The Rudolf Steiner Archive

9. Goethe's Inner Life from a Perspective of Spiritual Science

[ 1 ] Through our reflections from the day before yesterday and yesterday, we have been able to see how Goethe’s work is permeated by a certain perspective of Spiritual Science, even if it might be described as merely intuitive. And it is extraordinarily important and significant to engage with this and to gain insight into such an interesting phenomenon as Goethe’s spiritual life. Only then does such a spiritual life appear in its proper context within the overall development of humanity—when one brings it before one’s soul through deep contemplation, along with all that it encompasses. Now, however, I would like to add something else to all that has been said. I would like to point out to you that one can actually grasp Goethe’s entire spiritual structure—the whole nature of Goethe’s spiritual life—properly only if one approaches it from the standpoint of Spiritual Science. Not only can a non-spiritual perspective naturally fail to find in Goethe’s work what we were able to discover through Spiritual Science observation the day before yesterday and yesterday, but it also becomes clear only when one views this inner life from the standpoint of Spiritual Science how such a spiritual life is possible within the context of human evolution. In various contexts, I have also drawn your attention to other manifestations of Goethe’s inner life—manifestations that may seem more distant from ordinary human life than what is depicted in the comprehensive Faust epic, which should actually be of the utmost interest to every human being. I have spoken to you about the fact that Goethe practiced a particular kind of natural science. And this—that Goethe practiced a particular kind of natural science—is something extraordinarily important and significant. One might say that it is precisely the distinctive way of thinking inherent in Goethe’s natural science that remains, even today, largely misunderstood in the broadest circles. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be of very special importance—particularly for the most diverse branches of contemporary spiritual life, and not least for contemporary religious life—that we gain insight into this distinctive framework, into this particular way in which Goethe viewed nature. As you know, he sought to establish a natural science for the inanimate world, which, in his own words, he based on the primordial phenomena, and he founded a botany based on metamorphosis.

[ 2 ] As simply as possible, I would like to say a few words to you today that capture the essence of these two aspects—Goethe’s theory of primordial phenomena and his theory of metamorphosis.

[ 3 ] What does Goethe intend by limiting his explanation of nature solely to the so-called “primordial phenomena,” without resorting to hypotheses or theories? Since the 1880s, I have been striving, from a wide variety of perspectives, to draw humanity’s attention to the true essence of the primordial phenomenon. However, one cannot say that, to date, this matter has actually been widely understood in broader circles. Perhaps the best way to gain an understanding of what Goethe meant by the “primordial phenomenon” in inanimate nature is to consider how he came to develop a specific theory of color. He recounts this himself. I know that what I am about to say is an abomination and heresy to the current scientific, physical worldview. But that does not matter. What present-day physics does not recognize, future physics will find itself compelled to recognize. Present-day physics is truly not yet ready for Goethe’s theory of colors.

[ 4 ] Goethe, like other people—as I said, he recounts this himself—believed in the so-called Newtonian theory of color, which is based on a certain hypothesis, on a theory, until the early 1790s. This theory states that light is based on something—well, there’s no need to go into that—something that cannot be perceived. Whether it is represented, as Newton himself did, as streams of matter, or as vibrations or some kind of electrical impulses, is ultimately irrelevant. The mental image of the origin of colors is conceived in such a way that light, as it were, contains the various colors undifferentiated—as if neutralized—within a kind of supersensible entity, and that through the prism or other processes, the colors can be extracted from the unified white light.

[ 5 ] Goethe found himself compelled to abandon this mental image—which he had shared with others—one day, in a way that must, of course, seem primitive and foolish to today’s physicist. He had studied Newtonian optics and had become a believer in it—as is only natural when one knows of nothing better—but he found that when he wanted to apply this Newtonian optics, this theory of colors, to think through something artistically or pictorially, it was of no use whatsoever. Newtonian physics is adequate, at a pinch, for a materialistic, physical mental image, but artistically, it is of no use. This troubled Goethe more and more, and it prompted him to at least investigate the physical nature of color phenomena. So he had Court Councilor Büttner, who was a professor in Jena, send him some apparatus to see what insights he might gain through his own investigations and experiments regarding the origin of color. Court Councilor Büttner, of course, willingly provided His Excellency Goethe with everything he needed. But at first, the equipment gathered dust at Goethe’s home. He didn’t get around to conducting the investigations for a long time, until Court Councilor Büttner made it known that he now needed his apparatus and would like to have it back. Goethe assembled it to send it back to the man. Before doing so, however, he wanted to quickly look through a prism, and there—as mentioned, in a way that would seem highly primitive and foolish to today’s physicists—he believed that if he looked through a prism, he would have to see the white wall, since it splits into seven colors, in all seven colors one after the other. But nothing! It remained white! That bothered him. It was foolish according to conventional assumptions; yet it was sound reasoning. He looked through the prism—the wall remained white. This led him to ask Court Councilor Büttner once more if he might keep the instruments and apparatus. And so he went on to conduct his further investigations. And from these investigations emerged, first, his theory of colors, and second, his view of the physical—that is, the inanimate—phenomena of nature in general, a view that rejects all hypotheses and all theories, that conceives of nothing at all regarding natural phenomena, but rather traces them back to phenomena—only to primordial phenomena, to primordial phenomena.

[ 6 ] And so he came to realize: When one looks at any color, it is in some way based on an interaction of light and darkness that are superimposed upon one another. When light is superimposed over darkness, the dark colors appear: blue, violet, and so on. If darkness is superimposed in any way over the light—that is, darkened matter or the prism itself—then the light colors appear: red, yellow, and so on. — There is no theory involved at all. Dark and light interact in immediate perception. They are simply perceptions. When dark and light interact, colors arise. There is nothing here that speaks of a hypothesis or a theory; rather, it simply expresses something simple and perceptible.

[ 7 ] And now, for him, it is not a matter of inventing hypotheses—such as the undulation hypothesis or the emission hypothesis and the like—to explain how colors arise, but merely a question of how light and darkness must be combined so that yellow, red, blue, or violet appear. So what mattered to Goethe was not to add anything through hypotheses and theories about the phenomena, but rather to let the phenomena speak strictly for themselves. In this way, Goethe developed a theory of colors that leads in a wonderful way to an artistic understanding of color. For the chapter on the sensory and moral effects of colors—which contains so many insights that are also significant for the artist—is among the most beautiful parts of Goethe’s theory of colors.

[ 8 ] This was Goethe’s basis for his overall conception of inanimate nature: to seek no theories or hypotheses anywhere. These, he argues, can be formulated to serve as scaffolding. But just as one does not leave the scaffolding in place once the building is finished, but rather removes it, so too are hypotheses used only to find a way to piece things together; afterward, however, they are dismantled once one has arrived at the primordial phenomenon, the simplest phenomenon.

[ 9 ] Goethe also attempted to at least outline this for the entire field of physics. And in the large Weimar edition, in the volume where I have published Goethe’s general scientific essays, you will also find a diagram in which Goethe has schematized the entire field of physics from this perspective. Particularly interesting in this diagram is the theory of sound, for example, which—in harmony with his theory of colors—is, however, only presented schematically. But it would be interesting to create a theory of sound that would lead just as naturally into music as Goethe’s theory of colors leads into painting. Of course, this has not yet been possible, because modern science follows paths entirely different from those grounded in Goethe’s worldview, or rather, in his conception of nature. Goethe attempted this with regard to inanimate nature.

[ 10 ] He attempted something similar with regard to living plant life through the theory of metamorphosis, where he, too, did not formulate theories and hypotheses, but rather observed how the leaf transforms, undergoes metamorphosis, takes on a wide variety of forms, and subsequently becomes a petal, so that the flower is nothing other than the transformed leaf. Again, this is a way of seeing that rejects hypotheses, that refuses to formulate theories, but seeks to remain purely with what perception presents. However, this requires flexible concepts—concepts that are just as flexible as nature itself. The way nature lives in its creative process is that it does not cling to forms but transforms them. One must therefore have concepts that the majority of people find too cumbersome to develop—concepts that transform themselves internally so that one can truly keep pace with the concepts as they shift from form to form, just as they do in nature. But then, without hypotheses and without theories, one remains solely within the realm of the purely sensible.

[ 11 ] It is this peculiarity that characterizes Goethe: he rejects any theory regarding natural phenomena and, in fact, wishes to use thought solely to arrange the phenomena in such a way that they reveal their own essence. Yes, one might call this a paradox; I ask you to consider this carefully: It is precisely through this that Goethe is driven in the right way into the realm of the spirit, as we were able to characterize the day before yesterday and yesterday—that is, he does not distort the phenomena of external nature with all sorts of theories and hypotheses, but rather perceives them as they present themselves to sensory experience.

[ 12 ] But this has another consequence. When one formulates Newtonian, Spencerian, or similar theories—that is, when what nature itself offers is tainted by theories and hypotheses—one thinks about nature in a way that is appropriate for physical human life, but the human etheric body does not assimilate it. And all these theories, which are not derived from the pure observation of nature, carry over. All these theories and hypotheses first turn the human etheric body into a caricature—indeed, thereby also turning the astral body into a caricature—and thus disrupt human life in the supersensible realm.

[ 13 ] Goethe’s healthy nature rebelled against this destruction of forms, which the etheric body demands for itself. This is precisely—and that is why I say: one can only understand Goethe through the Spiritual Science—what is significant about Goethe. He had an instinct for what does not originate from immediate reality, because he sensed that when he formed concepts such as Newton’s, it would twinge and tug in his etheric body. For others, it does not twinge or tug because they are more coarsely organized. Goethe was organized in such a way that it tugged and tugged at his etheric body as he looked right through it. And neither a theory nor the most precious hypothesis can prevent it from tugging and tugging within him when only white appears, and he must think that the wall is white nonetheless, even though the seven colors should appear in gradations. It did not happen. And it is proof of Goethe’s thoroughly sound nature—that is, his nature as a microcosm fitted into the macrocosm—that he felt in this way.

[ 14 ] And there is yet another aspect of this matter that should be emphasized. We know that the human being is not only this being who lives between birth and death, but the human being is also the being who lives between death and a new birth. In this life between death and a new birth, one possesses those inner interrelationships of forces that one has developed in the physical body. And when, after a few days, one has separated from the etheric body, one looks upon this etheric body. The point is that one has treated this etheric body as a human being in such a way that one can look upon it without being misled by a caricature of it. Now, the peculiar thing is that when one views nature purely in a natural way, just as Goethe viewed it—when one rejects theories and hypotheses and accepts only primordial phenomena—then this perception, this viewing of the primordial phenomena, is such that they evoke healthy sensations and feelings within us, those very sensations that Goethe describes in the chapter “Sensory-Moral Effects of Colors.” Of course, the perception of sensory phenomena fades with our lives. But what remains in our spiritual and soul life through pure perception—which Goethe regards as the sole basis of natural science—is wholesome and also harmonizes with the spiritual and soul world. So one can say: Goethean natural science, even though it is limited to phenomena, to the sensory realm, is precisely in harmony with the spirit, because it does not allow an Ahrimanic or Luciferic influence on the spirit to taint the pure observation of nature with theories. — Such theories obscure the pure perceptions of the earthly realm for the spiritual-soul realm.

[ 15 ] Now, as I told you yesterday, human beings do not live only on Earth; rather, before they came to Earth, they underwent a Saturn, Sun, and Moon phase of development. After they leave Earth—or rather, after Earth leaves them—they will undergo a Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan phase of development. But I have told you: Our scientific concepts can only refer to Earth’s evolution. — And in fact, if we are to develop a sound natural science, we are precisely inclined not to portray Earth’s evolution in such a way that we confuse it with everything that might apply to Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon—which, of course, are in reality intertwined with Earth’s evolution—but rather, a sound natural science seeks to single out the Earth and portray it as Earth in accordance with its own laws. That is what Goethe does. And that is why people are so unable to advance to a sound understanding of the evolution of the Moon, the Sun, and Saturn—because they do not have a sound understanding of the Earth’s evolution either. Even if Goethe himself had not yet arrived at this view of the development of the Moon, the Sun, and Saturn—anyone who delves deeply into his natural science, which is purified of everything else and relates solely to the Earth, prepares their mind precisely through this process to isolate the earthly through a sound science of the Earth, and thereby to prepare oneself for a sound understanding of that which can only be seen in the supersensible: the Saturn, Sun, and Moon evolutions, and the spiritual in general. So that one can say: It is precisely through his perception, directed purely toward the sensible, that Goethe was predisposed to incorporate this—as we saw yesterday and the day before—into his Faust. — That is why Goethe was so deeply attuned in spirit to what constitutes spiritual understanding: because he did not apply any confused theories or hypotheses derived from the mind to natural phenomena. One thing necessitates the other.

[ 16 ] What I pointed out to you yesterday at the end is that Goethe was not an idealist on the one hand and a realist on the other, but rather viewed external phenomena realistically and viewed that which is to be understood idealistically in an idealistic way, but did not believe he could establish a worldview through one or the other; rather, he allowed the two perspectives to mirror one another in his inner life, just as they are mirrored in external reality. Even if Goethe himself did not pursue this line of thought to that extent, it leads to the fact that, when one immerses oneself deeply in Goethe’s mode of thinking, one arrives in a very healthy way at the ability to create correct mental images of the two ways of life that a human being must experience.

[ 17 ] Why is it that the average person today is so reluctant to acknowledge the spiritual realm? And when they do form concepts about the spiritual world, these concepts are so abstract that they, in turn, fail to capture the nature of the external world. Why is it that, for people today, idealism and realism diverge to such an extent that they either end up establishing only a lame monism—which ultimately means nothing—or fail entirely to arrive at a worldview? Why is this so? It stems from the fact that people today seek to establish their worldview in a very specific way. Today, one either becomes a natural scientist, studies nature, and attempts to explain it through all manner of theories and hypotheses. For what natural science today regards as heredity and so on are not primordial phenomena, but theories and hypotheses. People seek to imbue natural phenomena with such hypotheses, or else they become theologians or philosophers, attempting to derive certain concepts and ideas about the spiritual realm from tradition. These are then so thin and shadowy that, once again, one cannot comprehend nature, because they lack sufficient power to properly grasp nature through them.

[ 18 ] Take a look today at contemporary theological and philosophical discussions—where can you find a sound point of reference within them that would allow you to correctly illuminate nature? And where, in all seriousness, among the representatives of modern natural science—if they are not monistic windbags—where do you find a way to rise from natural science to the divine-spiritual forms and realms of existence in reality? It is not possible today, if one develops sound thinking, to unite these two fields as they stand today. The two realms unite only if one has the ability to devote oneself to the observation of nature and to science in the same way that Goethe devoted himself to nature: focusing one’s gaze purely on the phenomenon, on the appearances, without introducing theories other than those needed to construct the phenomena; allowing thought to be merely the servant that assists, but not allowing thought to interfere with the results or conclusions. This is what we must do in relation to nature: acknowledge nature’s power to interpret itself. We must not speculate about nature, but rather be thoroughly materialistic by letting material phenomena speak for themselves; this is the task we face in a sound natural science. If we succeed in establishing such a sound natural science, we will truly understand human life as spanning from birth—or, let us say, conception—to death. But now, as we look into nature in this way—unhindered by impossible theories and hypotheses—we must also be able to look into the spirit. Then we do not remain stuck in abstract theologies or philosophies, but spiritual insights arise within us. And it is precisely through the power that pure observation of nature—Goethe’s observation of nature—triggers within us that spiritual insights, insights of the pure spirit, can arise. Those who confuse natural phenomena with their own concepts and ideas will find these concepts taking their revenge, preventing them from attaining spiritual insight. Whoever observes nature purely perceives it within his own soul in such a way that he can also look toward the spirit in a genuine way. In this regard, Goethe’s worldview can be a magnificent teacher for modern humanity.

[ 19 ] But then one must develop a view of nature and a view of the spirit separately. But one must also be aware that one cannot make sense of one without the other. If you wish to remain merely a theologian or a philosopher, it is as if you were to photograph only one side of something that is entirely different from the other; the same applies if you wish to remain merely a natural scientist. You should be able to be fully both, and allow one to be reflected in the other—that is, not to seek their union through abstract concepts, but to let the things unite themselves by first developing distinct, clear perspectives for each field separately. Then the two fields will be reflected in one another. But then, through the capacity for such reflection, you will also gain a sound perspective on “human life as a whole.” You will then view natural phenomena outside of humanity in the spirit of Goethean natural science. Yet when you observe human beings, you will see that what exists in external nature is insufficient to explain them. There you arrive only at a homunculus, not at a Homo.

[ 20 ] You see how, especially when it comes to understanding human beings, it is necessary to approach the subject from opposite directions—through the natural sciences and Spiritual Science—and to allow the two to reflect off one another. Then they fit together in relation to the human being. Then, in the human being, life between birth or conception and death is reflected in what appears to be life between death and a new birth, and vice versa: life between death and a new birth is reflected in life between birth and death. Do not devise a single theory intended to explain one or the other, but rather two perspectives—not theories, but two pure perspectives—and do not unite them in concepts, but allow them to reflect one another within the perspective itself.

[ 21 ] The fact that Goethe, through his sound spiritual development, arrived at such insights into the mutual reflection of what is essentially present in external reality testifies to how he was truly on the path toward modern Spiritual Science. And even if Goethe was still, in a certain sense, uncertain for his time—because, as I must emphasize again and again, his insight in Spiritual Science was intuitive—he nevertheless offered so much sound judgment, even regarding spiritual life, that can be traced in our time to realms where Goethe had not yet arrived, but which he had laid the groundwork for.

[ 22 ] I do not reproach anyone for the fact that Goetheanism has been so poorly understood, for those who see through things do not reproach or criticize; rather, they know that one must speak only in positive terms. I do not reproach what has happened; I merely set forth what “the demand for the future” is. And the demand for the future is that humanity delve deeper—whether it calls it Goetheanism or not—into the mental images that were already inherent in Goethe’s thinking. And Goethe’s thinking, in general, comes across as immensely real and true to reality. It is also very important to note this.

[ 23 ] I must point this out to you so that you may gain a proper understanding of how people usually behave when they seek to unravel one phenomenon or another of nature or life. Let’s now consider such a truly average person—but an average person who is intelligent (after all, today it is precisely the average people who are intelligent)—so, let’s consider an average person who is intelligent. Isn’t it true that the average person lives from birth to death? Let’s say in his thirty-fifth, or even forty-fifth, or forty-second year—at any stage of life, perhaps even earlier—he wants to unravel something, perhaps even establish a worldview, and gain insight into something. What does he do? Well, such a person delves into the stock of mental images that he, let’s say, possesses as a forty-two-year-old. Let’s assume, for my sake, that he wants to properly understand the Copernican worldview; then he gathers together all the concepts and mental images he can find. If he now rummages through his inner life and is able to find something that is consistent with himself—if he has compiled a series of such concepts in which, as he says, he finds no contradiction—then he is done; then he understands the story. That is the average person. But that is not Goethe!

[ 24 ] Goethe’s soul works in an entirely different way. If one does not take this into account, then one may write biographies of Goethe, but the result will be a figure who was born in Frankfurt in 1749 and died in Weimar in 1832—yet that is not Goethe. Goethe’s soul worked quite differently. When Goethe, at the age of forty-two, encountered any phenomenon, it was not merely that abstract construct one arrives at by combining all the concepts one holds within oneself into a “consistent view,” as they say; rather, when Goethe, at the age of forty-two, looked at a plant or anything else about which he sought to gain insight, then his entire inner life was at work within him—not merely the abstract concepts, but his entire inner life was truly at work. So when Goethe was forty-two years old and wanted to reflect on, say, the life of a plant, the impulses that were at work within him were not merely those he had gathered together, but also those that had been at work in his childhood, in part even unconsciously; his entire inner life, the totality, was always at work together. Modern people always want to shut this out; they want to arrive at an unbiased view. But this goes no further than a few hastily gathered concepts that can be easily and conveniently surveyed. That is precisely why one can gain these great insights through Goethe, if one also looks back at the various phases of his life.

[ 25 ] For example, I have tried to understand Goethe’s later views by repeatedly referring to that prose hymn, “Nature,” which he wrote in the early 1880s and in which his later ideas are contained in an immature form. But what was contained there at that time, in an immature state, had an effect. And I have also pointed out on several previous occasions how Goethe, as a seven-year-old boy, collected minerals, took a music stand from his father, arranged the minerals on it, placed a small incense stick on top, and then performed a kind of religious service, seeking to offer a sacrifice to the “Great God” who works through the phenomena of nature themselves. In the morning—just imagine, as a seven-year-old boy!—he catches a ray of sunlight, focuses it through a magnifying glass to light the incense stick. He kindles a natural fire above the minerals. In this, in a childlike way, everything that later resonates in his most mature insights is already prefigured. One can only understand Goethe if one is able to grasp him correctly in this way, out of the totality of his being. And then, when one grasps him in this way, one also comes to pursue—in a manner consistent with Goethe’s worldview—those insights into the spiritual world that Goethe himself was still unable to fully develop due to the limitations of his time. For consider this: when one thinks about nature in the Goethean way—when one truly thinks in the spirit of the doctrine of primordial phenomena and the doctrine of metamorphosis—one cannot help but, through this thinking, unleash within one’s soul those forces that lead to a perception of the spiritual world and that ultimately lead one to a perception of the life that a human being leads after passing through the gate of death. It is precisely in Goethe’s pure view of nature—one directed toward nature itself—that a true doctrine of immortality is inherently embedded in the most natural sense. It is precisely through this that one gains the strength for those contrasting mental images needed to bring into clear vision the supersensible realm that a human being experiences between death and a new birth; one gains the strength for such a vision by first sharpening one’s gaze for that which is pure nature, which has not been corrupted in nature by theory and hypothesis.

[ 26 ] This is how people make their biggest mistakes: they always believe that, in the external world, things must proceed in a single direction and flow in one direction. When someone speaks of monism in this sense to a person who sees through the matter—as so many people do today by positing an abstract monism—when such an abstract monism is presented to a person who sees through things, it strikes that person as if one person were standing there, with both the left and right sides well-developed, and another were to say to him: “But that’s wrong; that’s false dualism. A person must be monistically constructed. It’s wrong that one has a right half—there must be something wrong with that.”

[ 27 ] This is exactly how our worldview should be. Just as we are not wrong simply because we have two hands and can use the right hand to support the left, so too is it not wrong to have two worldviews that mirror and illuminate one another. And anyone who thinks it is wrong to require two worldviews should also say: One must devise some artificial procedures so that the left and right hands and the left and right legs do not march and act through the world in such a terribly separated manner, but so that, at long last, through some achievement, the right hand can be inserted into the left, and the right leg into the left, so that one is monistic, a “Monon,” and so that a person can carry on with their life in this way!

[ 28 ] For those who see through things, who keep reality in mind rather than convoluted abstract theories, for them, as I said, the pursuit of abstract idealism on the one hand and crude realism on the other as monism is just as one-sided as something that can be compared to the grotesque thing to which I just compared the matter. And it is truly in keeping with Goethe’s worldview when, in the manner that is still very, very contested today, I repeatedly and consistently point, on the one hand, to a pure view of nature—not one interspersed with hypotheses, but a view that lives as a view, not as a thought, where thinking is used only to bring about that view— and on the other hand, to a spiritual perception, where, in turn, thinking is used only to bring about the spiritual perception that then truly leads us into the realm where we must seek the human being when he is on the other side of his life, between death and a new birth.

[ 29 ] When one presents such a spiritual-scientific worldview to people, they still find theories today that sound truly logical—clever theories—to refute it. I have often said: Refutations of Spiritual Science—oh, they are very easy to come up with. — I once made an attempt in Prague, during two consecutive public lectures, to give one in which I refuted Spiritual Science and another in which I defended it, which some people took offense at. But I did make that attempt—to give one lecture refuting Spiritual Science and another defending it. Of course, one can very well refute Spiritual Science; one can refute it. How could one not be able to refute it? Anyone who believes that Spiritual Science cannot be refuted is roughly in the same position as someone who says they cannot prick their left hand with a needle held in their right hand. Of course one can do that, but it doesn’t mean anything. And one must say: This opposition, which seemingly operates with quite logical theories, is actually rooted in something quite, quite different at its core. People also speak of the unconscious and the subconscious. There is a misunderstanding—particularly among psychoanalysts, but also elsewhere—regarding the significance that the subconscious life of the soul and spirit actually holds for human beings. I have spoken about this here on several occasions. Well, just like the blind man speaking of color, today’s analytical psychologists speak of the unconscious life of the spirit. They are driven to this approach solely by the scientific demands of the present, but they practice a science—as I called it last year in Zurich and also here—that operates with inadequate means. For one must truly have the ability to correctly identify the underlying subconscious in everything that takes place in consciousness.

Consciousness
Logical reasons
Belief in the limits of knowledge

[ 30 ] Subconscious Mind
Fear of the Spiritual
Lack of Interest in the Spiritual

[ 31 ] You see, the situation is such that we can say: Here is the conscious mind—see the diagram—and beneath it lies the subconscious. Now, what is the situation today? Today, the situation is such that, roughly since the 16th century, very strong Ahrimanic influences have been making themselves felt on human beings and their entire way of thinking. This has its good sides and its bad sides. For the natural sciences, above all, this has the consequence that they develop in a very specific Ahrimanic way. Goethe set his own approach—which I have just described to you—in contrast to this Ahrimanic natural science. But nothing takes place in the human soul—as you can see from the lectures I gave here eight days ago—nothing takes place in the human spirit without something also taking place in the subconscious. By cultivating today’s form of scientific thinking, one develops two very specific feelings in the subconscious: fear of the spiritual and a lack of interest in the spiritual. It is simply impossible to cultivate the natural sciences in the spirit of contemporary thought—unless one cultivates Goethean natural science—without simultaneously fostering a subconscious fear of the spiritual world and a subconscious indifference toward it. People are afraid of the spiritual. This is the inevitable consequence of today’s scientific impressions. But it is a subconscious fear of which one is unaware. And this subconscious fear draws things to itself, and only once it has been adorned with all manner of tinsel and the trappings of illusion does it appear to the person in their consciousness. For it draws logical reasons to itself. The fear transforms into logical reasons. And the person now goes about with these logical reasons.

[ 32 ] Anyone who sees through this can hear people putting forward very clever, logical arguments, but they also know that deep down, in the subconscious, lies a fear of the spiritual—just as the unknown always instills fear—the fear of water in dogs can also be traced back to this— and the lack of interest, which is particularly evident in the fact that, when one develops a true understanding of nature, one can grasp the spirit with one’s fingers. For I would like to challenge a person who truly wishes to understand this matter completely to explain, based on which earthly natural phenomena—without resorting to the spirit—he can account for the form of the human head. The pure, correct scientific explanation of the human head leads back to what can only be recognized through the study of Spiritual Science, as I have explained. If one has an interest in what is truly present in human nature, then one is naturally drawn toward the spirit. Only a lack of interest leads one to say that nothing in it points to the spirit! Well, if you first exclude everything that leads to the spirit—if you disregard it and instead start by concocting empty hypotheses and theories—then, of course, they reveal nothing when you present them, once you have prepared them in just the right way! Today’s natural scientist proceeds largely like someone who first carefully scales a fish so that no scales remain, and then claims that the fish has no scales. In the same way, today’s natural scientist first strips away from phenomena everything that points toward the spirit, because he has no interest in it. But he knows just as little about disinterest as he does about fear. That is why disinterest, too, can don garments of tinsel and illusion, and these garments of tinsel and illusion are the belief in the limits of knowledge. And in consciousness, one speaks of the limits of knowledge—Ignorabimus. What is spoken of there is, when it comes down to it, actually quite irrelevant. One could, if one wanted to, invent entirely different combinations of words for what, for example, Da Bois-Reymond spoke of in his lecture on the limits of knowledge of nature—they would be just as valuable, for what he intends is, at the root of it, entirely irrelevant. This was caused by his subconscious indifference toward the “scaleless” fish—now used as a comparison.

[ 33 ] You see, it would be very helpful if humanity today were to orient itself toward concepts from the Spiritual Science, for in doing so it would be able to gain a true understanding of nature and a true understanding of the spirit—at least in the form of mental images—before the eye of the soul. Humanity needs this. Humanity needs both of these perspectives. In fact, one finds quite frequent indications today that humanity currently needs something new in terms of worldviews and understanding of the world. But subconscious fear and subconscious disinterest exert a very strong influence. And this gives rise to the peculiar phenomena that are becoming apparent in this area today. A man to be taken seriously spoke some remarkable words in one of the latest issues of the journal Wissen und Leben—words that one must give some thought to if one wishes to gain insight into how one should actually approach the thinking of even those serious-minded people who are, however, affected by the fear and lack of interest described above.

[ 34 ] In an essay titled “The International Binder,” the following is stated:

[ 35 ] “It is one of the greatest disappointments in world history that even this spiritual power”—the spiritual power of Christianity—“has failed in the face of war and has not erected a dam against the surging tide of hatred and destruction. Indeed, it was precisely within Christianity that particularly hideous phenomena came to light during the division of nations—such as the theology of war, with its attempt to drag even the highest absolute values down into the relativity of our world events. In the effort to rationalize this and reduce it to some formula, people came to want to somehow justify even the terrible, the radical evil, through the ethical God of love, instead of, in the face of the dreadful downfall of love and life, humbly remaining with Luther’s Deus absconditus, the hidden God, who also manifests himself in the ethically indifferent dynamics of the world. Through the religious-ethical glorification of war, “political goals were attributed to the ‘dear God’ that bear a desperate resemblance to those of rulers and cabinets.”

[ 36 ] Well, anyone who follows contemporary literature even a little will know that this is very true—that from all sides, the intentions of those in power are attributed to God as divine intentions—so that the author here truly characterizes some of the most unpleasant phenomena of the present day in a way that is not without merit. He goes on to say:

[ 37 ] “Not only that. Tensions among the Christian churches were also exacerbated. The historical rift between Lutheranism and Calvinism was reopened. The extreme Anglicans distanced themselves so far from continental Protestantism that they were hardly willing to grant it the name of Christianity. Not to mention the severing of international Christian ties in missionary work. Thus, the nationally limited ideal of the nation-state seems to have triumphed over the international ideal of Christian community.

[ 38 ] But where that happened, Christianity committed a betrayal of the Gospel. Judas, who betrays Christ. For the very nature of Christianity points to a comprehensive human community and can only take effect within such a community.»

[ 39 ] Well, and so on. Yes, the man says some sensible things, but he fails to ask: Yes, we have now practiced this Christianity for nearly two millennia. Why is it, then, that although it would, by its very nature, preclude a state of affairs such as the present one, it has not precluded it? It accomplishes nothing to say, “People are bad Christians; they should become better Christians,” if by that one means they should become the kind of Christians who have already existed! I could present to you hundreds of seemingly contemporary statements by people who are otherwise taken quite seriously, and you would see from these that here and there a certain—albeit entirely subconscious—impulse is already emerging, suggesting that something like a new worldview is necessary. But the moment these people are actually supposed to approach what is necessary—a spiritual-scientific worldview—they cloud their own concepts, and these concepts immediately turn into fear and disinterest. They are afraid of Spiritual Science. This can be demonstrated quite precisely in individual personalities through their statements and their lives. Or they show a lack of interest. Their minds cannot grasp it; they are simply incapable of engaging with it. This leads to such strange contradictions, which, of course, today’s reader does not see, because people read today in the way I already hinted at yesterday and on other occasions. This man, who wrote the article—and who, as I said, must certainly be taken seriously—writes correctly in the manner in which he has written there. But, look here: he says that something must happen again so that Christianity can unfold its international significance and effectiveness. He makes all sorts of suggestions. He says: Why shouldn’t it be possible for Christianity to foster the international impulses that prevent hatred and destruction?—And then he goes on to write the following sentence:

[ 40 ] “As late as August 1914, the independent British churches wrote to Professor Harnack: ‘Apart from the English-speaking peoples, no other people holds such a high place in our love and admiration as the German people. We all owe an immeasurable debt to German theology, philosophy, and literature.’ ”

[ 41 ] “There we have it,” he says, “a truly delightful phenomenon; there we have it—British theologians paying German theologians a compliment of the most wonderful kind. Couldn't it be like that in the future?”

[ 42 ] Yes, but if we think realistically: this was written in August 1914, just as this destruction was breaking out! The realistic conclusion would therefore be: even though the British theologians wrote this, it could not in any way contribute to preventing the work of destruction. So, you see, instead of thinking from left to right, the man thinks from right to left—or vice versa, depending on the situation—while realistic thinking says: one must examine what is wrong, what is missing, even though people have paid each other such fine compliments. Then he says: If we just do it the way we did in August 1914, we’ll certainly make progress.

[ 43 ] Yes, here we go again! Because that can’t help—reality has shown that! So, the correct line of thought would be to say: Something must be wrong! Christianity must be overlooking something. — What it overlooks is precisely that it cannot find its place in what the times demand out of their own necessity. And that is what such people lack: a willing response to what is demanded precisely by the impulses of our time. — So one can see that people recognize the old worldview has foundered. But they don’t want a new one; they want the old one back, so they can foundered all over again. But of course, this remains stuck in their subconscious. They naturally want the best; they are simply too comfortable to truly seek out what is necessary.

[ 44 ] This is what is always present in the background, time and again, when one has to speak of such things as the significance of Goetheanism for the present day, or even of the significance of what is, of course, greater than Goetheanism—the entire spiritual world and our understanding of it. Here, too, there is no need to be critical. There is no need to say how fundamentally bad people are who do not do what ought to be done; rather, one should limit oneself to recognizing what must happen. One should focus on the positive. Perhaps one can then say to oneself: Yes, if only I could do more than this terribly little—I can do so terribly little. — One might also ask: “Well, what is the individual actually supposed to do?” — Such questions are often posed on the assumption that, for example, my discussions might be about providing a specific, concrete formula for the individual—which, if given in general terms, would naturally become abstract and devoid of substance. Today, for a great many people, the first step is simply to recognize how, especially among those whose leadership carries great weight—whether in this or that field—infinite opportunities are being missed, precisely because the leaders of our time resist precisely what they ought not to resist. And it is important that we not be consumed by a false sense of authority, that we not harbor excessive respect simply because we fail to examine things critically. The point is that we should not blindly succumb to historical authorities today, but rather that we must be attentive and vigilant in forming our own judgments about how life in the most diverse fields is often misguided by today’s leading figures. This is not being done with sufficient rigor and, above all, often not with sufficient prudence. For it should be done precisely with prudence and not with rashness. It is of immense importance to examine within one’s subconscious just how much misguided belief in authority one still harbors, and to recognize that Spiritual Science, in particular, truly leads one away from belief in authority and can transform one into a free, discerning human being—if one allows oneself to be vividly permeated by its insights. One always thinks that the world must proceed in a clear, straightforward manner. When one becomes accustomed to viewing nature in a certain scientific way, one wants to view everything scientifically. When one becomes accustomed to viewing the world through abstract theories—as is often said, idealistically—one again wants to view everything in this way. But life does not unfold in this straightforward, unambiguous way; rather, life demands of us flexibility, versatility, and diversity of thought. This is what we can ultimately acquire only through the proper practice of Spiritual Science, and what is so immensely necessary for orienting ourselves correctly in the present.

[ 45 ] For this reason, I wanted to elaborate a bit more on Goethe this time. I didn’t actually intend to say anything specific about Goethe—as you have seen, that has emerged on its own—but rather I wanted to point out important truths in Spiritual Science that can be linked to what is artistically expressed by Goethe in the very scene that is about to be performed. Quite a few people dismiss Goethe haughtily because they do not consider him scientific, just as they do not consider Spiritual Science itself to be scientific. But it would be beneficial to many if they were willing to immerse themselves a little in precisely such a spirit, in such a soul as Goethe’s, for it dispels the false belief—which is actually a superstition—that one always truly makes progress through unambiguous concepts and an unambiguous life. Where there is development, there is also regression; there is also the opposite kind of development. And where there is regression, there is also progression. If you direct your soul, on the one hand, purely toward the primordial phenomena and metamorphoses of nature, and do not corrupt your view of nature with obscuring theories, then this pure view of nature does not develop one-sidedly; rather, the other view—the one that turns toward the spirit—develops within the soul. And if you develop the perspective that is oriented toward the spirit in a true sense, then you can no longer impose false theories upon nature; rather, you will be compelled to allow nature to interpret its material phenomena purely through itself.

[ 46 ] The same is true when, in the field of Spiritual Science, one is compelled to express troubling ideas—such as what I said to you yesterday about evil in connection with the appearance of the Phorcys—or when one is compelled to speak of the fact that much lies in the human subconscious of which the person is unaware in their conscious mind, People often take offense at such things because they misunderstand you. Just think: when someone speaks objectively about it—saying, “You have many things in your subconscious”—the other person thinks, “He is my enemy,” even if he himself allows such things to remain unconscious; he thinks, “In my subconscious, I am plotting all sorts of things.” So our contemporaries might think the same way: “This anthroposophist is berating us for having subconscious fears and subconscious indifference; he’s actually putting us down.” — But the world is not so black and white. I’m not just saying that people have fear and indifference in their subconscious; I’m also saying: You have the entire spiritual world in your subconscious—if only you could grasp it. It’s down there, too.—That’s the other side. In Spiritual Science, you don’t make one assertion without that assertion implying another. And to anyone I say: ‘You have subconscious fear and subconscious indifference,’ that person should be aware that I am also telling them: ‘Although you are not aware of “your fear and indifference”—you mask them with all sorts of lies and through your belief in the limits of knowledge—you must embrace your entire subconscious world if you are willing to immerse yourself in it.’ — I am not merely rebuking them, as they perceive it, but I am also telling them something positive about their subconscious world. This is what shows you that life is not one-sided, but that Spiritual Science cannot portray it as one-sided either.

[ 47 ] And so, on the one hand, one speaks as one often must. But when one must explain that aversion, fear, and indifference have been instilled in people, one must also tell them: You must overcome certain dangers if you wish to enter the spiritual world; you must overcome certain inconveniences. — Certainly, that is the one side that must be emphasized. But consider the wealth of soul-enriching feelings that lies in the fact that a perspective based on Spiritual Science opens our eyes to the life we lead here with other human beings between birth and death—and what world-enriching feelings are revealed by the knowledge that we live even more intimately with those who have passed through the gate of death. And just imagine: once this idea of duality is truly grasped, once this world is truly viewed in the spirit of Spiritual Science, then not only will what Spiritual Science has to say fulfill the demand for an uncomfortable penetration into the spiritual worlds, but Spiritual Science will also pour out upon people’s hearts immense amounts of comforting feelings, immense amounts of other soul-rejoicing feelings that will take hold of the human soul in such a way that this human soul will become more and more capable of living not only with those who surround it in the sensory world, but with all the people with whom some bond of life has been formed in physical life—to live with them beyond the gate of death. Can we, if we are reasonable, demand that a science which carries our souls, through experience, beyond the gates of death, be a comfortable science? No, if we are sensible and reasonable, we cannot demand that in any case. Humanity will have to face the future by embracing this discomfort as a path to a certain kind of worldly happiness. To this end, it will have to resolve to seek knowledge of spiritual worlds.