The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Hygiene as a Social Issue

[ 1 ] There is no doubt in the broadest circles that the social question is among the matters most preoccupying the present; and wherever there is even a little concern for what is currently emerging from the development of human history—for the impulses that lie there, whether threatening or to be addressed, for the future—this is summed up under the name of the social question. One must realize, however, that the consideration and treatment of this social question today suffers from the fundamental flaw that afflicts so much in our intellectual life, our moral life, indeed our entire civilized life—namely, the intellectualism of our time; it suffers from the fact that its problems are so often viewed solely from the perspective of an intellectualist approach. The social question is discussed from this or that standpoint, situated more to the right or to the left. The intellectualistic nature of these discussions is evident in the fact that they proceed from certain theories—assuming that this or that must be one way or another, or that this or that must be abolished. In doing so, little consideration is given to the human being himself. People are treated as if there were some general concept of “humanity,” as if there were something that were not uniquely developed in each individual in a certain way. Attention is not directed toward the individuality and uniqueness of each person. Consequently, our entire approach to the social question takes on an abstract quality—one that today finds little resonance in the social sentiments and attitudes that interact between people. One notices this deficiency in social analysis most clearly when one turns one’s attention to a specific field—one that is perhaps more suited than many others to social analysis—such as the field of hygiene, insofar as hygiene is a public matter that concerns not the individual but the human community.

[ 2 ] It is true that even today we certainly do not lack hygiene guidelines, treatises, and writings on health care—including as a public matter. However, one must ask: How do these guidelines and these considerations of hygiene fit into social life? One must simply say: They are integrated in such a way that individual statements about proper health care are published as the result of medical, physiological, and scientific research; in a sense, the trust placed in a specialized field—a field whose inner nature one is unable to examine—is supposed to form the basis for the acceptance of such rules. Solely on the basis of authority, the broadest circles—which are, after all, concerned by this, for it concerns all people—can accept what, in a sense, emerges from the physicians’ study rooms, examination rooms, and laboratories regarding hygiene and is presented to the public. But if one is convinced that, in the course of recent history—over the last four centuries—a yearning has arisen among humanity for a democratic order in all matters, then one is confronted—even if this seems grotesque to many today—with the profoundly undemocratic nature of this blind faith in authority that is demanded in the field of hygiene. The undemocratic nature of this belief in authority stands in contrast to the yearning for democracy, which—one might say—has, in the present, albeit often in very paradoxical ways, reached a culmination point.

[ 3 ] I am well aware that the statement I just made is perceived by many as paradoxical, because people simply do not associate the way someone accepts matters pertaining to health care with the democratic demand that the community of all adults—whether directly or through their representatives—should also have a say in public affairs that concern every adult. Certainly, it must be said: It may not be possible to fully realize something like a hygienic perspective or the hygienic management of public life in a completely democratic manner, because it depends on the judgment of those who seek knowledge in a particular field. But on the other hand, the question must surely arise: Shouldn’t we strive for a greater degree of democratization—beyond what is currently possible under present conditions—in a field that concerns every single person, and thus the human community, so closely, so infinitely closely, as public health care does?

[ 4 ] We certainly hear a great deal today about how human beings should approach life in terms of air and light, in terms of food, in terms of the elimination of waste products produced either by the human being themselves or by their environment, and so on and so forth. But what is presented to humanity as rules regarding these matters is, for the most part, unverifiable for the very people to whom it is supposed to apply.

[ 5 ] Now, I do not wish to be misunderstood; I do not wish to be misunderstood as taking a particular stance on anything in this lecture, which is, after all, intended to be devoted to the topic “Hygiene as a Social Issue.” I would like, so to speak, to avoid treating in a one-sided manner that which today tends to be addressed one-sidedly from a partisan standpoint or from the standpoint of a certain scientific conviction. I would like—perhaps you will allow this apparent deviation from the script in the introduction—I would like neither to take sides with the old superstition that devils and demons roam about as diseases, entering and leaving people, nor would I like to take sides with the modern superstition that germs and bacteria enter and leave people and cause diseases. Whether we are dealing with a spiritualist, spiritual superstition of old or with a materialistic superstition is of less concern to us today. But I would like to touch on something that permeates our entire conception of time, particularly insofar as this conception depends on the fundamental scientific convictions of our time. Even though many today assert that, scientifically speaking, materialism—as it prevailed in the middle and even in the last third of the 19th century—has been overcome, this claim cannot hold true for anyone who truly understands the nature of materialism and its opposite; for this materialism has been overcome, at most, only by a few people who see that today’s scientific facts no longer permit one to declare across the board: Everything that exists is merely some mechanical, physical, or chemical process taking place in the material realm. — It is not enough that, compelled by the force of the facts, some people have come to this conviction. For standing in contrast to this conviction is the other fact that, despite this conviction, even those who hold it—and others even more so—when it comes down to explaining something concrete or forming a view about something concrete, still adopt the materialist line of thought. People also say that atoms and molecules are harmless counting tokens, about which one would claim nothing more than that they are mental constructs. But the perspective has nevertheless remained an atomistic, a molecular one. We explain the phenomena of the world based on the behavior and mutual relationships of atoms or molecular processes, and it does not matter what mental image we form of that any thought, feeling, or other process is connected solely to the material processes of atoms and molecules; rather, what matters is the direction our entire mental disposition takes, the direction our mind takes, when it bases its explanations solely on what is conceived atomistically—that which arises from the smallest, the fictitiously smallest. It does not matter whether one holds the conviction—literally or conceptually—that there is something other than atomistic effects, material atomic effects; what matters is whether one has the possibility of making explanations of the world other than the derivation of phenomena from atomism the guiding principle of one’s mind. It is not what we believe, but how we explain, how we conduct ourselves in our souls—that is what matters. And here, in this place, we must uphold the conviction that only true, genuine Spiritual Science—anthroposophically oriented—can provide a remedy for the evil that can be characterized in the way I have just done.

[ 6 ] That this may indeed be the case: I would like to demonstrate it with specific examples. There is hardly anything that confuses us more than the distinctions frequently asserted today between the human physical body and the human soul or spirit, between what constitutes physical illness and what constitutes so-called mental or spiritual illness. It is precisely the proper distinction and the proper interrelation of such facts of human life—such as the sick body or the seemingly sick soul—that suffer in terms of understanding under the materialistic-atomistic mode of thought. For what, in fact, is the essence of that materialism which has gradually emerged as the modern worldview of many people—and which has by no means been overcome, but is in fact flourishing today? What is its essence? Its essence does not lie in observing material processes, in observing what takes place in the human body in terms of material processes, or in devotedly studying the marvelous structure and functioning of the human nervous system and other human organs—or the nervous systems of animals or the organs of other living beings. It is not the study of these things that makes one a materialist; rather, it is the fact that, in studying material processes, one is devoid of the spirit—that one looks into the world of matter and sees only matter and material processes.

[ 7 ] But this is precisely what Spiritual Science must assert—I can only speak briefly about this point today—namely, that wherever processes appear to us externally as material to the senses, those processes that modern science alone wishes to regard as observable and exact—that wherever these material processes occur, they are merely the outward appearance, the outward manifestation of spiritual forces and powers at work behind and within them. It is not a hallmark of Spiritual Science to look at a human being and say: “Ah, there is his body; this body is a sum of material processes, but the human being cannot consist solely of it; he has, independent of it, his immortal soul—and that one then begins, in a rather mystical way, to formulate all sorts of abstract theories and conceptions about this immortal soul, which is independent of the body. This does not at all characterize a spiritual worldview. One can certainly say: In addition to his body, which consists of material processes, a human being also has an immortal soul that is carried off to some spiritual realm after death. One is therefore not a spiritual scientist in the sense of anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science. One is only a spiritual scientist when one becomes clearly aware that this material body, with its material processes, is a creation of the soul. If one is able to delve into the details of how the soul—which existed before a person’s birth, or let us say before conception—works, how this soul shapes and molds the structure, indeed the very substance, of the human body; if one can truly perceive the immediate unity of this body and the soul in every aspect, and if one can perceive how, through the activity of the spiritual-soul in the body, this body as such is worn down, how this body dies in part every minute, and how then, only at the moment of death, I would say, the radical manifestation of that which takes place at every moment through the influence of the spiritual-soul aspect on the body occurs—when one perceives this living interplay, this continuous activity of the soul within the body, when one perceives this in its concrete details, when one strives to say: The soul breaks down into very concrete processes; thus it passes into the processes of liver function, into the processes of respiration, into those of heart function, and into those of brain function—in short, when, in describing the material aspects of the human being, one understands how to portray the human body as the result of a spiritual force, then one is a practitioner of Spiritual Science. Spiritual Science arrives at a true appreciation of the material precisely because it sees in each individual concrete material process not merely what modern science sees, what the eye observes, or what is then recorded as a result in abstract terms through external observation; rather, Spiritual Science is Spiritual Science only insofar as it demonstrates everywhere how the spirit works within the material world; it is precisely because it devotedly examines the material effects of the spirit. That is what matters on the one hand. On the other hand, what matters is that one is thereby protected from all the abstract, verbose rambling about a soul independent of the human being—about which, insofar as life unfolds between birth and death, one can only fantasize. For between birth and death—with the exception of sleep—the spiritual-soul aspect is so devoted to physical effects that it lives within them, lives through them, and manifests itself in them. One must come to be able to study the spiritual-soul aspect outside the course of human life and accept the course of human life between birth and death as a result of the spiritual-soul aspect. Then one looks upon the real, concrete unity of the spiritual-soul aspect with the physical-bodily aspect. Then one pursues anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science, for then one has the prospect that this human being, with all his individual components, stands before one as a result of the spiritual-soul aspect—even for the sake of knowledge. The mystical theosophical view, which constructs beautiful theories about all manner of bodiless spiritual beings, cannot serve the concrete sciences of life; it cannot serve life at all; it can only serve intellectual or soulful indulgence, which seeks to wants to do away with external life as quickly as possible and then, in order to attain inner satisfaction and to be able to indulge in inner pleasure, weaves all sorts of fantasies about the spiritual and soul-related realms.

[ 8 ] Here, in this anthroposophically oriented spiritual movement, the aim is to work with the utmost seriousness to cultivate a Spiritual Science that is capable of truly enlivening physics, mathematics, chemistry, physiology, biology, and anthropology. So it is not a matter here of simply stating, from a religious or philosophical standpoint: “Human beings possess an immortal soul”—and then to pursue anthropology, biology, physics, and chemistry as if one were dealing solely with material processes; rather, the aim here is to apply the insights gained into the soul and spirit to the details of life, to look into the marvelous structure of the body itself. One can certainly say—even if it sounds paradoxical to some—that while certain people claim to be good mystics or good theosophists and go on and on about how the human being consists of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, the “I,” and so on, they do not even have the slightest idea of what kind of expression of the soul it is when one blows one’s nose. What matters is to see matter not merely as matter, but as the manifestation of the spirit. Then one also gains healthy, meaningful insights into the spirit. And then one also gains a Spiritual Science that can be fruitful for the life sciences.

[ 9 ] But this also achieves something else. It makes it possible to overcome what, in recent times—precisely because of the increasing materialism of scientific knowledge—has driven us into specialization. I truly do not wish to deliver some kind of tirade against specialization, for I am well aware of its justification. I know that certain things today, simply because they require specialized techniques, must be addressed through specialization. But the point is that anyone who clings to the material world, when they become a specialist, can never gain a worldview that is applicable to life. For material processes constitute an infinite field. They are an infinite field out in nature; they are an infinite field within the human being. If one were to study only the human nervous system based on everything that is currently known, one could spend a long time doing so—at least as much time as specialists usually wish to devote to their field of study. But if, in what happens in the nervous system, one has before one only the material processes—expressed in the abstract concepts that are the subject of science today—then nothing leads one toward anything universal that can become the foundation of a worldview. The moment you begin to view, say, the human nervous system from the perspective of the Spiritual Science, you cannot look at this nervous system without what you find active within it as spirit immediately leading you to what underlies the muscular system, the skeletal system, and the sensory system as spiritual-soul elements, for the spiritual is not something that breaks down into individual parts like the material; rather, the spiritual is something—and this is only the bare minimum of its characterization—that spreads out like a limb, like an organism. And just as I cannot observe a human being by merely looking at his five fingers and covering up the rest of him, so too, from the perspective of Spiritual Science, I cannot observe a single detail without what I perceive in that detail as spiritual and soul-related leading me to a whole. If I am then led to such a wholeness—though perhaps only a specialist in brain or nervous system research can do so—I will nevertheless be able, through the observation of this single limb of the human organism, to gain an overall picture of the human being. Then I am led into a position where I can truly gain something universal for a worldview, and then the distinctive feature is that I can begin to speak of something about the human being that can be understood by all people who possess sound judgment and sound reason. This is the great difference between how Spiritual Science can speak about the human being and how specialized materialistic science must speak about the human being. You see, let’s take the simple case of how specialized, materialistic science is presented to you in any of the textbooks in common use today. If you, as an ordinary person who hasn’t learned much about the nervous system, pick up a textbook on the nervous system: well, you’ll probably stop reading it pretty soon, or at any rate you won’t gain much that can provide you with a foundation for viewing the human being as a true human being in terms of their value and dignity. But if you listen to what can be said about the human nervous system from the depths of Spiritual Science, such a discussion is always followed by insights that lead to an understanding of the whole human being—insights that shed such light on the whole human being that, in the idea that dawns upon you, you find something of the value, essence, and dignity of the human being with whom you are dealing. And nowhere is this more evident than when we consider not merely the healthy person in relation to any one of their limbs, but it becomes particularly evident when we consider the sick person—this sick person with their many deviations from what is called “normal”—namely, when we are able to view the whole person as they are under the influence of this or that illness. What nature presents to our soul in the sick person is capable of leading us deep into the interconnections of the worlds, of revealing to us how this person is organized, and how, because of their constitution, atmospheric—and even extraterrestrial—influences can affect them, how this human constitution relates to certain substances in nature that then prove to be remedies, and so on. We are led into broad contexts here, and one may say: When one supplements what can be recognized in this way about the healthy human being with what can be recognized through the sick human being, a deep insight into the entire context and the deeper meaning of life dawns upon one. But everything that becomes clear to us in this way forms the foundation for an understanding of human nature, the foundation for something that can then be expressed in ways that speak to all people. Of course, we are not yet that far along today, because Spiritual Science, in the sense intended here, has only been in practice for a short time. Therefore, as Dr. Boos just mentioned in his introductory remarks, the lectures given here can in many cases be regarded only as a beginning. But the aim of the Spiritual Science is to develop what exists in the individual sciences into a form such that what every person should know about humanity can truly be conveyed to every person.

[ 10 ] And now imagine: once Spiritual Science has such a transformative effect on science, and if the Spiritual Science then succeeds in developing forms of knowledge for both healthy and ailing human beings that can be made accessible to general human consciousness—if that succeeds, how differently people will relate to one another in social life, how much more understanding each individual will show toward others than today, when everyone passes each other by without any understanding of the other’s unique individuality! The social question will only be freed from its intellectualism when it is grounded in practical expertise across the most diverse areas of life, when it is based on concrete life experiences. This is particularly evident in the field of health care. For just imagine the social impact of instilling in people an understanding of what is healthy and what is unhealthy in another human being; just imagine what it means for all of humanity to take charge of healthcare with understanding. Certainly, this is not to encourage scientific or medical dilettantism—that much must be clear—but imagine: it simply awakens in us a sympathetic response to what is healthy and what is sick in our fellow human beings—not merely emotion, but understanding, an understanding rooted in a vision of the human being. Imagine the social impact of such an endeavor, and you will have to admit: Here we see that social reform and social reconstruction must arise from expert knowledge in the individual fields, not from general theories—be they Marxist, Oppenheimian, or of any other kind—that overlook the human being and seek to shape the world based on abstract concepts. Salvation cannot come from that, but rather from a devoted understanding of the individual fields. And health care—hygiene—is one such very special field, for it brings us, I would say, closest to everything that our fellow human beings experience as joy through their healthy, normal way of life, or as pain and suffering, and limitations caused by whatever lies within them that is more or less diseased.

[ 11 ] This is precisely the kind of thing that immediately points to the unique social role that Spiritual Science can play in the field of health. For when, in this way, the practitioner of the science of humanity—the expert on healthy and sick people, including those who specialize as physicians—is placed within human society with such insight, then he will be able to bring enlightenment to that society, for he will find understanding. And the relationship between the physician and society will not merely be one in which—unless one is his friend or relative—one walks past his house and has him summoned when one is in pain or has broken a leg; rather, a relationship with the physician will emerge such that in which the doctor is the constant teacher and guide in preventive health care—that, in fact, the doctor’s ongoing intervention is directed not only toward healing people whose illness has progressed to the point where they notice it, but also toward keeping people healthy as far as possible. A vibrant social interaction will take place between the physician and the rest of humanity. Then, however, the health derived from such insight will radiate back onto medicine itself. For it is precisely because materialism has extended even to the medical view of life that we have truly run aground in strange conceptions.

[ 12 ] On the one hand, we have physical illnesses. These are studied by examining organ degeneration or whatever else is found in terms of physically perceptible or physically conceived processes said to occur within the human body, and attention is focused on the possibility of repairing the damage found there. In this vein, the human body—in both its normal and abnormal states—is viewed in a thoroughly materialistic manner. Alongside this are the so-called mental or psychological illnesses. These mental or psychological illnesses have, on the one hand, been reduced—due to materialistic thinking—to mere brain diseases or other disorders of the nervous system; one has also sought foundations for them in the rest of the human organ system. But because no conception was developed at all regarding the way in which the spirit and the soul already act within the human physical body, it was impossible to gain any insight into the relationship between mental illness—so-called mental illness—and what a human being otherwise is. And so, I would say, mental illnesses stand there on the one hand—even today they are studied by a peculiar hybrid science, psychoanalysis, which thinks materialistically but does not understand materialism at all—these mental and psychological illnesses stand there without any reasonable way of reconciling them with what is actually taking place within the human organism. Spiritual Science can now demonstrate—and I have drawn attention to this—that what I am stating here is not merely a program, but that it is being pursued in detail, particularly on the occasions that have now presented themselves during a course for physicians that took place here in recent weeks. Spiritual Science can indeed demonstrate in detail how everything that is termed mental or psychological illness is entirely based on organ disorders, on organ degeneration, organ enlargement, and organ atrophy within the human organism. Somewhere in the heart, in the liver, in the lungs—somewhere something is not right—when, at the same time or later, what is termed a mental illness occurs. A Spiritual Science that penetrates to the point of recognizing the spirit’s activity in the normal heart is also capable—and need not be ashamed of this—of seeking a cause for the so-called diseased spirit or diseased soul in the degeneration of the heart and in the heart’s defects.

[ 13 ] The most fundamental error of materialism, in fact, does not lie in its denial of the spirit. In that case, religion could ensure that the spirit is still recognized. The main flaw of materialism lies in the fact that it fails to recognize matter because it observes only its outward appearance. This is precisely the shortcoming of materialism: that it fails to gain insight into matter—for example, in purely psychoanalytic treatment, in the mere observation of something that has taken place in the soul, which it refers to as a “island of the soul,” that is, an abstraction, whereas one must trace how certain psychological impressions—which a person receives at this or that time in their life and which are normally bound to the normal organism—encounter defective organs, such as a diseased liver instead of a healthy one; this encounter may manifest itself at a time entirely different from when the organic defect is noticeable.

[ 14 ] Spiritual Science need not shy away from demonstrating how so-called mental or psychological illness is always connected to something within the human body. Spiritual Science must emphatically point out that studying only the psychological—the psychological complex—and the deviations of the psyche from so-called normal psychological life yields nothing more than a one-sided diagnosis, at best. Therefore, psychoanalysis can never be anything more than a diagnostic tool at best; it can never lead to true therapy in this field. For this reason—because therapy for mental illnesses must begin with physical treatment—one must understand the ramifications of the spiritual down to the individual parts if one wishes to know where to intervene in the physical body, which is, however, spiritualized; where to intervene in order to cure that which manifests itself only symptomatically in abnormal psychological conditions. This is precisely what Spiritual Science must emphasize most strongly: that so-called mental and psychological illnesses must be traced all the way into the organology of the human being. However, one can only gain insight into the abnormal organology of the human being if one can trace the spirit down into the smallest parts of matter.

[ 15 ] And conversely, what are seemingly merely psychological phenomena or phenomena that affect the psyche, that is to say, what manifests itself in a person’s temperaments and in the expression of those temperaments—what comes to the fore in the entire way a person plays as a small child, how they walk, what they do—all of this, which today is understood solely in spiritual and psychological terms, also has a physical aspect. And a mistake made in certain aspects of a child’s upbringing can later manifest itself in a quite ordinary form of physical illness. Indeed, in certain cases—particularly when dealing with mental illnesses—one is led to look to the physical aspect in order to investigate what is truly at stake, and in the case of physical illnesses, to look to the spiritual aspect and investigate what is truly at stake there. For this is the essence of Spiritual Science: that it does not speak in abstractions of a nebulous spiritual realm, as the mystics and the one-sided theosophists do, but rather that it traces the spirit into its material effects, that it never understands the material in the way that today’s external science does, but rather, in its consideration of the material, always penetrates to the spiritual and is thus able to observe where an abnormal soul life must manifest itself through the presence of an abnormal physical life—even if this may be outwardly concealed. Today, in the broadest circles, people have completely false mental images of the seriously intended, anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science—perhaps sometimes with good reason—when one hears those who do not truly wish to engage with what is actually at stake, but who speak only of abstract theories: “Human beings consist of this and that,” and “there are repeated earthly lives,” and so on. These things are, of course, of the utmost importance and very beautiful. But when it comes to working with particular seriousness within this Spiritual Science movement, the point is to delve into the individual chapters, into the individual realms of this life. And in the broadest sense, this in turn leads to a socially minded community of people. For when one sees how the seemingly sick soul radiates its impulses into the organism, when one can feel this connection between the organism and the seemingly sick soul—feel it with understanding— if, on the other hand, one knows how the structures of life also affect a person’s physical health, how the spiritual—which in social institutions seems to exist only externally—influences the care of a person’s physical health, if one grasps this, then one is engaged in human society in an entirely different way. As a result, one begins to gain a true understanding of human beings, and one treats others quite differently. One perceives their character in a completely different way. One knows that certain traits are connected to this or that; one knows how to relate to these traits; and one knows—especially when tasked with such responsibilities—how to properly integrate people’s temperaments into human society and, in particular, how to develop them in the right way. One social sphere in particular will need to be intensively influenced, from a hygienic standpoint, by a deepened understanding of human nature: the sphere of education, the sphere of instruction. Without a truly comprehensive understanding of human nature, it is impossible to fully grasp what it means when children sit in school with hunched backs, so that their breathing is constantly disrupted, or when children are not encouraged to speak loudly and clearly, with distinct vowel and consonant pronunciation. A child’s entire future life essentially depends on whether the child breathes correctly in school and whether the child is encouraged to speak loudly, clearly, and with proper articulation.

[ 16 ] In such matters—I am merely citing examples, for similar principles could be applied to other areas—the specialization of general hygiene within the school system becomes evident, and it is precisely here that the full social significance of hygiene is revealed; yet it also shows how life demands that we not specialize further, but rather that we bring together these specialized elements into a holistic perspective. We need not only what enables the teacher to know that, according to certain pedagogical standards, a child should be educated in this or that way, but we also need what enables the teacher to form a judgment about what it means when he has the child clearly articulate this or that sentence, or when he allows the child, after the child has spoken half a sentence, to let the child take a breath again, and so on—rather than ensuring that the child’s breath is fully used up while the sentence is being spoken. Certainly, there are also many guidelines and rules regarding this. But the proper recognition and application of these things only take root in our hearts when we grasp their full significance for human life and social well-being. For only then does the matter become a social impulse.

[ 17 ] These considerations were the basis for the pedagogical-didactic course I gave to the teachers there at the very beginning of the founding of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart—the consideration that we need teachers who can work from the full depth of a worldview that understands human beings for the education and instruction of children. Everything that was embedded in the statements expressed as the art of pedagogy and didactics is aimed at shaping the children who are being educated and taught into human beings who, later on—because they were encouraged as children to perform the functions of life in the right way—will have lungs, liver, heart, and stomach in good order, since the soul has worked on them in the right way. This worldview will never interpret the old saying in a materialistic way: “A healthy soul lives in a healthy body.” — Interpreted materialistically, this would mean that if one has a healthy body—if one has made it healthy by all possible physical means—then it will automatically become the vessel of a healthy soul. That is nonsense. It makes sense to say, “A healthy soul dwells in a healthy body”—but only if one proceeds in the following way; that is, if one says to oneself: Here I have a healthy body before me, which shows me that the power of a healthy soul has built it up, shaped it, and made it healthy. I recognize from this body that an autonomous, healthy soul has been at work within it. That is the meaning of the saying. But only in this way can this saying also form the basis of sound hygiene.

[ 18 ] In other words: We do not need, in addition to teachers who work solely on the basis of an abstract pedagogical science, a school doctor who, at most, makes the rounds of the school once every fourteen days and does not know what to do with himself; no, we need a vibrant connection between medical science and the art of education. We need an art of education that, in all its practices, raises and instructs children in a hygienically sound manner. This is what makes hygiene a social issue, for the social issue is essentially an educational issue, and the educational issue is essentially a medical issue—but only a matter of that medicine which is enriched by Spiritual Science, a hygiene enriched by Spiritual Science.

[ 19 ] These things also point to something that is extraordinarily significant, particularly in relation to the topic of “hygiene as a social issue.” For when Spiritual Science is cultivated, and when Spiritual Science means something concrete to a person, then that person knows that what they receive through Spiritual Science contains something that differs from what they find in mere intellectualism —and even contemporary natural science is mere intellectualism—what they receive in mere intellectualism, or in natural science taught in a purely intellectualistic manner, or in today’s history or jurisprudence taught in a purely intellectualistic manner. All sciences today are intellectualistic; if they claim to be empirical sciences, this is based solely on the fact that they interpret the results of sensory observation in an intellectualistic manner. What is offered by the Spiritual Science differs quite fundamentally from these intellectualistically interpreted scientific or other results. For it would indeed be quite sad if what lives in our intellectualistic culture were not merely an image, but a real power that affects human beings more deeply. For everything intellectualistic remains only on the surface of the human being. This statement is meant in a very comprehensive sense. Anyone who practices Spiritual Science merely in an intellectualistic way—that is, who merely takes notes: there is a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, an “I,” repeated earthly lives, karma, and so on—and who records these in the same way one takes notes in the natural sciences or in today’s social sciences—is not seriously engaged in Spiritual Science, for they are merely transposing the way of thinking they otherwise have onto what they encounter in Spiritual Science. The essential point about Spiritual Science is that it must be thought in a different way, felt in a different way, and experienced psychologically in a completely different way than intellectualism. That is why Spiritual Science is something that, by its very nature, maintains a living connection to both healthy and sick people—albeit in a somewhat different way than one often imagines. Surely people have by now become sufficiently convinced of how powerless one is with what one attempts—be it as admonition or as persuasion—using a purely intellectualistic approach toward the so-called mentally ill. The mentally ill person claims that voices speak to him; you tell him all sorts of things that you can come up with based on your intellectual reasoning—but to no avail, for he has all sorts of counterarguments and so on. This alone could indicate that we are dealing not with a disorder of the conscious or even the subconscious life of the soul, but with a disorder of the organism.

[ 20 ] Spiritual Science teaches us to recognize that one cannot, however, treat so-called mental or psychological illnesses through what is purported to be a “spiritual” approach—one that, for example, relies on hypnosis and suggestion—but rather that one must treat them through so-called physical means, that is, through the healing of organs; yet this, too, requires, more than ever, a spiritual understanding of the human being. Spiritual insight knows that it should not actually intervene in the realm of so-called mental illnesses with mere spiritual or psychological procedures, because mental illness consists precisely in the fact that the human spirit has been forced out—as it otherwise is only during sleep— and is weak in this state of being pushed aside; rather, the organ must be cured so that it can once again receive the soul and the spirit in a healthy manner. In contrast, that which arises not from the intellect, from the head, but from the whole human being as a result of Spiritual Science—when it manifests as imagination, inspiration, or intuition, and when it is absorbed by the human being—penetrates the entire organism. What Spiritual Science truly is has a genuinely healing effect on the physical organization of the human being.

[ 21 ] On the other hand, there is no evidence that some dreamers feel unwell within Spiritual Science or that they demonstrate the exact opposite of what I have just stated. There are just as many—indeed, an infinite number—who are not practitioners of Spiritual Science, but rather intellectualistic collectors of notes on the findings of Spiritual Science. But truly disseminating Spiritual Science in its essence is in itself a form of social hygiene, for it affects the whole person; it restores balance to their physical constitution when it is in danger of developing—due to dreams or influences from the other side—this or that tendency toward a deviation into the abnormal. This is the enormous difference between what is offered in Spiritual Science and what appears in mere intellectualistic science: the concepts that emerge in the realm of intellectualism are far too weak—because they are merely figurative—to intervene in the human being or to have a healing effect on him. The concepts of Spiritual Science, on the other hand, are such that they are drawn from the whole human being. In the formation of Spiritual Science concepts, it is truly not merely the brain that has been involved, but the lungs, the liver, the heart, and the whole human being; and what they derive from the power of the whole human being clings to them and, if I may say so, permeates them in a plastic form. And when one immerses oneself in them, absorbing them with understanding through sound common sense, they in turn exert a hygienic influence on the whole human being. This is what, originating from Spiritual Science, can play a guiding role in the field of hygiene as a social matter.

[ 22 ] But in many other ways as well—I can only cite a few examples—Spiritual Science will play a guiding role in all aspects of humanity’s health when this Spiritual Science truly takes root among humanity in all its seriousness.

[ 23 ] I would like to point out just one thing. Among the topics that must be studied again and again through Spiritual Science is the relationship between the waking human being and the sleeping human being, and the immense difference that exists between the human constitution in wakefulness and in sleep. How the spirit and the soul interact during wakefulness, when they interpenetrate one another in the physical, spiritual, and soul aspects of the human being, and how they interact when they are temporarily separated from one another, as in sleep—this is precisely what is carefully studied by Spiritual Science.

[ 24 ] Now I can only—I would say—cite a certain statement, which is, however, a well-established finding of Spiritual Science. We see so-called epidemic diseases occur in life—diseases that affect entire masses of people and are therefore, at the same time, a social phenomenon. Conventional materialistic science studies them in relation to the human physical organism. It is unaware of the immense significance—particularly for epidemics and for the predisposition to epidemic diseases—of abnormal human behavior regarding waking and sleeping. What occurs in the human organism during sleep is something that, when it occurs in excess, for example, predisposes a person to so-called epidemic diseases to a high degree. People who, by sleeping too long, induce processes in the human organism that should not be there—because sleep should not interrupt waking life for so long—are predisposed to epidemic diseases in a completely different way, and they also respond to epidemics in a completely different manner.

[ 25 ] Now you can judge for yourself what it means to educate people about the proper balance between sleep and wakefulness. You can’t do that through regulations. At most, you can order people not to send their children to school if they have scarlet fever; you cannot hold lectures when the flu is going around: people will resist that, because people today tend toward “freedom”—I mean, the “sense of authority” isn’t as strong as it was in earlier times—so people will resist. I’m not saying they’re wrong to resist; I have no objection to what happens as a result, but you simply cannot dictate to people in the same way: “You must sleep seven hours.”—Nevertheless, it’s more important than other rules that people who need it sleep seven hours, while others who don’t need it may sleep much less, and so on. But such matters, which are so intimately connected with the most personal aspects of human life, have a tremendous social impact. It actually depends on the most intimate aspects of a person’s being how these social effects play out—whether a larger or smaller number of people are drawn away from this or that profession, which may or may not have an impact on an entirely different sphere. Here, indeed, hygiene intervenes in social life in a tremendous way. Quite apart from what one may think about contagion or non-contagion, this factor intervenes in social life during epidemics. You cannot achieve results through external regulations; you can only be effective if you bring into human society a lay audience that, with an understanding of human nature, stands alongside the physician who educates the public about prevention—wherever a lively collaboration for the preservation of health can take place between the expert and the layperson who understands human nature.

[ 26 ] When we take stock of all these things, we will say to ourselves: Here we have described one aspect of hygiene as a social issue that, in the most profound sense, depends on our having a free spiritual life—on our actually having a spiritual life—in which, within the realm of the spirit, those who are engaged in the cultivation of spiritual life, even as it extends into its individual practical domains, such as hygiene, are completely independent of everything else that does not constitute pure knowledge or the cultivation of spiritual life itself. What the individual can accomplish for the benefit of his fellow human beings must arise solely from his own abilities; there must be no state regulations governing it, nor may there be any dependence on economic powers; it must be placed within the personal sphere of autonomy of the individual and must further be grounded in the understanding trust that others—who need the application of his abilities—can place in the capable individual. This requires a spiritual life that is independent of all forms of authority—whether governmental or economic—and that acts competently on its own, drawing purely from spiritual forces. Precisely when you reflect on what hygiene can truly achieve—something intimately connected with insightful knowledge of human nature and with insightful social behavior—you will come to realize that, regardless of what abstract theories may say against the independent standing of spiritual life, when one approaches a specific field such as hygiene with expertise, it is precisely this concrete field that demands — and just as this can be demonstrated for hygiene, so it could be shown for other fields — that the spirit must be administered by those involved in its cultivation; that it is not merely the experts employed by the ministries, but rather those who are active in spiritual life who must also be the administrators of this spiritual life—and the sole administrators of this spiritual life. Then, when hygiene—arising from social insight derived from free spiritual life and truly existing as a social institution—is in place, it will be possible to organize the economic aspects of this hygiene in an entirely different way, and precisely within an independent economic life—an economic life structured as I have described in my *Key Points of the Social Question*, as has been repeatedly described in the journals dedicated to this idea of the threefold social order—for example, in the Swiss journal *Soziale Zukunft*, edited by Dr. Boos.

[ 27 ] If, in fact, those forces for the promotion of hygiene—which lie latent and dormant within the bosom of human society—are received by society with human understanding, and if this becomes the general order, then everything that can emerge from this independent economic life—without any regard for dependence on profit motives or government directives, everything that can function purely out of this independent economic life—that which must be fostered from within economic life in the service of genuine, true hygiene—will be able to be carried into economic life, into independent economic life. But then—and only then—will that higher sense of purpose, which is necessary for maintaining hygiene in human life, be able to enter economic life. If the mere profit motive of our economic life—which increasingly tends to be incorporated into the unitary state—prevails, and the general opinion is that one must produce whatever yields the greatest profit, then the self-sustaining impulses of a free spiritual life cultivated in the realm of hygiene cannot assert themselves. Then this spiritual life becomes dependent on non-spiritual state or economic forces; then the economic becomes the master of the spiritual. The economic must not become the master of the spiritual. This is most clearly evident when one is called upon to bring forth what the spirit demands in economic life, when one is called upon to serve genuine, true hygiene. The forces of economic life—of free economic life—will contribute, within the threefold social organism, to the insight that becomes a matter of public concern, and to the understanding of humanity that becomes a matter of public concern within the threefold social organism. And when, on the one hand, people are immersed in a free spiritual life in which a hygiene grounded in objective reality can be cultivated, and when, on the other hand, people develop that higher sense through which, in economic life—where everyone will then approach production with understanding— but with an understanding that stems not merely from the drive for profit, but from the insights arising from the free spiritual practice of hygiene—then, once this insightful social understanding of humanity is in place—that is, this elevated human spirit that seeks to work economically simply because hygiene must be served in the social sense of humanity—then people will be able to come together democratically in parliaments or elsewhere. For then, the insight into the necessity of hygiene as a social phenomenon will be shaped by the free spiritual life; an economic life grounded in practicality and expertise—one dedicated to fostering what is necessary for hygiene as a social issue—will be shaped by the higher sense that will develop within it; then people who have attained maturity will be able to negotiate on the basis of economic life—on the one hand, drawing on their insight and understanding of human nature, and on the other hand, drawing on their connections to the economic life that serves hygiene. Then people will be able to negotiate as equals on the basis of political, legal, or economic life regarding the measures that can be taken with respect to hygiene and public health care. Then, of course, it will not be the laypeople or the amateurs who will restore people to health, but with understanding, the person who has attained maturity will face, as an equal, the one who tells him this or that: the expert physician. For the layperson, however, their understanding of human nature—cultivated together with the physician in social life—enables them to engage with specialized knowledge in such a way that, in a democratically conceived parliament, they can say “yes” not merely on the basis of authority, but on the basis of a certain understanding.

[ 28 ] Precisely when we objectively examine, in a specific field such as this, how the three parts of the threefold social organism interact, we find full justification for this idea of the threefold social organism. One can oppose this idea of the threefold social organism if one has, for the time being, grasped it only in the abstract.

[ 29 ] Well, even today I could offer you nothing more than a rough outline of what follows—in a specific, concrete field such as hygiene, when one thinks about it properly—from the necessity of the threefold social order. But if the paths that I have been able to hint at today—only, I would say, in their initial stages—are pursued further, it will become clear that, while someone who approaches what is present as the impulse of the threefold social organism with a few abstract concepts may, in a certain sense, oppose it, they generally put forward reasons that one has long since raised as objections oneself. But whoever engages with the individual spheres of life with full inner understanding—and with the lived reality of these individual spheres, with all the individuality they bring into human life—for this is what social coexistence is all about— whoever truly understands something in a concrete sphere of life, whoever makes an effort to understand something of true practical living in any sphere, will be led more and more in the direction indicated by the idea of the threefold social organism.

[ 30 ] This idea certainly did not arise from a daydream or from abstract idealism; it arose as a social demand of the present and the near future, precisely from a concrete, objective examination of the individual spheres of life. And again, when one then permeates these individual spheres of life with what works within one from the impulse for the threefold structure of the social organism, one finds for all these spheres precisely what, it seems to me, they need today. And this evening I wanted to offer you just a few hints as to how, through what follows for social life from Spiritual Science—namely, the threefold structure of the social organism— can enrich that which today can only be accepted out of blind faith in authority through a completely unquestioning submission—so that it takes root in human society as a social matter arising from a truly socially cultivated understanding of the human being. For this reason, it may be said here: Through the enrichment that the field of hygiene can receive from a medicine informed by Spiritual Science, hygiene in particular can become a social—a truly social—matter. It can become, in the truest sense, even to a high degree, a democratically cultivated, general public concern.

[ 31 ] In the discussion that followed, Rudolf Steiner made the following remarks:

[ 32 ] Ladies and gentlemen! With matters such as those discussed today, the point is to first grasp the overall spirit of what has been said. It is therefore sometimes difficult to answer questions appropriately—especially when they are phrased in a way that reflects current ways of thinking and attitudes—without reformulating them or at least providing an explanation. Take, for example, the question that probably seems terribly simple to you—or to many of you—so much so that it could be answered in a few sentences or even a single sentence: “How does one break the habit of sleeping too long?”

[ 33 ] Well, to answer this question, I would need to give—I would say—a lecture even longer than the one I have already given; for I would first have to bring together the various elements in order to answer this question properly. But perhaps the following can be said: Today, there is an intellectualistic state of mind prevalent among almost all people. Those who believe they judge or live based on feeling, or who believe—for whatever other reason—that they are not intellectualistic, are in fact precisely the ones who are. Now, the fundamental characteristic of this intellectualistic state of the soul and organ life is that it ruins our instincts. Humanity’s true instincts are ruined. In fact, if one wishes to point to instincts that are not entirely ruined today, one must either point to prehistoric humanity or—let us say—even to the animal kingdom. For you see, on another occasion recently I was able to point out an example that speaks volumes. There are birds that, out of greed, eat insects—for example, cross spiders. But because these cross spiders are poisonous to them, the birds fall into convulsions and twitches and must die a miserable death very soon after swallowing the cross spider. But if henbane is nearby, the bird flies over to it, sucks out the healing sap, and saves its life. Now consider how this has developed—something that in us humans has shrunk down to the few reflexive instincts we possess, such as when a fly lands on our nose; without first engaging in deep deliberation, we cause it to fly away. A defensive instinct responds to the offensive stimulus. In the case of the bird that eats the cross spider, the effect that the cross spider has on its organism—this insult—is followed by such a defensive instinct that it drives the bird to act in a perfectly reasonable way. We can still find such instincts in people who lived in ancient times, if we know how to interpret their history correctly. But in our time, we have different experiences. I have always found it immensely painful when I visited someone who had sat down to lunch and who—I was otherwise accustomed to seeing a knife, fork, and similar utensils lying next to the plate—had a scale next to the plate, literally a scale—you really do see such things—a scale, and there he would weigh out his piece of meat, because only then—after weighing it—would he know how much meat his body needed! Just imagine how devoid of all true, original instincts a humanity has already become when such things must be prescribed to it! The point, then, is not to remain stuck in intellectualism, but to ascend to knowledge of Spiritual Science. You will now think that I am speaking pro domo—even if pro domo of this great institution—but I am not speaking pro domo; rather, I am actually expressing what I believe I have recognized as truth, quite apart from the fact that I myself uphold this truth. One can already see that when one delves not merely into intellectualism, but into that which is to be grasped through Spiritual Science—which therefore presents itself to humanity more in a pictorial sense—one realizes: By grasping such insights—which are not accessible to the mere intellect—one is led back to sound instincts, if not in one’s individual life, then at least in the things that lie deeper within the foundations of life. Anyone who devotes at least some time—no matter how little—to developing the entirely different state of mind that is necessary if one truly wishes to understand Spiritual Science will, in turn, be led back to healthy instincts in matters such as, for example, the need for sleep. After all, animals do not sleep too much under normal living conditions. Primitive man did not sleep too much either. One need only train oneself to return to healthy instincts—which are weaned away from us in today’s overly intellectualized culture—so that one can say: The truly effective way to break the habit of sleeping too long is to be able to absorb truths from Spiritual Science without falling asleep in the process. So if you fall asleep immediately when encountering truths from Spiritual Science, you will indeed not be able to break the habit of sleeping too long. But if you succeed in truly engaging with truths from Spiritual Science as you work through them—with your inner human essence—then this inner humanity is activated in such a way that you actually determine the amount of sleep that is just right for your organism.

[ 34 ] It is, in turn, incredibly difficult to lay down intellectualistic rules—for example, to say that a person who has this or that problem with their liver or kidneys—which doesn’t exactly make them sick in the usual sense, but which is nevertheless there—must sleep for a certain amount of time. As a rule, that doesn’t really lead to anything in particular. And artificially inducing sleep is, in turn, not the same as when the body, driven by its need for sleep, denies the mind entry only for as long as it actually needs to. So one can say: Proper hygiene based directly on Spiritual Science is also what will lead people to measure their sleep in the right way.

[ 35 ] That is why the other question raised here cannot be answered so simply: “How can one know how much sleep one needs?” — I would say that one does not need to know this through discursive thinking; that is not necessary at all. But one does need to acquire certain instincts—instincts that are not acquired by receiving collections of notes from Spiritual Science, but rather through the way one understands Spiritual Science when one comprehends it with full engagement. One acquires this instinct, and then one determines one’s need for sleep in an individual way and in the proper manner. So that is generally what can be said about it. As I said, I can only offer guidance on how to answer this question, not necessarily what might be expected. But what is expected is not always correct.

[ 36 ] Is it healthy to sleep with the window open?

[ 37 ] Even questions like these cannot always be answered in general terms. It is entirely conceivable that for one person, sleeping with the window open is very healthy, depending on the specific characteristics of their respiratory system, while for another person, for example, a room that is otherwise well-ventilated before sleep but has the windows closed while they sleep might be the better option. It is, in fact, a matter of gaining an understanding of the relationship between humans and their external environment, so that one can then make judgments based on this understanding in each individual case.

[ 38 ] From a Spiritual Science perspective, how do you explain the development of mental disorders resulting from a crime that has been committed—that is, how can we identify the physical illness underlying these mental disorders?

[ 39 ] Well, in order to address this question exhaustively, it would be necessary here to delve into the entire field of criminal—and, essentially, psychiatric—anthropology. I would just like to say the following: First, when considering such matters, one must assume from the outset that there are abnormalities among the physiological dispositions of a person who becomes a criminal. You need only examine the studies conducted in this field—which are truly objective—by Moritz Benedikt, the first major criminal anthropologist, and you will see how the pathological examination of the forms of individual human organs can indeed be linked to a predisposition toward crime. So there is already an abnormality present there, although, of course, materialist thinkers like Moritz Benedikt draw the wrong conclusions from this, for it is by no means the case that someone who exhibits these signs is, from the outset, a born criminal. The point is that one can certainly address the defects present in the organism—I just said organ defects, not pre-existing mental illness, but organ defects—precisely through upbringing and later through appropriate spiritual influences, that is, in a spiritual-psychic way, provided that the facts are investigated from a Spiritual Science perspective. So the conclusions that Benedikt draws from this are not correct. But one can certainly point to such organ defects. And then one must be clear that, in turn, those things that are not intellectual in the ordinary course of human life—but rather those that are emotional or affective—have a reciprocal effect. These do, of course, initially affect glandular activity or similar processes—such as secretory functions—but in doing so, they also affect the organs. In this regard, I recommend that you read, for example, an interesting little book written by a Danish physician on the mechanics of emotional responses. It contains a great deal of useful information along these lines. And now imagine the physical constitution—which can be observed in anyone who is truly considered a criminal—and add to that all the emotional upheavals that result for the caught criminal, and what, in turn, affects the organs as a result of these emotional upheavals—then one will later have a way to identify the defective organs responsible for the symptoms that, as a consequence, led to mental illness following the commission of a crime. One must gain insight into such connections in this manner.

[ 40 ] What is the relationship between Theosophy and Anthroposophy? Is the Theosophy previously advocated here no longer fully recognized?

[ 41 ] Now I would just like to say: Nothing other than anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science has ever been represented here, and what is represented here today has always been represented here; and if this has been identified with what is presented in many quarters as so-called theosophy, that is simply due to a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding will remain a misunderstanding precisely because, within certain limits, the anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science operated for a time within the framework of the “Theosophical Society”; for even within the framework of that society, the representatives of the anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science advocated nothing other at that time than what is advocated here today. It was simply that the “Theosophical Society” turned a blind eye as long as the matter did not appear too heretical. But when it became apparent that anthroposophy is something entirely different from the abstract mysticism that often presents itself as theosophy, the anthroposophists were expelled. This procedure was carried out entirely by the other side, whereas what is advocated here has never taken any form other than the one it has today. Of course, those who deal with these matters superficially—and who hear only from those who have adopted this superficial approach as members of the Society—for one does not always have to stand on the outside to grasp anthroposophy superficially or to confuse anthroposophy with theosophy; one can also be a member of the Society—those who thus acquire their knowledge only through such a superficially grasped approach are the ones who fall into such misunderstandings. But what is presented here is precisely what I have once again characterized today for a specific field, and nothing else has ever been presented here, even though, of course, work is ongoing and certain things can be characterized today more precisely, more fully, and more intensely than they could, of course, have been specified fifteen, ten, or five years ago. That is precisely the nature of this work: that one makes progress, particularly in the formulation and in making something as difficult as Spiritual Science understandable. As for those people who, out of malice, have twisted the fact that what was once expressed more imperfectly is later expressed more perfectly—and who derive all sorts of shifts in worldviews from this—there is really no need to engage with such malicious people and their statements. For Spiritual Science, as it is understood here, is something living and not something dead. And anyone who believes that it cannot move forward, who wants to pin it down where it once stood—as often happens—does not believe in what is alive, but rather wants to turn it into something dead.

[ 42 ] Please explain how an epidemic—such as the flu or scarlet fever—could have arisen if not through the transmission of germs. For many diseases, the pathogen has been scientifically identified. What is your view on this?

[ 43 ] Well, if I were to discuss this very question—on which I have indicated that I do not wish to take sides—I would have to give an entire lecture. However, I would like to draw attention to the following. Someone who, based on their findings, is compelled to point out that diseases accompanied by germs or bacteria have deeper causes than the mere presence of the germs—that is, causes that go beyond the germs themselves—is not, in doing so, claiming that the germs are not present. It is quite a different matter to assert that the germs are present and appear in the wake of the disease than to seek the primary cause in the germs themselves. I have elaborated in detail on what needs to be said in this regard precisely in this course that is currently being held. But that certainly takes time. This also applies to certain elements that must be addressed first. It cannot be quickly resolved in a Q&A session. Nevertheless, I would like to point out the following: The human constitution is not as simple a matter as is often the case in people's mental images. To begin with, the human being is a complex, multi-faceted being. I described this at the beginning of my book *The Mysteries of the Soul*: that a human being is a threefold being—a being that can be called, first, the sensory-nervous human; second, the rhythmic human; and third, the metabolic human. That is the human being. And these three aspects of human nature interact with one another; and if a person is to be healthy, they must not interact in any other way than such that, at the same time, there is a certain separation of these spheres. For example, the sensory-nervous human being—who is more than what modern physiology has in its mental image—cannot simply transfer his effects to the metabolic human being in any other way than through the rhythmic movements of the circulatory and respiratory processes, which, after all, extend all the way to the outermost periphery of the organism. This interaction, however, can be interrupted in a certain way. Now, this interaction brings about something quite specific. When such questions are asked—and please forgive me—one must then answer appropriately; I do want to be as discreet as possible, but it is nevertheless necessary to say certain things that must also be heard in the proper context. For example, it is certainly the case that processes take place in the human abdomen that are integrated into the entire organism. If they are integrated into the entire organism, then they function properly. If, however, they are intensified by certain processes—either directly in the lower abdomen, so that they become more active there, or if the corresponding processes—for such processes are always present—in the human head or lungs are reduced in intensity, then something very peculiar occurs. It then becomes apparent that, in order to maintain its normal life, the human organism must develop processes within itself that are permitted to develop only to a certain extent, so that they engage the whole person. If the process is intensified, it becomes localized, and then, for example, a process occurs in the human abdomen whereby there is no proper separation between what is taking place in the human head or lungs and what corresponds to certain processes in the abdomen. These processes always correspond in such a way that they run parallel to one another. As a result, however, what is permitted to exist in the human being only to a certain extent—so that it may sustain its vitality, the vitality sustained by spirit and soul—is, so to speak, raised above a certain level. Then it becomes, I might say, the atmosphere for all manner of lower organisms, for all manner of tiny organisms; these tiny organisms can then flourish there. That which constitutes the creative element of these tiny organisms is always present within the human being; it is simply spread throughout the entire organism. When it becomes concentrated, it serves as a breeding ground for tiny organisms, microbes; there they find a habitat. But the reason why they can thrive there is to be found in exceedingly subtle processes within the organism, which then prove to be the primary factor. I am truly not speaking out of any antipathy toward the germ theory. I fully understand the reasons held by those who subscribe to the germ theory. You can take my word for it that if I were not compelled by objective reasons to speak as I am now, I would certainly acknowledge those reasons; but here, it is precisely this insight that leads to the recognition of something else, and that then compels one to say: I see a certain landscape, where there are a great many exceptionally beautiful cattle, well cared for. Now I ask: Why, then, are there certain living conditions in the area? They stem from the beautiful cattle. I explain the living conditions of this area by saying that beautiful cattle were brought in from somewhere and have spread out there. — I won’t do that, will I? Instead, I will examine the primary causes—the diligence and understanding of the people—and that will explain to me why these beautiful cattle thrive in this region. But I would be offering a superficial explanation if I were to simply say: “It’s beautiful here; life is good here because beautiful cattle have moved in.” It’s essentially the same logic as if I were to find the typhus bacillus and then conclude that people have typhus simply because the typhus bacilli have arrived. Explaining typhus requires factors quite different from merely invoking the typhus bacilli. But one is misled in yet another way when one succumbs to such flawed logic. Certainly, the primary processes that provide the basis for the existence of the typhus bacilli—which are, in turn, the basis for the typhus bacilli themselves—give rise to all sorts of other phenomena that are not primary. And it is very easy to either completely confuse what is secondary with the actual original clinical picture or to conflate the two. These are the factors that lead to the correct understanding on this point, or that show how something that is, in a certain sense, justified must be kept within its proper limits.

[ 44 ] Perhaps you can see from the way I’ve phrased this answer—even though I can only sketch it out, and it can therefore easily be misunderstood—that this is really not the usual rant against the germ theory, but rather a genuine effort to examine the matter very seriously.

[ 45 ] Please provide some examples of how physical, organic disorders can cause mental and emotional distress.

[ 46 ] Well, of course, if this were to be answered in detail, it would go far too far afield. But I would just like to point out one thing here. You see, the development of human medical thought is not, as it is often portrayed even today in the history of medicine, such that medicine began, so to speak, with Hippocrates and Hippocratic medicine then developed further. As far as we can trace it, we know that quite remarkable things emerge in Hippocrates’ work, and that what we find in him are much more the final vestiges of an ancient instinct-based medicine than the mere beginning of today’s intellectualistic medicine. But we find something else as well. You see, within this ancient instinct-based medicine—as long as it was still in practice—people did not speak of “mental depressions” of a certain kind, which is a very abstract way of expressing it, but rather of “hypochondria” and “abdominal hardening.” So it was understood that when hypochondria occurred, it involved disturbances in the lower abdomen—specifically, hardening in that region. One cannot say that the ancients were more materialistic than we are.

[ 47 ] Similarly, it is very easy to show how certain chronic lung disorders are indeed related to what one might call a false mystical sensibility in people. And so one could point to all sorts of things, quite apart from the fact that—as is again in keeping with a sound instinct—the ancients certainly attributed the temperaments to organic factors. They derived the choleric temperament from bile—specifically, white bile—the melancholic temperament from black bile and all that black bile causes in the abdomen. They then derived the sanguine temperament from blood and the phlegmatic temperament from phlegm, which they called phlegm. But when they observed deviations in the temperaments, they saw these as clear indications of deviations in the corresponding organic functions. The way this has been pursued in instinct-based medicine and instinct-based hygiene can certainly be incorporated into the study of the psychological constitution in a strictly scientific manner and cultivated from the standpoint of our current understanding.

[ 48 ] Here is the question where one is even more likely to be misunderstood:

[ 49 ] Are you familiar with eye diagnosis? Do you recognize it as a science?

[ 50 ] Well, it is generally true that, in the case of an organism—and especially the complex human organism—one can infer the whole from all manner of details, provided one understands them correctly. And, in turn, the way these details are situated within the human organism is of great significance. In a certain sense, what the iridologist examines in the iris is, on the one hand, so very isolated from the rest of the human organism, yet on the other hand, it is integrated into the rest of the organism in such a unique way that it is, in fact, a highly expressive organ. But it is precisely with such matters that one must not resort to schematization, and the error in such matters lies precisely in this schematization. It is certainly the case, for example, that people with different constitutional dispositions of soul and body exhibit different characteristics in their irises than other people do. If one wishes to apply such methods, it requires such an intimate understanding of what is happening within the human organism that, once one possesses this intimate understanding, it is actually no longer necessary to seek answers from a single organ. And if one is compelled to adhere to certain rules in an intellectualistic manner and to approach such matters schematically, then not much of value will come of it.

[ 51 ] What role do diseases play in the course of world history, particularly those that are emerging now?

[ 52 ] A chapter in the entire history of culture! Well, I just want to make the following observation. When studying history, one must have a knack for symptomatology—that is, to view much of what is taken as history today merely as a symptom of something much deeper lying behind it, which is in fact the spiritual current that merely carries these symptoms. And so what lies in the depths of human development does indeed manifest symptomatically in this or that ailment of the times. And it is interesting to study the relationships between what prevails in the depths of human development and what plays out in the symptoms of this or that ailment. One can also infer, from the existence of certain diseases, impulses in the course of history that elude a symptomatology of a different nature. But then the question might also point to something else, which is by no means insignificant when tracing the historical development of humanity. This is it: diseases, regardless of whether they occur in individual human beings or epidemically in human society, are often also reactions to other degenerations that, from a health perspective, may be regarded as less serious, but which, from a moral or spiritual perspective, are nevertheless regarded as very serious. One must not, however, apply what is being said here to medicine or hygiene, that would be entirely wrong. Diseases must be cured. In hygiene, one must act in a way that promotes human well-being. One must not say, for example: “I will first examine whether it is perhaps your karma that you have this disease; if so, I must let you have it; if not, I can cure you”—such views do not apply when it comes to healing. But what does not apply to us humans in our intervention in nature does, nevertheless, apply objectively in the outside world. And here one must say that, for example, many predispositions to moral excesses become so deeply ingrained in the human constitution that reactions manifest as specific illnesses, and that the illness is the suppression of a moral excess. For the individual, it is not even of great importance to pursue these matters, for they should be left to one’s individual destiny, and one should, in essence, interfere in them just as little as one interferes in the privacy of other people’s correspondence—unless, that is, from the standpoint that is now so close to us: “Officially opened under martial law”—just as one should not interfere with a person’s privacy of correspondence, so too should one not interfere with their individual karma. But in world history, this is again a different matter. There, it does become relevant, because in world history, with its laws, the individual human being plays, I would say, only a statistical role. One must always point out that statistics provide life insurance companies with a sound basis for assessing mortality rates; after all, that is how they calculate their premiums. The concept holds up quite well, and the calculation is entirely correct; it’s all quite scientific—but then again, one doesn’t have to die precisely at the moment calculated by life insurance statistics, nor does one have to live as long as the calculations predict. Other factors come into play when the individual human being is taken into account. But when groups of people—or even the entire course of human development—are taken into account, it may very well be that one is not a superstitious person, but rather a highly scientific one, if one examines the extent to which symptoms of illness and diseases that arise serve to correct other excesses. So that one can indeed already discern a certain counter-effect of the illness—or at least that the illness was brought about—for that which, had the illness not occurred, would have developed in an entirely different form.

[ 53 ] These are just a few ways to look at what this question touches on.

[ 54 ] But surely our time has now progressed so far that we, too, will follow the others who have already departed in such great numbers.