The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. A Path to Open Research

Speech delivered during the first anthroposophical university course at the Goetheanum, in response to the call to academic youth issued at that time

[ 1 ] My dear fellow students! You will understand that I cannot, of course, comment in any way on the content of the appeal itself, since it is too closely linked to me personally. And so it will be best if, in the remarks I am permitted to address to you today, I focus more on what is actually emerging as a collective aspiration among the current student body—an aspiration for new academic and general cultural goals, as well as for social life.

[ 2 ] When I think about this call to action, it reminds me of another call that was also supposed to originate in Stuttgart some time ago: the call that was intended at the time to establish a cultural council.

[ 3 ] In 1919, when our work began in Stuttgart, it was initially based on that “Appeal to the German People and to the Cultural World,” which I had the privilege of drafting and which made its way around the world in March of last year. And this work was based on what I had attempted to set forth as social guidelines in my book The Key Points of the Social Question. At that time, a number of prominent figures who subscribed to the spirit and social goals of “The Key Points” decided that one of the most important tasks was the formation of a Cultural Council, and the intention was to demonstrate to the world how truly necessary it is to pursue a kind of renewal of spiritual life—an infusion of new impulses into spiritual life.

[ 4 ] As you know, The Key Points of the Social Question points out that the most important endeavor of our time must be to raise a subconscious goal of present-day humanity to the level of conscious action. That is precisely: shaping the social organism into a threefold structure.

[ 5 ] Anyone who can gain even a little insight into what is currently bubbling and pulsing within humanity’s striving spirit can already sense that there is nothing in these “key points,” but absolutely nothing utopian; rather, they are the product of thirty to thirty-five years of observation, capturing what the vast majority of people actually want—or, let’s say, what they should actually want according to their instincts and feelings—but which they have not yet admitted to themselves because they harbor a certain fear of bringing it into their consciousness.

[ 6 ] In all three spheres of life—the spiritual sphere, the legal, civic, or political sphere, and the economic sphere—one can see how new paths must be forged. And in my “Key Points,” I attempted to show how, in a sense, the main obstacles to embarking on such new paths stem from the fact that, over the course of the last three to four centuries, we have become accustomed to the notion that the unitary state must do everything. One could say that the unitary state has gradually “occupied” higher education as well. Higher education has been annexed, occupied. Just consider for a moment that this system of higher education developed out of intellectual life itself. Consider that, in a time not so long ago, the prestige of higher education was based entirely on the individual productivity of the individual universities. Consider how people spoke of the law faculty in Bologna, how they spoke of the medical school in Salerno, how they spoke of other significant universities; how the prestige of higher education in the world was derived from the specific individual achievements of what existed within the individual universities. And, fundamentally speaking, it is merely a recent occupation or annexation—carried out by states that have been seizing more and more power for themselves—that has ultimately reduced our higher education system to a subservient role in the face of the external demands of individual states. Today, especially in those who feel connected to the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual endeavor—and indeed to humanity’s cultural aspirations in general—there ought to be a living sense of a kind of historical memory of those times when it was up to the universities to decide what they wanted to give to the state and what they wanted to make of the state. And, I would say, a certain inner impulse arising from reflection on these matters should lead us to recall how, time and again—particularly at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th—the Age of Enlightenment emphasized that, in medieval times, science was the handmaiden of theological and ecclesiastical endeavors. How often has it been repeated what Kant—you know, I am no Kantian—expressed in these words: “The time is past when all sciences trailed in the wake of theology.” The sciences have become free. They are called upon to carry the banner for all other aspects of culture. But, strictly speaking, it was only after such words had become popular—arising from a justified sentiment toward intellectual life within the branches of science—that the state initiated the trend which has now made higher education a servant of the state, of politics, and of jurisprudence. And, my esteemed fellow students, whether it is better to trail in the wake of theology—that is, at least of a spiritual discipline—or to trail in the wake of the external state apparatus, that is still the question. Future generations will have to pass judgment on this. For it was not a pretty sight either that, so to speak, a century after Kant had declared that science would no longer trail in the wake of theology, the General Rector of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, the famous physiologist Du Bois-Reymond, stated that the members of the Berlin Academy of Sciences felt greatly honored to be able to call themselves: “The scientific auxiliary force of the Hohenzollerns.” This, after all, is what has become of what I would like to call: the state’s occupation of higher education. And it goes without saying that the state does not provide for science, but rather that the state provides for its “civil servants.” Recently, my esteemed fellow students, the rector of the University of Halle published an essay that sheds quite a strange light on the very mindset that led to his appointment as rector. The rector of the University of Halle seems to be reasonably well-informed about important developments behind the scenes, for he points out with concern and in great detail in a newspaper essay that there is an intention to shut down a large number of German universities and establish civil servant schools in their place, where civil servants will thus be properly trained. Yes, my esteemed fellow students, one must pay attention to these matters if one wishes to understand why relatively strong language was used at the time in that call for a Cultural Council, which originated in Stuttgart. For what has been at work within the university system has not merely affected the appointment of professors or the difficulties of the examination system; rather, it has affected the sciences, knowledge, and the spirit itself. And at that time, a remedy was to be found by calling upon everyone believed to have a heart and a mind for advancing the educational system and intellectual matters in general. And it was the hope of those people who, with warm hearts for such a cause, set to work on this appeal, that one must first turn to the representatives of intellectual life themselves. Many well-meaning people believed that, from among the ranks of university professors, there would surely be discerning individuals who would support the emancipation of higher education from the state.

[ 7 ] Well, my dear fellow students, we did not find any truly active support. But all the more often one could hear these gentlemen expressing themselves in a peculiar way. They said, in fact: “Yes, if this threefold structure of the social organism, with its free spiritual life, were to exist, then it would come to pass that, instead of the Minister of Education and his bureaucracy, the university professors themselves would exercise a kind of administration over the entire educational system.” “No,” said these gentlemen, “I would much rather be under the Minister of Education and his staff than have to deal with the decisions and measures taken by my fellow professors.” And one could hear some very strange remarks about these colleagues. And since, during this journey through the opinions of the university professors, one had the opportunity to hear what A said about B and what B said about A, there were not many left of those on whom one could have relied in this self-administration—this desire of the intellectual organism to stand on its own. We had some rather sad experiences. You may be aware that this entire “Call for Culture,” with all its good intentions, simply came to nothing; that, when it came down to it, no one from among the intellectual workers was actually willing to advocate for a free intellectual life.

[ 8 ] But one can already sense, even from outward appearances, what has taken place in recent decades. Some people still do not appreciate these things in the right way. I am merely emphasizing that, for example, what one used to become through one’s involvement in university life was expressed in something that, in a sense, grew out of the pursuit of science and knowledge itself. The degree system in the various faculties had something to do with this pursuit of knowledge. One can only observe how the state examination system has crept into this degree system—which emerged from the self-governance of the universities—and how, in the face of these state examinations, what had grown out of the universities as a degree system—that is, out of the sciences themselves—has ultimately become nothing more than a mere formality.

[ 9 ] Certainly, such things are merely symptoms at first. But as symptoms, they show very clearly that a process of absorption of intellectual life by political life—by the external life of the state—has taken place to a high degree. And you can be absolutely certain that the state system I alluded to today—the one that wants to be nothing but a state system—will effectively destroy the universities, because it has no need for them as universities, as centers of scholarship. Since what it has needed from the universities up to now was merely a training ground for civil servants, it will transform everything into schools for civil servants. That is the trend of the times. When something like this is spoken aloud, people always want to dismiss it as utopia, as the words of a false prophet. But one must also be able to look a little in the direction in which the times are moving. And after all, we are already well on our way to seeing the law school become a training ground for state officials, and the medical school give rise to an effort aimed at turning even the healer of the people into a mere cog in the machinery of the state. And what of the philosophy department? What, after all, is of greater value today than that which prepares people to be, in the state’s eyes, teaching officials—not educators! In Germany, the model nation, in democratized Germany, teachers are no longer even called “teachers” or “professors,” but—to everyone’s horror! — “Studienassessor” or “Studienoberassessor” and the like. Yet these outward formalities are closely tied to the very inner spirit of the sciences. And it was truly quite sad to have to realize that, on the part of the teachers, there is absolutely no heart and no sense for the intellectual life to become independent.

[ 10 ] I must keep this in mind as I now issue the call coming from the student body. If the older generation is unwilling to do so—there’s no other way to put it—then the youth must simply regard it as a sacred duty to stand up for the freedom of intellectual life. For of this we can be certain: if no one stands up for the freedom of intellectual life, if no one stands up for the original sources of a renewal of knowledge, then things will look grim in the times into which the next generation of our civilized humanity is growing up. It is by no means insignificant that a man as brilliant as Oswald Spengler can already prove scientifically—that is, using the methods of traditional science—that Western civilization is heading toward barbarism. We have learned to prove many things scientifically. Today, it is indeed being proven with great force that all our knowledge is leading us into barbarism.

[ 11 ] This is something that, one might believe, must weigh like a nightmare on young people, who today must not be allowed to grow up with a blind faith in authority, who must not permit themselves a blind faith in authority, but who must look with open eyes at what is happening in the institutions they enter in order to grow into life. And one may therefore believe that it can make a certain beneficial impression—setting everything else aside, and I am willing and able to disregard everything in the appeal that pertains to me personally—it makes a beneficial impression that, in contrast to the old leaders, the led are now stepping forward and saying what they want, and that they are saying it in concrete terms. For, my esteemed fellow students, the liberation of spiritual life, the autonomy of the spiritual organism, cannot be achieved through tirades or rhetoric. That which has been absorbed by the state must be drawn out again. But this can only happen if there is a genuine force of spiritual life present. And just as science was powerless in the age of materialism in the face of the state’s insatiable appetite for absorption, so too would a science that remains materialistic remain powerless in the face of this same appetite for absorption on the part of the state that is leading science into barbarism. Extracting the spirit of science and knowledge from politics—from everything in which it is currently mired to its own ruin—can only be a positive thing. Just as material science has fallen prey to unscientific forces, so spiritual science, by virtue of its own essence and its own power, will be able to extricate science once again from these unspiritual forces. And it alone will be in a position to establish the free spiritual life—the independent spiritual component of the social organism.

[ 12 ] Of course, those of you who sign this appeal must realize that it will be perceived as a storm, especially coming from such a source. But, my dear fellow students, there can be no progress today without a storm; without the will and the courage to truly transform what must be transformed, we will not move forward, but will instead continue on the path to decline, sliding into barbarism. We must be clear from the outset that this appeal cannot be received favorably by certain quarters. But I believe that all those who sign it with a whole heart and a courageous spirit are also well aware that an appeal that were to be received favorably by certain quarters—the ones I have alluded to here—would achieve absolutely nothing. One must be prepared for a struggle in pursuit of what must be achieved today.

[ 13 ] Of course, it will be crucial that we do not simply put out a verbal call to the world. My dear fellow students, I have witnessed many calls to action in the course of my life. And I know that such calls mean nothing unless there are people behind them—for whom, in essence, such a call is merely an outward, even superficial, means of expression. People whose resolve does not waver when they see, in the early stages, that everything is opposed to what one intends—energetic people must stand behind such a cause; otherwise, words of such sharpness are indeed not justified. But in our time, they must ultimately be justified in light of all the experiences that have been gained. But alongside all that which must be made clear in this way—through such criticism of the status quo—to those concerned, positive work must be set in motion. And we will likely have to recognize that, if what is intended is to succeed, circles must form—and more and more circles must form, covering ever larger and larger areas, on a truly international scale—that genuinely engage in spiritual science in the sense that they enrich the individual scientific disciplines with spiritual science.

[ 14 ] Things have gradually taken a rather strange turn when it comes to engaging young, aspiring minds in intellectual life. I could think of many examples if I were to discuss this topic. For instance, I’d like to tell you about a charming little scene that once took place at a philosophy department, where a young man—who was, at the time, a promising doctoral candidate—wanted to qualify for a professorship in—yes, in philosophy. He went to the full professor, who held him in high regard, and told him that he wanted to qualify as a private lecturer, and asked what topic the professor would find suitable for his inaugural lecture. Then the full professor—who, as I said, was well-disposed toward the young doctor and wished to have him serve as a private lecturer at his side—replied: “Yes, but that’s out of the question! “I cannot propose to my colleagues that you become a private lecturer; the whole burden would fall on me. After all, in philosophy you’ve written only about philosophical events and figures of the 19th century; we cannot allow someone like that to become a lecturer. You must have written about much, much older subjects.” — “Yes,” said the young doctor, “what am I supposed to do now, Mr. Hofrat?” “I thought what I’ve written about Schopenhauer and the development of aesthetics in the 19th century might be suitable?” — “Perhaps the Viennese here already realize who we’re talking about?” — “Yes,” said the Court Councilor, “it doesn’t matter what you write about; the only thing that matters is that it’s old and obscure.” “Let’s look up an old Italian aesthetician in the encyclopedia.” — He opened the encyclopedia and happened to come to the letter G, where the name Gravina was listed. Neither of them knew anything about him, but the professor in charge thought that would be just the thing. And the young doctor wrote his habilitation thesis on this interesting topic—a completely unknown, insignificant Italian aesthetician. And now the full professor could admit him as a private lecturer. But the whole process didn’t take that long; after all, he had to spend—I believe even a year and a half—working on it, because it wasn’t so easy to present the merits of this unknown Italian aesthetician in the right light.

[ 15 ] That's just one extreme example. But you could come up with an enormous number of such cases.

[ 16 ] Let’s just consider, for a moment, how it came to be that, little by little, all freedom in the choice of dissertation topics essentially ceased to exist. In a field such as modern philology, for example, Wilhelm Scherer went so far as to systematize and organize the entire dissertation process. Students who came asking for a dissertation topic were simply assigned the one that was available—whether it suited them or not, whether they had any particular interest in it or not, it didn’t matter; they were made to write the dissertation that could serve some professor who then wanted to write a comprehensive book on the subject by compiling the individual dissertations and so on. This external practice, however, corresponds more than one might think to the inner course of intellectual life. And I do not believe I am mistaken in saying: It would be the greatest merit you could earn, my esteemed fellow students, if you could now truly counter the spirit blowing from that direction with a fresh, fundamental source of scholarly work. If you were to form circles and, using all the resources and sources at your disposal, now attempt true, original, fundamental scholarly work. From group to group in various cities, those who wish to work out of such a spirit might come together—that is what I would say, if you seek my advice. If one wishes to work toward the vibrant flourishing of scientific life, of the life of knowledge, then the chemist, the physicist, the philosopher, the lawyer, the historian, and the philologist will each be able to contribute something to a common theme through collaborative work. And if it is desired, then we who work in Dornach on these university courses will make every effort to ensure that a kind of free committee emerges from among those lecturers who have spoken on the various branches of science that have been enriched by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, and that this committee may put forward proposals regarding what should be addressed first. Topics should not be set in the spirit that has prevailed—and continues to prevail—among those who have dominated these fields to this day, but rather this or that should be recommended based on the needs of humanity’s general spiritual life. And once again, we should rely on free choice. Let those who have gained experience speak to what is necessary. As for what one considers oneself particularly suited for, let the person who recognizes what this free committee identifies as necessary make that decision. And so, through an ongoing, free spiritual-scientific correspondence, those who are now, in a sense, pioneers of a free university system here in Dornach and have given their lectures could collaborate with those among the student body who are enthusiastic and interested in what this spiritual science is to become of the spiritual life of Western civilization.

[ 17 ] This is roughly the approach one could initially take in a positive way through scholarly work to put the words of the appeal into practice. Of course, the time has not yet come to offer this advice in greater detail. But you can be assured that those working here in Dornach or in Stuttgart will always be ready, in the spirit of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, to devote all their energies to promoting, supporting, advising, and participating wherever an enthusiastic student body wishes to do its part, here or there, in this or that group, to what must today be a great, comprehensive, and intensive task—a mighty ideal: to lead spiritual life—and with it the general cultural and civilizational life of humanity—from a renewed spiritual research that goes back to the original sources, toward an ascent, toward a dawn, not toward a decline, not toward a twilight, as some believe.

[ 18 ] And by promising you that I will do everything in my power to ensure that an intensive, scientific collaboration—one built on inner harmony—takes place, by promising you this, I would like to answer the question that has been posed to me: what I recommend first and foremost as the positive step that should be taken. If we truly collaborate in this spirit, then it is precisely from the student body that what has unfortunately not emerged from those who supposedly lead the student body—whose task, after all, would be to provide leaders for the student body—will be able to emerge. If they do not prove themselves to be such leaders, well, then a good school—one that has broken free from all belief in authority—will be precisely what you will have to go through when you stand on the ground of free scientific work. I believe I can foresee that, once you stand on such a foundation, you will be able to cooperate well with the School of Spiritual Science and with all that is intended from Dornach and Stuttgart. And it is from this perspective that I would like to have spoken to you today, my esteemed fellow students.