The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Tenth Lecture

[ 1 ] Yesterday I continued some of our reflections based on an essay by Berdyaev, which, as you have seen, proceeds from a prejudice—an unconditional belief in modern science; which, on the other hand, notes the curious fact—one that can only be understood in light of the contrast between rational logic, which is also the logic of the natural sciences, and factual logic—that Bolshevism has, in a sense, made Avenarius, Mach, and similar philosophers of positivism its official philosophers. It may be necessary for me to emphasize to you explicitly that the essay I have mentioned to you was written as early as 1908, and it is very remarkable—and can only be understood from the perspective of our humanities—that this Russian writer offers a judgment that is most in line with the present, regardless of one’s general stance on these matters; or, to put it more accurately, a judgment that is still applicable to the present. It may also be important for you to hear that Mach and Avenarius were already regarded, in a sense, as Bolshevik philosophers at a time when—and I do not wish to offend anyone in the slightest—but “perhaps” a large portion of you yourselves did not yet know what Bolshevism actually is. For a large portion of the population of Western and Central Europe has only become aware of Bolshevism in a very recent time, whereas it is, in fact, an old phenomenon.

[ 2 ] Now I would like to add a few more points to the reflections we have been engaging in over the course of time. You have seen that my aim was to show you how the social impulses of the present day should be assessed from a spiritual-scientific perspective. And we had to place great emphasis—not in the way this is commonly done today from a purely abstract standpoint—on not simply succumbing to the belief that one can think about social impulses as if they were uniform across the entire world. It is precisely this that will cloud all thinking and judgment regarding the social question and lead us astray if we do not take into account that human communities are differentiated across the civilized world; thus, we must avoid the error into which one falls when one says: “With regard to the social question, this or that applies; human society must be organized in such and such a way.” — Rather, one must pose the question: What are the forces at work among Eastern humanity, what are the forces at work among Western humanity, and what are the forces at work among humanity in the middle—the forces that lead to social demands? And we have, after all, characterized in the most varied ways—from both the external, symptomatic, and the internal, occult points of view—how this differentiation between Western humanity, Middle humanity, and Eastern humanity—to which we specifically also count Eastern Europe and Russia—is to be understood. Without an understanding of this differentiation, it is simply not possible to form a fruitful conception of the social question.

[ 3 ] Now let us ask ourselves today: What is—we have touched on this before, but today we want to highlight specific aspects—the fundamental soul quality, particularly in the era that began in the fifteenth century and which, as I have told you, will last well into the third millennium? What is the fundamental quality that drives the human soul toward development? This fundamental quality, which has scarcely revealed itself in its true form as yet, which is now in its infancy and will continue to develop further and further, is human intelligence—intelligence as a quality of the soul. Thus, over the course of this period, human beings are to be called upon more and more to judge all things—particularly social, scientific, and religious matters—based on this intelligence of theirs, for these impulses—the religious, the scientific, and the social—actually encompass the entire sphere of human life.

[ 3 ] Now let us ask ourselves today: What is—we have touched on this before, but today we want to highlight specific aspects—the fundamental soul quality, particularly in the era that began in the fifteenth century and which, as I have told you, will last well into the third millennium? What is the fundamental quality that drives the human soul toward development? This fundamental quality, which has scarcely revealed itself in its true form as yet, which is now in its infancy and will continue to develop further and further, is human intelligence—intelligence as a quality of the soul. Thus, over the course of this period, human beings are to be called upon more and more to judge all things—particularly social, scientific, and religious matters—based on this intelligence of theirs, for these impulses—the religious, the scientific, and the social—actually encompass the entire sphere of human life.

[ 3 ] Now let us ask ourselves today: What is—we have touched on this before, but today we want to highlight specific aspects—the fundamental soul quality, particularly in the era that began in the fifteenth century and which, as I have told you, will last well into the third millennium? What is the fundamental quality that drives the human soul toward development? This fundamental quality, which has scarcely revealed itself in its true form as yet, which is now in its infancy and will continue to develop further and further, is human intelligence—intelligence as a quality of the soul. Thus, over the course of this period, human beings are to be called upon more and more to judge all things—particularly social, scientific, and religious matters—based on this intelligence of theirs, for these impulses—the religious, the scientific, and the social—actually encompass the entire sphere of human life.

[ 3 ] Now let us ask ourselves today: What is—we have touched on this before, but today we want to highlight specific aspects—the fundamental soul quality, particularly in the era that began in the fifteenth century and which, as I have told you, will last well into the third millennium? What is the fundamental quality that drives the human soul toward development? This fundamental quality, which has scarcely revealed itself in its true form as yet, which is now in its infancy and will continue to develop further and further, is human intelligence—intelligence as a quality of the soul. Thus, over the course of this period, human beings are to be called upon more and more to judge all things—particularly social, scientific, and religious matters—based on this intelligence of theirs, for these impulses—the religious, the scientific, and the social—actually encompass the entire sphere of human life.

[ 7 ] For whenever something like the “social question” arises—or indeed whenever anything else arises that depends on the community rather than on the individual—the “folk” element always comes into play. And no matter how much a member of the British nation, a member of the German people, or a resident of Russian soil—I am making this distinction quite deliberately—may, as human beings, judge English, German, and Russian politics or social structures in exactly the same way, they cannot be the same; they must be differentiated, because what is common comes into play. So it is not so much the individual relationship between one person and another that we are questioning here, but rather that which operates from one nation to another and, as a national character, differs from another national character. I must always emphasize this sharply, because—partly out of good will, partly out of malice—these things are misunderstood time and time again.

[ 8 ] Take one example, for instance. I ask that you view these things entirely “sine ira”; they are not meant as criticism, but merely as a statement of fact; I therefore ask that you accept these things without any sympathy or antipathy. Let us take a Central European who observes, on the one hand, the life of the English-speaking people and, on the other hand, the life of the Russian-speaking people—how these are expressed in the modes of imagination of the people, that is, again, not of the individual but of the people as a whole. A member of the Central European people might consciously form all sorts of judgments. Of course, people today speak according to public opinion, which is always a form of personal laziness—this or that. That may be so, but the inner person— and I mean the inner Central European here—will, when he passes judgment—which he need not even bring to conscious awareness—when he looks westward toward the English-speaking population, when he takes in the culture in the way it expresses itself politically and socially, he will pass this judgment: that is philistinism. And when he looks over toward Russia, he will pass this judgment: that is bohemianism. That is, of course, a somewhat radical way of putting it, but that is how it is. Certainly, he himself will hear from both the left and the right: “You may call us philistines, you may call us bohemians, but you are a pedant!” That may be true; certainly, that is, in turn, judged from the other point of view. But these things are more real than one thinks, and these realities must be brought to light from the depths of human existence.

[ 9 ] Now here is the peculiar thing: among the English-speaking population, intelligence is instinctive. It operates instinctively; it is a new instinct that has emerged in the course of human development—the instinct to think intelligently. That which the consciousness soul is specifically meant to cultivate—intellect—is practiced instinctively by the English-speaking population. The English national character is predisposed to the instinctive practice of intellect.

[ 10 ] The Russian population differs from the English-speaking one as much as the North Pole does from the South Pole, or—I might even say—as much as the North Pole does from the Equator with regard to this impulse of the intelligent being. In Central Europe—as I have already hinted—intelligence is not instinctive; rather, one must be educated to develop it; it is cultivated. That is the great, enormous difference. In England and America, intelligence is instinctive. There, it possesses all the characteristics of an instinct. In Central Europe, nothing regarding intelligence is innate; rather, it must be instilled, it must be grasped in the course of a person’s development. In Russia—and I would like to draw on various literary statements here so that you do not think I am making these things up—the situation is such that there is, so to speak, a debate over what intelligence actually is. According to the accounts given by discerning Russians, what is called “intellect” there is something entirely different from what is called “intellect” even in Central Europe, let alone in England. In Russia, an intelligent person is not someone who has learned this or that. Who do we count among the intellectuals here? Those who have studied this or that, who have acquired this or that, and who have thereby trained themselves to think. As I said, in Western Europe and America this is even considered innate. But we would not presume to exclude a merchant, a civil servant, or a member of any liberal profession from the intelligentsia. The Russians, however, do just that. They do not automatically count a merchant, a civil servant, or a member of any liberal profession among the intelligent; rather, for the Russians, an intelligent person is someone who is quick-witted and has attained a certain self-awareness. The civil servant who has studied extensively and who also has an opinion on many matters need not be a quick-witted person. The worker who reflects on his place within the social order—who is alert in his contemplation of his relationship to society—is an intelligent person. And it is very telling that one is even compelled to use the word “intelligence” in an entirely different sense. For, you see, while in the West intelligence is instinctive, innate, acquired through education, or at least developed, in the East it is actually treated as something that is certainly not innate, not acquired through education, and cannot be developed without further ado, but rather as something that is awakened from certain depths of the soul. One awakens to intelligence. This is particularly noted by some members of the so-called Cadet Party, who find that this belief in awakening is precisely the reason why a certain arrogance, a certain overestimation of one’s own abilities, can be observed among the Russian intelligentsia, despite all their other humble qualities.

[ 11 ] This intelligentsia in Russia occupies a very special place in the development of humanity. If you do not allow yourself to be deceived, if you do not succumb to illusions about outward appearances but look to the inner reality, then you can say of this Russian intelligentsia—even if, by your Western or Central European standards, it may seem very limited in this or that Russian today—and if you do not let yourself be influenced by outward appearances but look to the underlying reasons, then you can say to yourself: It is preserved from all that is instinctive. It is not meant—so the Russian believes—to be consumed by any human instinct, nor should one believe that anything special is achieved simply by what is cultivated as intelligence. The Russian naturally wants—unconsciously—to preserve the intellect until the sixth post-Atlantean epoch, his own epoch, arrives, so that he will then not descend through this intellect into the instincts, but rather carry the intellect upward to where the spiritual self will blossom. While the English-speaking population allows intelligence to sink down into the instincts, the Russian seeks precisely to preserve it from doing so. After all, he does not want to let this intelligence sink into the instincts; he wants to nurture it—no matter how meager it may be today—so that it may be preserved for the coming age, when the spiritual self, the purely spiritual, can be permeated by this intelligence.

[ 12 ] When one considers the matter from its very foundations, even something that one would otherwise have to criticize thoroughly with an unbiased judgment appears to be a necessity for the development of humanity. As I said, Russians themselves—insightful Russians who characterize these things—correctly identify that the Russian intelligentsia has two underlying currents in its development. This Russian intelligentsia has acquired the configuration and character it possesses today because the Russian who was developing into a member of the intelligentsia—who wanted to become an enlightened individual—was initially suppressed by police violence. He had to defend himself against that police violence, even to the point of martyrdom. One may, as I said, condemn this, but one must form an impartial judgment about it. On the one hand, the specific character of this Russian intelligentsia—which seeks precisely to preserve itself for humanity’s future spiritual impulses—is entirely conditioned by the police repression that persisted to the point of martyrdom. And on the other hand—as Russian writers constantly emphasize—this Russian intelligentsia, precisely because it seeks to preserve itself for times to come, is today something out of touch with the world, something that does not easily cope with life, something oriented toward something entirely different from what is immediately pulsating in the world. So one can say: In this respect, too, the Russian spiritual life is the antithesis of that of the English-speaking population. One might say: In the West, the intelligentsia is protected by the police; in the East, the intelligentsia is reviled by the police. One might prefer one approach, another the other, but this is a statement of fact. So in the West, as I said, the intelligentsia is protected. The distinctive character of the intelligentsia is supposed to permeate public life; it is supposed to be woven throughout the social structure. People are supposed to participate in the social structure through their intellectual capacity, and so on. In Russia, regardless of whether it is the Tsar or Lenin doing so, the intelligentsia is suppressed by the police and will continue to be suppressed by the police for a long time to come. Perhaps the very fact that it is suppressed by the police is the source of its strength. One can make a rather schematic, yet valid, generalization regarding this. One might say: In Russia, the intelligentsia is persecuted; in Central Europe, it is tamed; and in the West, the intelligentsia is born tame.

[ 13 ] If one makes this distinction, this classification, then—even though the words sound strange—one is actually quite right. In England and America, with regard to the constitutional state, foreign policy, and even social structure, the intelligentsia is born tame; in Central Europe, it is tamed. In the East, it would like to roam freely, but is persecuted.

[ 14 ] These are the things that must certainly be taken into account if one wants to see reality, if one does not want to merely engage with things in a chaotic way that then prevents one from gaining any insight whatsoever. Now the point is that, on the one hand, people are differentiated in this way—precisely with regard to intelligence—insofar as national character is at work within them. They are differentiated in the way I have indicated on various occasions, and as I am indicating again today from a certain point of view. But on the other hand, in the age of the conscious soul, this differentiation must at the same time be seen through, and one must have the possibility of transcending it.

[ 15 ] There are two practical ways to transcend this differentiation in life. First, by coming to understand it. If one merely proclaims, from very general and abstract vantage points, that this or that is the correct social standpoint, without any understanding of the nuances within humanity, then that is worth nothing at all; one is merely talking past reality. So insight into these circumstances is the one thing that matters. The other is that one must nevertheless be able, in a certain way, to rise above these things through one’s entire human experience and take this differentiation into account if one wants to be practical; that one does not believe people are the same across the entire globe, and that the social question can be solved in the same way across the entire globe. One must realize that the social question must be solved in different ways, because it demands to be solved in different ways, arising from the impulses of the various peoples.

[ 16 ] But this is only possible under the conditions set forth here by spiritual science. For how can you, if you have any social ideal—whether more or less chaotic or harmoniously coherent—apply it to all people? You can only apply it one-sidedly. You may have the most beautiful ideas, the ones easiest to prove, but you will be unable to believe anything other than that you can make people all over the world happy with these beautiful ideas. That is precisely the misfortune of our time—that people mostly want something like that. Who today, when standing before people and speaking of social or political ideas, believes or thinks anything other than that conditions across the entire earth can be organized in such and such a way, and that with the ideas I conceive, all of humanity can be made happy? — That is how people think today. And given the premises of our habitual ways of thinking, it is hardly possible to think any differently at all, my dear friends.

[ 17 ] But consider the social aspect derived from the spiritual sciences, which I presented to you here some time ago. You will see that it does indeed break with the habits of thought of our time, that it has an entirely different character. I have told you: It is not a matter of having some kind of uniform social ideal, but of investigating: What is seeking to realize itself in reality? — I pointed out to you a threefold division of that aspect of life which has hitherto been chaotically lumped together in the unitary state. Today you see a cabinet and a parliament everywhere, and people regard it as an ideal to lump everything together chaotically in a single parliament. I have told you that reality strives to separate what is currently lumped together into one. Spiritual life, including the legal sphere—but not administrative justice, rather civil and criminal justice—forms one element; economic life forms a second element. And the sphere that regulates these two forms a third, where administration takes place, where security services are provided, and so on. These three stand in relation to one another just as states stand in relation to one another today. They interact with one another through representatives, regulate their mutual relations, but they are, if I may use the expression, sovereign in themselves.

[ 18 ] You can thoroughly review and criticize what I am saying here, but in doing so, you are not criticizing a point of view; rather, you are criticizing something that is set to become a reality over the next forty to fifty years. This threefold division is the only thing that gives you the possibility of once again taking into account the diversity of humanity. For if you have only a single-fold structure, you must impose it on all of humanity, as if you were trying to put the same coat on a small person, a person of average height, and a giant—though the size here is used merely for illustration; it is not meant to label peoples as small or large. But by having this threefold structure, you have the possibility of incorporating something universal within it. The West will thus shape itself, in terms of its social structure, in such a way that what predominates there is administration, the constitution, the regulation of public life in general, security services in the broadest sense, and so on. The other two are subordinate elements, dependent on this one. And again, for other regions, the situation is different. In those areas, one of the three is predominant, while the other two are, in turn, more or less dependent on it. Thus, by having this threefold structure, you have the opportunity to find a differentiation of reality in your own perspective as well. What is merely one unified entity must be spread across the entire earth; but of that which is threefold in itself, you can say: In the West, the One is predominant; in the central regions, the Two is predominant; and in the East, the Three is predominant. As a result, what you find to be the ideal of social structure differentiates itself across the entire Earth. Herein lies the fundamental difference between the view advocated here from the perspective of spiritual science and other views.

[ 19 ] The perspective advocated by spiritual science is applicable to reality from the outset, because it can be differentiated within itself and then applied to reality in a differentiated manner. This is the difference between an abstract conception and a concrete one: an abstract conception is a sum of concepts in which one believes one is happy or can make others happy; a concrete conception is one in which one knows that it is, in and of itself, such that one aspect can develop, then another, or a third. Then the first, second, or third can be applied to other external circumstances. This is what distinguishes a view of reality from all dogmatism. But dogmatism swears by dogmas. Dogmas, however, can only assert themselves if they tyrannize reality. A view of reality is, like reality itself, alive in and of itself. Just as a human or any other organism is dynamic and alive within itself—not a closed, fixed entity—so too is a view of reality alive in and of itself, growing in one direction or another.

[ 20 ] If you take this difference in the view of reality—the shift away from dogmatism—to heart, it is of extraordinary importance for that transformation of your soul’s habits of thought that is so necessary for people today and from which people are still so far removed—much more so, in fact, than they realize. And what I am telling you is, in turn, deeply connected in its innermost essence to anthroposophically oriented spiritual science.

[ 21 ] You see, for conventional science—as it is practiced exclusively today—the human being is a single entity. Today’s anatomist and physiologist examine the brain, the sensory organs, the nerves, the liver, the spleen, and the heart; to them, these are all organs that they classify as part of a unified organism. As you know, we do not do that. We distinguish the head human—or the nervous-sensory human—from the chest human—or the respiratory-circulatory human—and the metabolic human, also known as the extremity human or the muscular human. As you know, we distinguish a threefold human, and this threefold human lives in the world. And because we do not cling abstractly to the one-fold human being in anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, it is also the case that the anthroposophically oriented spiritual scientist finds the social order into which the human being, as a threefold being, is integrated. For that is the guiding principle: this anthroposophical division of the human being. These three members are, after all, more or less merely the external symbols of the human being’s essence found on the human being itself, for the human being is rooted in all worlds. But when we consider this threefold structure, it serves as a guiding principle for us to grasp the diversity of human beings across the Earth.

[ 22 ] I ask that, when I speak about this matter, you consider it “sine ira,” for I am merely characterizing; I am neither criticizing nor saying anything intended to be detrimental to one side or beneficial to the other. Let us begin with the Russian people, with the people of Eastern Europe. One cannot study them at all if one considers only modern anatomy, physiology, or psychology, and not that threefold human being whom I have at least sketched out in my book *On the Mysteries of the Soul*. For if one considers what constitutes the characteristic of the Russian soul today—and I ask you to note: today!—and of the Russian people in general, one can say: In Russia—and may the Russians forgive me for this, but it is true—the “head-oriented” person is at home. I say: May the Russians forgive me for this, for they do not believe it themselves; but they are simply mistaken. They may say: In Russia, the person of the heart is at home, and it is precisely the head that takes a back seat. It is only possible to claim this if you have not properly studied the science of the spirit. For the reason Russian intellectual culture appears primarily as a culture of the heart is that—if I may put it simply—the Russian has the heart in the head; that is, the heart exerts such a strong influence that it acts upon the head; that it permeates the entire intellect, that it permeates everything. But the influence of the heart on the mind, on concepts, and on ideas—that is what shapes the entire culture of Eastern Europe.

[ 23 ] And I hope the Central Europeans won’t hold it against me, but that’s the way it is: their essential characteristic—and this defines the entire Central European culture—is that their heads are constantly sinking into their chests, while their lower bodies or extremities are constantly being pulled up toward their hearts. That is the defining feature of the Central European; that is why he has such a terribly hard time getting by, because he is not really at either end. I have illustrated this to you by saying: In *The Keeper of the Threshold*, the Central European comes to experience wavering, doubt, and uncertainty in a very concrete way.

[ 24 ] And Western Europeans, for their part, should not hold it against me, for—you can already guess what remains—their culture is primarily a culture of the lower abdomen, a culture of the muscles, because the distinctive feature is that everything that emanates from this culture of the muscles—in the folk tradition, not in the individual—also has a powerful effect on the mind. Hence the instinctive aspect of intelligence, and hence also the source of physical culture in the modern sense of life—in sports and so on. You can find everything I am saying everywhere in external life, if you only want to, if you are willing to look at the circumstances truly and impartially. Only anthroposophically oriented spiritual science provides you with a guide to this. With Russians, the heart rises up into the head; with the English-speaking population, the lower abdomen rises up into the head—but the head, in turn, also acts back upon the lower abdomen and directs it. It is very important to take these things into account. Of course, one does not always need to express these things as radically as we do among ourselves, but we understand one another, for among ourselves we are perhaps, to a certain extent, well-disposed toward one another and know how to view these matters objectively, without sympathy or antipathy.

[ 25 ] But you see, one must take the threefold human being into account; one must truly understand that the human being is a threefold being, a being modeled on the Trinity, if one wishes to study these distinctions physiologically and psychologically as well. And that is indeed the essential point: not merely, as the pastor also says, that people take an interest in one another—that one person is interested in another—but that genuine interest prevails from person to person. This, however, can only be based on insight. It remains an empty abstraction when you say, “I love all people.” It is necessary to approach people with understanding—and thus also human communities—if one wishes to form a judgment about human communities and their social structure. But this is possible only on the basis of the threefold nature of the human being. If one does not know—now please do not misunderstand this—what the most prominent physical aspect of a human community is, then one cannot truly understand human beings. One must have some kind of guiding principle to gain insight; otherwise, everything gets mixed up. That is what matters. That is why anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is something that takes reality into account. It is therefore also something that is often unpleasant for people. For, out of certain prejudices, people do not want to be seen through at all. It is even terribly unpleasant for people in their private lives to be seen through, and one could almost say: Out of ten people, at least nine become enemies when one truly sees through them; they do so in one way or another—perhaps some unconsciously, but they do. It is unpleasant for people to be seen through, even when it happens in the light described here—namely, in a way that is intended precisely to foster love for humanity. Abstract love for humanity is precisely the love that the stove—I have used this comparison often—is meant to generate through its warmth. If you reason with it: “You are a stove, so it is your duty as a stove to heat the room”—and yet one does not heat it, all moral exhortation is of no use. The same applies to all Sunday afternoon sermons. No matter how much one preaches love, love, and love to people, if one does not provide the fuel—that which enables people and human communities to be recognized—all preaching is worthless.

[ 26 ] You can see in what sense we can regard anthroposophical spiritual science as fuel precisely for a genuine interest in one human being by another, and for the proper development of love for humanity. Even the important historical facts—which I outlined here before you some time ago as a symptomatology—that underlie today’s social impulses can only be brought into human understanding from the perspective of a view of reality.

[ 27 ] When we consider everything we have already said about the distinctions between the Western, Central, and Eastern worlds—and what will flow even more richly into your souls as you now truly look upon these worlds with understanding—then one naturally asks: Apart from what has already been said, what else accounts for the fact that, for example, the Russian intelligentsia is able to preserve itself for future times? — It takes greater strength to preserve the intellect, so to speak, from the onslaught of instincts than it does to exercise the innate, instinctive intellect. It takes greater strength. This, too, has been achieved through certain—if I may say so—institutions in the development of Western humanity. Consider, for instance, the fact that Russia has in many respects been held back from the currents of cultural life that have unfolded in the West. I have previously described to you, from a different perspective, this backflow of earlier cultural life toward the East. Consider, for example, how the schism in the Church occurred in the ninth century and was then completed in the tenth; how an earlier form of Christianity was pushed back toward the East, where it remained static and conservative, so that one can say: A certain state of affairs that was widespread throughout all of Christianity in the first centuries was pushed toward the East, and thus remained static. Meanwhile, the West has continued to develop its form of Christianity. So something has been pushed back toward the East. That is one aspect. On the other hand, Tatar culture—that is, what came over from Asia—has advanced into the East, starting from its own eastern border. All of this, however, is merely an expression of the fact that on Russian soil, earlier human forces were held back and absorbed into themselves as human forces what came over from Asia in a more youthful—if I may say so—state than that of Western European humanity.

[ 28 ] To illustrate this point, consider Central European culture and its dependence on Protestantism. This dependence is greater than is commonly thought. Essentially, the entire Central European culture is shaped by the impulse of Protestantism—not by this or that denomination, but by the impulse of Protestantism itself, for to the discerning observer, Protestantism is, after all, merely a symptom. What is essential is the spiritual impulse that was at work in Protestantism. All of science, as it is pursued in Central Europe, and the form it takes, is in fact influenced by Protestantism, and without Protestantism, this Central European culture is inconceivable. What appears particularly prominent in one area—just as I showed you earlier with regard to the application of the social tasks of anthroposophy, which should even be applied in a differentiated manner—is present in another area in a different way, in different relationships to life. In Central Europe, Protestantism has, so to speak, primarily spurred people to rely on their intellectual nature. The Central European intellect, which must be cultivated, is already intrinsically linked to Protestantism. Even Catholic Action, which arose in opposition to Protestantism, is—if viewed correctly—Protestant in nature, unless it stems directly from Jesuitism, which has consciously held back what came through Protestantism. But the impulse that works through Protestantism operates, I would say, in its purest form in Central Europe. How did it operate in Western Europe? If you study the historical circumstances through the lens of historical symptomatology, you will find that in Western Europe and in America, Protestantism operates in such a way that it corresponds to the innate intelligent instinct as a matter of course, an instinct that finds its expression even more in political life than in religious life. It operates quite naturally. It is something that permeates everything; it does not require any particular character, even though here and there, of course, reformist hearts were set ablaze; it does not need to bring about such a seismic Reformation as was the case in Central Europe. In the West, it is simply a given. It is such that one could say: The modern Westerner is born a Protestant; the Central European engages in discussion as a Protestant. It is precisely Protestantism that sparks discussions about intellectual matters. There, it is not innate. The Russian rejects Protestantism as a Russian. He does not want it, nor can he have it as a Russian. Russianness and Protestantism are incompatible with one another.

[ 29 ] What I am saying is not expressed merely by looking at religious creeds, but rather through the assimilation of every cultural impulse. You can, for example, observe Marxism in the Western countries. It is received in the Western countries in such a way that, from the outset, it is a protest against the old property relations and so on. In the Central European countries, there must be much discussion about these things—quarrels, doubts, and a great deal of useless talk as well. This corresponds to the character of the Central European countries. In Eastern Europe, Marxism takes on strange forms altogether; in Eastern Europe, it must first be fully implemented. And if you look at Marxism in Eastern Europe, it is actually thoroughly permeated and colored by Russian Orthodoxy. It bears the stamp of the Orthodox faith—not in its ideas, but in the way Russians themselves relate to Marxism.

[ 30 ] This is simply meant to draw attention to how necessary it is to look beyond external things and toward the inner reality. You will gain a great deal if, when faced with the manifold aspects of life, you get into the habit of telling yourself: The way we use words today, they are, for the most part, already worn-out coins. What people think about things today, based on current linguistic usage, actually never quite corresponds to reality. One must look deeper into things everywhere. I would like to say: Protestantism, defined as it usually is according to today’s habits of thought, no longer says anything that corresponds to reality. One must understand Protestantism in such a way that one can also say: The way Protestantism appears in Marxism—or, for that matter, in politics or even in science—is what corresponds to reality. It is so radically necessary today to strive beyond mere verbal constructs and conceptual constructs toward a living grasp of reality. Everything depends on this, and above all, the correct understanding of the most important impulse of the present—the social impulse—depends on it. The correct assessment of contemporary conditions also depends on it. Precisely because people are not at all accustomed to looking at what is real—because people are so far removed from conceptions that correspond to reality—is why current circumstances are judged so skewed. You are always asking about guilt or innocence regarding the recent war-related catastrophes, even though this question, as such, makes not the slightest sense. That is why I explained to you here some time ago how things actually stood in terms of the world impulses. Just as that map I sketched out for you here is now actually coming to fruition, so too are the other things coming to fruition. They are unfolding, and they will unfold exactly as they have been discussed here. One must have a sense of what is truly real and not cling to empty phrases. Empty phrases are often necessary for description, but one must not get stuck on them. Thus, when one sees reality, one must also understand—from the standpoint of reality—the judgment currently being passed by the Entente and the Americans against the Central Powers. As I have already said: I heard from many quarters, when this war catastrophe began, that what the Central Powers had done was roundly criticized. What is now truly happening in terms of a policy of force and so on is criticized far less today by those who criticized it back then, even though there would be ample cause for similarly harsh criticism. I believe I have never defended any specific individuals, but rather characterized circumstances. Therefore, I have no business whatsoever in defending individuals whose true nature has been laid bare in recent times. But whether, for example, the complete idolization of Wilsonianism and everything associated with it stems less from people’s tendency toward some form of idolatry than from what has developed in the Central Powers as “Ludendorffism”—which, after all, belongs in the realm of social psychiatry—is something that must be decided very carefully and cannot be discussed in passing.

[ 31 ] But from another point of view, I once told you here: When one person speaks ill of another, the reason for it is not always—indeed, in the rarest of cases—to be found in the person about whom the evil is spoken. That person may indeed be evil; but this—the evil within them—is, for the objective observer of reality, the very least reason for the slander. The reason for the slander is, for the most part, the need to slander. And this need to rail seeks out an object; it wants to vent itself. It also seeks to frame its ideas in such a way that these ideas appear to arise, as if justified, from the soul of the person railing. This is often the case in the interactions between individuals. But on a larger scale, in the world, it is no different. One must simply bear in mind that deeper reasons also exist. You see, it is entirely understandable and only natural that people in the Entente countries and in American territories are now tearing not only individual leaders but also the populations of the Central Powers to shreds and saying all sorts of things along these lines. One can understand this, for what would the policy of the Entente countries look like in these current weeks if the people there were to say: “These people in the Central Powers aren’t really that bad; after all, they’re basically human beings who just need to develop their better sides, and then they’ll be just fine.” — Yes, if they were to say that, it wouldn’t really align with the policies they’re pursuing. In this world, one must say what justifies one’s actions. One must understand how things arise from reality. That is a deeper perspective. It goes without saying that the overall public opinion in the Entente countries is not what it is because it is true, but rather to justify their own behavior—just as, often, when one person rails against another, they do so not because the person being railed against is this way or that, but because they have a need to rail, because they want to vent it. It is really a matter of looking at things differently than one is accustomed to looking at them. That is what matters. To grasp spiritual science in the innermost depths of one’s soul is, in many respects, something quite different from what even many who count themselves among the anthroposophical movement imagine.

[ 32 ] Outwardly, viewed abstractly—and now we come to a different chapter—one might believe that contemporary socialism, the social demands of the present, arise from social impulses. I recently described to you how human beings oscillate between social and antisocial drives or instincts. The abstract thinker will regard it as entirely self-evident that the social proletarian of the present is born of the social, for it is only natural, is it not, to define the social in terms of the social. But that is not true. Anyone who considers contemporary proletarian socialism in accordance with its reality knows that socialism, as it appears today in the form of Marxism, is an antisocial phenomenon. It arises from antisocial impulses. That is the difference between abstract definitions, between abstract thinking and thinking in accordance with reality. What drives the people who today want to realize socialism in the sense intended here? Are they driven by social instincts, perhaps? No, antisocial instincts! I even demonstrated this yesterday using external evidence, from the structure of the basic formula: “Workers of all countries, unite!” That is to say: Feel hatred toward the other classes, so that you may feel the bond of unity! — There you have one of the antisocial impulses. One could list an infinite number of such antisocial impulses by studying contemporary social psychology. This is the difference between the way of thinking that is emerging—that must emerge—and that is to be fostered by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, and what corresponds to today’s common habits of thought.

[ 33 ] That is why the anthroposophical perspective on social issues still meets with so much resistance today: because people are unable to think realistically, because, above all, they are unable to think critically, and because they often even believe that if someone is capable of critical thinking, that person must be contradicting themselves.

[ 34 ] Important contemporary issues can only be resolved through realistic thinking. I would like to present you with one such issue, which ties in with what we have already discussed. I have said: What particularly haunts the minds of the proletariat—what serves as a driving force—is that the old form of slavery has been replaced by the enslavement of labor, in that labor is a commodity in today’s social structure. I emphasized strongly to you yesterday that the very task of social thinking consists in separating the commodity from labor power. The threefold social structure I have spoken of already contains the very impulse that detaches the commodity from human labor. For what this threefold division brings about are not logical consequences, but rather consequences of reality that also correspond to perceptual reality.

[ 35 ] This question is followed by another that is, so to speak, a burning issue. As you know, one of the fundamental demands of proletarian materialism, which is Marxist in nature, is the socialization of the means of production. The means of production are to become common property. That would, of course, be only the beginning of public ownership in general—including land and so on. And you also know from what I have presented to you as the program of the Russian Soviet Republic that part of that program is to nationalize—or rather, to socialize—the means of production and land. This already points you toward what is arguably the most important social sub-question of our time. It can be formulated as follows: Should social intervention in the current culture—or even in the current chaos, when we look at the Central and Eastern European countries—take place in such a way that a trend emerges whereby, looking toward the future, as many individual people as possible become owners, or should it develop in such a way that the community becomes the owner? — You understand what I mean. — Should it be the case that, as far as possible, the individual possesses property, or, in order to avoid injustice, should that which can become property—land, means of production, and so on—become communal property? This is a very important social sub-question. The tendency of proletarian thought today is to make these things communal property. But, with regard to the most important social impulses, it makes no difference whether an individual, an association, or the collective is the owner. The collective—as anyone who can study reality will see—will be no different, no less of a harmful entrepreneur toward the individual than the individual entrepreneur is. This is simply a fact of nature, like a law of nature, and people just fail to recognize it; and that is why people are led astray. For the question is this: Should all people become owners?—That would be the case not if there were communal ownership—I cannot elaborate further on the technical details, but it is entirely feasible—but if individual persons, according to the opportunities prevailing in any given territory, were all to become owners in a just manner. Should everyone become a property owner, or should everyone, as today’s proletarian thinking demands, become a proletarian? That is the alternative. Today’s proletarian thinking seeks to turn everyone into proletarians and only the collective into entrepreneurs. What emerges when one grasps reality is the exact opposite. For it is never possible to achieve the threefold social structure if all people are made into proletarians. What must be achieved as the aim of the threefold structure is the freedom of the individual in physical, soul, and spiritual terms. This cannot be achieved if all people become proletarians; but it is attainable for every individual if all have a basis for ownership.

[ 36 ] Secondly, what must be achieved is a regulation of conditions such that all are equal before the law, before the constitution, and indeed before the government. Freedom on the spiritual path; equality, as far as I am concerned, within the state—if one wishes to continue calling that one-third by that name; and fraternity with regard to economic life. I know of some very insightful books that rightly emphasize that the three ideas of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” contradict one another. Well, equality quite decisively contradicts liberty; insightful writers expressed this in 1848, and even earlier; that is entirely correct. If one mixes everything up, these things contradict one another. Freedom in the intellectual and legal spheres, in religion, education, and jurisprudence; equality in administration, government, and law enforcement; fraternity in the economic sphere. — In the economic sphere, it is property, which merely needs to be developed appropriately for the future; in the sphere of security services and administration, it is the law; and in the sphere of intellectual and legal life, it is freedom. When things are distributed according to this trinity, they do not contradict one another. For that which contradicts itself in thought is true to reality precisely because it is distributed among different aspects in reality. Thought craves contradictions; reality, however, lives by contradictions. Now one cannot grasp reality if one cannot grasp the contradictions, if one does not follow the contradictions in one’s thoughts. From all this you can see that spiritual science, as understood here, does indeed have something to say about the most important questions of our time. Perhaps some of you will come to understand that this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science has something to contribute, and that the way one should think about it should, in essence, be influenced by an awareness of its stance toward the most important demands of our time.

[ 37 ] This is, after all, something that is also intimately connected with the whole way in which I, for example, must personally conceive of the place that this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science—or its bearer, the anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement—should occupy in contemporary spiritual life. Of course, it cannot be achieved overnight for our contemporaries to see this clearly. Do not believe—and anyone who knows me will certainly not believe this—that I characterize these things out of foolishness or personal vanity. Out of the necessity of the facts, I am repeatedly compelled to characterize them in one direction or another. It is truly the case—and I have shown you this on various occasions—that I am not at all inclined to overestimate what I myself am capable of and what I intend to do. I know my limits and am aware of certain things that perhaps one or the other does not suspect I know. But precisely for those who are able to judge me a little in this regard, I may perhaps say that there is one thing—if I may use the expression; it is not used quite correctly, but there is no other—that I would like to “wish for”: That is a certain distinction between what is intended here and those things with which what is intended here is very often confused. How many people are there today who, here and there, see this or that occult society—or one that calls itself occult—and refuse to engage in a distinction, guided by common sense, between what can be found here! For, however imperfect it may be, the effort is nevertheless present here to truly take the consciousness of the times into account. Consider, by contrast, all that stuff that is often regarded as occult or similar movements—how it takes the consciousness of the times into account. All these low- and high-degree Freemasons, as well as all the various religious communities—what is so antiquated about them is precisely that they are incapable of truly reckoning with the consciousness of the times. Where, then, does one speak from the depths that lie within these matters? Where, then, is there a truly modern and incisive discourse—one adapted to reality—on the burning issues of the present? You will not be able to find these things in the rituals and precepts of one Masonic order or another, or of any religious denomination. One would wish that a discerning judgment would take hold!

[ 38 ] Certainly, it is difficult—I admit that—because, due to the historical circumstances I have described to you, this society in question was initially confused with the Theosophical Society or with all sorts of other societies. Externally speaking, it may have been a mistake; karmically, it is justified. It would have been wiser if this Anthroposophical Society had been founded entirely on its own, without any connection to other societies. Certainly, from an external standpoint, it would have been wiser, for the entire philistine bourgeois mentality of the Theosophical Society—that antiquated stuff—would not have found its way in. It did not, after all, find its way into Anthroposophy itself, but it did, in many ways, influence the Society’s operations. If Anthroposophy were to live in our society in the right way—which it does not—this Society could, at least in a certain sense, exemplify that one-third of our social structure that follows directly from Anthroposophy itself—the spiritual third, including the legal aspect. For what should actually prevail among anthroposophists as a matter of justice from individual to individual should be a matter of course. I always perceive it as the sharpest rupture with what is meant to develop among us when one person speaks of another in such a way that he or she goes out to complain to others. This is also where the sense of justice—insofar as it is intended within that one third of the social structure—should develop. But there is still a long way to go before such an anthroposophical society truly embodies what it could embody, in accordance with the anthroposophical impulses as they are actually intended. Then the ear for inner truth must still develop—this ear for inner truth that very few people possess today. Because this discernment, which should actually come from outside, does not come from outside, it is therefore necessary, now and then, to point out the discerning factor from this or that perspective. I would like to say this today, particularly with regard to certain matters: What distinguishes what lives through me in this anthroposophical movement from other things is that I have always worked strictly according to the principle I already expressed in the preface to my *Theosophy*—that I communicate nothing other than what I can communicate from personal experience. Here I communicate nothing other than what I can vouch for from personal experience. Here, unlike what is often done elsewhere, there is no appeal to authorities in any sense.

[ 39 ] This leads to the following: I may say that the spiritual current channeled through the anthroposophical movement is not dependent on any other current, but depends solely on the spirituality that flows through the present—and on that alone. Therefore—and I ask you to take this in all seriousness—I am under no obligation to anyone to withhold anything that I myself feel should be said at the present time. There is no imperative of silence for one who is under no obligation to anyone with regard to his spiritual heritage. This in itself provides a basis for distinguishing this movement from other movements. For anyone who should ever claim that what is proclaimed within anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is proclaimed differently than in the sense of this statement in my *Theosophy*—which I personally advocate—may, for all I care, be unfamiliar with the circumstances and may often not have been present, but rather view them from the outside; but they are proclaiming a falsehood, whether out of malice or not. But anyone who has been with us often and says otherwise—for example, by asserting some past connection or link between this spiritual movement and another—is lying if they are familiar with the circumstances here. That is what this is all about: Either they will speak untruths out of ignorance of the circumstances, or they will lie despite knowing the circumstances. This is also how all opposition to this movement must be understood.

[ 40 ] That is why I must emphasize again and again: I have only to keep secret that which I know cannot yet be revealed to present-day humanity because of its immaturity. But I have nothing to keep secret for any reason whatsoever because I have made a vow or the like to anyone. Nothing has ever found its way into this movement that came from another source. Spiritually, this movement has never been dependent on another; the connections were merely external. Perhaps the time will come when you, too, will realize that it is good to remember that I sometimes predict things that are only understood in their proper context later on. It may one day serve you well—if you have the goodwill to do so—to remember the spirit in which the spiritual heritage is to be nurtured, the heritage that is meant to flow through the anthroposophical movement.

[ 41 ] But anyone who wishes to distinguish this anthroposophical movement from other movements also has a touchstone. The touchstone that exists today for such a movement is threefold. First, that such a movement proves itself capable of meeting the scientific and intellectual demands of the present. If you review the literature I have produced, you will—even if individual works may be imperfect—certainly see the effort to create a movement that does not draw upon the old and antiquated, but is thoroughly familiar with the scientific methods of the present and operates in full harmony with contemporary scientific consciousness. That is the first point.

[ 42 ] The second point is that such a movement has something to say—in a truly vibrant way—about the vital issues of our time, such as the social question. Try to compare what other movements of this kind have to say—in terms of how outdated and out of touch with reality they are—with what this movement has to say on the matter.

[ 43 ] The third—the third part of the touchstone—is that such a movement is capable of consciously enlightening people about their various religious needs, in the sense that it combines enlightenment about religious needs with a complete familiarity with reality. This alone allows you to distinguish this movement from all those movements that, when it comes down to it, only ever make it as far as the Sunday afternoon sermon—movements that end up lecturing people on morality and the like, yet remain out of touch with the concrete concepts at work in the present social structure. A modern science of reality must be able to speak about labor, capital, credit relations, land relations—all these things connected with contemporary life—and about the shaping of social life in the same way that it knows how to speak about the relationship of human beings to the divine, about the relationship of human beings to love of one’s neighbor, and so on. This is what humanity has long failed to do: to establish a connection from above all the way down to the most immediate, concrete forms and processes of life. This is what theology and theosophy have failed to do in our time in their various forms, and what an occult movement has also failed to do. They speak, so to speak, from above down to the point where they can tell people: “Be good people,” and the like. But they are fruitless, they are sterile, when it comes to truly grasping the burning, concrete questions of the present. External science, in turn, speaks—but also in a way that is detached from reality—about the things that concern immediate life. Yesterday I showed you how alienated people are from this life. How many people today even know, for example, what capital is—what it actually is? —Certainly, they know that if they have so-and-so much money in their closet, that is capital. But that does not mean they know what capital is. To know what capital is means to understand how regulation functions within the social structure with regard to certain things and processes. Just as, from an anthroposophical perspective, one must understand the relationships that govern the blood circulation—which rhythmically regulates human life—so too must one understand what pulsates in social life in the most diverse ways. But contemporary physiology is not even capable of solving the most important questions from a materialistic standpoint; these can only be solved once an anthroposophical understanding of the threefold human being is attained.

[ 44 ] What does modern science know, for example, about something of extraordinary importance: What, from a purely materialistic standpoint, is the basis of imagination, and what is the basis of the will directed toward a certain goal? — I am speaking about such things today because I have spent thirty to thirty-five years of my life researching these matters, as I have already mentioned in connection with another point. Imagination is based on the fact that, for example, in the course of blood circulation, a person has carbon dioxide within them that has not yet been exhaled. When carbon dioxide that has not yet been exhaled circulates internally, this is the material counterpart, the material correlate, of thought. When there is oxygen within a person that has not yet been converted into carbon dioxide—oxygen that is on its way, via a detour, to being converted into carbon dioxide—this is, in a certain sense, the material correlate of the will. Where oxygen pulses within a person that has not yet been fully processed and still performs functions, there the will is materially active. Where there is already carbon dioxide within the human body that has not yet been processed to the point of being expelled or exhaled, there lies the material foundation for a thought-form. But how these two poles—the thought pole, which can also be called the carbon dioxide pole, and the will pole, which can be called the oxygen pole—are regulated—this can only be revealed by a science of reality. Nowhere will you find such a truth as I have just expressed to you in today’s books. But because thinking is not trained with reference to such a reality, it is also not trained with reference to what is necessary for people today in relation to the social structure. Yet this must come to pass; it is necessary for the present, and it will have to come to pass—that the spiritual-soul aspect of human beings’ engagement with the social structure be taken into account in our consideration of social issues.

[ 45 ] This has been neglected. Just imagine how different things would be if, in this or that workplace, the individual worker were also mentally and emotionally integrated into the entire process that the goods he produces undergo in the world—if he understood how he is embedded in the social structure precisely because he produces these goods. But this can only happen if such interest truly prevails from person to person that, little by little, there will no longer be a single mature, genuine human being who cannot grasp the most important social concepts in a way that corresponds to reality. The time must come—this is a social imperative—when, as human beings, we simply know just as well what capital, credit, cash, and a check are in terms of their economic impact—and we can know this; it is not that difficult, it just needs to be properly addressed first by those who are supposed to teach it—just as we know today that soup is not eaten with a fork but with a spoon. Isn’t it true that anyone who eats soup with a fork would be committing a folly; but likewise, anyone who does not know these other things is committing a folly. This must become general public opinion.

[ 46 ] Then the most important impulse of the present—the social impulse—will be placed on an entirely different foundation.