The Rudolf Steiner Archive

4. Spiritual Science, Freedom of Thought, and Social Forces

[ 1 ] A kind of nightmare can settle upon the soul of anyone observing humanity’s current cultural life—a sort of constriction of the tormented heart—when one realizes how few people there still are who are willing to look with an unbiased eye at how we are on a downward slope with regard to the most important branches of our cultural life. This downward spiral has, after all, become sufficiently apparent through the events of recent years, through everything that has befallen humanity. Yet we still find, in many cases today, that people succumb to the notion that—unless something drastic is done—things must at least remain at the level of chaos we have already reached, and that we can now continue working from what is already there; the rest will work itself out. Time and again over the years, I have had to speak out against this sense of the times, pointing out how necessary it is, through re-learning and rethinking, to find the inclination—rooted in the deepest foundations of spiritual and cultural life—to conceive of a genuine rebuilding of our social conditions and our public life. And even if there is already a small number of people today who have come to realize—as all signs indicate—that without such far-reaching ‘ action, we will have to continue down this slippery slope further and further, even among these few people one can find only limited understanding of what is required—out of the earnest striving for a new metamorphosis of the human spirit—to bring about a recovery, a healing of many a ailment that is currently playing out on the slippery slope of our cultural life.

[ 2 ] There are three phenomena from which the most important insight for understanding our time and what is necessary within it can emerge. The first I would like to call the principal deficiency of our time. For decades, lectures on Spiritual Science have sought to point out this principal deficiency, as well as various consequences that must follow from this deficiency—namely, an insufficient understanding and insight into spiritual life itself—for the development of humanity in the present and the near future. The second thing, which speaks loudly and clearly from the facts of the present, I would like to call the central demand. And this central demand has been resonating in many hearts for more than a century, ever since the time when Schiller had his character in *Don Carlos* utter the words: “Grant freedom of thought!” Anyone who looks more deeply into the social and spiritual life of our time will be able to see how, behind much of what people today consciously formulate as this or that social demand, there actually lies the demand for the free expression of the innermost human being—human thought. Many people stand, sighing, under the constraints of their intellectual lives, which stem either from old, established institutions or from the new economic conditions. They find their free intellectual development hindered either by officially held beliefs or by the pressures of economic life. What actually lives within the soul remains largely unconscious; but what rises into consciousness is expressed in the feeling that one cannot be satisfied with anything; that there is something preventing people from openly and freely acknowledging to themselves: “I am entitled to lead a life worthy of a human being.” And so the most diverse programs arise, which contain very beautiful ideas but do not reach down to the depths of the soul to see what actually lives there. If one searches for what lives there, it is the longing for the freest expression of one’s innermost being—for what could be summed up by the contemporary demand for freedom of thought. And one need only utter the words “social forces”—and one can sense how this points to the fact that modern intellectual, legal, political, and economic conditions have ushered us into an age in which the productive forces of life operate in complex ways, and how we are unable, based on what we intellectually master and what we seek to systematically address, to organize these social forces—into which human beings are woven—in such a way that, within this organization, the individual who has become conscious of their humanity can satisfactorily answer the question: Am I leading a life worthy of a human being?

[ 3 ] I may assume that the majority of the audience gathered here today have, over the course of many years, been able to glean from the lectures and the writings—which elaborate on the content of these lectures and which I have published—what the inner meaning and spirit of the Spiritual Science referred to here are. This Spiritual Science believes that, out of a necessity of the times, it must engage with contemporary cultural life. Today, since I may refer to the numerous lectures already given here, I need only touch upon a few fundamental points. Above all, however, I would like to begin by pointing out once again something that has already been discussed in various forms.

[ 4 ] When people speak of Spiritual Science, the outside world often associates it with all manner of convoluted mysticism, convoluted theosophy, and so on. Although the Spiritual Science does its best to clarify its true meaning, it is still spoken of in the widest circles today in a way that represents the exact opposite of what the Spiritual Science actually aims to be. First and foremost, the proponents of this Spiritual Science feel that, over the past three to four centuries, a way of thinking has taken hold within humanity that dominates our entire lives and has found its most significant expression in the conceptual framework of modern natural science. Please do not misunderstand me on this point. I do not wish to give the impression that I assume this way of thinking pervades only those who have received some kind of scientific education. That is not the case; rather, people from the broadest circles—down to those with a very primitive culture and education—who today seek enlightenment about the nature of the human being, about the nature of social life, and about the nature of the universe as well, think in this way and conceive of things in a manner that has, for the most part, found expression through natural science. And it is no wonder that this is the case, for our entire life—the life that surrounds us and into which we are woven all day long—is, in essence, a result of this scientific way of thinking.

[ 5 ] Those who have heard me speak often know that I do not underestimate this scientific way of thinking, and that I certainly acknowledge its great triumphs. But it has achieved these triumphs precisely because it has been able to take such a magnificent hold on a part of our practical life—because, over the course of the last three to four centuries, it has become spectacularly one-sided. Everything people think in this direction is based on an understanding of inanimate nature—the physical and the chemical—which then spills over into technology, into everything that underlies the structures of our lives, and which also finds its way, for example, into our methods of healing—that is, into those insights that are intended to be helpful to human life from a certain perspective. But anyone who recognizes, without prejudice, just how immense the advances of the scientific way of thinking have been in the biological, physical, and chemical realms, and who is able to appreciate the significance of what conscientious methodology has achieved in this regard, will at the same time be able to fully grasp the limitations of this scientific way of thinking. I have explained this countless times here, and I would now like to summarize it in the following words: Anyone who delves more deeply into what we today call genuine natural science will find that this natural science provides excellent insights into inanimate nature and into that aspect of the living world which, I might say, consists of inclusions within this inanimate nature. But there is one thing before which we must pause precisely when we survey the scope of knowledge offered by the scientific way of thinking: we must pause before the very essence of the human being. There is no way—unless one wishes to indulge in self-deception—to believe that these views, which have led us so deeply into the inanimate world and have “taken us so wonderfully far” in our technical achievements, can provide any insight into the essence of the human being. This insight into the nature of the human being—which can be known by anyone who does not cling to that conventional fable, which, though not history, is called history—this understanding of the human being was, up until a time three to four centuries ago, something instinctive to humankind. A certain understanding of human nature arose from a primal, elemental instinct of humankind. But just as the individual human being undergoes a process of development, so too does all of humanity. And humanity has now—no matter how much one might claim otherwise out of delusion—reached a point in its development where it can no longer judge the human being based solely on instinct, where it is necessary for humanity to consciously penetrate the very essence of the human being, just as it has had to consciously penetrate the phenomena of external natural life since Copernicus and Galileo. When one reaches the decisive point where one must pause, with the natural sciences, before gaining insight into the human essence, there is nothing left but to turn to what I have often referred to as the intellectual humility necessary for human beings—the very foundation upon which the pursuit of true human development can be built.

[ 6 ] Anyone who cannot develop this intellectual humility out of a genuine sense of knowledge will not be able to arrive at a true understanding of the human being. One must be able to say to oneself: I see a five-year-old child, and I give him a volume of Goethe’s lyric poems. The child looks at it; perhaps it tears the book apart. It faces the same challenges as the adult who has undergone a process of development, so that the adult can truly find what speaks to him or her in this volume of poetry. But just as one must acknowledge that the child must first develop in order to relate properly to what is before it, so too must one say today: Just as human beings are placed into existence by nature, they stand before human life itself like a five-year-old child stands before a volume of Goethe’s poems, unless they have the will to carry their development beyond what is commonly regarded today as the only possible methods. One must take one’s own development into one’s own hands. But then it becomes apparent that there are unknown, hidden powers within this human being that can be awakened and that provide a scientific understanding just as rigorous as any natural science can offer—yet these powers go beyond the knowledge of the external world, the sensory world, and lead into the supersensible, guiding us only then to truly penetrate the essence of the human being. We must be able to admit: With the ordinary faculties that suffice for understanding nature, we cannot approach the human being. We can do so only if we draw out from the depths of the human soul those powers of cognition that otherwise lie dormant within us, just as the powers of understanding do in a five-year-old child.—

[ 7 ] And so the Spiritual Science referred to here holds the view that it is possible, starting from a standpoint sufficient for understanding external, inanimate nature, to lead human beings on to perspectives of knowledge from which one can truly penetrate the human being. This Spiritual Science does not wish to be idle musing in inner mysticism, nor does it wish to employ any external machinations to advance toward the spirit; rather, it wishes to be something that builds so strictly upon that for which human beings are truly capable of development, just as a mathematician builds upon the development of those abilities that are also drawn entirely from within the human being. The Spiritual Science aims to be as strictly logical as any other branch of science, but it seeks to apply this logic only to what emerges as spiritual insight when what lies dormant within the human being is truly awakened in a natural way. In my book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?*, I have pointed out that it is entirely inner, soul-spiritual methods through which this development of inner, spiritual-soul forces in the human being is brought about, and how, through this, an “eye of the spirit,” to use Goethe’s words, a soul-ear, a spiritual ear, so that he may see and hear the spiritual and the soul-world—for which, in essence, we have only words today. There, it is pointed out that it is essential to continually cultivate a certain strengthening of the life of thought. I have pointed out how a certain self-discipline—taking control of that development in which we would otherwise simply leave ourselves to the course of life—is necessary so that the spiritual eye and the spiritual ear may open.

[ 8 ] Most people today are still quite hostile toward anything that comes from this side. And yet, one need only point out how, in our time—when social demands are springing up everywhere—the most antisocial impulses are running rampant. Where do these come from? They stem from the fact that people essentially pass each other by without understanding one another and that they do not comprehend one another. And why do they not comprehend one another? Because what they call insight, what they call their knowledge, does not penetrate the whole human being; because it remains in the head; because it is limited to the mere intellect: This is the distinctive feature of the Spiritual Science referred to here: that the insights it provides through its developed powers engage the whole human being; that they speak not only to the intellect, not only to the mind, but that they permeate feeling and will; that they infuse feeling with an understanding of humanity, an understanding of all that lives and weaves alongside and beyond us, that it pulses through the will with ethics, with moral teaching, with a social attitude that simultaneously influences immediate practical life.

[ 9 ] This Spiritual Science does not recognize that unfortunate division—which is discussed on every street corner today—between mental and manual labor. What, after all, is our manual labor? It is nothing other than the use of our physical tools in the service of our will. But if we are clear about the fact—and I have often spoken of this as well—that this will, as a spiritual force, permeates everything we do as whole human beings and, in turn, radiates back to the intellect in our heads—if we truly keep the whole human being in mind, only then will we understand the innermost impulse of the Spiritual Science.

[ 10 ] Please forgive me if I mention something personal on this occasion. But in this case, a personal note will actually be helpful in clarifying the factual points. The Goetheanum, which is intended to serve Spiritual Science discussed here, is being built on the Dornach Hill in northwestern Switzerland—a part of the Jura Mountains—and is conceived as a School of Spiritual Science. When work began on founding this School of Spiritual Science and dedicating a physical building to it, the idea was not to go to just anyone who, based on old architectural or artistic concepts, would have built a structure into which we would then move in order to practice Spiritual Science. No, it had to be something else. From the very beginning, this Spiritual Science was conceived as so fruitful that it can intervene in the entire external cultural life, that it can truly breathe new life into what has become outdated in our art, in our architecture, in our lives, and in our work. So one could not simply commission someone to say: “Build me a structure in the Greek, Romanesque, Gothic, or any other architectural style.” Rather, just as other thoughts of life and other impulses of life arise from this Spiritual Science itself, so too did the architectural ideas emerge, dictating: “This is how this building must be in every line, in every single form.” And so the building was undertaken in such a way that it would indeed be, in every single one of its forms—even the smallest—the outward crystallization of what underlies the Spiritual Science as a mode of thought and as a disposition.

[ 11 ] And so perhaps I may share the following personal anecdote: It was in the fall of 1913 and winter of 1914 that I myself crafted the model of this building—the entire structure in miniature. Now that I have created the model—which even served as the basis for the architectural drawings—I ask: Was what I crafted by hand—was that manual labor or mental work? It was something where both merged and functioned as a single unit. I know this because I was the one who actually did it. Then again: There is hardly anything about this building where I, like every single worker, haven’t lent a hand here and there. And for anyone who might be interested, I’d like to say: We are working on a nine-and-a-half-meter-tall wooden sculpture group as the centerpiece of this building, which is intended to represent the human enigma of our time, but in an artistic form. The task there was to create a sculptural work in wood. Although the work is artistic, it is—if I may use the expression—wood carving, and I could even show you the calluses on my fingers, which prove that intellectual labor is carried out here through direct manual work from morning to night.

[ 12 ] Recently, we had a certain financial matter to decide; we had to have the chairs made. We asked for a cost estimate. The price was outrageous. So we made a model of a chair ourselves in our art studio, working together with a craftsman who is, in fact, exceptionally skilled. When the model was finished—the chair will cost only two-fifths of what it would have cost according to the other proposal—it was once again impossible to say where the intellectual work ends and the manual labor begins.

[ 13 ] One might even say: Given the way we collaborate in our social life with our coworkers—who consist of friends of our movement on the one hand and workers on the other—there is really only one obstacle; without it, it would become clear that intellectual work and manual labor converge everywhere. For example, we have a woman who is certified as a medical assistant and who sharpens the knives for our sculptural work from morning until evening. And we might ask: What is preventing what those we call “intellectual workers” accomplish from simply flowing seamlessly into what the manual laborers do, to the fullest satisfaction of both parties, resulting in the most fully satisfying form of social cooperation? Yes, I certainly understand everything that has emerged as social phenomena. Nevertheless, I must say: If I am to speak of the single obstacle that makes it impossible for both manual labor and intellectual work to be entrusted to the hands of the manual laborer, it is the fact that the workers are organized and view with suspicion everything that comes from the intellectual workers, who are, after all, actually doing the same thing.

[ 14 ] How is it, then, that today there is, in essence, such a deep chasm between what lies in our art, in our science—in short, in our intellectual life and also in the intellectual guidance of our social life—and the practical work with which the proletarian movement is primarily concerned today? This gulf has arisen because that which concerns the whole human being has fled from our way of thinking. A remedy for this lies only in Spiritual Science, not in a one-sided, convoluted mysticism or theosophy that idle people may pursue in their little rooms without any driving force. The healing power of Spiritual Science lies in the fact that it engages the whole human being. And I have said this now in order to make the following point: I know that the insights I represent today before the world with full responsibility would not have come to me if I had worked only with my head, if I had not had to devote my entire life to what is commonly called manual labor; for this, too, has a certain effect on the human being. What is merely so-called “mental work”—what engages only the intellect—does not reach as far as the spirit. And I would like to mention something here that will seem highly paradoxical to many people today. Out there in practical life, people say: manual labor, practice; while indoors, from the perspective of the intellect: intellectual work! Oh no, it is not at all as these words would have us believe. We have this separation between outward practical life and so-called spiritual life because the spirit has withdrawn from both; because we are caught up today in the mechanical grind of technology; because the worker stands at the machine and performs merely mechanical tasks according to the instructions of the intellect, and because, on the other hand, those who are educated for an intellectual life are not sufficiently immersed in real, practical work. Just as spiritless as our practical life is, so too is our intellectualistic “spiritual” life. Only when what can arise solely from the whole human being—through the harmonious activity of everything that constitutes a human being—flows back from the full activity of the human being in the world into our minds and into our thinking, only then, when we do not merely think with our heads, but think as one thinks after having shaped something with one’s hands and felt how that radiates back into the head—only then will the thought be so fully saturated with reality that there is spirit within it. That which is merely conceived is just as spiritless as the work done spiritlessly at a machine.

[ 15 ] The Spiritual Science referred to here should pursue a form of mysticism that is not detached from life. It should spring from a full immersion in life and should, in fact, be far more saturated with reality than what is commonly understood today as “spiritual life.” Or is what is meant by “spiritual life” today really saturated with reality? Do we not see how powerless science is to truly grasp the spirit? People who are generally immersed in our contemporary culture believe they are practicing unbiased natural science. But this unbiased natural science—how did it actually come about? It arose because, over many centuries, everything people longed to know about the soul and the spirit—about that which extends beyond birth and death—left them, due to social conditions, dependent on what the religious denominations had monopolized. When the spirit of modern science began to emerge—what was the situation actually like in social life at that time? Everything that people were permitted to know about the soul and the spirit was monopolized—monopolized within the dogmas of the denominational societies. People were not allowed to think about the soul and the spirit; they were only allowed to think about the external sensory world. And those who pursued the natural sciences came to accept this state of affairs. They grew accustomed to thinking and researching only the external sensory world, because for centuries it had been forbidden to investigate the spirit and the soul. They translated this into certain mental images and pursued only the science of the external senses. Through a self-deception of monumental proportions, this then gave rise to the belief that exact science could only make determinations about the external sensory world, and that research into the soul and spirit lay beyond the boundaries of knowledge. Yet this belief is also rooted in the inner life of modern human beings and permeates all of life. With such a perspective, one can gain fruitful insights into nature. But as soon as one seeks to penetrate social life, this way of thinking is insufficient. There, in order to establish a true science of the people—a true social science that can also intervene in life—it is necessary for us to imbue ourselves with a view of the whole human being. And this is what we lack, because the influences I have described have prevented it.

[ 16 ] And so it came to pass that people said to themselves: The mind and the soul are concepts that have been defined by dogma for centuries. They cannot be studied. They are something that, through human will alone, hovers like smoke and mist over real life, and so what is perceived as reality is nothing other than the economic forces themselves. Disbelief arose: the spiritual reigns in what the external economic forces are. And out of this disbelief arose what has fatally taken root in people’s minds and hearts. The belief arose that spiritual life could develop on its own from economic forces, if only these were organized in a certain way. There is no understanding that everything that has arisen economically is originally the result of spiritual life; but that our spiritual life has become alienated from the world; that there is a gulf between it and external life; and that, for the healing of our lives, we need a true Spiritual Science that penetrates the essence of the human being, that permeates the human being just as external natural science permeates the machine—but which must be built upon the developed powers of human nature. In short, it is exceedingly difficult to recognize that Spiritual Science must become the foundation for understanding and mastering social life. This is what the bearer of Spiritual Science believes he has recognized: that the human intellect lacks sufficient driving force—even where it pulsates in today’s social life—to immerse itself in real life, and that the latter must descend further and further into chaos unless the impulses are revitalized—those that reach into feeling and willing, which can position people toward one another in such a way that social forces can be organized. Take whatever you will from the methods of natural science—from that exact natural science that has reached its peak in our time—you cannot use them to establish a social science. The mental images one gains without the help of the Spiritual Science stand in relation to the social sciences much as, for example, a paint does when one tries to apply it to an oily surface. Just as the oily surface repels the paint, so does life repel what prevails among us as mere intellectual science.

[ 17 ] Thus, external life cries out for the kind of deepening that Spiritual Science alone can provide. It must be Spiritual Science that lays the foundations for what people today unconsciously express in their social demands—things they cannot clearly articulate because they lack the power of thought. Therefore, it is necessary not to regard the Spiritual Science as something one could devote a few passing thoughts to on the side, but as something that belongs to the most essential conditions for the healing of our lives. I am well aware—for I truly do not consider myself an impractical person—that people say: We have our professions; we cannot devote ourselves to this, after all, quite extensive Spiritual Science. Shouldn’t the following thought also find its way into people’s hearts and souls: Doesn’t the downward slope we are walking on today—no matter how deeply immersed we are in our professions—show that we are merely helping to shape the path leading into chaos? And shouldn’t we consider it necessary to devote every spare hour we can to perspectives that truly and radically raise the question of recovery?

[ 18 ] And what is meant here by “Spiritual Science” is intimately connected with that call of our time—which, as I have explained, is far older than a century—with that call which I would like to describe as the call for freedom of thought. This call, however, is in essence the call for social freedom. It is remarkable that when one tries, in our present time, to look into what is rising to the surface amid the waves of so-called social demands, one repeatedly encounters the necessity of understanding what human freedom actually entails—that impulse which, in one form or another, manifests itself as the impulse of human freedom. Even the man whom I consider the most unfortunate among the so-called outstanding figures of our time—those who have gained influence over the shaping of circumstances—even Woodrow Wilson himself came to realize that this touches on an important point. Since I never spoke differently about Woodrow Wilson, even in neutral foreign countries during the war, while he was so idolized from all sides, I may speak about Woodrow Wilson today just as I always have. There are numerous passages in his writings in which he points out how a restoration of order—he is particularly familiar with American conditions—can only result from truly taking into account people’s striving for freedom.

[ 19 ] But what does Woodrow Wilson mean by human freedom?

[ 20 ] This brings us to a very, very interesting aspect of contemporary human thought—for Woodrow Wilson is, after all, a representative thinker of his kind—and in his essay on freedom, you will find the following view: One can form a concept of freedom by looking at a machine and observing how a gear is fitted into it. If it is fitted in such a way that the mechanical device can move without hindrance, we say that the gear runs freely. When one considers a ship, he says, the ship must be constructed in such a way that the machinery engages with the swell, so that it is not hindered—that is, so that it moves, as it were, with the forces of the waves, is adapted to them, and runs freely within the forces of the waves. Woodrow Wilson compares what such a gear in a machine—or a ship in the waves of the sea—represents to what the impulse of human freedom should truly be. He says: A person is free when he moves freely, much like the gear in a machine, when he moves freely within external circumstances, so that he propels himself through them, engaging with his own forces in what is happening externally, so that he is not hindered.

[ 21 ] Well, I think it is very interesting that this peculiar view of human freedom can spring from the current scientific way of thinking and mindset. For isn’t it the opposite of freedom to be so adapted to circumstances that one can only act in accordance with them? Doesn’t freedom require that one be able, if necessary, to resist external circumstances? Shouldn’t we compare what we understand as freedom to the ability, when necessary, to act in such a way that a ship turns into the waves and comes to a stop?

[ 22 ] Where does this most peculiar view come from—one from which sound statesmanlike insight can never spring, but at most the 14 abstract points of Wilson’s proclamations, which, unfortunately, were at least partially admired in this country as well for a certain time? This is why, in our time, people fail to realize that we must return to the human idea itself—that idea which is grasped as an idea and which, when we truly speak of freedom, can provide the only truly free impulse for human life. That was what I attempted to present more than thirty years ago in my *Philosophy of Freedom*, a new edition of which, with appropriate additions, has recently been published. There, however, I attempted to grasp this impulse toward freedom in a different way than is currently done. I sought to show how the question of human freedom has been posed incorrectly. People ask: Is the human being free or is he not free? Is the human being a free being who, with genuine responsibility, can make decisions arising from his soul, or is he bound by a natural or spiritual necessity like a creature of nature? This is how the question has been posed—I would say, for millennia—and this is how it is still asked. This question itself is the great error.

[ 23 ] One cannot ask the question that way; rather, the question of freedom is a question of human development—a kind of human development in which a person, in the course of his youth or perhaps later in life, develops within himself powers that he does not simply possess by nature. One cannot even ask: Is a person free? By nature, they are not, but they can make themselves more and more free by awakening powers that lie dormant within them and that nature does not awaken. A person can become freer and freer. One cannot ask: Is a person free or unfree? Rather, one can only ask: Is there a path for a person to attain freedom? And this path does exist. As I said, thirty years ago I attempted to show: When a person advances to the point of developing an inner life within themselves, so that they grasp the moral impulses for their actions in pure thought, they can truly base their actions on thought impulses—not merely on instinctive emotions—thoughts that immerse themselves in external reality just as a lover immerses themselves in the beloved. Then a person draws closer to freedom. Freedom is just as much a child of thought—grasped in spiritual clairvoyance, not under external compulsion—as it is a child

[ 24 ] of true, selfless love—love for the object of action. What German intellectual life aspired to in Schiller, when he confronted Kant and sensed something of such a concept of freedom, is something we ought to continue to develop in the present. But then it became clear to me that one can speak only of that which underlies moral actions—even if it remains unconscious in human beings, it is nonetheless present—and that this must be called intuition. And so, in my *Philosophy of Freedom*, I spoke of a moral intuition.

[ 25 ] But this also provided the starting point for everything I later attempted to accomplish in the field of Spiritual Science. Please do not think that I view these matters in an immodest way today. I know very well that this *Philosophy of Freedom*, which I conceived more than thirty years ago as a young man, suffers, so to speak, from all the teething problems of the intellectual life that emerged in the course of the 19th century. But I also know that what has sprung from this intellectual life is an ascent of thought into the truly spiritual. So that I can say to myself: When a human being rises to moral impulses through moral intuition and becomes a truly free being, then—if I may use this frowned-upon word—he is already “clairvoyant” with regard to his moral intuitions. In that which lies beyond all the sensory realm lie the impulses of all that is moral. Fundamentally, the truly moral commandments are the results of human clairvoyance. Hence, there was a direct path from that “Philosophy of Freedom” to what I today mean by Spiritual Science. Freedom springs forth in human beings only when they develop. But they can develop further, so that what already underlies freedom also impels them to become independent of all the sensory realm and to rise freely into the realms of the spirit.

[ 26 ] Thus, freedom is linked to the development of human thought. Freedom is, at its core, always freedom of thought, and precisely when we look at such representative figures as Woodrow Wilson, we must say: Because such people have never grasped what the concept of the truly spiritual actually is—how it must be rooted in the spiritual if it is not to be abstract—they are able to invent such paradoxical definitions as the one Woodrow Wilson devised for freedom. In such things we see the inadequacy of contemporary spiritual life, whose main shortcoming lies in its failure to recognize the spiritual essence of the human being. We see what the primary demand is: freedom of thought, and what the primary need is: the mastery of social forces—if this life is to develop into the foundation for these three great demands of the present for the near future. Thus, what constitutes a truly original impulse in human beings does not lie in that part of the human being which can be reached through scientific thinking, but in that which can only be attained through spiritual insight.

[ 27 ] There has been so much debate about freedom because people want to make decisions about it without entering the realm where the realization of the immortality of the human soul arises. And no one who does not approach the subject with an open mind—who does not reflect on the knowledge of human immortality and on the eternal within the human being—is capable of grasping the essence of human freedom. If one does not seek the essence of this freedom in the flash of insight that goes beyond what is merely given by nature, then one will not find this essence of freedom. But only when one has found it does it permeate and pulse through a person in such a way that he or she can become a truly social being; for it carries him or her alongside other human beings into the social order in such a way that social forces can be unleashed from within, and we need this sense of social forces.

[ 28 ] I mentioned earlier that, in Dornach, in connection with our construction project, we are able to employ people who have even reached certain heights of spiritual training and who perform the most ordinary, dirtiest tasks—tasks that are truly on par with those performed by what are commonly called manual laborers. From a social standpoint, however, the construction project in Dornach is based on principles that are not necessarily the same as those of an enterprise aimed at material gain. But if you consider what I have elaborated in my *Key Points of the Social Question* and in the lectures on the threefold social order, you will find that it is possible to create similar foundations for life as a whole as those established in Dornach for the building, which is intended to serve as a representative of our Spiritual Science movement. It is just a pity that this building cannot be visited today by many people in other countries, because we have unfortunately reached a point where crossing national borders has become virtually impossible.

[ 29 ] But why is it possible, even within such a circle, to unleash social forces in such a way that the ideal of the proletarian movement is fulfilled—albeit differently than one might dream? Because everything that is done there is based on a conception of life—this comprehensive approach to life that arises from the impulses of Spiritual Science—and because every individual action is also carried out in accordance with Spiritual Science. What is done on a small scale in accordance with Spiritual Science can also be done throughout all of social life based on a spiritual-scientific understanding of life. Every factory, every bank, every external enterprise can be organized in a way that only those who are capable of thinking about practical life through a science that delves so deeply into the human being—one that grasps not abstract thoughts and laws of nature, but living facts—can organize. One arrives at these living facts if one only delves deeply enough into the human being through the methods indicated. It is not abstract mysticism that is sought, but the facts of life through which the human being is actually immersed. And by coming to know human beings, one finds through this Spiritual Science, at the same time, that which can bring social forces into the appropriate organization, so that the people living within this organization can satisfactorily answer the question: Is human life worthy of human dignity?

[ 30 ] This is how the three things are connected: social forces, freedom of thought, and Spiritual Science. Spiritual Science is truly the opposite of what it is often portrayed as. A marginal phenomenon of life, so people believe; a dream of idle people. No, Spiritual Science aims to be a way of life—precisely the kind of way of life that our time lacks most of all. It seeks to immerse itself in life; it seeks to master life in both science and practice, because it wants to immerse itself in human reality, not merely in a life conceived by the human mind. There are well-meaning people today who say: The mere mind, the mere intellect that has developed over the last few centuries and right up to our own time—these are no longer fit to restore our lives to health. But when asked what is fit for this purpose, they give general answers—a rejuvenation of the soul through the “Spirit.” When one speaks of true Spiritual Science, they reject it because they still fear it, or they come up with the strangest excuses. Time and again, one finds people saying: “Surely not everyone can become a spiritual researcher.” Certainly, not everyone can—I have emphasized this time and again here as well. For while one can indeed take those first steps into the spiritual worlds, into supersensible existence, as I have described them in my book *How Does One Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds?* and in the second part of my *Secret Science*; anyone can do them at any time—but advancing to those questions that deal with the beings of the supersensible worlds in a deeper sense is, however, bound up with various experiences for which not everyone is yet suited today. Anyone who wants to look into the spiritual world, who wants to become a spiritual researcher in the truest sense, must overcome many obstacles. You need only consider that at the very moment one truly enters into a form of knowledge that does not make use of the senses—at the moment one enters into a form of perception free from the body and the familiar external world is no longer present—one finds oneself in a world that presents all manner of unfamiliar things: All the things that usually support us—reliable external experience, the ordinary intellect—must give way to other, inner guiding forces. One is as if standing over an abyss and must hold oneself up through the center of one’s own being. Many people harbor an unconscious or subconscious fear of this, which they then cloak in logic when confronting Spiritual Science. You may hear the most eloquent reasons; in truth, it is merely the fear of the unknown.

[ 31 ] But then you must also bear in mind that, just as we are as human beings, we are not adapted to the spiritual world; we are adapted only to the outer sensory world. We enter a completely different world for which we have not developed any habits of life. As one delves deeper, this gives rise to those terribly painful experiences that must be overcome through true spiritual insight. Then, once they are overcome, insights arise from the very core of our being, shedding light on what is eternal in human nature—on the spiritual reality that underlies the world. Not everyone can go this far along this path. But I have also had to assert time and again that it is not necessary to go through this path, but that all that is needed is common sense. For this common sense—provided it is not misled by the prejudices of external views—can discern whether someone who presents themselves as a spiritual researcher and speaks of worlds initially unknown to us is speaking logically or like a spiritualist or in some other way. One possesses logic, and one can judge whether the person in question speaks logically and in a way that indicates the experiences he describes have been undergone in a state of sound mind.

[ 32 ] If one keeps objecting, “Yes, anyone can see for themselves what external science says,” then that is correct. One need only examine the laboratory methods to see that this is so. But one can just as easily say: Anyone can see for themselves that what is described in my books *How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds* and *Theosophy* is true; one can infer the inner value of a spiritual researcher’s insights from the nature of the researcher himself. Then these insights are as valuable for life as they are in the soul of the spiritual researcher himself. In external science, the researcher is evaluated based on external facts; in spiritual research, what the researcher has to say is evaluated based on the manner in which he speaks and how his insights are presented. He can be evaluated through common sense.

[ 33 ] Consider what social forces this will unleash when there are more and more people who serve as witnesses to the spiritual forces that can only be found in the supersensible realm, and whom other people—who cannot themselves be spiritual researchers —after all, not everyone can be a chemist or a physicist—accept based on their common sense, on the trust grounded in that common sense. The kind of social coexistence that arises from this assessment of human beings is precisely one of the most important factors in awakening forces of social trust. These forces are being undermined in our time, when everyone—without first taking their own development into their own hands, and barely once they have reached adulthood—wants to pass judgment on all manner of things. And that the Spiritual Science can truly provide practical impulses in social life—we have indeed attempted this here through the founding of the Waldorf School, which we owe to our dear Mr. Molt, where the school system is to be built upon true knowledge. We want to solve a social problem in the right way; for we would like every child to grow into a human being who acquires the guiding force for later life, so that social forces are developed in a fruitful way from within the human being, not from a dull, inadequate knowledge, as is so often the case with the social thinking of our time. We wish to truly develop social thinking based on human trust, built upon the secure foundations of the human soul. And by seeing in every child in this school a person in the making, by striving to develop them through insights that can enliven the pedagogical foundations, we see something that is essential—as in everything we seek to draw from the Spiritual Science.

[ 34 ] Of course, I can only describe the Spiritual Science as a necessary requirement for present and future development from a few specific perspectives. This is why such one-sided remarks give rise to opposition, because one fails to take the whole picture into account. However, I would now like to return to the beginning as I conclude and point out how heavy one’s heart can become when one sees how few people recognize the slippery slope; how few seek the foundations for a rebuilding of our intellectual, moral, and other aspects of cultural life.

[ 35 ] This can be inferred from quite a few things. Let me conclude by citing a few examples. Even people whom we believe to have a firm footing in the external world—what conclusions have they reached based on the facts? The words written by the Austrian statesman Czernin in his latest book—whatever one’s stance on them may be—deserve to be taken to heart:

[ 36 ] “The war continues, albeit in a different form. I believe that future generations will not even call the great drama that has dominated the world for five years the World War, but rather the World Revolution, and will know that this World Revolution began only with the World War. Neither the Treaty of Versailles nor the Treaty of Saint-Germain will create a lasting peace. Within this peace lies the corrosive seed of death. The struggles shaking Europe have not yet subsided. As with a mighty earthquake, the subterranean rumbling continues. The earth will keep splitting open—now here, now there—and hurl fire toward the sky. Time and again, events of elemental force will sweep devastatingly across the lands until everything that reminds us of the madness of this war has been swept away. Slowly, amid unspeakable sacrifices, a new world will be born. Future generations will look back on our time as if it were a long, terrible “dream.” But even the darkest night is eventually followed by day. Generations have sunk into the grave—murdered, starved, or succumbing to disease. Millions have died in their quest to annihilate and destroy, with hatred and murder in their hearts. But other generations are rising, and with them a new spirit. They will rebuild what war and revolution have destroyed. Every winter is followed by spring. It is also an eternal law in the cycle of life that resurrection follows death. Blessed are those who will be called upon, as soldiers of labor, to help build the new world.”

[ 37 ] Well, the “new spirit” is mentioned here as well; I know that if one were to speak to this Czernin about the “new spirit,” he would shudder and dismiss it as fantasy. People speak of the “new spirit” in the abstract; they know it must come. But when faced with the concrete spirit, they run for the hills. But it is a serious matter to look closely at the concrete path of this new spirit. There are many today, for example, who—from the standpoint of their supposed Christianity—attack Spiritual Science, who refuse to recognize how this Spiritual Science provides the most vital foundations precisely for a revival of Christianity; how Christianity will live into the future precisely because Spiritual Science will once again teach the living Christ and the event of Golgotha as historical facts derived from spiritual scientific research. A large portion of theologians has gone so far as to no longer teach this Christ as the very purpose of the Earth, but rather to reduce him to the “simple man from Nazareth.” The spiritual essence of Christianity will be reestablished through Spiritual Science. But to those who today fear this precisely on the basis of Christian teachings, one should say: Christianity is built on such firm foundations that it has nothing to fear from Spiritual Science, any more than it does from the discovery of the air pump and other things—and thus also nothing to fear from the doctrine of repeated earthly lives or from the doctrine of destiny, as presented by Spiritual Science. Christianity is so strong that it can absorb everything that comes from Spiritual Science. Whether, however, all of today’s ‘bearers of the Christian creeds’ are equally strong is another question—but it is also a serious one.

[ 38 ] We must think in global terms; after all, that is what this so-called world war has drummed into us. When it comes to our Europe and its culture, many people think much like a Japanese diplomat whose words I would like to quote to you. This Japanese diplomat, who is a well-educated man, said:

[ 39 ] “For many years, we in Japan believed that law and justice truly existed in the Christian world of the West. But in recent years, we have come to realize that this is not the case! The high-sounding doctrines and declarations of the Christian nations are nothing more than a pretentious mask to conceal injustice and greed. We now know that such a thing as international justice does not exist; we also know that the capitalist power of the West cannot be restrained except—by greater power. Japan has learned this, and all of Asia is about to learn it. This explains our position toward China: we know that we cannot rely on any rights, that we cannot count on the Western powers to handle any matters fairly. They will divide and destroy China, then they will reduce Japan to vassalage; they will do this without conscience, without reflection; they will do it without hesitation if we in Japan do not maintain our dominance, if we ourselves do not hold on to and develop China. For ultimately, this Western exploitation of China would be China’s ruin, while our policy toward China will be its ultimate salvation. In China and in our Pacific territories, we must be fully prepared to defend ourselves adequately. If we were to rely on a confederation of states modeled on the Anglo-Saxon system, if we were to believe in a latent or even already prevailing sense of justice within Christian civilization, this would be proof of our own intellectual weakness—and proof, too, that we would have deserved the fate of national ruin that would inescapably befall us at the hands of the Western powers.”

[ 40 ] Whatever one’s stance on this matter may be: this is how people think in the world, and we have every reason to regard these thoughts as facts. It is truly out of place, then, when—precisely from those who ought to know the conditions of spiritual life—allow me to put it this way—objections that have been described time and again are raised against what I sincerely wish to champion as a new spiritual movement; for example, the objection: “One cannot verify what the spiritual researcher says.” Recently, a pamphlet was published by a gentleman not far from here: “Rudolf Steiner as a Philosopher and Theosophist.” I would like to highlight just one aspect of the spirit and logic that prevails there. There is a lovely sentence there: “I may have to become a historian, physicist, or chemist in order to verify things for myself. The theosophical truths, on the other hand, I cannot verify unless I am a clairvoyant.” In other words, he says that historians, physicists, and chemists claim all sorts of things; if one wants to verify these claims, one must simply become a historian, physicist, or chemist. I say: If one wants to verify matters pertaining to the Spiritual Science, one must become a spiritual scientist. What does this gentleman say? “I may have to become a historian, physicist, or chemist in order to verify things independently. Theosophical truths, on the other hand, I cannot verify unless I am a clairvoyant.” Of course! I, too, cannot verify the results of chemical research unless I become a chemist. But one can become a chemist. Yet people simply do not want to become researchers in the humanities. So they say something quite peculiar: I must be able to verify, but verify without in any way engaging with the methods of verification. The question for this gentleman, as he himself says—as you will hear in a moment—is not whether one can make a decision once one has grasped the grounds for that decision, but rather: “The question is whether they have been verified by me or can be verified, and—apart from formal logical criticism—I must answer in the negative.” Well, I readily concede that he must answer in the negative. But just as I acknowledge that one must become a chemist to verify the results of chemical research, so too must everyone embark on the path of Spiritual Science to verify the truths of Spiritual Science. Yet that man rejects this. In fact, his entire work is based on this logic. And much of what distorts and attacks the Spiritual Science is driven by this logic. One really has better things to do than concern oneself with such objections.

[ 41 ] Above all, however, it would be fitting for this German people—this much-tried German people—to consider how it should relate to the very foundations of spiritual life. I can point to a few sentences that Peter Grimm, the insightful art historian, wrote in 1858 in his essay on Schiller and Goethe. More than 60 years ago, he wrote: “The true history of Germany is the history of the spiritual movements among the people. Only where enthusiasm for a great idea stirred the nation and set its stagnant forces in motion did deeds occur that were great and radiant.” Should we not take such words to heart today? Or the words that Herman Grimm—certainly no revolutionary—wrote in 1858: “The names of the German emperors and kings are … no milestones for the progress of the people.” He meant that the milestones for the progress of the people are the deeds in the realm of thought—thought that penetrates into the spiritual realm.

[ 42 ] At no time has the German people felt a greater need to adhere to this than precisely in this time of hardship and severe trial. And that is why we may call upon our contemporaries today to look to our great ancestors, so that we may become their worthy descendants. Should the creeds of spiritual life expressed by the ancestors of the German people not apply to the present day, and must we not further develop this spiritual striving rather than remain stuck at the level of merely quoting it? Anyone who merely quotes Goethe today does not understand him; only those who carry his ideas forward understand him. Anyone who merely quotes Johann Gottlieb Fichte is doing something senseless if they do not carry his ideas forward in spiritual life. You have heard how the world speaks of European spiritual life. In the world, one must learn to recognize that the German once again has the will to look toward what are the true milestones for the progress of his people. In this world, our forebears—the great bearers of German intellectual life—have often been called dreamers. They were misunderstood, just as today whatever speaks of the spirit is portrayed as fantasy or something else entirely. But there were, after all, people who knew how what was sought for the spirit was grounded in reality. And at a crucial moment, Johann Gottlieb Fichte told people: “What others say—that ideas cannot directly intervene in practical life—we idealists know just as well, perhaps even better than the others; but that life must be oriented toward them—that we know in advance.” - There he pointed to the practice of life, and he said: Those who do not recognize this belong to those who are not counted on in the plan of the world. So may these people be granted sunshine and rain at the right time, and good digestion, and, if possible, a few good thoughts as well.

[ 43 ] It depends on the spirit with which one looks up to the spiritual gestures of the great bearers of German spiritual life. Reality will decide this, not abstract judgment. If the descendants of these German forebears develop a sense for genuine spiritual practice, then those who went before us in this spiritual practice will not have been dreamers. But if we fail to penetrate the realities of spiritual practice, then they will become dreamers not of their own accord, but through us or through our descendants, who want to know nothing of the true German spirit. May the German people beware of turning their great ancestors—of whom the world has so often said they were dreamers—into dreamers through the guilt that arises when we have no sense of the spirit that has been invoked and summoned in German spiritual life! May it win followers! That is the final word I would like to address to you, drawn directly from my reflections today.