The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Closing Remarks

Farewell Remarks Following the Conclusion of the Anthroposophical University Courses

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! We have reached the end of the academic course organized by the Goetheanum. Perhaps I may take this opportunity today to recall the words with which this series of academic courses was opened. It was said that, as a goal necessarily demanded by the development of humanity itself, we here at the Goetheanum have in mind a spiritual deepening that can lead to a reconciliation, unification, and mutual enrichment of religion, art, and science. For in this unification of religion, art, and science, we must see—precisely from our perspective of Spiritual Science—that which can also lead to the further development of humanity in a salutary way, that which can intervene in an effective manner in the social life of humanity, in the way necessary so that we can avoid the clearly perceptible descent into barbarism and not head toward a twilight—as is now to be scientifically proven—but, on the contrary, emerge from distress, misery, and error to move toward a new dawn for humanity. And perhaps, after recalling this starting point of ours, I may say a few more words about what we actually had in mind when we organized these courses. This time, our main goal was actually to show how what we mean here by “Spiritual Science” can have a fruitful influence on the individual specialized sciences.

[ 2 ] In order to demonstrate this, so to speak, right from the outset, a number of individuals had to speak—each coming from a specific contemporary field of study—who are thus just as deeply immersed in the spirit of these individual disciplines as they are, on the other hand, in that which, in a comprehensive and spiritually penetrating way, seeks to establish Spiritual Science within our civilization. Our aim was not simply to present Spiritual Science as such to you on this occasion, but rather to have experts in their respective fields present the active content of Spiritual Science to you from within the spirit of their own disciplines.

[ 3 ] It has, however, been a painful realization that obstacles have arisen in the implementation of these intentions; for example, precisely in the field that is particularly important to us—the field of medicine—we have been unable to demonstrate how a bridge to Spiritual Science can be built through direct discourse rooted in the discipline itself. It is simply in the nature of this early stage—in which we still find ourselves in our work in Spiritual Science—that much of what we presented in our lectures was, so to speak, permeated by a kind of critical tone, critical of the shortcomings to which the individual sciences have come through their specialization. But you will surely have already discerned the thoroughly positive aspects that can arise from the alliance between the Spiritual Science and the individual sciences.

[ 4 ] Certainly, my esteemed audience, one can still say today: Yes, what is known as external science—official science, state science, and so on—consists precisely of the individual, fully developed sciences. What you are initially offering, however, is all still in its infancy. - Yes, but, my esteemed audience, we must consider our situation. Across broad fields of scientific life, it is necessary to have resources at our disposal—many resources—in order, for example, to proceed with the experiments that must be undertaken, and that can indeed be undertaken, if we are to fully demonstrate what Spiritual Science can do for the individual sciences. In a sense, we stand as a small community in the midst of that scientific enterprise which has immense resources at its disposal in the direction just described, because state funding is available to it. We certainly do not aspire to that; but once understanding is shown for this one point in the impulse toward the threefold social order—namely, that spiritual life must be left to its own devices—then, then we will not lack the resources to work in the same way, including with regard to external experiments, as the current sciences do. However, the very design of the experiments—the entire preparation of the experimental materials—will already embody what can be determined by the goal of Spiritual Science. We can conduct neither extensive research expeditions nor the specific experiments just described. And so the first thing we were able to present to you was intended more to show the direction in which we must move forward, in order to call upon you to collaborate. And you will have noticed how, despite our limited resources and the difficulties of our work, our directions are nevertheless strictly defined for the most diverse fields of study.

[ 5 ] Perhaps I may draw your attention to a few specific points in this regard. Ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly easy today to argue against what Spiritual Science recognizes as arising from the laws governing human development. For it recognizes that humanity on Earth has reached a point in its development where, simply through the driving forces inherent in this development itself, it is predestined that humanity will advance to far more conscious states of religious feeling, artistic creation, and scientific endeavor than has been the case thus far. One can, I say, argue against such a view and claim that it would be far better to remain stuck in naivety. One can declare that only the instinctive human being is truly right, and that by ascending to clearer states of consciousness, the instincts—which, as one believes, guide humanity safely—would be curtailed. Certainly, one can say all of that, absolutely everything. But what matters is not what preconceptions and prejudices one holds regarding what is necessary for human progress, but rather what the signs of the times themselves demand of us. That one must do it one way or another—that, my esteemed audience, is precisely what everyone imagines based on the particular path they follow according to their preconceptions and prejudices; and if everyone were to do what one person or another, based on these preconceptions and prejudices, considers to be right for themselves—if everyone were to do that—then everyone would believe that this is the surest way to move forward.

[ 6 ] Time and again, when it comes to these matters, I must refer to a small experience I had once in a city in southern Germany—which no longer exists—after a lecture I gave on “Wisdom and Christianity.” Back then, years ago—something that hasn’t happened to me in a long time—I had not aroused the displeasure of two Catholic priests in the audience with what I had just said, even though it was spoken entirely in the same spirit from which I always speak. They probably understood an extraordinary amount of what was contained in my lecture, and that is why they approached me after the lecture and said: “Yes, you haven’t actually contradicted Christianity; we can’t really object much to what you said; but you see, what you say can only be addressed to those who are prepared for it, to those who meet certain prerequisites. But the way we represent Christianity—so said these two Catholic priests—is for all people; we represent it for all people. One must always be polite, so I said: “Reverend, I take your word for it that what you’re saying is your subjective opinion; but after all, everyone thinks that the way they do things—if everyone were to do it that way—it would also lead to the salvation of all people.” But whether I believe that I’m doing it right for all people, or whether you believe that you’re doing it right for all people—that is not at all the point. Rather, the point is that, setting aside our preconceptions, our sympathies, and our antipathies, we cultivate a spiritual ear for what the times demand of us, for what the history of human development itself tells us. And here I want to tell you something very simple: You, of course, preach every Sunday from your pulpit in a way that you believe everyone can hear and be edified by. But I’ll ask you just one small question: Do all people still come to you today?—Of course, they couldn’t say, “Yes!”—Well, I say, you see, you must acknowledge that certain people are left out; those are the very ones I’m speaking to, for it is to them that we must also speak about Christian development.

[ 7 ] What matters is hearing the voice of facts, even in the historical development of humanity. And so we cannot argue against the fact that humanity has now reached a point in its development where it must strive ever more consciously toward its goal, where much of what could once be pursued naively and instinctively must now be permeated by a clearer, brighter consciousness. This is what we wish to understand within Spiritual Science. And that is why, above all else, we must have a relationship—a very real relationship—between the Spiritual Science and scientific endeavor, which, based on knowledge, must strive to promote conscious knowing, feeling, and willing. And, ladies and gentlemen, you will have seen—from the way in which the individual sciences have been addressed here before you by more than thirty speakers, and how individual sciences that extend into the artistic realm have been treated— you will have seen how, with the full conscientiousness that has developed in recent times through the individual specialized sciences, these specialized sciences are to be permeated by the Spiritual Sciences. We need, for example, a new relationship to language. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this sounds paradoxical, and yet it is true: we need a new relationship to language if we are to make progress in human development.

[ 8 ] You see, my esteemed audience, one often finds today that when one speaks out from those depths of Spiritual Science from which the anthroposophical endeavor seeks to well up—when one advocates this or that from these depths—people come along who say: “Well, just take a look—here I have some newspaper article, here I have some book—that’s pure anthroposophy!” Yes, in the early days, when I was advocating anthroposophy, there were even people who pointed to this or that pulpit preacher, claiming that he actually represented pure anthroposophy. But, my dear friends here present, this raises a temporal issue of the utmost importance. We have simply reached a point in human development where—even though what I have just described, where people come and say, “That is pure anthroposophy”—even though in most cases this is sheer folly, it can still be said: We have reached a point in human development where quite a few people, simply by stringing together outward words, say something that, to the superficial observer, sounds very much like what must sometimes be said about inner matters arising from anthroposophical depths. Today it is no longer possible to distinguish whether something written by one person or another—who is accustomed to writing—in our civilization, which is highly developed on the intellectualistic side, truly speaks from a solid, honest, and true representation. But what matters is not that something here or there recalls anthroposophical reality, but rather that what is said truly springs from anthroposophical sources. Therefore, it is not enough today to merely follow and take in something word for word.

[ 9 ] It is entirely possible today that charlatans, by piecing together what they have learned, create the appearance that they represent exactly the same thing as someone who now draws from true sources and follows true paths to his goal. I believe there is something highly significant behind what I am saying here. What lies behind this is that we must accustom ourselves, in our age of paper, to no longer look merely at the outward content of what is written or printed, but rather to develop an eye for, and a sense of, what lies behind the words and between the lines; that we must place ourselves fully within a spiritual context and not merely judge by the surface of the words. But this, my esteemed audience, requires that we develop certain sensibilities toward language that are only now becoming possible; and these sensibilities can arise only from a deepening of Spiritual Science in linguistics. Such a deepening of Spiritual Science in linguistics has been pointed out in our course.

[ 10 ] I would also like to draw attention to what has been said here in recent days regarding the understanding of human history. It was pointed out how a mind as significant as Wilhelm von Humboldt sought to delve deeper into history at the beginning of the 19th century, but how it has become impossible, given the general cultural and civilizational conditions of the second half of the 19th century, to even understand what a person like Humboldt wanted. And it has been pointed out that Humboldt could not, in fact, have had any further impact, because the pursuit of mere ideas in history can lead nowhere. Ladies and gentlemen, ideas as such are abstractions. They are not active forces; naturally, they cannot direct the history of humanity. In contrast, it has rightly been pointed out that Spiritual Science now reveals the true sources that are active in human development, showing in detail which spiritual forces lie behind the course of events.

[ 11 ] But what does such a Spiritual Science-based exploration of history lead to? It leads to the point where a person does not merely stand instinctively within their own age, but—because they perceive the spiritual forces at work in the past—can also take their own stand in the present with full awareness, and can consciously confront the spiritual forces that seek to advance humanity’s work. The signs of the times speak very clearly that we must move beyond the purely abstract judgment that is so often expressed: “One should learn from history.” Indeed, what can one learn from history, which today is actually the only one recognized! From a spiritually deepened understanding of history, one will learn to engage with the world in a positive way, with positive goals.

[ 12 ] Ladies and gentlemen, you might have found it somewhat pessimistic when, in early spring 1914, during a series of lectures before a small group in Vienna, I attempted to characterize our time—I mean the time back then—and said: Anyone who, with a sense of social reality and an understanding of what prevails in human nature today—it was the spring of 1914!—and who, with a deeper insight into the forces at work within human beings, is able to assess our present time, must conclude that in the social life of the entire civilized world we are rushing toward the outbreak of a creeping social cancer. A social carcinoma is at work among us, which—as I said at the time—must inevitably lead to a terrible outbreak in the very near future.

[ 13 ] That was simply the statement of, well, let’s say, an idealist—in the view of the pragmatists. The pragmatists themselves—what did they say back then? One need only point to the pragmatists entrusted with the fate of humanity. There was a foreign minister in Central Europe who declared at the time: “Thanks to the efforts of the European cabinets, our political situation is clearly moving toward a détente.” “Our relations with St. Petersburg,” this Central European foreign minister declared at the time, “our relations with St. Petersburg are as friendly and neighborly as can be imagined. And negotiations have begun with England; although they have not yet been concluded, they promise to lay a solid foundation for European peace.”—It was those speaking from the standpoint of the Spiritual Science who had to speak of a creeping social cancer. The pragmatists spoke of what had been announced as détente, what had been announced as friendly, neighborly relations. And these pragmatists spoke just a few weeks before that general upheaval began, in which 10 to 12 million were killed and three times as many were maimed. This is the terrible manifestation of what modern civilization has brought about—and against which, as it were, at the very last moment, in order to make a stand, that which emerged from the foundations of Spiritual Science had to turn. Were there, at that time, among those to whom the fate of humanity had been entrusted, any insights arising from history that could have been followed? No, everything was blind; everything was blind precisely in those spheres where history was being made at that time. Into this darkness must enter that which can be absorbed by human consciousness from the insights of Spiritual Science. When it is no longer the Rankes and their ilk—with their fear of the “spirit of history,” as it has been called here—who strut about on the lecterns, but when the true spirit of human development is spoken of from those very lecterns, only then will the time have dawned in which the destiny of humanity can be guided in a rational manner; for it must be recognized today that a rational practice—a practice beneficial to humanity—can only go hand in hand with that which is drawn from the spheres from which the development of humanity is, after all, guided.

[ 14 ] And, my esteemed audience, it will have become apparent from much of what has been presented here regarding mathematics, physics, psychology, and chemistry, how—in a way that might seem paradoxical in this day and age, I might say—Spiritual Science, when taken seriously, seeks to lead us toward the spirit. This Spiritual Science does not, on the basis of its insights, advocate all manner of mystical speculations about natural phenomena. Nor does this Spiritual Science advocate that kind of Sunday pastime of “knowledge” that, in a spiritist manner, summons spirits who apparently have nothing else to do but convince people, in the most convenient way possible, that a supersensory world exists. Spiritual Science wants nothing to do with such events in which, instead of serious knowledge, a “theater of knowledge” is presented to people. Spiritual Science specifically points out that one must maintain a rigorous stance toward the external world, opposing phenomenalism. And as paradoxical as it might seem, all such mystification, all such fanciful speculation, theorizing, and spiritualizing of any kind regarding external nature must fade away; for only when one confronts the pure phenomenon, when one perceives the pure phenomena with self-denial, does one come to develop, through the perception of these pure phenomena, those inner capacities that then lead directly to the spirit, to the true grasping of the spirit. It is a sin against the Spirit not to stop at the pure phenomenon, but to project all manner of things into the pure phenomena.

[ 15 ] This was demonstrated to you in detail across a wide variety of scientific fields, and it was shown to you in a field that must be particularly close to our hearts today—the field of education—how the human soul is permeated by a mindset that, on the one hand, stems from pure phenomenalism, but which, on the other hand, [must] be filled by us with the impulse of Spiritual Science—how, from a state of soul arising from these deeper foundations, a true pedagogy can emerge—a pedagogy that truly takes human nature into account, one that does so in such a way that, in a sense, it perceives in the developing human being, in the child, something like a continuous revelation. Ladies and gentlemen, let us ask: Where, then, is the visible source of that which continually propels humanity forward? From the gray depths of the spirit comes to us that which propels humanity forward, in that with each new generation something grows within us from these gray depths of the spirit through that which, by inheritance and in the other ways described to you in the course of these lectures, flows from the spiritual depths of the world into this physical world. Decadent denominations have always relied solely on that which human beings carry within themselves as a refined form of soul egoism. This leads them to ask: What will become of me when my body decays into dust? Spiritual Science is certainly able to provide an answer to this question based on its foundations of knowledge: What will become of me? But let us trace the spirit from which the decadent creeds speak. They appeal everywhere to the most selfish instincts of human beings—instincts that do not wish to perish when their bodies decay; they do not speak from knowledge, but to these selfish instincts. For as soon as one speaks from knowledge, one must speak not only of what lies beyond the gate of death, but also of what lies beyond the gate of birth—or, let us say, of conception. One must point not only to the spiritual worlds we enter after death, but also to the spiritual worlds we pass through before our birth or before our conception—whose impulses we carry down into the physical worlds and which we are meant to realize here. These matters have been discussed in detail from a wide variety of perspectives. But let us now, at the conclusion of our course, recall once more how differently the teacher stands before the developing human being, saying to themselves: “This human child brings something to me from the spiritual worlds, and its development has been entrusted to me.” Our Waldorf teachers, for example, carry this fundamental feeling through the classroom door every time they enter their class. And it is such feelings that matter, not abstract pedagogy.

[ 16 ] These feelings, this perspective that human beings have on the entire course of human development—that, my esteemed audience, is what imbues the art of education with such a profound human spirit that one can then speak so beautifully about what takes place in school, as Dr. von Heydebrand, for example, has done here before you. When one knows how to link the sensory world with the supersensory world in this way, then the enthusiasm arises that is necessary for the healing of our social life. Such enthusiasm must now also spring from educational impulses, as [Herbert] Hahn has described here for the workers’ educational efforts—efforts that do not rely on bourgeois-patriarchal impulses, but seek to listen to what the signs of the times are saying, to what is simply necessary out of the spirit of human development.

[ 17 ] And indeed, if one approaches the pure sciences in this way—I would say—and transfers them into the realm of pedagogy, thereby developing a sense of how vividly those things that inspire our ideas in human action can come to life, then one can translate what is knowledge into practical social thinking. That was what Dr. Boos, for example, sought to point out in his lectures on social life, and what the others sought to point out when they spoke about the social outcomes of our endeavors in Spiritual Science.

[ 18 ] You see, my esteemed audience, what Spiritual Science is all about is truly something extraordinarily serious—it is that which seeks to fully develop the powers that enable us to act in accordance with the signs of the times. But this also gives rise to a very specific kind—if I may use this often-misused word—of attitude. You see, my esteemed audience, time and again I encounter things of the sort that were handed to me on a slip of paper just now, as I entered this hall. It reads: Why does the social work of the anthroposophical movement proceed in a separatist manner? Wouldn’t cooperation with the religious-social movement provide a powerful impetus?—I ask you: Has the person who can raise such a question followed even the slightest trace of what this movement of Spiritual Science actually aims to achieve? Does the person who asks such a question have any sense of the seriousness with which the Spiritual Science is pursued? No, otherwise he would not be able to ask such questions at all. I do not hesitate to reject in the strongest terms whatever stems from such a mindset, for it is already clear today that whatever seeks to draw from such depths—including a social aspiration like Spiritual Science—must not, of its own accord, make compromises. And I can only ever give this answer: If someone has such a desire to join forces with the religious-socialists, let him either join them as an individual, or let him persuade the religious-socialists to join us. We are not concerned with separatism, but with bringing together all those forces that truly wish, at the very least, to understand the signs of the times.

[ 19 ] It is from such endeavors, my esteemed audience, that what bridges the gap between the realm of knowledge—the realm that is more the realm of knowledge—and the artistic realm emerges. And I have, in fact, spoken at some length about the artistic realm, drawing on what was to be realized here in this building. I have also been able to say a great deal to you about the artistic realm—albeit only in sketch form—drawing on what has been presented here regarding the art of declamation and the art of recitation. Where, then, have we ended up in such fields under the influence of our materialistic era, my esteemed audience? We have reached the point where, little by little, we no longer had any recitation at all. We have reached the point where we gradually no longer knew what declamation and recitation are—that they involve, in fact, the elevation of language into a certain sphere. The specific artistry of shaping prose in particular came to be regarded more and more as the true art of declamation, and a completely unartistic naturalism was introduced even into the art of acting, for example. It is precisely through the way it perceives the human being in his or her entirety that the Spiritual Sciences will be able to trace the intimate inner processes that take place in the practice of the art of singing and the art of declamation—processes that must gradually be taken in more and more by human consciousness.

[ 20 ] Well, my esteemed audience, when one works seriously in this way—drawing from very specific foundations that truly have nothing to do with the ultimate consequences of materialistic will—one cannot make any compromises. Ladies and gentlemen, I must strongly emphasize this point: that we cannot make any compromises, that we must follow our own path based on a correctly understood goal and on the sources to which our insight leads us. It is sometimes quite astonishing how little this is understood by some today. But we will have to stand firm on the position that we will not compromise in any direction. We want to earnestly strive for an artistic direction that springs from our spiritual sources. That is our sincere intention.

[ 21 ] The building stands there. In recent weeks, now that this building has been standing there, all sorts of people have been able to go inside. And you see, some people even liked this building—though for their own purposes. If we wanted to make compromises, oh, we could quickly make a name for ourselves with this building. For example, I need only tell you one thing: A few days ago, the entire troupe of Mr. Max Reinhardt from the former Deutsches Theater in Berlin approached us, seeking to stage their plays here in these rooms. It was considered quite convenient that we should strike a compromise with the Reinhardt crowd! No, we will not make any compromises, not even with the kind of art that emerges from materialistic underpinnings at the Reinhardt Theater! (Lively applause.) We will draw from the sources we have worked our way toward. And if the world denies us the means to do so, then we simply won’t finish what needs to be finished. But we will not seek to establish our connections with the world in such a way—even if they were to present themselves as good opportunities, as they might, for example, if here—as has been suggested to us—Mr. Moissi were to recite the Lord’s Prayer—I believe in Jedermann; that is the name of the famous play that is now being performed everywhere.

[ 22 ] What I wanted to suggest, my esteemed audience, is simply how convenient it would be for some people to exploit what is already there. We will ensure that it serves only its true purpose, its true goal. Ladies and gentlemen, a bridge can be built to a truly vibrant art precisely through a deepening of the Spiritual Science. And that a bridge can also be built to an honest religious sentiment—well, you will certainly have been able to sense that throughout everything that has been presented here. That we face particular difficulties in this regard—even here in free Switzerland—is something you could see for yourselves if you were to take note of all the slander and myths circulating here about our intentions and our very nature. But I do not wish to trouble you further with that. I merely wished, my esteemed audience, to highlight—with a few brief remarks, which of course could have been phrased quite differently—just as we are about to part ways, once again what truly inspires us. You will understand, precisely from this characterization of our goals, from everything that motivates our work, that it gives us great satisfaction that, in particular, those individuals who are deeply involved in scientific life or who are striving toward it were here among us today and wished to participate in what is being pursued here in this Goetheanum. And you will believe me when I assure you—I can give this assurance on behalf of all those who are sincere and genuine in their anthroposophically oriented endeavors in Spiritual Science—when I assure you that it was precisely this that gave us the deepest satisfaction: to see these very figures from the world of science here, for the time has come when our Spiritual Science, if it is to mean anything at all in the world, will have to be embraced by science.

[ 23 ] Some have found it strange that what—as it was said—is supposed to be a lofty spiritual endeavor has now condescended to social action. In the present age, one should actually regard any spiritual aspiration that does not seek to transition into social action as inwardly insincere. Only those ideas of knowledge are truly rooted within the human soul that find expression in social action, that are driven outward toward social action.

[ 24 ] Ladies and gentlemen, it was not our fault that our ideas on the threefold social order were gradually misunderstood, particularly among the broad circles of the newer proletariat. That was due to the proletarian leadership. And until the proletariat realizes that its greatest enemies are its leaders, it will not be able to bring itself to any kind of clarity. Even this has been said here in the last few days in the most varied ways—that what we write or have printed is, after all, inaccessible to the proletariat, too high-brow, and so on. One recognizes, my esteemed audience, in such a statement the imitation of the bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. For once the proletariat breaks free from parroting that science which has led it into materialism—a science that arose not on its own foundation but on a bourgeois foundation—then it will, above all, understand Spiritual Science. The Spiritual Science is there for all people and can be understood by all people. Admittedly, “bourgeois” in the sense that bourgeoisie has gradually transitioned into materialism—there is, of course, a different conception.

[ 25 ] I have certainly encountered many things in the course of my life. I mention nothing personal other than what may also be symptomatic of the general state of affairs. For many years, I also worked as a teacher at a workers’ educational school among the proletariat. But I have also given a variety of lectures to members of other social classes. For example, I once gave a lecture on literary history to a women’s society. It was a women’s society that had come into being because the men avoided engaging with anything intellectual, leaving it—as a “women’s matter”—to their wives. And so a course was organized in which I was to lecture on literary history. But on one occasion, these women had managed to organize an evening to which the men had also come, and they had asked me to speak about Goethe’s Faust for that evening. And I spoke about Goethe’s Faust in the way one can only speak to people who spend their days speculating on the stock market, or doing something similar—for example, healing the sick with current conventional medicine and the like. All these different circles were there. They all assured me that they had found it very difficult to understand what I had said—as popularly as possible—about Goethe’s Faust, because, they said, Goethe’s Faust was such a special thing; after all, Goethe’s Faust was not a play. That was the general opinion of those circles, which were, however, truly bourgeois and of quite high standing. Yes, if one has worked and toiled all day—people said—then one certainly cannot tackle Goethe’s Faust in the evening; Blumenthal is the right choice for that.

[ 26 ] I am merely quoting! — Gradually, those things that have essentially trickled down from this bourgeois mindset into the proletariat must disappear, and it is precisely that which contains the root causes of our actual decline that must vanish. One must seek them in the spiritual realm, and one must remedy them from within that spiritual realm. Therefore, a true, honest Spiritual Science today cannot present itself to the world without also offering social impulses. And these social impulses must be thoroughly examined from every possible perspective in order to truly understand the current state of the world.

[ 27 ] We must, of course, also speak here of that rift that entered Central European intellectual life in the first half of the 19th century. Mr. Rudolf Meyer from Berlin pointed out this intellectual rift particularly vividly in his discussion of Herbart’s pedagogy. At the same time, he indicated all the destructive forces connected precisely with this rift—or, to put it another way, with the intellectualization of, for example, the entire art of pedagogy. And it is true: this rift exists. In recent years in Central Europe, many words of Fichte and Goethe have been quoted. It was always dreadful when these things were quoted, for those who quoted them did not understand them, and those to whom they were quoted certainly did not understand them either, because this spiritual life has, for the time being, been buried. It must be revived. Today we have a spiritual life that exerts a certain one-sided influence throughout the entire world, but which is thoroughly imbued with what, for example, lived as a one-sided theory of evolution in Darwin, and what lived in Spencer, Huxley, and so on.

[ 28 ] Yes, but, my esteemed audience, what kind of thoughts are those that exist in that natural science, in science in general? — If we examine them impartially, we will discover what kind of thoughts they are. The ideas of today’s contemporary scientists are precisely those ideas that, I would say, belong only in economic life. If Herbert Spencer, if Huxley, if Darwin, and the others had become factory managers or heads of business enterprises, then their ideas would have been well-suited to that realm. For under the peculiar constellation that exists—due to the specific distribution of production, consumption, and trade—economic thinking has developed with particular sophistication in the Western world. But this way of thinking has, I would say, been improperly transplanted into all manner of scientific fields and into all manner of governmental affairs. It must remain within the realm for which it is actually intended. In contrast, we must find new paths for the scientific realm. Those who are Darwinists or Spencerians have often seen in Goethe nothing more than a precursor to Darwin. In the vast majority of my writings, I have sharply opposed this view, always pointing out: While all sorts of specific achievements may have been made through the ideas of Darwin and Spencer, if we are to make progress, we must embrace Goetheanism; we need that which is greater than the supposed insights of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, in all fields, one must learn to place oneself within the course of human development by undertaking to understand the workings of the spiritual powers and forces in this course of human development from the perspective of anthroposophy.

[ 29 ] Now I would like to address in particular—but, I should say, so that the others may hear as well—those who are students, my dear fellow students who were here this time, and I would like to say only this to you: You see, my dear fellow students, we are still in a unique situation today—I have even hinted at this to you in other places—we are still in a unique situation in that we can only offer you that which we believe will become great and significant in your souls, so that you may become our partners in humanity’s necessary striving for progress. We cannot grant you any degrees, offices, or titles today, as long as we are unable to intervene more forcefully in what is also necessary: the emancipation of spiritual life from the state and from economic life. But only if we find a sufficient number of people and human personalities of your kind who can recognize the possibilities for growth that must surely lie in the pursuit of Spiritual Science, as understood here—if we find individuals from your circles who are willing to fight alongside us with sincerity and courage, and who will make the circle of fellow fighters ever larger and larger— then the time will also come when nothing will stand in the way of those who strive from science into life being able to stand firmly on the ground of anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science, without stumbling over the obstacles and hindrances of the external world. And we would like to cherish the hope that you—who, as the pioneers of our cause from the student body, were here this time to our deep satisfaction—may be so fortunate that you, in droves and ever-growing droves, may gradually join the pursuit of Spiritual Science. Out of the very heart we hold here for Spiritual Science, we had to welcome you, and out of that same heart we will accompany you in your work for our cause as you now go out into the world once more to your work—which, at the same time, should at least in some respects be a collaboration with our endeavor.

[ 30 ] And those from the broadest circles who have participated in what has been organized here this time will have become convinced that there is nothing here that stems from a frivolous pursuit, nor of any personal preference, nor of what might arise from a superficial interest in all manner of mysticism and the like; rather, there is something here that springs from those depths of the human soul where conscience is formed for the great tasks of humanity.

[ 31 ] Ladies and gentlemen, since this is just the beginning, may what we have accomplished so far—however inadequate it may be —and we can readily admit that—no matter how inadequate it may be, nothing could deter us—not even if it were proven to us that it is inadequate—from continuing to strive along this path, except perhaps this: if we were to find that others are striving better. Then we would gladly set our inadequacy aside and step back. But as long as we cannot find that others are striving better, it remains our most sacred duty to strive in our own way, guided by the conscience of the spirit of humanity. And it was in this spirit that we warmly welcomed you all here three weeks ago today; it is in this spirit that we speak to you today—we who wish to continue our work here—as we send you our warmest farewells, farewells that express the belief that such events must generate ever more and more strength for that which leads to the dawn of humanity, not to the looming twilight. We were glad that you were all here; we hold out the hope that what has begun with this course may be repeated time and again, that it may be repeated before ever more and more people. But above all, we hold out the hope that what I called just this noon the completion of the work here may come to pass. What is intended here will only truly be complete when those who have seen, heard, and felt here go out into the world and each, according to their ability, continues to work in their own place. Then each person will be a building block. Then that great edifice of spiritual life, artistic essence, and social effectiveness will unfold—the very thing we truly and necessarily need today for the restoration of humanity.

[ 32 ] With this sentiment, my esteemed guests, let us part ways today and hope that we will gather here again in the not-too-distant future to continue our work of making the building blocks necessary for this great edifice of humanity ever more suitable and fit for purpose.

[ 33 ] In this spirit, I extend to you my warmest farewell greetings from the bottom of my heart, and from the hearts of all those who work honestly, truthfully, and sincerely for the cause symbolized by this building, where we have been privileged to spend some time together, contributing to the aspirations of humanity.