The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Great Questions of Humanity ¹ are on the doorstep. The spiritual scientific direction, outwardly represented by the well-known building in Dornach, seeks to provide an answer to this. I will speak here of the pedagogical and social consequences that arise from this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. Before I do that, I would like to give a broad outline of the nature of the whole spiritual-scientific direction. This is not about something that is sought outside of the human being, that could be demonstrated to humanity through experiments, but rather about the most inner human being, which hopes to be able to be implemented in the most practical way. Spiritual science does not want to overthrow the foundations of all previous world views, but rather to add something new to them: the view of a real spiritual life beyond the scientific experience, the realization of the spiritual nature of man.

For three to four centuries, the basic ideas of scientific thinking have dominated our views. Spiritual science is not opposed to these. It recognizes the great triumphs of the scientific world view, but aims to be more scientific than the latter itself. It does not want to back down from the so-called limits of human knowledge, but to arrive at the true knowledge of man. If it has been said that where supernaturalism begins, science ends, then spiritual science also aims to work scientifically in this field. In order to reach this goal, it must first adopt the standpoint of intellectual modesty. A comparison: if you give a five-year-old child a volume of lyrical poems, he will play with it, tear it up, and after ten to twelve years he will be able to use the volume in a meaningful way. We must believe in these dormant developmental possibilities in the five-year-old child.

The spiritual researcher now says that what lies within us is not limited to what has been formed by birth, inheritance and ordinary education. The forces of human nature are capable of development beyond that. Through intimate inner soul work, a person gradually learns to draw abilities from the depths of the soul, of which one has no inkling in ordinary life and [in ordinary] science. The principle here is that the person must methodically and constantly repeat the inner experiment, that he must persistently make an easily visible thought the guiding star of his consciousness. This self-made thought content is placed at the center of his consciousness, and he muster all his soul forces to set nothing but this thought content as his goal. The basis for this is intellectual modesty and belief in the possibility of development. After such an exercise in patience, we experience that human experience breaks away from the physical-bodily tool. One attains a life of thinking, knowing that it is not bound to the human body, that it flows in the spiritual-soul. It is a great moment when one can say to oneself: You live in the spiritual-soul. You then realize that there really are higher spiritual insights that go beyond the life between birth and death. Something is created similar to the ability to remember, an ability to imagine, a life that we can call prenatal life. This prenatal life comes to the soul as an experience, as an inner experience. Immortality is no longer something to philosophize about. The powers that others use for philosophizing are used by the spiritual researcher to develop new abilities and to gain different experiences. The willpower can also be trained. The spiritual researcher takes his path of development into his own hands and tries to exercise self-discipline. By deciding to incorporate this or that habit, the will is cultivated. This realization will perhaps be taken up by many, as, for example, the realizations of a Copernicus or a Giordano Bruno were taken up when mankind still believed in the boundaries of the firmament.

Those who become spiritual researchers themselves gain a new overview of the world and a deep knowledge of humanity. Not everyone can become a spiritual researcher. But in the spiritual worlds, everyone can penetrate due to today's world development.

How can spiritual science enrich the life of education? A practical experiment has been conducted at the Waldorf School in Stuttgart. There is much talk today about the need for change in teaching. Nevertheless, it would be historically ungrateful and historically untrue to say that educational science is the furthest behind in scientific life. When I started to put my ideas into practice at the Waldorf School, it was my conviction that it was not education as a science that was primarily in need of reform, but that we needed a worldview that could directly inspire all art and thus also education, so that we would be able to apply the excellent principles of education that already exist everywhere.

Spiritual science does not merely speak to the intellect; it encompasses the whole human being. Above all, a thorough knowledge of human nature is necessary. One can only penetrate into the real life of a human being through spiritual science. Through it, we acquire the ability to observe the human being from the stage of life when he changes his teeth. Only through spiritual science do we actually develop a more subtle power of observation. This teaches us to recognize how, in the first seven years of life, the human being is a purely imitative creature. An example: a five-year-old boy has stolen money from the drawer. The parents are deeply saddened. Unjustly so. The boy has just seen how the mother always takes money out of the drawer.

Let us pick out something else. When the child reaches seven years of age and gets his second teeth, this also marks an organic, internal turning point. If one has learned to observe the spiritual and soul forces, one learns to recognize how the forces have reached a transition point here (Goethe's law of metamorphosis). In this year, human ideas begin to form in the child in such a way that they can be absorbed by the ability to remember. The forces break away from the organism, become soul-spiritual and appear as a separate power of imagination. These observations are as soundly based as chemical observations.

They show that the abilities that the child develops through play up to the age of seven reappear later, but only in the twenties. In the meantime, they remain, so to speak, below the surface. In the meantime, the forces are used to gain life experience. From the age of seven, play becomes social play. Individual play only comes to life again in the twenties as the power of life experience.

It is very nice when educational principles say that you have to draw out the dormant powers in a child. However, it is not the principles that are important, but knowing what can be developed in a child.

After the seventh year – approximately – the instinct of imitation is joined by the instinct of authority. Anyone who knows human nature knows that from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, there is a predisposition for devotion to an external authority.

The ninth year becomes the Rubicon again. The child breaks away from his surroundings in his inner consciousness and distinguishes himself from them. He distinguishes himself from his authority, but surrenders to it in love.

These experiences must be taken into account in practical teaching. The first actions in primary school must be geared to the will, not to intellectuality. One penetrates to the conventional by way of art. Thus, writing is best developed out of drawing and painting.

Other experiments have been made at Stuttgart. We have created a visible language. The movements of the larynx, as seen by supersensible vision, are translated into soul-inspired gymnastics (Eurythmy), in which every movement is the expression of a soul or spiritual process. The languages that a child is to learn should be presented to him as early as possible. In lively interaction with the teacher, we teach English and French to seven- and eight-year-olds, so that the child grows up with these languages. We teach languages because we know that this develops the whole being of the human being.

Between the change of teeth and sexual maturity, one should not yet reckon with the child's power of judgment, but teach him every idea figuratively. If, for example, one wants to present the immortality of the human soul to the child conceptually, one can show the development of the butterfly. But it is essential that the teacher himself believes in the image presented.

From the age of nine, the child begins to separate from the environment. Now we can appeal to his independent judgment.

The spiritual science therefore reads the curriculum from the observed development of the child. It takes the world as it really is, and is therefore something eminently practical. Technical questions, such as determining the number of pupils per class, take a back seat. When the teacher has fulfilled his task, the necessary individual treatment of each pupil will not suffer, even with a large number of pupils. The pupils will individualize themselves.

(The speaker made the aside that he had predicted the world war as early as the spring of 1914, when all cabinets believed that world peace was secured for a long time to come.

We must approach practical life from an inner experience. The next generation must not be in the same condition as the generation that brought the misfortunes of the last years upon Europe. Anyone who has studied education from a spiritual science perspective knows that spiritual life must be placed on its own. This brings us to the social significance of the whole question.

Today the world is more anti-social than ever. It is necessary to recognize that the spiritual life can only develop if it is placed under its own administration.

Spiritual science recognizes that new movements, which have previously slumbered latently, are each pushing from the depths of humanity to the surface. Such phenomena are not explained by the law of cause and effect. For example, what is called democracy emerged for the first time in the 15th century and has since developed more and more. If we are sincere in our belief in democracy, we must separate from it everything that has nothing whatever to do with it. Only those matters which affect every adult in the same way can be administered democratically: public legal matters. But the spiritual life cannot be governed by the State. It must be placed under its own administration. Those who direct the spiritual life should also administer it.

The same applies to economic life, which can only be judged by people who are experts in the field. This too must be removed from democratic administration. It must not be governed from a central office. Separate administrative organizations must be formed from the circles of consumers and producers.

This threefold structure of the social state is not a parallel to Plato's tripartite division into the warrior class, the teacher class and the breadwinner class. Rather, each individual must be involved in all three. Our present chaos stems precisely from the fact that people stand side by side. In threefold socialism [social organism], however, they are to develop their powers organically.

In the unitary state, the words equality, freedom, fraternity remain a lofty ideal. In the tripartite socialism [social organism], in which everyone is organically connected to all three links, they can be realized. Freedom will prevail in the spiritual life; the democratic administration of the legal life will bring equality to everyone; the self-reliant economic life will flourish in fraternity.

• 1. The transcript of this lecture was found in the Federal Archives in Bern among the files relating to Rudolf Steiner's application for naturalization. It is assumed that it was written by a man named von Bircher on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.

First of all, I would like to express my warmest greetings to you, who have come here as the teachers from our immediate neighborhood. I am convinced that those who take an active interest in our Goetheanum and everything , will join me in wholeheartedly welcoming you on behalf of this Goetheanum and its workers and in expressing our great joy at having you here as our guests.

It has been suggested that I should discuss a few things that have emerged, and in some cases already been put into practice, in the wake of our spiritual scientific endeavors for the pedagogical arts and for the school system, before our eurythmic performance.

But before that, let me make a more general comment.

You see, what is to emerge from our anthroposophically intended spiritual science in pedagogical and didactic terms still has, in principle, few truly understanding representatives in the world today; it has all the more uncomprehending opponents and just as many people who, due to the general state of mental sleep of humanity today, are indifferent to such endeavors. But just in the very last days, things have happened that may be considered as, I would say, a sign, as on the one hand, so to speak, through lonely personalities from the whole breadth of our civilized life, the outlook is opened up to what is to happen from this Goetheanum building in Dornach. I must describe it as an important fact, even if only as a symptom, that the old professor Spitta in Tübingen, who is so well known to us, and who has concluded his teaching activities in these days, has given his last lecture in such a way that it culminated in a discussion of the most eminent spiritual-scientific truth: the truth of repeated earth lives. But not so much that this university teacher, at the solemn moment of the conclusion of his university career, once again professed what he had actually held all his life – that does not even seem as significant to me as the other thing, that he said at this lecture: Gentlemen, just imagine what it would mean for human knowledge and, above all, for human action in the future if this view were to become more widespread. It is a significant mark of a man who has grown old in science and in the philosophy of the present day when he concludes his teaching career with such a confession! For one can well imagine that the terrible events of the time have made a very deep impression on such a personality and that precisely such a personality, in lonely thought, feels the need to say what could help today's declining humanity from the spirit, from the soul, which in turn could lead to a revival.

You see, that is what I would like to say from one side: wherever there are discerning, feeling souls, the views that are represented here in a scientific context and that are also expected here to flow into all civilizational life of our time, can be seen at least as intuitions, which from here want to be represented in a scientific context and which are also expected here to be able to counteract the decline with a new dawn.

But these are flashes of light that arise in isolated places. Those who observe them will perceive them as rare flashes of light, but they will recognize from them the striving, especially among the best of our time, for a renewal of spiritual life from very, very deep sources of the soul. This is, however, opposed by what arises today out of a certain not only drowsiness, but, to put it mildly, out of an enormous superficiality of our time; which arises out of a superficiality that often leads to frivolity, especially in circles that are publicly active in journalism, with regard to the great questions of existence and human life. And after I have shown you a flash of light, I would also like to show you, so to speak, some of the shadows, which, however, do not occur in isolation, but are widespread. I could cite hundreds of facts in support of the last assertion; but I will now present only one particularly characteristic one.

One of our English friends has endeavored to arouse interest in London for what is to take place here in Dornach. He tried to place a very truthful and objective little article in what appears to be a respected journal – there are many such journals and newspapers at present. The journalist, who listened to the matter, with whom the gentleman in question was, a journalist from London, was very friendly and extremely accommodating. He promised to advocate the matter in such a way that a visit from about as many people as are here today to give us the pleasure of being here should be arranged from London. The journalist in question then said something about how transformative what he had been told was. I would like to read you something about this transformation as a document of the frivolity with which people speak today of that which they do not know — for the journalist naturally had no idea of what is going on here in Dornach. Something like this shows how little people today are inclined to respond at all when something wants to assert itself from a source that honestly believes it can counter decline with an ascent. So the following appears in a London magazine as the result of this interview, which the journalist conducted favorably:

Remarks and comments

A School of Spiritual Science

A School of Spiritual Science has been established at the Goetheanum in Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland. The building itself exemplifies a new concept of art initiated by Dr. Rudolf Steiner. It is planned to organize a trip to Basel to visit it, and Dr. Steiner has promised to personally instruct the participants during the ten-day visit, which is to take place in August. Assuming that the trip takes four days, it will be possible for the participants to recover from the shock of the first sight of Dr. Steiner's creation during the remaining six days. Assuming that no one who can make the journey wants to miss out on what we expect will be an interesting experience, we will provide an illustration of what awaits participants at the end of their pilgrimage, and if any of our readers are going to travel, we hope that they will do us the favor of sharing their impressions with us upon their return.” [«The Architect», No. 34, London July 16, 1920]

So you see, this is how you treat something you don't know. This is the mood of the world today, these are the difficulties we have to fight against.

Now, my dear attendees, spiritual science is there for many and it should – this will be shown above all in our autumn course, which is to open on 26 September – exert a fruitful influence on all possible branches of spiritual life. In spring, a more limited course here already showed how the medical-therapeutic field can be enriched by spiritual science. And it is the same for the most diverse fields. The outer form of the building itself is intended to bear witness to what can be artistically attempted through spiritual science that can be absorbed into our perceptions. But today I want to speak to you about the consequences that spiritual science can have in the field of education and teaching. I am not speaking to you about some kind of program that we would not give a damn about, nor am I speaking to you about some kind of theoretical pedagogical discussion. I am speaking to you about something that has already been put into practice during the school year at our “Freie Waldorfschule” in Stuttgart. This Free Waldorf School in Stuttgart was founded by Emil Molt. Its initial aim was to bring to life in practice what can arise from a development of what can be found in our spiritual science, above all, for a real understanding of man and thus also of the child.

You see, it is particularly important to me that we already have a year of real school practice behind us. I attach particular importance to this because all of this spiritual science, as it is to be brought into the world from the Goetheanum in Dornach, would basically be nothing more than just another sectarian movement or some worldview theory or the like — there are already many such beautiful things in the world — if something else were not there; if this spiritual science, in particular, did not want something completely different from everything that comes into the world in this way. This spiritual science does not want to produce ideas for a new world view; this spiritual science does not want to be some kind of theory or even a new religious confession, as it has been slanderously accused of — the latter least of all. What it wants to be was not originally conceived with reference to any religious confession, but rather it was conceived with the scientific way of thinking and attitude of our time in mind. It was conceived as that which can be brought forth by the human spirit and soul in the form of knowledge, just as natural science, which has been so fruitful for our time, has been brought forth as knowledge for physical life. And this spiritual science is based on the fact that if one applies the right methods, which I have described in my books “The Secret Science in the Outline” and “How to Obtain Knowledge of Higher Worlds?”, one is able to gain just as certain knowledge, so enclosed, contoured knowledge about soul and spirit, as one can gain through the scientific methods of the present for the physical world.

However, the work that needs to be done to arrive at spiritual scientific knowledge in a truly methodical way is no more comfortable or easier than the work that needs to be done in a chemistry or physics laboratory, at an observatory, or in a clinic. Just because people imagine that anthroposophical researchers are people who conjure up all kinds of ideas that can be had quickly, that are quickly drawn from the imagination - just because people imagine this, that is why they misunderstand the paths that are to be taken from anthroposophy into the spiritual world. If one familiarizes oneself with the way in which man, in a self-education of his entire being, can alone come to open up within himself views of the spiritual world that are just as exact and certain as the results of natural science; only if one informs oneself about how long it takes to research relatively small, insignificant truths that are added to external-physical knowledge - let us say, for example, for the doctrine of human sense, for human anatomy or the like; only if one realizes how decades of research are often necessary for the most trivial little things in the field of spiritual science: then one will learn to understand that research in this field is by no means more convenient and easier than research in the clinical field, in the observatory, in the physics or chemistry laboratory. But today one does not yet have the will to accept that there can be such research into the mind and soul.

The intentions that have emerged over the last three to four centuries, and particularly in the 19th century, for scientific knowledge have been great and powerful. And I do not need to tell you what this scientific knowledge has brought to the world. But there is one thing I would like to mention: that anyone who stands firmly on the ground of our anthroposophically-based spiritual science will be the very last to disparage anything legitimate in scientific research. Because that is the first thing to be considered: that only those who are not dabbling or even lay in the scientific work of today can stand firm in the field of our spiritual science. Only when one has acquired scientific conscientiousness and scientifically rigorous research methods in the laboratory, in the observatory and so on, when one has educated oneself to the exactitude of research, only then has one awakened in oneself the inner moral world-view that is necessary to become a spiritual researcher. In the outer world, as one says, one always has the rough reality before one, which corrects one. If I am a bad bridge builder in theory and calculate a bridge badly, then the falling train will teach me that I have built my bridge badly. And so the correction is always there if one wants to apply the laws seen by the spirit in the outer physical reality. However, the further we ascend from the lower foundations of physical reality and approach the actual research of mind and soul, the more precarious its exploration of reality becomes. And if you were as strict in judging a doctor who has to rebuild destroyed health as you are in judging nature when it corrects a bad mechanic by means of a crashing train, you would not be able to proceed in the same way according to today's view. Because as a mechanic you can be checked by nature. Whether someone has died despite or even because of medicine - that's where things get a little shakier! And when one reaches the spiritual and psychic spheres, one must bring with one's inner conscientiousness and, above all, the most earnest and strict sense of truth if one wants to conduct supersensible research, for then it is easy to mistake fantasy for reality.

But something very special happens when one acquires the method for spiritual research in this way through inner soul education and soul training. What happens is that one comes closer to the things of the world than one does as an external naturalist. For you see, that is precisely the remarkable thing about the more materialistic natural science of modern times: on the one hand, it places itself before the world of facts of the outer senses, but, by creating ideas for itself in natural laws, this outer sense world, it has increasingly become more and more intellectualized, theoretical, and divorced from reality, so that the newer researchers of worldviews no longer know how to connect the ideas they concoct with reality. They often research whether the ideas that man carries in his soul still have anything to do with external reality. This is the tragedy of the modern, scientifically oriented worldview: people may profess this worldview; they want to deal with reality, with mere external reality, and they come away from this external reality precisely through their ideas. They no longer have the living connection, the connection of the whole human being with living reality. They want to go for reality and grow out of reality. One arrives at abstract intellectualized soul content. And so it happens that the more man grows into materialism, the more he grows out of reality.

If one now sets out on the path of spiritual research, one immediately has the inner experience: you immerse yourself in reality; you do not just stand there looking at your object, but you immerse yourself in this reality with your entire soul life; you become one with reality. That is why spiritual science, as it is meant here, can never exist without one beginning to love and loving more and more the thing one wants to know. Spiritual science is at the same time something that, when it asserts itself in our soul, permeates us with love for the world; which cannot be at all, even though it strives for mathematical clarity in the formulation and shaping of ideas, without seizing the whole human being, the feeling and the will. Therefore, I may say: the practical testing of what follows pedagogically and didactically from spiritual science is actually the only thing that can be valuable to us. Because talking about something, no matter how beautiful the theories are, when you are alienated from what you are talking about: that is basically easy and is the task that numerous world-view people and confession founders set themselves today. What is wanted here has nothing to do with that. Rather, it is precisely this immersion in reality and especially human reality that arises quite naturally in the wake of this spiritual science through nature, through the essence of this spiritual science.

And so it comes about that, above all, what arises through this spiritual science is a more intimate knowledge of the human being itself. Such a recognition of the human being that the one who now stands before the developing human being, the child - before this wonderful world riddle that is born, that in the first days of its external existence shows us the wonderful construction of a physical organism out of the spiritual and soul in every moment , and then, as it grows up, shows us how everything is formed out of the inner being, out of the soul and spirit, that the person who is now confronted with this living mystery of the world, this developing human being, as a teacher or educator, grows together with his task in such a way that one can truly say: Spiritual science is then the fire through which love for education and teaching is directly awakened. That is the goal of all our striving here: to get to know the human being.

But we cannot get to know the human being without getting to know him as he is becoming. And if we really want to get to know the human being as he is becoming, then we even have to enrich our language with a new word. For those who look a little deeper into the reality of life, all the languages of European civilization have only one word for the fundamental fact of life, and there should be two! They have one word. Now, if we go back to primeval times, to those times of human life that only old documents speak of in a mythical way, then we find something similar to what we need again: when we speak of the eternal, of the indestructible in the human being, as opposed to the destructible, perishable body. We need another word to accompany our word 'immortality', which points to the physical end of life; we need the word 'unborn'. For just as we pass through the gate of death with our eternal, spiritual part and live on in the spiritual world – a different life that can be seen through by spiritual research – we also step out of the spiritual world before we are born or conceived here, down to this physical embodiment on earth. We not only pass through the gate of death as immortals, but also come through the gate of birth as the unborn. We need the word 'unborn' in addition to the word 'immortal' if we want to fully grasp the human being in his essence.

What I am hinting at here can be found in my writings, explained from all sides. I can only give you the main features, so to speak, because I want to show you what becomes of human life and human feeling if we want to make such a view fruitful.

Imagine a teacher who, like our Waldorf teachers in Stuttgart, has gone through everything that can be experienced when spiritual science is allowed to take effect on the soul. Imagine him standing before the developing human being, the child. He has not only a gray theory, he has this as a living purpose in life: he says to himself, “The souls have descended from spiritual worlds, these souls on which I now have to work.” And now, from the pedagogy and didactics that follow from spiritual science, knowledge is imparted to him about how these souls can be treated from year to year, from month to month. And I may perhaps give you an idea, since you are all educators of young people, based on a small detail, which in my case is the result of more than three decades of research. This idea, if it does not remain an idea, does not remain a thought, but when it becomes a living activity in the educator and teacher, it evokes a remarkably stimulating relationship between the teacher and the pupil, between the educator and the child to be educated. You see, today in psychology there is much talk about the relationship between the physical and the spiritual. And there are theories that say how soul and body are to interact. But these things are not studied. We do not have the method of spiritual science by which one can study these things. Because one has to study them in detail. You cannot talk about the relationship between the human soul and the body by rambling in generalities, but you have to know all the details. Details of the soul affect details of the human body. I will only hint at which of the individual ideas around which the matter revolves I actually mean.

We first observe the child before they start school. We know that they initially have what are known as milk teeth. From the age of six to eight, they then produce their permanent teeth. This is an extraordinarily important period in the life of someone who does not just observe the outer human being, but observes the whole human being through spiritual science. It is no coincidence that this period coincides with the one in which the child is handed over to the primary school. For what finally pushes through as teeth comes from forces that are present in the whole human being and are active in the whole human being; and that is, so to speak, the final point; when these second teeth appear, an end is put to something that has been active in the human organism until then. That which was active there has gone as far as the emergence of the teeth.

Now, anyone who observes human life more deeply will find that, from a certain stage of human life onwards, memory, and in particular the ability to combine and to imagine, takes on a very specific structure. What later becomes intellectual life particularly emerges from this stage of life onwards. And if we now follow what takes place in the soul and spirit of the child up to the point in time when the second teeth mainly shoot out, if we follow this quite appropriately, as one follows a natural object under the microscope, what becomes of the soul when the teeth are out? then you discover that it is the same power that first flooded and permeated the organism and then emancipated itself from the organism and became free in the soul to become the intellectual faculty.

You observe the child from the age of seven or nine, his life of soul and mind, and you say to yourself: What now emerges as mind has previously, when it was still in the subconscious, worked in the organism. That was active as soul in the body.

I will now summarize something for you that, as I said, is the result of more than three decades of research. You have observed in a very concrete way how the soul works in the body, although it does not appear in its original, natural form until the first seven years. This is how it is everywhere with our spiritual science. Based on strict research principles, it talks about the relationship between soul and body, not philosophically and rambling, but according to concrete results, how the individual soul, in this case the mind, first worked on the body. We follow how the mind works inside the body and gradually organizes the body until the teeth have erupted.

And so it can be done over and over again, and one can come to an understanding of the whole human body from the spiritual-soul realm. Here, theories are not constructed about the interaction of soul and body. Here, not only the human being present in a particular period of time is observed, but the whole human being is followed. One cannot ask: How do soul and body interact from birth to the change of teeth? For that which has been working there only appears externally from the seventh to the fourteenth year of life. Then a new epoch begins. And so, step by step, spiritual science is used to study what this human being actually is. This does not result in the abstract, grey theory of man that we are accustomed to finding in the usual textbooks and manuals; it gives us something that fills us with the realization of how we are filled with something in an individual, personal relationship with what we encounter in life and what interests us directly from life.

This opens our eyes to the development of the human being, the child: how the soul of the child develops more and more in the outer body. And this ignites the will to approach this developing child in the pedagogically correct way. Then one acquires the ability to say how the developing child actually stands in relation to what is to be offered to him.

You see, we teach our children to read and write. If we disregard certain primeval times of humanity, when reading and writing was still very close to human perception – I am only thinking of the old pictographic scripts – and look at our times, at our times of civilization – and we must, after all, live in them and educate ourselves in them – yes, what are our characters, what are our letters, if not something that is very far removed from the original, elementary, childlike experience! The child is actually introduced to a world that is quite foreign to him if he is to learn to read and write. It is not the same with arithmetic, because that is more human. Counting is much more closely related to the original and elementary human soul than reading and writing. Writing has developed further, and pictures have become signs through which one enters a foreign world.

Now, based on our essential insights into human nature, we have planned for our Waldorf curriculum that the child, by being educated and taught in the primary school in the beginning, learns to write from the artistic comprehension of writing and then learns to read from writing. So we do not introduce the child to foreign characters, but we seek out the way from the child's nature – which gives us spiritual scientific guidance to recognize it more precisely: How does the hand want to move? What does the hand experience when it makes a stroke, an action? We let the child draw. We let the child develop what is connected with its elementary nature; and only from that do we develop the written characters. So we start from life and lead to the abstract. We avoid bringing the intellectual element to the fore in any way. We start from life.

And we also start from life in such a way that, for example, we do not bring into the curriculum the kind of alternation that some people find so beneficial, where something different is done in every lesson. Instead, we work on a particular subject in the main lessons until the child has mastered it, until the child has understood it. Therefore, we do not have a curriculum of lessons, but for the main school subjects we have a curriculum that remains the same for about three months. Of course, this excludes languages and so on.

And then we try to fit everything that needs to be learned into the time when the child can develop the subject of its own accord. For example, we try to study everything that follows from the fact that what has been working in the organism at first, then stops working when the teeth change, coming to fruition from year to year in the eighth, ninth, tenth year. We observe what we can teach the child in a particular year, starting from the very first rudiments of observation of nature and historical life. We try to put into practice what is often said today, but which must remain abstract. The pedagogy that we have today is not to be criticized. I have the highest regard for what is available in the way of theoretical education and pedagogical instructions. I do not believe that we can add anything essential to that. But in what we can add from spiritual science because it is a living thing, that is in awakening the pedagogical approach, the didactic, in the utilization of precise human knowledge in the child. Thus, if guided by the insights of spiritual science, one can carefully study how around the age of nine a very important phase takes place in the child's soul. Until then, the child is actually always in such a state that it does not differ significantly from the environment. Around the age of nine, the child begins to differ from the environment to such an extent that from then on we begin to talk about plants and animals quite differently than before. And history lessons should only be taught in a fairy-tale or legendary way, in a pictorial way. They should only be taught at all – even in the very early stages – after the child has learned to distinguish itself from its environment, so around the age of nine.

Thus, through spiritual science, we strive to understand the human being in principle – not only in general pedagogical and didactic terms – and this shows us what we have to accomplish for the developing human being day after day. But all this still has something of thinking, of the conceptual, about it. Something much more important is the other.

Just think about what it means for education if you take the view that we have before us in man only the highest being in the animal series, and we have to develop in him what he receives through physical birth. Through spiritual science, on the other hand, the teacher starts from the basis that A spiritual being has descended from the spiritual world; it has embodied itself in a physical human being. It has brought spiritual substance from the spiritual world and combined it with what comes from the hereditary stream. We have this whole living human puzzle before us and have to work on its development. — How one is overcome by a tremendous reverence for the developing human being! For awe-inspiring stands before us, what the gods have sent down to us from heaven to earth.

And the second feeling that creeps up on us when we face the child is an enormous sense of responsibility; but a sense of responsibility that carries us, that really gives us strength and will to educate and teach. It is therefore something that can enter a person alive. I do not want to be misunderstood. What I mean is that what enters the human being as life – not as theory, not as theoretical pedagogy, not as doctrinaire pedagogy – that is what comes to us through spiritual science. For spiritual science does not just want to reflect the general life of the world in ideas; it wants to enable human beings to partake in this general life of the world. That is why things that arise from spiritual science play a role in educational activities that are based on it, and that we only really notice when we engage with this spiritual science.

We often find ourselves in a position where we have to say something to children that initially goes beyond their understanding when we teach it to them in concepts. Let us assume that we want to teach a child about the nature of the immortal human soul. Those who have experience know how difficult this is if we want to take the matter responsibly and reverently. Let us assume – I want to start from a comparison – we look at a butterfly pupa. We say to the child: Look, the butterfly will fly out of this chrysalis; you will see the butterfly when it comes out of the chrysalis. It is the same with the human soul; the human soul leaves the chrysalis of the body at the moment of death. You just cannot see this soul. An image presents itself to the children.

People often think that if someone does something in this way, it is the same as if someone else does it. Spiritual science shows us that this is not the case. If I have to think about it first to realize that the butterfly pupa with the butterfly flying out is an image for the immortal human soul, if I, because the child is more stupid than I am, I cobble together the image and bring it to him so that he can understand immortality – if you approach the child with this attitude, you are not teaching the child. Only if you believe in the image yourself, you are teaching the child the right thing. And I will be quite honest with you: for me, based on spiritual science, this is not a pieced-together image, but a fact; the human soul goes through what the butterfly shows in the image. And it is not my intellect that has found in this butterfly the image for immortality, but rather: at a lower level of nature, the same process is present. The image is made by nature, by the spirit of nature itself. I do not create the image, but I believe that in the butterfly emerging, nature's creative powers represent the same as the human soul leaving the body. I do not believe that the child is stupid and I am clever, but I place myself on the same level because I have honestly gained what I say to the child in consciousness. I must believe it to the same extent and in the same way that I want to teach it to the child. Then there is something imponderable, then it is really my soul and the child's soul, which at that moment are still connected by quite different forces than by the words that live in concepts and thoughts and theories. This connection with the developing child's soul through such things is often what matters.

And again we see how, in recent times, many things have been misunderstood in a one-sided way. People have striven more and more to teach children only what they can understand. But in so doing they descend more and more into the most dreadful triviality. Just think how banal and ordinary things would have to be presented in order for a child to understand them! And when you look at the method books that describe how to teach children, you will be horrified at the banalities you are supposed to inflict on children.

There is one thing that is so important and meaningful for human life that we simply do not know. When we get to know human life, it is like this: sometimes, perhaps at the age of thirty-five, we remember something we may have learned in the eighth year. If we have learned it correctly, from the right spirit, we know it as clearly as if it had happened yesterday. You also remember: You did not understand that, you accepted that on authority. — You felt that: I am younger, the teacher is older, he understands it, I do not understand it. Now, at thirty-five, the whole thing comes up again. Now you understand it because you have matured. Once people appreciate what it means when, in later life, you feel empowered by your own maturity to understand something that you used to believe only because you respected the person who told you, because he was an authority — if people would only grasp this, then they would also be able to appreciate what it means when spiritual science says: you have to look at the child as it develops up to about the age of seven, and you will find that the child is above all an imitator. It does everything that those around it do. This is a basic law of human nature developing during these years. You cannot educate by admonishment, but only by example, right down to the thoughts. Those who have impure thoughts in their childhood have a bad effect on children. For the souls have a subconscious connection. So, right down to the thoughts, everything is experienced by the child up to the change of teeth in an imitative way and is incorporated into the whole human being by imitation.

But then, with the change of teeth, with the entry of the intellectual part of the soul, begins what the human soul wants until sexual maturity: devotion to an honored authority. This should be said especially to our time, that it corresponds to a human law of development. The child can absorb truths during this time because it sees that the honored authority depends on these truths. Those who have not experienced absorbing truths out of a sense of authority, roughly from the ages of seven to fourteen, can hardly stand on their own two feet in life as independent and free human beings, for they have not developed the right relationship between people in their humanity!

Therefore, our educational philosophy is based on the fundamental principle that up to the age of seven, education and teaching should be based on imitation. The teacher in the primary school up to the age of fourteen then finds himself so isolated that he is the only authority. It has an enormous significance for life if one can later remember: Through your own maturity, you have now achieved something that was instilled during your school days. This gives a special strength. In this way, schooling and education have an effect on later life, when the teacher, through the authority that is taken for granted, teaches the child what he will only understand later. In general, it is easy and plausible for superficial observation: one only wants to teach the child what he understands. But then one makes people old early. One destroys life. One does not give the human being the right earthly substance for later life.

With these truths, I only wanted to make it clear how, not from theoretical pedagogy, but through what a person can become by permeating themselves with spiritual science, in the human relationship, that is achieved for the child, which we would like to add to what the pedagogy of the 19th century has produced in terms of the magnificent, in terms of very magnificent principles. Spiritual science wants to fertilize life out of the need of our time, because it is a recognition that permeates the human being completely in his innermost being. Therefore, this must be carried out in every detail. Our teachers and educationalists should work from the direct knowledge of the human being. Therefore, anyone who says that we want to introduce a new confession, a world view, into the school is judging us badly.

At our Freie Waldorf School in Stuttgart, whose top management I am in charge of and which I have to inspect from time to time, I said from the outset: It is impossible for us to bring the content of a world view into the school. Protestant children are taught their faith by Protestant pastors, Catholic children by Catholic pastors. Dissident children can remain dissident children. When a whole number of these children or their parents came to us and said: Yes, what you teach the children awakens in them the feeling that they should also receive a religious impulse - so the dissident parents came, not just those who belong to any confession; the present confessions do not manage to create such a strong religious need. We were forced to set up general religious education classes because the children educated in the anthroposophical tradition had a religious need arising from the spirit of our teaching and because the children of dissident parents did not want to send their children to religious education classes within a confessional framework. The children who receive these classes would otherwise have received no classes at all. And as I said, Catholic children receive Catholic religious education and Protestant children receive Protestant religious education. We can, because we do not want to bring a particular worldview into the school, be tolerant in the true, genuine sense in this regard. And this tolerance truly bears good fruit in practice. For what we are seeking is not to bring a worldview or confession into the school, but a practical pedagogy and didactics that can come from spiritual science and only from spiritual science. We have a purely objective educational interest in setting up our school and not in promoting any particular worldview. And anyone who claims that we promote a worldview out of our spiritual science, anyone who claims that, is lying. Only someone who knows how we want to serve nothing but practical life through that which, in the face of this life, does not stand in unworldly distances, but precisely through this knowledge, as I have just described to you, is connected with practical life, judges what we want correctly.

That is why we have included eurythmy in the curriculum as a compulsory subject. You will not think me so foolish as to object to the beneficial effects of gymnastics, which were rightly emphasized in the 19th century. But the time will come when people will think more objectively about these things. Then it will be found that gymnastics does correspond to human physiology; it introduces those physical movements into the child, into the human being, that correspond to the study of the human body. But we do not add to this, by contesting gymnastics – our eurythmy.

What is this eurhythmy? It is, first of all, an art, as presented here in public performances. But in addition, it also has a hygienic-therapeutic element and, furthermore, a strong pedagogical-didactic element. It is not based on some invented gestures - through random connections between external gestures or facial expressions and what is going on in the soul - but on what can be gained through careful study by what I would like to call, in the spirit of Goethe, “sensual-supersensory observation”. If we study the human speech organ more from within and see with our senses what takes place, not in movements or modulations, but in the potential for movement, then we can apply this to the whole human being, entirely in keeping with the principle of Goethe's theory of metamorphosis. Goethe sees the whole plant only as a more complicated leaf. What Goethe explained with regard to forms in his morphology and what will only be appreciated later, we try to apply functionally in human activity in an artistic way. We move the whole human organism or groups of people in such a way that it is derived from spoken language. That is, we make hands, legs and heads perform movements that correspond to the movement tendencies of the larynx and its neighboring organs. We make the whole human being into a larynx, so to speak, and thus create a soundless but visible language – not a sign language that comes from the arbitrariness of the imagination. We create a language that we transfer to the human being and his movements. It is formed just as lawfully – only formed through study – as it is formed by nature, which is carried out by the larynx and neighboring organs.

And when we have a short demonstration by children after a short break, so that the pedagogical-didactic element is also expressed, you will see that this eurythmy is not only an art but also, at the same time, soul-filled movement. Every movement is not performed out of physiological insight, but out of an understanding of the connection between body and soul. Every movement is inspired, as the sound is inspired. The whole human being becomes a speech organ. That is why it also reveals what can be artistically shaped in poetry. Today people have no idea that the content of prose is not the main thing in poetry. Ninety-nine percent of poetry today is superfluous! What poetry is based on either the shaping of language in the Goethean manner or on the rhythm of language – one need only refer to Schiller; many other examples could be cited. Schiller said that poems such as 'The Diver' or 'The Walk', for example, did not first live in his soul in prose, but rather something like music, something like a picture, something visionary lived in him. And it was only from this wordless-melodious, from the wordless-pictorial that Schiller and also Goethe formed the words, added them, as it were, to the wordless or musical or inwardly plastic. And so we are also compelled, when recitation is required, for example, to fall back on the rhythm of ordinary speech. For you will hear that the eurythmic presentation — as I said, the human being as a living larynx on the stage before you, moving — will be accompanied on the one hand by recitation and on the other by music. It can also be accompanied by what is not expressed with the poetry. But then it must not be recited in the way that reciting is done in our unartistic age, when the content of the poetry is simply taken from the depths of the soul. Rather, it is precisely the beat and rhythm and the connections that are formed in rhyme, that is, the actual artistic element, that must be expressed in the recitation. For eurhythmics could not be accompanied by the usual unartistic reciting of today. Therefore, eurhythmics will also have a healing effect on what is declining in our other arts.

Above all, you will be interested to know that eurythmy has an educational and didactic element. Gymnastics are excellent for people, but they only develop the outer, physical organism. As a compulsory subject in schools, eurythmy has an effect above all on what I would call the initiative of the will, the independence of the human soul. And this is what we actually need for the next age of humanity. Anyone who looks into the chaos of our social conditions today knows that, above all, people lack this soul initiative.

I have already said that the teacher and the educator cannot manage without the consciousness that can fill them with reverence, but also with responsibility: that they have to work on the souls that come from the spiritual world, but in such a way that the next generation enters the world in the right way. Anyone who looks at the world today already feels how important it is what we, as the next generation, bring into the world. And that is why one has such inner satisfaction when one can see how, without bringing a worldview into the school, our teachers, for example, treat anthropology in the fifth grade: not in a dry sense, not anthropological-theoretical knowledge, but in such a way that what one brings to the children as a first anthropology is permeated and warmed by the spirit. If you teach the children in this way, they begin to be present in a completely different way during the lessons; they establish something in themselves that will remain with them for the rest of their lives.

Likewise, I had the deepest satisfaction when our seventh-grade teacher developed history in this spiritual-scientific way in front of the children – but as I said, not spiritual science, but history treated in a spiritual-scientific-methodical way. In this way, what would otherwise remain more or less foreign to the children is transformed into something that the child knows directly related to its own being. And in this way a bridge can be built everywhere between what the child experiences from the developmental process of humanity and what can inspire the child to become a useful member of the future of humanity.

I wanted to begin with these few words before the eurythmy performances. And now, at the end, I would like to say once more: when I look at people like Spitta, at what can flow from a renewal of spiritual life, when I look at this and am moved to express a value judgment about spiritual science, let me express my joy. This joy is certainly shared by those here at the Goetheanum and those working from the Goetheanum who have set themselves spiritual-scientific, anthroposophical tasks. And I do not hope that it could be absolutely the only right thing to wish you, after you have had the kindness to listen to me for five quarters of an hour and after you will still have the kindness to watch the eurythmic performance and listening to what is played and recited — after that you will still need to recover from the “shock” you have suffered, according to the words of the English journalist, in a period of six days!

at the first Anthroposophical College Course at the Goetheanum

Question: How can we recognize the different temperaments in children and in ourselves?

Rudolf Steiner: I would like to say a few words about temperament, more to point out how, under the influence of the pedagogy that we want to cultivate in Waldorf schools, intellectualism and the other soul qualities gradually become an art of education. What is important is that it should not be a matter of mere skill or of pure science in education, but that it should be an art. This presupposes that one is able to observe the human being from all sides, that one has made a great effort to grasp the nuances of the soul life as revealed in the different temperaments. First more theoretically, then, as soon as one has grasped what you find in our anthroposophical literature in various descriptions of the temperaments, by applying it to life. In many cases, this is a method of convincing oneself of the truth that anthroposophy can help when it is seen in the spirit; it is a method of having life confirm it. Life's experiences will present themselves to us at every turn, showing how what is seen in the spirit - or even just appropriated by learning what the seer has seen - must then be transferred into life.

So it should be a more or less long path of one's own study of the human being, and I would like to say about the whole human being. When this has been passed on to the teacher, then what comes out at the end is something like a rounded handling of life. Let us assume that a teacher has been trained in the way I have only been able to sketch it out, in that he has looked into the being of the developing human being with certain glances, and he comes to teach after such preparation. Then the following can happen: he speaks with a child in class. This child, to whom he asks a question, will prepare to answer with a certain ease and indifference. The teacher has a certain idea of how the answer should be. The child easily decides to give the answer, gives an answer without showing that the decision is difficult for him. In the end, one has the feeling that —- one acquires a certain certainty in this feeling only by allowing what I have described to happen: Yes, that is an answer, it is approximately correct, but this answer came about because this child has forgotten much of what I have already taught. The answer is such that much more could be added to it. And I may be led to add much more. The child accepts this and sits down again. I am dealing with a sanguine child.

I ask a question of a second child. The child shows me as I get up that it takes a certain resolve to approach the question. So it allows the question to approach it, not moving its face back and forth, but looking at me quite rigidly. It allows the question to approach it. Now, after it has heard the question, it is silent for a while. It will take a special art to observe and evaluate such reactions in the right way when teaching in a game of questions and answers. Only after a certain pause, which is, so to speak, completely neutral, can you see an effort in the child to come to a decision, to formulate the answer. One will find that the answer is difficult for him, that the child has to struggle to formulate the answer. For such things one must be able to acquire the necessary sense of tact. And one will generally find that this child brings everything he can muster to give the answer. And one will notice from the child's whole bearing – especially from the fact that he probably lowers his face a little – that he is not entirely satisfied with his answer. One will therefore be able to notice anticipation and retrospective feeling, anticipation and empathy before and after the answer: one is dealing with a melancholy child.

You ask a third child a question. You may need to ask the question a second time, because you realize that the child has not fully understood it. The child barely takes in the question completely, you may have to make an effort to formulate the question again forcefully, and so on. Then the child does not make the gesture with his hand, but in his soul [Rudolf Steiner demonstrates the gesture]. It says something to you; there is then something in the words - you have to have a feeling for this - sometimes something that does not correspond to the question: you are dealing with a phlegmatic child.

Then a fourth child. It has long been noticed that this child is eager to answer and wants to be asked questions. You ask it a question and you can hear how the answer bubbles up. How it says something in some way beyond the answer that one expected. This has nothing to do with the method, or that the answer may not be given correctly, but it is a matter of the habitus, how the child behaves, namely that it pushes itself to do so. One must develop a feeling for what is going on in the sphere of temperament – because it is not at all the case that the child who pushes to answer and wants to be asked is much more knowledgeable than the other. Perhaps it does not even know as much as the phlegmatic child. It is not a matter of the method or something learned, but of the feeling habitus, the sentience habitus. There may be a very poor answer. Nevertheless, you can recognize the choleric child by the way he behaves. And so, if you observe the essence of the human being in the right, lively way – if you stand in front of the children in the first lesson, you can tell from their corresponding expression – if you are only able to assess them correctly – what temperament you are dealing with.

Of course, this is just one example. It can also be observed in other ways. What matters is that the educational theory gained from anthroposophy becomes an art of education, so that, just as the artist nuances in color, sees something in color that the other person cannot see, so one sees something in the child that the other person does not see and perceive, and so one must first become acquainted with the nature of the child.

Question: How can we influence the temperaments through colors?

Rudolf Steiner: I refer you to the booklet “The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy”, which was published many years ago. I will try to explain some of it to you.

Let us assume, then, that a child faces you at an early age as a choleric child. It will not take a game of questions and answers to figure it out, but it may show itself by kicking terribly at every opportunity, by throwing itself on the floor and beating itself. All these expressions are the corresponding ones in the choleric child.

Now, if you are a layperson, you will probably believe that you can tame such a child by placing it in a calming, colorful environment if possible. But that is not true. If you surround the choleric child with blue or dress him in blue clothes, then precisely because he has the disposition for it, when he is surrounded by this calming blue color, which he does not reject, he will act out his choleric temperament. He will become even more “z'widerer,” more rumbling. On the other hand, if the child is surrounded by red, the exciting red color, you know from other lectures that the complementary color is green, the green-bluish complementary color is evoked. The child, when constantly surrounded by red, has to make an effort internally to experience the complementary color internally and is not externally excited. So the same thing, that is what has a calming effect on an excited child.

On the other hand, you will have a good effect on a melancholy child if you get him to come out of himself by bringing him into a blue, greenish-blue environment; so don't be afraid that if you give him a calming, adoring environment, you will make him even more melancholy.

The point here is to really understand how it follows from the essence of man that you fight fire with fire. You see, it is always a matter of starting from the essence of man and using the knowledge you gain to approach life. But I would like to make it quite clear that a mechanistic view must be avoided when considering education as an art. And when we ask how we can influence temperaments by means of colors and such things, we must not fall into the trap of intellectual systematization. If education becomes an art, then one does not arrive at such intellectual schematizing. When dealing with color, one does not look at the temperaments, but in general one is more concerned with whether the child is an excited or an unexcited child. It may also happen, for example, that a phlegmatic child may have to be treated in the same way with colors as a melancholic child, and so on. In short, the aim is to develop a living art of education from a living science of education.

Question: Is it beneficial for children to look back as early as five or six years of age?

Rudolf Steiner: I do not know what prompted the question about children looking back. I also do not know if the question arises from experience. It seems so, because it is written here. I am actually surprised that this question has been asked, because I would have thought that such nonsense, having five- to six-year-old children look back, would not actually occur. As you know from my writings, looking back is practiced, in particular, from “How to Know Higher Worlds” in order to advance spiritually and to gradually arrive at a real spiritual view. And you can easily imagine what a profound effect it has on a person when such a review is practiced, when you consider that the other thinking, the one that runs along in the course of natural phenomena, is the thinking of ordinary consciousness. When we now, through a certain inner effort, try to formulate a review in such a way that we, as it were, go through the events of the day backwards from evening to morning, we snatch ourselves away from precisely this ordinary thinking and imagining and experiencing of things. We break free. And by doing this radically, in such a contrary way, we gradually achieve an inner emancipation of the soul and spirit element in the human being. Such practice provides a support for spiritual progress.

Now it could be meant – it is not clearly expressed in the question – that a review would be adapted for children to such an exercise, which is appropriate for spiritual progress in later life. That would simply be nonsense for the reason that one would introduce an absolute disorder into the relationship between the spiritual-mental and the bodily-etheric of the child. It would be plain to see that one was causing terrible damage. To allow such practices with children would mean that one would tear apart at a very early stage that which corresponds to the imagination, to feeling, to the will; that one would bring such disorder into the whole soul-spiritual-physical organization of the child that one would virtually develop the child, deliberately develop it into childish mental deficiency, into a kind of dementia praecox. If one hears about such things at all, if one becomes familiar with such things, it is important to know that they should not be used in a novelistic way, and especially that they are not only not intended for children aged five to six, but that it is nonsense to use them at all in people before sexual maturity. If the intention is to look back in such a way that the child is allowed to remember the events of the day, then such a thing must at least not be taken to any extreme. It may sometimes be necessary for the child to remember some kind of misbehavior or for them to remember a joy they have experienced for this or that reason, but to is something that is basically also a kind of mischief, albeit a small mischief, compared to when, for example, it is meant to suggest that the child should be doing spiritual exercises.

A question about a 23-year-old person with an intellectual disability: Is the disability connected to a past life and how should the person in question be educated?

Rudolf Steiner: In such matters, each case is truly an individual one and nothing can be said from the few details given on this note, least of all how the mental deficiency in question is connected with any previous life on earth. As for how to treat him educationally, that really depends entirely on what the person was like before. Above all, the person should be followed up in terms of education: What was done with the person before? Was no attention paid to the fact that there were abnormalities in the past? The real issue is that it is not possible for a young person of twenty-three to become feeble-minded unless it is due to an external necessity. Rather, the issue is that the things that preceded it should have been dealt with in the appropriate way. But to answer the question of what to do after he turns twenty-three, you would have to know the person very well.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to come back to a few other things that have caught my eye during the course of the evening. First of all, the matter of the age of nine. It is indeed the case that the main epoch of the developing human being's life is from birth to the change of teeth, then again from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, but that between the ages of nine and ten there is something that intervenes in the child's life in an extraordinarily significant way. You know that the sense of self first arises in the form of a sense of self. This sense of self only emerges in the second, third, sometimes even the fourth year of life. It is not yet an actual sense of self, and this sense of self is not actually present in a transparently clear way even at the change of teeth. So you don't give the child something that is in line with his development when you introduce things that sharply challenge the child to separate himself from his surroundings, to have a strong sense of self. Everything that is perceived when one strongly separates oneself from one's surroundings, when one perceives another being as another, one should bring up as little as possible to the child up to the age of nine, but should guide the child in such a way that it perceives the outside world only as a continuation of its own being, so to speak. One should cultivate precisely this feeling, which does not separate from the outside world. One should educate the child in such a way that it can feel and sense what is outside, as if it were continuing into its own organization and vice versa. And only around the age of nine does a clear and distinct sense of self actually awaken. It is this sense of self that Jean Paul says is actually in the innermost sanctum of the human being and that only this sense of self actually allows one to feel the human being as such, the human existence inwardly. This sense of self awakens in the ninth year. And in this year, between the ninth and tenth year – these things are, of course, only approximations – the world also enters, the outer world; the child differentiates itself from the outer world, is allowed to differentiate itself of its own accord. It is then possible to approach the child with the simplest ideas and observations from the plant and animal kingdoms, no longer to bring things to the child merely in the form of fairy tales, legends or stories, but to really bring them in such a way that the child acquires possible ideas - I do not mean systematically as in science. That is what needs to be observed.

What cannot be emphasized strongly enough for the art of education is that one must not follow the mischief of introducing scientific categories into school life. Unfortunately, even the schoolbooks for the lower grades are often put together in such a way that their content is taken out of scientific books in its structure and direction. But botany, zoology and so on should not be taught to the child as if one wanted to believe that he should become a botanist or zoologist; rather, precisely because one assumes that he should certainly not become a botanist or zoologist, not in such a way that one presents him with all the raisins, but in such a way that one uses the aptitudes that the child has at that particular moment, and then helps them to break through. This is the result of a natural art of education, as applied in Waldorf schools: people are not trained according to a certain specialization, but they are made human beings. And if they then develop in one direction or another, it is because their original abilities have not been suppressed and can now develop in a certain sense. That is what makes a human being human.

Regarding the lecture by Rudolf Meyer, Berlin:

It would certainly be interesting to pursue the considerations that Mr. Meyer so beautifully presented in his lecture on the relationship between Fichte, Pestalozzi and Herbart from a psychological point of view. But let me just express a few thoughts about it.

It is extremely interesting that from the consideration of Pestalozzi one gets the idea that the successes that he had with his art of education are essentially based on the fact that he was, as it seems, an infinitely amiable personality, especially towards children, and that out of a certain childlike love he instinctively applied a highly perfect art of education.

It is a different matter when we look at what was happening around Pestalozzi. Here we do not get the impression that Pestalozzi would have been able to transfer to others the educational skills that he possessed through the inherent kindness of his personality. And if you look at the actual pedagogical principles, the more fundamental aspects, and not just at the extraordinarily charming descriptions that Pestalozzi gave of life with children – which can be extremely inspiring, especially for educators – but if you ask other people about the instructions he gave, you can see that he was not in a position to become aware of what instinctively worked in him as an educational art in a lovable way, so that he could have transferred it to others. Therefore, the love that Pestalozzi is shown is actually based more on the fact that this amiable personality speaks from all his writings, and what one feels when reading these writings triggers many educational impulses from within the human being. While - I only need to recall the instructions that Pestalozzi gives, one must teach very young children the parts of the human body in a way that is not at all natural. If you look at Pestalozzi's formulations in his art of education, you have to say: that is not suitable for inspiring other educators.

But something else is becoming blatantly obvious. It may well be that Pestalozzi also proceeded with young children as he describes it, and had great success; while another - even a direct student of Pestalozzi, we can prove that it was so - who followed the same instructions, now achieved absolutely nothing. The fact is that the important personality of Pestalozzi was not behind it. In the final analysis, it is not the content that is important in a pedagogical system that aspires to become an art of education. The pedagogy cultivated in Waldorf school lessons is actually about the fact that, under certain circumstances, even if the content of what is taught is based on false premises – it does not have to be so, but it can be so – it can nevertheless have an effect on the child in an appropriate way through the way the art of education is applied. One might say that in Waldorf education it is not so much the content of the teaching that is important as the way it is handled. This is because spiritual science is fundamentally not something that merely — that is not even the most important thing, in fact — but spiritual science essentially consists in the fact that it gives a living world view, that it allows what it gives as a world view to be truly experienced. That is why spiritual science is so poorly understood. Because, you see, in the sense of our spiritual science here – and I am saying this precisely with regard to spiritual science as the basis of a pedagogical art – it is certainly a mistake for someone to be a pure materialist, for someone to have materialistic theories; but one can also formulate materialistic theories very wittily. One can have spirit and be a materialist. And conversely, one can also be a spiritualist, a theosophist, an anthroposophist, who can reel off theories from spiritualism, theosophy or anthroposophy and be terribly spiritless in the process. Then it is a matter of the spirit of materialism, which, however, prevails, having to be valued more highly in the sense of a real anthroposophy than the spiritlessness of the anthroposophist, who schematically recounts everything that is theory or inanimate outlook on life. So that one can say: anthroposophy is directed towards the real life of the spirit. And this real life of the spirit really does enter the whole human being. In a sense, the spirit should be banished into what the human being does. And that is what makes the teacher, from the most profound level of his spiritual science, skilled in the art of education, which enables him to truly transform education.

This is what Rudolf Meyer presented so beautifully in his lecture and by which he measured the intellectualism of Herbart, who played such a great role in the education that we will hopefully soon have behind us and that we will very soon replace with a different one.

Today, you have also been presented with a very nice illustration of how Herbart's views were shaped by his inheritance. But there is something else that matters in the assessment of Herbart, namely how the selection has worked. For the culturally and historically important phenomenon is that one looks at this Herbart, who was purely intellectualistic, but who founded a comprehensive pedagogical school that then had an enormous influence on pedagogical work. It must be said that the fact that, of all the philosophers and other world-view thinkers, it was this intellectualist Herbart who was chosen by the fate of Central Europe to be the educational source of inspiration can be traced back to the entirely intellectualist tendency that the intellectual life of the 19th century took.

This can be made particularly clear with regard to Herbart by the following: one could point out, for example, as Rudolf Meyer has done very nicely, and one can also do so with other personalities, that Schiller's “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man” are also a kind of pedagogical impulse. Schiller, who so magnificently portrays how, on the one hand, man tends towards intellectualism and, on the other, towards mere sensual-physical instincts, points out how man follows the necessity of reason in logic, in the intellectual, and how he follows the necessity of the senses in ordinary life. And then Schiller presents beauty, which is the balance between the two, which one achieves by being able to follow the spiritual not only logically in the intellect, but to already have it in sensual perception, so that one may also feel the pleasant as thoroughly beautiful. On the other hand, he demands that what one experiences sensually should already be spiritualized, so that it is elevated, that one experiences it as spiritual. Schiller therefore actually wants to create a balance in beauty between the intellectual and the sensual-illustrative or instinctive will. And basically he wants to permeate all of life with what emerges from people when they are educated for such a balance. In Schiller, we see how he wants to bring people to action through the spirit, how he works towards this balance between intellectualism and between the instinctive, that is, the dull-willed element, but one that is to be spiritualized, how he points out that the whole human being is to be placed in the world.

This is then contrasted with Herbartianism – yes, one can tell a whole story about it if one has experienced Herbartianism as strongly as it was experienced by people who spent their youth in Austria in the second half of the 19th century, where Herbartianism was proclaimed as philosophy from all the lecterns. It was only Brentano who introduced a change in this respect, but he was an isolated case. Herbartianism continued to be preached until the turn of the century, or at least until the 1890s, and everything that was achieved in the field of education, as you can see, is based on Herbart.

One of these 'Herbartians' was Robert Zimmermann, a very brilliant man, an important man and also a morally superior personality; but he was a Herbartian through and through. And he wrote a 'Philosophical Propaedeutic' for grammar school students. This “Philosophical Propaedeutic” also contained a psychology. In this psychology, there is the following sentence: Man experiences hunger or satiation through food not through something else, but through the ideas he has about it. So it is quite broadly argued that it does not depend on the real process behind the phenomenon of how hunger is transformed into satiation, but it depends - and now I quote almost word for word: if you have the idea of hunger at a certain moment of the day, this idea of hunger would be pushed below the threshold of consciousness by the opposite idea of satiation.

This replacement of nutrition with a purely intellectual process is something that has actually been included in high school psychology textbooks, and one can imagine how the minds of those who absorbed such psychology without knowing it had to be colored.

But I would like to draw attention to something else. Very briefly, I will touch on how Herbartian aesthetics stands in contrast to basically all other aesthetic worldviews that have emerged in Central Europe. When one speaks of aesthetics, then it depends on whether one speaks – I will say it now in general – of what speaks to you as beauty or what repels you as ugliness, that you essentially remain in the realm of taste judgment. Then one differentiates from this aesthetics – and this is what otherwise distinguishes aesthetics from the ethics found within Central Europe – that which, as will, impulsates the moral act or that which is sick in the will in the immoral act. What other people in Central Europe developed as aesthetics, what they selected from the direct impulse of the will, does not exist for Herbart's philosophical considerations. For ethics is only a special chapter of aesthetics. And just as in art, when two forms have something in common, for example, this is the summarizing, the harmonious element, so it is for Herbart in relation to moral judgment. He speaks of five forms: the relationship of action to action or action to thought, and the like, and he says: a strong action pleases next to a weak one. He looks at the aesthetic impression, not at the volitional impulse, and gives his judgment of favor the term “perfection.” So that in the case of perfection, it is not the volitional element that is effectively present in the human being as a volitional impulse, but rather he says: If I will more strongly one time and more weakly the other, I gain the aesthetic impression that the strong is more pleasing than the weak. Therefore it is predominant.

You see, what should be a powerful driving force is reduced to a judgment of liking or disliking. You then have the idea of wanting, of moral freedom, of right and of retribution. These five ethical ideas are therefore considered by Herbart, not by taking them out of the nature of the will, of ethos, but by observing, as it were, how man's action pleases or displeases when it is looked at. So you have here the task of at least guiding ethics, which should essentially arise from the will, on the way to the intellectual. I said that one must look at the selection process to see why Herbart was chosen by the fate of Central Europe. This is based on the fact that the age as such had to go through intellectualism, that the age as such demanded intellectualism.

Now, we have indeed gained a great deal through intellectualism. In Herbart's work, some dark sides and some light sides of this intellectualism can be seen. As Mr. Rudolf Meyer just mentioned, Herbart's ideas only found their way into elementary school pedagogy indirectly, not exactly directly, but all the more so into grammar school pedagogy. The only problem is that in the latter case, it remained an intellectual exercise and did not lead to a true art of education or to the proper practice of pedagogy. For what was this grammar school education? As you know, as a rule the philosopher in the philosophy faculty had to teach it as a subsidiary subject, not out of any great sympathy for it. And as for how it was practised – well, we would rather not talk about how education was practised at grammar schools. It was simply not possible to bring into the art of education that which draws from mere intellectual sources. On the other hand, we must not forget or overlook the fact that Herbart, who had such a broad impact and was so widely disseminated, had an enormously disciplining effect on thinking, that the inner weaving of thoughts does not follow pure arbitrariness but certain underlying laws, which is of course also true. And in this respect it did not really improve until Herbartianism gradually declined more or less only towards the end of the nineteenth century; on the contrary, it must be said that there was something disciplining in Herbart's philosophy , something that, even if it easily led thoughts into an even greater pedantry, nevertheless made this pedantry less unbearable than when the pedantry runs without an inner conformity to the laws of thinking. On the whole, it must be said that, in the 19th century, humanity's urge to discipline thinking inwardly came about, which then also had an effect on natural science until very recently and which has a certain significance. It must be said that in this respect Herbart certainly had a disciplining effect. But today we are faced with a challenge of the world, in the face of which we have to say: We will not get anywhere with such intellectualism. We can no longer, so to speak, substitute the idea of hunger and satiation – apparently it can only be one or the other – for the real process and thereby entrench ourselves entirely in our heads as in a fortress. We have to engage the whole person through what we do. In the course of this discussion about Herbart's intellectualism, I was constantly reminded of how the entire 19th century, especially in Central Europe, was dominated by intellectualism. This became very vividly clear to me many years ago in a conversation I had with the long-deceased Austrian poet Hermann Rollett. He was a remarkable personality. He was completely immersed in intellectualism. He could not imagine the world differently. He said that everything else was simply not proper, had no discipline of thought, one had to think intellectually, think atomistically, and so on. But he was terribly pessimistic, and he once said to me: “For our development as a civilization, as civilized people of the world, we have the prospect of ultimately wasting away in all our limbs and being only heads, being only a ball!” This was Rollett's world, and it was what led him to despair of the progress of humanity, because he believed that the limbs would atrophy more and more, that man would only roll along as a head ball, and that there would be such small bits of arms and feet sticking out. He painted this vividly as a picture.

But it is necessary, at least in a spiritual and psychological sense, to do everything from now on to prevent man from developing into a mere head person in the future. It must be understood that the spirit is not only talked about to him, but that it is banished from human life. But when the spirit takes hold of the whole human being in such a way that this whole human being also radiates the spirit into the social existence, then this is what the time demands of us with all our energy and what we must fulfill: the education of the human being not only as a head human being and towards some one-sidedness, but the education of the whole human being through spiritual science.

In September and October of this year, we held courses at the Goetheanum in Dornach that attempted to apply the anthroposophical perspective to a wide range of academic subjects and to various areas of practical life. The aim of these college courses was not merely to discuss anthroposophy as such, but rather to bring together experts from a wide range of scientific fields, artists and also practitioners of commercial, industrial and other practical life. was precisely that they should show how the anthroposophical point of view, the anthroposophical way of examining life and the world, can be used to fertilize the most diverse scientific and practical areas of life.

You are aware that today, despite the great triumphs fully recognized by spiritual science, in particular in the field of natural science, the scientist everywhere comes up against certain limits wherever questions arise that cannot be answered at all with the methods and means of observation recognized by official science today. Then one is inclined to say: Well, there we have insurmountable limits to human knowledge, to human cognitive power, and man simply cannot transcend these limits. Anthroposophical spiritual science is intended to show precisely how the research methods, the way of thinking and looking at things, which the more materialistically oriented scientific and life attitude of modern times has brought about, can be fertilized when one moves on to a completely different way of knowing, to a completely different way of looking at things.

And here I touch upon the point that still earns anthroposophy the most opponents and even enemies in the present day. Opposition to anthroposophy does not arise so much from certain logical foundations or from scientifically well-tested objections, but this opposition comes from a quarter that recently - whole books are now appearing, almost every week one, to refute anthroposophy - a licentiate in theology described it in the following way: He said that anthroposophy makes one angry, that it is unpleasant and unsettling. So it is not from logical grounds that a certain antagonism arises, but, one might say, from feeling. And this stems from the fact that anthroposophy does not simply accept the knowledge that has been developed by mankind to date, which is simply structured in such a way that one says: Man has inherited certain abilities for his cognition; he gradually brings these to light through his natural development; through ordinary education he is then further trained to become a useful member of human society - and so on, and so on. With what one acquires on one side, one now also approaches knowledge itself, scientific life. One then tries to develop different methods: methods of observation, methods of experimentation, logical methods, and so on. But if one looks at the whole methodology of today's science, it is based on the assumption that one has once achieved something in the normal in terms of cognitive power, and that is not exceeded. No matter how much one is armed with the microscope, the telescope, the X-ray apparatus and so on, one does not go beyond a certain level of cognitive ability, which is regarded today as the average human being. Scientific progress is made by developing this ordinary method of knowledge in a complicated way or in exact detail, but above all, it is not thought of in the way that anthroposophy does. It starts from what I would call 'intellectual modesty'. And that is precisely where it becomes provocative for people of the present day, who, to a certain extent, do not want to hear anything like that from the outset. But one cannot help but present the facts in an unembellished way.

You see, if a five-year-old child is given a volume of Goethe's poetry, all they might know how to do with it is tear it up. When the child is ten years older, they will do something completely different with the volume of Goethe's poetry. They will delve into what is written on the individual pages. Something has grown with the child. The child has matured. The child has brought forth from its depths something that was not there ten years ago. A real, not merely a logical process has taken place. The child has, as it were, become a different being.

Intellectual modesty, I said, must be shown by anyone who wants to become a spiritual researcher in the anthroposophical sense. At a certain moment in their lives, they must be able to say to themselves: just as a real process takes place with the child between the ages of five and fifteen, and just as soul forces that have not revealed themselves before actually do so after ten years, so can one further develop what the cognitive faculty and the soul forces are in ordinary life. One can move away from the scientific point of view that one once accepts as the normal one; one can undergo a real process in one's knowledge. One can also develop further that which most people today already regard as the end of the cognitive faculty and at most further develop in science logically or through experimental arrangements - one can develop this further by bringing forth further powers from within the soul. And the anthroposophical method is based on this bringing forth of the forces slumbering in the soul. It is based on the fact - I will characterize it quite concretely right away - that one completely subordinates to the will that which otherwise exists as thinking merely in reference to the external world.

So how do we actually think in everyday life? How do we think in science? We think in science in such a way that we abandon ourselves to the external world or to our experiences. We think, so to speak, along the thread of our experiences or of appearances. To a certain extent we apply our will to our thinking, in judgment and in drawing conclusions; but something entirely different arises when that which otherwise lives only instinctively as a thought in man, when that, if I may use the comparison, is taken up by man inwardly in self-education into his hand.

When a person has practised for years the art of placing easily comprehended ideas in his consciousness, when he has brought certain ideas (and I emphasize the term “easily comprehended”) into the centre of his consciousness entirely through his own will and not through stimuli from the outside world, and when he has then, again with the application of his full will, on such inner visualization, inwardly resting, diverting attention from everything else and inwardly resting on a complex of ideas that he himself has placed at the center of his consciousness, he can exercise the powers of the soul in a different way than one does in ordinary life and also in science. And just as a muscle acquires a certain strength when it is exercised, so the soul powers acquire a definite power through exercise. They are trained in a very definite direction when one applies these inner methods, these intimate soul methods that I have described, to oneself as a spiritual researcher. I have described these methods in detail in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds', in my 'Occult Science' and in other books; there one can read in full detail what I now only want to characterize in principle. I have called meditation and concentration that which the soul undertakes with itself, which is an inward, intimate spiritual-scientific method. But I would like to make it very clear that these things cannot be mastered in a short time. It is rather the case that spiritual scientific research takes no less time than research in clinics, in chemical laboratories or at the observatory. Just as in these fields one must acquire methods through years of practice, so too must one, and with a strong inner power of concentration, greater conscientiousness, still bring the soul faculties out of the soul itself.

And then, when such methods are applied to the soul, the capacity for knowledge expands. Then one certainly comes to see how man can recognize quite different things than he can perceive through his sensory eyes and through the combination of appearances presented by the sensory eyes or the senses in general.

That is one way. It goes through concentration, through the power of imagination, and through this one arrives at inner beholding, at what I have called in my book 'Mysteries of the Soul', the human being's power of beholding, of beholding cognition.

One can also develop the soul powers in another way, indeed one must do so if one really wants to achieve something. We must also train that faculty, which you all know well in its simplest manifestation: attention. We do not relate to external life and internal phenomena merely by surrendering to them passively, but we direct our power of observation, our attention, to something in particular, which I might call, we carve out of our surroundings. Even when we are doing scientific research, we have to focus on something in particular and link the other things to it. Then, when you train this attentiveness through inner will, through the application of the most active soul powers, when you do exercises that make you aware of the power you use when you pay attention to something, when one practices this power of focusing, this ability to concentrate one's soul life on something isolated from life, over and over again, then one makes a remarkable discovery. Then one makes the discovery that one gradually develops more and more the soul power that otherwise only comes to us in what we call interest in the world around us. We pay more or less interest to the one object and less to the other. This reveals a gradation in our soul's behavior towards the inner world. This interest is accompanied by an enormous liveliness; it becomes such a liveliness that one can truly say: it becomes something quite different from what it is in ordinary life and in science. It becomes what one can call: one feels at one with things. The soul's powers gradually permeate the essence of things. And this experience of an increased power of interest goes even further. It now goes so far as to develop a special power that is otherwise only brought to bear in another area of life, but which, through anthroposophical spiritual science, becomes a power of knowledge.

We have arrived at a point where, if we express the realities that are within Anthroposophy and reveal themselves as such, we are quite understandably considered to be amateurs or fantasists when compared to the views of today. What at first is attention in itself is transformed into the power of interest with which one experiences so clearly how the whole human being can be drawn out of the world; how one does not first have to prove and hypothesize whether this or that wave vibration underlies red or blue, but rather one grows with red and blue; where that is further developed, which Goethe so ingeniously developed in the chapter “Sensual-moral effect of color” in his theory of colors, where man really feels his soul life flowing out into the world, so that his cognitive faculty becomes like a flowing out of his soul life into the world phenomena. And his power of knowledge is transformed into that which we otherwise call love in life. Love, through which we become one with another being, is present in ordinary life, I would say only in its beginning; through the soul exercises I have indicated, it becomes such a soul power that recognizes itself in the whole environment.

And so one can say – I can only hint at all this, in my books it is presented in more detail – by developing the imagination on the one hand, and on the other hand the power of attention, the power of interest, the power of love, which underlie the life of the will, new powers of knowledge develop, and the human being experiences an expansion of his knowledge. What is otherwise called the limit of knowledge and what is often described as insurmountable, especially by contemporary researchers, can only be transcended through the development of the soul's inner powers - not by arming the eye with the microscope and telescope or with the X-ray apparatus, but only by training the human soul itself, by developing that power of knowledge that takes us beyond the sensual and the combination of the sensual through the mind. What now reveals itself to the human being is not a second edition of the sensory world, but the real spiritual world. And by awakening in this way what works in him supernaturally as spiritual life – for that is awakened by these two powers that I have mentioned – by awakening this in himself and bringing it to real exactness, in a way that otherwise only mathematics can achieve, he is led beyond the world of the senses, not through speculation about atoms and molecules, but through direct experience and observation of what the senses present. And man comes to recognize that which underlies him as a supersensible world just as his physical body underlies him as a physical thing. Man comes to know the spiritual world.

The anthroposophical spiritual science that emanates from the Goetheanum in Dornach is not to be confused with the many attempts today to study the mind by imitating the methods that are otherwise used in laboratories. There are certain people — just think of spiritualism — who believe that today, through external actions, through external experiments, they can penetrate deeper into the essence of things; they would like to recognize the supersensible through sensory research. That is precisely the essential point: that the supersensible can only be recognized with supersensible powers. And since these supersensible powers are slumbering in man at first - because, as he is once constituted between birth and death, he must first become proficient in the sensory world - he must get to know through the development of supersensible powers that which goes beyond death and birth, that which belonged to him even before he entered into this existence through birth, that which he retains when he passes through the gate of death.

I will just briefly mention how, in fact, when man penetrates to this supersensible faculty of knowledge, regions are opened up that cannot be opened up in any other way, namely, precisely that which is beyond birth and beyond death. Today it is almost entirely left to the faith of the creeds to teach people anything about what is beyond death. But even our language testifies to the fact that we are actually proceeding in a fundamentally one-sided way in this respect. We have the word 'immortality'. Admittedly, it does not come from knowledge, but from faith. But this immortality only wants to speak of the life that is beyond death. Spiritual science shows, by opening up the supersensible worlds, that man was also present in the spiritual world before birth, or let us say before conception. And the fact that we do not have the word “unborn” testifies that we have not recognized a real spiritual science in the present. As soon as man penetrates into the supersensible world through knowledge, not merely through faith, not only the prospect of the immortality of his being opens up to him, but also of the unborn of his being.

I can only briefly touch on all this, because my task today is to show how this anthroposophical spiritual science – which is intended to be modelled on a very exact science, but which is also taken entirely from the human soul: mathematics – can actually lead to cognitive insights into spiritual and supersensible life. We draw mathematics from the inner being, and if one person is familiar with the Pythagorean theorem, thousands or millions of people could come and deny it, he would know the truth of the mathematical field simply by having this content in his consciousness. It is the same with the inner experiences of the supersensible, as they come to light through spiritual science. This spiritual science is already developed in many details today, and, as I indicated in my introduction, it can have a fruitful effect on individual sciences as well as on practical life. Although this spiritual science is already being actively researched in the field of medical therapy, for example, I myself held a course for doctors and medical students in Dornach this spring, in which I tried to show how spiritual scientific observations can lead to a much more rational therapy than the one we have today.

We have also founded institutions for practical life, such as the Futurum in Dornach, which is intended to be a purely practical undertaking and to found an association in which various branches of industry are united in order to make further progress in rational administration than time has brought us, which has led us so much into an economic catastrophe. Everything in practical life today testifies that humanity is at a boundary that must be crossed.

Now, I do not have to spread out today over the other areas in which spiritual science is already proving its fertility through the practice of life itself; I have to speak primarily about the fertilization that education, the pedagogical art, can experience through this spiritual science.

First of all, it should be noted that the knowledge and understanding that is gained in the way I have just described is not the kind that has been brought to humanity in particular in the last three to four centuries. This knowledge of the last three to four centuries, although based on experiment and observation, is essentially knowledge that is developed by the intellect and speaks only to the intellect. It is essentially head knowledge. The knowledge and insight that is gained through anthroposophical spiritual science speaks to the whole person. It not only engages the intellect, but it spreads out in such a way that what can be recognized there also permeates our emotional life. We do not draw a conclusion from our feelings — that would be an ambiguity, a nebulous mysticism. Knowledge is attained through vision. But what is attained in this way then has an effect on the human emotional life, it stimulates the human will, it leads the human being to develop this knowledge, this insight, into their daily life, so that it permeates them like a soul blood, which in turn communicates itself to the physical body's functions, impulses and practical life. And so we can say that the whole human being is affected.

And it is precisely for this reason that this anthroposophical spiritual science, when it permeates the individual, is a foundation for what the educator, the teacher, has as a task in relation to the developing human being. As you know, it is always emphasized today that the art of education must be based on psychology, on the study of the soul. But if we look around at what is considered psychology by our contemporaries, we have to say that the many judgments and discussions that take place show how much it is all just empty words, how little this contemporary science, which has achieved such great triumphs in its research into the external world, can penetrate into the actual knowledge of the human being. This is the peculiarity of anthroposophical spiritual science: it does not acquire this knowledge through external experimental psychology – although nothing should be said against this, because its results only become truly fruitful when they are also fertilized by anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. What one must penetrate in the science of the soul, if one wants to become an educator, a teacher, one acquires by allowing oneself to be seized by anthroposophical spiritual science. One learns to recognize what actually lives in the human being as body, soul and spirit when one approaches the anthroposophical methods and through them inwardly grasps the human being.

I have already described how anthroposophical spiritual science strives to inwardly grasp what lives in our environment by means of its special methods of knowledge. But we must penetrate to the core of the human being, especially if we want to treat him pedagogically. And here it is a matter of the fact that our time cannot at all build a bridge between the soul-spiritual on the one hand and the physical-bodily on the other. All manner of psychological hypotheses have been put forward, ranging from the interaction of body and soul to 'psychophysical parallelism', in order to explain the mystery that lies before us in the relationship between body and soul or the spiritual-soul and the physical-bodily. But our psychology, because it does not use spiritual scientific methods for research, is not at all so far advanced that it could provide any basis for real pedagogy, for the real art of teaching. And I must point out something here that I only hinted at in my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' ('On Soul Mysteries'), but which is the result of thirty years of research by me. I would not have allowed myself to express it earlier, what I now have to say and what I hinted at in that book after thirty years of research. It is that today it is commonly believed that mental life is mediated only by the nervous system. The nervous system is regarded as the sole physical basis of human mental life. It is not! It can be shown in detail – and I have also hinted at such details in my book 'Von Seelenrätseln' – that only what we call the life of thinking has the nerve sense system as its physical basis and that the actual organ of the life of feeling in man is not the nerve sense system, but directly the rhythmic system, the respiratory system, the blood circulation system. Just as the nervous system underlies the life of thinking, so the rhythmic system underlies the life of feeling in the human being, and the life of will is based on the metabolic system.

These three systems, however, comprise all the inner processes that a person undergoes. The human being is a threefold creature. But we must not imagine that these three parts of the human being - the nervous-sensory system, the rhythmic system and the metabolic system - are juxtaposed. No, they are interwoven, and we have to separate them from each other in a spiritual-soul-like way if we want to see through the essence of the human being at all; because, of course, the nerves also need to be nourished. The metabolic system also plays a role in the nervous system, and also in the organs of the rhythmic system; but the organs of the rhythmic system serve only the will insofar as the metabolism plays a role in them; whereas insofar as they represent actual rhythmic movements, they serve the emotional life. And again, when our rhythmic being encounters something, when our breathing rhythm, for example, encounters our nervous system indirectly through the cerebral fluid, the interaction between the life of feeling and of imagination arises. In short, the human being is a more complex creature than is usually believed. Even that which one can ultimately have as the correct physical view of a person cannot be achieved with today's scientific methods, but only through inner vision, through growing together with the person himself in such an insight as I have described.

When one grows together with the being of a person in this way, when one sees the soul's activity in the physical body, then the growing person also presents himself in a new light. For someone who does not grasp things with a sober, dry intellect, but who can recognize the world through feeling, the growing child is a wonderful mystery as it reveals more and more of its inner life from day to day, from week to week, from month to month, from year to year. That which we cannot observe merely with the abstract faculty of knowledge, that which we can only observe if we ourselves can inwardly immerse ourselves in what is revealed on the face, what is revealed in the movements, what is revealed in the development of speech and so on, that can only be truly grasped with a knowledge that inwardly penetrates the outer world.

And such knowledge reaches us not only by grasping our intellect – with this intellect we then want to recognize externally the tasks that we should apply to educate and teach the child – no, anthroposophical spiritual science encompasses the whole human being. And in that it reveals the developing child to the whole human being in the interaction of body, soul and spirit, anthroposophical knowledge permeates our minds and our will — I would say in a way that is as natural as the blood, enlivened by the breath, permeates the human body. We are not only inwardly connected with the child through our intellect, we are also connected through our soul. We are connected through our will, in that we know directly: when we recognize how the child develops, we know what we have to do in this or that year of the child's development. Just as the air sets our blood in motion, just as the organism comes into its functions through what the outside world invigorates in it, just as it is seized by what the outside world accomplishes in it, so our soul and spirit are seized by such a living knowledge as we receive through anthroposophical spiritual science. And then, that which is developing within the human being as his individuality reveals itself to us, and we learn in an inward way to treat this individuality in an educational and teaching way.

Do not expect anthroposophical spiritual science to establish new educational principles. Educational principles, beautiful ones – I am completely serious when I say this – deeply penetrating pedagogical rules: the great educators have found them, and no spiritual science would dare to object to the genius of the great educators of the 18th and 19th centuries. But there is something here that needs to be pointed out very clearly.

You see, people say today, and have been saying for decades, that education should not be about just introducing something to the child; rather, one should develop what is in the child, his or her inner individuality. One should draw everything out of the child. In an abstract form, spiritual science must also say this. But precisely for this reason, spiritual science is misunderstood. If I want to make myself understood, I would like to recall something that I am using for comparison. It was in 1858 when the socialist Proudhon was accused of disrupting society. After the judges had reproached him with various things, he said that it was not at all his aim to disrupt human society, but rather to lead human society towards better conditions. The judges then said: Yes, that is what we all want, we want exactly the same as you. So spiritual science says: We want to develop human individuality. It has also been said in a certain abstract form for a long time that human individuality should be developed. But the point at issue is not to express such a principle in abstract forms; the point at issue is to really see this human individuality developing in a living contemplation, to really grasp the human being inwardly.

And now I would like to illustrate how the developing human being presents himself to spiritual science. First of all, we have clearly definable stages of life in a human being. We have a stage of life that begins at birth and lasts until about the age of seven, when the teeth change. Then, if one is able to observe correctly, a very intense change takes place in the human being – physically, mentally and spiritually. Then the development continues again until about sexual maturity, when a new change takes place. Within these individual stages of life, there are smaller stages. I would like to say that in each of these stages, we can distinguish three smaller stages that can only be properly obtained through observation that penetrates into the inner being of the human being. That is what it is about. Because what we want to know about the human being is at the same time the driving force for pedagogy, in that pedagogy should become art.

First of all, the first phase of life up to the age of seven shows us, above all, how the human being, as a spiritual, soulful and bodily creature, is entirely inclined to be an imitative being. If you study the human being in this phase of life and see how strongly he is predisposed to devote himself entirely to his surroundings, to carry out within himself what is presented to him in his surroundings, then you understand the human being. But one must be able to observe this concretely. One must then see how, for example, in the first two and a quarter years of life - these are, of course, all approximate figures - what occurs in the human being does not yet show itself as a real imitation, how organizing forces prevail inwardly, but But then, as the human being progresses in the third year of life, they show themselves in such a way that the human being becomes more attentive to his fellow human beings with these forces, so to speak directing these forces to what emanates from his fellow human beings. And then, around the fifth year, the time begins when the human being actually becomes an imitative being. And now one must be able to observe in the right intimate way what the relationship is like from person to person, and thus also between educator and child. One must know that this is profound for the whole human development, that this phase of life tends towards imitation.

For those who work with such things, I would say professionally, some of the complaints of a mother or father, for example, are on a par with that. They come and say: my child has stolen! - Well, one asks: Yes, what has the child actually done? He opened the drawer in the cupboard, took out some money, and - I am telling you a specific case - didn't even use this money to buy something for himself, but even distributed what he had bought among his fellow pupils! You have to say: Yes, my dear woman, at this age it cannot be called theft at all, because the child has clearly seen how you go to the cupboard every day and open the drawer; the child has done nothing other than try to do the same. It imitates that. In the first seven years, there is no other way to approach the child than to set an example for the child and let it imitate intimately what is to be brought to the child through education. Therefore, it is of such great importance for the first seven years of life that the educator, the parents, not only act as role models for the child in their outer actions, so that everything can be imitated, but that they also think and feel only what the child can think and feel. There is no boundary between the person with the child in his or her environment and the child itself. Through mysterious powers, our innermost thoughts are also transferred to the child. A person who is moral, who is truthful, makes different movements, has a different expression, walks differently than a person who is untruthful. This is something in the outer appearance, which is completely blurred in later life – but it is there for the child. The child does not merely see the morality of those around it through its ideas, but the child sees, through its movements, not with intellectual knowledge but through a subconscious knowledge that rests deep within, if I may use the paradoxical word, from mysterious hints in the way the person expresses themselves, what it should imitate. There are imponderables not only in nature, but also in human life.

Then, when the child has passed the age of imitation, what the child brings to school comes into play, and here it is particularly important to ensure that teaching and education really do help the developing human being to grow in terms of his or her individuality, humanity and human dignity. We have already made a practical attempt in this direction. The Waldorf School has existed for more than a year in Stuttgart, and there the lessons are taught entirely according to the principles that arise from this anthroposophical worldview and scientific method.

The Waldorf School in Stuttgart is not a school of any particular worldview. We are not interested in introducing anthroposophy to children in the same way that we would a religion. Oh no, that is not what we consider to be the main focus. We leave the parents and the children themselves entirely free, because it could not be otherwise in the present situation. Those who wish to be taught in the Protestant faith are taught by the Protestant pastor, those who wish to be taught in the Catholic faith are taught by the Catholic pastor; those who wish to have free religious education in line with their parents' beliefs or their own will receive such education from us. We cannot help the fact that the number of the latter - but not by our will, but in accordance with the current circumstances - is overwhelmingly large, especially in the Waldorf School. We have no interest in making the Waldorf school a school of direct world view, but we want to let what the anthroposophical knowledge gives flow into the art of education, into the practice of this educational art. How we do it with the child, not what we bring to the child, that is what matters to us.

And so we see that, as the child passes the change of teeth and crosses a significant point in life, the power of imitation continues to have an effect into the seventh or eighth year. The power of imitation continues to have an effect until about the age of eight. It is particularly strong in the child during this time, which is an element of will in the human being.

When a child starts school, we should not focus on the intellectual side of things, but rather take the whole person into account. I would like to explain this in relation to something specific. We take this into account in Waldorf schools. We don't start by teaching children to write by teaching them the letters of the alphabet. These letters, as they are written today, actually only speak to the intellect. They have become conventional signs. The head has to be strained on one side. We therefore teach writing by starting from drawing or even from painting visible forms. We first introduce the child to something that is artistic and then develop the forms of the letters from the artistic, from drawing, from painting. It is not so important to go back to the study of primitive peoples and their writing, which has developed in a similar way. Rather, one can trace the individual letters back to what one can make of them in terms of painting and drawing. But the essential thing is that one methodically starts from that which takes hold of the whole person, which is not just to be thought about, but where the will comes to expression. In what the child accomplishes through painting, the whole human being lives, so to speak, the whole human being becomes one with what the child can create. Then, on the one hand, what should interest the head can also be developed from what engages the whole person.

So we start from that which initially affects the child's will. And even what is expressed in an intellectualistic way in writing lessons, we first develop out of the will. Then the soul is particularly involved. The child feels something by first developing the form, and then letting the forms merge into the existing signs. Only then do we develop reading more out of what writing has become. So that, as I said, we appeal to the whole person, not just to the head. And it becomes clear when we carry out something like this, what a difference it makes whether you simply teach people from the point of view of the current external social life in that to which they have no reference, or bring them to that which you extract from their inner whole person, which is inherent in them.

During this time from the age of seven to sexual maturity, we see how the child's inner development is not focused on imitation – which continues to play a role until after the age of eight with the particular application of the will – but we now gradually see a completely different force entering the child's life. This is what I would call the natural sense of authority. This is something that is perhaps more or less mentioned today, but it is not properly considered. Just as a plant must have its growth forces if it is to develop flowers at a certain time and in a certain way, so the child must develop an elementary sense of authority within itself from the change of teeth to sexual maturity, because this belongs to its physical, mental and spiritual growth forces. It must rely on the teacher and educator, and it must accept the things that it then believes, that then approach it, that become the content of its feeling, its will, it must accept them, just as it in imitation, now it must accept them on the basis that it sees them in the behavior of the teacher, that it hears them expressed by the educator, and that the child looks up to its educator in such a way that what lives in the educator is a guiding force for it. This is not something that one can hope for through anything else, let us say in a more free-spirited time than today, which one is supposed to long for. No, one cannot replace what simply grows up with us through this elementary sense of authority, through devotion to the educator or instructor, with anything else. And throughout one's entire life, it has an enormous significance whether, between the ages of seven and fourteen, one has been at the side of teachers or educators in relation to whom one has developed a natural sense of authority.

This touches on a point where the materialistic view goes too far astray, for example when it says: after all, what does the individuality of the teacher do in its effect on the child! We should teach the child primarily through observation; we should lead it to think and feel for itself. I need hardly say that in some methods this has been reduced to the absurdity that we should only bring to the child what it already understands, so that it can analyze it in its own observations. I would like to draw attention to the following: In this phase of life, which I am now talking about, it is of particular importance what we accept on authority, what we take in out of a sense of authority, even if we do not immediately understand it, and that we do not just acquire what is tangible. For just as willpower underlies the imitation instinct in the first seven years of life, so between the seventh year and the year of sexual maturity everything that is memorized underlies the child's expressions. The child wants to memorize things under the influence of the sense of authority. And precisely what is said against the memory-based appropriation shows that, basically, all possible life practices are built on theories today, without taking the whole of human life into account.

Those who want to trace everything back to intuition fail to take two things into account: firstly, there are very broad areas of the world that cannot be made vivid. These are the realms of the beautiful; but above all, they are the moral and religious realms. Those who want to base everything on intuition do not take into account the fact that the most valuable thing, without which man cannot be, the moral and religious and its impulses, cannot be brought to man intuitively - especially not in these years of life - but that it must take hold of man supersensibly. In these years of life, when it is time, it can only do so through a sense of authority. That is one thing.

The other thing, however, is this. If you look at the whole of human life, not just a period of life in theory, then you know what it means when you are thirty-five or forty years old and look back on something you experienced in childhood, assuming it without understanding it at the time, because you said to yourself: the person who lives next to you as a teacher knows, it must be so. You accept it. You are in much older decades – it comes up again. Now you are mature enough to understand it. It has become a force of life. It is a wonderful thing in human life when you see something emerging from the depths of the human soul, for which you are ripe in later human life, but which has already been implanted in youth. It is a remedy against growing old; it is a life force. One has an enormous amount of what one has absorbed in childhood.

It is not a matter of demanding something out of some prejudice, of taking something on the authority of someone else, or of accepting something literally on mere authority, but it is a matter of demanding this for the sake of human salvation. Why do people today grow old so quickly? Because they have no life forces within them. We must know in detail what forces we must implant in the child if we want to see these forces emerge in a rejuvenating way in the later decades of life.

I will now give another example. Anyone who has a good understanding of how children play in the first years of life, up to around the age of five, and who pleasantly arranges their play according to the child's individuality, prepares something in the child that will in turn be expressed in much later life. To do this, one must understand human life in its totality. The botanist looks at the plant in its totality. What today wants to be “psychology” only ever looks at the moment. Anyone who observes a person at around the ages of twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight – or a little earlier – when they are supposed to find their way into life experience, find a relationship with life practice, become a skillful person, a purposeful person, anyone who can be properly and accurately observed, it can be seen how, in childhood play — between birth and about five years of age — the nature of the playing has announced the way in which, in one's twenties, the person finds their way into life as a practical person, as a skillful, purposeful person. In earliest childhood we bring forth what later comes as a flower, I might say at the root of development. But this must be understood from such an inner knowledge as anthroposophy offers, which delves into human nature. This must be recognized by observing the whole human being. We must, so to speak, if we want to be teachers and educators, feel the whole burden of the human being on us. We must feel what we can learn from each individual, what we can find in the child.

And so we know that up to the age of nine, a child cannot yet distinguish between subject and object in the right way. The outer world merges with the inner. Therefore, in these years, only that which lives, I would say, more in the form of fantasy, in images, should be brought to the child – so [should] everything [be designed] that one wants to bring as teaching in these years. Observation of plants, simple natural science, history can only be taught to the child from the ninth year onwards. Physical or historical facts that are not biographical but concern the context of historical epochs can only be taught to children after the age of twelve because only then can they be built upon something related in the child's nature. And again, one should not stick to the abstract principle of developing individuality, but one must really be able to observe this individuality from week to week.

This has proved to be a fruitful method in Waldorf schools and must be so by its very nature. When the teacher is imbued and enkindled by all that can be awakened in his soul and will, he enters into a quite different relationship with his pupils. I will again make this clear by means of an example. It is not only the rough line that extends from the educator to the child or from the teacher to the child, which is the result of the external materialistic way of observing, but there are always imponderables at play. Let us assume that the child is to be taught the idea of immortality at a suitable age. Now this idea of immortality can be very easily conveyed in pictures, and up to the age of nine one should actually teach quite pictorially. Everything should be transformed into pictures. But if you first develop the picture with your mind, if you proceed abstractly in developing the picture, then you do not stand in the picture. For example, you can say to a child: Look at a butterfly chrysalis; the butterfly crawls out of the chrysalis. Just as the butterfly visibly crawls out of the butterfly chrysalis here, so the human being's immortal soul escapes from the body. But if I have first created this image from my inner abstraction, if I am not present myself, if I am only adjusting everything for the child, I am not teaching the child anything. It is a peculiar secret that when one regards the whole of nature as spiritualized, as is natural in spiritual science, one does not merely adjust the image, but knows: What higher level than immortality is not conceived by my intellect but is modeled on things themselves; for example, the butterfly struggling out of its chrysalis is an image presented by nature itself. I believe in what I tell the child. I am of the same faith and conviction that I wish to instill in the child. Anyone who is observant can see that it makes a completely different impression on the child if I teach it a belief that I can believe in myself, that I do not merely present to the child intellectually and have stated because I am so clever and the child is still so stupid.

This shows what imponderables are at play. And I would like to mention one more thing. During the time at primary school, the situation is such that, initially, up to about the age of nine, what remains is the tendency to imitate what the predominant will is. But then something occurs for the child that teaches it to distinguish itself from its environment. Anyone who is really able to observe children knows that it is only between the ages of nine and ten that the child really begins to distinguish between subject and object, between itself and its environment. Everything must be organized with this in mind. But one would look at many things in life differently than one does, and in particular shape them differently than one does, if one were to see that in the same phase of life in which the child between the ages of nine and ten really learns to distinguish between its surroundings, in this phase of life it is indispensable for the whole moral life of the human being in the future that he can attach himself with the highest respect and with the highest sense of authority to someone who is his teacher or educator.

If a child crosses this Rubicon between the ages of nine and ten without this feeling, it will have a deficiency in its whole life and can later, at best with great effort, conquer from life itself what should be transmitted to the child in a natural way at this point in life. Therefore, we should organize our education and teaching in such a way that, especially in the class where the child crosses the Rubicon between the ninth and tenth year, we stand before the child in such a way that we really have something to offer the child through our own inner morality, through what we have in the way of inner truthfulness, of inner soul content, we can really be something for the child, that we do not just act as a model for it, that everything we say to it is felt by it as the truth. And one must establish in it the feeling that must exist in social life between the maturing child and the adult and the old person. The fact that this child goes through its reverence at this point in life between the ages of nine and ten is also the basis of what moral religious education is. Developing intellectuality too early, not taking into account the fact that the will must be influenced by images – especially from primary school onwards – and that one must not immediately penetrate into the abstract of writing and reading , nor does such an understanding of the human being provide those feelings and sensations that become useful when we want to teach the child moral maxims, ethical principles, when we want to instill religious feelings in it. They do not take effect later, nor do they work through a sense of authority, if we are not able to use the individual predisposition of the whole human being from the age of seven, for example, from the age of seven.

And so we can follow the development of the child in a very real way. Teachers and educators become pedagogical artists when they allow the knowledge they can gain about the human being through anthroposophical spiritual science to take effect in them. We do not want to create new, abstract educational principles, but we do believe that the human being's entire personality is stimulated by what anthroposophy can give as a spiritual-soul breath of life. Just as blood invigorates the organism as a matter of course, so spiritual science should invigorate those whose profession it is to educate and teach in such a way that they truly become one with the child and education and teaching become a matter of course. We would like those who enter the gates of their class to do so with such an attitude before the children in the Waldorf school.

Not because we want to add our two cents in every possible field, we also talk about pedagogical art, we also cultivate pedagogical art, but because we have to believe from our insights that a new fertilization is actually also necessary there. The phenomena of life have led to such terrible times that they demand a new fertilization. Not out of some foolish attitude or ideology, or because it wants to agitate for something, but out of the realization of the true needs of our time, anthroposophy also wants to have a fertilizing effect on the art of education. It wants to understand and feel correctly that which must underlie all real education and all real teaching. A true sense of this can be summarized in the words with which I want to conclude today, because I believe that if anthroposophy shows that it has an understanding for these words, the most inner, truest understanding, one will also not deny it its calling to speak into the pedagogical art, into the science of education. She does not want this out of some revolutionary sentiment, she wants this out of the needs of the time, and she wants this out of the great truths of humanity, which lie in the fact that one says: Oh, in the hand of the educator, in the hand of the teacher, the future of humanity, the near future, the future of the next generation, is given. The way in which education is provided, the way in which the human being is introduced to life as a becoming, depends, firstly, on the inner harmonious strength with which he can lead his life to his inner satisfaction as an individual. And this determines how he will become a useful and beneficial member of human society. A human being can only fulfill his destiny if, first, he has inner harmony and strength, so that he cannot be complacent about himself, but can always draw from this harmony the strength to work, the strength to be active and to feelings for his surroundings, and if, on the other hand, through his diligence, through his growing together with the needs of the time and the humanity surrounding him, he is a useful, a salutarily effective member of the whole of society. Anthroposophical spiritual science would like to contribute to making him such, for the reason that it believes that one can find a very special understanding of the human being in its way and thereby also a very special art of treating people.

Answering Questions

Rudolf Steiner: First of all, a written question has been received:

In what way should the individuality of the child be influenced by play?

The spiritual science referred to here should be completely realistic and never work as an abstraction and from theories; therefore, those questions that one is otherwise accustomed to answering, I might say, briefly, in a nutshell, cannot be answered briefly for spiritual science. But one can always point to the direction in which spiritual science sees. One will indeed come across it in the play of the youngest children. Play is most characteristic up to about the age of five. Of course children play afterwards too, but then all kinds of other things get mixed into the game, and the game loses the character, completely, I would like to say, of flowing out of the arbitrariness of the inner being. Now, if you want to guide the game appropriately, you will, above all, have to keep an eye out for what is called the child's temperament and other things that are related to temperament. The usual approach is to think that a child who, for example, shows a phlegmatic character should be guided towards the right path by something particularly lively that will excite them; or a child who shows a tendency towards a more introverted nature, such as a melancholic temperament – even if this does not yet appear in the child as such, but it may be there in the disposition – one would like to bring it, in turn, onto the right path by means of something uplifting. This is basically, especially as far as play is concerned, not very well thought out, but on the contrary, it is a matter of trying to study the child's basic character – let us say whether he is a slow or a quick child – and then one should also try to adapt the game to this. So, for a child who is slow, one should try to maintain a slow pace in the game, too, and for a child who is quick, maintain a quick pace in the game and only seek a gradual transition. One should give the child just what flows from his inner being. The worst educational mistakes are made precisely because one thinks that the same should not be treated the same, but the opposite should be treated by the opposite. There is one thing that is always particularly missed.

There are excited children. Of course, you want to calm these excited children down, and you think that if you buy them toys in darker colors, i.e., the less exciting colors, blue and the like, or if you buy them clothes in blue, it would be good for the child. In my little booklet 'The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science', I pointed out that this is not the case, that one should make the toys reddish for the excited child, and blue and violet for the careless child, the child who is not lively. Through all these things one will find out what is suitable for the child according to his or her particular individual disposition. There is an extraordinary amount to be considered. You see, it is commonly believed – as I said – that if you have a lively child, too lively a child, you should approach him with dark colors, with blue or violet; but you can see for yourself that if you look at red, at a red surface, and then look away at a white one, you have the tendency to see the so-called complementary color as a subjective form. So it is the complementary color that is inwardly stimulated. The dark colors are inwardly experienced by the light ones. Therefore, when a child is excited, it is good to keep its toys and clothes in light colors so that it is inwardly stimulated. So these things, too, may only be considered in such a way that one penetrates, as it were, into the inner nature of human nature and being.

Then I would like to point out that, as a rule, one does not meet the individuality of a child, or any individuality at all, if one listens too intently to the combinative aspects of the games. Therefore, from his point of view, the humanities scholar must actually consider everything that is a game of combinations, building blocks and the like, to be of lesser value because it is too much like an intellectual exercise for children; on the other hand, anything that brings more life to the child – appropriately varied according to their individuality – will make a particularly good toy. I have long endeavored to somehow bring about a movement for this - but it is so difficult in the present day to inspire people for such little things, seemingly little things - that more would be reintroduced the movable picture books for children. There used to be such picture books, which had pictures and you could pull on strings at the bottom; the pictures moved, whole stories were told by the pictures. This is something that can have a particularly favorable effect on children when it is varied in different ways. On the other hand, anything that remains static and requires a particular combination, such as a building-block story, is not really suitable for children's play, and building blocks are just one manifestation of our materialistic age.

Then I would also like to point out that when it comes to games, it is important to consider how much the child's imagination is involved. You can kill the most beautiful powers in a person by giving them, the developing human, a “beautiful” clown as a boy or a very “beautiful” doll as a girl - after all, they are always hideous from an artistic point of view, but people strive for “beautiful dolls”. The child is best served when the imagination itself is given the greatest possible leeway when it comes to such toys. The child is happiest when it can make a doll or a clown out of a handkerchief that is tied at the top to form a little head. This is something that should be encouraged. The activity of the soul should be able to be set in motion. If we have an eye for temperament, we will get it right, for example, by giving a particularly excited child the most complicated toys possible and a slow child the simplest toys possible, and then, when it comes to handling, proceeding in the same way. What the child does with himself is also of particular importance in later years. You can also tell by letting a child run fast or slow: you let an excited child run fast, and you force a casual child, a child who is lazy in thinking, to run slowly in games and the like. So it is a matter of treating like with like when adapting the game to the individuality, and not with the opposite. This will go a long way for those who really strive in this direction to treat children accordingly.

Question: What about introducing fairy tales to children? If we bring, for example, the image of the butterfly pupa and the butterfly, then we ourselves can believe in it; but if we tell stories such as about the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, stories that we ourselves do not believe in but that make children so happy, does that have a damaging effect on the child, or is it harmless simply as an image?

Rudolf Steiner: It is only a matter of approaching these things in the right way. Of course, there are some things that you have to tell the child in his childlike way, and that will be the case with such things because the image is somewhat far removed from what it is about. But I certainly can't say, for example, that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny! So it's just a matter of finding the way to this belief. You'll forgive me for making such a frank confession. But I don't know of anything, especially in this area, that I couldn't believe if only I could find the way to it. The point is that where things are not as simple as with the butterfly, but more complicated, one must then also undergo a certain more complicated mental process in order to have within oneself the frame of mind that brings this to the child in the right, credible way. There is a meaning to the legend that lives on in certain parts of the Orient that when the Buddha died he was transported to the moon and there he looks down on us in the form of a hare. These things, which are originally contained in the deeper legends, point to the fact that deep natural secrets underlie things.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that today such things are extremely difficult to judge. There is a very famous philosopher of nature, Ernst Mach. Most of you will know the name. Mach claims that it is no longer appropriate to teach children fairy tales or the like; this is not appropriate for such an enlightened time as ours. He assures us that he raised his children without fairy tales and the like. Now Mach has also given us a remarkable example of his inability to get to the human ego at all. Mach once said – I don't want to say anything against his importance in a limited area, where he has it; but we live in a time in which even a person like that can say something like this – he said: self-knowledge is actually something that is very far from a person, because he was once he was quite tired – he was a university professor – walking along, a bus had just come along, so he jumped in and saw a strange man getting in on the other side – as if the bus could have been boarded from the other side as well. He was amazed at that, but he just saw a man approaching, and he thought to himself: What kind of a neglected schoolmaster gets on there! Only then did he realize that there was a mirror on the other side and that he knew so little about his own outward appearance that he had not recognized his reflection. Another time, the same thing happened to him: he was walking along the sidewalk on the street and there was a mirror that was slightly askew, so that he also saw himself there, without immediately recognizing himself.

In this instance, he offers this as a kind of explanation of how little a person actually penetrates to his or her true self. He also regards this self-knowledge only from an entirely external point of view. He rejects fairy tales out of the same impulse. Now, of course, the fact is that, as the fairy tales are widely available today, it seems that one cannot cling to the fairy tales as an adult with inner involvement and a certain inner conviction; but that is something deceptive. If you go back to what is actually experienced, then you come to something completely different.

In this respect, it is truly regrettable that certain beginnings, which, according to spiritual science, have been pending for a long time, have not been developed at all. My old friend Ludwig Laistner had written his two-volume work “The Riddle of the Sphinx” in the 1880s. x», in which he proves what a foolish idea it is to believe that myths, sagas and legends came about because people made up something about clouds, something about the sun, earth and the like; that spring myths came about because the popular imagination invented them. Ludwig Laistner – in this respect his book is, of course, imperfect because he knows nothing of the actual state of mind of earlier people, which was more directed towards the real observation of reality – attributes everything to dreams, but at least he goes so far as to ascribe an experience, even if a dream experience, to every mythical construct.

Now, let us look at the dream. It certainly does not correspond to the kind of knowledge we have during the day, when we approach things through our senses; but anyone who studies the dream life intimately – of course, there is no need to stray to the side of the dream books – will see that the dream life is also an expression of a reality. You dream of a tiled stove, feel the heat radiating on you – and wake up with a pounding heart. The dream has symbolized an inner process for you. You dream – I am telling you real things – of snakes that represent all kinds of things to you; you wake up and have some kind of pain in your intestines; the pain in the intestines is symbolized by the snakes. Every dream is basically indicative of a person's inner processes, and a person's inner processes are in turn an expression of the great soul processes. Truly, the world is much deeper than we think in our so-called enlightened times. And anyone who actually studies fairy tales will find such significant psychology in them, for example, that there is already a way to believe in fairy tales, so that the degree of inner soul mood that I use to teach the child something from “Snow White” or “The Easter Bunny” or “St. Nicholas” is such that it can give rise to the very feeling that has a belief in me. I just have to be inwardly imbued with a relationship to the thing. Take 'St. Nicholas': St. Nicholas is definitely what leads back to the old Germanic Wotan, is actually the same as the old Germanic Wotan, and then we come to the World Tree, and we have a clue in the branch that St. Nicholas carries. It is this branch – the Christmas tree is hardly a hundred and fifty years old, it is still quite young – that gradually grows into the Christmas tree. You can see that there are inner connections everywhere. It is only necessary to find one's way into these inner connections, but it is already possible. And then there are quite different imponderables that extend from the mind of the teacher and educator to that of the child. I am not sure whether my answer quite meets the point of your question; it is something like this.

Question (not recorded verbatim): What is the relationship between psychoanalysis and spiritual science?

Rudolf Steiner: You see, in relation to many things, anthroposophical spiritual science is in a position where it has to speak. There are small circles and it forms a large circle; the small circle lies within the large one, but the large one does not lie within the small one, and mostly those people who have the small circles are the most fanatical. Anthroposophy is absolutely the opposite of any fanaticism. Isn't it true that there is a quarter or half truth in psychoanalysis? They try to extract the soul provinces and so on from within, the isolated soul provinces and so on. There is a truth in this, but you have to dig deeper if you want to find the actual basis. So that one can say, as we find with very many views, “Yes, but the other person does not return the same love for us, he finds that because one has to present it more comprehensively, one contradicts him.

I will remind you only of the shining example that is almost always given in most books of psychoanalysis. You will remember it if you have studied the material: a lady is invited to an evening party. The lady of the house – not the invited guest – is supposed to leave for a spa that very evening, leaving the master of the house at home alone. Now the evening party is taking place; the lady of the house is sent off to the spa, the master is back again, the evening party breaks up. The people are walking on the street. Around the corner rushes a droshky – not a car, a droshky. The evening party moves aside to the left and right, but one lady runs in front of the horses, always away, running, running, running, as the others also try and the coachman curses and swears, but she runs until she comes to a stream. She knows very well that you can't drown in the stream – she throws herself into it and is of course now saved. The people don't know what else to do: she is taken back to the house where she just came from, where the master of the house is, in which the lady of the house has just been sent to the bathroom.

Now, a real Freudian – I followed this from the beginning, was very well acquainted with Dr. Breuer, who together with Freud founded psychoanalysis – yes, a real Freudian looks for some hidden complex of the soul: In her seventh or eighth year, when the lady was still a child, she was followed by a horse; this is now a suppressed complex of the soul, and it is coming out. But things are not that simple. I must now apologize, but things are such that the subconscious can sometimes be quite sophisticated. This subconscious has been working in the lady the whole time: if only she could be with the man after the other one has been sent to the bathroom! And now she is getting everything ready – in her conscious mind, of course, the lady would be terribly ashamed to do this, she would not be trusted to do this in her conscious mind, but the deeper, the subconscious mind is much more sophisticated, much worse – she knows how to arrange everything, knows very well in advance: If she runs ahead of the horse and throws herself into the water, she will be carried back into the house because the others know nothing of her real intention.

Sometimes you have to look at completely different things. There is far too much artifice in the method of psychoanalysis today, although it basically points to part of the truth. It is simply an experiment with inadequate means, which is understandable from the materialistic spirit of the age, where one also seeks the spiritual first with materialistic methods.

Introductory words from Roman Boos: Dear attendees, the appearance of a number of scientifically working personalities is of course not intended to present anything firm, final, or conclusively formulated and to submit it to public discussion. Rather, these lectures are intended to show the direction in which the individual subject areas can be developed what is represented here from the Goetheanum as anthroposophically oriented spiritual science and what has been presented to the public for some time now in its artistic effects in numerous eurythmy performances and in the construction of the Goetheanum as an architectural work. In all modesty, however, we believe that our lectures, which are only intended as a beginning, can compete with what is represented today in the circles of the academies and universities.

For anyone who has studied in any faculty with a living soul must have become more and more aware in recent times of how the purely material, the purely quantitative, loads a person with a multitude of facts, so that one can no longer stand up to it, not only in a personal sense, but absolutely in a spiritual sense. This means that the human being, with his spiritual powers, is less and less able to really

21 enormous material is brought to him, really to cope with. And because in anthroposophy the view is directed to the human being, and not just to the human being himself, but to the human being as a point within the whole of reality, what lies within the realities themselves can express itself, but in such a way that these realities do not confront him only quantitatively, weighing on him and oppressing him, but so that, by expressing themselves in man himself, the union of man with the spiritual can also take place and thus also with objective reality.

The opportunity will be given here for a debate from within the circle of scientific workers. In the form of debates, questions and so on, the opportunity is offered to further develop one or other of the topics touched upon in the lectures. For anyone approaching scientific movements with the attitude from which the entire anthroposophical movement builds its works will see a major task in cleansing the field of science and social life from the polemical spirit, which in the field of science takes the form of and in the social life as throwing hand grenades and setting machine guns going; he will see the main task as being the necessity to further expand and deepen the problems, as is to be done here.

And we also hope that at the scientific lectures, Dr. Steiner will be able to add some more to what is given by the experts.

We would also like to ask you to initially only raise questions that are related to today's lecture topic, and to come back to special cases in the following scientific lectures.

The topics of the specialist lectures are:

on March 25, 1920: Dr. Carl Unger on “Anthroposophy and the Epistemological Foundations of Natural Science”

March 26, 1920: Dr. Friedrich Husemann on “Weltanschauung, Nervousness and Spiritual Science”

March 27, 1920: Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “The World Picture of Modern Science”

on March 29, 1920: Dr. Walter Johannes Stein on “Anthroposophy and Physiology”,

on March 30, 1920: Dr. Eugen Kolisko on “Anthroposophy and Chemistry”

on 31 March 1920: E.A.Karl Stockmeyer on “Anthroposophy and Physics”

on 1 April 1920: Dr. Oskar Schmiedel on “Anthroposophy and the Theory of Colors”

on April 6, 1920: Dr. Roman Boos on “Anthroposophy and Jurisprudence”

on April 7, 1920: Dr. Rudolf Steiner on “Hygiene as a Social Question”

Rudolf Steiner: Dearly beloved attendees! This lecture today is intended to serve as a kind of introduction to the following eight lectures, which arise in large part from a circle of friends who have gathered here during this time with a very specific scientific goal. Lectures will be given on the most diverse scientific subjects, from the fields of epistemology and physiology; biological questions will be addressed; physics and chemistry will be discussed, and finally, I would like to point out the problem of hygiene as a sociological problem. Today, the outside world often judges, albeit superficially, that in all that is presented here through the spiritual current of which the Goetheanum is a representative, on the one hand it is a sect and on the other a scientific dilettantism. These lectures should at least partly draw attention to the fact that both are very much mistaken about what is presented here. There is neither scientific dilettantism nor religious sectarianism.

Proof of this is that a circle of serious-minded physicians has come together here in these weeks, and that they have been joined by a small circle of such personalities who are inclined to build bridges from medical science to other branches of life. This group has come together here out of the feeling that something like medical life today needs real new impetus; they have come together with the aim of receiving and giving impulses for this new impetus. What is being presented here, I do not want to say as a medical course, but as a course for doctors, that implies that it is about serious striving, about serious willpower in the face of the great tasks of our time. This course follows on from two courses that I have already held in connection with the Waldorf School in Stuttgart, about the necessary new foundation of the physical sciences. All this will be sufficient proof, even for those who, after superficial evaluation, express the opinion just mentioned, that here we are looking at the great, serious tasks of our time, and that we are seeking to determine what is necessary to impact the spiritual culture and thus the whole culture of the present and the near future, based on what these serious, great tasks dictate. If we look at the terrible events of recent years with the aim of ascertaining, through an unprejudiced judgment, how these terrible events are connected with aberrations of the human consciousness, then we will come away from much of what some, I might say light-heartedly, consider to be sufficient for a renewal of life.

For example, how often is the judgment pronounced today that, in the face of what is swirling in time, what is emerging as chaos in time, care must be taken to broaden knowledge, to broaden understanding. And in many circles it is emphasized on all possible occasions that something is missing in our time; on all possible occasions it is emphasized that knowledge must be spread, let us say through adult education centers or similar institutions. The spiritual scientific worldview movement, for which the Goetheanum is the representative here, cannot readily agree with these assessments, which are being made in this direction. For, my dear attendees, in the face of such judgments, the question arises: Do we actually already have a science that is effective in the future, a science that is capable of intervening in life? Do we have something to carry it into the widest circles in adult education centers?

Based on truly profound judgment, those who are the supporters of the spiritual science practiced here are convinced that, before anything else, a renewal of scientific life itself is needed, an infusion of new elements into scientific life, before we can think of spreading knowledge to the widest circles, for example through adult education centers or the like. We are not thinking here merely of a popularization of present-day science, but rather that an anthroposophically oriented worldview must think in terms of a real renewal of these present-day sciences, based on an understanding of the state of these sciences. Naturally, in this introductory lecture, I can only sketch out the task for these evenings. And so I would like to first point out the two main directions of current scientific endeavor, in order to show how these present sciences actually relate to life.

On the one hand, we have everything that can be characterized by saying that it is scientific in the natural scientific sense; we have to refer to everything that occurs in the field of natural science. In speaking about this field here, I must indeed emphasize again and again that I am not starting from a superficial polemic against the current direction of natural science, but that, on the contrary, because I fully recognize everything that natural science has achieved in the course of the 19th century and into our days, because I must admire the great progress of natural science in itself and of the most diverse branches of human technology, it is precisely out of this admiration that I come to think differently about the further course of natural science than it has developed into our days.

On the other hand, we have the historical sciences with all that belongs to them, which also includes, for example, jurisprudence. You know, my dear audience, that natural science has increasingly come to focus on observing external facts and following experiments. They know that there was a strong endeavor, especially in the 19th century, to connect the enormous wealth of facts that have emerged through observation and experimentation with each other through great ideas and to strive towards certain so-called laws of nature. But the one who can really understand this whole scientific life knows that today, in the most diverse fields – in the field of physics, chemistry, biology – we are faced with the most incisive facts and that, with what is commonly known as science, what the facts tell us, we are not in a position to penetrate in any way into the essence of that which obviously must be behind it, yes, that the facts, I would say, stun us, that we cannot keep up with the abundance of facts using scientific methods. The outward course of science actually confirms this.

Even if very few people still pay attention to this today, it must be said that the last twenty years have actually brought about the greatest conceivable revolution in the field of physics. Ideas that were still considered unshakable thirty years ago have now been thoroughly revolutionized. One need only mention the name Einstein or the name Lorentz, the Dutch physicist, and by mentioning these names one can point to a whole range of facts and discussions that have revolutionized and shaken physics as it was just thirty years ago. Of course, I cannot go into the details here. But the fact that physics has been revolutionized, which is well known in certain circles, must be pointed out. Now, however, one can say: While, for example, something as significant as the revolution of the old concept of mass and matter through the newer radiation theory of electricity is at hand, our scientific ways of thinking cannot cope with what has actually been presented to man through the abundance of experiments. From the observation of radiant matter in a glass vacuum, it could be seen that the same properties that were previously attributed to matter, for example a certain speed and acceleration, must now be attributed to radiant electricity; so, so to speak, the concept of matter has been lost. It became clear from the abundance of experiments that nothing could be put in the place of the old concept of matter; and from Einstein's theory of relativity, with its terribly cold abstractions, nothing can be gained that resembles a real conception of what one is actually dealing with in external nature.

All this is said only to point out how the works have come into a flow that has developed in such a way that there is a wealth of observed and experimental material that cannot be mastered by our modes of representation. I would like to say that the development of science has shown that, although we can look at nature on the surface in the modes of perception that have been preserved from the past, we are not able to interpret what nature presents to us today in countless phenomena in the form of rays. A peculiar method has crept into physics in recent times. It is called the statistical method. Whereas in the past it was believed that precisely formulated natural laws could be arrived at by means of exact measurement, observation or experimentation, today we work very much with what is really similar to that statistical method, which resorts to probability calculation, which we find applied when we set up insurance companies, for example. There we also make assumptions, for example, that of the kind that so many of a certain number of people of a certain age have inevitably died after a certain number of years. With these statistical methods – which are based on probability theory and are similar to the methods of modern physics – one can get along quite well if, for example, one has to arrange something like life insurance; everything is correct and one can rely on this method. But the essential defect of the method is that it says nothing about the nature of that for which the method is used – which is clear from the fact that no one will believe that they must really die in the year that was calculated as their year of death using probability calculations and statistical methods. Such methods serve to summarize the facts, and for a certain action based on statistics, but they say nothing for penetrating into any essence. Thus, in the external, scientific field, we are, as it were, condemned to remain on the surface of things.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is most evident when this scientific method is to be applied in the practical treatment of the sick person, when it is to be applied in medicine. And it is precisely because of the dissatisfaction that arises today from the scientific basis of medicine that an arrangement such as the course for doctors that is taking place here in these weeks has been created. When approaching the sick person, one cannot subject him to treatment without really recognizing his nature. The physical and scientific methods must also be put to the test when approaching the human being. And all that can be deplored about medicine and its effects today is connected with the inadequate scientific foundation of our present-day sciences. This is one of the tasks of anthroposophy in relation to the present-day sciences. It has the task of finding real scientific methods through which the abundance of facts that are available to us today can really be seen through in such a way that we can penetrate through these facts into the essence of what surrounds us in the world.

Something very similar is the case with historical science. While at the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century we still have attempts to observe human life in such a way that both the natural course of events in the development of the human race and that which comes from within the human being in a soul-spiritual way are taken as a basis – while At the turn of the 18th to the 19th century, we have studies such as Herder's “Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Humanity”. During the 19th century, what historical science is becomes more and more abstract and abstract, more and more intellectual and intellectual. We see how those who cannot profess a certain materialism in history speak of ideas that are supposed to work in history. As if abstract ideas could be any kind of real agent that carries historical development! As if ideas were not initially something merely passive! Because our modes of thought are incapable of penetrating through observation or the facts provided by experimentation to the basis of nature, we remain, I would say, merely on the surface of what takes place in human life with our modes of thought. We are unable to connect what we grasp through our thoughts of the people acting in history or of the events occurring in history with the great forces that carry history.

We see, and this is particularly interesting, how in the 19th century, for example, such minds as Herman Grimm's appear. He is really very characteristic of the historical method of the 19th century. There is perhaps nothing that speaks about historical phenomena in such a wonderfully, deeply satisfying way as Herman Grimm does in his treatises, for example on Goethe's “Tasso” or on Goethe's “Iphigenia”. There is something there that is already in the realm of human spiritual creation. In this case Herman Grimm can set about something that can be grasped by thought because it has already been raised to the level of thought. But when Herman Grimm wants to go further, when he wants to go into reality, when he does not just want to look at something like Goethe's works “Tasso” or “Iphigenia”, but when he wants to present Goethe himself as a real human personality Herman Grimm also wrote a book about Goethe. One sees that the whole Goethe whom he describes is actually a kind of shadow figure and nowhere is there the possibility of penetrating the full intensity of the real. What Herder still attempted, namely to grasp thoughts that are historical and at the same time embrace nature, was no longer possible with the historical method of the 19th century. These thoughts are too thin to penetrate reality from a historical point of view. And so we have a historical science that cannot get out of thought, remains in thought, and cannot penetrate from thought into reality.

Here again, for anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, there is the necessity not only to grasp what the soul experiences in abstract thoughts, but to grasp it in such a way that the forces that really underlie the external reality are seen in these soul experiences. On the one hand, we must try to understand nature in such a way that we can apply our understanding to the human being – so that we can understand the human being, as we do in the art of medicine or in the art of education, and on the other hand, we must try not to get stuck in the abstract not to get stuck in abstract thoughts and ideas of history, but to penetrate to such a living inner soul life that we can truly grasp what has happened historically – an understanding so saturated with reality that it in turn is close to natural occurrence, to natural becoming.

Just as the inadequacy of the natural-scientific basis has become apparent in medicine, so too has the inadequacy of the historical method in social life. What has caused so-called historical materialism, the Marxist view, to begin to be put into practice in our time, to the misery of humanity in this much-tried Europe? What has caused people to arise who declare everything spiritual, everything legal, everything moral, and so on, to be an ideology, and see reality solely and exclusively in the economic production process? What has caused this? It has caused the historical methods of the 19th century to be incapable of grasping this reality. The historians or those who wanted to be historians in any field have remained with abstractions that have nothing to do with reality. And social democracy, meanwhile, has developed for itself what was not offered to it by the leading circles, and it did so according to what it alone knew something about: the economic process. The fact that we have a materialistic foundation of history and today a policy of economic science that is ruining Europe is the original sin of non-existent historical thinking. The facts are serious today, and only those who refuse to see their gravity can deny that it is necessary to strive for greater depth in both the natural and historical sciences and to work towards a new foundation.

This is what should be seen through within the spiritual current, for which this building, the Goetheanum, is the representative, so that - this should be explained here in all modesty - so that a science can arise that can really step out into our elementary schools, that can really flow into life. And one would like that not only the intellectual impulses of people of the present would be seized by these efforts, one would like that above all the hearts of people of the present could be there and feel how deeply connected all the social misery of our time, all the decline, the chaos of our time is with the aberrations present in the striving for knowledge and in the scientific striving of our time, which must be healed.

What I have just characterized should be contrasted with what can be gained from the spiritual scientific method for the natural scientific direction and for the historical direction. And I do not want to speak in abstractions, but I would like to point out two facts, which should only serve as examples of what is being sought here. The first example is taken from the field of natural science. It is intended to show the point where the scientific foundation of our scientific endeavor becomes insufficient when confronted with the concepts of the human being. Today, if you look around you at the scientific endeavor of the present, you can repeatedly find an insight into the human heart. This view of the human heart has been developed directly from the natural scientific basis of life. Just as mechanics, physics, chemistry and biology are today, so is our view of the human heart, because we have a very specific chemistry, physics, biology and so on, because we have a specific natural scientific basis. What is this view of the human heart? Well, you find it characterized everywhere as follows: the human heart is a pump that pumps blood through the human organism in such a way that this blood washes away certain useless substances, exchanging them for others that it carries to certain places in the human organism. If today, even the slightest doubt is expressed to certain people that this human heart could be a very ordinary pump, that the human heart works in the middle and pumps blood out to the various parts of the body, then the people who have adopted scientific views today – I have experienced it – they become downright wild. And yet, my dear audience, here is the point where a recovery of the scientific foundation can bring about a complete reversal.

Here the spiritual scientific world view will have to show that the heart is not a pump, but that the heart in its activity is only the result of the self-regulating currents and interactions that occur in the human organism. Man is a dual being. Everything that, to put it schematically, lies below the heart and everything that lies above it is organized in fundamentally different ways. What drives the development of carbon is fundamentally different from what happens when carbon combines with oxygen to form carbonic acid. But the actual agent, the actual driving force, lies in the forces that interact from the lower human being and from the upper human being - from the upper and the lower. Just as positive and negative electricity want each other when there is an electrical charge, and just as an apparatus that would be connected to this charge of positive and negative electricity would carry out certain activities, so the human heart carries out activities as a result of the currents that are in the human organism. The human heart is not the pump of the human organism. Everything that the human heart does is purely the result of the inner life, of a certain current in the human organism. The opposite of popular belief is the case.

But with that, my dear audience, one points at the same time to a complete reversal of the science of the nature of man. For only by considering this great contrast between the upper and lower human being, in which the activity of the heart is harnessed and, as it were, expressed as mediation, only by considering this, are we able to bring the human being into the right contrast to the whole of the environment, to understand how the lower human being stands in a certain relationship to the outer world of solid, liquid and gaseous bodies, and also to the outer world of thermal phenomena, while everything in the upper human being that contrasts to some extent with the workings of the lower human being must be paralleled with light and with other etheric processes in the earthly and extra-terrestrial realm.

We will only learn to place the human being in the right way in the whole universe when we stop believing that the heart is the pump that pumps blood through the organism. In reality, the blood has an inner life, and in the congestion that occurs between the lower human being and the upper human being, the heart is so involved that the result of this congestion becomes apparent in the movement of the heart. In the movement of the heart, we basically have nothing other than where the upper human being and the lower human being touch and where, in certain unconscious regions, the activity of the lower human being is perceived by the upper human being. The heart is, so to speak, a sense organ within the human being. Just as the sense organs that lie outside are organs for mediating the outer experiences of the human being, so the heart is the organ that mediates the experiences of one's own being, albeit in the subconscious. With these things, I only want to suggest that something as essential as the heart teaching, which is suitable for reforming all medical thought, needs a thorough reform today. But that is only one example – it is an example of how cause and effect are almost confused today, I would say in all areas of nature observation.

My dear attendees! Spiritualists claim that they have photographed spirits. Photographing is an external process, and I do not want to dwell here on whether or not one can photograph spirits. But with no more right than the spiritualists claim that they have photographed ghosts, certain physicists today claim that they have photographed the configuration of atoms. Certainly, one can throw X-rays at crystals, one can make these X-rays reflect, the reflected rays interfere, and then photograph them, and one can claim to photograph the configuration of the atoms. The essential question is only: Are we really photographing the atomistic agents here, or are we photographing certain effects that come from the macrocosm and show up only at the points where we believe the atoms are present? It is essential everywhere to find ways of thinking and imagining that are able to go from appearances to the essence of things in the right way. Because scientific methods are so inadequate, they cannot suffice for application to the human being, whether in the field of medicine or in the social realm.

Thus we see that people who believe they have been trained in natural science are now setting about solving social problems, like Lenin and Trotsky. But the fact is that only a few individuals have studied what natural science establishes from its facts, but this is insufficient as conclusions, as results. As a rule, such people do not allow themselves to be drawn into discovering what one believes to know about things and what one believes to have discovered as laws, and then to actually test them against the individual facts. When someone tells you that he has photographed the configuration of atoms, such people do not think about the value of such a photograph. Of course, it is terribly impressive when one announces to the world in popular presentations: Atoms exist; they have even been photographed. - The layman naturally says: Well, how can anyone who is not a layman deny that atoms exist, which are the agents in all natural effects, when these atoms have even been photographed.

But the point is to have an insight into how something like this comes about. We suffer tremendously in the present from the fact that things are asserted as popular worldviews, monistic or otherwise, that consist in nothing more than in abstract summaries of all kinds of results, without going back to their real foundations. What do people present at monistic gatherings other than what they have read about in books or heard in lectures? Where is the opportunity to actually go into the reality of the things from which such results are actually drawn? Therefore, there is no possibility of a real overview of the implications of the results in this field. We are experiencing in today's science - when it develops into a world view and thereby believes itself to be very exact - that the processes that we experience in history are then used to calculate the processes that are supposed to have taken place on our earth over millions of years or that are supposed to have taken place millions of years ago. These calculations are always correct; for if, for example, one calculates how much debris the Niagara Falls deposited in a certain number of years, then one can, of course, calculate a great deal from such layer formations. But what is the actual method of calculation? The method of calculation is as follows: we observe the processes in the human stomach, say for five years, and then we calculate what these processes were like 10, 20 years ago, 150, 200, 300 years ago. We will get exact results – except that the person with this stomach and its processes obviously did not even exist as a physical human being 300 years ago! In this way, one can also calculate the changes in the human stomach and then the nature of the whole person in 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300 years – only then the person has long since died, and the whole calculation – which is completely correct as a calculation – has not the slightest value. The same value attaches to calculations that relate to the state of the earth millions of years ago or millions of years in the future, because they do not take into account whether the earth existed at that time or will still exist then. What use is it to know that after so many millions of years, when we, let us say, paint egg white on the wall and this will glow due to the changes in the earth, when the earth will no longer be there! Today, people still do not understand that some calculation or similar result can be absolutely correct, but that it cannot be applied to reality.

Two things are necessary today if one is to make a judgment: first, that the judgment is built on the basis of a correct logical method – the method of calculation is also a logical method – and second, that the judgment is also built on an appropriate insight into reality. A judgment must be both realistic and logical. The former is usually forgotten today, which is why the only logically correct judgments play such a large role in our ordinary scientific life, but under certain circumstances they have no application to reality. This is the concern of the spiritual current of which this Goetheanum is the representative: not only to have logically correct views, which can then also lead to errors, but to have realistic views, ones that really build a bridge between what lives in man as a world view and what develops outside as reality, for only such realistic views can be used for life. Only such realistic views can help our present life, which is drifting so much into chaos, to recover.

So I have shown you by one example – I could only show the one example today, but it could easily be multiplied – by the example of heart science, how necessary it is to strive for a science that is in line with reality, and how the spiritual current that is cultivated here in particular sets itself the serious task of working towards such a necessary reform of this science. I would also like to give an example of how to work towards the historical sciences. Using this example, I would like to show how a rudimentary scientific method, I would say a stunted scientific method, has simply been applied to the historical being, and how this has led to disastrous errors.

In the field of natural science, I would like to point out the so-called biogenetic law. I do not want to talk about the more or less limited validity of this law, but I want to treat it as a kind of hypothetical natural law. What does this biogenetic law state? It states that every higher animal creature, including man, during embryonic development, that is, during the development from conception to birth, briefly undergoes the forms that have been experienced in the development of the species. For example, the human embryo shows a fish-like form during one particular period, then other forms. These forms, the metamorphoses through which the embryo passes, are reminiscent of what has taken place in the developmental series in the history of the species, so that it has been able to come up to the human being through various forms. - This so-called biogenetic law has a certain limited significance. There is no doubt that ontogeny is a brief repetition of phylogeny, that individual development is a brief repetition of tribal development. But now attempts have been made to apply what has been found in the natural field to the historical field. It was believed that what lives in a later culture must, in a brief repetition, also show what lived in an earlier culture. So when a new people emerges somewhere, in its initial stages it must, as it were, pass through the stages of human development as they have been experienced so far, and then add a new one on top, just as the human being adds the mature life to the embryonic repetition of the tribal history. Not much has come of it if one wanted to apply this law, which was initially formulated purely abstractly for historical development and was modeled on a series of scientific observations, to life. I would like to say that life experiences do not actually confirm this law in the historical field in such a way that one can do anything with it in the face of reality.

On the other hand, the following emerges for the spiritual scientist's sharpened sense of observation. The essential thing is that the inner work that the spiritual scientist has to do in order to arrive at his modes of conception, and then to penetrate into nature in the way I have shown, sharpens his view of reality, his sense of observation for reality. This is how it turns out for this sharpened sense of observation: in the early stages of its development, the human being undergoes certain metamorphoses. One must only have an unbiased sense of what is going on in the early stages of human development. We have an important stage of life in human life: from birth to the change of teeth around the age of seven. The soul life of the human being manifests itself in a very specific way during this period, and with the change of teeth it undergoes a transformation. Until the change of teeth, the human being is in the epoch of his life where he is an imitative being who wants to imitate everything that is done in his environment, down to the movements, down to the formation of speech sounds, and who wants to imitate these things through inner forces. Up to the age of seven, he adapts so well to the human environment that he then, up to the next important stage in life, which is linked to the onset of sexual maturity, has the need to accept, on the basis of authority, that which he is supposed to believe. Then the whole organization of the human being changes again, and so does his soul life. And anyone with enough sense of observation will be able to notice how the human being changes even in his early twenties, or perhaps in his late twenties. Later on, what corresponds to this youthful transformation of the human being can only be observed by the keen sense of observation of the spiritual researcher. When a person has really undergone spiritual training, it becomes apparent that towards old age certain, I would say shadowy, transformations of the soul life occur. They only appear in hints, but one notices quite clearly: in the forties, at the end of the forties, one becomes a different person and at the end of the fifties one becomes yet another person. These metamorphoses occur in a shadowy, rudimentary way, as only hinted changes within, but anyone who can observe them can compare them with the hints that occur in embryonic life and that are repetitions of earlier physical forms that have been passed through in tribal development.

But one cannot simply transfer the scientific biogenetic law to history; instead of looking at the beginning of life, as the natural scientist must do, the historian is compelled to look at the end of life, at these shadowy, rudimentary transformations of the soul life. And just as for the natural man the beginning of life presents itself as a repetition of tribal history, so these rudimentary hints at the end of life turn out to be repetitions of what the human race has gone through on earth as a whole. We learn to understand that what is only rudimentarily present in our aging today was present in a pronounced sense in prehistoric man; we learn to understand that we can go back to a humanity that has undergone such transformations of the organic-mental life into old age as we do during the change of teeth and sexual maturation. And in our aging, we experience a rudimentary repetition of what humanity has gone through in its historical development. This is where it will become clear what the correlate of the biogenetic law is for historical science.

Those who think abstractly are always satisfied when they have found something, they then expand it and build an entire system of worldviews from it; they want to expand the biogenetic law to the historical becoming of humanity. To the real observer – and this is the observable reality for the spiritual researcher – something quite different presents itself. It shows that we are able to see in our own ageing and its rudimentary changes a repetition of what we find in earlier historical stages of human development. We look back to ancient Indian and Persian times and know that even in old age people remained so capable of development that a metamorphosis could be seen in their organism even in the forties and fifties of human life, as can only be observed today during the change of teeth and sexual maturation. You see, here we have the difference between true observation of reality and the abstract desire to transfer, which has arisen precisely through materialism. And we then understand how, in primeval times, the human being lived as a child and young person alongside the old person and said to himself: One experiences something in old age that brings something completely new into life. Let us consider how deeply this true law allows us to see into the inner process of human development, how we can see into a state of humanity in which we understand patriarchal life because young people anticipated old age in such a way that they said to themselves: this old age offers me something completely new. And so we do not look at prehistoric humanity in the same way as today's materialistic anthropologist does. We look at this primitive humanity and understand it, I would say intimately human, and we can also recognize that in its entire element something quite different was present for this primitive humanity than for present-day humanity. But we must take an interest because we are approaching something directly human, for this metamorphosis from primitive man to our present time. And if we have to admit that the human organism has changed, we will also be able to point out other changes in the human organism in the right form.

I will point out just one thing, my dear audience, which is revealed by spiritual science, but which, because it is relatively close to us and can even be proven externally by philological-historical research, is that the Greeks had their culture, which has such a profound effect on us, because they viewed their environment differently than we do today. Spiritual science shows us that what was in the Greeks was still capable of organic development to a much greater age than it is in us. We reach the end of an ascending organic capacity for development at the end of the twenties; the Greeks continued it well into their thirties. This necessitated greater activity in the Greeks, and that meant that the Greeks invested even more activity in their sense organs than we are able to invest. Therefore the

the Greeks were not yet a reflective race. Mankind has only become reflective since the middle of the 15th century. The Greek race was one that still transferred all its inner activity into the world of the senses, still saw the whole world, I might say, more brilliantly, more warmly than we do. We have to imagine that the Greeks had no interest in dark colors, that they had the keenest interest and the greatest sensitivity for bright, warm colors. And we find external confirmation when we discover that the Greeks have a single word for both dark hair color and lapis lazuli, the blue stone used for painting. People have never had blue hair; so if dark hair and lapis lazuli are both referred to by the same word, it is clear that the blue is seen as dark. And the other peculiar thing is that the Greeks had one word for green = chloros, and at the same time they used this word for what we call yellow, honey. And so I could cite many more examples that would prove to us that the Greeks' vision was similar to blue-blind vision. Roman historians tell us that the Greeks painted only in four colors: black, white, red, and yellow.

From this we can see that when we look into history, we do not have to look at the great so-called war events, at the great so-called formations and fallings of states, but we have to look at the intimate, we have to see how the individual human being has developed. In this way we again meet the needs of our present time. The conquests of Alexander the Great interested only those generations who were first oriented towards this interest through school. Today, the broad masses are called upon for education and intellectual life, and they want to be interested in something other than the conquests of Xerxes or Alexander the Great, of Caesar or even later ones; they want to be interested in what emerges in every human being as the truly human. But a science of history arises for our soul's eye that describes how man was different five, six, seven millennia ago, how he was different in Greek times than he is now. A history arises that approaches everything individually human directly, that allows the Greek to arise before our soul's eye, so that the person of the present can compare the Greek with himself spiritually and mentally. What concerns every human being will be of interest to those who, as the broad masses, strive for education today; what concerns not only Alexander the Great or Alcibiades and Caesar, but what concerns every human being, what, so to speak, is in every human being because he himself is a descendant of those who saw the world so completely differently.

Again, it is a serious question, especially in view of the social needs of the present, to strive for a historical science that is closely related to the human being; and such a science, because it touches the innermost part of the human being, will also be able to release the moral and legal impulses in the human being. In the externalized life of the state, we have gradually come to something that is nothing more than a legislative convention. But what lives in our state laws does not reach into the depths of the human soul where the moral impulses arise. How do today's legal measures live in the individual human being? They do not live. The lawyer himself often does not live them until he has looked them up in the law books, because he usually does not know much about them before he has looked up the relevant paragraph. But what has gradually become a mere historical abstraction does not live in people. If we establish another historical science, it will be one that can trigger impulses in life. Such a historical science alone will be able to grasp people and lead them to reasonable social desires – in contrast to the historical materialism that Lenin and Trotsky cultivated. Because people have been offered nothing but abstract, insubstantial ideas, Lenin and Trotsky were able to confront them with what people alone understand: the results of economic life.

Today, the great, serious demands of life raise the question: in what way can natural science and historical science be revitalized? If we want to take life seriously today, we have to think about such a revitalization of the sciences. I can well imagine that those people who today receive their education through everything that such an education achieves today will be shocked by what I am saying here and probably find it radical – while we, after all, must find it absolutely necessary simply because of the seriousness of life. But is it not our time itself that points to the seriousness of life in every moment?

Dear attendees, it can be hypothesized that this hall would be very full today if it were not for the delayed celebration of Carnival – if you can call it a celebration. But it is entirely to my liking that this evening is being held here today, to show that there are still places where people feel that serious matters must be discussed in a time of need, in a time like the one we are living in today. In such a time, there is still much that cannot be reconciled with the seriousness of life that is necessary to think of something like what has been suggested in today's introductory lecture.

But when one expresses something like this, my dear audience, one feels reminded of the saying of someone who, in his time, also felt compelled to speak of the great impulses in contrast to the little interest of human beings: Johann Gottlieb Fichte once spoke about the destiny of the scholar and gave lectures on the subject. When these lectures were published, he introduced them with just a few words. He said, addressing himself to all those who so well proved from their life practice that ideals cannot be realized after all - he actually did not address these, because they are not teachable, but he spoke with reference to these - he said: That ideals cannot be realized in direct life, we others know that just as well as these so-called life practitioners. But that life must be directly oriented towards them, we must say with all seriousness. And Johann Gottlieb Fichte added that there are people who are unable to see how necessary it is, in the serious hours of world history, to also begin something correspondingly serious, which only proves that these people simply cannot be counted on in the world plan. And so, said Fichte, may they be given by the spirit that guides this world plan “in due time rain and sunshine, wholesome nourishment, and undisturbed circulation of the juices” and - if it is possible - also “wise thoughts”; but otherwise one cannot count on them when talking about the impulses that lie in the great world plan.

But one would like, especially in today's serious world situation, to find a sufficiently large number of people who can feel this seriousness and, out of it, can feel the necessity that not small things, but great things must happen in impulses, and that they must happen precisely in the realm of human consciousness itself, so that we can move forward. It is out of such impulses that I have tried to speak to you today, using individual examples to illustrate the relationship between anthroposophy and contemporary science. I have only been able to sketch what I wanted to say, but if, through this sketch, I could evoke such impulses in a sufficiently large number of people, which could then have a stimulating effect on what must happen - a renewal of our entire scientific life - then I would consider what can actually happen through such impulses to have been fulfilled, at least for the time being.

In our time, science is very proud when it says that it wants pure knowledge. In Greek times, when imagination was closer to life, the word “catharsis” was used for the most important moment in a tragedy, when the hero's fate was decided. In this way, something was introduced into aesthetics that was taken from medicine. For in Greek life, “catharsis” was regarded as a kind of crisis, whereby certain pathological processes in the organism are counterbalanced or paralyzed by other processes. In this healthy Greek age, ideas were transferred from what takes place in nature to the artistic field. Today, we need a science that does not allow a rift to develop between theory and practice; we need a science that is viable and full of life, we need a science that can build up life.

However, only those people who really understand and feel the seriousness of contemporary life will long for such a powerful science. And as for the rest, let me say this at the end, we must, in accordance with the old saying of Fichte, leave them today to a kind cosmic plan, which provides them with food and drink at the right time, which gives them sunshine and rain at the right time, which gives them postponed carnival fun and - if possible - also wise thoughts. It will be difficult!

But what is needed today lies in another area and can be described as follows: spirit-estranged research must find its way back to the spirit. And it is this path back to the spirit that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to find, and to this end it calls on humanity. That is the truth, despite all the prejudices and defamations that are otherwise leveled against this anthroposophically oriented spiritual science in the world.

[Lively applause.

Roman Boos: In thanking Dr. Steiner for his lecture, I would like to express the hope that the lectures that will now follow will have the effect in our circle and in the outside world that was indicated in Dr. Steiner's lecture. I would now like to ask that after a short break, those who may still have questions about today's lecture come forward. I would particularly like to ask all our scientifically working friends to take this opportunity, since Dr. Steiner is prepared to add something supplementary in this or that respect.

Eugen Kolisko: In what Dr. Steiner said about research into the reverse biogenetic law, how can it actually be established that we are dealing here with a time that lies so far back that it corresponds to a particular period? How can we determine from the processes observed in the phenomena of old age how far back this lies in earlier times?

Friedrich Husemann: Is the blue blindness of the Greeks something that has only to do with the individual development of this people, or is it perhaps something that occurs in the general course of development of a race or a people, which would therefore correspond to a certain age of this race? What about the Chinese, for example, who have been depicted in blue colors since very early times? Are there other factors at work here?

Walter Johannes Stein: How are changes in sensory perception related to changes in thinking among the Greeks, who, according to the book 'The Riddles of Philosophy', still had a much more pictorial perception?

Roman Boos asks Dr. Steiner to give the closing remarks.

Rudolf Steiner: In the sense of a closing word, I would like to address the questions that have been asked. The first question, ladies and gentlemen, is of course one that would require a very comprehensive explanation in order to answer it.

First of all, I have to mention that a real exploration of these things is only possible by applying the spiritual scientific method, that is, the method that actually teaches us to look at what we are otherwise accustomed to looking at from the outside, now to look at from the inside. You can get an idea of what actually comes into consideration in the following way. When you look at the physical organism, you have to take the present moment as your basis. You have to stick to the configuration and outer activity that the physical organism has in the present moment. If you then move on to observing the soul life, you will not find in this soul life the necessity for restriction to the present moment, but you will find in the soul life - initially in the individual soul life - the expansion back into the sixth, fifth, fourth year of life. The experiences are incorporated into memory, so that when you move from observing the physical person to observing the soul, you move from the present to an individual past. To acquire spiritual scientific methods means to develop certain abilities that go beyond the ordinary soul life. These abilities, which go beyond the ordinary soul life, then also expand that which, during the transition from the physical into the soul, extends over a certain period of time, up to the period of childhood. These spiritual scientific methods expand the observation beyond the individual human being, and what enters is the inner observation of the world process. It is certainly a long path, which you will find described in my books, but it is a path that can certainly become a reality for human development.

Just as the inner experiences are immanent in time in a certain way in the memory-based review of the individual life path, one will - but only through comparative treatment of what one has in one's memory - arrive at the design of the time scheme for what presents itself to inner vision, if one only really knows how to work methodically. In this way one arrives at a truly methodical approach. The person who acquires the observant sense for what I have called the rudimentary soul metamorphoses of old age – but which are also matched by rudimentary bodily metamorphoses – will find that there are certain periods of time in which such metamorphoses take place. There is such a period at the end of the forties, again at the end of the fifties, and in the middle of the fifties, so that one does indeed get certain periods of inner experience for this rudimentary soul metamorphosis. Now, if one really applies inner methodology in the expansion of inner vision to the extra-individual realm and thereby arrives at certain time determinations, one can either rely on them directly, which is entirely the case with a developed spiritual-scientific method, or one can try to corroborate what presents itself in this way by verification from outside. For example, you can say to yourself that today, when you have already sharpened your sense of observation, let's say around the age of 35, you experience a certain life metamorphosis. Now you look for this in what is presented to you in the outer historical life, and you thereby fix a certain historical point in time. One then tries to find another life metamorphosis, for example that which presents itself at the end of the 1920s – one arrives at a later point in time. This provides us with individual epochs for what happens historically and what corresponds to an inner metamorphosis of life. In this way, one can relate these individual, unique life epochs to the past historical development of humanity. Is this indicative of the path? Of course, I can only sketch out this path. If you follow the idea, it will become clear to you that this path is an exact one.

As for the so-called blue blindness of the Greeks, I would ask you to please bear in mind that I really only want to speak of a so-called blue blindness. It is more a sensitivity of the Greeks for the bright, warm colors and a lesser interest in the dark, blue, cold colors. One must be clear about the fact that the process itself that is taking place is much more spiritual for the Greek people than it is for today's partially blue-blind people. It is only an analogy, but it is precisely this mental blue blindness that is so strongly present in the Greeks that we can still prove it in the Greek language. But you have probably already been able to deduce from the lecture that we should not regard this as an individual characteristic of the Greek people, but as something that occurs in a particular period of a people's development. Of course, it must be borne in mind that the relative epochs of the peoples living side by side on earth do not coincide absolutely. It must be realized that the Chinese people, for example, had long since emerged from the period of blue blindness when they entered history. So, to a certain extent, one must perceive the periods of time as layered next to each other, then one will see what I have said in the right light. I have tried to describe the thought process as it manifested itself in the Greeks in my “Riddles of Philosophy”; this thought process of the Greeks was also somewhat different from our present-day thought process. Our thought process is that we are aware of a certain activity of thought with which we accompany external facts. We ascribe the formation of thoughts to this activity of thoughts, of which we are aware, and ascribe only the sensory impression to the objective. The Greeks were different. In the Greeks - you can easily prove this by looking at the Greek philosophers with an unbiased judgment - there was a clear awareness that they saw thoughts in things just as they saw colors in things, that they therefore perceived thoughts. The Greeks experienced the thought as something perceived, not as something actively formed. And that is why the Greeks were not really a reflective people in the sense that we are. People have only really become reflective since the middle of the 15th century. The thinking process has become internalized. It has become internalized at the same time as the course of the sensory process. I would say that the Greeks saw more of the active part of the spectrum, the red, warm side of the spectrum; they only sensed the cold, blue side of the spectrum indistinctly. And today we certainly have a very different perception of the red and warm side of the spectrum; we see it much more shifted towards the green than the Greeks, who were still sensitive to it beyond our outermost red. The Greek spectrum was shifted entirely towards the red side. The Greeks therefore saw the rainbow differently than we do. And by having our sensitivity more on the other side of the spectrum, we are turning our attention to the dark side, and that is something like entering a kind of twilight. It makes you think. If I describe it more figuratively now, don't be offended; it is based on a very real process of human development. With the shift of sensitivity from the warm part of the spectrum to the dark part of the spectrum, something similar occurs in the development of humanity as a whole, as it does in a person when they experience twilight from full brightness, where they begin to rely more on themselves, to follow the inner path of thought, and where they become pensive. I would say that in the twilight, in the dark, thinking is more active than when the sensitivity is directed towards the lively, warm colors, where one lives more in the outer world, experiences more of what is in the outer world. The Greek was more absorbed in the outer world with all his thinking. He therefore also saw his thoughts in the outer world. Modern man, who has shifted the whole spectrum of vision more towards the dark side, cannot see his thoughts in the outer world. Just as one will not claim that what the soul experiences is outwardly visible at night when it is dark all around, but knows that it takes place in the soul, so what what man experiences since the shift of the spectrum view, happens more on the dark side in the soul, and one can say that a shift in thinking has occurred since Greek times.

These are the kinds of things that arise from research in spiritual science. I can only sketch them out here; I hope that some of what has been suggested today can be developed further here in the next few days, and I wish my subsequent speakers good luck in dealing with the most interesting questions possible in the next few days.

Preliminary note: Carl Unger's lecture was not written down. However, he spoke about the subject matter on several occasions, for example in his lectures “On the Epistemological Foundations of Natural Science” (1916) and “On the Path from Natural Science to Spiritual Science” (1917), both of which were published in volume I of his “Writings”, Stuttgart 1964.

Rudolf Steiner: The relationship between supersensible knowledge and the will has been asked about here. Now, if we want to form a clear idea about this, we must first consider the relationship between what we usually call will in our daily lives and what we call idea, and then we have to recognize the further path from the idea to supersensible knowledge.

Today, Dr. Unger has spoken to you about pure thinking. Anyone who wanted to make a substantial distinction between the will and pure thinking would probably proceed as one would if asking: What actual difference is there, say, between a boy born in Frankfurt am Main in 1749 who lived at

63 such-and-such, and the privy councillor who lived in Weimar in 1827? One and the same person, one and the same being: it was Goethe. Seen inwardly, the will as the essentially active element is, of course, quite the same as thinking, for that which is active in pure thinking is will — only that one gains nothing for epistemological discussions by emphasizing the will-character of pure thinking.

In order to characterize thinking epistemologically, one must proceed in the same way as the speaker this evening. I would say that thinking is only essential in a different age than the will. The will, where it has not yet struggled through to pure thinking, is younger, so to speak, still in adolescence. When it has developed further and further, it reaches a certain age – this is, of course, a figurative way of speaking – and then it is able to live as pure thinking, which is a further step. This has been demonstrated quite well to you this evening: pure thinking is meditation. Meditation leads to the life of the supersensible world.

Now meditation, pure thinking in general, truly pure thinking, is not possible without further developing the will. This pure thinking as a human capacity is only possible through a particularly intensive effort, a particularly intensive exercise of the will. But everything that one exercises, one trains, one develops. And it is a very special training of the will when one moves from pure thinking to meditation. It can certainly be said that this entire development of the human being, who initially lives in unclear ideas, towards pure thinking and then towards meditation, this entire effort is essentially a training of the will. Therefore, what is needed to really grasp spiritual knowledge is essentially an effort of the will. And anyone who makes an effort to respond to spiritual knowledge exercises willpower, and in doing so exercises their will in general. Therefore, it can be said that it would be quite good for today's humanity if it would at least respond to spiritual knowledge, because in doing so it would truly develop the will, it would strengthen the will.

It would seem that in modern humanity, the will has basically become something about which one can only entertain illusions – if one is still willing to believe that it exists at all. If we look around today, for example, to see what volitional impulses led to the events of the war in recent years that have so terribly shaken the world, we cannot possibly answer, because the will of human beings was least of all at work in them. There was a kind of determination by powers that had seized control of people's decisions. Almost everywhere we see that in 1914, when decisive resolutions were made, we cannot even begin to hold people responsible. It would be a psychological absurdity to somehow blame Berchtold's diplomatic clumsiness for the Serbian ultimatum or the like. Such things may be part of the campaign of confusion and lies that is sweeping the world today, but they cannot stand up to serious psychological scrutiny. On a large scale, what is expressed on a small scale must be carefully examined.

Analyze what in everyday life is called the will. I call your attention to the fact that most people lie to themselves about what they want. They get up every morning at a certain time. Do you believe that they want to do this in the true sense of the word? If you analyze the whole fact that is expressed in this getting up in the morning, then you come to wanting just as well or just as badly as if you say that the clock strikes 8 o'clock in the morning. That is a complex of facts when the clock strikes 8 o'clock. When a person's legs move out of bed, hands reach for this or that, then that is a different complex of facts. And that in one case we speak of automatism and in the other of will, my dear audience, is based only on an illusion or on a confused psychology. In truth, the human being is only placed in a position to speak of volition when he is approaching pure thinking and then, through pure thinking, rises to the comprehension of supersensible truths. Then the real volition is integrated or, I might say, poured into his organism – the volition that can truly be called volition. And all the impulses that are present in the traditions for a real will are by no means the result of the automatic activity that has almost become the habit of all people today, but rather from older times, when there was still - albeit in an atavistic way, more instinctively - a will that was independent of the usual automatism of life.

That it is not always the thought that must guide the will is best seen from the fact that people, if they are sufficiently emotional, have the greatest influence on their fellow human beings precisely when they have dream-like thoughts, when they have somewhat enigmatic thoughts. As a rule, clear thinkers, who are more inclined to abstractions, have less influence on their fellow men than those who, with a certain inner brutality, are attuned to emotional thoughts.

All this, if properly carried out and followed through to its logical conclusion, will show you that it is precisely the path of development that the human soul takes to pure thinking, to supersensible understanding, that is the path by which the will is at the same time brought out of the depths of the human being, so that one can truly say: The will, which is the actual object of ethics, which is the actual object of moral teaching, this will is cultivated as a reality precisely by the spiritual scientific method.

It is this will that has been virtually lost under materialism. Modern humanity has been seized by the automaton-like. I would like to analyze the will factor, let us say in the case of a current-day philosophy professor who is constantly on the go or in the case of a university professor in general. Yes, my dear attendees, if you disregard what he does in continuous automatization, which has entered into him during his education, what actually remains for his will? What remains for his will is what is contained in the law of appointment, in the decree of appointment; he does what he is driven to do by his being integrated into some state or professorial context or the like. Analyze what actually lies in the element of will in such an activity, that is, in the activity of a quite leading personality, and then try to compare how differently this element of will must be grasped by what spiritual scientific development is in a human being. Then you will get an idea of how this spiritual science is called upon to lead the human being out of the stage of the automaton and to make him truly an individuality.

The fact that today one does not even have an inkling of how to arrive at an understanding of the will proves to you that now even a strange idea has found its way into the newer scientific way of thinking: the strange idea that plants also have something like ensouled will, because there are those among them which, when insects or something like that come near them, fold up their leaves and consume these insects. That means, to summarize a mere external fact, a mere external 'complex of acts, an external complex of phenomena, under the concept of will - but which in this case is only an illusion. I have often said in lectures that I know of another creature that, when small animals come near, also takes the opportunity to get them into its burrow and kill them there, just like the [carnivorous] plant does the insect: namely, a mousetrap. And with exactly the same right with which one thinks of the Venus flytrap as ensouled, one can think of a mousetrap as ensouled.

These things, as they occur today in scientific thinking, are just beginning to prove that there can be no question of an illusion-free conception of will in today's thinking. We will only get a correct idea of the will, of the experience of the will, when the will is actually practised in spiritual science, as it is meant here, in anthroposophy. On the other hand, one could even say that people do not approach this spiritual science because it requires a real inner effort of the will, an exercise of the will, and because the human souls of the present time are actually sleeping souls that are quite happy to surrender to the automatism of thinking and also of willing.

Thus the question as to whether supersensible knowledge has a relation to the will must be answered with a strong yes. For this supersensible knowledge will redeem the sleeping will of present-day humanity, it will awaken the souls, and that is what matters today. The sleeping souls of today will not solve the great tasks of the present time. The will will solve them, and it can be redeemed precisely through devotion to supersensible knowledge.

after the lecture by Friedrich Husemann on “Nervousness, Worldview and Anthroposophy”

Preliminary note: Nothing is known about Friedrich Husemann's lecture because no notes were taken. However, it may be assumed that some of his remarks were also addressed in his lectures on “Questions of Contemporary Psychiatry from the Point of View of Anthroposophy”, which he gave at the first Anthroposophical College in September 1920. A summary of these lectures was published in the collection “Aenigmatisches aus Kunst und Wissenschaft”, volume I, Stuttgart 1922.

After Dr. Husemann's lecture, a question was asked about the possibilities of studying psychiatry in the future.

Rudolf Steiner: It is of course impossible to speak about this subject today, which would require an exhaustive treatment if one wanted to go into it at all, in any other way than with a few hints at most, because the study of psychiatry, especially in our time, certainly requires the most far-reaching reforms. If we consider how it is actually impossible today to formulate the questions that must be asked in psychiatry, we will realize how necessary

70 such a reform of the study of psychiatry is. However, such a reform will not be able to take place – this seemed clear to me from Dr. Husemann's lecture itself – if the individual specialist subjects are not first truly fertilized by spiritual science. For the development that Dr. Husemann has so beautifully described today, which began around the time of Galileo and culminated in the 19th century, has actually driven the whole of human thought life apart into two sharply opposing currents of thought. On the one hand, there are the ideas we have about material things and their processes; on the other hand, there is the life of thought itself, which has increasingly taken on a purely abstract character, so that – since abstractions cannot be forces in the world , and thus cannot be a force in man either that can bring about something - so there is no possibility for man either to understand the material, the physical, from the soul, to build some kind of bridge from the psychic to the material.

Today, at most, man has an idea of a sum of abstractions or even of abstract feelings and the like when he speaks of the soul. This sum of abstractions cannot, of course, set an organism in motion, cannot somehow build a bridge to the organism. Therefore, on the one hand, one cannot speak of being able to influence the external physical, real organism by acting on the soul life, which is, after all, only a sum of abstractions. On the other hand, there is what has been gained through science about the physical organism, because it has been invented that soul phenomena are only parallel phenomena or even effects of the physical organism. What is formed in the way of concrete ideas about this physical organism is not conducive to squeezing anything out of these ideas about the psychic. And so today, regardless of whether one is more or less of a materialist, there coexist an outlook on the soul life that only looks at abstractions, and an outlook on the material life, including the organic life, from which nothing spiritual can be extracted.

It is therefore quite understandable that it is not easy to find a method that can be used for psychiatry. That is why, in recent times, people have stopped talking about the connection between the physical and organic in humans and the psychological, which takes place as a process in consciousness. And since one is in reality constantly in danger of falling on one's face between these two stools, between the physical-material and the abstract-psychological, it is necessary to invent a quite unconscious world, a strange and unconscious world. And that has now been amply done in psychoanalysis, in analytical psychology, a scientific object that is actually extremely interesting. For once there has been a reform of psychiatry, so that we will again have a proper psychiatry, then this scientific object will have to be properly examined from this new psychiatric point of view, because it is actually [itself] an object for psychiatry.

So they tried to imagine an unconscious world so that they would not be completely cut off from the ground between these two chairs. Of course I am not saying anything against the unconscious world, but it must be investigated, it must be really recognized through that which spiritual science introduces as vision; it cannot be fantasized in the way that the Freudians or similar people fantasize it.

Spiritual science will bring about a reform of psychiatry in that it will lead from mere abstract concepts, which have no inner life, to concepts that are in line with reality, to concepts that already live in the world as concepts, that have been gained by immersing oneself in reality with their methods. Then, when one ascends to such spiritual methods, which in turn provide realistic concepts, one will find the transition from such concepts, which are mere abstractions, to that which is now not mere abstraction but reality. That means that it will be possible to build a bridge between the psychic and the physical in man. The psychic and the physical must appear differently in our minds if we seriously desire to have a psychiatry.

The sum of abstractions today, including those that comprise the abstract laws of nature – these laws are becoming more and more filtered – is not capable of being immersed in a real process. Just imagine how, with the abstractions that figure in science today, one could find something like the two important facts — for they are facts — that I mentioned in the first lecture of this series: the spiritual-scientific heart teaching and the spiritual-scientific teaching of the reverse biogenetic law for the historical course of earthly events. From such examples you can see that spiritual scientific methods are capable of finding the way out of the inner life of the soul and into the world of facts, of building a bridge between the so-called spiritual and the so-called physical.

Above all, this is necessary for psychiatry, because only when we are able to properly observe the corresponding facts will we make headway. And the facts of psychiatry are fundamentally even more difficult to observe – because they require greater impartiality – than the facts of the laws of physics. Because in human life, as soon as one moves from the so-called healthy, from the relatively healthy to the relatively sick, there is actually almost no possibility of observing the person in complete isolation. The human being certainly develops into a complete individuality, into an isolated life; he does this precisely through his psyche. But what deviates in the psyche from a linear development, from a linear, so-called normal development, cannot be observed in isolation. I can only hint at this, of course; otherwise one would have to make lengthy explanations if one wanted to prove it in detail. Man is much more of a social being, even in the deeper sense, than is usually thought, and in particular, mental illnesses can actually only rarely be assessed on the basis of the biography of the individual, the isolated individual. That is almost completely impossible.

I would rather use a hypothetical example than theories to suggest what I actually mean. You see, it is possible, for example, that in any community, be it a family or any other community, two people live side by side. After some time, one of them has the misfortune to have an attack, which means that they are transferred to a psychiatric institution. Of course, this person can be treated in isolation. But if you do that, especially if you form an opinion based on an isolated examination of this person, then in many cases you will actually only fall prey to a thought pattern. For the case may be, and in many cases is, that another person, who lives with the person who has become ill, or who has become mentally ill, in a family or in some other community, actually has within himself, let us say, a complex of forces that has led to the mental illness of his fellow human being. So we start with these two people: one person, A, has the attack, from a psychiatric point of view; person B has a complex of forces within him, of a psychically organic nature, which, if you were to look at it in this way, perhaps shows to a much greater extent what is called the cause of the illness in individual A. That is to say, B, who is not mentally ill at all, actually has this cause of mental illness within him to a much greater extent than A, who had to be taken to a sanatorium.

This is something that lies entirely within the realm of reality, not merely of possibility. For it rests on the fact that man A, apart from the complex of forces which is designated as the cause of his mental illness, has a weak constitution and therefore cannot bear this complex of forces. The other, B, who also has the complex of forces within him, perhaps even more strongly, has - apart from this complex of forces - a considerably stronger constitution than the other; it does not harm him. B can bear it, A cannot. But A would not have contracted the disease at all if he had not been continually psychically influenced by B, the person living next to him – an influence that can be extraordinarily significant in this case because B is more robust than A.

There you have an example that is quite common in reality, from which you can see how important the psychiatric approach is if it seriously wants to be based on reality, if it does not play games as it often is in this field today. The point is really not to look at the person in isolation, but to look at them in their entire social environment. Of course, what I mean here will have to be put on a fairly broad basis. After all, it is also the case for the rest of the disease that it makes a big difference whether a weak individual is affected by some complex or a strong, robust individual. Let us assume that two people live next to each other from a certain age onwards and have dealings with each other. One of them still has a robust, rural nature from his youth and background, while the other has been descended from city dwellers for three generations. The person who has a healthy, rural nature and can tolerate some internal damage may carry a much stronger complex, but he can tolerate it and does not become ill. The other, who actually only has it through a psychic infection, through an imitation, through whatever is present from person to person, he does not tolerate the effect.

Here you can see what comes into consideration when you want to talk about psychiatry not from theories and programs, but from reality; you see how, in fact, today one is already turning to the serious that arises from the insight that, basically, especially since the time of Galileo, our scientists have become so one-sided, and you see how necessary it is to take in new ideas in a fruitful way in all fields. Otherwise, human knowledge, especially in those fields that are supposed to lead into practice, into the practice of life, must come to complete decadence. I could say: basically, the same applies to psychiatry as we say about the art of education when we talk about Waldorf schools, namely that one should not just come up with some new formulations of a theoretical nature, but that one should bring the living spiritual science itself into this field. What we have to say about education also applies to psychiatry. We can never approach the matter one-sidedly by saying that this or that can be improved in the field of psychiatry, but we must familiarize ourselves with the idea that Either one accepts the spiritual-scientific basis in the field of knowledge in general, then this spiritual-scientific basis will already transform psychiatry, then it will make something out of psychiatry in particular, which is actually longed for by numerous people today, but which cannot be there at all through the latest natural scientific methods, which have of course been sufficiently explained to you yesterday and today, or... [gap in the transcript].

You see, what must come out of the popularization of spiritual science, to use a trivial word, is that, above all, people will have a much, much better knowledge of human nature than they have today. People today are so out of touch with each other that there can be no question of any knowledge of human nature. People pass each other by, each living only in himself. Spiritual science will open people up to each other. And then, above all, much of what is perhaps still believed today to lie in the field of psychic pathology will be carried over into the field of psychic hygiene. For it is absolutely the case that, I would say, straight lines can be drawn from the symptom complexes of disturbed psychic life to the ideas that are currently widespread in public life and which are not at all considered pathological, but which are generally accepted. And if one were to follow up some of the very generally accepted concepts, one would find that, although more slowly, the same path is taken after all that can be seen in the pursuit of a psychologically abnormal symptom complex, which, however, happens quickly in the case of someone who is found to be mentally abnormal today.

All these things show that ultimately all the talk about details in the reforms of the individual sciences does not lead to much, but that if one decides – although today souls, many souls, are too sleepy – to look for a fertilization of scientific life in the sense of spiritual science, then the most diverse fields of science, but especially that field of science that deals with the various deviations from normal psychic life, psychiatric medicine, will undergo a necessary, I would say self-evident, reform as a result. Even if these cases go as far as the most extreme rebellion, such as raving madness, or feeble-mindedness, and so on – only then will it be found what these psychic aberrations actually mean for normal life in the whole of normal development. And in many respects we shall find that the more and more healthy our world view becomes, the more that will be healed which shines out from public error into the pathological aberrations of the mentally ill.

For it is indeed quite remarkable how difficult it is to draw a correct line between so-called normal life and mentally abnormal life. For example, it is difficult to say whether a person is mentally normal in the case of, say, an event that occurred not too long ago in Basel, not far from here, in which a man left a large sum of money in his will for someone to lock themselves away in complete solitude until such time as they had succeeded in truly proving the immortality of the soul. That is what a man in Basel did in his will, and I don't know what happened to it after that. I believe the heirs objected and tried to decide, not psychiatrically but legally, to what extent it was related to psychiatry or not. But if you now really set out, each and every one of you, to examine whether it should be assessed psychiatrically or whether it is a mental illness or whether it is really an oversized religiosity or whatever, you will hardly be able to manage with complete accuracy.

The point is that our concepts have gradually become weak in the face of reality; they must become strong again. But they will only become strong through spiritual science. And among many other things, psychiatry in particular will feel the effects of this.

My dear friends! The fact that our friends, who are now gathered here, are giving a whole series of lectures is of a certain importance for the course of events here at the Goetheanum. It is an attempt at appropriate collaboration by our friends; and this must indeed be longed for by our movement, that there should be collaboration in our movement from the most diverse points of view of today's life. Only in this way will the first germs be laid, at least, to meet the strong onslaught that is increasingly evident in the present opposition that is being directed against our movement. Therefore, because I also want to point out the full significance of this undertaking by our friends, today's lecture should be a kind of episode in the series of reflections. It arises, so to speak, from the need to continue speaking today in the tone of the principled scientific questions that have been raised here in recent days by our friends, and to resume other anthroposophical reflections only tomorrow.

We have heard a great deal over the past few days from our friends about the fundamental issues in contemporary science, and what we have heard is accurate, important and essential in various ways. We will hear more.

We will hear more. Today, continuing in this fundamental tone, I would like to present some ideas that will also point to the methodology of the current scientific world view, insofar as this methodology shows the actual state of this current scientific world view when it attempts to go into its experimental observation results in more detail. You have heard, particularly from the few comments made yesterday by Dr. Kolisko in response to Dr. Husemann's impressive lecture, what the psychological value of today's scientific view of the world is, so to speak.

Now, however, the following must actually be said: this atomistic-molecular foundation of natural science actually figures within those circles that talk about natural science today and that already mix their fantastic atomic theories into the description of phenomena, as described by Dr. Kolisko yesterday. But this atomistic-molecular foundation of natural science But this atomistic-molecular foundation of natural science appears even more when laymen or semi-laymen speak today about world-view questions in the most diverse monist and similar associations, through which one wants to make popular world-views that are supposed to be based on real science, but which are actually only based on what has long been devalued by the facts of science today. One could say devalued, even if not refuted, because to refute it would require spiritual science, which would first have to be accepted by wider circles. The situation within contemporary spiritual life, which after all ultimately dominates our world, this situation is indeed a rather bleak one.

On the one hand, we have a scientific foundation of the world view that has gradually, I might say, become quite inadequate. And on the other hand, we have all kinds of philosophers who, although much admired, and this is particularly characteristic of our time, do not really arrive at any substantial content for a world view. For it will hardly take long before it is realized that philosophical prattle of the Eucken type or the like cannot be regarded as something truthful or valuable. If we look back a few decades to the development of world views that have emerged from the natural sciences, we find that just a few decades ago, I might say, the glory of atomistic-molecular thinking was still there. It was taken for granted that matter could be conceived of in such a way that atoms and molecules in various configurations and positions in relation to one another were assumed to underlie material substances. And everything that was easily and conveniently available from the fields of physics and chemistry was collected to serve as a kind of corroboration of this atomistic-molecularist thinking.

What existed as a healthy opposition to this thinking, such as the Goethean worldview, was simply not taken into account during this time; it was viewed as a kind of dilettantism. They thought up a world system that was supposed to be composed of the simplest possible elements: space, time, movement, mass – these were the basic concepts that were assumed and from which, basically, an entire world system was then constructed. Such world systems have sprung up like mushrooms, varying in their details but consistent in the main, and they all actually wanted to be based on the most elementary and primitive concepts alone, on concepts such as space, time, movement and mass. The ideal was to trace the complicated form of movement of the cell, from which one then thought of the whole organism as being built, back to space, time, movement and mass, and thereby to imagine everything organic as emerging from mere space, time, movement and mass, which represent matter. This view is, after all, not based on the facts of the world itself, but is thoroughly thought out. Anyone who has experienced what has come about in this way knows how these things were actually all thought-out world views; certain basic assumptions were made and then built on.

In my lectures, I have often related how, as a very young boy, I was already aware of such a world system, which did not go as far as the organic, but at least as far as the chemical. It was put forward by my headmaster at the time, who thought entirely in the spirit of the times and assumed the following as a basis. He said: Let us take the simplest thing, space to begin with, and then distribute matter throughout space, arranged atomistically. He thought of space as infinite and divided space into nothing but space cubes. Space is filled with matter. Now he said: One can think of matter as being distributed in a certain way in these different space cubes. If you try to visualize how matter is distributed in these different space cubes, you can say the following: under certain circumstances, it could be distributed in such a way that the same number of atoms would be present in all of the infinitely many space cubes. But since we have an infinite number of space cubes and no assumption forces us to decide on a certain number of atoms in a space cube, it is just a probability that there are as many atoms in one space as in another. Because there are infinite possibilities, it is likely that there are as many in one space as in the other spaces: One divided by infinity is zero, so there is a different number of atoms in each spatial part. But if you now introduce time, there is no reason to assume that in the next time part the situation would not be the same again: namely that the probability would be zero that there would be the same number of atoms in a particular spatial part as in the previous spatial part. Therefore, the number of atoms in the successive time periods will be different in the spatial parts. That is to say, matter is in motion.

Now we have derived the movement of matter from the probability calculation and from the division of the space cube. But since it is not probable that the atomistic-material particles go through each other - this contradicts what is shown to us in natural phenomena - so one must assume that the material particles are afflicted with resistance against each other, so they are massive. The simplest assumption is that they are rigid masses. And with that we have time, space, movement, mass, and now we can begin to calculate what results from the mutual impacts. And here we soon see something that is highly intriguing for minds like ours, namely, we can now calculate and we can imagine what the calculations show as a correlate, as a representation of what is happening in matter. And indeed, through these computational magic tricks, we can then figure out the processes, as the [school principal] did, right down to the chemical processes. All chemical processes can still be derived by calculation. And if someone is an even greater magician in this field, he will also succeed in deriving and calculating the organic processes in the cell. One gets a whole world view built up from the most primitive ideas of space, time, movement, mass.

This is something that increasingly haunted minds the further 19th-century thinking progressed. And it was only at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century that a breach was made in this whole way of thinking. I have already indicated from a variety of angles how this breach was made. You see, the man I have been talking about here is only representative of this way of thinking; I am using him as a representative because he confronted me as a twelve-year-old boy at the time and I was surprised at the way in which one can conjure up an entire world view out of space, time, movement and mass in a mathematical way. Those who thought likewise all found that one had to do with the matter that causes the appearance of solid, liquid and gaseous bodies, and then with all that one had to ascribe to - as this man said - a much finer world gas that spreads everywhere; others said the ether. So, for their world view, they had the general cosmic ether, through whose movement the light spreads or in whose movement the light should even exist, and in this ether, floating, ponderable matter, matter that has weight and then receives the effects of these ether processes, and also interpenetrates with them, and so on. Of course, there is actually no room in such a world view for the idea of anything spiritual. One can certainly indulge in illusions in this respect; one can say that one adheres to this world view for physics and for chemistry, possibly also for organic chemistry, and in addition, one still assumes a spiritual one. But then one would like to ask how the mediation is actually to take place between this spiritual and what one imagines to be a mere effect of space, time, movement and mass without this spiritual.

Now, however, in addition to these imaginative ideas, which, as already mentioned, had been developed in the most diverse ways, one was also obliged to take into account what the facts of the world of phenomena itself offered. In such a world picture there is really nothing in it that man sees through his senses. Because in it there are moving little particles that have nothing at all of the properties that the sensory world has; there are moving little particles in it, a pushing and shoving, but nothing of what the sensory world presents. It has certainly occurred to individuals, for example to Mach, that something has been thought up there. He therefore went back to the world of pure sense perceptions, and he also wanted to put together the whole physical world picture only from the temporal sequence and the spatial juxtaposition of sense perceptions. However, even in this Machian way one cannot get along, because if one only presents sense perceptions, then these sense perceptions remain, so to speak, neutrally next to each other. If one does not have the ability to see something essential in sensory perceptions, then one can only bring them into a spatial and temporal relationship with each other, not into an intensive and qualitative relationship. In short, one does not get to the rich world of our sensory experiences with one's thinking in the Machian way. But one can say this: such thinking is extraordinarily captivating.

I know, my dear friends, that many of you do not find such thinking enchanting. But that is only because those who do not find it enchanting have not undergone a very strong mathematical culture and therefore cannot feel the enchantment of calculating all the phenomena in the world. There is a kind of magic in transforming the whole world in one's mind, in one's imagination, into a machine that works as finely as it does through such a world view - there is something enchanting about it. And it did not come about out of, I would say, a little devilry or because someone wanted to fool the world - although the world could appear to be fooled by this world view. It really did not arise out of mere cynicism, but it arose because there exists in man an inner urge to deceive himself as much as one can deceive oneself about the phenomena that occur, if one only follows the mathematical fantasies of one's inner soul life. This urge was already present; it was a completely sincere, honest urge that underlay this terribly empty world view, the forming of this terribly empty world view. And today, when we so clearly recognize the necessity of abandoning this world view, abandoning it thoroughly and replacing it with a spiritual-scientific one, today this question must already be asked: Where does the appeal of this mechanistic world view come from?

Perhaps the best way to answer this question of how the mechanistic conception of the world has become so attractive is to take a look at the revolution in this world view that actually only took place in the last two decades of the 19th century and since the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. You see, when people used to think in terms of empty space, and movements in empty space, movements of matter, both heavy matter and ether, there was no limit to certain ideas. What danced from one cube into another in the space cubes could be imagined to have any speed. And it was also imagined to be rigid, even unchangeable. Such a particle was itself thought of as unchanging and was taken as the basis for the calculation as unchanging. One was not bound to anything other than what the invented ideas of space, time, motion and mass imposed.

In particular, many ether theories have been constructed under the influence of these ideas. The ether was sometimes a rigid body that was just not heavy, sometimes a liquid, sometimes a sum of vortices of matter, and so on. All kinds of formations and configurations were seen in this ether. Models were also made of how the ether actually behaves in certain parts of space. In England, in particular, many such ether models were constructed because people there were keen to imagine everything spatially. We in Central Europe could still hear the echoes of these ether model constructions when we met the old theosophists. Theosophists imitated these ether model constructions, and I knew such an old German theosophist who had learned his whole theory from England. He once took me to his attic, and there were all kinds of ether models, huge ether models. There you could see how the coils and movements took place, this way and then that way, intertwining with each other — everything was intertwined. They were terribly complicated but ingeniously devised intertwinings of what was supposed to take place in the ether. The people who thought up such models were sometimes far removed from what actually lives in reality.

But little by little they were compelled to take this reality into consideration, and out of this endeavor something emerged like Einstein's theory, the so-called theory of relativity, the theories of Mie, Nordström, Hilbert and so on; there is a whole rich literature today about this theory of relativity. I would like to present just two ideas of this relativity theory to the soul's eyes, and then we will see where it has led, at least in terms of the attempt to get out of the purely imaginative world view. The first thing that occurred to people under the influence of Lorentz's experiments and Einstein's terribly abstract thinking, but still with some consideration for reality, was to disregard this world view and these beautiful models altogether. To characterize what was arrived at when one wanted to get out of it, I will tell you how one came to regard the speed of light as the original speed, so to speak, as the original speed in space.

Anyone who fantasizes in this way (see Chart 1) does not need to think about any original speed, because these little comrades in there in the space cubes can move at any speed or slowness and, of course, faster than light. You just have to assume that.

But certain phenomena had to be taken into account, which led to the assumption that light - I am not saying that this is correct, but in any case, it was stated and it was finally accepted - light as the speed beyond which there is no increase in speed, so that nothing can be faster than light. So everything else that exists in the world in terms of speed must then be measured against the speed of light.

Now, such an assumption could no longer be reconciled with the assumption of the ether as this previous world view had assumed. Because if one assumed that light had a speed of 186,000 miles per second and compared everything else with the speed of light, then one could not accommodate the whole sum of ideas associated with the ether in this world view. And so it happened that, for example, Einstein completely left out the ether and now no ether was assumed at all. In Einstein's theory of relativity, you have a world view without an ether. So light propagates through empty space with the maximum of all existing velocities. Everything else must be measured by light. If we take this as our point of departure, we arrive at a significant conclusion. It turns out that all that is required is for a solid body to move fast enough. It can increase its velocity continuously, but it cannot exceed the speed of light. So now we are no longer dealing with the movement of a solid body through the ether. Because the ether is no longer considered, we now speak of the movement as such, which is also carried out by solid bodies, and we speak of the fact that the movement is not without influence, for example, on the expansion, let us say, on the length of a solid body. And so Einstein came to the idea that a solid body of a certain length simply becomes shorter by moving, that is, by nothing other than by moving.

Just think about it: insofar as you yourselves are solid bodies - if you were to move through space at a certain speed, you would become thinner and thinner in the direction in which you are moving, and finally you would become as thin as a sheet of paper. So by leaving out the ether, certain changes to the world view became necessary. And the following two sentences play an extraordinarily important role in the theory of physical knowledge today: firstly, that the speed of light is the maximum speed, that nowhere can a greater speed be assumed than that of light, that light is the original speed, and secondly, the assumption that solid bodies change their size simply by moving, that movement itself can be a cause of a change in size, of the expansion of solid bodies.

If you take these two ideas and consider how different they are from everything we humans think about based on our experiences of our environment, you will be able to form an opinion about what Einstein, Mie, Nordström and so on were compelled to do in the physical world view. You see, there is already a physical world view that has been adopted by a whole series of people, which is based on these ideas of the maximum speed of light and of expansion, change through movement itself in solid bodies. This world view has nothing to do with the world view that we were accustomed to in our youth and that still haunts laymen when they talk about world views. This world view has actually revolutionized all old physical concepts. It is interesting that this world view even seeks to revolutionize the old Newtonian view of gravitation, of weight, of the attractive force of mass, so that Newton's law that masses attract each other in inverse proportion to the square of the distance no longer applies. But what asserts itself as a change in mass according to Einstein's theory is basically also only a calculation result. So one should also only calculate the effects that were previously attributed to gravity, gravitation and so on. However, Einstein is obliged to think of a different geometry for his world view. What is this different geometry? That can be said very simply. In our geometry, the Pythagorean theorem applies and it applies that if two straight lines are parallel, they do not intersect even at infinity. In our geometry, the theorem also applies: the three angles of a triangle are 180 degrees. In the geometry that is assumed [by Einstein], such theorems no longer apply. For example, under certain conditions, the three angles of a triangle are greater than 180 degrees, or even less than 180 degrees. But this is only possible if you imagine space in a completely different way than you have usually imagined it, namely that in this world view you imagine space as an empty vacuum.

You see, a kind of compromise has been reached between those who have overcome the old Euclidean geometry and replaced it with another geometry: Lobachevsky, Riemann, Gauss and so on, who have introduced calculations with more than three dimensions. And Einstein can't get along with anything other than introducing the multidimensional manifold. So, simply by introducing multi-dimensional space, one can, as it were, incorporate gravity into this multi-dimensional space. It's actually terribly simple.

You see, if you assume three-dimensional space and calculate in this three-dimensional space, then the effects of gravity are not included. You have to assume something extra for gravity, namely a force emanating from the masses, through which they attract each other or exert pressure or something similar – pressure forces that cause the masses to collide or the like. But if you assume a fourth dimension in addition to these three and know nothing other than what the calculation yields, then you have a good opportunity to accommodate gravity as well. Because as long as you only calculate with three dimensions, you have to assume something extra for gravity; but if you already take into account what you would otherwise have calculated for gravity by adding another dimension, then what you would otherwise have calculated for gravity can also come out for what you would otherwise have assumed for gravity. In any case, however, you can see that something suddenly appears that intervenes quite newly in the old ideas. Suddenly, something arises such as the paradoxical idea that a body can become smaller purely by moving. A mere solid body – I don't even want to say an animal, which one might assume would shrink or something like that through the exertion of force – a mere solid body does not become smaller when it is cooled, but when it is moved. One is compelled to do so. The world view that you have believed to be so certain suddenly changes, and you come to completely opposite ideas. It is very strange, when you look at something with the eyes of a psychologist, as I have described to you.

This idea of space vacuum, of time, which, so to speak, goes from a non-beginning to a non-end, when you compare this rigid world view, which has something terribly rigid about it, with Einstein's, then the Einsteinian world view - I would say it suddenly becomes something slimy. The former is extremely dry, can be attacked and felt everywhere as something extremely dry, and now it suddenly becomes slimy - the bodies cease to retain their expansion, and through the mere movement they become mollusks. Actually, this is a terrible change of the basic physical concept in the last two decades. The world does not yet appreciate this, although it is repeatedly presented to the world from many sides as one of the greatest achievements of modern thinking. Unfortunately, however, it seems to me, my dear friends, as if modern humanity has become too stupid to think at all. Therefore, it does not care about it at all. Even the newspapers are talking today about Einstein's theory, which actually overturns everything that people still think when they live in the popular world view. Well, it makes no impression on people; they read this Einsteinian revolution in physics just as they read that, well, let's say, milk has become 10 centimes more expensive again. There is no longer anything in humanity that would show that these people are still living with what some of them are thinking.

This revolution in physics has already taken place, and the world view that was still firmly established just four decades ago has, so to speak, been turned upside down into a sum of such ideas that are now of a completely different nature. Anyone who today allows the thoughts of Einstein, Mie, Nordström to take effect on them has something completely different to deal with than what the physical theorists presented to us in the universities four decades ago. Of course, the subject could not yet be broken down into the ramifications of the individual sciences, but that is on the way, for we are already finding a kind of bridge to cytology, and that will come: Einstein's theory will also take hold of cytology, then it will enter into organic chemistry and so on.

You see, for anyone who cares about the fate of humanity, such a change in the ideas of a worldview is of the utmost importance, because they must ask themselves: how did something like this come about in the whole development of modern humanity? What does it actually depend on? You see, in the times that preceded the great turning point, this leap in the development of humanity - which took place in the middle of the 15th century, but which was now a natural one - in such times that preceded this turning point, one could have had neither this physical world view nor Einstein's theory of relativity. In those days, before the time of Galileo, people thought in images, in images that are more similar to the forces present in reality. The abstract concepts by which we today also want to grasp the laws of nature are quite unlike the real forces. In the past, people still had certain imaginations in their concepts. They still had the opportunity to enter into relationships with reality. They had this opportunity because something of the after-effects of the prenatal spiritual-soul life, the life between death and a new birth, still resulted for them. That the ideas did not become abstract, but rather concrete, permeated with pictorial structure, is due to the influence of what one had experienced between the last death and this new birth. This ability was lost, and only abstract thinking remained, which, however, actually has real value only if it is still imbued with the resonance of the forces between death and a new birth. This was gradually distilled out completely, and in the 19th century all that remained of this world view was emptied of everything that had previously had a spiritual origin. The forces used to create this world view actually only make sense if they take their content from the spiritual world, otherwise it is an empty formalism. And this formalism was applied to the external sense world, to which it did not fit at all, for which it was not at all adapted. One was subject, I would say, to a terrible fate: that which could have been vividly revived in an inner experience, that was applied to the outer world.

I believe that you can get a sense of what I am actually talking about if you open Novalis and find true hymns in the aphorisms of Novalis, for example to mathematics, to pure mathematics, which he calls a great poem, a wonderful poem, a most wonderful imaginative creation. I don't know how many people today can relate to Novalis in this, but one can relate to him. One can sympathize with him when one knows that Novalis had an inkling of how mathematics suddenly becomes something wonderful when it is not merely applied to the external world of the senses, where it becomes purely formalistic, but when it is carried up into the spiritual world and filled with imaginations of the spiritual world. For if one applies them to the external sense world, then one really dislikes all talk of this sense world. One no longer speaks of this real world at all; one actually speaks of something quite foolish. One cannot, as was remarked yesterday, present such a world view without dishonesty, because it takes no account of what one otherwise really presents in life. You throw everything out as if it weren't there. You can't imagine such a world that is not red and not blue, not warm and not cold, that is not thick and not thin, that is not loud and not silent, you can't imagine it in reality. You can calculate it, but you can't imagine it. You transform the whole world into an empty formalism.

This stops immediately when you carry this mathematics up into the spiritual world. There it becomes manifest, it becomes something great. And now, you see, the world is at a crossroads today. On the one hand, it should stop developing this formalistic world view, because that is nothing more than squeezing a lemon dry, and it should be willing to find spiritual content in a different way, not by inventing atoms and their weaving, but by looking for the spirit in the phenomena that are all around us. We should do this. We should become agile, we should be able to penetrate into the organic.

The day before yesterday, Dr. Unger so beautifully explained to you how it is necessary for scientific thinking to become inwardly agile, to inwardly transform itself, so that this thinking can follow the metamorphosis of organic forms. Yes, humanity should do this. But under the influence of this new world picture, it has become neurasthenic. Under the influence of this rigid, dry world picture, it has become completely neurasthenic with regard to time and movement and space and mass, fidgety, terribly fidgety. And instead of her thinking feeling its way into the metamorphosing organic world, instead of her thinking having a truly organic metamorphosing effect, her thinking becomes mollusc-like. And instead of thinking in terms of Goethe's metamorphosis, she thinks in a neurasthenic way, how the solid body becomes shorter when it merely moves. There you have the way in which thinking has become mobile under the aegis of our concept of time. There you have what is rightly demanded, but which our time fulfills only in a neurasthenic way. There you have, so to speak, first of all what was to come, but it comes in a neurasthenic way.

These things must be borne in mind, my dear friends, if you want to understand the present. Einstein, Mie, Nordström, Hilbert and so on, they are, I might say, under the impression of the approaching spiritual wave. But these are all neurasthenics, world-view neurasthenics, who go against the thinking that must be demanded by the real modern theory of knowledge; they fulfill it in a neurasthenic way. They cannot conceive of the Goethean metamorphosis; but the old, dry, rigid world-picture, which, I might say, makes one cool to the finger-tips when one touches it in its dryness, they make slimy, mollusc-like. Of course, thinking is “flexible” when it can imagine that a person, if they fly fast enough through space, becomes completely flat like a sheet of paper. There you have “flexible” thinking, but flexible thinking in the light of neurasthenics, in the light of neurasthenic world-view. This world-view neurasthenia, which has often been pointed out to you, is very deeply rooted in our world-views. That is what we have to lead to the soul today. Today, our world view is becoming neurasthenic. Spiritual science should heal this neurasthenia. This is also a demand of the time.

Now, tomorrow, after we have gone through this episode, we want to bring some more anthroposophical considerations into it.

Preliminary note: Walter Johannes Stein's lecture was not written down. The questions from the participants were submitted in writing.

Question: How is it that the color perception on the right and left is of different intensities?

Rudolf Steiner: This is connected with the fact that the entire vitality in the human being is different on the left and right. We are not at all organized in such a way that the human being functions the same on both sides - the left-handed person and the right-handed person, if I may say so. That which lives in our consciousness is actually always an intermediate state between that which lives through the left-handed person and that which lives through the right-handed person, and the extreme states, the lopsidedness and so on, are just radical formations of that which is actually already present in every person by nature. The difference in intensity stems from the fact that we, as symmetrical human beings, live and function with the two [dis]symmetrical parts in varying degrees of intensity.

The next question was: What is the significance of the warmth points? To what extent can the warmth points be regarded as organs of warmth perception, of general inner and outer perception?

In general, however, something comes into consideration that would be extremely difficult to explain in brief. I would have to give you a whole lecture about it. What is referred to here as heat points, they do not actually serve like the sense organs, but they serve to spread the sensations of warmth as such throughout our organization, so that we identify ourselves with the warmth within us.

This spreading is actually essentially there to perceive us in the sensation of warmth as a unified being, as we must generally hold that we as human beings are organized in such a way that we also stand out from our animal nature through our sensory organization. Our animal nature is actually organized in the way our sensory physiologists usually describe it. In contrast, our human senses are formed in such a way that the orientation towards the I is already inherent in the individual sensory activities. The I is basically a resultant of the twelve partial effects that come together from our various senses. We should not actually say, if we formulate the facts precisely, that we perceive through the eye. Perception as such is much more rooted in a process that lies further back. What actually takes place through the eye is the activation of the process of perception in our entire ego process – it is the same with the other senses – so that we are distinguished from animals by the fact that our senses are already oriented towards the ego. This can also be demonstrated externally by the fact that the further down the animal scale we go, the more dissimilar, and to some extent more complicated, the senses become in comparison to our human senses.

The next question: How are the biogenetic and phylogenetic processes to be understood?

This will become very clear once we start to properly study embryology and a reasonably conducted embryology will then also lead to a reasonable interpretation of phylogeny. Present-day embryology is actually a very one-sided science; it actually only considers the development of the ovum in its complexity. However, it attaches very little importance to the decadent organs, to that which disappears in the developed embryo, i.e. to what disappears, such as the amniotic sac, the allantois, the chorion and so on. These things regress, while that which then becomes the visible human organs develops forward. The mistake that is made today is that one actually only looks at the evolutionary processes, not the involutionary processes, not that which develops in the opposite sense as a result of the other evolving. If embryology is ever studied in such a way that the organs that develop in the opposite direction, that then fall away, are also considered, then it will be possible to properly observe the transformations of form in phylogeny as well, and then it will become clear that what has been presented to you schematically today can be characterized as the real summary of everything that can be well traced phylogenetically.

Today, the empirical sciences have a wealth of material available, but this rich material is by no means exploited in a rational sense. There is, so to speak, a great deal of chaos in this rich material, and as a result, the facts on which this more schematic presentation is based are still hidden from the observations of comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and comparative biology in general. The relationships that have been indicated here, for example, the transformation, the metamorphosis of the sense of taste into the sense of sight, is something that can already be read today between the lines of the usual physiological descriptions. This can already be proven. Likewise, the process can be observed phylogenetically in the animal series: If we go back to lower-formed eyes, which, however, already have the organization of the eyes of higher animals and humans, we will find that this metamorphosis of the taste organ into the organ of vision can actually be demonstrated if we just want to see impartially.

Another question: What does the kidney actually perceive and what role does the adrenal gland play in this?

Well, the perception we are dealing with here is, of course, very much in the subconscious. When we speak of “renal perception”, we are actually dealing with an analogous use of the word. After all, the point is that we can go into this process of perception without thinking of it in the same crude way as the external senses. The perception in question can be characterized as follows:

Let us say that a person perceives with their sense of hearing. They perceive in the way that has been described to you here today: they perceive outwardly, and this perception takes place in the conscious mind. A perception that we can describe as the opposite pole of auditory perception, we would have to characterize as being conveyed to the region of rhythmic activity. Certain processes that take place in human metabolism have to be conveyed to the region of rhythmic activity, these processes, the metabolic processes, are in a certain way conveyed to the rhythmic processes by something analogous to perception, just as, for example, the external vibrational processes are conveyed to the brain by the perception of sound.

It is only possible to connect a clear concept with these things if one can imagine that inner vitality as it is in the three-part human being. What is in the metabolic human being, for example, must be conveyed for the rhythmic human being. The rhythmic person can only be in harmony with the metabolic person through mediation, and this mediation is provided by kidney activity. The strength of the secretion, the quality of the secretion, forms the mediation, so to speak. In this way, the kidney creates a reagent for the rhythmic person in relation to the metabolic person.

Of course, these things can only be characterized superficially. They lead into such profound things of the human organization that they are hardly suitable for a brief answer to a question.

The question was also asked about the nature of the secretion. What is meant by secretion here?

Surely, one can only use the word “seclusion” in this case if one means the following: when we speak of the sense of warmth, we are dealing with the perception of something in the external world that is present in the same way in ourselves, so that, as it were - as was also mentioned in today's lecture - only the difference in level is actually perceived between the external warmth and the internal warmth. And it is indeed the case that, basically, the same process is taking place as with the thermometer, only externalized.

With sound perceptions, it is the case that we not only penetrate into something that we also carry within us, it is the case that we not only penetrate into something that is, so to speak, a common medium in which we are inside and the object is inside, but in the case of sound perception, we penetrate into something that is inherent in the object. We can certainly say, for example, that every metal has its own sound. So in a sense we penetrate into the interior of an object in a weaker way than we penetrate into the interior of another person when we listen to how he speaks and how he reveals his inner self to us. We do not penetrate into something that is common to both us and him – only the mediations are common, but not the content. Thus we penetrate out of ourselves by penetrating into the object through the perception of sound.

This can be characterized by the fact that, while ascending from the sense of sight to the sense of warmth, we still live in something that is a common medium for what is perceived and for ourselves, but that something separates when we go from the sense of sight to the sense of hearing. There is also an intensification in this, because we not only perceive a sound, but we perceive an inner mental process.

Thus, in the sense of sound, a further differentiation can be perceived. And one cannot arrive at a schematization, if I may say so, or a classification of the senses, other than by considering this activity of the human being from the inside out, this absorption, this ever-increasing absorption in the sense of sound. Only in this way can one arrive at an objective classification of the senses. Precisely because this has not been done, it has been overlooked that one really must proceed from the sense of hearing to the sense of sound, and from the sense of sound in turn to the sense of concept. For it is an absolute nonsense to speak of perceiving, let us say, what the other person puts into language as his soul content, with the sense of hearing. To separate these two senses, the sense of sound and the sense of tone, leads only to a failure to understand anything about these things in the world.

It is therefore a matter of actually setting a boundary where such a boundary is given by the objects, and of seeing this separation, which is not yet present in the sense of warmth. What is actually perceived by the subject himself first occurs in the sense of sound, and then increasingly in the other senses, in the sense of sound and so on, or even in the sense of self. Everything is thrown into confusion. In this theory, which we can hear today, it is actually the case that the perception of the other self should come about through me approaching the other person and seeing a nose, two eyes, hair and so on, and then say to myself through a half-unconscious conclusion: I also have a nose, two eyes, hair; what he has, I also have, therefore what I see will have an I like I have.

This unconscious conclusion is what we see at work today. It is often called “empathy” or something similar, as chattering psychologists, for example Lipps, have said. We find this unconscious conclusion at work everywhere, and we do not notice how direct the process is that lies in the fact that I actually perceive the ego of the other person.

Some people who study such things, such as Scheler, have indeed become aware of how immediate this perception of the self of the other is and how fundamentally, radically different this perception of the self of the other is from all the processes that lead me to the inner experiences, which I then summarize into the overall state of the inner life.

I believe that what has been mentioned is a radical process that proceeds in many ways and intervenes in the inner life, while the human being's perception of the self is on the same level as other sensory perceptions, except that here we are entering the realm for which humanity is not yet predisposed today. I would like to say, to speak of organs in the way we speak here of the organ of the sense of self, that would hardly be easy to understand today in the context of our psychology or physiology - which, as I mentioned earlier, has even led to the development of an analytical psychology, a so-called “psychoanalysis” - that would hardly be easy to understand today in the context of these complexities.

But at least the pure fact must be presented to the world today: that I-perception is something other than the summarizing, the synthetic summarizing of those processes that then lead to the confirmation of the fact of the inner I of the subject.

The next question: what processes are involved in dowsing?

With regard to the divining rod, it must be carefully noted that, when the corresponding phenomena occur, there is an intensified sensory process for which, however, the whole human being is the mediator. We are not dealing with inner mechanical or magnetic processes or the like, but with the intensity of the person, which is then expressed in what is transmitted through the person to the divining rod.

The facts of the matter are such that one can indeed point out how people who really have no inclination to engage in spiritual science are quite seriously forced to deal with such a problem, such as that of the divining rod, both physically and physiologically.

I still remember – although I do not want to speak here in favor or against something in this direction – how a Viennese researcher blew the whistle on Hansen – after all, most of the nonsense that Hansen did with hypnotism at the time – and how this same researcher is now forced to seriously deal with the phenomena of dowsing. I need only recall that in fact experiments in locating springs and the like with the help of the divining rod have even played a certain role during this war, so that in fact here in this field exact research is beginning. But this research does not want to consider the fact that we are not dealing here with processes that have been separated from the human being, but with processes that are based on the fact that the human being is involved in the entire process, so to speak. This is confirmed, for example, by the fact that the movements of the rod vary greatly depending on whether one or the other person is using it. We are dealing with something in whose reactions the intervention of the human being plays a role.

These questions are such that if we wanted to answer them exhaustively, we would need the whole night to do so, and that cannot be expected of us.

Preliminary remark: Eugen Kolisko's lecture was not written down. However, Rudolf Steiner said the following about it the next day in his lecture for physicians (March 31, 1920, in GA 312): “It was very interesting how Dr. Kolisko pointed out in yesterday's evening lecture that the chemistry of the future must actually become something completely different, and how the word 'physiology' was mentioned again and again, which testifies that a bridge should be built between the chemical and the physiological. I was always reminded of various things that, of course, cannot be fully expressed where public lectures are concerned, because the prerequisites for understanding are actually completely lacking. We do, of course, find carbon in nature outside of the human being, in what I would like to call seemingly extra-human nature. For what in nature is actually extra-human? Nothing, really, because everything that is extra-human in the extra-human world around us has been removed from the human being in the course of human development. Man had to enter into stages of development, which he could only enter into by certain processes taking place in the external world, opposite to him, and by which he was given the possibility of taking certain other processes into his inner being, so that there is actually always an opposition and also a relationship between certain outer processes and certain inner processes."

After Eugen Kolisko's lecture, a question was asked about the effects of allopathic and homeopathic remedies. The stenographer did not record the wording of the question.

Rudolf Steiner: It is more or less assumed today - because of atomistic thinking - that the process that takes place within a substance is, to a certain extent, the same process that takes place within the human organization, or I could also say the animal organization. But it is a very naturalistic assumption to indulge in the idea that the substance borrowed from the dead organism, so to speak, shows the same properties as the same substance, say for example blood, when it is still within the living human or animal organism. Once we realize what bundles of completely unscientific assumptions and postulates are in the sciences in use, only then will we truly feel what is necessary to put today's scientific view on a healthy basis. And so this healthy basis is also not available for those processes that are brought about when certain remedies are introduced into the human organism. For example, the question of how any substance that we supply to the human organism in this or that form, allopathic or homeopathic, is now dissolved in this human organism, how it behaves in the human organism itself, has not been investigated. For example, no consideration is given to the question of what the human organism actually does with this substance. And here we find – I can only hint at this, as it would take many hours to explain in full detail – that spiritual science shows that those substances which we supply to the human organism all , are in a sense, homoeopathized by it, if I may use the term. This means that they undergo internally the same process that the homoeopathic pharmacist causes to occur with his substances in his experiments. It is the case that the mode of action of the allopathically administered healing substances is also not based on the properties that are chemically ascribed to them today, but rather on properties that they only acquire as a result of the human organism processing them with the help of its own powers.

The question of allopathy and homeopathy, really considered in relation to the human being, is therefore not whether large or fragmented small amounts have an effect on the human organism when they produce healing effects, because the substances also do that when they are administered in allopathic amounts. The question is not this at all, but the question is whether it is permissible to expose the human organism to the side effects that arise from what is added with the allopathic substance and what is not homeopathized by the human organism itself, that is, is not used for healing. The question is whether this method is really permissible in order not to burden the human organism with what must be left over. Whether one supplies a very large quantity, while the organism needs only a small quantity, and whether the dispersion of the substances has the same effect as remedies that otherwise also have an effect in small quantities – that has been explained by Dr. Kolisko. If substances are dispersed in the human organism itself and only a small quantity is necessary for this, why should large quantities be introduced? It seems to me that the question is therefore not based on what is usually stated [in relation to homeopathic and allopathic remedies], but that something essential is actually [unspoken]; the questions should actually arise in other areas or, let us say, in other forms. For example, it should be clear whether the whole view and way of thinking about the clinical picture is healthier in the field of homeopathy or in that of allopathy. By this I mean whether, for example, those doctors who profess homeopathy or those who profess allopathy are more likely to focus on the complexity of the human organism. And here it must indeed be said that the doctors who work on a homeopathic basis are much more willing – experience simply shows this – to move away from the materialistic, atomistic idea and to adapt to certain views that I would say are more in line with the nature of the human organism.

As I said, I do not want to go into the actual discussion here, because it could be misunderstood if you have to explain it so briefly. I just wanted to suggest how our scientific views usually pose the questions in such a way that they cannot be answered at all as they are posed; the points of view are completely shifted, the questions are completely shifted to the point of view of materialism.

Then I was asked to speak about the relationship between Leadbeater's book and “occult chemistry”. Now, dear attendees, I do not want to dwell on the word “occult” here, because it is so misunderstood; it shocks the public, so to speak, when the word “occult” is used. But one can also stop at the word “spiritual scientific” or the like. You see, the occult is only occult as long as it is not known, and with those who know it, it is no longer occult. There are very many people who have every reason to call mathematics an occult science, and some sciences are occult for some people. So this is actually something that is quite relative in this respect. You will not find such a concoction as this so-called “occult chemistry” justified or recognized by anyone who is truly capable of spiritual thinking. This “occult chemistry” of Leadbeater's is modeled entirely on the usual materialistic atomism in the way it is presented. This “occult chemistry” is the best proof of what certain conceptions calling themselves spiritual have already come to in our materialistic time. I need only remind you that in certain theosophical circles the following idea once even emerged: they thought about what could be present in successive earthly lives so that it would remain from one earthly life to the next, and they came up with the grotesquely foolish idea of the so-called permanent atom. A single atom was supposed to be saved from one life from so many hundred years ago to the next life and thereby maintain the continuity of these two lives. That is, these spiritualists had fortunately managed to think along the lines of the materialistic-atomistic view. And Leadbeater has now put together his “occult chemistry” according to the pattern of ordinary atomistic chemistry, in a completely arbitrary way - but he has stated that it is a product of clairvoyance - but it is a completely arbitrary construction and cannot be recognized by any truly serious spiritual researcher in the world.

This is precisely the best example of how certain atomistic ideas have taken hold of humanity today, that one was able to carry these atomistic ideas into the fields of a certain sectarian theosophical direction. This is something that has nothing whatsoever to do with what is being striven for here. And it is precisely this introduction of the atomistic-materialistic way of thinking into spiritual scientific investigations that shows how deeply the present is corroded by atomistic basic ideas. Consider that particularly in certain circles of English scientific thinkers, where one strives for an external visualization, attempts have been made to construct models for those structures that have been presented to you today, so that one could see outwardly that atoms are arranged in such a way in various complicated forms that it is possible to show so beautifully why there is a left-turning and a right-turning acid. You just need to have the atoms arrange themselves symmetrically and then you can say: Because the atoms always arrange their forces in this way in symmetry, there is a left and a right. It is just not understandable, if you can really think logically, why you should attribute the necessity that the shapes occur symmetrically to a configuration of the smallest parts. Please do not take this as a protest. Because if it is really true that only through the forces of the smallest parts the acid appears as right-polarizing, rotating and the other as left-rotating, then it should also be true that the left hand could fit on the right, because the smallest parts are formed in this direction.

These things have emerged in so-called “occult chemistry”, and these things have now been transferred to the views in so-called occult books. There you will also find quite terrible views and constructions of molecules or atoms. All this has also been imitated in the field of spiritual science; the materialistic theory has even been imitated in the spiritual view. I experienced it once at a congress held by so-called Theosophists, in Paris it was. There they talked about this and that, and afterwards I asked someone what impression this congress had made on him. The person in question said: “Oh, there were such good fluids in the whole hall.” So the person concerned saw nothing of all the concrete thoughts and so on that were expressed there, except for a materialistic translation of what people said to each other into material fluid effects between the individual personalities. You have to look at these things in terms of the way of thinking. You are not a follower of a spiritual world view just because you talk about spiritual beings, but only if you can talk about spiritual qualities. What you find, for example, in the theosophical literature today is that the physical body is described, then the etheric body, which is a bit thinner, possibly more nebulous, but still material, then the astral body, again a bit thinner, but just thinner matter, and so on. This continues up to the highest spiritual realms, Manas, Kama-Manas and so on, and actually everything is nothing but rarefied matter, only that in the end it really becomes very <“homeopathic”>. These are the things that show that it does not matter whether one speaks of the spirit today, but whether one is able to show something that really leads into the spiritual realm.

Question: How can chemistry be further developed in line with anthroposophy?

If we undertake the kind of phenomenology that Dr. Kolisko has in mind, then it must be said that this question is so all-embracing that it can only be answered in the most general terms. Above all, it is necessary to realize that one would first have to arrive at a corresponding phenomenology. A phenomenology is not a compilation of mere phenomena in an arbitrary way, or in the way they are obtained by scientific experiments, but a real phenomenology is a systematization of phenomena, as was attempted by Goethe in his Theory of Colors. It is a tracing back of the complicated to the simple, to the fundamental principles, where the basic elements, the basic phenomena, confront us.

Now, of course, I know very well that very clever people will say: Yes, but if one gains such a list in relation to the connection between qualitative phenomena and archetypal phenomena, then such a structure cannot be compared at all with how, for example, complicated geometric connections can be traced back mathematically to axioms; because the geometric connections are, so to speak, built from pure inner construction. The further development of mathematics, [starting from] these axioms, is in turn experienced as a mathematical process seen in inner necessity, while in the development of phenomena and archetypal phenomena we have to rely on observing the external facts.

But this is not the case, even if it is simply asserted – it is asserted more or less clearly and distinctly in the broadest context. The fact that this is asserted is only the result of an incorrect theory of knowledge, and in particular it is the result of a confused muddling of the concept of experience with other concepts. And this confused muddling of the concept of experience with other concepts leads, for example, to the following.

It is not considered that the way in which experience is present is thoroughly formed in relation to the human subject. I cannot form the concept of experience at all without thinking the relationship from the object to the human subject. And now it is merely a matter of whether there is a fundamental distinction between the way in which, for example, I have a Goethean urphenomenon before me and complicate this urphenomenon into a derived phenomenon, where I seem to be dependent on external experience confirming what I express in judgment? Is there a difference in this whole behavior of the subject in relation to the object with regard to experience, when I state in mathematics that the sum of the three angles of a triangle is 180°, or when I state the correctness of the Pythagorean theorem? Is there in fact a difference?

That there is no difference in this respect has already been pointed out by quite ingenious mathematicians of the nineteenth century and up to the present day, who, because they saw that ultimately mathematics is also based on an experience - in a sense, as one speaks of experience in the so-called empirical natural sciences - that have constructed, albeit initially only constructed, a non-Euclidean geometry to the Euclidean geometry. And here one must say: Theoretically it is, of course, perfectly possible to think geometrically that the three angles of a triangle are 380°. However, one must assume that space has a different degree of curvature. In our ordinary space we have a regular [Euclidean] measure, which has a curvature of zero. Simply by imagining that space is more curved [that is, that the curvature of space is greater than 1], one arrives at a sentence like: the sum of the three angles of a triangle is greater than 180°.

Interesting experiments have been carried out in relation to this, for example by Oskar Simony, who examined this. These endeavors show that from a certain point of view it was considered necessary to say: what we express as judgments in mathematical or geometric sentences also requires empirical verification in the same way as what we express in phenomenology.