The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Eleventh Lecture

[ 1 ] Unfortunately, yesterday’s discussion had to end on a somewhat sour note, but from time to time we must point out such things within our own ranks. In fact, however, what I was forced to say at the end yesterday, against my will, actually fit into the sequence of our reflections, for these reflections all essentially boil down to showing how necessary a spiritual-scientific approach is for our culture. The day before yesterday, I tried to show you the background behind something like Oswald Spengler’s view on the decline of Western culture. Yesterday I tried to show you how the shadows of older cultures extend into our time, how these shadows of older cultures—arising from a striving that is, after all, understandable in their context—turn against everything that must come precisely from the spiritual science I am referring to here. Today I would like to introduce some fundamental principles into our considerations so that, in a sense, we can trace the cultural development of the present in even greater detail and depth over the course of the next lectures.

[ 2 ] I have often emphasized that the true effect of deepening one’s understanding of the humanities should not lie merely in the fact that certain truths established by the humanities are absorbed by our soul, preserved by it as content, and applied to all manner of life contexts in which we, as human beings, are interested. But for our time, that is not the only thing that should come to human beings as an effect of spiritual science, as it is understood here. What should come to contemporary human beings above all else from this spiritual science is that their entire mode of imagination, the configuration of thought, feeling, and willing—undergoes, through this deepening of spiritual science, the very transformation demanded by the needs of the present, so that we do not merely enter into the decline of Western civilization, but so that we may carry forth from this decline the seeds of a new ascent. I have often mentioned that this binding of thinking and feeling to the physical human organism—as materialism conceives it—is by no means a chimera. I have often emphasized that materialism is not merely a false worldview, but that materialism, in the true sense of the word, is a conception of time—or perhaps better said: a phenomenon of our time. The fact is that one cannot simply say it is untrue that human thinking, human feeling, and indeed the soul’s volition are bound to the physical organism, and that one must substitute another view for this one. That does not exhaust the full truth in this area; rather, the fact is that, through what has emerged in Western civilization over the last three to four centuries, the human soul and spirit—thought, feeling, and will—have in fact become closely dependent on the physical organism, and that, in a certain sense, people today express a correct view when they say: This dependence exists. — For the task today is not to overcome a theoretical view; the task today is to overcome the fact that the human soul has become dependent on the body. The task today is not to refute materialism; rather, the task today is to perform that work—that spiritual and soul work—which will once again free the human soul from the bonds of the material.

[ 3 ] The fact that, in such a field, one can clearly see that things like those I have just mentioned do not merely appear as contradictions or paradoxical assertions—one can actually gain a sufficient understanding of this only from spiritual science itself. Today I will focus on a specific aspect of modern life, of the present, to show you how what is not merely a concept but a fact—the dependence of the spiritual-soul aspect on the physical—how this influences social life. From this, you will then be able to see that there is already more to be overcome in our time than a mere theoretical insight.

[ 4 ] Perhaps I can make what I just said a little clearer by recalling something I have already mentioned here, which, in a certain sense, can illustrate what I have to say today. I have told you how, as a teacher at the Workers’ Educational School in Berlin, I was expelled due to the intrigues of the leaders of the Social Democratic Party, because what I was teaching at the time in a wide variety of fields was not genuine Marxism and, above all, in the field of history, did not represent a materialist view of history. I had not, by any means, taken the view that the materialist conception of history was absolutely wrong, but precisely the way in which I had to relate to the materialist conception of history—to the view that all ethical, scientific, religious, and legal life is, so to speak, merely a superstructure, a kind of smoke, in contrast to what is said to be the only reality in the material economic process—precisely the way in which I had to relate to this conception of history—that could not be understood. Of course, it could not be understood by those who had not even attempted to gain an inner understanding of the matter. The workers who listened to my lectures gradually came to understand it; but it was precisely through this understanding that the leaders at the time caught on. What I taught was this: It begins, I said, around the middle of the 15th century—at first slowly, then increasingly rapidly from the 16th century onward—with that very process in the history of human development through which humanity’s spiritual, legal, and ethical productions become fully dependent on the processes of production, on the way economic life unfolds. Gradually, everything intellectual and legal becomes dependent on economic life. Therefore, I said, the materialist conception of history is relatively justified for interpreting the last three to four centuries of human history; but one arrives at an untenable conception of history if one goes back beyond the 15th century and attempts to understand earlier times in terms of the materialist conception of history. And one is completely mistaken if one regards this materialist conception of history as something absolute and says: In the future, all ethical, all legal, and all scientific life will be nothing more than a kind of smoke rising from economic life. — On the contrary, it is the task of the present to overcome what has developed over the last three to four centuries as the dependence of spiritual life on the economic. It is necessary to overcome, as a fact, that which the materialist conception of history correctly describes.

[ 5 ] You see, when one truly proceeds in the spirit of the spiritual sciences, one is dealing with a different way of thinking—a way of thinking that actually breaks with traditional thought forms and the entire structure of the worldview. And indeed, what matters far more to anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is to foster this transformation—this metamorphosis in the structure of feeling, thinking, and willing—in the course of human evolution, rather than merely passing down some content to humanity through various human bodies and the like. Certainly, these contents do emerge; these results appear before our inner eye precisely through such a metamorphosis of the structure of thought. But what is essential is the different attitude toward the world; what is essential is that we are able, in a certain sense, to change the entire constitution of our soul. Once one recognizes this, one actually begins to realize how, in the current thinking of the broadest circles of Western civilization, the remnants of traditional thinking, feeling, and willing are still very much at work—remnants that have simply carried on from the most ancient times into the present. There have actually been only a few individuals who, I would say, have emerged from the broad masses in the most diverse fields to develop a sense, an inkling, of just how rotten the old forms of thought and thought structures really are. For the most part, they were unable to advance to spiritual science, and so they remained stuck in the negative.

[ 6 ] An exceptionally interesting figure in connection with this impasse is Overbeck, a friend of Friedrich Nietzsche’s who taught at the University of Basel during Nietzsche’s time and who, in particular, wrote an interesting book on the contemporary legitimacy of Christianity. It is one of the most interesting developments in the field of modern literature that a Christian theologian raises the question: Are we still Christians? — This question was raised not only by the materialist theologian David Friedrich Strauss, but also by Overbeck, Nietzsche’s friend, who taught at the Faculty of Theology in Basel. And in fact, Overbeck comes to the conclusion: There is still such a thing as Christian theology, but Christianity no longer exists.

[ 7 ] But in particular, I must say, I found it a curious coincidence that, after I had to present you yesterday with these various examples of theological thinking—in which I had to show you that one has just as much cause to complain about theologians when they become friends as when they become enemies— I found it very telling that, just in the last few days, the supplement to the *Basler Nachrichten* has been reviewing a posthumous work by Overbeck and has highlighted a sentence written by this Christian theologian. A Christian theologian wrote the following: “Theologians are the fools of modern society; that is an open secret in this modern society.”

[ 8 ] So says Overbeck, the theologian in Basel! One need not venture beyond that sphere to come across such a judgment. However, Overbeck was not only a theologian but also a thinker, and being a theologian was more his fate than his choice. Perhaps it was also his weakness to remain a theologian. But it is not my task today to examine all of that. Still, it is noteworthy that such a statement was not made by a monist, but by a theologian: Theologians are the fools of modern society, and it is an open secret in modern society that this is the case.

[ 9 ] Well, the things that are now intruding into the present are merely shadows of old worldviews, ways of life, and so on. To be a Christian today requires a new understanding of the mystery of Golgotha, as I already explained to you yesterday. But understanding today’s social demands also requires a completely different structure of thought and feeling than the one that has carried over from ancient times into the broad masses of contemporary humanity. And I would like to give you an example of this today. One can take two social thinkers as different as, say, Marx—who is the idol of social democracy—and Rodbertus, who is, I would say, more of a pillar of support for those seeking a solution to the social question on a national level. In a certain sense, both Rodbertus and Marx are socialists; but they are, in fact, polar opposites. Yet on one important point they agree. They agree on a certain conception of the fundamental question that is actually raised today by everyone who, at heart, deals more deeply with the social question. The question is: What actually produces economic goods? What produces the economic goods that circulate in economic life—goods that serve human economic consumption? —Both Marx and Rodbertus answered this question by stating: Only physical labor produces economic goods. —Thus, everything that is productive in economic life can be traced back to physical labor. In other words: If one wishes to determine where to find the labor that produces any coherent series of economic goods, one must—taking a railroad as an example—begin with the groundbreaking, not with the work of the engineers, nor with the work of those who, based on certain life circumstances, conceive the idea that a railroad should be built in this or that region. Karl Marx, for example, says: Labor—physical labor—alone produces economic goods. If, he says, an accountant is hired in a municipality in India, the work of this accountant is not something that produces real economic goods. Although the work of this accountant is necessary, it does not produce economic goods. Economic goods are produced solely by the physical labor of those who are directly and physically engaged in the production of those goods. Everything else is excluded from being counted among the elements of production of economic goods. From what, says Karl Marx, is the Indian accountant paid? From a deduction that is made. One must first take from what should actually go to all the others who perform physical labor; one must first deduct something from that and give it to him, because he is, after all, necessary. One cannot produce without him, but he does not produce goods. So one must take from those who produce goods what one has to give to him. — And by pursuing this line of thought, Karl Marx ultimately concludes that all intellectual labor, all intellectual production, is not extracted from economic goods in such a way that it would participate in the production of these economic goods, but rather that it is deducted from those who actually engage in economic production.

[ 10 ] And Karl Marx’s polar opposite, Rodbertus, also arrives at exactly the same view. There are, in fact, various reasons why such views have arisen precisely from the way of thinking that has emerged over the course of the last three to four centuries as a shadow of older ways of thinking. For one can see how such views arise by examining the way in which these theorists view work and the relationship of work to the production of economic goods—and the views of these theorists have, in fact, now been adopted above all by the entire proletariat. What exists as a worldview throughout the entire proletariat is precisely the result of such ideas, of which I will now give you a few examples. People—such as Karl Marx—ask: For what, exactly, does the worker receive his wages? — They answer this question by saying that the worker receives his wages for the labor expended, that is, that the labor expended is remunerated, and they say: It must be compensated, for in producing goods, the worker expends his own labor power.—I have often characterized this view for you as the view of the present-day proletariat: The worker expends his labor power; his labor power is consumed; it must be replaced. So he is given wages—that is, economic goods—for monetary wages serve only as a substitute for them; he is given wages so that the physical labor expended in the production of economic goods can be replenished. — This idea recurs time and again; we find it in the most diverse variations.

[ 11 ] What, exactly, is the underlying concept here? The underlying concept is best understood by examining a phrase that Karl Marx and his followers used time and again. They used the phrase: “labor is embodied in the product.” — In a sense—once the product is produced—labor has been “embedded” in the product. Thus, labor power—or rather, its result—would also have been “embedded” in the economic good, in the product. It is said: Mental power cannot be “embedded” in the product; only physical power can be “embedded” in the product. — So the idea is that labor power somehow passes from the person into the product; once it’s out there, it has “coagulated” into the product; then one consumes it, and it is replaced again.

[ 12 ] Such a notion is deeply ingrained in people due to certain materialistic influences of recent times, and if one opposes such a view, one even appears to be someone prone to paradoxes, for these things have gradually become something that seems entirely natural to people today. And in Russia, socialism is currently being implemented solely under the influence of such views, which have sprung from the depths of materialism.

[ 13 ] Now, it is indeed true—and while it is extremely difficult to admit, it is indeed true—that sometimes certain views become popular, are held everywhere as self-evident, and yet have absolutely no basis whatsoever. This way of looking at things—as if labor were simply extracted into the product—really has no basis whatsoever, for one cannot truly say that what is consumed during labor is replaced by food. One need only seriously ask oneself whether someone who does not work at all does not also have to eat if he wants to live. After all, the replacement of “lost energy”—which is what matters here—cannot truly depend on that energy having gone into work; for if it does not go into work, it must still be replaced. There must be a major error in reasoning here—a major error that has simply become popular, and which people have come to make a habit of committing. For people have no idea just how deeply we are entrenched in distorted patterns of thought today. We must awaken our souls to these distorted patterns of thought. It is unacceptable for the soul to remain asleep in the face of these distorted patterns of thought.

[ 14 ] I have already expressed this idea to you before, albeit in a different form. Those who do not feel the need—or, let us say, whose life circumstances have not placed them in a situation where they chop wood or perform similar physical labor—will sometimes channel their energy into, say, sports. That is where they also apply their energy. And you will readily admit that, under certain circumstances, the same amount of energy can be expended in chopping wood as in sports. One can become just as tired from sports as from chopping wood. One can sleep just as well after sports as after chopping wood. The same amount of work can be performed in one case as in the other, purely in formal terms. So it cannot be a matter of how much work one does and how much energy one expends in performing this work; rather, it is evident that it is about something entirely different—the way in which work is embedded within the entire social process. It is about learning to move beyond this expending of human vitality in work, in the production of goods. At most, it can be a matter of the hard-working person needing a little more to eat than the lazy one, although that does not entirely correspond to the lifestyle habits of some people. But in any case, this peculiar way of thinking—as if, in economic theory, one had to focus on how the human labor expended must be replaced by what one receives in wages—this way of thinking is, in any case, completely without foundation. One simply cannot think this way if one wants to achieve any goal at all.

[ 15 ] I wanted to draw attention to this from a different perspective, pointing out how our entire lives are dominated by mistaken ideas and habits of thought that may have been justified in the past but are no longer justified today.

[ 16 ] Another line of thought that often recurs among observers of economic life—who are more or less influenced by Karl Marx—is this: They say that when physical labor is performed and, in the course of performing this physical labor, an economic good is produced, then that labor is consumed. If the good is to be produced again, it must be created anew through the same labor. When someone conceives an idea, that idea exists. It remains; it is not consumed. And based on that idea, countless labor processes can perhaps be carried out. — So: physical labor applied to the production of goods is consumed in its product, while intellectual labor is not consumed in its product—the products remain. This seems incredibly plausible when such an idea is articulated. But then the question arises: Can such an idea be fruitfully applied in economic thought? The issue is always that those who pursue such an idea are unable to trace the entire process that such an idea undergoes as it becomes reality. One might ask: Has there ever been a single instance in which an inventor produced an idea, and—without any further intellectual work being performed—that idea could be realized countless times? — That is not the case. Rather, one must say the following: What is the actual connection between what is produced by the spiritual human being and what constitutes external goods—for example, economic goods? — Just consider the production of economic goods. Can you imagine that economic goods are produced without spiritual guidance and direction underlying them? For you can actually prove that spiritual guidance manifests itself right down to the very core of material labor, in the production of material goods. One simply has to go back far enough. I have often given you this example: Consider the Gotthard Tunnel or the Suez Canal or something similar; such projects cannot be carried out today without differential or integral calculus. All physical labor is of no use if these principles do not underlie it. But these principles—differential and integral calculus—were once developed in the solitary study of Leibniz or—and we need not get involved in a dispute over national priority today—in the solitary study of Newton; in any case, these ideas arose through the intellectual work of thinkers. In everything that essentially exists in the Gotthard Tunnel, the Suez Canal, and similar projects—which, in turn, underlie the production of economic goods—all that is present are the results of what was once an intellectual seed. And none of this physical labor could exist if that intellectual seed had not been there. Look at anything that is produced, and you will have to conclude everywhere: Physical labor cannot even begin unless intellectual labor has preceded it; and if it were to begin, and the intellectual labor were to cease, it would not get very far either. Yes, one could prove just as rigorously as Karl Marx and Rodbertus claimed to prove that economic goods arise from physical labor alone, that only intellectual labor produces economic goods, and that physical labor is entirely and completely the result of intellectual labor. These things are entirely relative to one another. And the same rigor of argument that Marxists can muster for the line of reasoning that only physical labor produces economic goods—that same rigor of argument could be found in the line of reasoning that only intellectual power produces economic goods.

[ 17 ] What, then, follows from this? I state explicitly: The same rigor of reasoning can apply in one case as in the other; that is to say, the following can occur in either case. Karl Marx advocated one position. Someone could come along who proved just as rigorously that only intellectual labor produces economic goods. It is only due to the materialistic conditions of modern times that no such Marx has emerged to advocate for spiritual conditions, just as Marx emerged to advocate for material conditions. But both, had they emerged, could have gained followers. Karl Marx certainly gained enough followers; the other could have gained followers as well. The arguments of both could point to the same rigorous line of reasoning that you find today when people—always in good faith, of course—discuss this or that reform issue in modern gatherings. There, everything is usually proven very rigorously, for people today are very clever. Or when people at the lecterns prove this or that, everything is rigorously proven. But one can prove the opposite just as rigorously. What people simply refuse to believe is that logical proof alone is not something that can sustain life, but that logical proof—or that which is derived solely from logical proof—must be supplemented by a sense of reality and a connection to reality. Life can be sustained only from within life itself, not from intellectually oriented proofs. It is solely due to the fact that human instincts have been materialistically oriented over the last three to four centuries that the materialist line of reasoning has become as rigorous as it is in Marxism. As a rule, one cannot really cope with refutations, because proof is not about proving something, but about the other person accepting the proof. The acceptance of proof, however, does not rest on the logic of the proof itself, but—as is simply the nature of human beings when they do not delve into spiritual science—it rests on certain instincts, on habits, and in particular on habits of thought. And so one must say: Life today is confused for us by the fact that souls do not want to awaken from their slumber in the face of the impulses of reality, that souls, above all, do not want to penetrate to the point of telling themselves: What matters is finding the right point of view, not viewing the world from just any point of view.

[ 18 ] Today, the issue is to adopt a perspective that no longer gives rise to prejudices—in the sense of considering a one-sided line of reasoning to be correct—but rather one that allows us to view life so comprehensively that we can truly weigh the merits of one side’s arguments as well as those of the opposing side. Today, one must recognize how much merit the arguments on one side—the materialistic side—have, and how much merit the arguments on the spiritual side have. In other words, it has never been as necessary as it is now for people not to be fanatics. But fanaticism, which is virtually a phenomenon of our time, can only be overcome if people open up within themselves the source that leads them to a true understanding of the spiritual interconnections of the world. That is why the enrichment of our Western civilization with the findings of spiritual science is such an eminent necessity. So one can say, using strict logic if one wishes—and it always comes down to whether one wishes to—one can say that spiritual work is embodied in the product. One can also say that physical work is embodied in the product. But what are we actually dealing with? In reality, we are dealing with the fact that certain processes in the external world are carried out by human beings in a certain way. Suppose I pick an apple from a tree. This is, after all, something that also plays a role as a component in the sum of economic relationships. One must, of course, see what elements make up reality. When I pick an apple from a tree, I bring about a change in the external world, a metamorphosis: first the apple is up in the tree, then it may be lying in my basket. I have brought about this change. Certainly, a process has taken place within me, during which physical energy was expended and subsequently replenished. But if, during the same time I would have spent picking the apple, I had taken a few steps on my walk, I would have expended that same amount of energy. The point is not what happens within me, and in the context of national economics, it cannot be about anything related to the human organism. It cannot be a matter of raising the question: What should a person receive because they must compensate for expended physical energy? — but it can only be a matter of: What inner significance does that metamorphosis hold, which essentially takes place entirely outside of the human being—a process they merely direct and guide—that metamorphosis whereby the apple is first high up on the tree and then in their basket? Imagine for a moment that you were to sketch the entire process, or paint it. You paint the tree, with the person beside it. You now paint how the person reaches out, sets up a ladder, reaches out again, picks the apple, and then paint how he places it in the basket. Now, let’s say, treat yourself to the pleasure of: Erase the person entirely; erase everything in your painting that pertained to the person, and consider only this objective process unfolding independently of the person: the apple is up there, moves down, and ends up in the basket; you have completely eliminated the person. But you have strictly focused on the process that matters from an economic perspective in real life. That has remained within it; that is what matters when it comes to an economic analysis. And every time the purely economic analysis is placed on a false foundation, it is when one incorporates the consumption of vital energy or physical strength and the like into the economic analysis, as Lassalle does, as Marx does, and as almost all other academic economists do as well.

[ 19 ] What really matters, then, is that when it comes to economic relationships, we can set people aside. We must then be able to consider these “set-aside” people in and of themselves. This brings us to other relationships—relationships that are grounded in a different context. When we say: “But people have to work, otherwise the apples won’t fall from the trees into the baskets!”—when we say this, we realize: Now we can’t erase the human being! But above all, we cannot erase his soul if he is to remain human. If a person is to remain human, the impulse to work must lie within him. They cannot remain human if one devises a machine through which they are slowly driven by some technical processes to a ladder, where their arm is raised, their fingers bent, and so on, or if the state were to introduce compulsory labor; both amounts to essentially the same thing. The point is that the impulse must lie within the human being. It will not lie within the human being unless it is kindled by relationships, by human interaction.

[ 20 ] You see, when you turn to the motivation for work, your analysis leads you into a completely different realm than the economic one. When it comes to the motivation for work, you cannot ignore the human being, nor can you ignore the innermost being of the human being. If you examine this matter realistically, you will find that what I have mentioned—the economic process—is so radically different from what actually leads to work, from the impulse to work, that this difference must be rooted in social reality itself.

[ 21 ] Now, there are, of course, many ways of thinking that lead to the threefold structure of the social organism. But we should explore many different lines of thought, for people today need a strong impetus—they are so mentally sluggish! Above all, you will find that this tangle of ideas—which seeks to fuse together everything that is economic, legal-political, and spiritual—has sprung entirely from materialism; yet at the same time, as it emerges as a worldview, it also binds the soul to physical processes, thereby rendering the soul passive and stifling its activity. We have not merely become materialistic—theoretically materialistic—we have become material. Human beings cannot, therefore, extricate themselves from the catastrophe in which they find themselves today merely by changing their way of thinking; rather, they can extricate themselves only through a spur to their will. For the will is that which, as the first aspect of the soul, is independent of the physical and—even when it is put into action—cannot be entirely subjugated to the physical. For at every moment when I perform any external action, I am provided with immediate, tangible proof that the will is independent of the physical body. For the will is active in plucking the apple from the tree and placing the apple in the basket. I can exclude what a person eats from the purely economic process; I cannot exclude human will.

[ 22 ] My intention today was simply to present you once again with a line of thought through which you can discover the profound validity of these ideas of threefolding. First, I have shown you how very different the impulse of work is from everything else that is part of economic life. As you know, in the threefold social order, this impulse is to be found in the realm of the state and law. But if you follow the lines of thought suggested today in other directions—for example, toward how confused our conceptions become regarding the proportion of physical labor and intellectual labor in the production of a product—if one thinks in the way people have learned to think over the last three to four centuries— then you will also see how this tangled web of thought that has arisen has a confusing effect when one attempts to separate spiritual life entirely from legal and economic life. For there is no practical necessity whatsoever in holding the view that a person simply expends physical energy in work, which must then be compensated for by wages. We have seen, after all, that no such practical necessity exists. How, then, does one come to harbor such a line of thought? How does one come to formulate this idea in the first place? One arrives at it from materialistic foundations. One cannot detach oneself from matter in one’s thinking. One cannot find anything that emanates from the human being and is independent of the body. Thus, one becomes chained to the body through one’s ideas. Political economy is chained to the body in a materialistic way. Because it cannot perceive the purely spiritual interrelationships in the external world of economic life, it is diverted to the purely material process of physical energy expenditure and replenishment: expending energy, replenishing energy, expending energy, replenishing energy, and so on! One seeks to operate entirely within the material realm and can therefore arrive at nothing other than, so to speak, the incorporation of the human being as a machine into the economic organism.

[ 23 ] It is already the case today that we are not caught up in this catastrophe because of institutional structures, but rather because of the deepest thoughts, feelings, and impulses of the human will; and it is absolutely essential, in the truest sense of the word, that we move away from the prejudice that a social revival can somehow come about through institutional structures alone. It is urgently necessary to recognize that a social revival can only come about through a transformation of the way people think and feel, through the eradication of old habits of thought that threaten to drag us deeper and deeper into decline. We must, in fact, accustom ourselves to following with the deepest interest what lives in the thoughts of contemporary humanity. We will eventually discover that it is of no use to carry these thoughts forward in any particular direction, but rather that what matters most today is to abandon these lines of thought in the most crucial areas and to embrace new ones. But these can arise only from the deepest foundations of human nature itself. And they can enter human culture only when impulses that are primordial and elemental are truly taken into account and embraced by people. Yet today, such impulses can lie only within that science of the spiritual which is anthroposophically oriented. We need a new understanding of humanity, for the old understanding of humanity has led to error even in a field such as the one I have described to you today. The old view has already gone so far in practical terms as to regard human beings as machines and to fail to recognize the absurdity of the idea that it is an economic category to consume human physical labor and to replace it with wages as an equivalent. All of this stems from the fact that, within today’s ways of thinking, it is impossible to truly understand human beings, and that we need to attain an understanding of human nature in the deepest sense of the word. But this will only be possible if our entire way of thinking is oriented toward anthroposophy.