The Rudolf Steiner Archive

1. Spirit and Unspirit in Their Effects on Life

[ 1 ] Ladies and gentlemen! A significant work in the field of discussion on current public issues is the book by the Englishman John Maynard Keynes on the economic consequences of the peace treaty. It is precisely this book that should be mentioned today to the fullest extent when discussing public affairs, because, on the one hand, it is written with all the prejudices—I would say, with all the preconceptions—of an Englishman, but, on the other hand, it is composed with an extraordinarily significant expertise and overview of contemporary public life. Keynes, after all, served for a long time as a delegate to the British Treasury during the war. He was then part of the British delegation at the Versailles Peace Conference until he resigned from his post in June 1919, having been deeply disappointed by the negotiations in Versailles. It must be said that if one looks more closely at the content of this work, one finds many things that are quite significant for forming a judgment about the current state of public affairs. I would like to preface my remarks today by highlighting a few characteristic points from this book.

[ 2 ] When Keynes went to Paris, he had, so to speak, arrived there with a bag full of prejudices—above all, prejudices about the possible success of this peace treaty, particularly from an Englishman’s point of view, but also prejudices about the figures involved in the course of current public affairs. I must say that I found it particularly interesting to hear the judgment that one of the participants in the Versailles negotiations had formed specifically about the man whom, until quite recently, the whole world had idolized. Although I repeatedly and consistently rebelled against this judgment held by the entire world—truly rebelled, not only within Germany but, wherever I had the opportunity, even during the war itself and right up until the end of those days of horror, in Switzerland as well—such rebellion really made very little of an impression. One had to realize that even within Germany there was a period—albeit a brief one—during which a large number of people joined in the deification of Woodrow Wilson—for it is him I mean, and it is him Keynes means—a deification that had taken hold throughout the entire world. Time and again, it had to be pointed out—based on the views I have been advocating here in Stuttgart for quite some time now—that Woodrow Wilson is a man of empty phrases, a man whose words lack any real, substantive content.

[ 3 ] And now Keynes describes the behavior of that Woodrow Wilson at the Peace Conference in Versailles. He describes the glory with which this man was received and the prejudice with which he was met. And he describes how this man attended the meetings without the slightest grasp of reality. He describes how, because of his slow thinking, this man was not even able to follow the thoughts of others—how the others had already moved on to entirely different matters while Wilson was still pondering something that had happened or been said at an earlier time. It must be said that the utter inadequacy and verbosity of this world-famous contemporary figure have been portrayed here with extraordinary vividness by a person who truly did not view this fact from a Central European perspective. Keynes has also portrayed other figures who, precisely through their presence at the Treaty of Versailles, exerted a significant influence on the fate of Europe. Of Clemenceau, he says that this old man has, in fact, completely slept through the period since 1871, that his sole concern is to restore the state of Europe that prevailed before 1871, and above all to secure from the current world situation what the French have considered necessary for their own nation since 1871. He then describes the statesman of his own country, Lloyd George: how the man is concerned only with immediate successes, yet how he possesses a keen instinct and, in a sense, senses the views and opinions of the personalities who surround him and with whom he deals.

[ 4 ] And then Keynes takes a look at what is being negotiated. And in his book, with the insight and method of a mathematician—a rigorous one—he discusses the economic consequences for Europe that might result from what has been concocted through this so-called “peace treaty.” And he arrives at this conclusion not out of any political ambitions, not out of any emotions or sensitivities, but based on the results of his calculations—to say that what this peace treaty sets in motion for Europe economically must be Europe’s economic decline. As I said, based on precise calculations, this book reveals nothing less than that the leading figures have established structures and institutions that are bound to lead to the decline of the economies of all of Europe.

[ 5 ] One can—I would say, reading between the lines of the book—see how the Englishman speaks from an English perspective; how, deep down, he is actually moved by the feeling that this downfall of Europe must be so complete that England, too, is bound to suffer. One might therefore say: Like so many contemporary statesmen in the West, this fellow from the University of Cambridge is also somewhat gripped by fear, but it is precisely in this book that one finds a description of the current state of affairs. Such a description sheds light on the current international situation in the world more instantly than all other rhetoric combined.

[ 6 ] One thing, however, strikes me as the most significant about this book: Since this man has presented his observations from the perspective of a precise mathematician, while at the same time interweaving into these observations the vivid descriptions of a connoisseur of human nature regarding the personalities involved in the institutions that are supposed to lead to this downfall, one sees nothing in this book that would offer any glimmer of hope regarding what must be done to prevent general destruction from occurring, so that reconstruction might follow instead of decline. And it is characteristic that this very analyst includes an extraordinarily curious sentence in the final pages of his book. He says, roughly, that he cannot imagine that anything favorable for the further development of European civilization could emerge from the old views, as they have so strikingly manifested themselves in the Treaty of Versailles. And he can only hope that a better time will come through the pooling of all the forces of education and imagination—“by setting in motion those forces of instruction and imagination,” as he puts it. But this means nothing less, ladies and gentlemen, than that this precise mathematician hopes for nothing other than a transformation of the intellectual disposition of the European people.

[ 7 ] From this forum, the necessity of this transformation of the spiritual constitution of the European people has often been discussed. Today, one cannot speak about economic issues by simply continuing, within that discourse, to think about economic life in the same way one was accustomed to under the old conditions. Today, one cannot speak of the restructuring of state relations based on the mental images one is accustomed to holding according to the habits of thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries. And one cannot speak of all this without pointing out how necessary it is for a new way of thinking about public affairs to take root deep within the very core of European humanity. For what has occurred as a terrible catastrophe is not the result of this or that flawed institution; it is the result of the entire state of mind to which European humanity had arrived at the beginning of the 20th century. What has unfolded in the realm of legal life or political life, what has unfolded in the realm of economic life—it is nothing other than the spirit, or rather, as will surely become clear in the course of this evening, the “un-spirit” that has exerted its influence on the living conditions of European humanity, the unspirit that was carried over from spiritual life—from so-called spiritual life—into legal and political life and into economic life.

[ 8 ] One must now grasp this spirit through its most significant symptoms. One must grasp it where it has made its presence felt within spiritual life itself. If one wishes to gain a clear view of these circumstances, one must first take stock of what has developed since the beginning of what is called modern spiritual life—that is, over the last three to four centuries. And one must gain an understanding of how this spiritual life has crept into human sensory and emotional life. And one must gain a further understanding of how our economic conditions have gradually become the outward expression of this spiritual life.

[ 9 ] But what is the most significant characteristic of this spiritual life? Time and again, one must say that a true judgment of this spiritual life—as it has unfolded over the course of the last three to four centuries— can only be made by someone who is also capable of sufficiently appreciating the positive aspects of this spiritual life—someone who is able to see through what science, in particular, has accomplished over the past few centuries for the development of humanity, of civilized humanity. Here one must repeatedly point out how the fabric of nature has been permeated by the ideas of this science. One must point out how, through this comprehensive understanding of the realm of nature, the principles, the drives, and the impulses have been found that led to the great achievements of modern technology—achievements which, after all, have completely transformed economic life in the course of humanity’s most recent history of development.

[ 10 ] Let us imagine—though it is hardly the case today—that someone would take the trouble to survey the established branches of the scientific worldview, as they have developed over the past few centuries. Let us form a mental image for a moment of someone surveying the significant achievements of mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, and other such fields of endeavor. Let us imagine that such a person would also be in a position to assess what the mode of thinking, the way of conceiving things, which has been trained in the admirable methods of physics, chemistry, biology, and mechanics, has contributed to our understanding of the anthropological aspects of human development. We form a mental image of how, building on a scientific education, people came to investigate how humanity developed from originally primitive states to higher cultural states, and how contemporary social conditions have gradually evolved. We form a mental image of how people equipped with a scientific education strove to gain sociological insights into the living conditions of human beings. If we were to create a mental image of such a person—possessing this universality of [scientific] knowledge, which, as mentioned, no longer really exists—we must ask ourselves: How does such a person confront the great human questions of existence today? Above all, how does he face the fundamental question that, from the depths of human soul life, must continually resurface in the souls of hopeful people—the question: What, in fact, is this human being within the realm of the earthly-cosmic, the soul-spiritual world order?

[ 11 ] The most remarkable thing is precisely the way in which the scientific worldview answers this question. This scientific worldview has achieved a great deal by, as it were, bringing forth the theory of evolution as its culmination and by demonstrating how one might form a mental image of organisms developing from the simplest to the most complex, with human beings themselves standing at the pinnacle of this development—as it were, the culmination of all living beings on Earth. What, then, can be achieved in this field? One could answer the question: What is humanity’s relationship to the animal kingdom? How does humanity relate to those beings in the universe that it must regard as subordinate to its own organization? — These questions could be answered in an exemplary manner based on external, sensory facts. But the moment the great human question arises—“What are you, actually, as a human being?”—this approach failed.

[ 12 ] I believe that those among the esteemed audience who have heard the entire series of lectures I have been giving here for years now will have hundreds of examples to support what I am about to say. If one summarizes everything that can be gained in this field and finally poses the question: What, in fact, is this human being—yourself—in the context of the earthly-cosmic, in the context of the soul-spiritual essence of the world? —then one must admit, especially if one knows how to give due credit to the achievements of the modern scientific worldview: No matter how much one may know in this regard, no matter how much insight one may have into nature—all this knowledge says nothing about the human being itself. And as this scientific worldview has increasingly asserted itself in people’s minds, so to speak, as a spiritual—or, I might also say, non-spiritual—authority, the ideas conceived about nature have extended into the life of feeling and the life of the will.

[ 13 ] Human beings truly do not wish to perceive nature merely through intellectual means. Human beings wish to sense and feel what they are. Human beings wish to be able to pour into their will, into their acts of will, into their entire outer life and its effects, that which can flow from their very deepest, most intimate being into the being of the world. Today, people feel that they cannot act merely instinctively in their volitional decisions and actions; they must take in something that sets goals for them in regard to their actions and their will. These goals do not permeate this volition in a satisfying way if one knows nothing about the world and humanity other than what natural science can provide. And so, precisely through the great achievements of the natural-scientific worldview, a desolation of human feeling and a helplessness of human volition have set in. Those people who, out of a certain spiritual egoism, do not wish to accept what the achievements of natural science offer, rely on old religious or other traditions. They turn a blind eye, as it were, to the fact that it is no longer possible to live by these traditions now that these achievements of scientific knowledge exist. They do this out of a certain spiritual egoism, telling themselves: I fill my inner being with what one creed or another offers; I do not concern myself with whether this creed can still offer anything today to the person who wishes to keep pace with the demands of their time, in the face of the findings of scientific thought.

[ 14 ] One can grasp the nature of contemporary public life through a single symptom by pointing precisely to these scientific foundations of modern thought; I should like to preface these reflections by saying that this is meant to be nothing more than a symptom. One must not forget that what one generation thinks becomes the mindset, the impulse of feeling and willing, in subsequent generations. And perhaps one can point out today, with some justification, certain rather peculiar individuals who spoke about half a century ago. There was one—one might even call him a peculiar loudmouth—who said certain things back in the 1870s in such a way that he can indeed be called a loudmouth. I am referring to Johannes Scherr. By calling him a loudmouth, no one will assume that I am overestimating the man. Yet the following must be said: This man had a heart and a sense for what was taking shape in European civilization, and in his boisterous speeches one finds many extraordinarily apt remarks—though admittedly, some remarks that the slumbering souls among humanity might only be able to properly assess today—if, that is, one were to pick up the works of such old fellows again at all; they are left to gather dust in libraries. Johannes Scherr saw at that time how that way of thinking had reached a certain peak—a way of thinking that, while capable of expressing magnificent and powerful insights into the natural world, is incapable of telling human beings what they actually are —a way of thinking that is incapable of giving human beings a sense that they themselves, in their innermost being, are spiritual-soul beings, and that they must infuse the impulses of their will with spiritual-soul forces. Johannes Scherr has observed enough to ask himself: How does a way of thinking that can speak only of matter, but not of human beings, how does this way of thinking permeate humanity—not merely in the present—that is, in the present of the 1960s and 1970s—but when one looks to the generations that followed? He wonders what happens when what the—well, one might call the “silent scholar”—proclaims from his lectern in a certain era transforms into people’s perceptions and feelings; when what is proclaimed in this way transforms and permeates the offices, the factories, the banks, and the stock exchanges; he wonders what happens when what is asserted as a mode of conception in the understanding of nature becomes the dominant mode of conception also with regard to the shaping of the financial and economic world.

[ 15 ] Such questions are not usually asked. For it is believed that what people think in the economic sphere, what is speculated on the stock market, and what is negotiated in banks is independent of what the quiet scholar proclaims from the lectern. But in life, everything is intimately connected. This intimate connection is only concealed by the fact that what may be a theoretical way of thinking for one generation becomes, for the next, the driving force behind external action and public sentiment. Under the influence of such thoughts, Johannes Scherr once uttered an extraordinarily beautiful statement. He said: “When the materialistic spirit of darkness that now dominates all circles makes its way through the civilized world; when it asserts everything to which it is predisposed in Europe’s financial system and in Europe’s economic constitution, then a time will come when one will have to say: ‘Nonsense, you have triumphed!’”

[ 16 ] Such words were spoken back then. What lies behind these words? Behind these words lie all the paeans to the economic boom, to the way we have come so wonderfully far, to the glorious achievements of modern life with which we entered the 20th century from the 19th. What a variety of such paeans one could hear. But beneath the surface of all these paeans, what Johannes Scherr spoke of continued to take root: It will manifest itself in such a way that one must say: Nonsense, you have triumphed. —And the nonsense has triumphed! Let us look back on the last five or six years. What, my esteemed audience, is the fate of those who, with an inner insight into the circumstances of the present, are able to foresee the future? At best, what they say is treated as a sensation, but it is not taken seriously. People let things take their course, surrendering themselves to their slumbering souls, and then arrive at a mindset that, while recognizing today that with each passing week we are sinking deeper into the abyss, still insists: Tomorrow things will be better. This or that will happen. Tomorrow we’ll be back on track—yes, I don’t know, to what end.

[ 17 ] Where does this particular way of thinking originate? What is the origin of what Johannes Scherr, the rabble-rouser, once called the “evil spirit”? The origin lies precisely in the fact that a worldview has emerged over the course of the last three to four centuries which, based on the mental images derived from it, is incapable of saying anything about human beings themselves or of allowing one to feel anything about them. But what is one compelled to do when one is raised with a worldview that allows one to feel nothing about human beings themselves? What, then, is one compelled to do? One is compelled to speak about human beings. Yes, one must speak about human beings; one cannot avoid it, since everyone is, in fact, involved in public life, and since in public life people act and must speak with one another about their affairs, must speak with one another across the entire world. One cannot avoid speaking about human beings.

[ 18 ] And what is the consequence if one must, after all, speak about human beings—if one must speak about those institutions among human beings that are to be addressed in terms of the rule of law, intellectual and cultural matters, and economic issues? What is necessary when one must speak about human beings but has no supporting documentation, because precisely what emerges as a worldview provides no such documentation—what is needed in that case? Given what dominates the world today in the realm of spiritual life—public spiritual life—one needs—because one is unable to imbue one’s words with spiritual substance drawn from an inner experience of the spirit—one needs the cliché!

[ 19 ] You see, my esteemed audience, this is what the Spiritual Science referred to here seeks first and foremost: that people once again come to imbue their speech and their words with that which alone gives words their validity—spiritual substance. The words that human beings speak do not derive their spiritual substance from scientific knowledge; spiritual substance cannot be obtained in the convenient manner practiced in chemistry, physics, botany, or biology. Spiritual substance must be attained through the path that Spiritual Science—as understood here—describes as a less convenient one. Spiritual substance must be attained by gaining a true understanding of the innermost nature of the human being. But this is only possible if one develops the intellectual humility already characterized here. This is only possible when one comes to say to oneself: It is precisely the great achievements of natural science that show me that, if I remain as I was born into the world in a purely physical sense, I face the great affairs of humanity just as a five-year-old child faces a volume of Goethe’s poetry: the child tears the book apart, not knowing what it is dealing with. But the child can develop so that it then perceives, in its true essence, that which was previously something entirely different to it. Modern people do not like to apply this to themselves as adults. They do not like to tell themselves: I must take charge of my inner spiritual development; I must transcend what I have simply become through physical birth through my own inner spiritual work; I must develop my soul to a higher level than that which comes to me without my own effort.

[ 20 ] And when the spiritual researcher then steps among people and says: “In order to truly recognize the spiritual, which is also present within human beings, it is necessary to apply inner, spiritual methods—to transform one’s thinking through inner soul exercises, as described in the book *How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds* or in the second part of *The Secret Science* or in the other books”—then people come and say: Oh, that’s just some fantasist talking. — When he describes how a discipline of the will—which does not otherwise occur in ordinary, external life—is necessary to lift the soul out of the state into which it has entered through mere physical birth, and to develop it in a way that can only be achieved through one’s own inner mastery of the soul, people come and say: “Oh, that’s just some fantasist talking; that’s someone who wants to capitalize on the disappointments and shattered hopes of modern humanity, who is leading people to believe in the possibility of supersensible knowledge!”

[ 21 ] No, my esteemed audience, a true researcher of the spiritual realm does not speak today on the basis of such materials. He certainly does not speak out of a dilettantish attitude toward the natural sciences, but rather from a true understanding of the achievements of the natural sciences. And he knows that Spiritual Science methods are necessary, because while natural science has something to say about many things, it does not speak to what constitutes the true essence of the human being; he knows that insight into this essence of the human being can only be gained through knowledge acquired by slow, painstaking inner spiritual work, and that this knowledge of the human being must be attained by truly rising from the sensory to the supersensory. The philistines may regard this ascent to the supersensible as something fanciful—yet this ascent to the supersensible is necessary for an understanding of the human being, for sensory knowledge demonstrates in every field that it can never provide any insight into the essence of the human being. What the Spiritual Science seeks, however, is a renewal of the human being from the deepest inner core; it is the striving toward the possibility of gaining insights into the human being that truly flow into feeling, that truly also provide goals and ideals which can flow into the will, right down into the reality of economic life.

[ 22 ] But what effects on life arise when one does not strive for this spirit—which is so unappealing to modern humanity—but instead strives for the “un-spirit,” which, as a worldview, can only provide insight into the non-human, the extra-human—what effects on life result from this?

[ 23 ] The first of these effects on life to appear throughout the entire civilized world is what already dominates this civilized world in the realm of spiritual life—people simply do not want to notice it; they merely close their eyes to it—the first effect on life is the global dominance of empty rhetoric. For if one does not have a spiritual perspective that flows into the world as a living substance, words remain empty. Then words are spoken that make sense only as empty phrases—that is to say, they make no sense at all. And over the course of recent years, as the “unspirit” has reduced itself to absurdity through external world events, we have truly been able to observe the triumphant march of empty phrases throughout the entire civilized world. Phrases are words for which one need not even think of the real basis—one need only recall characteristic phenomena such as the two English parties that remained in Parliament until the mid-19th century, the “Whigs” and the “Tories.” One utters these words and, of course, no longer has any idea of the origin these words once had in life. “Whigs”—when the word first emerged—was a term of derision used by Scottish revolutionaries against English institutions, and “Tories” was the derogatory name for Irish Catholics. Just as these words in the language of the English Parliament relate to their origins in real life, so too do the prevailing statements people make today relate to their real-life origins. What we—one must not say “think,” but rather what we squeeze out of ourselves as words—hovers above life, above reality. The world domination of empty rhetoric—this will become clear to people. To those who refuse to recognize it by examining the circumstances, it will become clear through an economic life that develops without the guiding force of the spirit—they will starve to death as a result of such an economic life. Starvation will provide the real proof that our economic life is governed not by the spirit but by the anti-spirit, because we have brought it to the point where we no longer seek the spirit in reality but cling to the anti-spirit, which, in the realm of so-called spiritual life, can then express itself in relation to the human only as empty rhetoric.

[ 24 ] There is only one remedy for this, only one way to overcome the world domination of empty phrases: to emancipate intellectual life from the very force under whose pressure it was compelled to become mere rhetoric. An intellectual life that does not build upon its own foundations, an intellectual life that allows the institutions for its cultivation to be established by economic life or cobbled together by political life, an intellectual life that must follow the directives of the state or the forces of economic life—such an intellectual life cannot unfold freely. Only such an intellectual life can develop freely and thereby attain true spirit and transcend mere rhetoric by creating its own institutions based on its own foundations. There is only one remedy against the otherwise ever-increasing triumph of worldly rhetoric, and that is: the independence of intellectual life. Just as the fruits of the field perish under a swarm of locusts, so spiritual life becomes desolate when it depends on factors other than itself alone, and what is revealed by spiritual life among human beings becomes mere rhetoric. The global dominance of empty rhetoric will only cease when spiritual life is organized by those who are its bearers; it will cease only when, from the lowest to the highest school and in all other areas of spiritual life, those who are active in that spiritual life shape its institutions, and when the principles governing the teaching and dissemination of spiritual life also determine the external institutions. Only a spiritual life that stands on its own will be able to oppose the triumphant march of empty rhetoric, which has had such a devastating effect and has reduced itself to absurdity in the horrific events of the last five to six years.

[ 25 ] Ladies and gentlemen, when one honestly and sincerely considers the development of intellectual life—so-called intellectual life—in recent years and decades, one may come to realize, through striking examples, how this intellectual life has gradually become powerless in the face of the realities of life. It is most remarkable what one encounters when one considers a figure whom one personally holds in the highest esteem—a figure who is emblematic of the greatest achievements of intellectual life at the end of the 19th century. I regard Herman Grimm, the great art historian, as such a figure. Once again, I wish to speak of Herman Grimm’s figure merely as a symptom of more recent intellectual life. This Herman Grimm, this art historian, has created something great—truly great. And when I survey his rich collection of essays that are available here, I must say: Something so imbued with the rich inner spirit of the late 19th century—such as his two essays, the one on Iphigenia and the one on Tasso—these are truly intellectual revelations that demonstrate to the highest degree what a person standing at the pinnacle of modern intellectual life is capable of achieving. And these intellectual achievements are characteristic of the kind of intellectual creativity exhibited by those who were, in fact, the very best. Herman Grimm wrote treatises on Goethe’s *Iphigenia* and *Tasso* that reveal aspects of intellectual life which penetrate the human nature in general with simply admirable depth. But he wrote something that already existed in the spirit. He needed as a model something like *Iphigenia* or *Tasso*, which were already there. I have looked around to see what such a symptom actually means, and I could not help but conclude: The most beautiful, the greatest achievements of our intellectual heroes at the end of the 19th century are precisely those works in which they wrote with great insight about what was produced intellectually at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Very characteristic, very significant. But anyone who is awake—and does not view recent intellectual life with a dormant soul—could make this observation.

[ 26 ] Now there is also a book by the same Herman Grimm about Goethe. It is not about *Iphigenia*, nor about Tasso, nor about the intellectual creations of man, but about Goethe himself, about Goethe the living person. I read chapter by chapter—I have already stated publicly on several occasions what I have to say about this book on Goethe—I read chapter by chapter; I try to grasp how this brilliant man, who wrote so magnificently about *Iphigenia* and Tasso, now speaks about Goethe, the living person himself. Chapter after chapter, I find not a portrayal of a living person, but rather silhouettes flitting across the wall—silhouettes without depth, silhouettes of Goethe, the living person. What was produced intellectually, Herman Grimm was able to describe. The moment he set out to portray the living person, what emerged was not a portrayal of that living person, but rather silhouettes that have no depth, that are flat, that merely flit by—silhouettes one cannot bump into, through which one can reach right through when one tries to grasp them. This is so characteristic of the effects on life of the intellectual disposition of this late 19th century. This intellectual disposition, at the moment when it sets out to address intellectual matters, was strong enough to judge people’s intellectual output and to present it—along with numerous side glances at human life in general—but it fails at the moment when one is to penetrate the spirit of the reality before us.

[ 27 ] This is precisely what Spiritual Science, as understood here, strives for: to direct the human soul toward the true Spirit, so that we may be enabled to find the Spirit in reality. It strives to ensure that we do not merely paint shadows of reality, but can grasp the spirit in reality. Then we will not end up with those abstractions, those intellectualisms, that current scientific understanding serves up, but we will gain a true insight into the inner workings and essence of nature. And starting from there, we will develop an attitude that corresponds to the human being’s own essence, to the human being’s own dignity, to the human being’s own significance within the earthly-cosmic and the soul-spiritual context—an attitude that truly corresponds to this essence and this dignity of the human being. But only by penetrating reality in this way through the spirit can we overcome empty rhetoric; only then can we once again imbue the living word with that which is a source of power in human actions and encounters—and which can also be a source of power in economic life. Anyone who believes today that they can get by in economic life with a mere improvement of old institutions, anyone who is unwilling to move toward such a complete renewal of thinking, is indulging in hollow illusions. For we are not facing minor issues today; we are facing the greatest questions conceivable for humanity.

[ 28 ] And precisely when it comes to establishing the relationship between human beings on a truly social basis in the external world, it is necessary for one person to approach another in such a way that he can see the spirit in his fellow human being. It is necessary that they be able to see in their fellow human beings that which is a specific instance of a spiritual-soul entity, that they be able to imbue themselves, in relation to their fellow human beings, with all the feelings and sensations that can only be inspired and internally sustained by a spiritual worldview. Because we lacked an independent spiritual life, we developed materialism on a grand scale; in the realm of spiritual life, we fostered the global dominance of empty rhetoric—a fact that remains hidden from many people who are spiritually asleep.

[ 29 ] And when the “unspirit”—not the Spirit that vividly enlivens everything that comes from the human being—invades the realm of emotional and sensory life; when the “unspirit” penetrates into feelings and sensations, what then arises? Then no living relationship between human beings arises that can serve as the foundation for the social structure of the social organism; then, through the unspirit, convention arises in the relationships—in the emotional and psychological relationships—between human beings. I would like to say that we Germans can count ourselves fortunate that, when describing the current dominance of spiritual life, we must use the term “phrase,” for we have no proper German word for it. And even now we are again at a loss to find a German word for what has emerged in recent times from an emotional life dominated by the unspirit; we must say “convention.” Convention is that which is merely externally determined; that which we can only observe from the outside, which is not grasped by the innermost essence of feeling and sensation. But in those people into whom nothing flows from thinking or from consciousness—nothing that can imbue the phrase with spirit—into them, too, cannot penetrate that which, as spirit, permeates sensation and feelings; and no social interaction, no social relationship can develop that would be dignified and worthy of human beings. Under the influence of convention, under the influence of outward appearances, what has become political life in modern society has developed in a second sphere. Just as spiritual life today is dominated by the worldwide dominance of empty rhetoric, so political life is entirely dominated by convention.

[ 30 ] Only when true democracy manifests itself among people—that democracy which is truly built upon the living relationship between human beings—will convention be replaced by that which develops from one living human being to another. This is based on the fact that a mature human being faces another mature human being; that is, when we consider those human relationships that are independent of greater intellectual capacity and—because they are legal relationships—independent of economic power. When the realm of law or the state is separated from economic life on the one hand and from intellectual life on the other, and when only that which arises from the equality of all mature human beings prevails within this realm of law or the state, then what develops from one living human being to another will truly take the place of the world domination of convention. It is that which a world accustomed to empty phrases cries out for today and of which it understands nothing: the law that can only be born of the living feeling, the living sensation in the interaction of one human being with another—the law that can never be born out of any convention. We, however, live in this realm under the global domination of convention. Convention is everything that asserts itself as feeling, as sentiment, in public life through the unspirit, just as empty rhetoric asserts itself in public life when, in the realm of spiritual life, it is not the Spirit but the unspirit that determines the realities of life.

[ 31 ] And let us look at the third sphere of public life: the sphere of economic life. Since there was no spiritual life in this age of materialism that truly encompassed what it means to be human and gave rise to human sensibilities and feelings, economic affairs could not be imbued with goals inspired by the spirit. A true way of life could not develop in the realm of economic life, for a true way of life can only flourish when the people who are the bearers of this way of life infuse every action, every task, with what they gain from the connection of their soul with the spiritual-soul nature of the world. Something else develops in place of this way of life when, instead of this spirit, the unspirit becomes dominant. When the unspirit becomes dominant, then human beings, in the realm of external, economic life, fall into routine by failing to imbue their economic actions with what the spirit inspires in them; instead of living life actively, they fall into routine—I note: again, not a German word. Human beings fall into routine. And this is what is characteristic of the economic sphere: that we have moved more and more from the realm of authentic, purposeful existence—an existence that can only be brought forth from the spirit—into the realm of routine. Just as we have come to rely on clichés in the realm of spiritual life, and on conventions in the realm of political and legal life, so too have we come to rely on routine in the realm of economic life.

[ 32 ] How deeply entrenched is today’s businessperson in his routine! How proud he is of this routine! How he asks only: “How do you do that?” And how he strives to train those he wishes to bring into the business world in such a way that things run mechanically! How is it that people see such great value in ensuring that economic life does not include people who come up with new ideas, but rather people who are capable of continuing, as mechanically as possible, the practices of life that have gradually become routine?

[ 33 ] This is why people—because they are stuck in a routine and cannot derive any satisfaction from that routine themselves—seek to rid themselves as quickly as possible of what they have in their external, practical lives, and then pursue sensations, pursuing whatever is as different as possible from what they are professionally involved in. Is there spirit in external economic life? Are people welcome in economic life who are held in high regard simply because they come up with ideas?—They are more of a nuisance to economic life than those who stick to routine. But if these people—who come up with ideas—are welcome, then economic professions will flourish; they will not take on a selfish character, but rather an altruistic, humanistic one. Why is that so? Well, if a person merely follows routine, then there are no other motivations for them than selfishness, than the satisfaction of their instincts. If one brings into external life what one possesses under the influence of a spiritual education of humanity, then what one brings in—because it originates from the spirit—has a very special quality. It has the characteristic that it does not apply to every single individual, but that—fundamentally speaking—it is irrelevant whether one person thinks or another; it has the characteristic that it acts as a thing in itself, that it brings about a result which can benefit all people in some way within the realities of life.

[ 34 ] All of this, my esteemed audience, is certainly not said to disparage or look down upon the “unspirit” of the modern world; it is said for an entirely different purpose. It is said so that we may come to see the need to look to those foundations that are indelible in human nature and that nevertheless always lead from the unspirit to the Spirit. This is said to awaken the present slumber of the souls, so that those depths of human life within human reality may be sought out—from which alone we can remedy the decline and achieve a renewal.

[ 35 ] The practical Keynes, from whom I began, says: What one does not know, about which one cannot provide information, depends on how all the hidden forces come together—he calls these forces “instruction” and “imagination”—to arrive at a new view of the world. - Spiritual Science aims to provide this in the broadest sense; Spiritual Science aims to offer precisely what the discerning people of the present day must be crying out for, yet which they regard as mere fantasy the moment it appears before their souls. People today would rather say, “Here’s yet another person talking about the astral body, about the spirit and immortality”—than actually delve deeply into and immerse themselves in what can be said in the field of Spiritual Science using the same precise method by which scientific knowledge itself is gained.

[ 36 ] But if one considers the foundations upon which the Spiritual Science referred to here rests, then, ladies and gentlemen, one will also come to realize that this Spiritual Science has a distinctive characteristic: It does not merely take effect through what one learns from it, but it changes the very way in which a person thinks. It leads people to a different understanding of themselves. It leads people to a different feeling about themselves and, through this, also to a different feeling toward their fellow human beings. Spiritual Science enables people to once again infuse economic affairs with spiritual insight. It leads to the necessity of demanding that economic life must exist as an independent third sphere of the social organism; it must be structured in such a way that economic affairs are organized solely on the basis of economic objectivity and economic expertise by individuals who have grown into this economic life. All institutions of economic life must be based on the principle that economic realities are shaped by professional expertise and practical knowledge, not by parliamentary resolutions or majority decisions. Majority decisions make sense only when they concern matters that take place between people who are equal as responsible individuals.

[ 37 ] In the realm of economic life, expertise, specialized knowledge, and experience are decisive. In the realm of spiritual life, however, innate dispositions and abilities are decisive. Both realms demand their own independence. And in the middle, as the third member of the social organism, everything that takes place in public life—arising from the soul, from sensations and feelings—demands its own independence; yet this must be vividly kindled by the spirit, not by the unspirit. Everything depends on the spirit taking the place of the anti-spirit. The spirit will itself overcome the dominance of empty rhetoric in spiritual life. The spirit will permeate the life of feeling and emotion in such a way that we gain a genuine political and legal life. The Spirit will so enrich economic life that this independent economic life can truly flourish in a way different from how it does under the influence of the unspirit—under the influence of convoluted, abstract Marxist or other theories. If one seeks to turn these theories into reality, then what has arisen in Eastern Europe will emerge—as the most extreme, most radical phase of destruction—destruction, not construction.

[ 38 ] Humanity must consider three things—not to offer criticism, but to seek out, in the depths of the human being and of humanity itself, that which can truly lead to reconstruction. These three things are: empty phrases, convention, and routine. The cultivation of a genuine spiritual life must take the place of empty phrases. Convention must be replaced by a living sense of feeling, which arises only when, inspired by mental images, we approach one another as human beings in legal and political life; otherwise, because spiritual life is, after all, the fertilizing force behind everything, we will resort to mere empty phrases even in the realm of legal life. Otherwise, we end up speaking like that man who was adored by the whole world and who said remarkable things, for example, about the law. I am referring to Woodrow Wilson, whom I have examined somewhat more closely, so that I do not speak of him like a blind man speaking of colors. For example, in his thick book on the state—which is actually a compendium of modern empty rhetoric—the following rhetorical definition can be found: “Law is the will of the state as it relates to the civic conduct of those subject to its authority.”

[ 39 ] Well, my esteemed audience, anyone who is accustomed to reality and knows how the living will springs forth from the living personality—I would like to know what such a person is supposed to think when this historian of the state tells him: “The law is the will of the state.” - In an age when, for human beings, the state is nothing more than an external institution of the

[ 40 ] When discussing the economic life of AI, people speak—without really knowing it—of the will of the state—in books written in all seriousness, which, however, for the truly serious mind inclined toward the essence of things, are compendia of modern empty rhetoric.

[ 41 ] Well, when we look at modern economic life, there’s a lot of talk about it. But this economic life itself is, when it comes down to it, not at all dominated by what is being said. Here, too, the rhetoric floats over it like a breath of air, while real economic life unfolds beneath it. The rhetoric is so pervasive that Marxist-Socialist doctrine perceives the empty nature of these phrases and calls it “ideology.” It senses, as it were, that a “false spirit” reigns in economic life, but it does not occur to it to replace this false spirit with the true spirit; rather, it sets itself the ideal of replacing the false spirit that has reigned until now with another false spirit that is to reign in the future.

[ 42 ] Truly, anyone who today wishes to look at what can lead to reconstruction must know exactly how, under the triarchy of rhetoric, convention, and routine, the process of decay was brought about—indeed, how the era of terror of the last five to six years was brought about. I will try to speak the day after tomorrow about what one must discover in order to gain a clear understanding of this triumvirate. But this lecture today had to precede the others for the reason that only those who are able to look closely at what brought about the destruction can understand what is necessary for the days to come. It is truly not enough today merely to point out that the forces must somehow be transformed into a new “instruction,” into a new “imagination.” It is already necessary today to point to these living sources of the spirit.

[ 43 ] Now that I have, so to speak, long since used up my allotted time, perhaps I may take a few more minutes to add a brief postscript to what I have said today. It is something that, using a readily understandable example, illustrates how people today receive those who strive to understand the nature of our times and, at the same time, look ahead to the conditions that could lead us from destruction to a form of reconstruction. But if I were to speak at length about what I now wish to touch upon briefly, I would have to give a long lecture, for there is very, very much to say.

[ 44 ] The last time I left Stuttgart, just as I was departing, I heard that all sorts of slanderous rumors were circulating about me personally and about those who are associated with me in our work. It soon became apparent that these slanders were carried out with extraordinary cunning, as the accusers had chosen the right moment. I then learned that this denunciation, this slander, is even based on letters that are forged—letters that can be interpreted as if they had been written by me myself; these letters are being used to prove things that are attributed to me or to the members of the Society for the Threefold Social Order. Indeed, they did not even have a shred of shame regarding the slander contained in the claim that it was part of my measures to contribute to the extradition of Germans to the Entente, while citing letters written by me.

[ 45 ] Ladies and gentlemen, to me personally, this is just one example of how people are treated today who sincerely strive to seek the truth and who do not shy away from saying what leads to destruction rather than construction. But it goes without saying that such scoundrels, who spread such things, really ought to be stopped in some way. Yet one cannot get the better of them. There are no legal means; refutations are worthless because these people themselves know full well that what they are spreading is a lie. After all, they do not spread it to tell the truth, but to get rid of anyone who is inconvenient to them. Such people are not concerned with saying what they believe, but with coming up with something that can harm the person in question as much as possible in the eyes of those who lack judgment. I have been experiencing this for many years, though not with the same sophistication as has been evident recently. I take no pleasure in getting involved with such dirty people and dealing with their dirty laundry.

[ 46 ] I also don’t like it when a certain clerical faction—and such a faction certainly exists even among people who don’t care about the truth—spread the rumor years ago that I was a priest who had left the Catholic Church. When such blatant falsehoods are proven to them, these people have no other response than what the gentleman in question wrote in a respected clerical journal: “According to recent inquiries, the claim that Dr. Steiner was once a priest can no longer be sustained.”—With this, they believe they can make amends for the very thing through which they have infected numerous souls. This does not make up for it. The point is that, in the face of such behavior, the attitude must take hold that the Austrian parliamentarian Count Walterskirchen once held up to the government many years ago: “Once a liar, always a liar—no one believes him, even if he tells the truth a hundred times.” - Well, that is one example. Those who put such things out into the world are nothing more than purveyors of objective falsehoods, and in my opinion—because I believe they know this as well—liars. It must be said publicly once and for all: There is nothing to this entire smear campaign other than the fact that it is a complete fabrication from start to finish.

[ 47 ] The second thing that is being peddled over and over again today is the rehash of a Jesuit lie that surfaced many years ago. I certainly will not comment here on the pros and cons of anti-Semitism. I will not comment here on this worldview. But time and again, certain people—knowing that it serves their interests—spread the lie that I am Jewish; somehow, this is constantly being pointed out from one corner or another. Back when this tactic was first employed by the Jesuits, I had my baptismal certificate photographed, and to this day I still have very small photographs of it that I can show to anyone who wishes to see them. But I do not believe that such a document can do anything against the parties who are actually involved in this. Among those who have concocted this ridiculous fairy tale about my Jewishness is “Semi-Kürschner.” In it, my entire biography is so distorted as to suggest that I am somehow of Jewish descent. The only thing I can trace in my ancestry is that all my ancestors, on both my mother’s and father’s sides, came from the peasantry of Lower Austria. My father served a truly non-Jewish institution, namely the Geras Monastery and Abbey in Lower Austria, which is a Premonstratensian abbey. The Premonstratensian monks were fond of him and even gave him a scholarship to attend the first few grades of high school. He later became an Austrian railroad official—not a government employee, but a private-sector employee. But just as it can be proven that these paternal ancestors were so far from being Jewish that they were servants of a devoutly Catholic monastery, so too can this be proven for all my maternal ancestors, as far as I am able to ascertain. But I do not even believe that one can make much of a case with such evidence against those who peddle these fabricated claims. For among the figures listed as Jews in the *Semi-Kürschner* is also a figure who, in more recent times, has even made a slight move toward Jesuitism: Hermann Bahr. His biography is also embellished in such a way that one might believe he is somehow of Jewish descent. However, he was able to demonstrate that twelve of his ancestors were genuine Upper Austrian farmers, not Jews or anything of the sort. When this could be proven with documentary evidence, the editorial staff of the *Semi-Kürschner*—which certainly belongs to the category from which such things originate—objected: Well, all right, let’s assume that these twelve ancestors were indeed completely unrelated to Judaism. But then we’ll also believe in reincarnation and assume that Hermann Bahr was Jewish in his previous earthly incarnations.

[ 48 ] As you can see, this side of the argument cannot be countered with reasoning or refutations. We must find entirely different approaches. However, I do not believe that any other path can be found that truly leads to the goal, other than gradually increasing the number of reasonable and decent-minded people in contrast to those who are willing to wallow in filth in order to slander their fellow human beings. I do not believe that indecency can be defeated by anything other than decent-minded people. Neither court proceedings nor rebuttals will suffice; the only way is for as many people as possible who have a sense of decency to come together.

[ 49 ] And it must be said publicly at least once: Even things such as those I have just had to demonstrate are part of what is happening in our time as a result of the intrusion of the “un-spirit” into the realities of life in place of the Spirit. But everything that is having such a terribly destructive effect on humanity today is aimed at one thing, which must be summed up in the words: Humanity—and the German spirit in particular—has a vital need to replace the unspirit, the materialistic unspirit, with the Spirit, for the unspirit must be defeated if we are to rebuild, if we are to achieve human progress once more. And the unspirit will be defeated only by the Spirit, the true Spirit.