Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Necessity for New Ways of Spiritual Knowledge
GA 192

8 September 1919, Stuttgart

Lecture I

This evening I want to speak to you about the cultural life of our present time; and especially about the basis of the work we are doing here (Waldorf School, etc.) and of our aims. I shall possibly have nothing specially new to say to you to-day, but I am going to give you a kind of comprehensive survey; that is the sort of thing that ie necessary at the present time.

The keynote from which I want to speak to-day is to indicate that a really genuine spiritual deepening is necessary for mankind at the present time—a spiritual deepening brought about by means of those new methods of obtaining spiritual knowledge which are accessible to men of the present age,and which I have often described.

We have said again and again that men will not be able to make any further progress in matters social, if understanding of the facts in social life does not arise as the result of a spiritual deepening induced by the new methods of acquiring spiritual knowledge which are essential to it. It has already been indicated with what earnestness this spiritual deepening should be sought with the help of these new methods of acquiring knowledge—and that only those have a true understanding for the needs and demands of the present time, who are able to take seriously to heart all that the call towards spiritual deepening entails, and who, moreover, have come to the absolutely firm conviction that in the very nature of things there can be no possible kind of compromise with any older methods of entering the spiritual worlds. Endeavour to compromise here only leads to side tracks. Do you think it could truthfully be said that in our time men who presume to be leaders in this or that sphere of life, really know what a serious striving after the Spirit is? Such men must not have a feeling merely for theories about the Spirit, but for the real living power inherent in the Spirit; but when one speaks of this living spiritual power to-day it is to many people absolutely and utterly incomprehensible.

I will just illustrate what I mean by an example, Not very long ago I got a letter from a man who takes an active interest in spiritual things. I am only going to quote the contents as an illustration and so shall give no name. It says that this man had got hold of my “Appeal to the Cultural World” and that he entirely agreed with the idea of the “Threefold Commonwealth.” The writer goes en to say that he had got certain useful information from my book on the “Threefold Commonwealth” and that he had repeated them in public. But then he saye that the Committee of the Threefold Commonwealth League had sent him a copy of the lecture which I gave to the workers at the Daimler Company, and although he says that he does not venture to criticise the essential details cf the lecture, on the next page he finds a great deal to grumble at because the tone of the lecture should, in his opinion, have been different—he feels aggrieved that middle class culture, as it has existed up to now, ie spoken of in rather a derogatory way—and so on. I need not go into details. Very well, now,what is the cause of thie? Let us consider the thing as it really is. Here is a man—and it after all a good thing that such men exiets—who theoretically agrees with what is to be found in the “Appeal to the Cultural World” and has absorbed something of what is contained in the book on the “Threefold Commonwealth;” who, moreover,agreee with what I said in the lecture to the Daimler workers, but who criticies the “tone”—considers it “demagogic” and so on. Theoretically, the man agrees with much of the lecture; but it is no use at all to-day to agree with a thing theoretically. This man really hast no perception of the true state of the case; he has no discernment in reference to the manipulation or application of the thing. If I sit in Dornach and write an “Appeal to the Cultural World” I have before my minds eye such men of the present day who can respond to such an appeal I do not write down any theoriee I may have evolved—I write in living, vital relationship with those who can,and who would be able to understand and grasp it. It is an understanding which comes as the result of a vital connection, a relationship wherein there is ever present in the mind, the Spirit which rules at the present time. And again in the “Threefold Commonwealth” I do not write in order that the words may stand there in little printed letters on paper, eventually to be criticised by theorists. I write for humanity as it is to-day, in a way that is in acccrdance with reality. Suppose, now,I go into a hall where the workers of the Daimler Company are sitting. I know perfectly well how I ought to speak to these people; I know how to put things to them because I speak from out of the living Spirit! Anyone who does his work from out of the Spirit gives no sort of academic lecture! In academic lectures people have “thought thinge out,” and give their personal opinions to their hearere. But a man who stands within the Living Spirit, speaks out from hie heart—not up to the stars!

It may well be said that men who themselves are able to follow a thing theoretically have as a rule no idea that anyone who wishes, to be active in the Spirit must work outwards from within that same Spirit in which he actually lives at that moment. External criticism there may be—but I assure jou that the lecture which I gave to the Daimler Company, was understood by those who were present. If I had spoken as my correspondent would have had me speak, those men wculd certainly have laughed me out of the hall. To-day it ie no longer a matter of preserving these ancient (for they are ancient now) theoretical customs in order to be able personally to agree or disagree with something; it is rather a matter of having a living, vital conception cf the working, of the nature and essence of the Spirit which exists there in actuality. And so again I have to repeat that the question of outward similerity in the words and sentences is not the point. What is of importance is this: from which realm of the Spirit comes that which is spoken? Men of the present day have still very very much to learn about these things. For there is a general belief among men to-day that when they have got hold of the content of anything, they have also absorbed the thing itself, whereas, as a matter of fact, to absorb the content of anything many only mean that one has got hold of the text and it is possible still to be far, far away from the Spirit of it.

It is very specially necessary to know just what Spiritual Science teaches with reference to social matters, shall flow into our present day materialism. Otherwise the connection of Anthroposophy with social life will not be understood. To-day we are living, to a greater extent than we realise, within a stream of materialistic culture in every department of life, and when as often to-day, we hear it said that here and there this materialistic culture is being overcome, that is an error. In words here and there, there may be a fight against materialism, but from out of the Spirit, no—there is no fight. Some idealistic academic manifesto may be issued—or a book written—but both may very likely themselves be the product of the spirit of materialism. Above all things it is necessary to-day to realise what has brought about present materialism, for if we do not realise how we have fallen into it, we shall never be able to raise ourselves out of it!

Well, now, wherein consists the real corruption of the materialistic impulse of our time? It consists in this, that things soon burst into flame when some spiritual truth is emphasised or brought forward as the result of living experience of spiritual reality. For example, suppose someone, as a result of practical knowledge, made certain statements about the animal kingdom; suppose be wished to make comprehensible the fact that in the animal kingdom and its evolution, spiritual forces are working. It is quite possible that through his knowledge of the spiritual forces which work in the animal kingdom, he might nave to speak in such a way which would immediately make some group of Evangelical or Catholic Theologians- blaze up and criticise him root and branch without once really examining what he said, just because he had ventured as a result of his knowledge of the animal kingdom, to speak of the Spirit! Or again, one might speak. of the necessity for bringing spiritual forces into the social life of humanity, because only by first recognising them and then incorporating them into the social order can any true reconstruction come about. At once the desire for attack, for aggression, which is characteristic of the followers of Karl Marx and other Socialistic is revived—just as in the other case the particular peculiarities of the Protestant or Catholic Priests. And the tone of the things said by both sides is not very different! It should be noticed however, that one attitude has been cultivated in a sentimental-theological religious atmosphere (I say that quite kindly) and the ether in a more tempestuous, uncultured atmosphere! I do not say, remember, that the last is worse than the first but that fundamentally the attitude proceeds from the same thing in both cases.

Whence comes the materialistic spirit of the present day? What has bred and cultivated it? Religious Creeds and avowals. And the fundamental reason why this materialism pulsates through the social world conceptions to-day is that they have been apt pupils of what has proceeded from religious creeds through the centuries. It was very much more significant than is usually recognised—that in the year 869, at the Council of Constantinople the Catholic Church cut out the Spirit from the Creed. Since that lime it has not been legitimate for catholic erudition to state that man has a spirit within him, but only that he has a body and a soul. This was so, through all the Middle Ages, and there was nothing which learned Catholics of the Middle Ages dreaded more than pronouncement about the Threefold nature of man, of man as body, soul and spirit; for the Council of Constantinople had laid down that man consists of body and soul, and although in the soul there may be certain spiritual, qualities and forces, it is not permissible to speak of an individual spirit. Then the scientists and philosophers came to believe as a result of this, that when they divided man up, into body and soul this was purely scientific without any kind of bias—whereas it was the influence of that Church Dogma laid down in the 9th century which led them to do so. Such professors as William Wundt are, as Psychologists, simply the pupils of Catholic Dogmatism—but as a rule nobody sees the real connection that exists.

Why is it that in discussions of universal science one may not speak of the Spirit? This has come about again as a result of this Church dogma. Neither may one mention “soul”—at least not what is truly “soul” because religious creeds have claimed for themselves the sole right to speak of the soul, and also of the spirit to the degree to which it is permitted by this dogma. It is a monopoly of theirs! And a man is not within his rights when he speaks of soul and spirit because such matters are a monopoly of those who speak to humanity from the standpoint of the religious beliefs and creeds. So there is nothing left to science per se, to Zoology, Physiology, Chemistry, Physics, to speak about except “materiel processes.” When something lights up and they speak of spirit—they are said to be interfering in what is a concern of religion! And so there was left to this unfortunate science nothing except matter, and it grew into materialism just because religious creeds deprived it of the possibility of concerning itself with the spiritual.

In this there is something of very vital significance. It is very important to recognise that the powers which have brought about materialism are the Ecclesiastical powers of the West. We owe our materialism to the Churches. And unless the Churches lose their power as directors of the religious life of man, materialism is bound to grow stronger and stronger. It is not possible to indulge in any illusion in this connection if the question of culture is to be taken really seriously; and to-day these things simply must be taken seriously. To-day men must not want to come to compromise after compromise in their lives, just because of their human frailties. If in external life we are compelled to make some compromise, we must be fully aware of it. We must never imagine that what we are doing perhaps under the pressure of external force is right: and deliberate compromises should not be made.

It is above all things essential to create a foundation, a basis for knowledge which is trustworthy. To-day things must be sharply and concisely defined. We live at a time when knowledge of the spiritual world simply must be taken seriously. The scientific knowledge of the 5th Post Atlantean period, beginning with Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Copernicus and having in the 19th century one of its most significant representatives in Julius Robert Mayer, follows the methods of natural science and sets to work from a scientific point of view, both are quite different from the methods and convictions of the creeds and religious avowals which have come over from ancient times. Between them there is, moreover, no possibility of union. A spiritual science which has really arisen out of modern culture must, however, be founded upon the same basic principles of knowledge as natural science. What is said in my book “The Mystics of the Renaissance” must be taken seriously. And if we do not see the spirit in ail that we observe in the world, then we are not taking that book seriously. Matter is nowhere present merely as matter. Concrete matter and concrete spirit are together, everywhere. And to-day when man says that below him in the world are the three kingdoms, animal, vegetable, mineral—he is stating a half truth only, if he does not recognise that just as from his body downwards exist the animal, vegetable and mineral Kingdoms, so upwards are to be found the three kingdoms of the spiritual hierarchies of the Angels, Archangels and Archai. It is not correct to speak of the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms as lower degrees towards the physical if it is not realised that up towards the spiritual exist the three other spiritual kingdoms. For man as he exists in the physical world is connected, through his body, with the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms, and through his spiritual and psychic being he is connected with these three higher kingdoms, which, for perfected human perception, are just as much spiritual realities as the three lower kingdoms are real for the physical senses. As long as man will not recognise that it is through a perception of external reality itself (unhindered as he must be by any religious avowal) that he comes to a realisation of the spiritual—he cannot understand that which must work as impulse at the present time. A statement for instance like this—that whales exist, does not prevent us from affirming at the same time something about the spiritual world. These are the things which must be deeply thought about to-day.

The fact of the matter is that we have entered upon an epoch of human evolution wherein man has become a different being from what he was in earlier periods of the Earth evolution. Of course Man, at some stage of development, was always to be found in the Earth. When the great Atlantean flood had subsided and the first Post Atlantean civilisation developed out of a much older civilisation, man's body was still evolving strongly upwards and forwards, this was still the case in the ancient Persian epoch, the ancient Egyptian-Chaldean period, and to a certain extent in the Graeco-Latin period, which lasted until about the middle of the 15th century. But since that time the progressive evolution, the forward evolution of the bodily part of man has been gradually ceasing. The purely corporeal evolution of humanity is finished. We cannot now say that in future the bodily evolution of man will proceed and progress as it did during the first, second and third and fourth evolutionary epoch, for that it will not do. For the rest of the Earth-evolution there will be no further evolution of the human body. It has passed the highest point of forward evolution and as a body, filled with the forces which build up corporeality, is facing not a progressive, but a retrogressive evolution. If by the methods used by spiritual science, we try to find out why this is so, we have to come to the conclusion that just as man to-day has entered upon a relationship to the animal world different from that which formerly was the case (man had for instance during the Egyptian-Chaldean epoch much more of the animal nature in him than he has to-day, he was more instinctive in an animal sense)—so he is developing another relationship to the three higher kingdoms of Angels, Archangels and Archai. Up to the time of our epoch, these three higher kingdoms had a special interest in concerning themselves with man. Humanity of the present must begin to realise that these things are realities. The .Angels, Archangels and Archai, were in the past vitally interested in man, but in our epoch this interest is ceasing—it began to cease in the middle of the 15th century at the beginning of the fifth Post Atlantean period. It was the ideal of these higher hierarchies to obtain a perfect human figure and this was not possible until our epoch, because man had not yet reached the summit of his bodily perfection. They had to wait. Humanity to-day with its confused ideas of Divinity which so easily make men into Atheists, cannot understand that these spiritual beings standing higher than man, had to wait until they had brought him to a point where a figure or image of his perfection was placed before their spiritual eyes. For this reason instinctive knowledge, perceptions, impulses of will, arose in men in earlier times as the result of the work of these Beings. Man could not of his own free will induce these things in himself—it was a more instinctive process—and it was the work of these Beings. And these Beings were vitally interested in the forward development of man because only when they had succeeded in bringing him up to the point at which he has been since the middle of the 15th century, had they the image or figure before them which was necessary for the sake of their own evolution. At the present time they have brought man far enough, and they are no longer interested in him from this particular point of view. It is for this reason that at the present time man is so bereft of the Spirit; the spirits have lost a certain interest in him which they formerly had. For this reason too he so easily becomes an opponent of all spiritual knowledge, because the spirits are no longer working on him. The spiritual beings of the Hierarchies immediately above us have lost their interest in this connection, and man must now, out of his own free-will, waken this interest again. As in earlier times through his body and his instincts he was instigated as it were to develop towards the spirit, now, and in future, he must develop towards the spirit out of his own free knowledge. He must, in a certain way develop out of himself new “substance” for the higher beings to use, by seeking for concepts which are their concepts, but which transcend that which is instinctive in man. Hence it must become possible for us to confront the spiritual world in a completely new way. This is a matter which must naturally be put before humanity it general in a more guarded form, and yesterday, at the Opening speech at the foundation of the Waldorf School, I tried to do this. But just because on the one side there must be discretion and caution, so on the other side these things must, be sharply, clearly and definitely pointed out. For if, there were nobody able to hear the truth about these matters to-day, it would augur very badly for the spiritual culture of modern times.

Now what, for instance, has ceased in reference to the nature of evolving humanity? In earlier times it was quite correct when it was said of a man that he was “gifted” that he had “natural tendencies to genius” and to seek for the primary conditions in his corporeal or bodily nature. It was right in educating a man to apply oneself merely to his bodily nature and by developing this in the right way, the man's genius proceeded from it. His natural qualities came out, but as we have seen, corporeal or bodily evolution has ceased and nothing will come by merely developing the body according to some kind of physical education. To-day it is to the soul that one must apply oneself. To-day one must take into account something which does net proceed from mere physical hereditary evolution, for nothing more comes out of that now; one must take into account that which a man has within him because this Earth life is the repetition of earlier incarnations. To-day we must face other men with the living consciousness that we have a soul before us. The “gifts” of the body per se, have, as it were ceased, and it would be nonsense to speak of them in regard to future humanity. In future it will not be possible to say that a man through his body has a talent for this or the other, but that through his soul he is gifted in one direction cr another. Now this is a point of tremendous significance in the life of present day humanity, for much of what was said in earlier times about man is false if it is repeated to-day. To-day when we read about methods of education which are not yet penetrated by spiritual science, we may knew that they have been built up out of old beliefs which in their time were justifiable—beliefs which had reference to the physiological “gifts” of men. But to-day these a are of no account and there is no sense in speaking of anything but gifts, or the soul.

Very well, then, we must begin to educate in a new way, for this is what the evolution of humanity demands at the present time. When we speak with old conceptions, we do not speak of anything which is applicable to modern times. Of course it sounds well to tell people to-day that it is right to regard Christ in the same way in which Luther regarded Him! But men of the present day cannot do this, simply because the Lutheran view of Christ has no reality nowadays and becomes falsehood when it is urged upon men. If man of the present day is to find Christ, he must find Him by direct perception. Just as through external perception we discover Nature, so through inner perception, we find the Christ. It is quite possible for that which spiritual science has maintained for many years to found an understanding of a social impulse at that point of time when it is necessary for civilised humanity.

Things must be considered in their relation to the whole. The superficiality of life is sufficient to show that it is necessary to-day to remind men that the most primitive impulses of their own religious faiths should be taken seriously. The Christians have a precept that the name of God must not be lightly uttered. But when someone comes and speaks of social matters, people say: he makes no mention of the Christ, therefore what he says is not Christian! But I assure you that a man is not necessarily Christian just because he utters the name of Christ in every third line he speaks! We should speak in such a way that men are permeated by what is said in a sense that is according to Christ's Will at the present time. But when one endeavours to speak in this way, from out of the Spirit of the time, people say: Oh, that man does not speak about the Christ. He ought to speak in a more inner way; and then this so-called “inner” element is brought forward in the most exoteric way possible! The opposition which we were faced with once, which suggested that after every five words or so there ought to have been some mention of this so-called “inner” element, was really the outcome of a kind of priggishness, an “old-maidish” outlook. I would, naturally, rather not bother any more about it; but it is necessary at the present time, to allude to it, because this kind of attitude does much harm to what has to be brought about. I should like to ask whether this priggishness really tries to get to the heart of that which must be proclaimed as spiritual truth at the present time. We must own that all we do individually, and all we teach individually, must be with the knowledge that humanity has within it evolutionary impulses which are different from what they were a comparatively short time ago; that, as a matter of fact, the guiding Spirits of the super-sensible world until a short time ago, were specially interested in bringing men to a certain point of perfection. But the image of man is completed, and out of his own inner being man must seek for the union with what is spiritual, in order that what he produces over and above his body and his corporeal “gifts” or “talents” may make him of interest to the spirits standing above him. If this is not done, then our civilisation and culture will stagnate and choke and rot. Anything which tries to revivify what is old cannot save us from that. The only thing that can save us from that is the courage to take hold of the spiritual with the same kind of attitude which men had at the beginning of the 15th century, when, in the face of the old beliefs, they began to build up natural science. The point I want to make is this; that we only set up a right relationship to the spiritual beings above us when we recognise that with the end of the 19th century man's former relationship with them ceased and that since the last third of the 19th century, it has become necessary for humanity to enter into a new relationship to the spiritual world. Let us be sure about this point. It is not necessary to be inhuman when we are sure of something, but we must be sure. As far as external life is concerned, it is not possible for man directly to participate in the collective metamorphosis of humanity. Men have been brought up to this through that which has remained over from old impulses, so it is with those men who from pulpits to-day preach the old creeds. Now of course we can look quite kindly in this kind of thing ,but oh! for goodness sake, do not let us take it seriously, as being truth in these present times! Our attitude should be; “Oh well, let them go on talking” We should not imagine that it is necessary to give any weight to discussions from such quarters except of course in a purely external way in answering their attacks and so on. [Translator's Note. The German of this paragraph is very obscure and colloquial and is very difficult to render in English.]

Now it would, as I have said, be more agreeable to leave such things unsaid, but this is impossible, because we are approaching such terribly difficult times. There is far too much tendency not to take these things seriously. Of course anyone can say that he cannot shake himself free from this state of things because of his position, or something, but, that is no justification, it is rather an acknowledgment that he is making a compromise. The important thing to-day is to champion the Truth even if one only believes this to be necessary from a consideration of external events. When one considers how it is that modern humanity has come to be immersed in such a fearful catastrophe as that of these last years , the cause is found to lie in nothing else than the fact that men are so far away from looking at the relationship between facts and words. There is a tendency to-day just to consider words and then to believe that one really knows something about the facts. There is a tendency to repeat phrases unendingly at the present time, and as a consequence of this, it is not realised that the facts are not necessarily there at all—even if the words are.

During these last weeks we have been working at the course of instruction for the teachers of the Waldorf School. There we are trying to transform dead pedagogic systems into a living art of education. And a truth which is often overlooked simply because people treat words as words and do not penetrate the reality, came vividly before our eyes. There came before us fat volumes of papers, printed stuff, marked “Official” on the outside. One volume is marked “Curriculum,” that is, a plan of instruction. And inside we are not only told that in such and such a class, of such and such a school, such and such things are to be taught, or (which would still leave an element of mobility) such and such a subject must be learned up to such and such a standard—but—one would hardly believe it—we are actually told how the instruction is to be given—how the material is to be treated. Such is to-day the content of official orders of Government!

What does this mean—if we look at it in its reality? Well, if you put it in this way that the official paper gives well-meaning instruction, in all good-will, how children should be taught, if you put it in this way, and do not think about it, it is easily to be got over. But if we think about it—which is a very uncomfortable job for most people of the present day—then we must realise that to-day pedagogy—didactics—are not taught in the training colleges so as to be grasped and understood, but they are set forth in laws—in State instructions; just as the Law orders people not to steal, so by official papers and instructions, people are ordered how to teach! And people do not realise what that involves. But as a matter of fact it is only by feeling what that means that we may find a starting point for an improvement of matters on healthy lines. It is really only in modern times that these things have come to such a pitch. But assuredly fifty people placed in positions where words are listened to as are the words of the members of the National Congress at Weimar—fifty people who felt what such a thing means—would do far more for the healthy improvement of the world's affairs than all the stale talk which has been going on at that place during the last few weeks.

There must, I say, be feeling for these things, and such feeling arises through the inflowing of the living forces of spiritual knowledge into human hearts and souls. Mere theory that only makes us agree with something in an abstract way and does not teach us how to take the Spirit really seriously, will not do. And to take the Spirit in earnest, means that when anyone enters a lecture hall he is one with the spirits and souls of those who are there. Confessions of faith, or creeds which are theoretically grasped are to-day of no account whatever. The one and only thing which matters for the healing of humanity, is the feeling and perceiving of one's own Self in the Spirit.

The object of beginning our social work here was to work from out of the Living Spirit. Up to now men have only got to the point of saying: Oh yes, I am in agreement with what the words say. Men are clever enough to-day to be able quickly to come to agreement with words and sentences; and anyone whose inner spiritual knowledge enables him to assert that those spiritual beings who up to now have been working in evolution, have got men to a point where he represents their ideal of perfection, would be the last to deny this cleverness. That men are clever, that they have critical faculties, that intellectually they have got very far, that in a certain sense they are even a perfect earthly creation—that is not denied, but just because they are all these things, they must liberate a new source of knowledge in themselves, a source that is entirely new. Of course one who knows spiritual life considers men to-day as being in a sense perfect beings. But just because they are perfect in a sense, and because their perfection has come about through beings other than themselves, they must begin now to do something of themselves.

It was this that caused me over ten years ago, to put moral science on a different basis, and in my “Philosophy of Freedom” to speak about Moral Fantasies—that is, about what has been created by man in the domain of the moral—because what has been, I knew that that which man develops instinctively out of himself, calling it “Ethic” has nofuture in front of it.

At the end of my address I have often said how pleased I should be, if, even in spite of the very imperfect way in which such matter must inevitably be put, I succeeded in getting some real response from the hearts of friends present. For it has never been a point with me to make this or that theoretically plausible, or clear to you, but to indicate what must be inculcated into humanity at the present time.

It is upon these principles that anthroposophical science, as I try to teach it, is based. If there were a question of anything else, it would be better to leave off working for anthroposophy, because of the simple fact that any single person who teaches spiritual science at the present time, is pelted with every possible kind of abuse. That is quite obvious, and it cannot be otherwise, because things are like this in the present transitionary epoch. The only thing to d do is to proclaim spiritual science, to give it out, just because one realises the urgent necessity of bringing to humanity what lives within it. We should not speak now merely of a “successive evolution” but of a sudden change or transformation in evolution. The development of a plant is by successive stages, but the transition of the leaf into the coloured flower petal is an abrupt one. In this sense there has been a successive evolution of humanity, but the transition from the time when the evolution of man was directed by divine spiritual Beings, who brought humanity to the point where he now stands, to the time when must bestir themselves into activity, is an abrupt one, and it simply must come about. And without the recognition of the abrupt transition there is no crossing the Rubicon of the miseries of modern culture. Whoever wishes for the sake of convenience to carry over anything from old channels, can never really enter the region out of which the impulses of the culture of the future can develop.

What has to be undertaken to-day is not the kind of thing that various people here and there think about, not at least if they are to have any prospect of success; they are rather the kind of thing that we are doing, for example, in our Waldorf School. In the Waldorf School something has been undertaken of which one cannot say otherwise than that to anyone who takes it really seriously, it becomes his deepest concern.

I, for example, acknowledge it quite frankly, that when I look at the spiritual constitution of the present, day, and see the necessity for collaborating with the establishment of such a school, there is something in my heart which I could describe by saying that, this Waldorf School belongs to that category of things which concerns me most of ail—and in my life I have concerned myself with many things! It was a thing which simply had to be undertaken. And I felt that I had to concern myself with it not merely because I had any idea that it might somehow prove not to be successful. It will succeed—but because of that we must take care that the right elements work towards its success. It would be quite foolish not to acknowledge that anxieties exist. But perhaps we have done something for this special task in that we have had the courage to be absolutely and unceasingly true and sincere. And in order that things should not be taken in a one-sided way, I wished to-day to speak as I nave done. Naturally, in the public address yesterday I could not strike the same note as to you to-day. I could not speak to the people who were gathered together in the public meeting, of the interest which the higher Hierarchies had in completing a perfect image of man, and that something new must now come about, etc. But if a tree is photographed from one side, in order to obtain a complete picture, it must also be photographed from its other sides, and so I had to add that which I have said to you to-day. In our day the Truth must be expressed in a way that is True. We must learn that we nave not only to advocate the Truth, but the Truth in a true way. We have come to a time in human evolution when it is possible for man to advocate untruly! In many places to-day truths are as cheap as blackberries—one has only to read them here and there. And in this connection human culture is, as it were, complete. But only these perform what is necessary for the future. who do not only do that which is easy. It is quite an easy matter to form a conception of even a new world concept, but those who do this and nothing more, accomplish nothing at all that works on into the future Truth must be expressed from out of the soul. To-day it is not merely a question of the verbal text, but of the spiritual “fluids” and currents which penetrate through the words. Men have to acquire a feeling for this nowadays, and they have none at the present time; they will read pages and pages without realising at all that the author of them is a liar. Oh, humanity must acquire the faculty for feeling what the source of Truth is, and not alone perceive the logic of the thing. Much more “inner” than those men think who to-day believe that they are speaking about inner things, is that which can make humanity really able to work and to act for the future.

For this reason it has been necessary for years that facts which have been described should have been put from as many different points of view as possible—because only so is it possible to understand them completely and vitally. We must equip ourselves with an inner longing to approach world mysteries and feel them inwardly in a true and vital way. My sole purpose to-day in what I have said, has been that you should learn to feel in yourselves the necessity for such a longing and also to make you feel what a sway Untruth holds in the world to-day among men of our age. It is Truth, TRUTH, which humanity must champion, with all the intensity of which hearts and souls are capable. There is very, very much to be learnt, from such an example as I gave you at the beginning of this lecture—one may fully agree with the verbal text of a thing, but not really get hold of it in any true sense, because it comes from out of the spirit. Try to understand the teaching in this way and you will be serving the task which the present time sets you. You will find out many other things as well, which you have not yet discovered and a great deal still rests in the bosom of the present which must be discovered for the healing of humanity. A great deal too has already been said and has not been discovered by humanity. Look deeply into these things, and you will find that this is so; if you try to understand these things aright, then you cannot fail to help in the spreading [of] the Truth among men—not merely in an externally logical form—but Truth in its essence. And then you will be members of that Order which humanity so sorely needs, whose motto is “Truly to advocate Truth” (Die Wahrheit wahr zu vertreten). It is possible to spread Truth in a false way and thereby often to do more damage than occurs through the spread of a lie. It is very well worth while to ponder on what this means, to cause harm through the proclaiming and assertion of Truth in a false way.

Sechzehnter Vortrag

Ich wollte an diesem Abend noch einmal zu Ihnen sprechen aus dem Grunde, weil ich es für nötig halten muß, zusammenfassend in einigen Ausblicken manches noch vorzubringen, was zusammenhängt mit alledem, was hier geschehen ist und von hier aus geschehen ist mit Bezug auf die Kulturbewegung unserer Gegenwart. Und namentlich in bezug auf alles das, was gewissermaßen der Anlage nach in dem von hier aus Geschehenen und Beabsichtigten noch liegen kann.

Ich werde Ihnen vielleicht heute nicht besonders viele außergewöhnlich neue Sachen zu sagen haben, aber Zusammenfassendes, das noch einmal durch unsere Seelen ziehen soll, das wird gerade notwendig sein, jetzt auszusprechen.

Es ist der Grundton, aus dem heraus ich auch heute sprechen möchte, öfters schon hier angeschlagen worden gerade in der letzten Zeit, der Grundton, der andeuten soll, daß eine wirklich echte geistige Vertiefung für die Menschheit in der Gegenwart notwendig ist, eine geistige Vertiefung mit jenen neueren geistigen Erkenntnismethoden, die eben in der Gegenwart möglich sind, und die ich ja oft genug charakterisiert habe.

Es ist auch in der letzten Zeit immer wieder gesagt worden: Auch in sozialer Beziehung wird man nicht vorwärtskommen können, wenn das Verständnis für soziale Tatsachen nicht ausgeht von einer entsprechenden geistigen Vertiefung, mit den dazugehörigen neueren geistigen Erkenntnismitteln. Und es ist darauf hingewiesen worden, wie durchaus ernst, radikal ernst, gerade dieses Streben nach geistiger Vertiefung der Menschheit in der Gegenwart gesucht werden soll eben mit den neueren Erkenntnismitteln, und wie nur derjenige ein wirkliches Verständnis für die Anforderungen der Gegenwart hat, der wirklich ernst zu nehmen vermag, was in dem Rufe nach geistiger Vertiefung liegt, und der auf der anderen Seite endlich einmal die Überzeugung gewinnen kann, daß diese geistige Vertiefung im Innersten, im wesentlichen wenigstens, keinerlei Kompromisse abschließen kann mit irgendwelchen älteren Wegen in die geistige Welt hinein. Alles, was an Kompromissen angestrebt wird, führt doch nur auf Abwege. Kann man denn eigentlich sagen, daß in unserer Zeit Menschen, die durchaus bei sich selber die Anmaßung haben, in diesem oder jenem Gebiet führend zu sein, daß diese Menschen völlig Ernst zu machen wissen mit dem, was heute Streben nach dem Geiste ist? Da müßten diese Menschen ein Gefühl haben nicht nur für Theorien über den Geist, sondern sie müßten ein Gefühl haben für die reale, die lebendige Wirksamkeit im Geistigen und durch das Geistige. Wenn man aber von dieser realen Wirksamkeit im Geistigen und durch das Geistige spricht, dann spricht man für viele Leute heute noch von etwas durchaus für sie Unverständlichem.

Ich will Ihnen gleich durch ein Beispiel illustrieren, was ich meine. Da bekam ich neulich einen Brief. Ich will nur gewissermaßen beispielsweise über diesen Brief sprechen, ohne einen Namen zu nennen. Da bekam ich neulich einen Brief von einem, ich will sagen, auf geistigem Gebiet in der Gegenwart tätigen Menschen, der in diesem Briefe zunächst sagt, daß er den « Aufruf an die Kulturwelt» in die Hand bekommen habe, und mit lebhaftester Zustimmung den Gedanken der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus aufgegriffen habe. Dann wird geschrieben, daß der Betreffende dem Buche «Die Kernpunkte» wertvolle Belehrung und Anregungen verdanke, die er wiederholt öffentlich zum Ausdruck gebracht habe. Dann geht der Betreffende aber dazu über mitzuteilen, daß ihm neulich von der Leitung des Bundes für Dreigliederung zugeschickt worden sei der Abdruck des Vortrages, den ich einmal vor den Arbeitern der Daimler-Werke gehalten habe. Und nun spricht er über diesen Vortrag, spricht so, daß er sagt, auch an den sachlichen Ausführungen dieses Vortrages wage er kein Wort der Kritik. Aber dann kanzelt er auf den übrigen Seiten des Briefes diesen Vortrag furchtbar ab, weil er findet, daß er im Tone anders gehalten sein sollte, als er gehalten ist, weil er sich gewissermaßen verletzt fühlt zum Beispiel dadurch, daß da die bisherige bürgerliche Kultur in einer gewissen abfälligen Weise besprochen worden ist und so weiter. Ich will auf die Einzelheiten nicht eingehen.

Nun, was liegt denn da eigentlich vor? Ich will heute die Sache ganz der Wirklichkeit gemäß betrachten.

Sehen Sie, das ist ein Mann - es ist ja gut, daß es solche gibt -, der theoretisch einverstanden ist mit dem, was in dem « Aufruf» steht, der theoretisch einverstanden ist und sogar einiges aufgenommen hat von dem, was in den «Kernpunkten» steht. Der sogar mit dem Inhalt dieses Vortrages, den ich für die Arbeiter der Daimler-Werke gehalten habe, einverstanden ist, der aber den Ton kritisiert, den Ton demagogisch und dergleichen findet.

Was liegt da eigentlich vor? Der Mann ist theoretisch einverstanden, sogar mit diesem Vortrag. Das hilft aber nichts heute, theoretisch mit einer Sache einverstanden zu sein. Der Mann hat nämlich gar keine Empfindung für den Tatbestand. Der Mann kann nicht unterscheiden in bezug auf die Behandlung einer Sache. Wenn ich in Dornach sitze und einen Aufruf an die Kulturwelt schreibe, worin ich in ideeller Weise die Menschen der Gegenwart, die so etwas aufnehmen können, vor mir habe, nicht irgend etwas, was ich mir theoretisch ausspintisiere, aufschreibe, sondern etwas, was ich aufschreibe im lebendigen Zusammenhang mit denen, die es verstehen könnten oder verstehen sollten, so ist das etwas aus realem Zusammenhang Herausgegriffenes. Dabei ist der in der Gegenwart waltende Geist durchaus berücksichtigt. Und wiederum: ich schreibe die «Kernpunkte». Ich schreibe doch nicht, damit die Worte in kleinen gedruckten Buchstaben auf dem Papier stehen und eventuell Theoretiker sie kritisieren können, sondern ich schreibe sie für die Menschen der Gegenwart. Ich schreibe so, wie man vom Schreibtisch aus zu den Menschen der Gegenwart real, wirklichkeitsgemäß spricht. Nun gehe ich in einen Saal hinein, wo in der Hauptsache Arbeiter der Daimler-Werke sitzen. Dann ist es für mich ganz selbstverständlich, weil ich aus dem lebendigen, unmittelbaren Geiste heraus spreche, daß in dem Augenblick, wo ich hineingehe, ich weiß, wie ich zu den Leuten zu sprechen habe, wie ich die Worte zu setzen habe. Wer heute aus dem lebendigen Geiste heraus wirkt, hält keine Professorenvorträge. Professorenvorträge sind solche, worin man sich die Dinge gedacht hat und seine eigenen werten Meinungen den Leuten ins Gesicht wirft. Wer aber im lebendigen Geiste drinnensteht, der redet aus dem Herzen heraus, nicht an die Stirnen heran.

Das ist etwas, was einmal ausgesprochen werden muß. Menschen selbst, die theoretisch die Dinge verfolgen können, haben keine Ahnung, daß jemand, der im Geiste wirken will, aus dem Geiste heraus wirken muß, dem er gerade einverleibt ist in diesem Augenblick. Das kann ja auch äußerlich kritisiert werden. Ich kann Ihnen die Versicherung geben, der Vortrag, den ich dazumal vor den DaimlerLeuten gehalten habe, er ist damals von den Anwesenden verstanden worden. Hätte ich so gesprochen, wie der Schreiber es liebt, dann hätten mich die Leute selbstverständlich ausgelacht; es hätte nichts anderes zur Folge gehabt, als daß mich die Leute ausgelacht hätten. Es handelt sich heute nicht darum, daß man diese uralten — für heute sind es uralte -, theoretischen Gewohnheiten bewahre, persönlich mit irgend etwas einverstanden oder nicht einverstanden sein zu können, sondern heute handelt es sich darum, eine lebendige Empfindung zu haben für das Wirken und Wesen und Weben des Geistes, für den daseienden Geist. Daher mußte ich immer wiederum, wenn auch unsere Freunde im Laufe der Jahre dieses oder jenes heranbrachten, was da oder dort gesagt worden war, und was äußerlich so klang, wie manches, was auch ich sage, ich mußte sagen: Auf diesen Gleichklang in den Worten und Sätzen und selbst Absätzen kommt es gar nicht an. Es kommt darauf an, aus welcher Ecke des Geistes her das real kommt, was gesagt wird. Hier ist viel zu verstehen noch für den Menschen der Gegenwart. Denn noch immer glauben die Menschen, wenn sie den Inhalt einer Sache heute aufgenommen haben, so hätten sie die Sache aufgenommen. Wenn man heute den Inhalt aufgenommen hat, so hat man nur den Wortlaut in sich und kann dem Geiste einer Sache sehr ferne stehen.

Das zu verstehen ist ganz besonders notwendig, wo hereinfließen soll in unsere materialistische Gegenwart dasjenige, was Geisteswissenschaft auch in sozialer Beziehung zu sagen hat. Sonst wird man den Zusammenhang des anthroposophisch orientierten, geisteswissenschaftlichen Wesens mit der sozialen Wirksamkeit nicht verstehen können.

Wir leben einmal heute mehr, als wir es glauben, in der Welle einer materialistischen Kultur auf allen Gebieten. Und was vielfach heute gesagt wird: daß da und dort überwunden wäre diese materialistische Kultur, das ist ein Wahn. Denn es wird wohl im Wortlaut da oder dort die materialistische Kultur bekämpft, aber nicht aus dem Geiste heraus. Man kann heute ein sehr idealistisches professorales Manifest erlassen oder ein Buch schreiben: das kann aber trotzdem ganz aus dem materialistischen Geiste heraus sein. Es ist vor allen Dingen heute notwendig, eines einzusehen, das ist: wodurch wir eigentlich in diesen Materialismus der Gegenwart hereingebracht worden sind. Denn wenn wir das nicht einsehen, so werden wir uns auch nicht aus ihm herausarbeiten.

Worin besteht denn das eigentlich Verderbliche der materialistischen Impulse in unserer Zeit? Es besteht darin, daß eigentlich sehr bald irgend etwas aufflammt, wenn heute aus lebendigem Erleben der Wirklichkeit Geistiges geltend gemacht wird. Nehmen Sie einmal an, jemand sei gerade durch seine Erfahrungen darauf hingewiesen, über die Tierwelt zu sprechen, und er spräche darüber so, daß er begreiflich machen wollte: in der Tierwelt und ihrer Entwickelung wirken geistige Kräfte. Er wird dann vielleicht aus der Erkenntnis derjenigen geistigen Kräfte, die in der Tierwelt wirken, so sprechen müssen, daß sogleich aufflammt diese oder jene Gruppe von evangelischen oder katholischen Theologen, die ihn in Grund und Boden hinein kritisieren, ohne überhaupt auf den Inhalt dessen, was er behauptet, einzugehen, bloß deshalb, weil er es wagt, aus der Wirklichkeitserkenntnis der Tierwelt über den Geist zu sprechen. Oder aber man redet, daß es notwendig sei, in das soziale Menschheitsleben hereinzubringen geistige Kräfte, weil man zu einer wirklichen sozialen Neugestaltung nur dadurch kommen könne, daß man geistige Kräfte erkenne und in die soziale Ordnung hineinbringe. Flugs lebt die Angriffslust der Marxisten und mancher Sozialisten auf, wie im anderen Falle die Angriffslust der protestantischen oder katholischen Pfarrer. Und der Ton, aus dem heraus von beiden Seiten gesprochen wird, ist gar kein so sehr verschiedener. Man muß nur manchmal darauf Rücksicht nehmen, daß der eine - ich meine das ganz gutmütig jetzt — mehr in einer sentimental-theologischen, religiösen Atmosphäre, der andere mehr in einer rauhbeinigen Atmosphäre aufgewachsen ist - ich will nicht behaupten, daß die letztere schlimmer sei als die sentimentale -; dasjenige aber, woraus eigentlich die Dinge tönen, es ist in bestimmten Fällen das gleiche.

Diesen Dingen gegenüber muß eben gefragt werden: Woher kommt denn eigentlich der materialistische Geist der Gegenwart? Wer hat ihn gezüchtet? — Diesen materialistischen Geist gezüchtet haben eigentlich die religiösen Bekenntnisse. Und daß er heute auch in der sozialen Weltanschauung pulsiert, ist nur aus dem Grunde der Fall, weil die soziale Weltanschauung ein getreuer Schüler ist alles desjenigen, was im Grunde genommen von den religiösen Bekenntnissen in den Jahrhunderten gekommen ist. Es war wirklich wichtiger, als man denkt, daß die katholische Kirche im Jahre 869 auf dem allgemeinen Konzil zu Konstantinopel, das ich ja schon öfter erwähnt habe, den Geist abgeschafft hat. Seit dieser Zeit durfte innerhalb der katholischen Gelehrsamkeit nicht davon geredet werden, daß der Mensch Geist in sich habe. Es durfte nur gewissermaßen gesprochen werden davon, daß der Mensch Leib und Seele habe. So war es das ganze Mittelalter hindurch. Und vor nichts fürchteten sich die katholischen mittelalterlichen Gelehrten mehr als vor einem Sprechen von der Trichotomie, das heißt von der Dreigliederung des menschlichen Wesens in Leib, Seele und Geist. Denn das Konzil zu Konstantinopel hat bestimmt: Der Mensch besteht aus Leib und Seele, und die Seele hat einige geistige Kräfte und Eigenschaften; etwas Geist ist schon in der Seele, aber man darf nicht von einem besonderen Geiste sprechen. Dann haben die Wissenschafter und Philosophen geglaubt, daß sie aus voraussetzungsloser Wissenschaft nur Leib und Seele unterscheiden, während sie es doch nur unter dem Einfluß des kirchlichen Dogmas aus dem neunten Jahrhundert taten. Solche braven Professoren wie Wilhelm Wundt sind nur die Schüler der katholischen Dogmatik, auch als Psychologen. Diesen Zusammenhang durchschaut man nur gewöhnlich nicht.

Wodurch ist es gekommen, daß man, wenn man weltliche Wissenschaft bespricht, überhaupt nicht von Geist reden darf? Zum Teil ist es von diesem Dogma gekommen. Man darf aber nicht einmal von Seele reden. Von wirklicher Seele darf man nicht reden, weil die religiösen Bekenntnisse für sich das Recht beanspruchen, über Seele und, soweit sie wollen, soweit es das Dogma gestattet, über Geist zu sprechen; es ist für sie monopolisiert. Man redet eigentlich über etwas, was einem nicht zukommt, wenn man über Seele und Geist redet, denn das gehört denjenigen, die vom Standpunkte eines religiösen Bekenntnisses aus zu den Menschen sprechen. Was blieb denn der wirklichen Wissenschaft anderes übrig, dieser armen Zoologie, Physiologie, Chemie und Physik, als von materiellen Vorgängen zu sprechen. Wenn da oder dort etwas aufflammt, wenn sie vom Geiste sprechen, da mischen sie sich ein in die Angelegenheiten der religiösen Bekenntnisse. Es bleibt dieser armen weltlichen Wissenschaft nichts anderes übrig, als materiell, materialistisch zu werden, weil die religiösen Bekenntnisse ihr die Möglichkeit benahmen, irgend etwas Geistiges zu berühren.

Darin liegt etwas sehr Wichtiges. Sehr wichtig ist, zu erkennen, daß diejenigen Mächte, welche den Materialismus gebracht haben, die kirchlichen Mächte des Abendlandes sind. Den Kirchen verdanken wir den Materialismus. Und der Materialismus wird immer stärker und stärker werden, wenn die Kirchen als religiöse, konfessionelle Verwaltungen nicht ihre Macht verlieren. In dieser Beziehung gibt es keine Möglichkeit, sich irgendwelchen Illusionen hinzugeben, wenn man es mit der Kultur ernst nehmen will. Heute handelt es sich aber darum, daß man es mit diesen Dingen ernst nimmt. Heute darf man nicht aus irgendeiner menschlichen Schwäche heraus Kompromiß über Kompromiß schließen wollen. Ist man genötigt, in der äußeren Wirksamkeit einen Kompromiß zu schließen, so muß man sich dessen bewußt werden und nicht in leichtfertiger Weise darüber hinwegreden. Man muß sich ruhig sagen: Der Gewalt muß selbstverständlich gewichen werden. Aber man muß nicht bei sich selber in der Erkenntnis Kompromisse schließen. Man muß nicht glauben, daß das richtig ist, was man tut unter dem Einfluß der Gewalt.

Es ist also notwendig, hier eine Grundlage zu schaffen für die Erkenntnis, die endlich einmal eine sichere Grundlage ist. Heute müssen die Dinge scharf, sehr scharf betont werden. Und hier auf diesem Boden liegen die Dinge, die sehr scharf betont werden müssen. Denn wir stehen heute einmal in einer Zeit, in der mit der Erkenntnis der geistigen Welt Ernst gemacht werden muß. Die naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis, die aufgekommen ist in der fünften nachatlantischen Periode, die begonnen hat mit Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, Kopernikus, diese naturwissenschaftliche Periode, die zum Beispiel einen der bedeutendsten Vertreter im neunzehnten Jahrhundert in Julius Robert Mayer hatte, verfolgt naturwissenschaftliche Methoden und geht aus von einer naturwissenschaftlichen Gesinnung, welche ein Neues ist gegenüber dem, was als Methoden und Gesinnung in den Glaubensbekenntnissen, die sich aus alten Zeiten heraufgelebt haben, vorhanden war. Zwischen diesen naturwissenschaftlichen Methoden der naturwissenschaftlichen Gesinnung und den Methoden der Glaubensbekenntnisse gibt es keine Möglichkeit einer Vereinigung. Die Geisteswissenschaft, die wirklich heute der Kultur gewachsene Geisteswissenschaft, muß aber auf demselben Erkenntnisboden stehen wie die Naturwissenschaft. Sie muß Ernst machen mit dem, was ich einmal ausgesprochen habe in meinem Buche «Die Mystik im Aufgange des neuzeitlichen Geisteslebens». Mit solchen Dingen muß durchaus Ernst gemacht werden. Es wird aber nicht Ernst gemacht, wenn man nicht zur Geltung bringt, daß das alles, was wir in der Welt beobachten, uns der Geist entgegenwirkt. Materie ist nirgends vorhanden bloß einseitig als Materie. Überall ist konkrete Materie mit konkretem Geiste zugleich zu finden. Und wenn der Mensch heute sagt, er stehe als Mensch in der Welt da, unter ihm die drei Reiche, Tierreich, Pflanzenreich, Mineralreich, so behauptet er eine Halbheit, wenn er nicht zugleich anerkennt, daß ebenso, wie von seinem Leibe nach abwärts stehen Tierreich, Pflanzenreich, Mineralreich, so auch nach aufwärts stehen drei geistige Reiche, die Reiche der geistigen Hierarchien, die wir bezeichnen als die Reiche der Angeloi, Archangeloi, Archai. Niemand hat ein Recht, von Tierreich, Pflanzenreich, Mineralreich zu sprechen als heruntergehend in das Physische, wenn er nicht weiß, daß hinauf in das Geistige die drei anderen Reiche gehen. Denn der Mensch, wie er in der physischen Welt steht, er steht durch seinen Leib in Verbindung mit den drei Reichen, Tierreich, Pflanzenreich, Mineralreich; er steht durch sein Seelisch-Geistiges in Verbindung mit den drei übergeordneten Reichen, die für das vollständige menschliche Wahrnehmen ebenso geistige Wirklichkeiten sind, wie die drei untergeordneten Reiche physische Wirklichkeiten für die physischen Sinne sind. Und ehe das nicht anerkannt wird, daß man durch ein vollständiges Beobachten in der äußeren Wirklichkeit selber zur Anerkenntnis des Geistes kommt und sich von keinem hergebrachten religiösen Bekenntnis daran hindern läßt, etwas zu behaupten über die geistige Welt — ebensowenig wie man sich verhindern lassen kann an der Behauptung, daß es Walfische gibt -, ehe man nicht dazu kommt, cher kann man nicht dasjenige, was als Impuls in der Gegenwart wirken muß, ergreifen. Über diese Dinge muß heute eben ernst gedacht werden.

Die Sache liegt ja so: Wir sind in einen Zeitraum der menschlichen Entwickelung eingetreten, in dem der Mensch ein anderes Wesen geworden ist, als er in früheren Entwickelungsepochen der Erdenentwickelung war. In einer gewissen Entwickelung war der Mensch immer drinnen. Als die große atlantische Flut abgeflaut war und sich herausentwickelten aus einer viel älteren Kultur die ersten nachatlantischen Kulturblüten in der altindischen Zeit, da entwickelte sich der Mensch seiner Körperlichkeit nach noch sehr stark nach aufwärts. Ebenso in der zweiten Kulturperiode, in der urpersischen Zeit. Ebenso noch in der dritten Kulturperiode, in der ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeit; sogar noch in einer gewissen Weise in der griechisch-lateinischen Zeit, die bis in die Mitte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts ging. Seit jener Zeit hört langsam die Vorwärtsentwickelung, die Aufwärtsentwickelung des Menschen in bezug auf das Körperliche überhaupt auf. Die körperliche Entwickelung des Menschen ist abgeschlossen. Wir stehen nicht vor der Zukunft so, daß wir sagen können: Wie die Entwickelung durch die erste, zweite, dritte, vierte nachatlantische Zeit aufwärtssteigend war, so wird auch in der Zukunft die leibliche Entwickelung des Menschen aufwärtssteigen. — Nein, das wird sie nicht. Der menschliche Leib steigt nicht mehr aufwärts im Reste der Erdenentwickelung. Der menschliche Leib hat seinen Höhepunkt der Aufwärtsentwickelung überschritten und geht als Leib, als erfüllt von leiblichen Kräften, nicht mehr einer Aufwärtsentwickelung, sondern einer Abwärtsentwickelung entgegen. Fragt man nämlich danach mit denjenigen Mitteln der Geisteserkenntnis, die wir gut kennen aus der Literatur, die unter uns lebt, fragen wir danach, warum das so ist, dann muß man sagen: So wie der Mensch heute in eine andere Beziehung eingetreten ist zur Tierwelt — er hatte zum Beispiel während der ägyptisch-chaldäischen Zeit noch viel mehr vom Tier in sich als heute, das Leben war viel tierisch-instinktiver —, so entwickelt er heute auch eine andere Beziehung zu den drei höheren Reichen. Diese drei höheren Reiche hatten nämlich ein ganz besonderes Interesse daran, sich mit dem Menschen zu beschäftigen bis in unser Zeitalter herein. Die Menschen der Gegenwart werden anfangen müssen, zu begreifen, daß, wenn man über diese Dinge redet, man von Wirklichkeiten redet. Die Geister der Hierarchien der Angeloi, der Archangeloi, der Archai, hatten ein lebendiges Interesse daran, sich mit den Menschen zu beschäftigen. Nun hört dieses Interesse in der Gegenwart auf. Es fing an aufzuhören in der Mitte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts, als der fünfte nachatlantische Zeitraum begann. Diese Wesenheiten der höheren Hierarchien betrachteten es als ihr Ideal, ein Bild des Menschen, ein vollkommenes Bild des Menschen zu bekommen. Das konnten sie nicht bekommen bis in unsere Zeit herein, weil der Mensch noch nicht den Gipfel seiner Vollkommenbheit erstiegen hatte. Sie mußten warten. Heute, wo man die konfusen Gottesvorstellungen hat, die den Menschen so leicht zum Atheisten machen, kann man das nicht begreifen, daß die über dem Menschen stehenden geistigen Wesenheiten auch auf etwas warten müssen. Sie mußten warten, bis sie den Menschen so weit gebracht hatten, daß er ein Bild seiner Vollkommenheit vor ihre geistigen Augen stellte. Daher stiegen in den Menschen in früheren Zeiten im Unterbewußtsein instinktive Erkenntnisse, Empfindungen, Willensimpulse auf: das waren die Taten dieser Wesen. Der Mensch konnte das nicht freiwillig aus sich hervorbringen, das tat er instinktiv; aber es waren die Taten dieser Wesen. Und diese Wesen interessierten sich dafür, daß der Mensch vorwärts komme, denn nur wenn es ihnen gelang, den Menschen so weit zu bringen, wie er seit der Mitte des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts ist, hatten sie das Bild vor sich, das sie vor sich haben mußten wegen ihrer eigenen Entwickelung. Jetzt haben sie den Menschen so weit. Jetzt interessiert sie der _ Mensch von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus nicht weiter. Daher ist der Mensch auch in der Gegenwart so geistverlassen, weil die Geister ein gewisses Interesse an ihm verloren haben. Daher wird er in der Gegenwart so leicht Gegner aller Geist-Erkenntnis, weil die Geister nicht mehr an ihm arbeiten. Für diejenigen Wesenheiten, die unmittelbar in der hieratchischen Ordnung über uns stehen, ist in dieser Beziehung das Interesse erloschen. Und dieses Interesse, das muß nun der Mensch aus seinem eigenen Willen heraus wieder erwecken. Er muß, wie er früher durch seinen Leib veranlaßt worden ist, in seinen Instinkten nach dem Geiste hin sich zu entwickeln, nun aus seinem freien Erkennen heraus gegen die Zukunft hin zu dem Geiste sich entwickeln. Er muß gewissermaßen von sich aus neuen Stoff zur Beschäftigung den höheren Wesen geben, indem er sich an sie anlehnt und Begriffe zu bekommen sucht, die ihre Begriffe sind, die nun über das hinausgehen, was instinktiv in uns gepflanzt ist.

Wir müssen daher die Möglichkeit finden, uns in ganz neuer Art zum Geiste zu stellen. Das muß natürlich heute zur Menschheit noch in vorsichtiger Form ausgesprochen werden. Ich habe gestern versucht, recht vorsichtig davon zu sprechen. Aber gerade weil auf der einen Seite vorsichtig gesprochen werden muß, muß auf der andern Seite scharf und radikal auf diese Dinge hingedeutet werden. Denn gäbe es gar keine Menschen, die die Wahrheit auf diesem Gebiete heute ertrügen, so wäre es sehr schlimm um die Geisteskultur der Gegenwart bestellt.

Was hat denn zum Beispiel aufgehört mit Bezug auf das Wesen des werdenden Menschen? Man hat in früherer Zeit mit vollem Recht gesprochen von irgendeinem Menschen, er sei begabt, er habe Anlage zur Genialität. Und man suchte mit Recht die Vorbedingungen zu seiner genialen Anlage in seiner leiblichen Beschaffenheit. Man konnte als Erzieher sich wenden bloß an seine leibliche Beschaffenheit, und indem man diese richtig entwickelte, kam seine Genialität heraus. Es kamen überhaupt seine Anlagen heraus. Von heute ab ist abgeschlossen die leibliche Entwickelung. Wenn man bloß den Leib entwickeln will nach irgendeiner physischen Pädagogik, kommt nichts heraus. Heute muß man sich an die Seele wenden. Heute muß man mit dem rechnen, was nicht bloß in physischer Vererbungs-Entwickelung heraufkommt, denn da kommt nichts mehr herauf, sondern man muß sich wenden an dasjenige, was der Mensch in sich trägt, weil er in diesem Erdenleben die Wiederholung früherer Erdenleben hat. Man muß heute mit dem lebendigen Bewußtsein an den werdenden Menschen gehen, daß man eine Seele vor sich hat. Die Begabungen des Leibes haben so aufgehört, daß es ein Unsinn sein würde, in der künftigen Menschheit davon zu reden. Man wird nicht mehr davon sprechen können, daß der Mensch seinem Leibe nach zu dem einen oder anderen begabt ist, sondern davon, daß der Mensch durch seine Seele zu dem einen oder anderen begabt ist. Das ist etwas, was von einer ungeheuren Bedeutung ist im Leben der Menschheit der Gegenwart. Denn vieles von dem, was man gesagt hat in früheren Zeiten über den Menschen, ist falsch, wenn man es heute sagt. Wenn wir heute noch nicht von der Geisteswissenschaft durchdrungene Pädagogiken lesen, so sind diese alle noch aufgebaut auf dem alten Glauben, der damals berechtigt war, dem Glauben von der physiologischen Begabung des Menschen. Heute gelten sie nicht mehr. Heute hat es nur einen Sinn, wenn wir von der seelischen Begabung des Menschen reden.

Wir müssen also in neuer Art anfangen zu erziehen. Das fordert die Entwickelung der Menschheit selbst in der Gegenwart. Wenn wir mit alten Begriffen reden, dann reden wir nicht von etwas, was auf die Gegenwart noch anwendbar ist. Gewiß ist es schön, heute geschichtlich den Leuten davon zu reden, wie man richtig den Christus anschaut, wenn man ihn im Sinne Luthers anschaut. Aber der Mensch der Gegenwart kann ihn so nicht anschauen, weil diese Anschauung keine Realität mehr in ihm hat und nur zur Lüge wird, wenn er sie vertreten will. Der Mensch der Gegenwart muß, wenn er den Christus finden will, ihn in der unmittelbaren Anschauung finden. So wie wir durch die äußere Anschauung die Natur finden, so finden wir durch die innere Anschauung den Christus. Das, was uns fortwährend die Geisteswissenschaft seit vielen Jahren geltend macht, damit hätte ein Verständnis begründet werden können für einen sozialen Impuls in dem Zeitpunkte, wo ein solcher sozialer Impuls durch die Entwickelung der modernen zivilisierten Menschheit notwendig geworden ist.

Die Dinge müssen im Zusammenhang betrachtet werden. Es zeigen ja die Äußerlichkeiten hinlänglich, daß es heute notwendig ist, die Menschen schon daran zu erinnern, die allerprimitivsten Impulse ihrer eigenen Religionsbekenntnisse ernst zu nehmen. Denn, sehen Sie, es gibt sogar für die Christen ein Gebot, daß der Name des Gottes nicht eitel ausgesprochen werden soll. Wenn aber dann jemand kommt und von sozialen Angelegenheiten spricht, dann kommen gleich die Leute und sagen: Ja, der redet ja gar nicht von dem Christus; das ist also nicht christlich. - Es wird wahrhaftig nicht dadurch christlich, daß man in jeder dritten Zeile den Namen des Christus ausspricht. Es braucht nur so gesprochen zu werden, daß man davon durchdrungen sein kann, daß es aus der Gesinnung heraus gesprochen ist, aus der der Christus will, daß in der Gegenwart gesprochen werde. Wenn aber aus dem Geiste der Gegenwart selbst heraus einmal gesprochen wird, und man sich bemüht, aus diesem Geiste der Gegenwart heraus zu sprechen, dann kommen die Leute und sagen: Ja, der redet ja nicht von dem Christus. Der sollte überhaupt mehr innerlich reden. — Und dann wird in alleräußerlichster Weise das sogenannte Innerliche vorgebracht. Sie wissen ja, daß aus einer gewissen Tantenhaftigkeit heraus jener Angriff kam, der da besagte, daß man eigentlich so nach jedem fünften Wort von «Innerlichkeit» zu reden gehabt hätte. Selbstverständlich wäre es mir viel bequemer, diese Tantenhaftigkeit gar nicht zu berühren. Aber es ist notwendig in der Gegenwart, Tantenhaftigkeit und Onkelhaftigkeit zu berühren, weil sie zu großen Schaden anrichten in bezug auf das, was wirklich geschehen muß. Ich möchte wirklich fragen, ob solche Tantenhaftigkeit und Onkelhaftigkeit sich wirklich bemüht, in dasjenige einzudringen, was als das wahrhaft Geistige in der Gegenwart zur Geltung gebracht werden muß. Wir müssen den Mut haben, uns zu sagen: Das, was wir im einzelnen tun, zum Beispiel indem wir im einzelnen unterrichten, das muß getan werden aus der Erkenntnis heraus, daß die Menschheit jetzt andere Entwickelungsimpulse in sich trägt als vor verhältnismäßig noch kurzer Zeit, daß tatsächlich führende Geister der übersinnlichen Welt bis vor einiger Zeit ein Interesse daran hatten, den Menschen bis zu einem gewissen Punkte zu bringen. Allein, das Bild des Menschen ist abgeschlossen, und der Mensch muß aus seinem Innern heraus selber den Anschluß an die Geistigkeit suchen, damit das, was der Mensch nun über sein Leibliches, sein leiblich Veranlagtes hinaus produziert, ihn wiederum interessant macht für die über ihm stehenden Geister. Sonst wird unsere Kultur veröden, versanden, versumpfen. Davor kann uns nichts retten, was in irgendeiner Weise Altes aufwärmen will. Davor kann uns nur retten der Mut, das Spirituelle aus einer gleichen Gesinnung heraus anzufangen, wie naturalistisch angefangen worden ist vom fünfzehnten Jahrhundert ab gegenüber den alten Bekenntnissen. Das ist es hauptsächlich, was ich heute vor Ihnen entwickeln wollte: daß wir zu gewissen über uns stehenden Geistern nur richtig hinaufsehen, wenn wir uns gestehen, daß mit dem Ende des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts das alte Verhältnis zu ihnen abgelaufen ist, und daß seit dem letzten Drittel des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts die Menschheit notwendig hat, ein neues Verhältnis zur geistigen Welt einzugehen. Man sei in diesem Punkte wahr. Man sei zum Beispiel in folgendem wahr; man braucht ja nicht gleich unmenschlich zu sein, wenn man wahr ist, aber man sei wahr. Mit Bezug auf das Äußere kann ja nicht gleich der Mensch die gesamte Metamorphose der Menschheit mitmachen. Er wird heranerzogen durch das, was sich aus alten Impulsen heraus fortsetzt. So wurden heranerzogen durch das, was sich aus alten Impulsen heraus fortsetzte, diejenigen Menschen, die heute von den Kanzeln herunter die alten Bekenntnisse verkünden. Warum sollte man denn nicht menschlich ganz lieb sein mit dem, was von jener Seite kommt? Das kann man ja, aber man soll nur um Gottes willen nicht es ernst nehmen für die Ergründung der Wahrheit in der Gegenwart. Man soll sich sagen: Gewiß, die Leute sind dazu erzogen; sie können nicht in späteren Jahren ihren Beruf ändern; also mögen sie reden. Aber man soll doch nicht glauben, daß es notwendig ist, anders als in äußerlicher Weise, indem man sich wehrt, auf Diskussionen, die von jener Seite kommen, etwas zu geben. Und ähnliches mehr.

Wie gesagt, es wäre bequemer, diese Dinge unausgesprochen zu lassen. Aber wir gehen so schweren und ernsten Zeiten entgegen, daß es ganz unmöglich ist, diese Dinge unausgesprochen zu lassen. Und viel zu sehr ist die menschliche Schwäche verbreitet, in diesen Dingen nicht Ernst zu machen. Gewiß, jeder mag sagen: Ich kann ja nicht heraus aus meiner Haut, oder aus meinem Amt, oder was auch. Aber er rechtfertige es doch nicht, sondern er gestehe sich, daß er eben vorläufig Kompromisse schließt. Das Vertreten der Wahrheit, auch wenn man diese Wahrheit nur aus den äußeren Zeitverhältnissen heraus als notwendig betrachtet, das ist das Wichtige in unserer Zeit. Wenn man beachtet, wie die gegenwärtige Menschheit hineingesaust ist in jene so furchtbaren Katastrophen der letzten Jahre, so findet man ja als Grund keinen anderen als den, daß die Menschen so sehr davon abgekommen sind, von den Dingen immer hinzusehen zu den Worten, und von den Worten immer hinzusehen zu den Dingen. Es werden ja heute vielfach eben bloß die Worte angeschlagen, und dann glaubt man, von den Dingen etwas zu wissen. Diese Neigung, Phrasenhaftigkeit bis ans Ende zu entwickeln, das ist die Grundneigung unserer Gegenwart, und dann: nicht zu sehen, daß, wenn die Worte da sind, ja noch nicht die Sachen da sind.

Wir haben uns in diesen letzten Wochen damit zu beschäftigen gehabt, den Kursus für die Lehrerschaft der Waldorfschule zu besorgen. Da sollte dasjenige, was tote Pädagogik ist, in lebendige erzieherisches Kunst umgewandelt werden. Da trat einem lebendig vor Augen Wahrheit, die oftmals doch nur übersehen wird, weil man Worte Worte sein läßt. Da traten einem zum Beispiel lebendig vor Augen, wenn man sich auseinandersetzen mußte, dicke Dinge, gedruckte dicke Dinge, außen steht « Amtsblatt» drauf. Denn es ist ein Abschnitt aus einem Amtsblatt. Oder «Lehrplan» steht darauf für das oder jenes dicke Ding. «Lehrplan», da steht nicht nur drinnen: in der oder jener Klasse dieser oder jener Schule soll das oder jenes gelehrt werden, oder, was auch noch beweglich sein könnte: das oder jenes soll bis zu diesem oder jenem Ziel gekonnt werden; sondern da steht tatsächlich — man sollte es nicht glauben -, wie man unterrichten soll, wie man den Stoff behandeln soll. Das ist heute schon Inhalt einer Verordnung, der Inhalt von Staatsverordnungen. Was heißt das, wenn man es der Wirklichkeit nach erfaßt? Ja, wenn man es so sagt: In einem Amtsblatt wird verordnet, wohlwollend, väterlich bevormundend, wie unterrichtet werden soll, und man denkt nicht darüber nach, so kann man sich darüber hinwegsetzen. Wenn man aber nachdenkt - was eine unbequeme Beschäftigung ist für die meisten Menschen der Gegenwart —, dann kommt man darauf, zu wissen: Es wird heute nicht Pädagogik gelehrt und Didaktik gelehrt an den höheren Schulen, daß die Menschen das begreifen, sondern es wird Pädagogik durch Gesetze verordnet. Wie man den Menschen verordnet, daß sie nicht stehlen sollen, so verordnet man ihnen durch Amtsblätter, durch amtliche Verfügungen, wie sie unterrichten sollen. Und das empfindet man nicht, was da drinnen liegt. Und es ist so, daß in der Empfindung desjenigen, was da eigentlich erst in der neueren Zeit aufgetreten ist, allein der Ausgangspunkt für die Gesundung der Verhältnisse liegen könnte. Fünfzig Menschen, die an solchen Stellen stehen, wo man ihre Worte so hört, wie man die Worte der Mitglieder der Weimarer Nationalversammlung gehört hat, fünfzig Menschen, die so etwas empfinden wie die Anomalie der Gesetzgebung über Pädagogik, das würde mehr bedeuten für die Gesundung der Welt als das fade Geschwätz, welches an jener Stelle gesprochen worden ist in den letzten Monaten.

Dafür muß auch wiederum eine Empfindung da sein, und diese Empfindung wird von nichts anderem kommen als davon, daß lebendig in den menschlichen Seelen und in den menschlichen Herzen einkehren die Kräfte der geistigen Erkenntnis. Nicht die bloße Theorie, die uns gestattet, mit den Dingen einverstanden zu sein theoretisch, und die uns dann nichts lehrt darüber, mit dem Geiste Ernst zu machen. Mit dem Geiste Ernst machen, heißt: wenn man einen Saal betritt, ist man eins mit dem Geiste und der Seele der Menschen, die da drinnen sind. Glaubensbekenntnisse, theoretisch gefaßt, sind heute ein Nichts. Das Sich-Erfühlen und Sich-Empfinden im Geiste, das ist es, was heute einzig und allein die Menschheit gesund machen kann.

Das war gemeint, als hier begonnen worden ist, sozial zu wirken. Aus dem lebendigen Geiste heraus zu wirken, das war gemeint. Bis jetzt sind die Menschen nur dazu gekommen, zu sagen: Ich bin mit dem oder jenem einverstanden, dem Wortinhalt, dem Satzinhalt nach. Daß die Menschen heute so gescheit sind, mit einem Satzinhalt leicht einverstanden sein zu können, das leugnet gewiß derjenige am allerwenigsten, der da aus der inneren Geist-Erkenntnis heraus sich getraut zu behaupten: Die geistigen Wesen, die bis jetzt an der Entwickelung gearbeitet haben, die haben den Menschen jetzt so weit, daß er bei ihrem Vollkommenheitsideal angelangt ist. Daß die Menschen heute gescheit sind, daß sie kritisieren können, daß sie intellektuell sehr weit sind, daß sie in gewisser Beziehung sogar irdisch vollkommene Geschöpfe sind, das wird nicht geleugnet. Aber gerade weil sie das sind, müssen sie eine neue Quelle in sich selber aufmachen, aber eine ganz neue Quelle.

Gewiß, der Erkenner des geistigen Lebens hält die Menschen von heute für vollkommen. Aber gerade deshalb, weil sie vollkommen sind, weil sie durch andere Wesen als durch sich selbst vollkommen geworden sind, müssen sie jetzt anfangen, aus sich selbst etwas zu machen.

Das war es, was mich vor Jahrzehnten dazu veranlaßt hat, zum Beispiel die Moralwissenschaft auf eine neue Basis zu stellen und in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» von « Moralischer Phantasie» zu sprechen, das heißt von dem aus dem Menschen heraus Schöpferischen auch auf moralischem Gebiet. Weil mir vor Augen stand: Was der Mensch instinktiv aus sich selbst heraus entwickelt, und was man immer Ethik genannt hat, das hat keine Zukunft.

Ich habe schon oft hier, am Schlusse meiner Ausführungen, ausgesprochen, daß ich so froh wäre, wenn es mir gelänge, trotz der unvollkommenen Art, in der selbstverständlich so etwas vorgebracht werden muß, Widerhall in den Herzen der Freunde zu finden, wirklichen Widerhall zu finden. Denn es kommt mir niemals darauf an, ihnen bloß theoretisch dies oder jenes plausibel zu machen, sondern es kommt mir darauf an, dasjenige zu deuten, was die Zeichen der Zeit für die Gegenwart dem Menschen einprägen möchten. Es kommt mir nicht darauf an, durch diese oder jene Behauptung zu überraschen, oder nicht zu überraschen, sondern es kommt mir nur darauf an, das zu sagen, was für die Gegenwart wirklich notwendig ist.

Lagen nicht der anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft, wie ich sie vertrete, diese Prinzipien zugrunde? Jedem anderen Prinzip gegenüber wäre es vielleicht besser gewesen, das Wirken für diese anthroposophisch orientierte Geisteswissenschaft zu unterlassen. Zu unterlassen aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil es ganz selbstverständlich ist, daß aus dem, was in den Menschen der Gegenwart lebt, der Einzelne, der Geisteswissenschaft zu vertreten hat, mit allem möglichen Unrat beworfen wird. Das ist ganz selbstverständlich. Das kann nicht anders sein, denn so ist eben die Gegenwart in der heutigen Übergangsepoche. Es kann sich nur darum handeln, Geisteswissenschaft zu vertreten, Geisteswissenschaft zu verkünden, weil man die dringende Notwendigkeit einsieht, das, was durch die Geisteswissenschaft verkündet wird, gerade in der Gegenwart an die Menschheit heranzubringen. Man darf eben nicht von einer bloß sukzessiven Entwickelung sprechen, sondern man muß sprechen von Umschwüngen in der Entwickelung. Die Pflanze entwickelt sich auch sukzessiv, aber der Übergang vom Laubblatt zum farbigen Blumenblatt ist ein schroffer. So hat sich die Menschheit sukzessiv entwickelt; aber der Übergang von der Zeit, wo die Entwickelung der Menschheit geführt wurde von göttlich-geistigen Wesen, die den Menschen zur Vollkommenheit brachten, zu der Zeit, wo der Mensch sich selbst regen muß, dieser Übergang ist ein schroffer, und er muß vollzogen werden. Und ohne das Bekenntnis zu einem schroffen Übergang kommt man über den Rubikon der heutigen Kulturmisere nicht hinweg. Wer immerzu dieses oder jenes will, weil es gerade bequem ist, aus dem alten Fahrwasser mit hinüberzunehmen, der kommt nicht wirklich drüben an, in den Gebieten, von denen aus sich die Impulse der Zukunftskultur entwickeln können.

Wahrhaftig, die Dinge, die heute unternommen werden müssen, sie sind nicht von der Art, wenn sie aussichtsvoll sein sollen, wie sie gedacht werden da oder dort, sondern sie sind von der Art, wie zum Beispiel unsere Waldorfschule ist. Mit der Waldorfschule wird etwas unternommen, von dem man gar nicht anders sagen kann, als daß es dem, dem es ernst damit ist, zur schwersten Sorge des Lebens wird. Ich zum Beispiel gestehe Ihnen ganz offen: Betrachte ich die geistige Konstitution der Gegenwart, und sehe ich die Notwendigkeit, bei der Begründung einer solchen Schule mitzuwirken, dann wird mir etwas im Herzen, das ich schon so bezeichnen darf: daß ich ja schon mancherlei Sorge gehabt habe, daß aber diese Waldorfschule zu meinen allergrößten Sorgen gehört. Das kann nicht abhalten davon, diese Dinge zu unternehmen. Nicht deshalb bloß, weil ich etwa glaube, sie würde mißlingen. Sie wird schon gelingen. Aber weil wir werden sorgen müssen dafür, daß immer das Richtige geschieht zu diesem Gelingen. Es wäre ganz eitel, wenn man nicht gestehen wollte, daß diese Sorgen vorhanden sind. Aber vielleicht haben wir doch schon einiges gerade auch für diese spezielle Aufgabe dadurch getan, daß wir uns bemüht haben, auch bei der Besprechung dieses Kapitels wahr, restlos wahr zu sein. Und damit ja nicht die Dinge so genommen werden können, daß man nur das Einseitige sieht, wollte ich heute zu Ihnen das sprechen, was ich eben gesprochen habe. Ich konnte natürlich gestern in der Eröffnungsrede nicht dieselben Töne anschlagen. Ich konnte den Leuten, die dort versammelt waren, nicht sprechen von dem Interesse der höheren Hierarchien, und davon, daß des Menschen Bild fertig ist, daß etwas anderes an die Stelle treten muß und dergleichen. Aber wenn man einen Baum von einer Seite photographiert, so muß er auch von der andern Seite photographiert werden, damit ein vollständiges Bild entsteht. Deshalb mußte ich auch das noch hinzufügen, was ich heute zu Ihnen gesprochen habe. Denn ausgesprochen muß in unserer Zeit werden das, was wahr ist, in einer wahren Weise. Wir müssen auch diesen Satz lernen, daß wir nicht bloß die Wahrheit zu vertreten haben, sondern daß wir auch die Wahrheit wahr zu vertreten haben. Denn heute sind wir durch die Menschheitsentwickelung in der Epoche angekommen, wo man die Wahrheit auch unwahr vertreten kann. Es wird gelernt werden müssen, die Wahrheit wahr zu sagen. Denn auf manchem Gebiete sind heute die Wahrheiten billig wie Brombeeren, weil man sie nur da oder dort aufzulesen hat. Die Menschheitskultur ist in dieser Beziehung eine vollkommene. Aber nur diejenigen erfüllen die Aufgabe für die Zukunft, die nicht nur dasjenige machen, was heute leicht zu machen ist; denn irgendwelche Begriffe zu verknüpfen selbst zu einer neuen Weltanschauung, das ist leicht zu machen. Nicht diejenigen machen etwas, was in die Zukunft hineinwirkt, die so verfahren, sondern nur die machen etwas Fruchtbares, die über die Wahrheit aus der wahren Seele heraus sprechen. Nicht allein auf den Wortlaut kommt es heute an, sondern auf das geistige Fluidum, das diesen Wortlaut durchzieht. Dafür muß man sich heute aber ein Gefühl aneignen. Von diesem Gefühl sind die Leute vielfach recht weit entfernt. Man kann heute noch ganze Seiten lesen, ohne daß man darauf kommt, daß der Betreffende, der sie geschrieben hat, ein verlogener Kerl ist. Dazu werden sich die Menschen die Fähigkeit aneignen müssen, nicht allein das Logische zu empfinden, sondern den Wahrheitsquell zu fühlen. Viel innerlicher als diejenigen es glauben, die heute von Innerlichkeit zu sprechen glauben, viel innerlicher wird dasjenige sein, was den Menschen für die Zukunft wird befähigen können, wirklich zu wirken, wirklich etwas zu tun, sei es auch im kleinsten Kreise, was die Menschheit hinüberträgt in die Zukunft.

Deshalb war es schon die ganzen Jahre her notwendig, daß die Dinge, die unter uns besprochen werden, von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus besprochen werden. Dadurch allein gewinnen wir die Möglichkeit, sie vollständig und kraftvoll zu durchleben. Mit dieser inneren Sehnsucht, heranzutreten an die Weltengeheimnisse und sie innerlich wahr und kraftvoll zu empfinden, mit dieser Sehnsucht müssen wir uns ausrüsten. Nichts anderes wollte ich gerade heute mit diesen Worten, als daß Sie etwas in sich selbst erfühlen lernen von der Notwendigkeit dieser Sehnsucht und von dem Walten von so viel Unwahrem in unserer Zeit und zwischen den Menschen unserer Zeit. Daß Wahrheit werde! Dieses Verlangen möchte man gerade aus dem sorgenvollsten Herzblute heraus heute immer wieder und wiederum der Menschheit zurufen.

Von solchen Dingen wie das, von dem ich ausgegangen bin: daß jemand vollständig einverstanden ist mit einer Sache dem Wortlaute nach, sie aber nicht begreifen kann, weil sie aus dem Geiste kommt, von solchen Dingen muß noch viel, viel gelernt werden. Versuchen Sie gerade das Lernen auf diese Art zu verstehen, und Sie werden den Aufgaben dienen, welche die Gegenwart an Sie stellt. Sie werden noch manches andere finden, als Sie bisher schon gefunden haben, und vieles ruht noch im Schoße der Gegenwart, was gefunden werden muß, damit Gesundung in die Menschheit hineinkommt. Aber gefunden ist noch nicht alles Ausgesprochene von der Menschheit. Und wer die Dinge durchschaut, wie sie heute wirken, der weiß nur zu gut, daß dadurch, daß er das eine oder andere gesagt hat, es noch nicht gefunden worden ist von der Menschheit. Helfen Sie dazu, solch ein Wort richtig zu verstehen, dann werden Sie nicht mehr verfehlen, auch dazu zu helfen, daß die Wahrheit nicht bloß der äußeren, logischen Gestalt nach, sondern wahrhaftig in der Menschheit verbreitet werde. Erst dann werden Sie Glieder jenes Ordens sein, den wir brauchen, jenes Ordens, dessen Devise ist, die Wahrheit wahr zu vertreten. Und dessen Geheimnis ist, daß es möglich ist, zwar Wahrheit zu verbreiten, aber die Wahrheit auf unwahre Art zu verbreiten und dadurch mehr zu schaden, als durch die Verbreitung der Lüge oftmals geschadet wird. Dies, meine lieben Freunde, ist wert, bedacht zu werden: was es heißt, Schaden dadurch anzurichten, daß man die Wahrheit unwahr geltend macht.

Sixteenth Lecture

I wanted to speak to you again this evening because I feel it is necessary to summarize and present some points that are related to everything that has happened here and has emanated from here with regard to the cultural movement of our time. And especially in relation to everything that, in a sense, may still lie latent in what has happened and been intended here.

I may not have much that is particularly new to say to you today, but it is necessary to express in summary what needs to pass through our souls once again.

It is the basic tone from which I would like to speak today, a tone that has been struck here frequently, especially in recent times, a tone that is meant to indicate that a truly genuine spiritual deepening is necessary for humanity at present, a spiritual deepening with those newer spiritual methods of knowledge that are possible at present and which I have characterized often enough.

It has also been said repeatedly in recent times that social progress will not be possible unless our understanding of social facts is based on a corresponding spiritual deepening, using the corresponding newer spiritual means of knowledge. And it has been pointed out how seriously, radically seriously, this striving for spiritual deepening of humanity in the present must be sought with the newer means of knowledge, and how only those who are able to take seriously what lies in the call for spiritual deepening and who, on the other hand, can finally gain the conviction that this spiritual deepening in the innermost being, at least in essence, cannot compromise in any way with any older paths into the spiritual world. All attempts at compromise only lead astray. Can one really say that in our time people who presume to be leaders in this or that field are completely serious about what it means to strive for the spirit today? These people would have to have a feeling not only for theories about the spirit, but they would also have to have a feeling for the real, living effectiveness in the spiritual and through the spiritual. But when one speaks of this real effectiveness in the spiritual and through the spiritual, then for many people today one is still speaking of something that is completely incomprehensible to them.

I will illustrate what I mean with an example. I recently received a letter. I will only talk about this letter as an example, without mentioning any names. I recently received a letter from someone who is, shall we say, active in the spiritual field today. In this letter, he first says that he came across the “Appeal to the Cultural World” and that he enthusiastically embraced the idea of the threefold social organism. He then writes that he owes valuable instruction and inspiration to the book “The Key Points,” which he has repeatedly expressed publicly. But then the person in question goes on to say that he recently received from the leadership of the Threefold Order a copy of the lecture I once gave to the workers at the Daimler factory. And now he talks about this lecture, saying that he does not dare to criticize a single word of the factual statements in this lecture. But then, on the remaining pages of the letter, he severely criticizes this lecture because he finds that it should have been written in a different tone, because he feels, in a sense, offended, for example, by the fact that the existing bourgeois culture has been discussed in a somewhat disparaging manner, and so on. I do not want to go into the details.

Now, what is actually going on here? Today, I want to look at the matter in a completely realistic way.

You see, this is a man—and it is good that there are people like him—who theoretically agrees with what is written in the “Appeal,” who theoretically agrees and has even taken on board some of what is written in the “Key Points.” He even agrees with the content of this speech I gave to the workers at the Daimler plant, but he criticizes the tone, finding it demagogic and the like.

What is actually going on here? The man agrees in theory, even with this lecture. But agreeing with something in theory is of no use today. The man has no feeling for the facts of the matter. The man cannot distinguish between different ways of dealing with a matter. When I sit in Dornach and write an appeal to the cultural world, in which I have in mind, in an ideal way, the people of the present who can take something like this in, not just something I have theoretically spun out and written down, but something I write down in a living connection with those who could understand it or should understand it, then that is something taken out of a real context. In doing so, the spirit prevailing in the present is taken into account. And again: I write the “key points.” I do not write so that the words appear in small printed letters on paper and can possibly be criticized by theorists, but I write them for the people of the present. I write in such a way that one speaks from one's desk to the people of the present in a real, realistic way. Now I walk into a hall where mainly workers from the Daimler factory are sitting. Then it is quite natural for me, because I speak from a living, immediate spirit, that the moment I walk in, I know how to speak to the people, how to choose my words. Those who work today from a living spirit do not give professorial lectures. Professorial lectures are those in which one has thought things out and throws one's own valuable opinions in people's faces. But those who stand within a living spirit speak from the heart, not to the foreheads.

This is something that needs to be said. People who are capable of pursuing things theoretically have no idea that someone who wants to work in the spirit must work from the spirit that is embodied in them at that moment. This can also be criticized externally. I can assure you that the lecture I gave to the Daimler people at that time was understood by those present. If I had spoken as the writer likes to, the people would of course have laughed at me; it would have had no other effect than to make the people laugh at me. Today, it is not a question of preserving these ancient — for today they are ancient — theoretical habits of being able to agree or disagree with something personally, but rather of having a living feeling for the workings, nature, and weaving of the spirit, for the spirit that exists. That is why I always had to say, even when our friends brought up this or that over the years, things that had been said here and there and sounded outwardly like some of the things I say, I had to say: It is not at all important that the words and sentences and even paragraphs sound the same. What matters is from which corner of the mind what is said comes from. There is much for people of the present to understand here. For people still believe that when they have taken in the content of something today, they have taken in the thing itself. But when one has taken in the content today, one has only the wording within oneself and can be very far from the spirit of a thing.

This is particularly important to understand when it comes to incorporating the insights of spiritual science into our materialistic present, including in social relations. Otherwise, it will be impossible to understand the connection between the anthroposophically oriented, spiritual-scientific nature and its social effectiveness.

Today, we live more than we believe we do in the wake of a materialistic culture in all areas of life. And what is often said today, that this materialistic culture has been overcome here and there, is an illusion. For although materialistic culture is fought against in words here and there, it is not fought against out of the spirit. Today, one can issue a very idealistic professorial manifesto or write a book, but it can still be entirely imbued with the materialistic spirit. Above all, it is necessary today to understand how we actually came to be caught up in this contemporary materialism. For if we do not understand this, we will not be able to work our way out of it.

What is it that is so destructive about the materialistic impulses of our time? It is that something flares up very quickly when spiritual ideas are asserted today on the basis of living experience of reality. Suppose someone, based on their experiences, is prompted to talk about the animal world, and they talk about it in such a way that they want to make it clear that spiritual forces are at work in the animal world and its development. He will then perhaps have to speak from his knowledge of the spiritual forces at work in the animal world in such a way that this or that group of Protestant or Catholic theologians immediately flare up and criticize him to the ground without even going into the content of what he is saying, simply because he dares to speak about the spirit from his knowledge of the reality of the animal world. Or else one says that it is necessary to bring spiritual forces into human social life because a real social reorganization can only be achieved by recognizing spiritual forces and bringing them into the social order. This quickly revives the aggressiveness of the Marxists and some socialists, just as in the other case the aggressiveness of Protestant or Catholic pastors is revived. And the tone in which both sides speak is not so very different. One must only sometimes take into account that one side—I mean this quite good-naturedly—has grown up more in a sentimental-theological, religious atmosphere, while the other has grown up more in a rough-and-ready atmosphere—I do not want to claim that the latter is worse than the sentimental one—but what actually underlies things is, in certain cases, the same.

In view of these things, we must ask ourselves: Where does the materialistic spirit of the present day actually come from? Who bred it? — This materialistic spirit was actually bred by religious confessions. And the fact that it pulsates in today's social worldview is only because the social worldview is a faithful disciple of everything that has basically come from religious confessions over the centuries. It was really more important than one might think that the Catholic Church abolished the spirit in 869 at the general council in Constantinople, which I have already mentioned several times. From that time on, it was not permitted within Catholic scholarship to speak of the human being having a spirit within him. It was only permitted to speak in a certain sense of man having a body and a soul. This was the case throughout the Middle Ages. And Catholic scholars in the Middle Ages feared nothing more than talking about trichotomy, that is, the threefold division of the human being into body, soul, and spirit. For the Council of Constantinople had determined: Man consists of body and soul, and the soul has certain spiritual powers and qualities; there is already some spirit in the soul, but one must not speak of a special spirit. Then scientists and philosophers believed that they were distinguishing between body and soul on the basis of unconditional science, when in fact they were doing so only under the influence of ninth-century church dogma. Such respectable professors as Wilhelm Wundt are merely students of Catholic dogma, even as psychologists. People usually fail to see this connection.

How did it come about that, when discussing secular science, one is not allowed to speak of spirit at all? This is partly due to this dogma. One is not even allowed to speak of the soul. One must not speak of the real soul because religious confessions claim the right to speak about the soul and, as far as they want, as far as dogma permits, about the spirit; it is monopolized for them. When one talks about the soul and spirit, one is actually talking about something that does not belong to one, because it belongs to those who speak to people from the standpoint of a religious creed. What else could real science, this poor zoology, physiology, chemistry, and physics, do but talk about material processes? When something flares up here and there, when they talk about the spirit, they are interfering in the affairs of religious confessions. This poor secular science has no choice but to become materialistic, because religious confessions have deprived it of the possibility of touching anything spiritual.

There is something very important in this. It is very important to recognize that the forces that brought about materialism are the ecclesiastical powers of the West. We owe materialism to the churches. And materialism will become stronger and stronger if the churches do not lose their power as religious, confessional administrations. In this respect, there is no possibility of indulging in any illusions if one wants to take culture seriously. Today, however, it is a matter of taking these things seriously. Today, one must not want to make compromise after compromise out of some human weakness. If one is forced to make a compromise in one's external activities, one must be aware of this and not talk it away lightly. One must calmly say to oneself: Of course, one must give way to violence. But one must not make compromises in one's own knowledge. One must not believe that what one does under the influence of violence is right.

It is therefore necessary to create a foundation here for knowledge that is finally a secure foundation. Today, things must be emphasized sharply, very sharply. And here, on this ground, lie the things that must be emphasized very sharply. For we are now living in a time when the knowledge of the spiritual world must be taken seriously. The scientific knowledge that emerged in the fifth post-Atlantean period, which began with Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Kepler, and Copernicus, this scientific period, which had one of its most important representatives in the nineteenth century in Julius Robert Mayer, pursues scientific methods and proceeds from a scientific attitude that is new compared to what existed as methods and attitudes in the creeds that had arisen from ancient times. There is no possibility of uniting these scientific methods of scientific thinking with the methods of the creeds. Spiritual science, the spiritual science that has truly grown out of culture today, must stand on the same foundation of knowledge as natural science. It must take seriously what I once expressed in my book Mysticism at the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life. Such things must be taken seriously. But they are not taken seriously if one does not recognize that everything we observe in the world is opposed to us by the spirit. Matter does not exist anywhere solely as matter. Concrete matter is found everywhere together with concrete spirit. And when people today say that they stand in the world as human beings, with the three kingdoms below them—the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the mineral kingdom—they are asserting a half-truth if they do not at the same time recognize that just as the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the mineral kingdom stand below their physical body, so too, above him, there are three spiritual realms, the realms of the spiritual hierarchies, which we call the realms of the angeloi, archangeloi, and archai. No one has the right to speak of the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the mineral kingdom as descending into the physical realm if they do not know that the three other realms ascend into the spiritual realm. For the human being, as he stands in the physical world, is connected through his body with the three kingdoms, the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the mineral kingdom; he is connected through his soul and spirit with the three higher kingdoms, which are just as much spiritual realities for complete human perception as the three lower kingdoms are physical realities for the physical senses. And until it is recognized that through complete observation of external reality one comes to the recognition of the spirit and is not prevented by any traditional religious creed from asserting anything about the spiritual world — just as one cannot be prevented from asserting that whales exist — until one comes to this point, one cannot grasp that which must act as an impulse in the present. These things must be thought about seriously today.

The situation is this: we have entered a period of human development in which human beings have become different beings than they were in earlier epochs of Earth's development. Human beings have always been undergoing a certain development. When the great Atlantean flood subsided and the first post-Atlantean cultural blossoms emerged from a much older culture in ancient India, human beings continued to develop very strongly in terms of their physicality. The same was true in the second cultural period, the ancient Persian era. The same was true in the third cultural period, the Egyptian-Chaldean era, and even to a certain extent in the Greek-Latin era, which lasted until the middle of the fifteenth century. Since that time, the forward development, the upward development of the human being in relation to the physical has slowly come to a halt. The physical development of the human being is complete. We do not stand before the future and say: Just as development was upward through the first, second, third, and fourth post-Atlantean periods, so too will the physical development of human beings rise upward in the future. No, it will not. The human body no longer rises upward in the remainder of Earth's development. The human body has passed the peak of its upward development and, as a body filled with physical forces, is no longer heading toward upward development, but rather downward development. If we ask why this is so using the means of spiritual knowledge that we know well from the literature that lives among us, we must say: Just as human beings today have entered into a different relationship with the animal world—for example, during the Egyptian-Chaldean period, they had much more of the animal in them than they do today, life was much more animalistic and instinctive—so today they are also developing a different relationship with the three higher realms. These three higher realms had a very special interest in dealing with human beings until our age. People today will have to begin to understand that when we talk about these things, we are talking about realities. The spirits of the hierarchies of the Angeloi, the Archangeloi, and the Archai had a keen interest in dealing with human beings. Now this interest is coming to an end. It began to cease in the middle of the fifteenth century, when the fifth post-Atlantean period began. These beings of the higher hierarchies regarded it as their ideal to obtain an image of the human being, a perfect image of the human being. They could not obtain this until our time, because human beings had not yet reached the summit of their perfection. They had to wait. Today, with the confused ideas about God that so easily lead people to atheism, it is difficult to understand that spiritual beings above human beings also have to wait for something. They had to wait until they had brought human beings to the point where they could present an image of their perfection before their spiritual eyes. Therefore, in earlier times, instinctive insights, feelings, and impulses of will arose in the subconscious of human beings: these were the deeds of these beings. Man could not bring this forth voluntarily, he did it instinctively; but it was the deeds of these beings. And these beings were interested in man's progress, for only when they had succeeded in bringing man to the stage he has reached since the middle of the fifteenth century would they have before them the image they must have for their own development. Now they have brought humans this far. Now they are no longer interested in humans from this point of view. That is why humans are so spiritually bereft in the present, because the spirits have lost a certain interest in them. That is why they so easily become opponents of all spiritual knowledge in the present, because the spirits are no longer working on them. For those beings who stand directly above us in the hierarchical order, interest in this connection has died out. And this interest must now be reawakened by human beings out of their own will. Just as they were previously prompted by their bodies to develop toward the spirit in their instincts, they must now, out of their free knowledge, develop toward the spirit in the future. He must, as it were, give the higher beings new material to work with by leaning on them and seeking to obtain concepts that are their concepts, which now go beyond what is instinctively planted in us.

We must therefore find a way to relate to the spirit in a completely new way. Of course, this must still be expressed in a cautious form to humanity today. Yesterday I tried to speak about this very cautiously. But precisely because we must speak cautiously on the one hand, we must point out these things sharply and radically on the other. For if there were no human beings who could bear the truth in this realm today, the spiritual culture of the present would be in a very bad state.

What, for example, has ceased to exist with regard to the nature of the developing human being? In earlier times, it was quite right to say of a person that he was gifted, that he had a predisposition for genius. And it was right to seek the preconditions for his genius in his physical constitution. As an educator, one could only turn to his physical constitution, and by developing this correctly, his genius would emerge. In general, his predispositions would emerge. From today onwards, physical development is complete. If one merely wants to develop the body according to some physical pedagogy, nothing will come of it. Today one must turn to the soul. Today, one must reckon with what does not arise merely from physical hereditary development, for nothing more arises from that, but one must turn to what the human being carries within himself, because in this earthly life he is repeating earlier earthly lives. Today, one must approach the developing human being with the living awareness that one has a soul before oneself. The gifts of the body have ceased to such an extent that it would be nonsense to speak of them in relation to the future of humanity. We will no longer be able to say that a person is gifted in one way or another because of their body, but rather that a person is gifted in one way or another because of their soul. This is something of tremendous significance in the life of humanity today. For much of what was said about human beings in earlier times is wrong when we say it today. When we read educational theories that are not yet permeated by spiritual science, we find that they are all still based on the old belief that was justified at the time, the belief in the physiological gifts of human beings. Today, they no longer apply. Today, it only makes sense to talk about the spiritual gifts of human beings.

We must therefore begin to educate in a new way. This is demanded by the development of humanity itself in the present. When we speak in old terms, we are not talking about something that is still applicable to the present. Certainly, it is nice to talk to people today about how to view Christ correctly in the historical sense, if one views him in the sense of Luther. But the human being of the present cannot view him in this way, because this view no longer has any reality in him and becomes a lie if he tries to uphold it. If the human being of the present wants to find Christ, he must find him in direct perception. Just as we find nature through external perception, we find Christ through inner perception. What spiritual science has been asserting to us for many years could have provided a basis for understanding a social impulse at a time when such a social impulse has become necessary through the development of modern civilized humanity.

Things must be viewed in context. External circumstances clearly show that it is necessary today to remind people to take seriously the most primitive impulses of their own religious beliefs. For, you see, even Christians are commanded not to take the name of God in vain. But then someone comes along and speaks of social matters, and immediately people say: Yes, he's not talking about Christ at all; so that's not Christian. It certainly does not become Christian by uttering the name of Christ in every third sentence. It only needs to be spoken in such a way that one can be imbued with the conviction that it is spoken from the attitude that Christ wants us to speak from in the present. But when someone speaks from the spirit of the present itself, and makes an effort to speak from this spirit of the present, then people come and say, “Yes, he's not talking about Christ.” He should speak more inwardly. — And then the so-called inwardness is brought forward in the most outward manner. You know that it was out of a certain auntishness that the attack came which said that one should actually speak of “inwardness” after every fifth word. Of course, it would be much more comfortable for me not to touch on this auntishness at all. But it is necessary in the present to touch upon auntiness and uncleanness, because they cause great damage in relation to what really needs to happen. I would really like to ask whether such auntiness and uncleanness really strive to penetrate into what needs to be brought to bear as the truly spiritual in the present. We must have the courage to say to ourselves: What we do individually, for example by teaching individually, must be done out of the realization that humanity now carries within itself different impulses for development than it did a relatively short time ago, that until recently the leading spirits of the supersensible world were interested in bringing humanity to a certain point. However, the image of the human being is complete, and human beings must seek connection with the spiritual world from within themselves so that what they produce beyond their physical bodies and physical predispositions makes them interesting again to the spirits above them. Otherwise, our culture will become barren, stagnant, and bogged down. Nothing that seeks to rehash the old in any way can save us from this. Only the courage to begin the spiritual from the same attitude with which the naturalistic began in the fifteenth century in opposition to the old creeds can save us from this. That is mainly what I wanted to develop before you today: that we can only look up to certain spirits above us in the right way if we admit that with the end of the nineteenth century the old relationship with them came to an end, and that since the last third of the nineteenth century humanity has had to enter into a new relationship with the spiritual world. Let us be true in this point. Let us be true, for example, in the following: one does not have to be inhuman in order to be true, but let us be true. With regard to the external, human beings cannot immediately undergo the entire metamorphosis of humanity. They are brought up by what continues from old impulses. Thus, those people who today proclaim the old creeds from the pulpits were brought up by what continued from old impulses. Why should one not be completely humanly kind to what comes from that side? One can do that, but for God's sake one should not take it seriously for the exploration of truth in the present. One should say to oneself: Certainly, these people have been raised that way; they cannot change their profession in later years; so let them talk. But one should not believe that it is necessary to give anything to discussions coming from that side, except in an external manner, by defending oneself. And so on.

As I said, it would be more convenient to leave these things unsaid. But we are heading into such difficult and serious times that it is quite impossible to leave these things unsaid. And human weakness is far too widespread to take these things seriously. Certainly, everyone may say: I cannot change my nature, or my position, or whatever. But they should not justify it; they should admit that they are making compromises for the time being. Defending the truth, even if one considers this truth necessary only because of external circumstances, is what is important in our time. If one considers how humanity has rushed headlong into the terrible catastrophes of recent years, one finds no other reason than that people have strayed so far from always looking from things to words and from words to things. Today, people often just repeat words, and then they think they know something about things. This tendency to develop phraseology to the extreme is the basic tendency of our time, and then not to see that when the words are there, the things are not yet there.

In recent weeks, we have been busy organizing the course for Waldorf school teachers. The aim was to transform dead pedagogy into a living educational art. This brought to life a truth that is often overlooked because words are allowed to remain words. For example, when we had to deal with thick documents, printed thick documents with “Official Gazette” written on the outside, it became clear to us. Because it is an excerpt from an official gazette. Or “Curriculum” is written on this or that thick document. “Curriculum” does not just mean that this or that is to be taught in this or that class at this or that school, or, what could also be flexible, that this or that is to be mastered by this or that goal; but it actually says—you wouldn't believe it—how to teach, how to deal with the material. Today, this is already the content of a regulation, the content of state regulations. What does that mean when you look at it in reality? Well, if you put it that way: a government gazette benevolently and paternalistically prescribes how teaching should be done, and if you don't think about it, you can ignore it. But if you think about it—which is an uncomfortable occupation for most people today—you come to realize that what is taught in higher schools today is not pedagogy and didactics so that people can understand, but pedagogy is prescribed by law. Just as people are prescribed not to steal, they are prescribed how to teach through official gazettes and official decrees. And one does not feel what lies behind this. And it is so that in the perception of what has actually only emerged in recent times, the starting point for the restoration of healthy conditions could lie. Fifty people who stand in such places where their words are heard as the words of the members of the Weimar National Assembly were heard, fifty people who feel something like the anomaly of legislation on education, that would mean more for the healing of the world than the insipid chatter that has been spoken in that place in recent months.

For this, there must also be a feeling, and this feeling will come from nothing else than the forces of spiritual knowledge entering alive into human souls and human hearts. Not mere theory, which allows us to agree with things theoretically and then teaches us nothing about taking the spirit seriously. To take the spirit seriously means that when you enter a room, you are one with the spirit and soul of the people who are there. Theoretical creeds are nothing today. Feeling and sensing oneself in the spirit is the only thing that can make humanity healthy today.

That was what was meant when we began our social work here. To work out of the living spirit, that was what was meant. Until now, people have only been able to say: I agree with this or that, with the content of the words, with the content of the sentences. That people today are so clever that they can easily agree with the content of a sentence is certainly not denied by those who, out of inner spiritual knowledge, dare to assert that the spiritual beings who have worked on evolution until now have brought human beings to the point where they have reached their ideal of perfection. No one denies that people today are intelligent, that they are capable of criticism, that they are intellectually very advanced, that in a certain sense they are even perfect creatures on earth. But precisely because they are so, they must open up a new source within themselves, a completely new source.

Certainly, those who recognize spiritual life consider people today to be perfect. But precisely because they are perfect, because they have become perfect through beings other than themselves, they must now begin to make something of themselves.

That was what prompted me decades ago, for example, to place moral science on a new basis and to speak in my “Philosophy of Freedom” of “moral imagination,” that is, of the creative power that comes from within human beings, including in the moral realm. Because it was clear to me that what humans instinctively develop from within themselves, and what has always been called ethics, has no future.

I have often said here, at the end of my remarks, that I would be so happy if, despite the imperfect way in which such things must of course be presented, I could find an echo in the hearts of my friends, a real echo. For it is never important to me to make this or that plausible to them in theory, but rather to interpret what the signs of the times are trying to impress upon people today. It is not important to me to surprise or not surprise them with this or that assertion, but only to say what is really necessary for the present.

Weren't these principles the basis of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science that I represent? With any other principle, it might have been better to refrain from working for this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. To refrain for the simple reason that it is quite natural that the individual who represents spiritual science will be pelted with all kinds of rubbish from what lives in the people of the present. That is quite natural. It cannot be otherwise, for that is how the present is in today's transition epoch. It can only be a matter of representing spiritual science, of proclaiming spiritual science, because one recognizes the urgent necessity of bringing what is proclaimed through spiritual science to humanity, especially in the present. One cannot speak of a mere successive development, but must speak of upheavals in development. Plants also develop successively, but the transition from a leaf to a colorful flower petal is abrupt. Humanity has developed gradually, but the transition from the time when humanity's development was guided by divine-spiritual beings who brought humans to perfection to the time when humans must move forward on their own is abrupt, and it must be completed. And without acknowledging that this transition is abrupt, we cannot cross the Rubicon of today's cultural misery. Those who constantly want this or that because it is convenient to carry it over from the old ways will not really arrive in the areas from which the impulses of the future culture can develop.

Truly, the things that need to be done today are not of the kind that, if they are to be promising, are conceived here and there, but are of the kind that our Waldorf School is, for example. With the Waldorf School, something is being undertaken that can only be described as the most serious concern in life for those who take it seriously. I, for example, confess to you quite openly: when I consider the spiritual constitution of the present age and see the necessity of helping to establish such a school, something arises in my heart that I can already describe as follows: I have had many worries, but this Waldorf school is one of my greatest concerns. That cannot prevent me from undertaking these things. Not simply because I believe it will fail. It will succeed. But because we will have to ensure that the right things are always done to make it succeed. It would be completely futile not to admit that these concerns exist. But perhaps we have already done something for this special task by striving to be true, completely true, in our discussion of this chapter. And so that things are not taken in such a way that only one side is seen, I wanted to say to you today what I have just said. Of course, I could not strike the same note yesterday in the opening speech. I could not speak to the people gathered there about the interest of the higher hierarchies, and about the fact that the image of man is complete, that something else must take its place, and so on. But if you photograph a tree from one side, it must also be photographed from the other side in order to obtain a complete picture. That is why I had to add what I have said to you today. For in our time, what is true must be spoken in a true manner. We must also learn this sentence: that we must not merely represent the truth, but that we must also represent the truth truthfully. For today, through human evolution, we have arrived at an epoch where the truth can also be represented untruthfully. We will have to learn to speak the truth truthfully. For in many areas today, truths are as cheap as blackberries, because they can be picked up here and there. Human culture is perfect in this respect. But only those who do not merely do what is easy to do today will fulfill the task for the future; for it is easy to link any concepts together to form a new worldview. Those who proceed in this way do not do anything that will have an effect in the future; only those who speak the truth from their true soul do something fruitful. It is not the wording alone that matters today, but the spiritual fluid that pervades this wording. However, one must acquire a feeling for this today. People are often quite far removed from this feeling. Today, one can still read entire pages without realizing that the person who wrote them is a dishonest fellow. To this end, people will have to acquire the ability not only to perceive what is logical, but also to feel the source of truth. Much more inwardly than those who today believe they are speaking of inwardness believe, much more inwardly will be that which will enable people in the future to really work, to really do something, even in the smallest circle, which will carry humanity into the future.

That is why it has been necessary all these years for the things we discuss among ourselves to be discussed from the most diverse points of view. Only in this way can we gain the ability to live them through completely and powerfully. We must equip ourselves with this inner longing to approach the secrets of the world and to feel them inwardly, truly and powerfully. That is all I wanted to say today with these words, that you may learn to feel within yourselves the necessity of this longing and the prevalence of so much untruth in our time and among the people of our time. That truth may come forth! This is the desire that we would like to cry out again and again to humanity today, from the most anxious depths of our hearts.

There is still much, much to be learned about things such as those I have mentioned: that someone may agree completely with something in words, but cannot understand it because it comes from the spirit. Try to understand learning in this way, and you will serve the tasks that the present day sets before you. You will find many other things besides what you have already found, and much still lies hidden in the bosom of the present that must be found in order for healing to come to humanity. But not everything that has been spoken by humanity has been found. And those who see through things as they are today know only too well that just because they have said one thing or another, it has not yet been found by humanity. Help to understand such words correctly, and then you will not fail to help spread the truth, not merely in its outward, logical form, but truly in humanity. Only then will you be members of that order which we need, that order whose motto is to represent the truth as truth. And its secret is that it is possible to spread the truth, but to spread it in an untrue way and thereby do more harm than is often done by spreading lies. This, my dear friends, is worth considering: what it means to cause harm by presenting the truth as untrue.