matter how long one speaks. And so every form of parliamentarization speaks its way into the absolute leveling of humanity. It arises from the assertion of the personality and ends with the eradication of the personality. There is no other possibility in this realm than that the tendency springs from the assertion of the personality and ends with the eradication of the personality. It is a complete cyclical process, like human life itself. It begins with birth and ends with death. Only in the case of human beings is this spread over two points in time; in historical life, one intervenes directly into the other—birth and death are intertwined. This is what one must bear in mind.

[ 12 ] Please do not interpret what I have said as a criticism of parliamentarism. For if you were to take it as a criticism of parliamentarism, you would be insinuating that I said: A person is born—that is nonsense, because he dies again; therefore, since he dies again, he should not be born. One should not impose this folly on the world—that it allows human beings to be born if it then allows them to die again. — Please do not insinuate that I am saying: Parliamentarism is nonsense because the individual gives birth to it and, through the very impulse from which it arises, destroys it again. — I am merely bringing parliamentarism out of rhetoric and into immediate life. I place it within what is inherent in all life: birth and death; and thus I show it precisely as something belonging to reality, but in doing so I also show you the characteristic feature of all external phenomena of this kind in the age of the conscious soul, for they all bear the mark of birth and death that I have just mentioned.

[ 13 ] Well, it has been said countless times in the small circles of the occult lodges of the English-speaking world, when we were among ourselves: Let us not enlighten the world about the mystery of birth and death! For if we enlighten them about the mystery of birth and death, we enlighten them about the present age. We are passing on to them a body of knowledge that we do not wish to relinquish. — That is why it was established as the first rule: under no circumstances to speak in public life about the mystery of birth and death—that which is inherent in everything, and first and foremost in historical phenomena. For this imprints a tragic stamp on modern life and gradually compels this modern life toward something it does not readily allow itself to be compelled toward. This modern life is compelled to turn its gaze away from the results of work and toward the work itself. One must take joy in working by telling oneself: Whatever one can achieve in this age in the external world, one achieves for death and not for birth. — And if one does not wish to work for death, one cannot work in the modern sense, for in the modern age one must work like a machine. And whoever does not want that simply wants to return to earlier ages.

[ 14 ] You can then study French history to see how attempts were made to drive the emancipation of the individual inward. This leads to that terrible suspension of the individual, as demonstrated by the final episode of the Revolution and the rise of Napoleonic rule. And consider the matter in Italy as well. From what did modern Italy draw that impulsive force with which the national element asserted itself there to the point of so-called “sacro egoismo”—holy egoism? From what did this new Italy draw this force? The things that underlie the phenomena of the world must often be sought in the depths. Go back to that pivotal moment that precedes the dawn of the Age of Consciousness: this force, in all its aspects, is drawn from what the Roman Papacy implanted in the Italian spirit. The Roman Papacy proved its significance for Italy precisely by instilling its essence into the Italian soul; and from this sprang—as so often happens to the sorcerer’s apprentice—that which was not intended: the intense rejection of the Papacy itself in modern Italy. Here you can best see the clash between what is strived for and what simultaneously negates itself. Not the thoughts, but the powers of feeling and enthusiasm—including those that were present in Garibaldi—are the remnants of the old Catholic enthusiasm; but by turning themselves around, they have turned against Catholicism.

[ 15 ] People will only understand their own age today if they view these things in their proper context. I have told you: In Europe, those various symptomatic events are unfolding that I have set before your soul. As if in the background, in the East stands the Russian entity, forged from the remnants of the Byzantine-religious structure, from the Norman-Slavic blood impulse, and from Asianism, as it has poured over the East of Europe in the most diverse ways. But all of this is unproductive; this triad is not something that springs from the Russian soul itself. This triad is also what is not characteristic of what lives in the Russian soul. — What is the greatest, the very greatest conceivable antithesis to the emancipation of the personality? The Byzantine element. There is a great figure in modern times who is underestimated: Pobiedonoshev, who was a significant man, but one who embodied the Byzantine element entirely. He was a man who could only desire the opposite of what the age of consciousness desires and brings forth naturally from the human being. One might imagine that the Byzantine element in Russian Orthodoxy would have spread even more intensely, that this suppression of all that is individual and personal would have been carried out even more rigorously—yet nothing else would have emerged but the strongest urge toward the emancipation of the individual. You can read through recent Russian history: If you do not read in this recent Russian history what has taken place in such a way that its recording has always been forbidden, then you do not have what Russian history actually is—that is, the truly driving force. But if you read in Russian history what the ruling powers have so far permitted to be recorded as history, then you have everything that spreads over Russian life as a deadly element. There it stands out most characteristically, because Russian life holds the greatest promise for the future. Precisely because the seeds for the development of the spiritual self lie in Russian life, what has manifested externally in the age of the consciousness soul up to now is nothing but death, nothing but the stench of decay—yet it is something that had to be there, precisely because that which seeks to emerge as spiritual life requires the subsoil of death.

[ 16 ] One must recognize this in order to understand the development of the Age of the Consciousness Soul; otherwise, one will never gain insight into the true needs of the present. Nor will one be able to form a picture of what has so destructively descended upon humanity unless one realizes that these last four years merely summarize, as in a grand recapitulation, what has been spreading over human life like death since the beginning of the Age of Consciousness.

[ 17 ] It is characteristic that the very lifeless nature of the scientific way of thinking had a peculiar effect on one of the most prophetic figures of modern times. The following small, symptomatic event will always stand out as particularly memorable in the recent course of history: In 1830, in Weimar, Soret visited Goethe. Goethe received him with a certain agitation—I mean agitation in the manner of his demeanor, not passionate agitation. He said: “Now it has finally broken out, the movement; everything is ablaze!” — And Goethe said a few other things as well, so that Soret believed Goethe was speaking of the revolution that had broken out in Paris in 1830 and replied accordingly. But Goethe was not speaking of that revolution at all. He said: “Oh, that’s not what I mean at all; that’s not particularly important to me. What is important, however, is what is being debated at the Academy in Paris between Cuvier and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire.” — There is Cuvier, the representative of the old view of nature—the view that merely juxtaposes living beings, the very view that, we must say, is primarily directed toward technology—and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, the one who brings life into this entire course of life itself. In Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, Goethe saw the leader of a modern scientific way of thinking that no longer seeks to be scientific in the sense of mere Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The representative of this era is Cuvier; in contrast, Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire is the representative of that scientific perspective that brings the dynamism of life itself into the view of nature. That is why Goethe saw the dawn of an entirely new era in the way Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire was developing a scientific mode of thinking in his mind—one that, if it truly develops, must transition into a supersensible understanding of nature, which cannot help but ultimately lead to supersensible insights, to clairvoyant insights. It was in this that Goethe saw the Revolution of 1830, not in the political events unfolding in Paris. In this, Goethe proved himself to be one of the most intensely prophetic minds of his time. He demonstrated that he sensed and perceived what was at stake in this new era.

[ 18 ] In these modern times, one must have the courage to truly look into the circumstances. In earlier ages, such courage was not yet necessary. One must have the courage to look into the circumstances of what is happening, for it is important that the consciousness soul be able to develop. Yes, in earlier ages the development of this soul of consciousness was not yet important. Precisely because the soul of consciousness is becoming the defining feature of this age, everything that human beings develop for social life must take place in the waking state; consequently, they cannot carry the old instincts into social life. Nor can he bring into social life solely the results of natural science, for these are lifeless and cannot enliven life; they can only permeate life with lifeless products and lead it into such destructive circumstances as the last four years have brought. For in this age, the following becomes important.

[ 19 ] Isn’t it true that people also need to sleep? When they are awake, they have their usual free will—and they can use that to develop guiding forces in response to all sorts of things that come to them through Ahrimanic-Luciferic channels. But when they fall asleep, this free—so-called free—will ceases; then people think without realizing it. Yet it is no less effective. People certainly continue to think. One does not stop thinking simply by falling asleep; one thinks until one wakes up. One simply forgets this at the moment one wakes up. That is why one does not realize the power of those thoughts that flow into the human soul from the moment of falling asleep until waking up. But let us consider that, in the age of the conscious soul, the gods have left the human soul during sleep. In earlier ages, the gods instilled whatever they wished into the soul from the moment of falling asleep until waking. Human beings would not have become free if the gods had continued to instill these influences. As a result, however, human beings are open to all manner of other influences from the moment of falling asleep until waking. Yes, we can stay awake and live if we must, but we cannot sleep and die with natural science and with what follows from it. For one can think scientifically only from waking until falling asleep. The moment you fall asleep, while you are asleep, scientific thinking makes about as much sense as if you were to speak French everywhere in a country where no one understands French. Only the language acquired through supersensible knowledge—which comes from the supersensible—has meaning there. Supersensible knowledge must take the place of what the gods once implanted in our instincts. This is the meaning of the Age of Consciousness: that human beings must rise to supersensible impulses and penetrate to knowledge. If one believes that everything this age has produced and continues to produce without supersensible impulses is something living rather than something deadly, one is succumbing to the same illusion as if one were to believe that a woman of the modern age could give birth without conceiving. A woman of the modern age remains barren and dies without offspring if she does not conceive. Modern culture, as it has developed in the age of natural science since the beginning of the 15th century—precisely in its greatest modern achievements—remains sterile and barren unless it is fertilized from now on by impulses from the supersensible world. Everything that is not fertilized by the supersensible world must become death. Introduce democracy, parliamentarianism, technology, modern finance, and modern industry in this age of the conscious soul; introduce the national principle throughout the entire world; introduce all those perspectives that people now take as the basis for what they call the “reorganization of the world”—and about which they speak like drunks who do not know what they are talking about — you are then promoting death if you do not wish to infuse all of this with the impulses of the supersensible world. Only then does what we must create—which is deadly in all areas—have any value, if we know how to infuse it with the achievements of the supersensible. It brings only death upon humanity if we do not know how to infuse it with the impulses of the supersensible.

[ 20 ] If we take this in all seriousness, we rise—precisely from a symptomatological view of modern history—to the following thought: Since the 15th century, those things that humanity records as its greatest achievements have entered into human development: modern natural science, modern sociology, modern technological life, modern industrial life, and modern financial life. They have entered into it. They are deadly unless they are fertilized by the supersensible. They are capable of advancing humanity toward where it must go only if they are imbued with impulses from the supersensible. Then they are good. They are not good in and of themselves. Nothing is good in and of itself among what modern humanity today, with a certain arrogance and hubris, presents as its greatest achievements. It becomes good only when it is imbued with the spiritual.

[ 21 ] This is not a doctrine that is arbitrarily presented to you; it is a doctrine that, when one considers modern historical development from a symptomatic perspective, emerges from that modern historical development itself. And the time has come for us to develop this consciousness. But we must also know what we can reasonably expect of this consciousness. The moment we even unconsciously wish to be dogmatists—even if only inwardly—we can no longer develop this consciousness. Therefore, as I have recently set before your souls, I must repeatedly remind you of things such as the following: I once gave lectures in a city on the Bible and wisdom. There were also two Catholic clergymen in the audience—most of you already know this little fact—who approached me because I hadn’t said anything in particular that could be contested by a Catholic clergyman, and since they weren’t exactly Jesuits—who study everything carefully and have the task of sticking their noses into everything—but rather average Catholic parish priests, they came up to me and said: “Yes, we have Purgatory. You also speak of such a time of trial after death. We have Paradise. You speak of the spiritual experience, and one can’t really object much to the substance of the matter. You would have had enough to object to if they had probed deeper, but of course they didn’t find that in a single lecture!” — Then they went on to say: “You see, the difference is this: the way you speak, you’re only addressing a certain segment of the population—one that has created the necessary conditions for itself, acquired a certain level of education, and adopted certain ideas—whereas we speak to all people. That’s why we find the right words for everyone, and that’s why it’s right to speak to all people.” — To which I replied: “Reverend”—of course, one addresses a Catholic clergyman as ‘Reverend’; I’m always in favor of retaining formal titles—“Reverend, you see, what you’re saying now isn’t the point. I don’t doubt for a moment that you believe you’re speaking for everyone, that you think you can structure your speech as if you were speaking for everyone. But that is a subjective opinion, isn’t it? It is what one usually holds in order to justify one’s own speech to oneself. But what matters is not whether we hold this belief—that we speak for all people—but rather the facts; reality is what matters. And so I’m not asking you now in a theoretical-logical sense: What are the reasons why I shouldn’t speak for everyone, while you speak for everyone—in that case, we would of course find an endless number of arguments in your favor. But I’m asking you about the facts: Do all the people you believe you can speak to still come into your church today? You see, that is the fact.” Of course, they couldn’t say that all people still go to church with them today! “You see,” I told them, “I rely on the facts; I speak for those who stay away but who also have a right to be led to Christ. It is for them that I speak. I see that there are people who want to hear things this way or that way. That is a fact, and it is the fact that matters; subjective opinions don’t matter at all.”

[ 22 ] Above all, it is healthy to learn to form one’s view of reality not from one’s own subjectivity, for nothing is more dangerous than indulging in subjectivity—and doing so with a particular fondness—especially in the age of the consciousness soul. In order to develop the soul of consciousness, we must not become dogmatists in the unconscious; rather, we must allow the world of facts to dictate everything we make the driving forces of our actions and thoughts. That is precisely what matters. And therein lies a fundamental struggle in recent times beneath the surface of historical development—a fundamental struggle between accepting what one considers to be right and the dictates of facts. And this becomes particularly important when considering history. For one will never view history correctly unless one simultaneously comes to know it as the great, true teacher. But then one must not impose the facts onto history as one sees fit; rather, one must truly be able to let history speak for itself. Over the past four years, people all over the world have forgotten an immense amount precisely with regard to this principle of letting history speak for itself. It is, so to speak, hardly the fact itself that speaks anymore, but rather what one takes to be the fact. Well, it will be a long time yet before we learn to let the facts speak for themselves, but for just as long, we will not yet have attained the power that truly leads humanity toward an unbiased perception of reality. And an unbiased perception of reality and the attainment of an unbiased attitude toward reality are what matter most in all areas of life, especially in the age of the conscious soul.

[ 23 ] What is required—if I may add this—if we wish to gradually advance from the symptoms of history—we will discuss this further in the next lectures—toward reality? What is required is that, especially in this age, we be able to look toward that which, coming from the supersensible world, restores productivity to the human being. For we have seen the withering away of productivity emerge as the most characteristic feature of all phenomena. Human beings must open their senses to the supersensible world so that what prepares their spiritual self may enter into their “I”; otherwise, they would completely cut off the paths to their spiritual self. This means that human beings must become acquainted with the purely spiritual—with that which, so to speak, can enter only into the center of their soul. Once they are inclined to look into this center of their soul through a rational, symptomatological view of history, they will also be inclined to regard that which is now not the center but the periphery with greater impartiality.

[ 24 ] Human beings already face this contrast: the spiritual center and the outer periphery. As they delve ever deeper into themselves spiritually and mentally, they reach the center. In this center, they must take in the impulses that I have characterized for you as “historical.” There, they will strive for the spiritual and ever more spiritual if they wish to come to know historical reality. In return, however, they will also develop a sense of striving toward the opposite pole at the periphery. They will develop a sense for that which pushes toward the periphery: their physical nature. If history is to find the path I have outlined—through symptomatology toward the inner realm—then medicine, for example, as well as public health and the healthcare system, must find the path toward symptomatology directed outward. Just as modern history fails to penetrate to the realities, so too do modern medicine, the modern healthcare system, and modern public health fail to penetrate to the outward symptoms. And I have emphasized this time and again: The individual cannot help the individual, no matter how thoroughly he may see through things, because the point is that today these very things are in the hands of those who are pulling in the wrong direction. Responsibility must truly be placed in the hands of those who are moving in the right direction. Certainly, the external facts are just as true as it is true—well, that James I ultimately looked the way I have described him to you; so, of course, the external facts are also true that this or that type of bacillus has something to do with, say, the flu that is now so widespread. But if it is true, for example, that rats are carriers of a certain epidemic disease—I’m just using this as an illustration—then one cannot say that the disease comes from the rats; rather, it has always been assumed that the rats spread this disease. In and of themselves, of course, the germs actually have nothing to do with what the disease is. What such things are really about is this: just as we are dealing with spiritual-soul events behind the symptoms of history, so too are we dealing with cosmological events behind the symptoms of external physicality in such a phenomenon. With other phenomena, of course, the situation is different, isn’t it? What is particularly important in such a case is the rhythmic course of cosmic events. This must be studied. We must ask: In what cosmic constellation were we living when, in the 1880s, today’s flu appeared in the milder form of influenza? In what constellation of a cosmic nature are we living now? How is the cosmic rhythm unfolding, given that the influenza of that time is now appearing in the somewhat more severe form of the flu? — Just as a rhythm must be sought behind the historical sequence of symptoms, so too must a certain rhythm be sought behind the occurrence of certain epidemic diseases.

[ 25 ] There are places on Earth where all you have to do is light a scrap of paper, and all kinds of vapors rise up from the ground; these are the solfatara regions in Italy. This proves to you that you can perform an action above the Earth, and the Earth sends these things up to you as part of natural processes. Yes, do you consider it impossible that something is happening on the Sun—since the sun’s rays fall upon the Earth every day—that has significance for what rises from the Earth and is connected to human life, and that this, in turn, takes on different forms depending on the various regions of the Earth? Do you really believe that we will gain any insight into these matters before we are willing to move toward a true cosmology through spiritual and psychological insight? Certainly, it has been regarded as folly—and in this sense it is folly—that people have said: Human tendencies toward war are linked to the cycles of sunspots. — But there is a point where even that is no longer pure folly, where the occurrence of certain pathological impulses in the life of the temperament is itself connected to such cosmological phenomena as the rhythmically recurring sunspot cycles. And if this small community, these tiny creatures—germs, rats—truly carry from one person to another that which has a cosmological connection, then that is merely a secondary matter, one that can be easily proven and which, of course, finds a wide audience; but it is not the main point. And above all, one cannot get to the heart of the matter unless one has the will to truly study the peripheral symptoms as well.

[ 26 ] Therefore, I do not believe that people will arrive at more reasonable views of history unless they engage in historical symptomatology grounded in supersensible knowledge—as is so necessary for modern humanity—but I must say: People will also only make progress in the fields of public health, hygiene, and medicine if they now pursue a cosmological—not a historical, but a cosmological—symptomatology in these areas. For what exists on Earth as disease is sent down to us from heaven. — Of course, one must not then live under the prejudice in which modern humanity lives. Modern humanity has made things very comfortable for itself: God is everywhere. — Well, then modern humanity, by acknowledging God in history, is simply not in a position to explain all the various retarding and harmful processes in history. And when years like the last four come along, this whole idea of God in history—of the one God in history—becomes truly, truly quite troublesome, because then this God in history develops a strange urge to multiply, and everyone then defends their own God in history on their own turf, thereby annoying the others. And only when one is supposed to move on to cosmology while at the same time clinging to the convenient God of Unity does this God send the diseases! But if one knows how to ascend to the Trinity—God, Lucifer, Ahriman—if one recognizes this Trinity in the supersensible realm beyond historical observations, beyond historical symptoms, if one recognizes this Trinity out there in the cosmic universe, then one has no need to invoke the good God when one says: “Heaven sends us illnesses by interacting with the Earth—just as I can cause sulfur fumes to rise simply by placing a sheet of paper on a sulfur-covered ground.” But truth can only bring help when people recognize the truth in the Age of the Conscious Soul. Therefore, everything ultimately comes down to one thing: seeking the truth.