The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Eighth Lecture

[ 1 ] We have reached the end of our college courses. We have now completed a series of lectures given by individuals who have been working within our anthroposophical Spiritual Science for quite some time. We have also completed a number of seminars designed to expand upon what was presented in a more or less sketchy manner during the various lectures. Although we must acknowledge that the esteemed participants have had a busy period, we must also take into account the nature of this event and how it necessitated such a schedule. After all, we could do nothing other than, so to speak, let the light—which we believe exists within our anthroposophically oriented Spiritual Science—stream in through individual windows into a building. And when you consider that what lies within the space that opens up through such symbolically intended windows to the movement of Spiritual Science—that within this space there is abundant and coherent work of the most varied kinds, which, of course, presupposes that, since it is only a beginning, far more extensive work will yet follow—when you consider all of this, then you will realize that, naturally, only an extremely small portion could come to light during the course of these events of what, I might say, lies more in terms of intention behind these and other similar events of ours.

[ 2 ] What we particularly aim to achieve at events such as this one is to ensure, in every way possible, that the student body is invited to attend these events—and, to our delight, has already turned out in large numbers on several occasions. And if you look at our intentions, you will at least see that we wish to be conscious of this fact, which is so extraordinarily gratifying and significant for our movement. For the first thing we would like to demonstrate—even if only in a very sketchy way—is that genuine scientific rigor prevails in this anthroposophical movement. Even if other spiritual intentions may also be at work behind it, that will have to be demonstrated in other ways. That serious scientific endeavor—at least in terms of intention—is at work behind it is what these events are intended to demonstrate above all else. But given the circumstances of our time, anyone who understands these circumstances must say: Such scientific rigor, such a scientific spirit—which is directly connected to the living conditions of the individual and of humanity—must today also prove itself in a certain way within a very specific field, and it must be possible to demonstrate that it proves itself within that specific field. That field is the social sphere.

[ 3 ] It is essential that the scientific spirit of our time give rise to ideas that are capable and powerful enough to bring about social healing in social life. It is not enough today for us to have a scientific spirit that draws people into an otherworldly existence; rather, we need a scientific spirit that develops within humanity that which can provide the impetus for the healing of our social existence. The social question stands before us, enigmatic in many respects, urgently demanding, but in many ways even threatening, and anyone who understands even a little about our times must say to themselves: Questions demand solutions today that can only be resolved if those who embrace the scientific spirit have insight into the conditions of social life. We believe we recognize this from the most significant signs of the times. From this insight, the anthroposophical movement has emerged; conceived artistically, scientifically, and in other cultural terms, it has become the center of our work: the Dornach complex, the School of Spiritual Science, and the Goetheanum in Dornach. We want to be aware that, out of genuine scientific rigor, we can awaken within ourselves impulses that can now truly have a social impact.

[ 4 ] Well, we tried to structure our lectures in such a way we tried to introduce the seminar papers in such a way that it might have become apparent how we strive for a true scientific spirit within the anthroposophical movement, and how far removed we are from all sectarianism, the founding of new religions, and similar things that are attributed to us by this or that group—groups that either do not know us at all, know us very poorly, or wish to slander us maliciously. But the scientific spirit cannot manifest itself in the empirical content of what is presented scientifically; and anyone who would exclude any empirical content—be it of a physical-sensory or supersensory nature—from scientific validity from the outset would not themselves be imbued with the scientific spirit. The scientific spirit can manifest itself only in the method of approach. A scientific spirit can manifest itself only in the methodology pursued, and it is only by this that one can determine whether we present to the world—based on sensory or supersensory experiences—in a scientific spirit; that is, one assesses whether, in our approach and methodology, we strive for the spirit of scientific rigor that prevails in the recognized sciences. Whether we strive for this in our approach, in our way of thinking, and in our scientific rigor—that alone we treat as a legitimate matter for discussion; we regard it as a matter for discussion also insofar as this scientific spirit, as it is practiced among us, may require improvement. And one can be certain that it is in this realm of approach and methodology that what will determine the scientific nature of our movement must be established—not in the realm of the content of any particular experience. If it can be demonstrated that we proceed illogically, amateurishly, or in any other way unscientifically in any given field here or there, then let it be done, and since we are seriously committed to the proper advancement of our Spiritual Science endeavors, if it is proven that we have acted illogically or amateurishly, we will, without any resistance, implement the necessary improvements in our work. In this regard, too, we will in no way deny the principle of progress. — So much for what must underlie the discussion of the scientific or unscientific nature of our endeavors.

[ 5 ] In the social sphere, we have sought to put into practice in our lives what seems to emerge from our understanding of the world. We have, so to speak, brought into the real discussion what we believe we must strive for as the truth regarding our understanding of humanity and the world. In the seminar exercises, we have shown how the Waldorf school movement, which emerged from the anthroposophical movement, through its living practice of teaching and educational approaches to human beings, in a sense puts to the test whether what is discovered through our Spiritual Science can also prove itself in the development of the growing human being, and we would like people to see that we by no means wish to exhaust ourselves in fruitless theoretical discussions, but rather that we want reality itself to test what we believe we must strive for as truth. “Only what is fruitful is true,” says Goethe. And truth must also be validated by its fruitfulness, even by those who are far removed from the philosophy of modern pragmatism or the “as-if” approach. In the Goethean sense, we can certainly agree that what is fruitful alone also provides proof of its truth before reality, especially when it comes to social truths. If that which flows vividly out of Spiritual Science can in turn flow vividly back into life, and if life can show that what arises under the influence of recognized or supposed truth is something that places people in existence as capable, full of vitality, with inner security, and with a zest and strength for work, then this is, in a certain sense, indeed real proof of the truth we seek. On the other hand, we have attempted something—which is, admittedly, still very much in its infancy—I would say: to be able to bring about change through real proof. We have experimented with economic matters in The Coming Day and Futurum, through which we aim to demonstrate that what arises spiritually from reality also provides the possibility of seeing the matters of practical life in the right light. It is certainly not yet time to speak of these matters as already somehow demonstrating that they fulfill the necessary conditions. But at least one thing should be acknowledged about us in this field as well: that we have not shied away from bringing into the practical realms of life what was actually gained in a purely spiritual realm, yet with a sense of reality, and that in doing so we demonstrate, at any rate, that we do not shy away from empirical evidence. However things may develop in this field, this may not be enough to fully determine our course of action, because in such matters—much more so than in the science of education and instruction—we are dependent on the influences of external life and on the understanding we find among our fellow human beings and in our environment.

[ 6 ] When we try in this way to take into account the signs of the times—which, I would say, directly present us with the demands of Spiritual Science, as evidenced by various points made here—and which, on the other hand, present us with the great social questions, we are nevertheless striving above all to take into account the inner spiritual needs of human beings. Fundamentally, for anyone who looks into these matters, it is easy—in a specialized field, let’s say in the natural sciences or in some other specialized field—to harbor the belief that one is operating within an infallible method, within an infallible scientific approach. But isn’t that which presents itself as science ultimately only truly fruitful for the development of all humanity if it fits into this human development in such a way that it sustains human life? And based on this premise, I ask you: Isn’t there something in today’s universities or similar institutions that can have a very misleading effect on the human soul? Certainly, one can enter a physics laboratory, one can work in the dissection room, and one can believe that one is working with an absolutely correct method, and that one can truly survey all the relevant factors and grasp them completely—relatively completely, of course, in accordance with the constraints of time and the stage of human development. But something else is necessary for human development. What is necessary is something that perhaps does not occur on a large enough scale and whose significance is not properly appreciated. It is necessary that those who have worked with a sound scientific spirit and with serious scientific diligence in the chemistry laboratory, at the observatory, or in the clinic, may now also enter the lecture hall for history, literary history, or art history and hear something there that lives in an inner communion with what they have worked out in their respective institutions. It is necessary, in fact, for such unity to exist because what is developed in the individual specialized fields must ultimately interact within the overall process of human development—even if individual people specialize to the greatest extent—and must therefore also spring from unified sources.

[ 7 ] Because we believe that it is not possible today to directly experience this unity between, let us say, the chair of history and the chair of natural sciences, we therefore strive for something that lies behind the entirety of scientific endeavor and that can be derived from what is common to all: spiritual reality. We direct our efforts toward the recognition of this spiritual reality; with our meager strength, we seek to establish its validity and legitimacy, and in this and similar events, we have, so to speak, strived to enable you, my esteemed fellow students, to observe how we go about this, how we do it—and we are pleased that you have come. And if I may, so to speak, briefly touch upon a specific point, let it be this. A long-time collaborator in our Spiritual Science movement recently had a conversation with me. He pointed out that I must, after all, speak from a spiritual-scientific foundation about the two boys named Jesus. He had never before spoken to me of his intention to conscientiously investigate this matter in a purely external context. He spoke to me about it only very recently, after he had completed his research. He told me that he had thoroughly compared the Gospels with one another and, through a simple comparison of the Gospels, had found that these Gospels only make sense with regard to certain factual accounts when viewed from a perspective that has only recently been established through Spiritual Science.

[ 8 ] May we proceed in this way in all fields. If we do so, then we have not the slightest concern that our Spiritual Science will be able to endure. For we do not fear scrutiny, no matter how deeply it delves into the details. We are not afraid of verification. We are only somewhat concerned about those who approach our views without examining them, without engaging specifically in the examination of the details. The more carefully people examine our work, the more at ease we can be with our spiritual research. This is the awareness we carry deep within us, and only with such an awareness can we ultimately take responsibility for calling upon you—those of you who are striving to shape your lives out of science and the scientific spirit. My dear fellow students, we do not yet have the opportunity today to offer you aspects of external life in the same way as they might be offered to you in places where our endeavors are sometimes rejected in such a peculiar manner. But we may perhaps be justified in concluding from your presence that there are still souls among today’s youth for whom the pursuit of truth and the quest for truth are of paramount importance. Therefore, we confess—and this may well be said from the bottom of our hearts, and I know that in saying this I am expressing what the other instructors in these courses would also say of their own accord— we confess from the bottom of our hearts that we have been exceptionally pleased and delighted to work together with you here, and this gives us, in a certain sense, particular satisfaction precisely because, on the other hand, out of a truly biased desire, slanderous attacks are pouring down on us today, and, strangely enough, we are repeatedly and persistently being asked to refute these attacks. We do as much as we can to refute them, and as much as our time allows. But one should bear in mind that whoever makes an assertion must, for their part, provide proof of its truth. Otherwise, one could hurl any arbitrary assertion at anyone and demand that they refute all these accusations. Accusations sometimes arise from very unusual quarters. One of these attacks—to which the others mostly trace back—is based on the fact that the gentleman in question, who is leading this attack, was once one of the most intrusive members of the anthroposophical movement—I say this fully aware of the full weight of my words—one of the most intrusive members of the anthroposophical movement. And this gentleman approached our Philosophisch-Anthroposophischer Verlag with a manuscript that was half plagiarism from my as-yet-unpublished writings and half spiritualist nonsense. Our publishing house could not accept his work, and within a few weeks he transformed from an intrusive follower into an opponent who hurls mud at us, going so far as to make claims of such a caliber that, for example, he blames me for the unfortunate state of health of a person with whom I have spoken only a few times in my life—and then only very briefly. Such is the nature of these “truths,” and in some cases the world currently does not believe them to be lies simply because one does not usually assume that lies can be told with such intensity. I do not wish to trouble you further with these matters. But I merely wanted to point out those areas where our opponents resort to personal slander instead of attempting to engage seriously with our arguments through discussion.

[ 9 ] Well, what people hold against us so strongly is that, on one important point, we must indeed oppose well-meaning contemporary trends. We cannot simply go along with the general trend of having popularizers spread traditional scholarship in a wide variety of fields to the widest possible audience; rather, based on our understanding, we must believe that it is still necessary to enter those institutions that today so often consider themselves infallible—institutions to which such great authority is accorded, and which are believed to to be able to accept unaltered what they wish to popularize—that we must bring into these institutions certain scientific elements that are not yet present there, to enrich their scientific character. Because we do not merely wish to carry the spirit of science out from certain institutions into the wider world, but because we also wish to bring a different spirit of science into them, that is why we are met with such fierce hostility in so many respects. These matters should, of course, be examined by a broader world with complete calm and objectivity. For we must openly admit that, even though each of us is convinced of the intrinsic scientific nature of our endeavors, we very seriously need the cooperation of broader circles; and what weighs most heavily on us, what causes us the greatest concern, is that we have so few collaborators who can truly stand their ground. That is why it is so valuable to us that, for some time now, young students have been coming to us. We place our trust in these young students. We believe that their youthful energy can give rise to precisely what we need. That is why we would like to collaborate with you in particular, dear fellow students, in our field, as time permits. We have tried to let this spirit permeate the work we intended to do within these courses as well. Perhaps you will take away the conviction that it is, at the very least, our aspiration to work in this direction.

[ 10 ] I assumed that I had said: What we were able to offer you, I would like to compare to a closed room that opens through windows onto the outer world of Spiritual Science, and we wanted to let fragments of what we are striving to develop as a world of knowledge through Spiritual Science shine in through these windows. — Returning once more to this comparison with which I began, I would like—as I warmly greet you at the conclusion of this course and cordially bid you “Goodbye until we meet again on similar occasions”—to add this: It is generally not my habit to rely on clichés, even when they are time-honored, but I would like to return everywhere to what is the simple expression of truth. It often appears as a grand phrase in our literary and intellectual histories as Goethe’s last words as he lay dying: “Light, more light!”—Well, Goethe was lying in a small room in a dark corner as he was dying, and the window opposite had its shutters closed. Based on my knowledge of Goethe, I have every reason to believe that the words, in plain truth, were: “Open the shutters!”—But even as I act heretically toward my beloved and revered Goethe by treating this grand phrase in such a manner, I would still like to call out these simpler words to you at the conclusion of our course, saying: To you, my esteemed fellow students, to you I call out—as we stand with you in this space that opens its windows to spiritual insight, through which we have attempted, fragmentarily, to let in what we believe to be light—to you I call out from the spirit that has guided us to summon you here; to you I call out: Open the shutters!