The Boundaries of Natural Science
GA 322
30 September 1920, Dornach
Lecture IV
Yesterday's considerations led us to conclude that at one boundary of cognition we must come to a halt within phenomena and then permeate them with what the phenomena call forth within our consciousness, with concepts, ideas, and so forth. It became apparent that the realm in which these ideas are most pure and pellucid is that of mathematics and analytical mechanics. Our considerations then climaxed in showing how reflection reveals that everything present in the soul as mathematics, as analytical mechanics, actually rests upon Inspiration. Then we were able to indicate how the impulses proceeding from Inspiration are diffused throughout the ancient Indian Vedanta: the same spirit from which we now draw only mathematics and analytical mechanics was once the source of the delicate spirituality of the Vedanta. We were able to show how Goethe, in establishing his mode of phenomenology, always strives to find the archetypal phenomenon while remaining within the phenomena themselves and that his search for die archetypal phenomenon that underlies complex phenomena is, inwardly, the same as the mathematician's search for the axiom underlying complex mathematical constructs. Goethe, therefore, who himself admitted that he had no conventional mathematical training, nevertheless sensed the essence of mathematics so clearly that he demanded a method for the determination of archetypal phenomena rigorous enough to satisfy a mathematician. It is just this that the Western wind finds so attractive in the Vedanta: that in its inner organization, in its progression from one contemplation to the next, it reveals the same inner necessity as mathematics and analytical mechanics. That such connections are not uncovered by academic studier of the Vedanta is simply a consequence of there being so few people today with a universal education. Those who engage in pursuits that then lead them into Oriental philosophy have too little comprehension—and, as I have said, Goethe did have this—of the true inner structure of mathematics. They thus never grasp this philosophy's vital nerve. At the one pole, then, the pole of matter, we have been able to indicate the attitude we must assume initially if we do not wish to continue weaving a Penelope's web like the world view woven by recent science but rather to come to grips with something that rests upon a firm foundation, that bears its center of gravity within itself.
On the other side there stands, as I indicated yesterday, the pole of consciousness. If we attempt to investigate the content of consciousness merely by brooding our way into our souls in the nebulous manner of certain mystics, what we attain are actually nothing but certain reminiscences that have been stored up in our consciousness since birth, since our childhoods. This can easily be demonstrated empirically. One need think only of a certain man well educated in the natural sciences who, in order to demonstrate that the so-called “inner life” partakes of the nature of reminiscences, describes an experience he once had while standing in front of a bookstore. In the store he saw a book that captured his attention by its title. It dealt with the lower form of animal life. And, seeing this book, he had to smile. Now imagine how astonished he was: a serious scientist, a professor, who sees a book title in a bookstore—a book on the lower animals at that!—and feels compelled to smile! Then he began to ponder just whence this smile might have come. At first he could think of nothing. And then it occurred to him: I shall close my eyes. And as he closed his eyes and it became dark all around him, he heard in the distance a musical motif. Hearing this musical motif in the moment reminded him of the music he had heard as a young lad when he danced for the first time. And he realized that of course there lived in his subconscious not only this musical motif but also a bit of the partner with whom he had hopped about. He realized how something that his normal consciousness had long since forgotten, something that had not made so strong an impression on him that he would have thought it possible for it to remain distinct for a whole lifetime, had now risen up within him as a whole complex of associations. And in the moment in which his attention had been occupied with a serious book, he had not been conscious that in the distance a music box was playing. Even the sounds of the music box had remained unconscious at the time. Only when he closed his eyes did they emerge.
Many things that are mere reminiscences emerge from consciousness in this way, and then some nebulous mystics come forth to tell us how they have become aware of a profound connection with the divine “Principle of Being” within their own inner life, how there resounds from within a higher experience, a rebirth of the human soul. And thereby vast mystical webs are woven, webs that are nothing but the forgotten melody of the music box. One can ascribe a great deal of the mystical literature to this forgotten melody of the music box.
This is precisely what a true spiritual science requires: that we remain circumspect and precise enough to refrain from trumpeting forth everything that arises out of the unconscious as reminiscences, as mysticism, as though it were something that could lay claim to objective meaning. For it is just the spiritual scientist who most needs inner clarity if he wishes to work in a truly fruitful way in this direction. He needs inner clarity above all when he undertakes to delve into the depths of consciousness in order to come to grips with its true nature. One must delve into the depths of consciousness itself, yet at the same time one must not remain a dilettante. One must acquire a professional competence in everything that psychopathology, psychology, and physiology have determined in order to be able to differentiate between that which makes an unjustifiable claim to spiritual scientific recognition and that which has been gained through the same kind of discipline, as, for example, mathematics or analytical mechanics.
To this end I sought already in the last century to characterize in a modest way this other pole, the pole of consciousness, as opposed to the pole of matter. To understand the pole of matter requires that we build upon Goethe's view of nature. The pole of consciousness, on the other hand, was not to be reached so easily by a Goetheanistic approach, for the simple reason that Goethe was no trivial thinker, nor trivial in his feelings when it was a matter of cognition. Rather, he brought with him into this realm all the reverence that is necessary if one seeks to approach the springs of knowledge. And thus Goethe, who was by disposition more attuned to external nature, felt a certain anxiety about anything that would lead down into the depths of consciousness itself, about thinking elaborated into its highest, purest forms. Goethe felt blessed that he had never thought about thinking. One must understand what Goethe meant by this, for one cannot actually think about thinking. One cannot actually think thinking any more than one can “iron” iron or “wood” wood. But one can do something else. What one can do is attempt to follow the paths that are opened up in thinking when it becomes more and more rational, to pursue them in the way one does through the discipline of mathematical thinking. If one does this, one enters via a natural inner progression into the realm that I sought to consider in my Philosophy of Freedom. What one attains in this way is not a thinking about thinking. One can speak of thinking about thinking in a metaphorical sense at best. One does attain something else, however: what one attains is an actual viewing [Anschauen] of thinking, but to arrive at this “viewing of thinking,” it is necessary first to have acquired a concrete notion of the nature of sense-free thinking. One must have progressed so far in the inner work of thinking that one attains a state of consciousness in which one recognizes one's thinking to be sense-free merely by grasping that thinking, by “viewing” it as such.
This is the path that I sought to follow—if only, as I have said, in a modest way—in my Philosophy of Freedom. What I sought there was first to make thinking sense-free and then to present this thinking to consciousness in the same way that mathematics or the faculties and powers of analytical mechanics are present to consciousness when one pursues these sciences with the requisite discipline.
Perhaps at this juncture I might be allowed to add a personal remark. In positing this sense-free thinking as a simple fact, yet nevertheless a fact capable of rigorous demonstration in that it can be called forth in inner experience like the structure of mathematics, I flew in the face of every kind of philosophy current in the 1880s and 1890s. It was objected again and again: this “sense-free thinking” has no basis in any kind of reality. Already in my Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethes World Conception,4Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung, Berlin and Stuttgart, 1886 (A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethes World Conception, Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, N.Y.,1968). however, in the early 1880s, I had pointed to the experience of pure thinking, in the presence of which one realizes: you are now living in an element that no longer contains any sense impressions and nevertheless reveals itself in its inner activity as a reality. Of this thinking I had to say that it is here we find the true spiritual communion of humanity and Union with reality. It is as though we have grabbed the coat-tails of universal being and can feel how we are related to it as souls. I had to protest vigorously against what was then the trend in philosophy, that to which Eduard von Hartmann paid homage in 1869 by giving his Philosophy of the Unconscious the motto: “Speculative Results Following the Method of Scientific Induction.” That was a philosophical bow to natural science. I wrote to protest against this insubstantial metaphysics, which arises only when we allow our thinking to roll on beyond the veil of sense as I have described. I thus gave my Philosophy of Freedom the motto: “Observations of the Soul According to the Scientific Method.” I wished to indicate thereby that the content of a philosophy is not contrived but rather in the strictest sense the result of inner observation, just as color and sound result from observation of the outer world. And in experiencing this element of pure thought—an element that, to be sure, has a certain chilling effect on human nature—one makes a discovery. One discovers that human beings certainly can speak instinctively of freedom, that within man there do exist impulses that definitely tend toward freedom but that these impulses remain unconscious and instinctive until one rediscovers freedom in one's own thinking. For out of sense-free thinking there can flow impulses to moral action which, because we have attained a mode of thinking that is devoid of sensation, are no longer determined by the senses but by pure spirit. One experiences pure spirit by observing, by actually observing how moral forces flow into sense-free thinking. What one gains in this way above all is that one is able to bid farewell to any sort of mystical superstition, for superstition results in something that is in a way hidden and is only assumed on the basis of dark intimations. One can bid it farewell because now one has experienced in one's consciousness something that is inwardly transparent, something that no longer receives its impulses from without but fills itself from within with spiritual content. One has grasped universal being at one point in making oneself exclusively a theater of cognition; one has grasped the activity of universal being in its true form and observed how it yields itself to us when we give ourselves over to this inner contemplation. We grasp the actuality of universal being at one point only. We grasp it not as abstract thought but as a reality when moral impulses weave themselves into the fabric of sense-free thinking. These impulses show themselves to be free in that they no longer live as instinct but in the garb of sense-free thinking. We experience freedom—to be sure a freedom that we realize immediately man can only approach in the way that a hyperbola approaches its asymptote, yet we know that this freedom lives within man to the extent that the spirit lives within him. We first conceive the spirit within the element of freedom.
We thereby discover something deep within man that weaves together the impulses of our moral-social actions—freedom—and cognition, that which we finally attain scientifically. By grasping freedom within sense-free thinking, by understanding that this comprehension occurs only within the realm of spirit, we experience that while performing this we are indeed within the spirit. We experience a mode of cognition that manifests itself simultaneously as an inner activity. It is an inner activity that can become a deed in the external world, something entirely capable of flowing over into the social life. At that time I sought to make two points absolutely clear, but at that time they were hardly understood. I tried above all to make clear that the most important thing about following such a cognitional path is the inner “schooling” [Erziehung] that we undertake. Yes, to have attained sense-free thinking is no small thing. One must undergo many inner trials. One must overcome obstacles of which otherwise one has hardly any idea. By overcoming these obstacles; by finally attaining an inner experience that can hardly be retained because it escapes normal human powers so easily; by immersing oneself in this essence, one does not proceed in a nebulous, mystical way, but rather one descends into a luminous clarity, one immerses oneself in spirit. One comes to know the spirit. One knows what spirit is, knows because one has found the spirit by traveling along a path followed by the rest of humanity as well, except that they do not follow it to its end. It is a path, though, that must be followed to its end by all those who would strive to fulfil the social and cognitional needs of our age and to become active in those realms. That is the one thing that I intimated in my Philosophy of Freedom.
The other thing I intimated is that when we have found the freedom that lives in sense-free thinking to be the basis of true morality, we can no longer seek to deduce moral concepts and moral imperatives as a kind of analogue of natural phenomena. We must renounce everything that would lead us to ethical content obtained according to the method of natural science; this ethical content must come forth freely out of super-sensible experience. I ventured to use a term that was little understood at the time but that absolutely must be posited if one enters this inner realm and wishes to understand freedom at all. I expressed it thus: the moral realm arises within us in our moral imagination [moralische Phantasie]. I employed this term “moral imagination” with conscious intent in order to indicate that—just as with the creations of the imagination [Phantasie]—the requisite spiritual effort is expended within man, regardless of anything external, and to indicate on the other hand that everything that makes the world morally and religiously valuable for us—namely moral imperatives—can be grasped only within this realm that remains free from all external impressions and has as its ground man's inner activity alone. At the same time I indicated clearly in my Philosophy of Freedom that, if we remain within human experience, moral content reveals itself to us as the content of moral imagination but that when we enter more deeply into this moral content, which we bear down out of the spiritual world, we simultaneously enter the external world of the senses.
If you really study this philosophy, you shall see clearly the door through which it offers access to the spirit. Yet in formulating it I proceed in such a way that my method could meet the rigorous requirements of analytical mechanics, and I placed no value on any concurrence with the twaddle arising out of spiritualism and nebulous mysticism. One can easily earn approbation from these sides if one wants to ramble on idly about “the spirit” but avoids the inner path that I sought to traverse at that time. I sought to bring certainty and rigor into the investigation of the spirit, and it remained a matter of total indifference to me whether my results concurred with all the twaddle that comes forth from nebulous mystical depths to represent the spirit. At the same time, however, something else was gained in this process.
If one pursues further the two paths that I described on the basis of actual observation of consciousness in my Philosophy of Freedom, if one goes yet further, takes the next step—then what? If one has attained the inner experiences that are to be found within the sphere of pure thought, experiences that reveal themselves in the end as experiences of freedom, one achieves a transformation of the cognitional process with respect to the inner realm of consciousness. Then concepts and ideas no longer remain merely that; Hegelianism no longer remains Hegelianism and abstraction no longer abstraction, for at this point consciousness passes over into the actual realm of the spirit. Then one's immediate experience is no longer the mere “concept,” the mere “idea,” no longer the realm of thought that constitutes Hegelian philosophy—no: now concepts and ideas transform themselves into images, into Imagination. One discovers the higher plane of which moral imagination is only the initial projection; one discovers the cognitional level of Imagination. While philosophising, one remains caught within a self-created reality; now, after pursuing the inner path indicated by my Philosophy of Freedom, after transcending the level of imagination [Phantasie], one enters a realm of ideas that are no longer dream-images but are grounded in spiritual realities, just as color and tone are grounded in the realities of sense. At this point one attains the realm of Imagination, a thinking in pictures [bildliches Denken]. One attains Imaginations that are real, that are no longer merely a subjective inner experience but part of an objective spiritual world. One attains Inspiration, which can be experienced when one performs mathematics in the right way, when this performance of mathematics itself becomes an experience that can then be developed further into that which one finds in the Vedanta. Inspiration is complemented at the other pole by Imagination, and only through Imagination does one arrive at something enabling one to comprehend man. In Imaginations, in pictorial representations [bildhafte Vorstellungen]—representations that have a more concrete content than abstract thoughts—one finds what is needed to comprehend man from the point of view of consciousness. One must renounce proceeding further when one has reached this point and not simply allow sense-free thinking to roll on with a kind of inner inertia, nor believe that one can penetrate into the secret depths of consciousness through sense-free thinking. Instead one must have the resolve to call a halt and confront the “external world” of the spirit from within. Theo one will no longer spin thoughts into a consciousness that can never fully grasp them; rather, one will receive Imagination, through which consciousness can finally be comprehended. One must learn to call a halt at this limit within the phenomena themselves, and thoughts then reveal themselves to one as that within cognition which can organize these phenomena; one needs to renounce at the outward limit of cognition and thereby receive the spiritual complement to phenomena in the intellect. In just this way one must renounce in the process of inner investigation, one must come to a halt with one's thinking and transform it. Thinking must be brought inwardly to a kind of reflection [Reflexion] capable of receiving images that then unfold the inner nature of man. Let me indicate the soul's inner life in this way [see illustration]. If through self-contemplation and sense-free thinking I approach this inner realm, I must not roll onward with my thinking lest I pass into a region where sense-free thinking finds nothing and can call forth only subjective pictures or reminiscences out of my past. I must renounce and turn back. But then Imagination will reveal itself at the point of reflection. Then the inner world reveals itself to me as a world of Imagination.

Now, you see, we arrive inwardly at two poles. By proceeding into the outer world we approach the pole of Inspiration; by proceeding into the inner world of consciousness we approach the pole of Imagination. Once one has grasped these Imaginations it becomes possible to collate them, just as one collates data concerning external nature by means of experiments and conceptual thinking. In this manner one can collate inwardly something real, something that is not a physical body but an etheric body informing man's physical body throughout his whole life, yet in an especially intensive manner during the first seven years. At the change of teeth this etheric body takes on a somewhat different configuration [Gestalt], as I described to you yesterday. By having attained Imagination one is able to observe the way in which the etheric or life-body works within the physical body.
Now, it would be easy to object from the standpoint of some philosophical epistemology or other: if he wishes to remain logical, man must remain within the conceptual, within what is accessible to discursive thinking and capable of demonstration in the usual sense of the term. Fine. One can philosophise thus on and on. Yet however strong one's belief in such an epistemological tissue, however logically correct it may be, reality does not manifest itself thus; it does not live in the element of logical constructs. Reality lives in pictures, and if we do not resolve to achieve pictures or Imaginations, man's real nature shall elude our grasp. It is not at all a matter of deciding beforehand out of a certain predilection just what form knowledge must take in order to be valid but rather of asking reality in what form it wishes to reveal itself. This leads us to Imagination. In this way, then, what lives within moral imagination manifests itself as the projection into normal consciousness of a higher spiritual world that can be grasped in Imagination.
And thus, ladies and gentlemen, I have led you, or at least sought to lead you, to the two poles of Inspiration and Imagination, which we shall consider more closely in the next few days in the light of spiritual science. I had to lead you to the portal, as it were, beforehand, in order to show that the existence of this portal is well founded in the normal scientific sense. For it is only upon such a foundation that we later can build the edifice of spiritual science itself, which we enter through that portal. To be sure, in traversing the long path, in employing the extremely demanding epistemological method I described to you today—which many may feel is difficult to understand—one must have the courage to come to grips not only with Hegel but also with “anti-Hegel.” One must not only pursue the Hegelianism that I sought to depict in my Riddles of Philosophy;5Die Rätsel der Philosophie in ihrer Geschichte als Umriss dargestellt, Berlin, 1914 (Riddles of Philosophy, Anthroposophie Press, Spring Valley, N.Y, 1973). one must also learn to give Stirner his due, for in Stirner's philosophy there lies something that rises out of consciousness to reveal itself as the ego. And if one simply gives rein to this ego that comes forth out of instinctive experiences, if one does not permeate it with that which manifests itself as moral imagination and Imagination, this ego becomes antisocial. As we have seen, Philosophy of Freedom attempts to replace Stirner's egoism with something truly social. One must have the courage to pass through the instinctive ego Stirner describes in order to reach Imagination, and one must also have the courage to confront face-to-face the psychology of association that Mill, Spencer, and other like-minded proponents have sought to promulgate, a psychology that seeks to comprehend consciousness in a bare concept but cannot. One must have the courage to realize and admit to oneself that today we must follow another path entirely. The ancient Oriental could follow a path no longer accessible to us, in that he formulated his experiences of an inner mathematics in the Vedanta. This path is no longer accessible to the West. Humanity is in a process of constant evolution. It has progressed. Another path, another method, must be sought. This new method is now in its infancy, and its immaturity is best revealed when one realizes that this psychology of association, which seeks to collate inner representations according to laws in the same way one collates the data of natural phenomena, is nothing but the inertia of thinking that wants to break through a boundary but actually enters a void. To understand this one must come to know this psychology of association for what it really is and then learn to lead it over through an inner contemplative viewing [Schauung] into the realm of Imagination. Just as the Orient once saw the Vedanta arise within an element of primal mathematical thought and was able to enter thus into the spirituality of the external world, so we must seek the spirit in the way in which it tasks us today: we must look within and have the courage to proceed from mere concepts and ideas to Imaginations, to develop this pictorial consciousness within and thereby to discover the spirituality within ourselves. Then we shall be able to bear this spirituality back out into the external world. We shall have attained a spirituality grasped by the inner being of man, a spirituality that thus can bear fruit within the social life. The quality of our social life shall depend entirely on our nurturing a mode of cognition such as this, which can at the same time embrace the social. That this is the case I hope to show in the lectures yet to follow.
Vierter Vortrag
Unsere Betrachtungen sind gestern darauf hinausgelaufen, daß ein gewisses Verstehen stattfinden müsse nach der einen Grenze des Naturerkennens hin, daß wir stehenzubleiben haben innerhalb der Phänomene und diese Phänomene zu durchsetzen haben, gewissermaßen zu lesen haben mit demjenigen, was sich in unserem Bewußtsein an diesen Phänomenen entzündet, mit unseren Begriffen, Ideen und so weiter. Es hat sich uns als das reinste, in sich durchsichtigste Gebiet dieser Ideen das mathematische und das der analytischen Mechanik ergeben, und wir mußten zuletzt unsere Betrachtungen darinnen gipfeln lassen, daß eine wirkliche Selbstbesinnung zeigte, wie alles dasjenige, was in unserer Seele präsent wird als mathematischer Inhalt, als Inhalt der analytischen Mechanik, im wesentlichen auf Inspiration beruht, und wir konnten dann hindeuten, wie die Ausbreitung dieses Inspirationsimpulses zu merken ist in der alten orientalischen Vedantaphilosophie, wie aus demselben Geist heraus, aus dem eigentlich bei uns nur mehr die Mathematik und die analytische Mechanik entspringen, die so feingeistige Anschauung der Vedantaphilosophie gewonnen ist. Und wir konnten dann darauf hinweisen, wie Goethe bei der Begründung seiner Art des Phänomenalismus innerhalb der Phänomene nach Urphänomenen strebt, und daß sein Gang von den komplizierten Phänomenen zu den Urphänomenen seelisch derselbe Gang ist wie der in der Mathematik von den komplizierteren Anschauungen zu den Axiomen hin.So daß Goethe, der von sich selbst sagte, er habe äußerlich keine mathematische Kultur, das Wesen des Mathematischen doch so klar empfand, daß er für seine Phänomenologie verlangte, gegenüber der Statuierung der Urphänomene so vorzugehen, daß man dem strengsten Mathematiker Rechenschaft ablegen könne. Das ist ja auch das Anziehende für einen abendländischen Geist an der Vedantaphilosophie, daß sie in ihrem innerlichen Gefüge, in ihrem Übergehen von Anschauung zu Anschauung sich so offenbart, wie die strenge innere Notwendigkeit auch sich offenbart in dem Mathematischen und in dem Analytisch-Mechanischen. Daß diese Dinge nicht so recht innerhalb unseres offiziellen Studiums der Vedantaphilosophie zum Vorschein kommen, das rührt einfach davon her, daß es in unserer Zeit nicht genug universell gebildete Menschen gibt. Diejenigen, die zumeist dasjenige treiben, was sie dann in die orientalische Philosophie hineinführt, die haben zu wenig Anschauung — wie gesagt, Goethe hatte sie - von dem eigentlichen Gefüge des Mathematischen. Sie können daher gar nicht begreifen, welches der eigentliche Lebensnerv dieser orientalischen Philosophie ist. Und so konnten wir nach der einen, nach der Materieseite hinweisen, wie zunächst das Verhalten des Seelischen sein muß, wenn wir nicht jenes Penelope-Gewebe erhalten wollen, das in den letzten Jahrhunderten als naturwissenschaftliche Anschauung gesponnen worden ist, sondern wenn wir etwas erhalten wollen, das feststeht in sich selber, das gewissermaßen seinen Schwerpunkt in sich selber hat.
Auf der andern Seite steht, wie ich schon gestern andeutete, das Bewußtseinsproblem. Wenn wir durch ein einfaches Hineinbrüten in unser seelisches Inneres, wie es die nebulosierenden Mystiker tun, dieses Bewußtsein in seinem Inhalt erforschen wollen, dann kommen wir im Grunde genommen auf nichts anderes als auf die Reminiszenzen innerhalb dieses Bewußtseins, die sich angehäuft haben im Verlaufe unseres Lebens seit der Geburt, seit unserer Kindheit. Das kann empirisch leicht gezeigt werden. Man braucht nur daran zu denken, wie ein in äußerer Naturwissenschaft gut gebildeter Mann beschreibt, gerade um das Reminiszenzenhafte dieses sogenannten Innenlebens anzudeuten, wie er beschreibt, daß er einmal vor einem Bücherladen stand. Er sah in diesem Bücherladen ein Buch. Es fiel ihm auf durch seinen Titel. Es handelte über niedere Tiere. Und siehe da, er mußte, indem er dieses Buch anschaute, lächeln. Nun denke man sich, wie er selbst erstaunt sein kann, ein ernster Professor der Naturwissenschaft, der einen ernsten Büchertitel sieht im Bücherladen, über niedere Tiere noch dazu, und der lächeln muß! Da kam er auf den Gedanken, woher dieses Lächeln denn eigentlich kommen möge. Er konnte auf nichts kommen zunächst. Da fiel ihm ein: Ich mache die Augen zu. - Und siehe da, als er die Augen zumachte und es finster war um ihn herum, da hörte er ganz in der Ferne ein musikalisches Motiv, und dieses musikalische Motiv, das erinnerte ihn jetzt erst in diesem Augenblicke an jene Tanzmusik, die er — er war damals, als er die Beobachtung machte, schon ein alter Knabe - einmal hörte, als er sein erstes Tänzchen aufführte. Und er kam dann darauf, wie ja selbstverständlich jetzt in seinem Unterbewußtsein nicht nur lebt dieses musikalische Motiv, sondern wohl auch ein wenig die Partnerin, mit der er dazumal herumgehopst ist, und wie das, was er für sein gewöhnliches Bewußtsein längst vergessen hatte, was er überhaupt niemals so stark aufgenommen hatte, daß es für das ganze Leben hätte nach seiner Ansicht bestimmt sein können, wie das Ganze als Vorstellungskomplex da heraufkam. Und in dem Augenblicke, wo er ein ernstes Buch anschaute, kam ihm auch nicht zum Bewußtsein, daß ganz in der Ferne ein Leierkasten eben tönte. Selbst die Töne dieses Leierkastens blieben ihm in diesem Momente noch im Unterbewußtsein. Erst als er die Augen zumachte, kamen sie herauf.
Nun, so kommt manches herauf, was in unserem Bewußtsein bloß als Lebensreminiszenz vorhanden ist. Und dann kommen manchmal die nebulosierenden Mystiker und erzählen uns, wie sie in ihrem Inneren einen tiefen Zusammenhang mit dem göttlichen Urprinzip der Dinge erkennen, wie aus ihrem Inneren herauf ein höheres Erlebnis, eine Wiedergeburt der menschlichen Seele ertönt. Und da werden mystische Gewebe gesponnen, und es ist nichts anderes als die vergessene Melodie des Leierkastens. Sie können eine große Prozentzahl der mystischen Literatur auf dieses Konto der vergessenen Melodie des Leierkastens setzen.
Das ist gerade dasjenige, was wir brauchen in einer wirklichen Geisteswissenschaft, daß wir Besonnenheit und Präzision genug dazu haben, nicht alles Mögliche, was nur als Reminiszenz aus dem Unterbewußtsein heraufkommt, als Mystik auszuposaunen, als irgend etwas, welches irgendeine objektive Geltung beanspruchen könne. Gerade der Geisteswissenschafter braucht, wenn er nach dieser Richtung zu wirklich fruchtbringenden Resultaten kommen will, im höchsten Maße innerlich Klarheit, gerade dann braucht er innerlich Klarheit, wenn es sich darum handelt, hinunterzusteigen in die Tiefen des Bewußtseins, um da herauszuholen Anschauungen darüber, was eigentlich dieses Bewußtsein ist. Es muß schon hinuntergestiegen werden in die Tiefen dieses Bewußtseins, indem man zugleich kein Dilettant ist auf diesem Gebiete, sondern volle Sachkenntnis hat über alles dasjenige, was Psychopathologie, was Psychologie, was Physiologie bis heute hervorgebracht haben, damit man unterscheiden könne dasjenige, was unberechtigt zum Anspruch auf geisteswissenschaftliche Statuierung ist, von demjenigen, was aus derselben Disziplin hervorgeht, wie zum Beispiel die Mathematik oder die analytische Mechanik.
Zu diesem Zwecke versuchte ich bereits im vorigen Jahrhundert den andern Pol in bescheidener Weise zu charakterisieren, den Pol des Bewußtseins gegenüber dem Materiepol. Der Materiepol erforderte eine Ausgestaltung der Goetheschen Naturanschauung. Der Bewußstseinspol war nicht so leicht einfach aus dem Goetheanismus heraus zu erreichen, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil Goethe kein Trivialling war, auch kein Gefühlstrivialling dann, wenn es sich darum handelte, zur Erkenntnis vorzudringen, sondern weil er mitbrachte all diejenige Ehrfurcht, welche notwendig ist, wenn man sich den wirklichen Quellen des Erkennens nähern will. Und so hat denn Goethe, der mehr auf die äußere Natur hin organisiert war, gerade vor dem ein gewisses Zurückschrecken gefühlt, was hinunterleiten soll in die Tiefen des Bewußstseins selber, vor einem bis zu seiner höchsten, reinsten Ausgestaltung getriebenen Denken. Goethe schrieb es seinem guten Schicksal zu, daß er niemals über das Denken gedacht habe. Diesen Ausspruch muß man verstehen, denn man kann eigentlich in Wirklichkeit nicht über das Denken denken. Man kann das Denken ebensowenig im Grunde denken, wie man das Eisen eisern und das Holz hölzern kann. Aber man kann ein anderes. Man kann versuchen, so die Wege zu gehen, die gewiesen werden im Denken, die gewiesen werden, indem das Denken immer rationeller und rationeller wird, und so sie weiterzugehen, wie man sie beginnt durch die Disziplin des mathematischen Denkens. Wenn man dies tut, dann kommt man einfach durch eine naturgemäße innere Wegleitung in jene Region hinein, die ich versuchte in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» zu betrachten. Da kommt man nicht zu einem Denken über das Denken. Man kann höchstens bildlich sprechen dann von einem Denken über das Denken. Aber man kommt zu etwas anderem, man kommt zu einem Anschauen des Denkens. Um aber zu diesem Anschauen des Denkens zu kommen, ist es nötig, daß man wirklich vorher sich eine intensive Vorstellung davon erworben habe, was reines, sinnlichkeitsfreies Denken ist. Man muß die innere Arbeit des Denkens so weit getrieben haben, daß man dann ankommt bei einem Bewußtseinszustande, wo man einfach durch das Ergreifen der sinnlichkeitsfreien Gedanken, durch das Anschauen der sinnlichkeitsfreien Gedanken weiß, man habe es jetzt mit sinnlichkeitsfreien Gedanken zu tun.
Das ist der Weg, den ich versucht habe — wie gesagt, in bescheidener Weise — in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit». Ich möchte sagen, es wurde da versucht, das Denken so hinzulegen vor das Bewußtsein, nachdem es erst sinnlichkeitsfrei gemacht worden war, wie vor dem Bewußtsein liegt das Mathematisieren oder die Seelenfähigkeiten und Kräfte der analytischen Mechanik, wenn man sich mit voller Disziplin diesen Wissenschaften hingibt.
Ich darf vielleicht hier wieder eine persönliche Bemerkung einfügen. Indem ich statuierte dieses sinnlichkeitsfreie Denken, indem ich es einfach als eine Tatsache, aber als eine insofern streng erweisbare Tatsache hinstellte, daß es erzwungen werden kann ebenso wie das mathematische Gebilde im inneren Erleben, kam ich in Widerspruch mit allen möglichen Philosophen der achtziger Jahre, der neunziger Jahre. Mir wurde immer wieder und wiederum erwidert: Ja, mit diesem Denken stehe man nicht in irgendeiner Wirklichkeit. — Ich aber mußte schon in meinen «Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung» in der ersten Hälfte der achtziger Jahre hinweisen auf das Ergreifen dieses reinen Denkens, in dessen Gegenwart man einfach weiß: Du lebst jetzt in einem Elemente, das keine sinnlichen Eindrücke mehr enthält und dennoch in der inneren Aktivität sich offenbart, daß es eine Realität ist. - Ich mußte etwa sagen von diesem Denken: In ihm haben wir die wahre geistige Kommunion des Menschen, die Vereinigung mit der wahren Wirklichkeit. Wir fühlen gewissermaßen an einem Zipfel des Weltendaseins, wie wir als Seele mit diesem Weltendasein zusammenhängen. — Ich mußte gewissermaßen energisch protestieren gegen dasjenige, was dazumal in der Philosophie heraufkam, dem Eduard von Hartmann huldigte, indem er als Motto auf seine «Philosophie des Unbewußten» 1869 schrieb: «Spekulative Resultate nach induktiv naturwissenschaftlicher Methode.» Das war eine philosophische Reverenz gegenüber der Naturwissenschaft. Ich schrieb, um zu protestieren gegen das Aufsuchen einer wesenlosen Metaphysik, die nur dadurch entsteht, daß wir im charakterisierten Sinne aus innerer Trägheit über den Sinnenschleier hinaus das Denken fortrollen lassen, als Motto über meine «Philosophie der Freiheit»: «Seelische Beobachtungsresultate nach naturwissenschaftlicher Methode.» Ich wies darauf hin, daß alles dasjenige, was Inhalt einer Philosophie ist, nicht ersonnen ist, sondern daß es im strengsten Sinne so Beobachtungsresultat nach innen hin ist, wie Farbe und Ton Beobachtungsergebnisse nach außen hin sind. Und indem man in diesem, allerdings die menschliche Wesenheit wie erkältenden Elemente des reinen Denkens lebt, macht man eine Entdeckung. Man macht die Entdeckung, daß die Menschen zwar instinktiv von Freiheit reden können, daß im Menschenwesen Impulse sind, die durchaus nach Freiheit hintendieren, die aber so lange unbewußt, instinktiv bleiben, bis man die Freiheit wieder entdeckt, indem man weiß, aus dem sinnlichkeitsfreien Denken heraus können Impulse erfließen für unser sittliches Handeln, die, weil wir ein Denken ergriffen haben, das selbst keine Sinnlichkeit mehr enthält, dann selber nicht aus der Sinnlichkeit heraus determiniert sind, sondern aus der reinen Geistigkeit heraus determiniert sind. Und man erlebt die reine Geistigkeit, indem man beobachtet, rein beobachtet, wie einfließt die Kraft des Sittlichen in das sinnlichkeitsfreie Denken. Und das beste Resultat, das man aus so etwas erzielt, das ist das, daß man erstens jedem mystischen Aberglauben Valet sagen kann, denn der hat etwas zum Ergebnis, was in irgendeiner Weise verhüllt ist und nur auf irgendeine dunkle Empfindung hin angenommen wird. Man kann ihm Valet sagen aus dem Grunde, weil man jetzt etwas in seinem Bewußtsein erlebt, was innerlich durchsichtig ist, was nicht mehr von außen impulsiert wird, sondern was von innen her sich mit Geistigkeit erfüllt. Man hat ergriffen in einem Punkt das Weltendasein, indem man sich selbst nur zum Schauplatz des Erkennens gemacht hat, man hat ergriffen, wie das Weltendasein verläuft in seiner wahren Gestalt und sich — wenn wir uns fügen diesem inneren Beobachten — uns dann ergibt. Ich möchte sagen: In einem Punkt nur ergreifen wir dasjenige, was das Wesen des Weltendaseins eigentlich ist, und wir ergreifen es als eine Realität, nicht als ein abstraktes Denken, indem herein impulsieren in die Gewebe des sinnlichkeitsfreien Denkens die moralischen Antriebe, die dadurch als freie erscheinen, daß sie jetzt leben nicht mehr als Instinkte, sondern in dem Gewande des sinnlichkeitsfreien Denkens. Wir erleben die Freiheit, allerdings eine Freiheit, von der wir dann zugleich wissen, daß der Mensch sich ihr nur nähern kann so, wie sich die Hyperbel ihrer Asymptote nähert, aber wir wissen, daß diese Freiheit lebt im Menschen, insofern das Geistige lebt. Wir ergreifen zuerst aus dem Elemente der Freiheit heraus das Geistige.
Und damit kommen wir auf etwas, was im Innersten des Menschen zusammenwebt den Impuls unseres sittlich-sozialen Handelns, die Freiheit, mit dem Erkennen, mit demjenigen, was wir wissenschaftlich zuletzt doch erringen. Wir erleben, indem wir die Freiheit im sinnlichkeitsfreien Denken erfassen, indem wir verstehen, wie dieses Erfassen nur in der wirklichen Geistigkeit sich vollzieht, wie wir in der Geistigkeit drinnen leben, indem wir solches vollziehen; wir erleben ein Erkennen, das sich zu gleicher Zeit als ein inneres Tun erweist, das als ein Inneres Außenwelttun werden kann, das also unbedingt überströmen kann in das soziale Leben. Ich habe dazumal versucht, mit aller Schärfe hinzuweisen auf zwei Dinge. Allein es ist damals noch wenig verstanden worden. Ich habe vor allen Dingen hinzuweisen versucht darauf, wie das Wesentliche bei einem Verfolgen eines solchen Erkenntnisweges die innere Erziehung ist, die wir uns dadurch angedeihen lassen. Ja, es ist schon etwas, wenn man diesen Weg zum sinnlichkeitsfreien Denken geht. Man muß vieles innerlich durchmachen. Man muß Überwindungen absolvieren, von denen man im äußeren Leben zumeist keine Ahnung hat. Und indem man diese Überwindungen absolviert, indem man zuletzt in einem seelischen Erlebnisse ist, das sich kaum festhalten läßt, weil es sich so leicht wiederum den gewöhnlichen Kräften des Menschenwesens entzieht, indem man in dieses Wesen untertaucht, taucht man nicht in unklar nebuloser, mystischer Weise unter, sondern man taucht in eine helle Klarheit unter, aber man taucht in Geistigkeit unter. Man macht Bekanntschaft mit der Geistigkeit. Man weiß, was Geist ist, und man weiß es, indem man den Geist gefunden hat auf dem Wege, den die andere Menschheit auch geht, den sie nur nicht zu Ende geht, der aber für die Bedürfnisse unseres gegenwärtigen Erkenntnis- und sozialen Strebens gegangen werden muß von all denjenigen Menschen, die in der Erkenntnis, die im sozialen Leben irgendwie tätig sein wollen. Das ist das eine, was ich durchblicken ließ durch meine «Philosophie der Freiheit».
Das andere, was ich da durchblicken ließ, ist das, daß, wenn wir nun die Freiheit als den Träger des eigentlich Sittlichen im sinnlichkeitsfreien Denken entdeckt haben, wir dann nicht irgendwie aus Naturerscheinungen, gewissermaßen analogisierend, sittliche Moralbegriffe, sittliche Gebote ableiten können, daß wir aufgeben müssen alles dasjenige, was uns auf naturwissenschaftliche Art zu einem sittlichen Inhalte führt, daß dieser sittliche Inhalt frei entstehen müsse, im übersinnlichen Erleben entstehen müsse. Und ich wagte dazumal einen Terminus, der wenig verstanden worden ist, der aber unbedingt statuiert werden muß, wenn man in diese Region hineinkommt und wenn man Freiheit überhaupt verstehen will. Ich gebrauchte den Ausdruck: Die sittliche Welt geht uns auf in unserer moralischen Phantasie. — Und ich gebrauchte mit vollem Bewußtsein diesen Ausdruck «moralische Phantasie», ich gebrauchte ihn aus dem Grunde, um darauf hinzudeuten, daß - so wie bei dem Gebilde der Phantasie — die geistige Arbeit, die dazugehört, sich abgesehen vom Äußeren im Inneren des Menschen vollzieht; und auf der andern Seite, um darauf hinzudeuten, daß sich zunächst dasjenige, was uns die Welt sittlich-religiös wertvoll macht, nämlich die Sittengebote, nur ergreifen lassen auf diesem Gebiete, das sich frei hält von den äußeren Eindrücken, das auf innerer Menschenarbeit selber beruht. Ich wies aber zu gleicher Zeit schon in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» deutlich darauf hin, daß, wenn wir innerhalb des Menschlichen stehenbleiben, sich uns zwar enthüllt der sittliche Inhalt als Inhalt der moralischen Phantasie, daß aber dann, wenn wir auf diesen Inhalt, der sich uns enthüllt als dasjenige, was wir aus einer geistigen Welt herübertragen, näher eingehen, wir uns der äußeren Sinneswelt einfügen.
Sie werden, wenn Sie die Philosophie wirklich studieren, das Tor genau merken, durch das durch diese Philosophie der Weg in die Geistigkeit hinein geboten wird, nur daß ich in dieser Philosophie so vorging, daß ich jedem analytischen Mechaniker über den Gang meiner Untersuchungen hätte Rechenschaft geben können, und daß ich gar keinen Wert darauf legte auf dasjenige, was etwa an Zustimmung zu einem Wege in die Geistigkeit hinein kommen könnte durch all das Geschwafel, das von irgendwelcher spiritistischen oder mystisch-nebulosen Seite her kommt. Von diesen Seiten her kann man leicht Zustimmung erlangen, wenn man von allerlei Geistigem redet, aber gerade jenen Weg vermeidet, den ich dazumal zu gehen versuchte. Ich suchte Gewißheit und Sicherheit für das Geistige, und mir war höchst gleichgültig die Zustimmung all der Schwafler, die aus irgendwelchen nebulos-mystischen Untergründen heraus für dieses Geistige eintreten. Aber ein anderes war damit zugleich gewonnen.
Gerade wenn man einging auf diese zwei Richtungen, die ich da in der «Philosophie der Freiheit» wies als wahre Bewußtseinsbeobachtungen, gerade dann zeigte sich, wenn man noch weiter geht, wenn man den nächsten Schritt macht — was dann? Wenn man angelangt ist bei jenen inneren Erlebnissen, die in der Sphäre des reinen Denkens stehen, bei jenen inneren Erlebnissen, die sich als das Erlebnis der Freiheit zuletzt enthüllen, dann gelangt man zu einer Metamorphose des Erkennens in bezug auf die innere Bewußtseinswelt. Dann bleiben die Begriffe und Ideen nicht Begriffe und Ideen, dann bleibt nach dieser Seite hin der Hegelianismus nicht Hegelianismus, dann bleibt die Abstraktheit nicht Abstraktheit, dann geht es nach dieser Richtung hin zunächst in das reale Gebiet der Geistigkeit hinein. Dann ist das Nächste, wo hinein man gelangt, nicht mehr der bloße «Begriff», die bloße «Idee», nicht mehr etwas, wie es den ganzen Inhalt der Hegelschen Philosophie ausmacht, nein, dann verwandelt sich Begriff und Idee in Bild, in Imagination. Man entdeckt sogleich die höhere Stufe, die sich zunächst nur projiziert hat in der moralischen Phantasie, man entdeckt die Erkenntnisstufe der Imagination. Wie man mit der Philosophie noch in einer selbstgemachten Wirklichkeit drinnensteckt, so steckt man dann, wenn man sich innerlich hat treiben lassen durch den Weg, den die «Philosophie der Freiheit» weist, wenn man sich über diesen Plan der Phantasie herausbegeben hat, drinnen in einer Welt von Ideen, die aber jetzt nicht Traumbilder sind, sondern die ebenso auf Realitäten, aber auf geistige Realitäten hinweisen, wie Farben und Töne in den sinnlichen Realitäten verankert sind. Jetzt gelangt man in das Gebiet des bildlichen, des imaginativen Denkens hinein. Man gelangt zu jenen Imaginationen, die real sind, durch die man in einer Welt steht, nicht mehr bloß in seinem Inneren steht; man gelangt zu der Inspiration, die sich erleben läßt, wenn man im richtigen Sinne mathematisiert, wenn das Mathematisieren selbst ein Erleben wird, und dann gewissermaßen über sich hinauswachsen kann zu dem, was sich etwa in der Vedantaphilosophie gezeigt hat. Zu dieser Inspiration tritt auf der andern Seite die Imagination. Und durch diese Imagination entdeckt man dann dasjenige, was erst den Menschen begreiflich macht. Man entdeckt in Imaginationen, in bildhaften Vorstellungen, in Vorstellungen, die einen konkreteren Inhalt haben als abstrakte Gedanken, man entdeckt in diesen bildhaften Vorstellungen dasjenige, was einem den Menschen von der Bewußtseinsseite her begreiflich macht. Man muß die Resignation haben, nicht weitergehen zu wollen, wenn man an diesem Punkte angelangt ist, nun nicht weitergehen zu wollen, nicht durch innere Trägheit einfach das sinnlichkeitsfreie Denken nun weiterrollen zu lassen und zu glauben, daß man durch dieses sinnlichkeitsfreie Denken in die Geheimnisse des Bewußtseins hinuntergelange, sondern man muß eben die Resignation haben, nun stehenzubleiben und sich gewissermaßen von der Innenseite aus der geistigen Außenwelt gegenüberzustellen. Dann wird man nicht hineinspinnen Gedanken in das Bewußtsein, die es doch nicht begreifen können, sondern dann wird man empfangen die Imagination, durch die das Bewußtsein nun erfaßt werden kann. So wie man an der äußeren Grenze stehenbleiben muß bei dem Phänomen und sich einem die Gedanken als dasjenige erweisen, was in der Erkenntnis diese Phänomene durchorganisieren kann, so wie man da diese Resignation notwendig hat und gerade dadurch zur Geistigkeit der Intellektualitäit kommt, so muß man nach innen forschen, die Resignation haben, mit den Gedanken stillezuhalten, sie gewissermaßen innerlich zur Reflexion zu bringen, um dadurch an die Bilder heranzukommen, die jetzt erst das Innere des Menschen entrollen. Ich möchte sagen, wenn ich hier (siehe Zeichnung) das menschliche Innere statuiere und mich nähere durch Selbstbeschauung und reines Denken diesem Inneren, dann muß ich nun nicht fortrollen wiederum mit meinem Denken, denn da komme ich in ein Gebiet, wo das reine Denken nichts mehr findet, sondern nur anschauliche oder überhaupt Lebensreminiszenzen hinstellen kann. Ich muß die Resignation haben, zurückzukehren. Dann aber wird sich mir an dem Punkt der Reflexion die Imagination ergeben. Dann enthüllt sich mir die innere Welt als eine imaginative Welt.

Sehen Sie, da kommen wir innerlich nun an zwei Pole. Wir kommen an den Pol der Inspiration gegen die Außenwelt zu, an den Pol der Imagination gegenüber der Innenwelt. Hat man nun aber diese Imagination ergriffen, dann kann man aus diesen Imaginationen zusammenstellen, so wie man in der äußeren Natur durch die Begriffe und durch Experimente zusammenstellt die Naturerkenntnisse, dann kann man zusammenstellen innerlich dasjenige, was real ist, was sich zunächst als das erweist, was nun nicht als sinnlicher Leib, sondern als ätherischer Leib den Menschen durchzieht, selbstverständlich sein ganzes Leben, aber in einer besonders intensiven Weise durchzieht in seinen ersten sieben Lebensjahren, was dann beim Zahnwechsel in eine andere Gestalt kommt, wie ich Ihnen das gestern dargestellt habe. Aber man erwirbt sich dadurch die Fähigkeit zu beobachten, wie dieser ätherische oder Lebensleib im physischen menschlichen Organismus arbeitet.
Man kann nun leicht sagen aus irgendeiner philosophischen Erkenntnistheorie heraus: Ja, der Mensch muß eben, wenn er in klarer Logik stehenbleiben will, dann innerhalb der Begriffe stehenbleiben, er muß innerhalb desjenigen stehenbleiben, was sich diskursiv und im gewöhnlichen Sinne beweisend rechtfertigen läßt. Schön. Man kann so lange fort erkenntnistheoretisieren. Aber wenn man auch noch so starken Glauben an ein solches erkenntnistheoretisches Gewebe hat, wenn es auch noch so logisch richtig ist, die Wirklichkeit ergibt sich mir nicht, die Wirklichkeit lebt nicht in dem, was wir so logisch ausbauen. Die Wirklichkeit lebt eben in Bildern. Und wenn wir uns nicht entschließen, Bilder oder Imaginationen zu ergreifen, dann ergreifen wir eben die Wirklichkeit des Menschen nicht. Und es handelt sich gar nicht darum, daß wir äußerlich aus einer gewissen Vorliebe heraus sagen, wie Erkenntnis ausschauen muß, damit sie echt sei, sondern es handelt sich darum, daß wir die Wirklichkeit fragen, durch was sie sich uns enthüllen will. Da kommen wir eben auf die Imagination. So erweist sich dann dasjenige, was in der moralischen Phantasie lebt, als ein in das gewöhnliche Bewußtsein Herunterprojiziertes einer höheren geistigen Welt, die wir aber ergreifen können in den Imaginationen.
Und so, meine sehr verehrten Anwesenden, habe ich Sie geführt, zu führen versucht wenigstens an die zwei Pole der Inspiration und der Imagination, die wir in den nächsten Tagen nun auch geisteswissenschaftlich noch genauer und näher kennenlernen wollen. Ich mußte gewissermaßen erst an das Tor führen, damit Sie sehen, daß dieses Tor im gewöhnlichen wissenschaftlichen Sinne gut fundiert ist. Denn erst, wenn wir die Fundierung dieses Tores haben, können wir auch dann zur Fundierung des Baues kommen, in den wir eintreten durch dieses Tor, des Baues der Geisteswissenschaft selber. Allerdings, indem man diesen ganzen Weg durchmacht, den ich Ihnen ja heute schildern mußte als einen, ich möchte sagen, sehr schwierigen erkenntnistheoretischen Weg, gegenüber dem mancher sagen kann, er sei schwer verständlich, indem man diesen Weg macht, muß man den Mut haben, auch eingehen zu können, ich möchte sagen auf den Anti-Hegel, nicht bloß auf den Hegel. Man muß verstehen, nachdem man den Hegelismus so geschildert hat, wie ich versuchte, ihn in meinen «Rätseln der Philosophie» zu schildern, auch Stirner gerecht zu werden, ihn zu schildern, wie ich versucht habe, ihn in meinen «Rätseln der Philosophie» zu schildern, denn in Stirner steht da dasjenige, was aus dem Bewußtsein herauf als das Ich sich enthüllt. Und wenn man dieses Stirnersche Ich, das aus den instinktiven Erlebnissen heraufkommt, einfach so nimmt, wie es ist, wenn man es nicht durchdringt mit dem, was zur moralischen Phantasie und zur Imagination kommt, dann bedeutet es ein Antisoziales. Dasjenige aber, was die «Philosophie der Freiheit» setzt an die Stelle des Stirnerianismus, das bedeutet, wie wir gesehen haben, in Wahrheit ein Soziales. Man muß auch jenen Mut haben, durch das instinktive Ich im Stirnerschen Sinn hindurchzugehen, um zur Imagination zu kommen, und man muß den andern Mut haben, ins Antlitz zu schauen der Assoziations-Psychologie, die von Mill, von ähnlichen Geistern, von Spencer und so weiter herrührt, die da mit dem bloßen Begriff das Bewußtsein ergreifen möchte, aber es nicht kann. Man muß den Mut haben, einzusehen, daß der entgegengesetzte Weg heute gegangen werden muß. Der alte Morgenländer hat einen heute nicht mehr gehbaren Weg gehabt, indem er das Mathematisieren in die Vedantaphilosophie hineingetragen hat. Der Abendländer hat diesen Weg nicht mehr. Die Menschheit ist in Entwickelung. Sie ist fortgeschritten. Es muß ein anderer Weg gesucht werden. Der ist aber erst in seinem Anfange, und sein Anfang zeigt sich am besten, wenn man diese Assoziations-Psychologie, die die inneren Vorstellungen gesetzmäßig so in Verbindung bringt, wie man sonst die äußeren Naturerscheinungen in Verbindung bringt, wenn man diese Assoziations-Psychologie zu betrachten weiß als dasjenige, was da in Trägheit durchstoßen will und eigentlich ins Nichts kommt; und wenn man diese Assoziations-Psychologie zunächst aufzufassen versteht, dann aber hineinzuführen versteht durch Schauung in das Gebiet der Imagination. Wie der Osten einstmals an einem urmathematischen Denken heraufgehen sah die Gedanken der Vedantaphilosophie, den Weg hinein in die Geistigkeit der Außenwelt, so müssen wir durch unsere Aufgaben, die uns heute gestellt sind, indem wir nach innen sehen, den Mut haben, von den bloßen Begriffen und Ideen zu den Imaginationen, zu den Schauungen zu gehen, und dadurch diese Geistigkeit zuerst in unserem Inneren wieder zu entdecken. Dann werden wir sie in die äußere Welt hineintragen können. Dann werden wir haben Geistigkeit, ergriffen durch des Menschen innere Wesenheit, mit der Möglichkeit, sie hinauszutragen in das soziale Dasein. Dieses Dasein wartet in Wirklichkeit nicht auf etwas anderes als auf eine solche Erkenntnis, die zugleich sozial sein kann. Daß das der Fall ist, werden wir dann in den nächsten Stunden sehen.
Fourth Lecture
Our considerations yesterday led us to conclude that a certain understanding must take place within the limits of our knowledge of nature, that we must remain within the realm of phenomena and interpret these phenomena, so to speak, with what is sparked in our consciousness by these phenomena, with our concepts, ideas, and so on. We found that the purest, most transparent realm of these ideas is that of mathematics and analytical mechanics, and we finally had to conclude that a real self-reflection showed how everything that becomes present in our soul as mathematical content, as the content of analytical mechanics, is essentially based on inspiration, and we were then able to point out how the spread of this impulse of inspiration can be seen in the ancient Oriental Vedanta philosophy, how the same spirit that actually gives rise to mathematics and analytical mechanics in our culture also gave rise to the highly refined view of the Vedanta philosophy. And we were then able to point out how Goethe, in establishing his type of phenomenalism within phenomena, strives for primordial phenomena, and that his path from complex phenomena to primordial phenomena is spiritually the same as that in mathematics from complex perceptions to axioms.So Goethe, who said of himself that he had no mathematical culture, nevertheless understood the essence of mathematics so clearly that he demanded for his phenomenology that the primordial phenomena be established in such a way that even the strictest mathematician could be satisfied. This is also what attracts the Western mind to Vedanta philosophy, that in its inner structure, in its transition from perception to perception, it reveals itself as strictly necessary, just as mathematical and analytical-mechanical processes reveal themselves. The fact that these things do not really come to light in our official study of Vedanta philosophy is simply due to the fact that there are not enough universally educated people in our time. Those who mostly pursue what then leads them into Oriental philosophy have too little insight—as I said, Goethe had it—into the actual structure of mathematics. They therefore cannot understand what the real lifeblood of this Oriental philosophy is. And so we were able to point to one side, to the material side, as to how the behavior of the soul must be if we do not want to end up with that Penelope's web that has been spun in recent centuries as a scientific view of the world, but if we want to achieve something that is fixed in itself, that has its center of gravity, so to speak, within itself.
On the other hand, as I already indicated yesterday, there is the problem of consciousness. If we want to explore the content of this consciousness by simply brooding over our inner soul, as the nebulous mystics do, then we basically come up with nothing more than the reminiscences within this consciousness that have accumulated in the course of our lives since birth, since our childhood. This can be easily demonstrated empirically. One need only think of how a man well educated in the external natural sciences describes, precisely in order to hint at the reminiscence-like nature of this so-called inner life, how he describes standing in front of a bookstore. He saw a book in this bookstore. It caught his eye because of its title. It was about lower animals. And lo and behold, as he looked at this book, he had to smile. Now imagine how astonished he must have been, a serious professor of natural science, who sees a serious book title in a bookshop, about lower animals no less, and has to smile! Then he wondered where this smile might actually come from. At first he couldn't think of anything. Then it occurred to him: I'll close my eyes. And lo and behold, when he closed his eyes and it was dark around him, he heard a musical motif in the distance, and this musical motif reminded him only now, at that moment, of the dance music he had heard once—he was already an old boy when he made this observation—when he performed his first little dance. And then he realized that, of course, not only did this musical motif live on in his subconscious, but also, to some extent, the partner with whom he had danced around back then, and how what he had long since forgotten in his ordinary consciousness, what he had never even noticed strongly enough to believe it could have determined his whole life, how the whole thing came up as a complex of ideas. And at the moment when he was looking at a serious book, he did not even realize that a barrel organ was playing in the distance. Even the sounds of this barrel organ remained in his subconscious at that moment. Only when he closed his eyes did they come up.
Now, many things come up that exist in our consciousness merely as reminiscences of life. And then sometimes the nebulous mystics come and tell us how they recognize a deep connection with the divine archetype of things within themselves, how a higher experience, a rebirth of the human soul, resounds from within them. And so mystical webs are spun, and it is nothing more than the forgotten melody of the barrel organ. You can attribute a large percentage of mystical literature to this forgotten melody of the barrel organ.
This is precisely what we need in a true spiritual science: that we have enough prudence and precision not to trumpet as mysticism everything that comes up from the subconscious as mere reminiscences, as something that could claim any kind of objective validity. If scholars of the humanities want to achieve truly fruitful results in this direction, they need the highest degree of inner clarity, especially when it comes to descending into the depths of consciousness to extract insights about what this consciousness actually is. It is necessary to descend into the depths of this consciousness, while at the same time not being an amateur in this field, but having full knowledge of everything that psychopathology, psychology, and physiology have produced to date, so that one can distinguish between what is unjustifiably claimed to be spiritual science and what emerges from the same discipline, such as mathematics or analytical mechanics, for example.
To this end, I already attempted in the last century to characterize in a modest way the other pole, the pole of consciousness as opposed to the pole of matter. The pole of matter required a elaboration of Goethe's view of nature. The pole of consciousness was not so easy to achieve simply from Goetheanism, for the simple reason that Goethe was not a trivialist, nor was he a sentimental trivialist when it came to advancing knowledge, but because he brought with him all the reverence that is necessary when one wants to approach the real sources of knowledge. And so Goethe, who was more oriented toward external nature, felt a certain aversion to what leads down into the depths of consciousness itself, to thinking driven to its highest, purest form. Goethe attributed it to his good fortune that he had never thought about thinking. This statement must be understood, for in reality one cannot actually think about thinking. One can no more think about thinking than one can think about iron being iron or wood being wood. But one can do something else. One can try to follow the paths that are shown in thinking, that are shown by thinking becoming ever more rational, and to continue along them as one begins, through the discipline of mathematical thinking. If one does this, then one simply arrives, through a natural inner guidance, in that region which I attempted to consider in my Philosophy of Freedom. One does not arrive at thinking about thinking. At most, one can speak figuratively of thinking about thinking. But one arrives at something else, one arrives at a viewing of thinking. In order to arrive at this viewing of thinking, however, it is necessary to have first acquired an intensive mental image of what pure, sense-free thinking is. One must have carried the inner work of thinking so far that one arrives at a state of consciousness where one simply knows, through grasping the non-sensuous thoughts, through looking at the non-sensuous thoughts, that one is now dealing with non-sensuous thoughts.
This is the path I have attempted — as I said, in a modest way — in my Philosophy of Freedom. I would like to say that an attempt was made there to place thinking before consciousness, after it had first been made free of sensuality, in the same way that mathematizing or the soul's abilities and powers of analytical mechanics lie before consciousness when one devotes oneself to these sciences with complete discipline.
Perhaps I may insert a personal remark here again. By positing this thinking free of sensuality, by presenting it simply as a fact, but as a fact that is strictly provable insofar as it can be enforced just like mathematical constructs in inner experience, I came into conflict with all kinds of philosophers of the 1880s and 1890s. I was repeatedly told: Yes, with this kind of thinking, one is not in any kind of reality. But I already had to point out in my “Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung” (Outlines of a Theory of Knowledge of Goethe's Worldview) in the first half of the 1980s that in the presence of this pure thinking, one simply knows: You now live in an element that no longer contains any sensory impressions and yet reveals itself in inner activity as a reality. I had to say, for example, about this way of thinking: In it we have the true spiritual communion of human beings, the union with true reality. We feel, as it were, at one corner of the world's existence, how we as souls are connected with this world's existence. — I had to protest vigorously, as it were, against what was emerging in philosophy at the time, which Eduard von Hartmann espoused when he wrote as the motto of his Philosophy of the Unconscious in 1869: “Speculative results according to inductive scientific method.” This was a philosophical reverence for natural science. I wrote to protest against the search for an insubstantial metaphysics that arises only because we, in the sense I have characterized, allow our thinking to roll on beyond the veil of the senses out of inner inertia. As a motto for my Philosophy of Freedom, I wrote: “Results of spiritual observation according to the scientific method.” I pointed out that everything that is the content of a philosophy is not conceived, but that in the strictest sense it is as much a result of inner observation as color and sound are results of external observation. And by living in this, albeit with the human essence as cold elements of pure thought, one makes a discovery. One makes the discovery that human beings can indeed speak instinctively of freedom, that there are impulses in human nature that tend toward freedom, but that these remain unconscious and and remain instinctive until one rediscovers freedom, in that one knows that impulses for our moral actions can flow from thinking that is free of sensuality, and that because we have grasped a way of thinking that no longer contains any sensuality, these impulses are not themselves determined by sensuality, but are determined by pure spirituality. And one experiences pure spirituality by observing, purely observing, how the power of morality flows into thinking that is free of sensuality. And the best result that can be achieved from this is that, first of all, one can say farewell to all mystical superstition, because it has a result that is veiled in some way and is only accepted on the basis of some dark feeling. You can say goodbye to it because you now experience something in your consciousness that is inwardly transparent, that is no longer impulsed from outside, but is filled with spirituality from within. One has grasped world existence in one point by making oneself the scene of cognition; one has grasped how world existence proceeds in its true form and then — if we submit to this inner observation — reveals itself to us. I would like to say: in one point alone do we grasp what the essence of world existence actually is, and we grasp it as a reality, not as abstract thinking, in that the moral impulses impel themselves into the fabric of sense-free thinking, appearing free because they now live no longer as instincts but in the guise of sense-free thinking. We experience freedom, but a freedom of which we know at the same time that human beings can only approach it in the same way that a hyperbola approaches its asymptote. However, we know that this freedom lives in human beings insofar as the spiritual lives. We first grasp the spiritual out of the element of freedom.
And this brings us to something that is woven together in the innermost depths of human beings: the impulse of our moral and social actions, freedom, with knowledge, with what we ultimately achieve scientifically. We experience this by grasping freedom in thinking free of the senses, by understanding how this grasping can only take place in real spirituality, how we live within spirituality by accomplishing this; we experience a recognition that proves to be at the same time an inner activity that can become an inner activity in the outer world, that can therefore necessarily overflow into social life. At that time, I tried to point out two things with all sharpness. But little was understood at that time. Above all, I tried to point out how essential inner education is in pursuing such a path of knowledge, which we allow ourselves to receive through it. Yes, it is something when one follows this path to non-sensory thinking. One has to go through a lot inwardly. One has to overcome obstacles that one is mostly unaware of in outer life. And by overcoming these obstacles, by finally entering into a spiritual experience that is difficult to grasp because it so easily eludes the ordinary powers of the human being, by immersing oneself in this being, one does not immerse oneself in an unclear, nebulous, mystical way, but one immerses oneself in a bright clarity, but one immerses oneself in spirituality. One becomes acquainted with spirituality. One knows what spirit is, and one knows it by finding the spirit on the path that other human beings also follow, but which they do not follow to the end, but which must be followed for the needs of our present knowledge and social striving by all those human beings who want to be active in knowledge and in social life in some way. That is the one thing I let shine through in my Philosophy of Freedom.
The other thing I let shine through is that if we have now discovered freedom as the bearer of what is truly moral in thinking free from the senses, we cannot somehow derive moral concepts and moral commandments from natural phenomena, by analogy, so to speak, that we must abandon everything that leads us to moral content in a scientific manner, that this moral content must arise freely, must arise in supersensible experience. And at that time I ventured a term that was little understood, but which must be established if one enters this region and if one wants to understand freedom at all. I used the expression: The moral world opens up to us in our moral imagination. — And I used the expression “moral imagination” with full awareness; I used it for the reason that it indicates that — just as with the construct of the imagination — the spiritual work that belongs to it takes place within the human being, apart from the external world; and on the other hand, to indicate that what makes the world morally and religiously valuable to us, namely the moral precepts, can only be grasped in this realm, which is free from external impressions and based on inner human work itself. At the same time, however, I already pointed out clearly in my Philosophy of Freedom that if we remain within the human realm, the moral content is revealed to us as the content of moral imagination, but that when we examine this content more closely, which is revealed to us as that which we carry over from a spiritual world, we find ourselves integrated into the external sensory world.
If you really study philosophy, you will notice precisely the gateway through which this philosophy offers a path into spirituality, except that in this philosophy I proceeded in such a way that I could have given any analytical mechanic an account of the course of my investigations, and that I did not attach any importance to what might come of agreeing to a path into spirituality through all the babbling that comes from some spiritualistic or mystical-nebulous quarter. It is easy to gain approval from these quarters if one talks about all kinds of spiritual things, but avoids precisely the path that I tried to follow at that time. I sought certainty and security for the spiritual, and I was completely indifferent to the approval of all the prattle-mongers who advocate this spirituality from some nebulous, mystical background. But something else was gained at the same time.
Precisely when one entered into these two directions, which I pointed out in The Philosophy of Freedom as true observations of consciousness, precisely then, when one went further, when one took the next step—what then? When one arrives at those inner experiences that stand in the sphere of pure thought, at those inner experiences that ultimately reveal themselves as the experience of freedom, then one arrives at a metamorphosis of cognition in relation to the inner world of consciousness. Then concepts and ideas do not remain concepts and ideas; then, on this side, Hegelianism does not remain Hegelianism; then abstractness does not remain abstractness; then, in this direction, one enters first into the real realm of spirituality. Then the next thing one enters is no longer the mere “concept,” the mere “idea,” no longer something that constitutes the entire content of Hegel's philosophy; no, then concept and idea are transformed into image, into imagination. One immediately discovers the higher stage, which at first was only projected in moral fantasy; one discovers the stage of knowledge of imagination. Just as one is still stuck in a self-made reality with philosophy, so one is then stuck, when one has let oneself be carried along inwardly by the path shown by the “Philosophy of Freedom,” when one has gone beyond this plan of the imagination, one finds oneself in a world of ideas, which are now no longer dream images, but point to realities, just as colors and sounds are anchored in the sensual realities. Now one enters the realm of pictorial, imaginative thinking. One arrives at those imaginations that are real, through which one stands in a world, no longer merely within oneself; one arrives at the inspiration that can be experienced when one mathematizes in the right sense, when mathematizing itself becomes an experience, and then, in a sense, can grow beyond itself to what has been shown, for example, in Vedanta philosophy. On the other hand, imagination joins this inspiration. And through this imagination, one then discovers that which first makes human beings comprehensible. One discovers in imaginations, in pictorial mental images, in ideas that have a more concrete content than abstract thoughts, one discovers in these pictorial ideas that which makes human beings comprehensible from the point of view of consciousness. One must have the resignation not to want to go further when one has reached this point, not to want to go further, not to simply let the non-sensory thinking roll on through inner inertia and believe that through this non-sensory thinking one will descend into the mysteries of consciousness. Instead, one must have the resignation to stand still and, as it were, to face the spiritual world from within. Then one will not spin thoughts into consciousness that cannot comprehend it, but will receive the imagination through which consciousness can now be grasped. Just as one must stop at the outer boundary of the phenomenon and allow one's thoughts to prove themselves as that which can thoroughly organize these phenomena in knowledge, just as one needs this resignation and thereby arrives at the spirituality of intellectuality, so one must search inward, have the resignation to remain silent with one's thoughts, bring them, as it were, to reflection within oneself, in order thereby to arrive at the images that now unfold the inner life of the human being. I would like to say that when I represent the human interior here (see drawing) and approach this interior through self-contemplation and pure thinking, I must not roll away again with my thinking, for then I enter a realm where pure thinking finds nothing more, but can only place there vivid or even mere reminiscences of life. I must have the resignation to return. But then, at the point of reflection, imagination will reveal itself to me. Then the inner world will reveal itself to me as an imaginative world.

You see, we now arrive at two poles within ourselves. We arrive at the pole of inspiration toward the external world, at the pole of imagination toward the internal world. But once you have grasped this imagination, you can then compile these imaginings, just as you compile knowledge of nature in the external world through concepts and experiments. You can then compile internally that which is real, that which initially proves to be what pervades human beings not as a physical body, but as an etheric body, naturally throughout their entire life, but in a particularly intense way during the first seven years of life, which then takes on a different form when the teeth change, as I explained to you yesterday. But in this way one acquires the ability to observe how this etheric or life body works in the physical human organism.
It is easy to say, based on some philosophical theory of knowledge: Yes, if human beings want to remain within clear logic, then they must remain within concepts; they must remain within what can be justified discursively and proven in the ordinary sense. Fine. One can continue to theorize about epistemology for as long as one likes. But even if one has the strongest belief in such an epistemological construct, even if it is logically correct, reality does not reveal itself to me; reality does not live in what we construct so logically. Reality lives in images. And if we do not decide to grasp images or imaginations, then we do not grasp the reality of human beings. And it is not a matter of saying, out of a certain preference, what knowledge must look like in order to be genuine, but rather of asking reality through what it wants to reveal itself to us. This brings us to imagination. What lives in moral fantasy thus proves to be a projection into ordinary consciousness of a higher spiritual world, which we can grasp in our imaginations.
And so, my dear friends, I have led you, or at least attempted to lead you, to the two poles of inspiration and imagination, which we will now explore in greater depth and detail in the coming days from a spiritual-scientific perspective. I had to lead you to the gate, so to speak, so that you could see that this gate is well founded in the ordinary scientific sense. For only when we have the foundation of this gate can we then come to the foundation of the building into which we enter through this gate, the building of spiritual science itself. However, in going through this whole process, which I have had to describe to you today as a very difficult epistemological path, one that some may say is difficult to understand, one must have the courage to also enter into, I would say, anti-Hegel, not just Hegel. After describing Hegelianism as I have attempted to do in my “Riddles of Philosophy,” one must also do justice to Stirner and describe him as I have attempted to do in my “Riddles of Philosophy,” for in Stirner there is that which emerges from consciousness as the ego. And if one takes this Stirnerian ego, which arises from instinctive experiences, simply as it is, if one does not imbue it with what comes from moral fantasy and imagination, then it means something antisocial. But what the “philosophy of freedom” puts in place of Stirnerianism, as we have seen, actually means something social. One must also have the courage to go through the instinctive ego in Stirner's sense in order to arrive at imagination, and one must have the other courage to look into the face of association psychology, which originates from Mill, from similar minds, from Spencer and so on, who want to grasp consciousness with the mere concept, but cannot. One must have the courage to realize that the opposite path must be taken today. The ancient Easterners had a path that is no longer viable today, in that they introduced mathematization into Vedanta philosophy. Westerners no longer have this path. Humanity is evolving. It has progressed. Another path must be sought. But this is only in its infancy, and its beginning is best seen when one understands this psychology of association, which connects inner mental images in the same way that external natural phenomena are connected, when one knows how to regard this psychology of association as that which wants to break through in inertia and actually comes to nothing; and when one first understands this psychology of association, but then understands how to lead it into the realm of imagination through contemplation. Just as the East once saw the thoughts of Vedanta philosophy, the path into the spirituality of the outer world, arise from a primordial mathematical way of thinking, so must we, through the tasks set before us today, by looking inward, have the courage to move from mere concepts and ideas to imaginations, to visions, and thereby first rediscover this spirituality within ourselves. Then we will be able to carry it into the outer world. Then we will have spirituality, seized by the inner essence of the human being, with the possibility of carrying it out into social existence. This existence is in reality waiting for nothing other than such a recognition, which can at the same time be social. That this is the case, we will see in the next few hours.