Answers Provided by Anthroposophy
Concerning the World and Life
GA 108
18 January 1909, Carlsruhe
Translated by Henry B. Monges, revised by Gilbert Church
16. Practical Training In Thought
Almost sixty years have passed since Rudolf Steiner gave this lecture to a group of friends in Carlsruhe on January 18, 1909. Inevitably, some of it, especially the introductory pages, applies more particularly to the time when it was given and must appear old-fashioned today, just as much of what takes place in our contemporary world will be dated sixty years hence. Nevertheless, the perception of thoughts as actualities and the exercises given here for improving one's memory, observation, thinking habits and powers of concentration are as valid now as they were when they were originally presented sixty years ago.
Practical Training in Thought is also a characteristic example of the many attempts Dr. Steiner made to show how the physical and spiritual spheres can be brought together through the experience of thinking. He frequently emphasized that a methodical training for the development of thought capable of grasping physical and spiritual reality and leading to a new unity, is a necessary basis for the science of the spirit known as Anthroposophy. When practiced consistently, the exercises given here can provide that basis. Even though such a foundation must be taken as introductory to any wider experience of Dr. Steiner's teaching, the results of further anthroposophical study can nevertheless be built upon it.
Anyone interested in pursuing the subject beyond the limits necessitated by the brevity of this pamphlet will find a complete exposition of Dr. Steiner's ideas in the numerous publications of his work currently available in English and German. Some of them are listed at the end of this lecture.
Gilbert Church, Ph. D.
It may seem strange that an anthroposophist should feel called upon to speak about practical training in thought, for there is a widespread opinion that Anthroposophy is highly impractical and has no connection with life. This view can only arise among those who see things superficially, for in reality what we are concerned with here can guide us in the most ordinary affairs of everyday life. It is something that can be transformed at any moment into sensation and feeling, enabling us to meet life with assurance and to acquire a firm position in it.
Many people who call themselves practical imagine that their actions are guided by the most practical principles. But if we inquire more closely, it is found that their so-called “practical thought” is often not thought at all but only the continuing pursuit of traditional opinions and habits. An entirely objective observation of the “practical” man's thought and an examination of what is usually termed “practical thinking” will reveal the fact that it generally contains little that can be called practical. What to them is known as practical thought or thinking consists in following the example of some authority whose ideas are accepted as a standard in the construction of some object. Anyone who thinks differently is considered impractical because this thought does not coincide with traditional ideas.
Whenever anything really practical has been invented, it has been done by a person without practical knowledge of that particular subject. Take, for instance, the modern postage stamp. It would be most natural to assume that it was invented by some practical post office official. It was not. At the beginning of the last century it was a complicated affair to mail a letter. In order to dispatch a letter one had to go to the nearest receiving office where various books had to be referred to and many other formalities complied with. The uniform rate of postage known today is hardly sixty years old, and our present postage stamp that makes this possible was not invented by a practical postal employee at all but by someone completely outside the post office. This was the Englishman, Rowland Hill.
After the uniform system of postage stamps had been devised, the English minister who then had charge of the mails declared in Parliament that one could not assume any simplification of the system would increase the volume of mail as the impractical Hill anticipated. Even if it did, the London post office would be entirely inadequate to handle the increased volume. It never occurred to this highly “practical” individual that the post office must be fitted to the amount of business, not the business to the size of the post office. Indeed, in the shortest possible time this idea, which an “impractical” man had to defend against a “practical” authority, became a fact. Today, stamps are used everywhere as a matter of course for sending letters.
It was similar with the railroads. When in 1837 the first railroad in Germany was to be built, the members of the Bavarian College of Medicine were consulted on the advisability of the project and they voiced the opinion that it would be unwise to build railroads. They added that if this project were to be carried out, then at least a high board fence would have to be erected on both sides of the line to protect the public from possible brain and nervous shock.
When the railroad from Potsdam to Berlin was planned, Postmaster General Stengler said, “I am now dispatching two stage coaches daily to Potsdam and these are never full. If people are determined to throw their money out the window, they can do it much more simply without building a railroad!”
But the real facts of life often sweep aside the “practical,” that is to say, those who believe in their own ability to be practical. We must clearly distinguish between genuine thinking and so-called “practical thinking” that is merely reasoning in traditional ruts of thought.
As a starting point to our consideration I will tell you of an experience I had during my student days. A young colleague once came to me glowing with the joy of one who has just hit upon a really clever idea, and announced that he must go at once to see Professor X (who at the time taught machine construction at the University) for he had just made a great discovery. “I have discovered,” he said, “how, with a small amount of steam power and by simply rearranging the machinery, an enormous amount of work can be done by one machine.” He was in such a rush to see the Professor that that was all he could tell me. He failed to find him, however, so he returned and explained the whole matter to me. It all smacked of perpetual motion, but after all, why shouldn't even that be possible? After I had listened to his explanation I had to tell him that although his plan undoubtedly appeared to be cleverly thought out, it was a case that might be compared in practice with that of a person who, on boarding a railway car, pushes with all his might and then believes when it moves that he has actually started it. “That,” I said to him, “is the thought principle underlying your discovery.” Finally, he saw it himself and did not return to the Professor.
It is thus quite possible to shut ourselves up within a shell fashioned by our own thoughts. In rare cases this can be observed distinctly, but there are many similar examples in life that do not always reach such a striking extreme as the one just cited. He who is able to study human nature more intimately, however, knows that a large number of thought processes are of this kind. He often sees, we might say, people standing in the car pushing it from within and believing that they are making it move. Many of the events of life would take a different course if people did not so often try to solve their problems by thus deluding themselves.
True practice in thinking presupposes a right attitude and proper feeling for thinking. How can a right attitude toward thinking be attained? Anyone who believes that thought is merely an activity that takes place within his head or in his soul cannot have the right feeling for thought. Whoever harbors this idea will be constantly diverted by a false feeling from seeking right habits of thought and from making the necessary demands on his thinking. He who would acquire the right feeling for thought must say to himself, “If I can formulate thoughts about things, and learn to understand them through thinking, then these things themselves must first have contained these thoughts. The things must have been built up according to these thoughts, and only because this is so can I in turn extract these thoughts from the things.”
It can be imagined that this world outside and around us may be regarded in the same way as a watch. The comparison between the human organism and a watch is often used, but those who make it frequently forget the most important point. They forget the watchmaker. The fact must be kept clearly in mind that the wheels have not united and fitted themselves together of their own accord and thus made the watch “go,” but that first there was the watchmaker who put the different parts of the watch together. The watchmaker must never be forgotten. Through thoughts the watch has come into existence. Th thoughts have flowed, as it were, into the watch, into the thing.
The works and phenomena of nature must be viewed in a similar way. In the works of man it is easy to picture this to ourselves, but with the works of nature it is not so easily done. Yet these, too, are the result of spiritual activities and behind them are spiritual beings. Thus, when a man thinks about things he only re-thinks what is already in them. The belief that the world has been created by thought and is still ceaselessly being created in this manner is the belief that can alone fructify the actual inner practice of thought.
It is always the denial of the spiritual in the world that produces the worst kind of malpractice in thought, even in the field of science. Consider, for example, the theory that our planetary system arose from a primordial nebula that began to rotate and then densified into a central body from which rings and globes detached themselves, thus mechanically bringing into existence the entire solar system. He who propounds this theory is committing a grave error of thought.
A simple experiment used to be made in the schools to demonstrate this theory. A drop of oil was made to float in a glass of water. The drop was then pierced with a pin and made to rotate. As a result, tiny globules of oil were thrown off from the central drop creating a miniature planetary system, thus proving to the pupil—so the teacher thought—that this planetary system could come into existence through a purely mechanical process.
Only impractical thought can draw such conclusions from this little experiment, for he who would apply this theory to the cosmos has forgotten one thing that it ordinarily might be well to forget occasionally, and that is himself. He forgets that it is he who has brought this whole thing into rotation. If he had not been there and conducted the whole experiment, the separation of the little globules from the large drop would never have occurred. Had this fact been observed and applied logically to the cosmic system, he then would have been using complete healthy thinking. Similar errors of thought play a great part especially in science. Such things are far more important than one generally believes.
Considering the real practice of thought, it must be realized that thoughts can only be drawn from a world in which they already exist. Just as water can only be taken from a glass that actually contains water, so thoughts can only be extracted from things within which these thoughts are concealed. The world is built by thought, and only for this reason can thought be extracted from it. Were it otherwise, practical thought could not arise. When a person feels the full truth of these words, it will be easy for him to dispense with abstract thought. If he can confidently believe that thoughts are concealed behind the things around him, and that the actual facts of life take their course in obedience to thought if he feels this, he will easily be converted to a practical habit of thinking based on truth and reality.
Let us now look at that practice of thinking that is of special importance to those who stand upon an anthroposophical foundation. The one who is convinced that the world of facts is born of thought will grasp the importance of the development of right thinking.
Let us suppose that someone resolves to fructify his thinking to such a degree that it will always take the right course in life. If he would do this, he must be guided by the following rules and he must understand that these are actual, practical and fundamental principles. If he will try again and again to shape his thinking according to these rules, certain effects will result. His thinking will become practical even though at first it may not seem so. Other additional mental experiences of quite a different kind also will come to the one who applies these fundamental principles.
Let us suppose that somebody tries the following experiment. He begins today by observing, as accurately as possible, something in the outer world that is accessible to him—for instance, the weather. He watches the configuration of the clouds in the evening, the conditions at sunset, etc., and retains in his mind an exact picture of what he has thus observed. He tries to keep the picture before him in all its details for some time and endeavors to preserve as much of it as possible until the next day. At some time the next day he again makes a study of the weather conditions and again endeavors to gain an exact picture of them.
If in this manner he has pictured to himself exactly the sequential order of the weather conditions, he will become distinctly aware that his thinking gradually becomes richer and more intense. For what makes thought impractical is the tendency to ignore details when observing a sequence of events in the world and to retain but a vague, general impression of them. What is of value, what is essential and fructifies thinking, is just this ability to form exact pictures, especially of successive events, so that one can say, “Yesterday it was like that; today it is like this.” Thus, one calls up as graphically as possible an inner image of the two juxtaposed scenes that lie apart in the outer world.
This is, so to speak, nothing else but a certain expression of confidence in the thoughts that underlie reality. The person experimenting ought not to draw any conclusions immediately or to deduce from today's observation what kind of weather he shall have tomorrow. That would corrupt his thinking. Instead, he must confidently feel that the things of outer reality are definitely related to one another and that tomorrow's events are somehow connected with those of today. But he must not speculate on these things. He must first inwardly re-think the sequence of the outer events as exactly as possible in mental pictures, and then place these images side by side, allowing them to melt into one another. This is a definite rule of thought that must be followed by those who wish to develop factual thinking. It is particularly advisable that this principle be practiced on those very things that are not yet understood and the inner connection of which has not yet been penetrated.
Therefore, the experimenter must have the confidence that such events of which he has as yet no understanding—the weather, for instance—and which in the outer world are connected with one another, will bring about connections within him. This must be done in pictures only while abstaining from thinking. He must say to himself, “I do not yet know what the relation is, but I shall let these things grow within me and if I refrain from speculation they will bring something about in me.” It may be easily believed that if he forms exact inner images of succeeding events and at the same time abstains from all thinking something may take place in the invisible members of his nature.
The vehicle of man's thought life is his astral body.1See Theosophy: An Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man for a clarification of this, and other, anthroposophical terminology. As long as the human being is engaged in speculative thinking, this astral body is the slave of the ego. This conscious activity, however, does not occupy the astral body exclusively because the latter is also related in a certain manner to the whole cosmos.
Now, to the extent we abstain from arbitrary thinking and simply form mental pictures of successive events, to that extent do the inner thoughts of the world act within us and imprint themselves, without our being aware of it, on our astral body. To the extent we insert ourselves into the course of the world through observation of the events in the world and receive these images into our thoughts with the greatest possible clarity, allowing them to work within us, to that extent do those members of our organism that are withdrawn from our consciousness become ever more intelligent. If, in the case of inwardly connected events, we have once acquired the faculty of letting the new picture melt into the preceding one in the same way that the transition occurred in nature, it shall be found after a time that our thinking has gained considerable flexibility.
This is the procedure to be followed in matters not yet understood. Things, however, that are understood—events of everyday life, for example—should be treated in a somewhat different manner.
Let us presume that someone, perhaps our neighbor, had done this or that. We think about it and ask ourselves why he did it. We decide he has perhaps done it in preparation for something he intends to do the next day. We do not go any further but clearly picture his act and try to form an image of what he may do, imagining that the next day he will perform such and such an act. Then we wait to see what he really does since he may or may not do what we expected of him. We take note of what does happen and correct our thoughts accordingly. Thus, events of the present are chosen that are followed in thought into the future. Then we wait to see what actually happens.
This can be done either with actions involving people or something else. Whenever something is understood, we try to form a thought picture of what in our opinion will take place. If our opinion proves correct, our thinking is justified and all is well. If, however, something different from our expectation occurs, we review our thoughts and try to discover our mistake. In this way we try to correct our erroneous thinking by calm observation and examination of our errors. An attempt is made to find the reason for things occurring as they did. If we are right, however, we must be especially careful not to boast of our prediction and say, “Oh well, I knew yesterday that this would happen!”
This is again a rule based upon confidence that there is an inner necessity in things and events, that in the facts themselves there slumbers something that moves things. What is thus working within these things from one day to another are thought forces, and we gradually become conscious of them when meditating on things. By such exercises these thought forces are called up into our consciousness and if what has been thus foreseen is fulfilled, we are in tune with them. We have then established an inner relation with the real thought activity of the matter itself. So we train ourselves to think, not arbitrarily, but according to the inner necessity and the inner nature of the things themselves.
But our thinking can also be trained in other directions. An occurrence of today is also linked to what happened yesterday. We might consider a naughty child, for example, and ask ourselves what may have caused this behavior. The events are traced back to the previous day and the unknown cause hypothesized by saying to ourselves, “Since this occurred today, I must believe that it was prepared by this or that event that occurred yesterday or perhaps the day before.”
We then find out what had actually occurred and so discover whether or not our thought was correct. If the true cause has been found, very well. But if our conclusion was wrong, then we should try to correct the mistake, find out how our thought process developed, and how it ran its course in reality.
To practice these principles is the important point. Time must be taken to observe things as though we were inside the things themselves with our thinking. We should submerge ourselves in the things and enter into their inner thought activity. If this is done, we gradually become aware of the fact that we are growing together with things. We no longer feel that they are outside us and we are here inside our shell thinking about them. Instead we come to feel as if our own thinking occurred within the things themselves. When a man has succeeded to a high degree in doing this, many things will become clear to him.
Goethe was such a man. He was a thinker who always lived with his thought within the things themselves. The psychologist Heinroth's book in 1826, Anthropology, characterized Goethe's thought as “objective.” Goethe himself appreciated this characterization. What was meant is that such thinking does not separate itself from things, but remains within them. It moves within the necessity of things. Goethe's thinking was at the same time perception, and his perception was thinking. He had developed this way of thinking to a remarkable degree. More than once it occurred that, when he had planned to do something, he would go to the window and remark to the person who happened to be with him, “In three hours we shall have rain!” And so it would happen. From the little patch of sky he could see from the window he was able to foretell the weather conditions for the next few hours. His true thinking, remaining within the objects, thus enabled him to sense the coming event preparing itself in the preceding one.
Much more can actually be accomplished through practical thinking than is commonly supposed. When a man has made these principles of thinking his own, he will notice that his thinking really becomes practical, that his horizon widens, and that he can grasp the things of the world in quite a different way. Gradually his attitude towards things and people will change completely. An actual process will take place within him that will alter his whole conduct. It is of immense importance that he tries to grow into the things in this way with his thinking, for it is in the most eminent sense a practical undertaking to train one's thinking by such exercises.
There is another exercise that is to be practiced especially by those to whom the right idea usually does not occur at the right time.
Such people should try above all things to stop their thinking from being forever influenced and controlled by the ordinary course of worldly events and whatever else may come with them. As a rule, when a person lies down for half an hour's rest, his thoughts are allowed to play freely in a thousand different directions, or on the other hand he may become absorbed with some trouble in his life. Before he realizes it such things will have crept into his consciousness and claimed his entire attention. If this habit persists, such a person will never experience the occasion when the right idea occurs to him at the right moment.
If he really wants this to happen, he must say to himself whenever he can spare a half hour for rest, “Whenever I can spare the time, I will think about something I myself have chosen and I will bring it into my consciousness arbitrarily of my own free will. For example, I will think of something that occurred two years ago during a walk. I will deliberately recall what occurred then and I will think about it if only for five minutes. During these five minutes I will banish everything else from my mind and will myself choose the subject about which I wish to think.”
He need not even choose so difficult a subject as this one. The point is not at all to change one's mental process through difficult exercises, but to get away from the ordinary routine of life in one's thinking. He must think of something quite apart from what enmeshes him during the ordinary course of the day. If nothing occurs to him to think about, he might open a book at random and occupy his thoughts with whatever first catches his eye. Or he may choose to think of something he saw at a particular time that morning on his way to work and to which he would otherwise have paid no attention. The main point is that it should be something totally different from the ordinary run of daily events, something that otherwise would not have occupied his thoughts.
If such exercises are practiced systematically again and again, it will soon be noticed that ideas come at the right moments, and the right thoughts occur when needed. Through these exercises thinking will become activated and mobile—something of immense importance in practical life.
Let us consider another exercise that is especially helpful in improving one's memory.
One tries at first in the crude way people usually recall past events to remember something that occurred, let us say, yesterday. Such recollections are, as a rule, indistinct and colorless, and most people are satisfied if they can just remember a person's name. But if it is desired to develop one's memory, one can no longer be content with this. This must be clear. The following exercise must be systematically practiced, saying to oneself, “I shall recall exactly the person I saw yesterday, also the street corner where I met him, and what happened to be in his vicinity. I shall draw the whole picture as exactly as possible and shall even imagine the color and cut of his coat and vest.” Most people will find themselves utterly incapable of doing this and will quickly see how much is lacking in their recollections to produce a really lifelike, graphic picture of what they met and experienced only yesterday.
Since this is true in the majority of cases, we must begin with that condition in which many people are unable to recollect their most recent experiences. It is only too true that most people's observations of things and events are usually inaccurate and vague. The results of a test given by a professor in one of the universities demonstrated that out of thirty students who took the test, only two had observed an occurrence correctly; the remaining twenty-eight reported it inaccurately. But a good memory is the child of accurate observation. A reliable memory is attained, let me repeat, by accurate observation and it can also be said that in a certain roundabout way of the soul it is born as the child of exact observation.
But if somebody cannot at first accurately remember his experiences of yesterday, what should he do? First, he should try to remember as accurately as he can what actually occurred. Where recollections fail he should fill in the picture with something incorrect that was not really present. The essential point here is that the picture be complete. Suppose it was forgotten whether or not someone was wearing a brown or a black coat. Then he might be pictured in a brown coat and brown trousers with such and such buttons on his vest and a yellow necktie. One might further imagine a general situation in which there was a yellow wall, a tall man passing on the left, a short one on the right, etc.
All that can be remembered he puts into this picture, and what cannot be remembered is added imaginatively in order to have a completed mental picture. Of course, it is at first incorrect but through the effort to create a complete picture he is induced to observe more accurately. Such exercises must be continued, and although they might be tried and failed fifty times, perhaps the fifty-first time he shall be able to remember accurately what the person he has met looked like, what he wore, and even little details like the buttons on his vest. Then nothing will be overlooked and every detail will imprint itself on his memory. Thus he will have first sharpened his powers of observation by these exercises and in addition, as the fruit of this accurate observation, he will have improved his memory.
He should take special care to retain not only names and main features of what he wishes to remember, but also to retain vivid images covering all the details. If he cannot remember some detail, he must try for the time being to fill in the picture and thus make it a whole. He will then notice that his memory, as though in a roundabout way, slowly becomes reliable. Thus it can be seen how definite direction can be given for making thinking increasingly more practical.
There is still something else that is of particular importance. In thinking about some matters we feel it necessary to come to a conclusion. We consider how this or that should be done and then make up our minds in a certain way. This inclination, although natural, does not lead to practical thinking. All overly hasty thinking does not advance us but sets us back. Patience in these things is absolutely essential.
Suppose, for instance, we desire to carry out some particular plan. There are usually several ways that this might be done. Now we should have the patience first to imagine how things would work[s] out if we were to execute our plan in one way and then we should consider what the results would be of doing it in another. Surely there will always be reasons for preferring one method over another but we should refrain from forming an immediate decision. Instead, an attempt should be made to imagine the two possibilities and then we must say to ourselves, “That will do for the present; I shall now stop thinking about this matter.” No doubt there are people who will become fidgety at this point, and although it is difficult to overcome such a condition, it is extremely useful to do so. It then becomes possible to imagine how the matter might be handled in two ways, and to decide to stop thinking about it for awhile.
Whenever it is possible, action should be deferred until the next day, and the two possibilities considered again at that time. You will find that in the interim[,] conditions have changed and that the next day you will be able to form a different, or at least a more thorough decision than could have been reached the day before. An inner necessity is hidden in things and if we do not act with arbitrary impatience but allow this inner necessity to work in us—and it will—we shall find the next day that it has enriched our thinking, thus making possible a wiser decision. This is exceedingly valuable.
We might, for example, be asked to give our advice on a problem and to make a decision. But let us not thrust forward our decision immediately. We should have the patience to place the various possibilities before ourselves without forming any definite conclusions, and we then should quietly let these possibilities work themselves out within us. Even the popular proverb says that one should sleep over a matter before making a decision.
To sleep over it is not enough, however. It is necessary to consider two or, better still, several possibilities that will continue to work within us when our ego is not consciously occupied with them. Later on, when we return again to the matter in question, it will be found that certain thought forces have been stirred up within us in this manner, and that as a result our thinking has become more factual and practical.
It is certain that what a man seeks can always be found in the world, whether he stands at the carpenter's bench, or follows the plough, or belongs to one of the professions. If he will practice these exercises, he will become a practical thinker in the most ordinary matters of everyday life. If he thus trains himself, he will approach and look at the things of the world in a quite different manner from previously. Although at first these exercises may seem related only to his own innermost life, they are entirely applicable and of the greatest importance precisely for the outer world. They have powerful consequences.
An example will demonstrate how necessary it is to think about things in a really practical manner. Let us imagine that for some reason or other a man climbs a tree. He falls from the tree, strikes the ground, and is picked up dead. Now, the thought most likely to occur to us is that the fall killed him. We would be inclined to say that the fall was the cause and death the effect. In this instance cause and effect seem logically connected. But this assumption may completely confuse the true sequence of facts, for the man may have fallen as a consequence of heart failure. To the observer the external event is exactly the same in both cases. Only when the true causes are known can a correct judgment be formed. In this case it might have been that the man was already dead before he fell and the fall had nothing to do with his death. It is thus possible to invert completely cause and effect. In this instance the error is evident, but often they are not so easily discernible. The frequency with which such errors in thinking occur is amazing. Indeed, it must be said that in the field of science conclusions in which this confusion of cause and effect is permitted are being drawn every day. Most people do not grasp this fact, however, because they are not acquainted with the possibilities of thinking.
Still another example will show you clearly how such errors in thinking arise and how a person who has been practicing exercises like these can no longer make such mistakes. Suppose someone concludes that man as he is today is a descendent of the ape. This means that what he has come to know in the ape—the forces active in this animal have—attained higher perfection and man is the result. Now, to show the meaning of this theory in terms of thought, let us imagine that this person is the only man on earth, and that besides himself there are only those apes present that, according to his theory, can evolve into human beings. He now studies these apes with the utmost accuracy down to the most minute detail and then forms a concept of what lives in them. Excluding himself and without ever having seen another human being let him now try to develop the concept of a man solely from his concept of the ape. He will find this to be quite impossible. His concept “ape” will never transform itself into the concept “man.”
If he had cultivated correct habits of thinking, this man would have said to himself, “My concept of the ape does not change into the concept of man. What I perceive in the ape, therefore, can never become a human being, otherwise my concept would have to change likewise. There must be something else present that I am unable to perceive.” So he would have to imagine an invisible, super-sensible entity behind the physical ape that he would be unable to perceive but that alone would make the ape's transformation into man a possible conception.
We shall not enter into a discussion of the impossibility of this case, but simply point out the erroneous thinking underlying this theory. If this man had thought correctly he would have seen that he could not possibly conceive of such a theory without assuming the existence of something super-sensible. Upon further investigation you will discover that an overwhelmingly large number of people has committed this error of thinking. Errors like these, however, will no longer occur to the one who has trained his thinking as suggested here.
For anyone capable of thinking correctly a large part of modern literature (especially that of the sciences) becomes a source of unpleasant experience. The distorted and misguided thinking expressed in it can cause even physical pain in a man who has to work his way through it. It should be understood, however, that this is not said with any intent to slight the wealth of observation and discovery that has been accumulated by modern natural science and its objective methods of research.
Now let us consider “short-sighted” thinking. Most people are unconscious of the fact that their thinking is not factual, but that it is for the most part only the result of thought habits. The decisions and conclusions therefore of a man whose thought penetrates the world and life will differ greatly from those of one whose ability to think is limited or nil. Consider the case of a materialistic thinker. To convince such a man through reasoning, however logical, sound and good, is not an easy task. It is usually a useless effort to try to convince a person with little knowledge of life through reason. Such a person does not see the reasons that make this or that statement valid and possible if he has formed the habit of seeing nothing but matter in everything and simply adheres to this habit of thinking.
Today it can generally be said that people are not prompted by reasons when making statements but rather by the thinking habits behind these reasons. They have acquired habits of thought that influence all their feelings and sensations, and when reasons are put forth, they are simply the mask of the habitual thinking that screens these feelings and sensations. Not only is the wish often the father of the thought, but it can also be said that all our feelings and mental habits are the parents of our thoughts. He who knows life knows how difficult it is to convince another person by means of logical reasoning. What really decides and convinces lies much deeper in the human soul.
There are good reasons for the existence of the Anthroposophical Movement and for the activities in its various branches. Everyone who has participated in the work of the Movement for any length of time comes to notice that he has acquired a new way of thinking and feeling. For the work in the various branches is not merely confined to finding logical reasons for things. A new and more comprehensive quality of feeling and sensation is also developed.
How some people scoffed a few years ago when they heard their first lectures in spiritual science. Yet today how many things have become self-evident to these same people who previously looked upon these things as impossible absurdities. In working in the Anthroposophical Movement one not only learns to modify one's thinking, one also learns to unfold a wider perspective of soul life.
We must understand that our thoughts derive their coloring from far greater depths than are generally imagined. It is our feelings that frequently impel us to hold certain opinions. The logical reasons that are put forward are often a mere screen or mask for our deeper feelings and habits of thinking.
To bring ourselves to a point at which logical reasons themselves possess a real significance for us, we must have learned to love logic itself. Only when we have learned to love factuality and objectivity will logical reason be decisive for us. We should gradually learn to think objectively, not allowing ourselves to be swayed by our preference for this or that thought. Only then will our vision broaden in the sense that we do not merely follow the mental ruts of others but in such a way that the reality of the things themselves will teach us to think correctly.
True practicality is born of objective thinking, that is, thinking that flows into us from the things themselves. It is only by practicing such exercises as have just been described that we learn to take our thoughts from things. To do these exercises properly we should choose to work with sound and wholesome subjects that are least affected by our culture. These are the objects of nature.
To train our thinking using the things of nature as objects to think about will make really practical thinkers of us. Once we have trained ourselves in the practical use of this fundamental principle, our thinking, we shall be able to handle the most everyday occupations in a practical way. By training the human soul in this way a practical viewpoint is developed in our thinking.
The fruit of the Anthroposophical Movement must be to place really practical thinkers in life. What we have come to believe is not of as much importance as the fact that we should become capable of surveying with understanding the things around us. That spiritual science should penetrate our souls, thereby stimulating us to inner soul activity and expanding our vision, is of far more importance than merely theorizing about what extends beyond the things of the senses into the spiritual. In this, Anthroposophy is truly practical.
Praktische Ausbildung Des Denkens
Es könnte sonderbar erscheinen, wenn gerade Anthroposophie sich berufen fühlt, über praktische Ausbildung des Denkens zu sprechen, denn von den Außenstehenden wird sehr häufig die Meinung vertreten, Anthroposophie sei etwas im eminentesten Sinne Unpraktisches, sie habe mit dem Leben nichts zu tun. Solche Anschauung kann nur bestehen, wenn man die Dinge äußerlich, oberflächlich betrachtet. In Wahrheit aber soll das in Betracht Kommende ein Leitfaden sein fürs alleralltäglichste Leben; es soll sich in jedem Augenblick umwandeln können in Empfindung und Gefühl und es uns möglich machen, dem Leben sicher gegenüberzutreten und darin fest zu stehen.
Es bilden sich die Leute, die sich praktisch nennen, ein, nach den allerpraktischsten Grundsätzen zu handeln. Geht man der Sache aber näher, so wird man finden, daß das sogenannte «praktische Denken» oft überhaupt kein Denken ist, sondern ein Fortwursteln in anerzogenen Urteilen und Denkgewohnheiten. Wenn Sie absolut objektiv das Denken der Praktiker beobachten und das, was man gewöhnlich Denkpraxis nennt, prüfen, so werden Sie finden, daß da zum Teil sehr wenig wirkliche Praxis dahintersteckt, sondern was man Praxis nennt, besteht darin, daß man gelernt hat: Wie hat der Lehrmeister gedacht, wie hat derjenige gedacht, der dieses oder jenes vorher fabriziert hat, und wie richtet man sich nach dem? - Und wer anders denkt, den hält man für einen unpraktischen Menschen; denn das Denken stimmt ja nicht überein mit dem, was einem nun einmal anerzogen ist.
Wenn aber wirklich einmal etwas Praktisches erfunden wurde, so wurde das zunächst keineswegs von einem Praktiker gemacht. Betrachten wir zum Beispiel unsere heutige Briefmarke. Es wäre doch das Allernächstliegende, zu meinen, daß diese von einem Praktiker des Postwesens erfunden worden wäre. Dem ist aber nicht so. Anfang des letzten Jahrhunderts, da war es noch eine sehr umständliche Sache, einen Brief aufzugeben. Wollte jemand einen Brief fortschicken, so mußte er an die betreffende Stelle gehen, wo die Briefe aufgegeben werden konnten, und es mußten hier verschiedene Bücher nachgeschlagen werden, und allerlei Umständlichkeiten waren damit verknüpft. Daß man ein solches einheitliches Porto haben kann, wie man es heute gewohnt ist, das ist kaum etwas über sechzig Jahre her. Und unsere heutige Briefmarke, die das ermöglicht, ist nicht erfunden worden von einem praktischen Postmenschen, sondern von einem Menschen, der der Post ferne stand, von dem Engländer Hill.
Und als die Briefmarke erfunden war, da sagte der betreffende Minister im englischen Parlament, der für das Postwesen damals in Betracht kam: Ja, erstens kann man nicht annehmen, daß wirklich durch diese Vereinfachung der Verkehr sich so ungeheuer vermehrt, wie dies dieser unpraktische Hill sich ausmalt, und zweitens, angenommen selbst, es wäre so, dann würde das Postgebäude in London ja nicht ausreichen für diesen Verkehr. - Diesem großen Praktiker ist es aber nicht im entferntesten eingefallen, daß das Postgebäude sich nach dem Verkehr und nicht der Verkehr sich nach dem Postgebäude richten müsse. Nun hat sich in verhältnismäßig denkbar kürzester Zeit das durchgesetzt, was damals von einem «Unpraktiker» gegenüber einem «Praktiker» erkämpft werden mußte: ganz selbstverständlich ist es heute, daß der Brief mit der Briefmarke befördert wird.
Ähnlich verhält es sich bei der Eisenbahn. Als im Jahre 1835 die erste Eisenbahn in Deutschland von Nürnberg nach Fürth gebaut werden sollte, wurde von dem bayrischen Medizinalkollegium, das darüber gehört wurde, ein Sachverständigen-Gutachten dahin abgegeben, daß es nicht ratsam sei, Eisenbahnen zu bauen; sollte es aber doch beabsichtigt werden, so müsse wenigstens rechts und links der Eisenbahn eine hohe Bretterwand hergestellt werden, damit vorübergehende Menschen nicht etwa Nerven- und Gehirnerschütterungen erlitten.
Als die Bahnlinie Potsdam-Berlin gebaut werden sollte, sagte Generalpostmeister Nagler: Ich lasse täglich zwei Postwagen nach Potsdam fahren, und die sind nicht besetzt; wenn die Leute ihr Geld absolut zum Fenster hinauswerfen wollen, dann sollen sie es doch gleich unmittelbar tun. - Die realen Tatsachen des Lebens gehen eben über die «Praktiker» hinweg, über diejenigen, die da glauben, sie seien Praktiker. Man muß unterscheiden, was wahres Denken ist, von der sogenannten Denkpraxis, die nur ein Urteilen nach anerzogenen Denkgewohnheiten ist.
Eine kleine Erfahrung, die ich selbst einmal gemacht habe, will ich Ihnen erzählen und sie an die Spitze unserer heutigen Betrachtung stellen: Während meiner Studienzeit kam einmal ein junger Kollege zu mir voll Freude, wie man sie gerade bei Leuten, die eine recht pfiffige Idee gehabt haben, bemerkt, und sagte: Ich muß jetzt gerade zum Professor Radinger gehen - der damals an der Hochschule den Maschinenbau vertrat -, denn ich habe eine großartige Erfindung gemacht: Ich habe erfunden, wie man mit Aufwendung von ganz wenig Dampfkraft, die man einmal aufwendet, durch Umsetzen eine ungeheure Arbeitsmenge leisten kann mittels einer Maschine. - Mehr konnte er mir nicht sagen, er hatte es sehr eilig, zu dem Professor zu gehen. Nun traf er aber den betreffenden Professor nicht, und er kam zurück und setzte mir die ganze Sache auseinander. Die Geschichte hatte mir gleich etwas nach Perpetuum mobile gerochen - aber, nicht wahr, warum sollte auch so etwas nicht schließlich einmal möglich sein? - Doch nachdem er mir alles erklärt hatte, mußte ich ihm sagen: Ja, sieh einmal, die Sache ist zwar recht scharfsinnig ausgedacht, aber im Praktischen ist das ein Verhältnis, das sich genau vergleichen läßt damit, daß sich jemand in einen Eisenbahnwagen hineinstellt, furchtbar stark anschiebt und meint, der Wagen führe dann fort. So ist das Prinzip des Denkens bei deiner Erfindung. - Er hat es dann auch eingesehen und ist nicht wieder zu dem Professor gegangen.
So kann man sich gewissermaßen einkapseln mit seinem Denken. An ganz besonderen seltenen Fällen zeigt sich dieses Einkapseln auch deutlich; aber im Leben kapseln sich viele Menschen so ein, und es zeigt sich nicht immer so auffällig wie in unserem Beispiel. Derjenige aber, der die Sache etwas intimer beobachten kann, weiß, daß so eine große Anzahl menschlicher Denkprozesse verläuft: er sieht oft, wie sozusagen die Menschen im Wagen stehen und von innen schieben und nun meinen, daß sie es sind, die den Wagen vorwärtsbringen. Vieles von dem, was im Leben vor sich geht, würde ganz anders vor sich gehen, wenn die Menschen nicht solche im Wagen stehende Schieber wären.
Wirkliche Praxis des Denkens setzt voraus, daß man die richtige Gesinnung, das richtige Gefühl zum Denken gewinnt. Wie kann man eine richtige Stellung zum Denken gewinnen? Niemand kann das richtige Gefühl zum Denken haben, der glaubt, daß das Denken etwas sei, das sich nur innerhalb des Menschen, in seinem Kopf oder in seiner Seele abspiele. Wer diesen Gedanken hat, der wird fortwährend von einem falschen Gefühl davon abgelenkt werden, eine richtige Denkpraxis zu suchen, die nötigen Anforderungen an sein Denken zu stellen. Wer das richtige Gefühl erlangen will gegenüber dem Denken, der muß sich sagen: Wenn ich mir Gedanken machen kann über die Dinge, wenn ich durch Gedanken etwas ergründen kann über die Dinge, so müssen die Gedanken erst darinnen sein in den Dingen. Die Dinge müssen nach den Gedanken aufgebaut sein, nur dann kann ich die Gedanken auch herausholen aus den Dingen.
Der Mensch muß sich vorstellen, daß es mit den Dingen draußen in der Welt so ist wie mit einer Uhr. Der Vergleich des menschlichen Organismus mit einer Uhr wird sehr häufig gebraucht; aber die Leute vergessen dabei meist das Wichtigste, daß auch ein Uhrmacher vorhanden ist. Man muß sich klar darüber sein, daß nicht von selber zusammengelaufen sind die Räder und sich zusammengefügt haben und machen, daß die Uhr geht, sondern daß es einmal einen Uhrmacher zuvor gegeben hat, der diese Uhr zusammmengefügt hat. Den Uhrmacher darf man nicht vergessen. Durch Gedanken ist die Uhr zustande gekommen, die Gedanken sind gleichsam ausgeflossen in die Uhr, in das Ding. Auch alles, was Naturwerke, Naturgeschehnisse sind, muß man sich so vorstellen. Bei dem, was Menschenwerk ist, da läßt sich das schnell veranschaulichen, bei Naturwerken dagegen, da kann das der Mensch nicht so leicht bemerken, und doch sind auch sie geistige Wirksamkeiten, und dahinter stehen spirituelle Wesenheiten. Und wenn der Mensch denkt über die Dinge, so denkt er nur über das nach, was zuerst in sie hineingelegt worden ist. Der Glaube, daß die Welt durch Denken hervorgebracht worden ist und sich noch fortwährend so hervorbringt, der erst macht die eigentliche innere Denkpraxis fruchtbar.
Es ist immer der Unglaube gegenüber dem Geistigen in der Welt, der selbst auf wissenschaftlichem Boden die schlimmste Unpraxis des Denkens hervorbringt. Zum Beispiel, wenn jemand sagt: Unser Planetensystem ist so entstanden, daß zuerst ein Urnebel da war, der fing an zu rotieren, ballte sich zusammen zu einem Zentralkörper, von ihm spalteten sich ab Ringe und Kugeln, und so entstand mechanisch das ganze Planetensystem -, so macht der, der das sagt, einen großen Denkfehler. Schön niedlich bringt man das heute den Menschen bei. In einem niedlichen Experiment zeigt man es heute in jeder Schule: In ein Glas Wasser bringt man einen Tropfen Fett, schiebt eine Nadel durch diesen Fettropfen und bringt das Ganze in Rotation. Da sondern sich dann vom großen Tropfen kleine Tröpfchen ab, und man hat da ein Planetensystem im kleinen, und dem Schüler - so meint man - anschaulich gezeigt, wie rein mechanisch sich das bilden kann. Unpraktisches Denken nur kann an diesen niedlichen Versuch solche Folgerungen anknüpfen, denn der Betreffende, der das überträgt auf das große Weltensystem, der vergißt nur meist etwas, was sonst vielleicht ganz gut ist zu vergessen, er vergißt sich selbst, er vergißt, daß er selbst ja die Sache in Rotation gebracht hat. Wäre er nicht dagewesen und hätte das Ganze gemacht, so wäre niemals die Teilung des Fettropfens in die Tröpfchen entstanden. Wenn der Mensch das auch beobachtete und auf das Planetensystem übertrüge, dann erst wäre vollständiges Denken aufgewendet. Solche Denkfehler spielen heute, besonders auch in dem, was man heute Wissenschaft nennt, eine ungeheuer große Rolle. Diese Dinge sind viel wichtiger, als man gewöhnlich denkt.
Wenn man von wirklicher Denkpraxis reden will, muß man wissen, daß Gedanken nur aus einer Welt herauszuholen sind, in der auch wirklich schon Gedanken darinnen sind. Wie man Wasser nur aus einem Glase schöpfen kann, in dem Wasser wirklich darinnen ist, so kann man Gedanken nur aus Dingen schöpfen, in denen sie darinnen sind. Die Welt ist nach Gedanken aufgebaut; nur deshalb kann man Gedanken auch herausholen aus ihr. Wenn das nicht wäre, dann könnte überhaupt keine Denkpraxis zustande kommen. Dann aber, wenn der Mensch zu Ende empfindet, was hier ausgesprochen worden ist, dann wird er über alles abstrakte Denken leicht hinwegzubringen sein. Wenn der Mensch das volle Vertrauen hat, daß hinter den Dingen Gedanken stehen, daß die realen Tatsachen des Lebens nach Gedanken verlaufen, dann, wenn er diese Empfindung hat, dann wird er leicht sich bekehren zu einer Denkpraxis, die auf Wirklichkeit, Realität gebaut ist.
Wir wollen nun etwas von jener Denkpraxis hinstellen, die insbesondere für diejenigen, die auf anthroposophischem Boden stehen, wichtig ist. Wer davon durchdrungen ist, daß die Welt der Tatsachen in Gedanken verläuft, der wird die Wichtigkeit der Ausbildung richtigen Denkens einsehen. Nehmen wir nun an, es sagt sich jemand: Ich will mein Denken so befruchten, daß es wirklich im Leben sich immer zurechtfindet -, so muß er sich an das halten, was jetzt gesagt werden soll. Und was nun angegeben wird, das ist so aufzufassen, daß es tatsächlich praktische Grundsätze sind, und daß es, wenn man immer wieder und wieder danach trachtet, sein Denken danach einzurichten, gewisse Wirkungen hat, daß das Denken dann praktisch wird, wenn es vielleicht auch anfangs nicht so ausschaut. Ja, es stellen sich für das Denken noch ganz andere Erfahrungen ein, wenn man solche Grundsätze durchführt.
Nehmen wir an, jemand versucht folgendes: Er beobachtet heute sorgfältig einen Vorgang in der Welt, der ihm zugänglich ist, den er möglichst genau beobachten kann, sagen wir zum Beispiel die Witterung. Er beobachtet die Wolkenkonfiguration am Abend, die Art, wie die Sonne untergegangen ist und so weiter, und er bildet sich nun genau das Bild ein von dem, was er beobachtet hat. Er versucht die Vorstellung, dieses Bild eine Zeitlang festzuhalten in allen Einzelheiten; er hält soviel wie möglich von dieser Vorstellung fest und sucht sie sich zu bewahren bis morgen. Morgen beobachtet er ungefähr um dieselbe Zeit, oder aber auch zu einer anderen Zeit, wiederum die Witterungsverhältnisse, und er versucht, sich wiederum ein genaues Bild von den Verhältnissen zu machen.
Wenn er auf diese Weise sich genaue Bilder von aufeinanderfolgenden Zuständen macht, so wird es für ihn außerordentlich deutlich werden, wie er sein Denken allmählich innerlich bereichert und intensiv macht, denn dasjenige, was das Denken unpraktisch macht, das ist, daß der Mensch gewöhnlich zu sehr geneigt ist, in den aufeinanderfolgenden Vorgängen in der Welt das, was die Einzelheiten sind, wegzulassen und nur ganz allgemeine, verschwommene Vorstellungen zu behalten. Das Wertvolle, das Wesentliche, was das Denken befruchtet, ist, gerade in aufeinanderfolgenden Vorgängen sich genaue Bilder zu formen und sich dann zu sagen: Gestern war die Sache so, heute ist sie so -, und dabei die beiden Bilder, die in der wirklichen Welt auseinanderliegen, sich möglichst bildlich auch vor die Seele zu rücken.
Es ist dies zunächst nichts anderes als ein spezieller Ausdruck für das Vertrauen in die Gedanken der Realität. Der Mensch soll nicht etwa sofort irgendwelche Schlüsse ziehen und aus dem, was er heute beobachtete, schließen, was nun morgen für Witterung sein wird. Das würde sein Denken korrumpieren. Er soll vielmehr das Vertrauen haben, daß draußen in der Realität die Dinge ihren Zusammenhang haben, daß das Morgige mit dem Heutigen irgendwie zusammenhängt. Er soll nicht spekulieren darüber, sondern das, was zeitlich aufeinanderfolgt, nur zuerst in möglichst genauen Vorstellungsbildern in sich selbst nachdenken und dann diese Bilder zunächst nebeneinanderstehen und sie ineinander übergehen lassen. Dies ist ein ganz bestimmter Denkgrundsatz, den man ausführen muß, wenn man wirklich sachgemäßes Denken entwickeln will. Es ist gut, diesen Grundsatz gerade an solchen Dingen durchzuführen, die man noch nicht versteht, bei denen man noch nicht eingedrungen ist in den inneren Zusammenhang. Deshalb soll man gerade bei solchen Vorgängen, von denen man noch nichts versteht, wie zum Beispiel die Witterung, das Vertrauen haben, daß sie, die draußen zusammenhängen, auch in uns Zusammenhänge bewirken; und das soll mit Enthaltung vom Denken geschehen, nur in Bildern. Man muß sich sagen: Ich weiß noch nicht den Zusammenhang, aber ich werde diese Dinge in mir leben lassen, und sie werden in mir etwas bewirken, wenn ich gerade die Enthaltung vom Spekulieren übe. Sie werden leicht glauben können, daß, wenn der Mensch so, mit Enthaltung vom Denken, sich möglichst genaue Bildvorstellungen macht von aufeinanderfolgenden Vorgängen, daß da etwas vorgehen kann in den unsichtbaren Gliedern des Menschen.
Der Mensch hat den astralischen Leib als Träger des Vorstellungslebens. Dieser astralische Leib ist, solange der Mensch spekuliert, der Sklave des Ich. Aber er geht nicht in dieser bewußten Tätigkeit auf, er steht auch in einer gewissen Beziehung zum ganzen Kosmos.
In demselben Maße nun, in dem wir uns enthalten, unsere Denkwillkür wirken zu lassen, in dem wir ganz enthaltsam bloß Bildvorstellungen von aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignissen uns machen, in demselben Maße wirken die inneren Gedanken der Welt in uns und prägen sich unserem Astralleib ein, ohne daß wir es wissen. Wie wir uns fügen in den Gang der Welt durch Beobachtung der Vorgänge in der Welt und die Bilder möglichst ungetrübt in unsere Gedanken aufnehmen und in uns wirken lassen, in demselben Maße werden wir in den Gliedern, die unserem Bewußtsein entzogen sind, immer gescheiter. Wenn wir es dann einmal können, bei solchen Vorgängen, die in einem inneren Zusammenhang stehen, das neue Bild in das andere übergehen zu lassen, so wie sich dieser Übergang in der Natur volizogen hat, dann werden wir nach einiger Zeit sehen, daß unser Denken so etwas bekommen hat wie eine gewisse Geschmeidigkeit.
So sollen wir vorgehen bei Dingen, die wir noch nicht verstehen; aber Dingen gegenüber, die wir verstehen, sollen wir uns etwas anders verhalten, zum Beispiel Vorgängen unseres alltäglichen Lebens gegenüber, die sich um uns abspielen. Es habe zum Beispiel irgend jemand, vielleicht der Nachbar, dieses oder jenes getan. Wir denken nach: Warum hat er das getan? - Wir denken uns, er habe es vielleicht heute getan als Vorbereitung für etwas, das er morgen tun wolle. Nun sagen wir nichts weiter, sondern wir stellen uns genau vor, was er getan hat und versuchen nun, uns ein Bild auszumalen von dem, was er morgen tun werde. Wir stellen uns vor: Das wird er morgen tun - und warten ab, was er wirklich tun werde. Es kann sein, daß wir morgen bemerken, er tut wirklich das, was wir uns ausgemalt haben. Es kann auch sein, daß er etwas anderes tut. Wir werden sehen, was geschieht, und suchen unsere Gedanken danach zu verbessern.
So suchen wir uns in der Gegenwart Ereignisse, die wir in Gedanken in die Zukunft hinein verfolgen, und warten ab, was sich ereignet. Wir können das machen mit dem, was Menschen tun, und mit anderen Dingen. Wo wir eben etwas verstehen, da versuchen wir uns ein Bild zu machen von dem, was nach unserer Meinung geschehen wird. Tritt das Erwartete ein, so war unser Denken richtig; und es ist gut. Geschieht etwas anderes als was wir erwartet haben, dann versuchen wir darüber nachzudenken, worin wir den Fehler gemacht haben, und versuchen so, unsere falschen Gedanken zu korrigieren durch ruhiges Beobachten und Prüfen, woran der Fehler lag, woraus es entspringt, daß es so gekommen ist. Haben wir das Richtige getroffen, dann wollen wir uns aber ganz besonders sorgfältig davor hüten, zu prunken mit unserer Prophetie: Ja, das habe ich gestern schon gewußt, daß das so kommt!
Das war wiederum ein Grundsatz, aus dem Vertrauen entspringend, daß eine innere Notwendigkeit in den Dingen und Ereignissen selbst liegt, daß in den Tatsachen selbst etwas liegt, das die Dinge vorwärtstreibt. Und was da drinnen arbeitet von heute auf morgen, das sind Gedankenkräfte. Vertiefen wir uns in die Dinge, dann werden wir dieser Gedankenkräfte uns bewußt. Diese Gedankenkräfte machen wir in unserem Bewußtsein gegenwärtig durch solche Übungen, und wir stimmen dann überein mit ihnen, wenn sich das erfüllt, was wir vorausgesehen haben; dann stehen wir durch unsere Denktätigkeit mit der realen Sache in einem inneren Zusammenhang. So gewöhnen wir uns daran, nicht willkürlich, sondern aus der inneren Notwendigkeit, der Natur der Dinge heraus, zu denken.
Aber auch nach anderer Richtung können wir unsere Denkpraxis schulen. Irgendein Ereignis, das heute geschieht, steht auch in Beziehung zu dem, was gestern geschehen ist, zum Beispiel irgendein Junge ist ungezogen gewesen; welches können die Ursachen sein? Wir verfolgen die Ereignisse zurück von heute auf gestern, wir konstruieren uns die Ursachen, die wir nicht wissen. Wir sagen uns: Ich glaube, weil heute dies geschieht, so hat sich das gestern oder vorgestern durch dieses oder jenes vorbereitet.
Man unterrichtet sich dann darüber, was wirklich geschehen ist, und erkennt dadurch, ob man richtig gedacht hat. Hat man die richtige Ursache gefunden, so ist es gut; hat man sich eine falsche Vorstellung gemacht, so versuche man, sich die Fehler klarzumachen und zu finden, wie der Gedankenprozeß sich entwickelt hat und wie die Sache in der Wirklichkeit abgelaufen ist.
Diese Grundsätze auszuführen, ist das Bedeutsame: daß wir wirklich Zeit finden, die Dinge so zu betrachten, als ob wir in den Dingen drin wären mit unserem Denken, daß wir uns hineinversenken in die Dinge, in die innere Gedankentätigkeit der Dinge. Wenn wir das tun, dann merken wir nach und nach, wie wir förmlich zusammenwachsen mit den Dingen, wie wir gar nicht mehr das Gefühl haben, daß die Dinge draußen sind und wir drinnen und über sie nachdenken, sondern ein Gefühl bekommen, wie wenn unser Denken sich in den Dingen drinnen bewegte. Wenn der Mensch das in hohem Grade erreicht hat, so kann ihm manches klarwerden.
Ein Mensch, der in hohem Grade erreicht hatte, was so zu erreichen ist, ein solcher Denker, der immer in den Dingen drinnenstand mit seinen Gedanken, das war Goethe. Der Psychologe Heinroth hat 1822 in seinem «Lehrbuch der Anthropologie» gesagt, daß Goethes Denken ein gegenständliches Denken sei. Goethe selbst hat sich über diese Bemerkung gefreut. Sie sollte besagen, solches Denken sondere sich nicht ab von den Dingen; es bleibe in den Dingen drinnen, es bewege sich innerhalb der Notwendigkeit der Dinge. Goethes Denken war zugleich ein Anschauen, sein Anschauen zugleich ein Denken.
Goethe hat es sehr weit gebracht in solchem entwickelten Denken. So ist es mehr als einmal vorgekommen: Goethe hatte irgend etwas vor, ging zum Fenster und sagte zu dem, der gerade da war: In drei Stunden wird es regnen -, und es geschah so. Er konnte aus dem kleinen Ausschnitt des Himmels, den er durchs Fenster sah, sagen, was in den nächsten Stunden vorgehen werde in den Witterungsverhältnissen. Sein treues, in den Dingen bleibendes Denken hatte es ihm möglich gemacht, zu spüren, was sich da vorbereitete aus dem vorhergehenden als das spätere Ereignis.
Wirklich viel mehr kann man erreichen durch ein praktisches Denken, als man gewöhnlich meint. - Wenn man das hat, was nun geschildert wurde, an Grundsätzen für das Denken, dann wird man bemerken, daß nun wirklich das Denken praktisch wird, daß der Blick sich erweitert und man die Dinge der Welt ganz anders ergreift als ohne dies. Der Mensch wird nach und nach sich ganz anders stellen zu den Dingen und auch zu den Menschen. Es ist ein wirklicher Prozeß, der in ihm vorgeht, der sein ganzes Verhalten verändert. Es kann von ungeheurer Wichtigkeit sein, daß der Mensch tatsächlich versucht, so mit den Dingen durch sein Denken zusammenzuwachsen; denn es ist ein im eminentesten Sinne praktischer Grundsatz für das Denken, solche Übungen zu machen.
Eine andere Sache ist eine Übung, die insbesondere diejenigen Leute machen sollten, denen gewöhnlich im rechten Moment nicht das Rechte einfällt. Dasjenige, was solche Menschen machen sollten, das besteht darin, daß sie vor allen Dingen versuchen sollen, nicht bloß so zu denken, daß sie sich in jedem Augenblick dem hingeben, was der Weltenlauf so mit sich bringt, was die Dinge so mit sich bringen. Es ist ja das Allerhäufigste, daß, wenn der Mensch einmal eine halbe Stunde sich hinlegen kann, um sich auszuruhen, daß er dann seine Gedanken spielen läßt. Dann spinnt sich das so aus ins Hundertste und Tausendste. Oder es beschäftigt ihn vielleicht diese oder jene Sorge im Leben - flugs ist sie in sein Bewußtsein geschlichen und er ist ganz in Anspruch genommen von ihr. Macht der Mensch dieses, so wird er niemals dazu kommen, im richtigen Moment den richtigen Einfall zu haben. Will er das erreichen, so muß er sich folgendermaßen verhalten. Hat er eine halbe Stunde Zeit sich auszuruhen, so muß er sich sagen: Ich will, so oft ich Zeit habe, über etwas nachdenken, was ich mir selbst auswähle, was ich nur durch meine Willkür in mein Bewußtsein hereinbringe. Ich will jetzt zum Beispiel über irgend etwas, was ich vielleicht früher erlebt habe, vielleicht bei einem Spaziergang vor zwei Jahren, nachdenken, ich will die damaligen Erlebnisse ganz willkürlich in mein Denken hereinbringen und will darüber - sei es vielleicht nur fünf Minuten - nachdenken. Alles übrige, fort damit für diese fünf Minuten! Selbst wähle ich mir das, worüber ich nachdenken will. Die Wahl braucht nicht einmal so schwierig zu sein, wie ich gerade gesagt habe. Darauf kommt es zunächst gar nicht an, daß man durch schwierige Übungen in seinen Denkprozeß hineinwirkt, sondern daß man sich herausreißt aus dem, in was man hineingezogen wird durch das Leben. Es muß nur etwas sein, was herausfällt aus dem, wohinein man gesponnen wird durch den gewöhnlichen Tagesverlauf. Und wenn man an Einfallslosigkeit leidet, wenn einem gerade nichts anderes einfällt, so kann man sich zu Hilfe kommen, indem man ein Buch aufschlägt und über das nachdenkt, was man gerade liest auf den ersten Blick. Oder auch, man sagt sich: Ich werde heute einmal über das nachdenken, was ich sah, als ich zu bestimmter Zeit vormittags ins Geschäft gegangen bin und das ich sonst würde unberücksichtigt gelassen haben. Es muß eben etwas sein, was aus dem gewöhnlichen Tageslauf herausfällt, worüber man sonst nicht nachgedacht hätte. Macht man solche Übungen systematisch immer und immer wieder, dann tritt das ein, daß man Einfälle kriegt zur rechten Zeit, daß einem zur richtigen Zeit das einfällt, was einem einfallen soll. Das Denken wird dadurch in Beweglichkeit kommen, und das ist ungeheuer bedeutungsvoll für den Menschen im praktischen Leben. Eine andere Übung ist besonders geeignet, auf das Gedächtnis zu wirken. Man versucht zunächst, sich in der groben Art, wie man sich gewöhnlich an Dinge erinnert, an irgendein Ereignis, sagen wir von gestern, zu erinnern. Gewöhnlich sind die Erinnerungen der Menschen ja grau in grau; in der Regel ist man ja zufrieden, wenn einem nur der Name des Menschen einfällt, dem man gestern begegnet ist. Aber damit dürfen wir nicht zufrieden sein, wenn wir unser Gedächtnis ausbilden wollen. Das müssen wir uns klarmachen. Wir müssen systematisch folgendes treiben, wir müssen uns sagen: Ich will mich ganz genau erinnern an den Menschen, den ich gestern gesehen habe, auch an welcher Hausecke ich ihn gesehen habe; was noch um ihn herum war. Das Bild will ich mir genau ausmalen, auch seinen Rock, seine Weste will ich mir bildlich genau vorstellen. - Da werden die meisten Menschen bemerken, daß sie das gar nicht können, daß ihnen das gar nicht möglich ist. Sie werden bemerken, wieviel ihnen fehlt, um eine wirkliche bildhafte Vorstellung zu bekommen von dem, was ihnen gestern begegnet ist und was sie gestern erlebt haben.
Wir müssen nun zunächst ausgehen von den weitaus meisten Fällen, in denen der Mensch nicht in der Lage ist, sich das wieder in Erinnerung zu rufen, was er gestern erlebt hat. Die Beobachtung der Menschen ist eine wirklich im höchsten Maße ungenaue. - Ein Versuch eines Universitätsprofessors mit seinen Hörern hat gezeigt, daß von dreißig Anwesenden nur zwei den Vorgang richtig, die anderen achtundzwanzig dagegen falsch beobachtet hatten. - Ein gutes Gedächtnis ist nun aber das Kind einer treuen Beobachtung. Zur Entwickelung des Gedächtnisses kommt es also gerade darauf an, daß man genau beobachte. Ein gutes Gedächtnis erringt man durch treue Beobachtung, auf einem gewissen seelischen Umwege wird das treue Gedächtnis als Kind einer guten Beobachtung geboren.
Wenn man nun aber das nicht kann, zunächst sich genau erinnern an das, was man gestern erlebt hat, was tut man da? Zunächst versuche man, sich möglichst genau zu erinnern, und wo man sich nicht erinnert, da versuche man nun tatsächlich sich etwas Falsches vorzustellen, nur etwas Ganzes soll es sein. Nehmen wir an, Sie hätten ganz vergessen, ob jemand, der Ihnen begegnet ist, einen braunen oder einen schwarzen Rock angehabt hat, so stellen Sie sich vielleicht vor, er habe einen braunen Rock und braune Beinkleider angehabt; er habe solche und solche Knöpfe an der Weste gehabt, die Halsbinde war gelb - und da war jene Situation, die Wand war gelb, links ist ein großer, rechts ein kleiner Mensch vorbeigegangen und so weiter.
Das, woran man sich erinnert, das stellt man sich hinein in das Bild; nur das, woran man sich nicht erinnern kann, das ergänzt man, um nur im Geiste ein vollständiges Bild zu gewinnen. Das Bild ist ja dann zunächst falsch, aber dadurch, daß Sie sich bemühen, ein vollständiges Bild zu bekommen, dadurch werden Sie angeleitet, von jetzt ab genauer zu beobachten. Und das setzen Sie fort, solche Übungen zu machen. Und wenn Sie das fünfzigmal gemacht haben, so werden Sie das einundfünfzigste Mal ganz genau wissen, wie derjenige, der Ihnen begegnet ist, ausgesehen hat, was er angehabt hat; Sie werden sich genau an alles erinnern, bis auf die Westenknöpfe. Sie werden dann nichts mehr übersehen, und es prägt sich Ihnen jede Einzelheit ein. Sie haben so zuerst Ihren Beobachtungssinn geschärft durch die Übungen und dann eine Aufbesserung in der Treue Ihres Gedächtnisses als das Kind des Beobachtungssinnes hinzubekommen.
Besonders gut ist, darauf zu sehen, nicht bloß Namen und einzelne Hauptzüge dessen zu behalten, an was man sich erinnern will, sondern möglichst bildhafte Vorstellungen zu erhalten suchen, die sich auf alle Einzelheiten erstrecken; und wenn man sich an etwas nicht erinnern kann, so sucht man das Bild zunächst zu ergänzen, es zu einem Ganzen zu konstruieren. - Dann werden wir bald sehen wie auf Umwegen scheint es -, daß unser Gedächtnis nach und nach treu wird.
So sehen wir, wie man tatsächlich - wie Handgriffe - angeben kann dasjenige, wodurch der Mensch sein Denken immer praktischer und praktischer machen kann. Besonders wichtig ist noch das Folgende: Der Mensch hat eine gewisse Sehnsucht, wenn er sich etwas überlegt, zu einem Resultat zu kommen. Er überlegt sich, wie er dieses oder jenes machen soll, und er kommt zu diesem oder jenem Resultat. Das ist ein sehr begreiflicher Trieb. Das ist aber nicht dasjenige, was einen zum praktischen Denken führt. Jedes Überhasten im Denken bringt nicht vorwärts, sondern bringt zurück. Man muß Geduld haben in diesen Dingen.
Du sollst zum Beispiel dieses oder jenes ausführen: Du kannst das nun so oder so machen, es liegen verschiedene Möglichkeiten vor. Nun habe man die Geduld und versuche sich vorzustellen, was da werden würde, wenn man es so ausführte, und versuche sich auch vorzustellen, wie es anders aussehen würde. Nun wird es ja immer Gründe geben, warum man das eine oder das andere vorziehen möchte, aber nun enthalte man sich, sofort einen Entschluß zu fassen, sondern bemühe sich, zwei Möglichkeiten auszumalen und sich dann zu sagen: $o, jetzt Schluß, jetzt höre ich auf, über die Sache nachzudenken.
Es wird Menschen geben, die werden zapplig werden dabei; und es ist dann schwierig, die Zappligkeit zu überwinden, aber es ist ungeheuer nützlich, sie zu überwinden und sich zu sagen: Es geht so und es geht so, und nun denke ich eine Weile nicht daran. Wenn man kann, so hebe man die Sache, das Handeln bis zum nächsten Tage auf und halte sich dann die zwei Möglichkeiten wieder vor, und man wird finden, daß die Dinge sich mittlerweile verändert haben, daß wir am nächsten Tage anders, gründlicher wenigstens uns entscheiden, als wir am Vortage uns entschieden hätten. Die Dinge haben eine innere Notwendigkeit in sich, und wenn wir nicht ungeduldig willkürlich handeln, sondern diese innere Notwendigkeit arbeiten lassen in uns - und sie wird in uns arbeiten -, so wird sie unser Denken bereichert erscheinen lassen am nächsten Tage und uns eine richtigere Entscheidung ermöglichen. Das ist ungeheuer nützlich!
Man wird zum Beispiel um Rat gefragt über dieses oder jenes, man hat irgend etwas zu entscheiden. Da habe man die Geduld, nicht gleich hineinzuplatzen mit seinen Entscheidungen, sondern sich zunächst verschiedene Möglichkeiten vorzulegen und bei sich selbst keine Entscheidung darüber zu treffen, sondern ruhig die Möglichkeiten walten zu lassen. Man sagt ja auch im Volksmunde, man müsse eine Sache beschlafen, ehe man sie entscheide. Das Beschlafen allein tut es aber nicht. Es ist notwendig, zwei oder besser mehrere Möglichkeiten zu bedenken, die dann in einem fortarbeiten, wenn man sozusagen nicht mit seinem bewußten Ich dabei ist, und dann später wieder auf die Sache zurückzukommen. Man wird sehen, daß man auf diese Weise innere Denkkräfte rege macht und das Denken dadurch immer sachgemäßer und praktischer wird.
Und was der Mensch auch immer ist in der Welt, ob er am Schraubstock oder hinter dem Pflug steht oder ob er einer der sogenannten bevorzugten Berufsklassen angehört -, über die alleralltäglichsten Dinge wird er ein praktischer Denker werden, wenn er diese Dinge übt. So übend greift und sieht er die Dinge in der Welt ganz anders an. Und so innerlich sich diese Übungen zuerst auch ansehen, sie taugen gerade für die Außenwelt, sie tragen gerade für die Außenwelt die denkbar größte Bedeutung in sich; sie haben wichtige Folgen.
Ich will Ihnen an einem Beispiel zeigen, wie notwendig es ist, wirklich praktisch über die Dinge zu denken: Irgend jemand ist auf einer Leiter hinaufgestiegen auf einen Baum und hat da irgend etwas gemacht; er fällt herunter, schlägt auf und ist tot. Nun, nicht wahr, es ist ein naheliegender Gedanke, daß der sich da durch den Fall totgeschlagen hat. Man wird sagen, daß der Fall die Ursache, der Tod die Wirkung war. Da scheinen Ursache und Wirkung zusammenzuhängen. Darinnen können nun greuliche Verwechslungen vorliegen. - Es kann den da oben ein Herzschlag getroffen haben, so daß er infolge des Herzschlages heruntergefallen ist. Es ist genau dasselbe eingetroffen, wie wenn er lebendig heruntergefallen wäre, er hat dieselben Dinge durchgemacht, die wirklich seine Todesursache hätten sein können. - So kann man Ursache und Wirkung vollständig verwechseln. Hier in diesem Beispiel ist es auffällig; oft aber ist es nicht so auffällig, was man verfehlt hat. Solche Denkfehler kommen ungeheuer häufig vor, ja es muß gesagt werden, daß in der Wissenschaft heute tagtäglich solche Urteile gefällt werden, wo wirklich in einer solchen Art Ursache und Wirkung verwechselt werden. Das begreifen die Menschen nur nicht, weil sie sich nicht die Denkmöglichkeiten vorhalten.
Ein Beispiel soll noch gegeben werden, das Ihnen ganz anschaulich machen kann, wie solche Denkfehler zustande kommen, und das Ihnen zeigt, daß sie einem Menschen, der solche Übungen gemacht hat, wie sie heute angegeben wurden, nicht mehr passieren werden. Nehmen Sie folgendes an: Ein Gelehrter sagt sich, daß der Mensch, wie er heute ist, vom Affen abstammt; also: das, was ich in den Affen kennenlerne, die Kräfte im Affen, die vervollkommnen sich, und daraus wird dann der Mensch. - Nun, um jetzt die Gedankenbedeutung der Sache darzutun, wollen wir einmal folgende Voraussetzung machen: Denken wir einmal, der Mensch, der diesen Schluß anstellen soll, der wäre durch irgendeinen Umstand ganz allein auf die Erde versetzt. Außer ihm wären nur diejenigen Affen da, von denen seine Theorie sagt, daß Menschen aus ihnen entstehen können. Er studiert nun diese Affen ganz genau, er bildet sich bis in die Einzelheiten einen Begriff von dem, was da ist in den Affen. Nun soll er versuchen, aus dem Begriff des Affen den Begriff des Menschen entstehen zu lassen, wenn er noch nie einen Menschen gesehen hat. Er wird sehen, daß er das nie zustande bringt: Sein Begriff «Affe» verwandelt sich nie in den Begriff des Menschen.
Wenn er richtige Denkgewohnheiten hätte, so müßte er sich sagen: Also, mein Begriff, der wandelt sich in mir nicht so um, daß aus dem Affenbegriff der Menschenbegriff wird, also kann dasjenige, was ich sehe im Affen, nicht zum Menschen werden, denn sonst müßte mein Begriff auch übergehen. Es muß also noch etwas hinzukommen, was ich nicht sehen kann. - Dieser Mensch also müßte hinter dem sinnlichen Affen etwas Übersinnliches sehen, was er nicht wahrnehmen kann, was dann erst zum Menschen übergehen könnte.
Wir wollen auf die Unmöglichkeit der Sache nicht eingehen, sondern nur den Denkfehler zeigen, der hinter jener Theorie liegt. Wenn der Mensch richtig denken würde, so würde er darauf geführt werden, daß er nicht so denken darf, wenn er nicht etwas Übersinnliches voraussetzen will. Wenn Sie über die Sache nachdenken, so werden Sie schon sehen, daß hier von einer ganzen Reihe von Menschen ein überwältigender Denkfehler gemacht worden ist. Solche Fehler werden nicht mehr gemacht werden von dem, der in der angegebenen Weise sein Denken schult.
Ein großer Teil unserer ganzen heutigen Literatur, besonders auch der naturwissenschaftlichen, wird für den, der wirklich richtig zu denken vermag, durch solche krummen, verkehrten Gedanken eine Quelle von Wirkungen bis zu physischen Schmerzen, wenn er sich durch sie hindurchlesen muß. - Es soll dadurch absolut nichts gesagt werden gegen die ungeheure Summe von Beobachtungen, die durch diese Naturwissenschaft und ihre objektiven Methoden gewonnen worden ist. Nun kommen wir auf ein Kapitel, das zusammenhängt mit der Kurzsichtigkeit des Denkens. Es ist wirklich so, daß der Mensch gewöhnlich nicht weiß, daß sein Denken gar nicht sehr sachgemäß, sondern zum größten Teil nur eine Folge von Denkgewohnheiten ist. So werden denn auch die Urteile für den, der die Welt und das Leben durchschaut, sich ganz anders gestalten als für den, der diese nicht oder nur wenig durchschaut, zum Beispiel für einen materialistischen Denker. - Durch Gründe so jemanden zu überzeugen, wenn sie auch noch so gediegen und noch so gut sind, das geht nicht leicht. Denjenigen, der das Leben wenig kennt, durch Gründe zu überzeugen suchen, ist oft vergebliche Mühe, weil er ja gar nicht die Gründe einsieht, aus denen dieses oder jenes behauptet werden kann. Wenn er sich angewöhnt hat, in allem zum Beispiel nur Materie zu sehen, so haftet er eben an dieser Denkgewohnheit.
Es sind heute im allgemeinen nicht die Gründe, die jemanden zu Behauptungen führen, sondern hinter den Gründen sind es die Denkgewohnheiten, die er sich angeeignet hat und die sein ganzes Fühlen und Empfinden beeinflussen. Wenn er Gründe vorbringt, da stellt sich nur vor sein Fühlen und Empfinden die Maske des gewohnten Denkens. So ist oft nicht nur der Wunsch der Vater des Gedankens, sondern es sind alle Gefühle und Denkgewohnheiten die Eltern der Gedanken. Derjenige, der das Leben kennt, weiß, wie wenig durch logische Gründe jemand zu überzeugen ist im Leben. Da entscheidet viel Tieferes in der Seele als die logischen Gründe.
Wenn wir zum Beispiel unsere anthroposophische Bewegung haben, so hat es gewiß seine guten Gründe, daß wir sie haben und daß sie arbeitet in ihren Zweigen. Jeder merkt dadurch, daß er eine Zeitlang mitarbeitet an der Bewegung, daß er sich ein anderes Denken, Fühlen und Empfinden angeeignet hat. Denn durch das Arbeiten in den Zweigen beschäftigt man sich nicht bloß damit, die logischen Gründe zu finden für etwas, sondern ein umfassenderes Fühlen und Empfinden eignet man sich an.
Wie spottete unter Umständen vor ein paar Jahren ein Mensch, der zum ersten Male einen geisteswissenschaftlichen Vortrag hörte und heute, wieviel Dinge sind ihm nun durchaus klar und durchsichtig, die er vielleicht vor einiger Zeit noch für etwas höchst Absurdes gehalten hätte! Wir wandeln, indem wir an der anthroposophischen Bewegung mitarbeiten, nicht bloß unsere Gedanken um, sondern wir lernen, unsere ganze Seele in eine weitere Perspektive hineinzubringen. Wir müssen uns klar darüber sein, daß die Färbung unserer Gedanken aus viel tieferen Untergründen herauskommt, als man gewöhnlich meint. Es sind gewisse Empfindungen, gewisse Gefühle, die dem Menschen eine Meinung aufdrängen. Die logischen Gründe sind oft nur eine Verbrämung, sind nur die Masken für Gefühle, Empfindungen und Denkgewohnheiten.
Sich dahin zu bringen, daß einem die logischen Gründe etwas bedeuten, dazu gehört, daß man die Logik selbst lieben lernt. Erst wenn man die Objektivität, das Sachgemäße lieben lernt, werden die logischen Gründe entscheidend werden. Man lernt allmählich, sozusagen unabhängig von der Vorliebe für diesen oder jenen Gedanken, objektiv denken, und dann erweitert sich der Blick, und man wird praktisch; nicht so praktisch, daß man nur in ausgefahrenen Bahnen weiter urteilen kann, sondern so, daß man aus den Dingen heraus denken lernt.
Wirkliche Praxis ist ein Kind des sachgemäßen Denkens, des aus den Dingen herausfließenden Denkens. Wir lernen erst, uns von den Dingen anregen zu lassen, wenn wir solche Übungen machen; und zwar an gesunden Dingen müssen solche Übungen gemacht werden. Das sind solche Dinge, an denen die menschliche Kultur möglichst wenig Anteil hat, die am wenigsten verkehrt sind: an Naturobjekten. Und an Naturobjekten so üben, wie wir das heute beschrieben haben, das macht uns zu praktischen Denkern. Das ist wirklich praktisch. Die alleralltäglichste Beschäftigung wird praktisch angegriffen werden, wenn wir das Grundelement schulen: das Denken. Indem wir die menschliche Seele so üben, wie das ausgeführt worden ist, bildet sich praktische Denkorientierung.
Es muß die Frucht der geisteswissenschaftlichen Bewegung sein, daß sie wirklich Praktiker ins Leben stellt. Es ist nicht so wichtig, daß der Mensch dieses oder jenes für wahr halten kann, sondern daß er es dahin bringe, die Dinge richtig zu überschauen. Viel wichtiger ist die Art und Weise, wie Anthroposophie eindringt in unsere Seele und uns anleitet zur Tätigkeit unserer Seele und unseren Blick erweitert, als daß wir bloß über die sinnlichen Dinge hinaus- und ins Geistige hineintheoretisieren. Darin ist die Anthroposophie etwas wahrhaft Praktisches.
Das ist eine wichtige Mission der anthroposophischen Bewegung, daß durch sie des Menschen Denken in Bewegung gebracht wird, so geschult wird, daß er denkt, daß der Geist hinter den Dingen steht. Wenn die anthroposophische Bewegung diese Gesinnung entfacht, dann wird sie eine Kultur begründen, aus der nie ein solches Denken hervorgehen wird, daß die Leute von innen den Wagen anschieben wollen. Das fließt ganz von selbst in die Seele hinein. Wenn die Seele gelernt hat, über die großen Tatsachen des Lebens zu denken, dann denkt sie auch über den Suppenlöffel richtig. Und nicht nur in bezug auf das, was den Suppenlöffel betrifft, werden die Menschen praktischer werden, sie werden auch lernen, einen Nagel praktischer einzuschlagen, ein Bild praktischer aufzuhängen, als sie das sonst getan hätten. Das ist von großer Bedeutung, daß wir das seelisch-geistige Leben als ein Ganzes betrachten lernen und daß wir durch solche Anschauung alles praktischer und praktischer gestalten lernen.
Practical Training of Thinking
It may seem strange that anthroposophy should feel called upon to speak about the practical training of thinking, for outsiders very often hold the opinion that anthroposophy is something eminently impractical, that it has nothing to do with life. Such a view can only exist if one looks at things externally, superficially. In truth, however, what is to be considered should be a guide for the most everyday life; it should be able to transform itself into sensation and feeling at any moment and enable us to face life with confidence and stand firm in it.
People who call themselves practical imagine that they act according to the most practical principles. But if you look more closely, you will find that so-called “practical thinking” is often not thinking at all, but merely muddling through with learned judgments and habits of thought. If you observe the thinking of practical people with absolute objectivity and examine what is commonly called practical thinking, you will find that in some cases there is very little real practice behind it, but that what is called practice consists of having learned how the teacher thought, how the person who previously produced this or that thought, and how one should act accordingly. And anyone who thinks differently is considered impractical, because their thinking does not correspond to what they have been taught.
But when something practical was actually invented, it was by no means done by a practitioner. Take our modern postage stamp, for example. It would be most natural to assume that it was invented by a practitioner of the postal service. But that is not the case. At the beginning of the last century, it was still a very complicated business to post a letter. If someone wanted to send a letter, they had to go to the appropriate place where letters could be posted, and various books had to be consulted, and all sorts of complications were involved. It is only just over sixty years ago that we gained the uniform postage we are accustomed to today. And our modern postage stamp, which makes this possible, was not invented by a practical postal worker, but by someone who was far removed from the postal service, the Englishman Hill.
And when the postage stamp was invented, the minister responsible for the postal service at the time said in the English Parliament: Yes, firstly, one cannot assume that this simplification will really increase traffic as enormously as this impractical Hill imagines, and secondly, even if it were the case, the post office building in London would not be large enough for this traffic. It did not occur to this great practitioner that the post office building should be designed to accommodate traffic, rather than traffic being designed to accommodate the post office building. Now, in a relatively short period of time, what had to be fought for at the time by an “impractical” person against a “practical” person has become the norm: today, it is taken for granted that letters are transported with postage stamps.
The situation is similar with the railroad. When the first railroad in Germany was to be built from Nuremberg to Fürth in 1835, the Bavarian Medical Council, which was consulted on the matter, issued an expert opinion stating that it was not advisable to build railroads; but if it were to be built, high wooden walls should be erected on both sides of the tracks to prevent passers-by from suffering nervous shocks and concussions.
When the Potsdam-Berlin railway line was to be built, Postmaster General Nagler said: “I have two mail cars running to Potsdam every day, and they are empty; if people want to throw their money out the window, they might as well do it right away.” The real facts of life simply go over the heads of the “practitioners,” those who believe they are practitioners. One must distinguish between true thinking and so-called practical thinking, which is merely judging according to ingrained habits of thought.
I would like to tell you about a little experience I once had myself, and put it at the forefront of our discussion today: During my studies, a young colleague came up to me full of joy, as you often see in people who have had a really clever idea, and said: “I have to go and see Professor Radinger right now – he was teaching mechanical engineering at the university at the time – because I've made a fantastic invention: I've invented a way to use a tiny bit of steam power once to do a huge amount of work with a machine.” He couldn't tell me any more because he was in a hurry to see the professor. However, he did not find the professor in question, so he returned and explained the whole thing to me. The story immediately smacked of perpetual motion to me – but, well, why shouldn't something like that be possible one day? - But after he had explained everything to me, I had to say to him: Yes, look, the idea is quite ingenious, but in practice it's like someone standing in a railway carriage, pushing it really hard and thinking that the carriage will then move. That's the principle behind your invention. He then understood and did not go back to the professor.
In this way, one can, in a sense, encapsulate oneself with one's thinking. In very special, rare cases, this encapsulation is also clearly evident; but in life, many people encapsulate themselves in this way, and it is not always as noticeable as in our example. However, those who are able to observe the matter more closely know that a large number of human thought processes proceed in this way: they often see how people stand in the car, pushing from inside, and believe that they are the ones moving the car forward. Much of what happens in life would be very different if people were not like these pushers standing in the car.
The real practice of thinking requires that one acquire the right attitude, the right feeling for thinking. How can one acquire the right attitude toward thinking? No one who believes that thinking is something that takes place only within the human being, in his head or in his soul, can have the right feeling for thinking. Anyone who has this idea will be constantly distracted by a false feeling from seeking the right way of thinking and making the necessary demands on their thinking. If you want to gain the right feeling for thinking, you must say to yourself: if I can think about things, if I can fathom something about things through thinking, then the thoughts must first be in the things themselves. Things must be constructed according to thoughts; only then can I extract the thoughts from the things.
People must imagine that things outside in the world are like a clock. The comparison of the human organism with a clock is very often used, but people usually forget the most important thing, that there is also a clockmaker. One must be clear that the wheels did not come together by themselves and fit together to make the clock work, but that there was once a watchmaker who put the clock together. One must not forget the watchmaker. The clock came into being through thoughts; the thoughts flowed, as it were, into the clock, into the thing. Everything that is a work of nature, a natural phenomenon, must be imagined in the same way. In the case of human works, this can be illustrated quickly, but in the case of natural works, it is not so easy for humans to notice, and yet they too are spiritual activities, and behind them are spiritual beings. And when humans think about things, they only think about what was first put into them. It is the belief that the world was brought into being through thinking and continues to do so that makes the actual inner practice of thinking fruitful.
It is always disbelief in the spiritual in the world that produces the worst impracticality of thinking, even on scientific ground. For example, when someone says: Our planetary system came into being in such a way that first there was a primordial nebula, which began to rotate, clumped together into a central body, from which rings and spheres split off, and thus the entire planetary system came into being mechanically — the person who says this is making a great error in thinking. Today, this is taught to people in a nice and cute way. It is demonstrated in a cute experiment in every school today: a drop of fat is placed in a glass of water, a needle is pushed through the drop of fat, and the whole thing is set in rotation. Small droplets then separate from the large drop, and you have a miniature planetary system, which, it is believed, clearly shows the student how this can be formed purely mechanically. Only impractical thinking can draw such conclusions from this cute experiment, because the person who transfers this to the large world system usually forgets something that is perhaps best forgotten: he forgets himself, he forgets that he himself set the thing in rotation. If he had not been there and had not done the whole thing, the division of the drop of fat into droplets would never have occurred. Only if man observed this and transferred it to the planetary system would complete thinking have been applied. Such errors in thinking play an enormously important role today, especially in what is now called science. These things are much more important than is usually thought.
If one wants to talk about real thinking practice, one must know that thoughts can only be extracted from a world in which thoughts already exist. Just as one can only scoop water from a glass in which there is actually water, so one can only extract thoughts from things in which they exist. The world is built on thoughts; that is the only reason why thoughts can be extracted from it. If this were not the case, then no thinking practice could ever come about. But then, when people fully understand what has been said here, it will be easy to lead them away from all abstract thinking. When people have complete confidence that thoughts lie behind things, that the real facts of life proceed according to thoughts, then, when they have this feeling, they will easily convert to a practice of thinking that is built on reality.
We will now present something of the practice of thinking that is particularly important for those who stand on anthroposophical ground. Anyone who is convinced that the world of facts proceeds in thoughts will understand the importance of training right thinking. Let us now suppose that someone says: I want to enrich my thinking so that it always finds its way in life. Then he must adhere to what is now to be said. What is now stated should be understood as practical principles which, if one strives again and again to organize one's thinking according to them, will have certain effects, so that thinking becomes practical, even if it may not appear so at first. Indeed, quite different experiences arise for thinking when one carries out such principles.
Let us assume that someone tries the following: Today, he carefully observes a process in the world that is accessible to him, that he can observe as accurately as possible, let us say, for example, the weather. He observes the configuration of the clouds in the evening, the way the sun set, and so on, and he now forms a precise picture of what he has observed. He tries to hold on to this image in all its details for a while; he holds on to as much of this image as possible and tries to preserve it until tomorrow. Tomorrow, at about the same time, or at a different time, he observes the weather conditions again and tries to form an accurate picture of the conditions.
If he forms accurate pictures of successive states in this way, it will become extremely clear to him how he gradually enriches and intensifies his thinking, for what makes thinking impractical is that people are usually too inclined to omit the details in the successive processes in the world and retain only very general, vague ideas. What is valuable, what is essential, what fertilizes thinking, is precisely to form precise images in successive processes and then to say to oneself: Yesterday the thing was like this, today it is like that—and in doing so to bring the two images, which lie apart in the real world, as vividly as possible before the mind.
This is initially nothing more than a special expression of trust in the thoughts of reality. People should not immediately draw any conclusions and infer from what they observed today what the weather will be like tomorrow. That would corrupt their thinking. Rather, they should have confidence that things are connected in reality, that tomorrow is somehow connected to today. They should not speculate about it, but rather first think about what follows each other in time in as accurate mental images as possible, and then let these images stand side by side and merge into one another. This is a very specific principle of thinking that must be followed if one really wants to develop proper thinking. It is good to apply this principle to things that one does not yet understand, where one has not yet penetrated the inner connection. Therefore, especially in the case of processes that one does not yet understand, such as the weather, one should have confidence that they, which are connected outside, also bring about connections within us; and this should be done by refraining from thinking, only in images. One must say to oneself: I do not yet know the connection, but I will let these things live within me, and they will have an effect on me if I practice refraining from speculation. You will easily be able to believe that when a person, refraining from thinking, forms as accurate as possible images of successive processes, something can happen in the invisible members of the human being.
Human beings have the astral body as the carrier of their imaginative life. As long as human beings speculate, this astral body is the slave of the ego. But it is not absorbed in this conscious activity; it also stands in a certain relationship to the whole cosmos.
To the same extent that we refrain from letting our arbitrary thoughts take effect, to the same extent that we abstain from forming images of successive events, the inner thoughts of the world work within us and imprint themselves on our astral body without our knowing it. To the extent that we conform to the course of the world by observing the processes in the world and allowing the images to enter our thoughts as unclouded as possible and to work within us, to the same extent we become increasingly intelligent in the members that are withdrawn from our consciousness. Once we are able to allow the new image to merge into the old in such processes that are internally connected, just as this transition takes place in nature, then after some time we will see that our thinking has acquired a certain flexibility.
This is how we should proceed with things we do not yet understand; but we should behave somewhat differently toward things we do understand, for example, toward processes in our everyday life that take place around us. For example, suppose someone, perhaps a neighbor, has done this or that. We think: Why did he do that? We think that perhaps he did it today in preparation for something he wants to do tomorrow. Now we say nothing more, but imagine exactly what he has done and try to picture what he will do tomorrow. We imagine: That's what he'll do tomorrow—and wait to see what he really does. It may be that tomorrow we notice that he really does what we imagined. It may also be that he does something else. We'll see what happens and try to improve our thoughts accordingly.
In this way, we look for events in the present that we can follow in our minds into the future, and wait to see what happens. We can do this with what people do and with other things. Where we understand something, we try to form a picture of what we think will happen. If what we expected happens, then our thinking was correct, and that is good. If something different happens than what we expected, then we try to think about where we made a mistake and thus try to correct our wrong thoughts by calmly observing and examining what the mistake was and what caused it to happen. If we have done the right thing, then we must be especially careful not to boast about our prophecy: “Yes, I knew yesterday that this would happen!”
This was again a principle arising from the confidence that there is an inner necessity in things and events themselves, that there is something in the facts themselves that drives things forward. And what works there from one day to the next are thought forces. If we delve deeply into things, we become aware of these thought forces. We make these thought forces present in our consciousness through such exercises, and we then agree with them when what we have foreseen comes to pass; then, through our thinking activity, we stand in an inner connection with the real thing. In this way we accustom ourselves to thinking not arbitrarily, but out of inner necessity, out of the nature of things.
But we can also train our thinking practice in another direction. Any event that happens today is also related to what happened yesterday. For example, a boy has been naughty; what could be the causes? We trace the events back from today to yesterday and construct the causes that we do not know. We say to ourselves: I believe that because this is happening today, it was prepared yesterday or the day before by this or that.
We then learn about what really happened and thereby recognize whether we thought correctly. If we have found the right cause, that is good; if we have formed a false idea, we try to clarify the errors and find out how the thought process developed and how things actually happened.
The important thing is to carry out these principles: that we really find the time to look at things as if we were inside them with our thinking, that we immerse ourselves in things, in the inner thought activity of things. When we do this, we gradually notice how we literally grow together with things, how we no longer have the feeling that things are outside and we are inside thinking about them, but rather get a feeling as if our thinking were moving inside things. When a person has achieved this to a high degree, many things can become clear to them.
A person who had achieved to a high degree what can be achieved, such a thinker who always stood inside things with his thoughts, that was Goethe. The psychologist Heinroth said in his 1822 “Textbook of Anthropology” that Goethe's thinking was concrete thinking. Goethe himself was pleased with this remark. It meant that such thinking does not separate itself from things; it remains within things, it moves within the necessity of things. Goethe's thinking was at the same time a way of seeing, and his seeing was at the same time a way of thinking.
Goethe achieved a great deal with this kind of developed thinking. It happened more than once that Goethe had something in mind, went to the window, and said to whoever happened to be there: “In three hours it will rain” – and so it happened. From the small section of sky he could see through the window, he was able to predict what the weather would be like in the next few hours. His faithful thinking, which remained constant in all things, enabled him to sense what was preparing itself from the preceding as the subsequent event.
One can achieve much more through practical thinking than one usually thinks. If one has what has now been described as principles for thinking, then one will notice that thinking really becomes practical, that one's view broadens and one grasps the things of the world quite differently than without this. Gradually, people will relate to things and also to other people in a completely different way. It is a real process that takes place within them, changing their entire behavior. It can be of tremendous importance for people to actually try to grow together with things through their thinking, because doing such exercises is a practical principle for thinking in the most eminent sense.
Another thing is an exercise that should be done especially by those people who usually do not think of the right thing at the right moment. What such people should do is, above all, try not to think in such a way that they surrender themselves at every moment to what the course of the world brings with it, to what things bring with them. It is very common that when a person has half an hour to lie down and rest, they let their thoughts run wild. Then these thoughts spin out into a hundred and a thousand different directions. Or perhaps they are preoccupied with this or that worry in their life—it quickly creeps into their consciousness and they are completely absorbed by it. If people do this, they will never come up with the right idea at the right moment. If they want to achieve this, they must behave as follows. If they have half an hour to rest, they must say to themselves: Whenever I have time, I will think about something that I choose myself, something that I bring into my consciousness solely through my own will. For example, I now want to think about something I may have experienced earlier, perhaps on a walk two years ago. I want to bring those experiences into my thinking quite arbitrarily and think about them, even if only for five minutes. Everything else must be put aside for those five minutes! I choose for myself what I want to think about. The choice does not even have to be as difficult as I have just said. It is not important at first to influence your thought process through difficult exercises, but rather to tear yourself away from what you are drawn into by life. It just has to be something that falls outside of what you are caught up in during the ordinary course of the day. And if you suffer from a lack of imagination, if nothing else comes to mind, you can help yourself by opening a book and thinking about what you are reading at first glance. Or you can say to yourself: Today I will think about what I saw when I went to the store at a certain time in the morning and which I would otherwise have ignored. It has to be something that falls outside the ordinary course of the day, something you wouldn't normally think about. If you do such exercises systematically over and over again, you will find that you get ideas at the right time, that what you need to think of comes to mind at the right time. This will make your thinking more flexible, which is extremely important for people in practical life. Another exercise is particularly suitable for improving memory. First, try to remember some event, say from yesterday, in the rough way you usually remember things. Usually, people's memories are gray and dull; as a rule, we are satisfied if we can remember the name of the person we met yesterday. But we must not be satisfied with that if we want to train our memory. We must make that clear to ourselves. We must systematically do the following: we must say to ourselves: I want to remember exactly the person I saw yesterday, including the corner of the house where I saw them and what else was around them. I want to paint a precise picture of them in my mind, including their skirt or vest. Most people will realize that they are unable to do this, that it is impossible for them. They will notice how much they are lacking in order to form a real mental image of what they encountered and experienced yesterday.
We must now start from the vast majority of cases in which people are unable to recall what they experienced yesterday. Observation of human beings is extremely inaccurate. An experiment conducted by a university professor with his students showed that out of thirty people present, only two had observed the process correctly, while the other twenty-eight had observed it incorrectly. - However, a good memory is the result of faithful observation. The development of memory therefore depends precisely on careful observation. A good memory is achieved through faithful observation; through a certain mental detour, faithful memory is born as the child of good observation.
But if you are unable to do this, to remember exactly what you experienced yesterday, what should you do? First, try to remember as accurately as possible, and where you cannot remember, try to imagine something false, but it must be something complete. Let us assume that you have completely forgotten whether someone you met was wearing a brown or black skirt, you might imagine that they were wearing a brown skirt and brown leggings; that they had buttons like this and like that on their waistcoat, that their necktie was yellow – and there was that situation, the wall was yellow, a tall person walked past on the left and a short person on the right, and so on.
You put what you remember into the picture; only what you cannot remember do you add in order to obtain a complete picture in your mind. The picture is initially incorrect, but by striving to obtain a complete picture, you are guided to observe more closely from now on. And you continue to do such exercises. And when you have done this fifty times, the fifty-first time you will know exactly what the person you met looked like, what he was wearing; you will remember everything exactly, down to the buttons on his waistcoat. You will then overlook nothing, and every detail will be imprinted on your mind. In this way, you will first sharpen your powers of observation through the exercises and then improve the accuracy of your memory as the child of your powers of observation.
It is particularly good to try not only to remember names and individual main features of what you want to remember, but also to try to obtain as vivid an image as possible, covering all the details; and if you cannot remember something, try first to complete the picture, to construct it into a whole. Then we will soon see, as if by a roundabout route, that our memory gradually becomes faithful.
Thus we see how one can actually specify, as if they were manual tasks, the things that enable human beings to make their thinking more and more practical. The following is particularly important: when thinking about something, human beings have a certain desire to arrive at a result. They think about how to do this or that, and they arrive at this or that result. This is a very understandable impulse. However, it is not what leads to practical thinking. Any hastiness in thinking does not move us forward, but backward. One must be patient in these matters.
For example, you are supposed to do this or that: you can do it one way or another; there are various possibilities. Now have patience and try to imagine what would happen if you did it that way, and also try to imagine how it would look different. Now there will always be reasons why you might prefer one thing or the other, but refrain from making a decision immediately. Instead, try to imagine two possibilities and then say to yourself: “That's it, now I'll stop thinking about it.”
There will be people who will become fidgety in the process, and it will then be difficult to overcome the fidgetiness, but it is immensely useful to overcome it and say to yourself: It can be done this way and it can be done that way, and now I won't think about it for a while. If you can, put the matter, the action, off until the next day and then consider the two possibilities again, and you will find that things have changed in the meantime, that the next day we will decide differently, at least more thoroughly than we would have decided the day before. Things have an inner necessity, and if we do not act impatiently and arbitrarily, but allow this inner necessity to work in us—and it will work in us—it will enrich our thinking the next day and enable us to make a more correct decision. This is extremely useful!
For example, you are asked for advice about this or that, you have something to decide. Have the patience not to jump in with your decisions right away, but first consider various possibilities and do not make a decision for yourself, but calmly let the possibilities take their course. It is also said in popular parlance that one must sleep on a matter before deciding. But sleeping on it alone is not enough. It is necessary to consider two or, better still, several possibilities, which then continue to work on you when you are not consciously thinking about them, so to speak, and then to come back to the matter later. You will see that in this way you activate your inner powers of thought and that your thinking becomes more and more appropriate and practical.
And whatever a person is in the world, whether they stand at a workbench or behind a plow, or whether they belong to one of the so-called privileged professions, they will become a practical thinker about the most everyday things if they practice these things. By practicing in this way, they will approach and see things in the world in a completely different way. And however internal these exercises may seem at first, they are particularly suitable for the outside world; they are of the greatest possible importance for the outside world; they have important consequences.
I will give you an example to show you how necessary it is to think about things in a truly practical way: Someone climbed a ladder to get up into a tree and was doing something there; he fell down, hit the ground and died. Now, it is an obvious thought that he killed himself by falling. One would say that the fall was the cause and death was the effect. Cause and effect seem to be connected. But there can be terrible confusion here. The man up there may have had a heart attack, causing him to fall down. The same thing would have happened if he had fallen down while still alive; he went through the same things that could have been the cause of his death. In this way, cause and effect can be completely confused. Here in this example it is striking, but often it is not so obvious what has been missed. Such errors in thinking occur extremely frequently; indeed, it must be said that in science today, judgments are made every day where cause and effect are confused in this way. People simply do not understand this because they do not consider the possibilities of thinking.
Let me give you another example that will illustrate very clearly how such errors in thinking arise and show you that they will no longer happen to someone who has done the exercises described today. Consider the following: A scholar says to himself that human beings as they are today are descended from apes; therefore, what I recognize in apes, the powers in apes, are perfected and become human beings. Now, in order to explain the meaning of this idea, let us make the following assumption: Let us imagine that the person who is supposed to come to this conclusion has been transported to Earth all alone by some circumstance. Apart from him, there would only be those monkeys from which, according to his theory, humans can evolve. He now studies these monkeys very carefully, forming a detailed concept of what is present in the monkeys. Now he should try to develop the concept of man from the concept of the monkey, even though he has never seen a human being. He will see that he can never achieve this: his concept of “monkey” never transforms into the concept of man.
If he had the right way of thinking, he would have to say to himself: Well, my concept does not change within me in such a way that the concept of ape becomes the concept of human being, so what I see in the ape cannot become a human being, because otherwise my concept would also have to change. So there must be something else that I cannot see. This person would therefore have to see something supersensible behind the sensory monkey, something he cannot perceive, which could then pass over into man.
We do not want to go into the impossibility of the matter, but only to show the error in thinking that lies behind this theory. If humans thought correctly, they would be led to conclude that they cannot think this way unless they presuppose something supernatural. If you think about it, you will see that a whole series of people have made an overwhelming error in thinking. Such errors will no longer be made by those who train their thinking in the manner indicated.
A large part of our entire literature today, especially scientific literature, is a source of effects, even physical pain, for those who are truly capable of thinking correctly, when they have to read through it. This is not meant to say anything against the enormous amount of observations that have been gained through this natural science and its objective methods. Now we come to a chapter that is related to the short-sightedness of thinking. It is really the case that people usually do not know that their thinking is not very appropriate, but for the most part is only a consequence of habits of thinking. Thus, judgments will be very different for those who see through the world and life than for those who do not see through them, or see through them only a little, for example, for a materialistic thinker. It is not easy to convince such a person with reasons, no matter how sound and good they may be. Trying to convince someone who knows little about life with reasons is often a futile effort, because they do not understand the reasons why this or that can be asserted. If they have become accustomed to seeing only matter in everything, for example, they are stuck in this habit of thinking.
Today, it is generally not reasons that lead someone to make assertions, but rather the habits of thinking that they have acquired and that influence their entire feeling and perception. When they put forward reasons, it is only the mask of habitual thinking that stands before their feelings and perceptions. Thus, it is often not only desire that is the father of thought, but all feelings and habits of thinking that are the parents of thoughts. Those who know life know how little logical reasons can convince anyone in life. Something much deeper in the soul decides than logical reasons.
When we have our anthroposophical movement, for example, there are certainly good reasons why we have it and why it works in its various branches. Everyone who works with the movement for a while notices that they have acquired a different way of thinking, feeling, and sensing. For through working in the branches, one does not merely concern oneself with finding logical reasons for something, but acquires a more comprehensive feeling and sense.
How, for example, did someone who heard a spiritual scientific lecture for the first time a few years ago mock it, and how many things are now completely clear and transparent to him that he might have considered highly absurd some time ago! By participating in the anthroposophical movement, we do not merely transform our thoughts, but we learn to bring our whole soul into a broader perspective. We must be clear that the coloring of our thoughts comes from much deeper sources than is usually thought. It is certain sensations, certain feelings that impose opinions on people. The logical reasons are often just a veneer, just masks for feelings, sensations, and habits of thought.
To bring oneself to the point where logical reasons mean something to one, one must learn to love logic itself. Only when one learns to love objectivity and what is appropriate will logical reasons become decisive. You gradually learn to think objectively, independently of your preference for this or that idea, so to speak, and then your view broadens and you become practical; not so practical that you can only judge along well-trodden paths, but in such a way that you learn to think your way out of things.
Real practice is a child of objective thinking, of thinking that flows from things themselves. We only learn to let ourselves be inspired by things when we do such exercises; and such exercises must be done on healthy things. These are things in which human culture has as little influence as possible, which are the least distorted: natural objects. And practicing on natural objects as we have described today makes us practical thinkers. That is truly practical. The most everyday activities will be tackled practically if we train the basic element: thinking. By practicing the human soul as has been described, a practical orientation toward thinking is formed.
It must be the fruit of the spiritual scientific movement that it truly brings practitioners into life. It is not so important that people believe this or that to be true, but that they bring themselves to see things correctly. Much more important than theorizing about things beyond the senses and into the spiritual realm is the way in which anthroposophy penetrates our souls, guides us to soul activity, and broadens our view. In this, anthroposophy is something truly practical.
It is an important mission of the anthroposophical movement to set human thinking in motion, to train it so that people think that the spirit is behind things. If the anthroposophical movement kindles this attitude, then it will establish a culture from which such thinking will never emerge that people want to push the cart from within. This flows quite naturally into the soul. Once the soul has learned to think about the great facts of life, it also thinks correctly about the soup spoon. And it is not only in relation to the soup spoon that people become more practical; they also learn to hammer in a nail more practically, to hang a picture more practically than they would otherwise have done. It is of great importance that we learn to view the spiritual life as a whole and that through such a view we learn to make everything more practical and more practical.