The Rudolf Steiner Archive

[ 1 ] Francesco Redi, the Italian natural scientist, was considered a dangerous heretic by the leading scholars of the seventeenth century because he maintained that even the lowest animals originate through reproduction. He narrowly escaped the martyr-destiny of Giordano Bruno or Galileo. For the orthodox scientist of that time believed that worms, insects, and even fish could originate out of lifeless mud. Redi maintained that which today is generally acknowledged: that all living creatures have descended from living creatures. He committed the sin of recognizing a truth two centuries before science found its “irrefutable” proof. Since Pasteur has carried out his investigations, there can be no longer any doubt about the fact that those cases were merely illusion in which people believed that living creatures could come into existence out of lifeless substances through “spontaneous generation”. The life germs entering such lifeless substances escaped observation. With proper means, Pasteur prevented the entrance of such germs into substances in which, ordinarily, small living creatures come into existence, and not even a trace of the living was formed. Thus it was demonstrated that the living springs only from the life germ. Redi had been completely correct.

[ 2 ] Today, the spiritual scientist, the anthroposophist, finds himself in a situation similar to that of the Italian scientist.

On the basis of his knowledge, he must maintain in regard to the soul what Redi maintained in regard to life. He must maintain that the soul nature can spring only from the soul. And if science advances in the direction it has taken since the seventeenth century, then the time will come when, out of its own nature, science will uphold this view. For—and this must be emphasized again and again—the attitude of thought which underlies the anthroposophical conception of today is no other than the one underlying the scientific dictum that insects, worms and fish originate from life germs and not from mud. The anthroposophical conception maintains the postulate: “Every soul originates out of the soul nature,” in the same sense and with the same significance in which the scientist maintains: “Everything living originates out of the living.”¹

[ 3 ] Today's customs differ from those of the seventeenth century. The attitudes of mind underlying the customs have not changed particularly. To be sure, in the seventeenth century, heretical views were persecuted by means no longer considered human today. Today, spiritual scientists, anthroposophists, will not be threatened with burning at the stake: one is satisfied in rendering them harmless by branding them as visionaries and unclear thinkers. Current science designates them fools. The former execution through the inquisition has been replaced by modern, journalistic execution. The anthroposophists, however, remain steadfast; they console themselves in the consciousness that the time will come when some Virchow will say: “There was a time—fortunately it is now superseded—when people believed that the soul comes into existence by itself if certain complicated chemical and physical processes take place within the skull. Today, for every serious researcher this infantile conception must give way to the statement that everything pertaining to the soul springs from the soul.”

[ 4 ] One must by no means believe that spiritual science intends to prove its truths through natural science. It must be emphasized, however, that spiritual science has an attitude of mind similar to that of true natural science. The anthroposophist accomplishes in the sphere of the soul life what the nature researcher strives to attain in the domains perceptible to the eyes and audible to the ears. There can be no contradiction between genuine natural science and spiritual science. The anthroposophist demonstrates that the laws which he postulates for the soul life are correspondingly valid also for the external phenomena of nature. He does so because he knows that the human sense of knowledge can only feel satisfied if it perceives that harmony, and not discord, rules among the various phenomenal realms of existence. Today most human beings who strive at all for knowledge and truth are acquainted with certain natural-scientific conceptions. Such truths can be acquired, so to speak, with the greatest ease. The science sections of newspapers disclose to the educated and uneducated alike the laws according to which the perfect animals develop out of the imperfect, they disclose the profound relationship between man and the anthropoid ape, and smart magazine writers never tire of inculcating their readers with their conception of “spirit” in the age of the “great Darwin.” They very seldom add that in Darwin's main treatise there is to be found the statement: “I hold that all organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primordial form into which the creator breathed the breath of life.” (Origin of Species, Vol. II, chapter XV.)—In our age it is most important to show again and again that Anthroposophy does not treat the conceptions of “the breathing in of life” and the soul as lightly as Darwin and many a Darwinian, but that its truths do not contradict the findings of true nature research. Anthroposophy does not wish to penetrate into the mysteries of spirit-life upon the crutches of natural science of the present age, but it merely wishes to say: “Recognize the laws of the spiritual life and you will find these sublime laws verified in corresponding form if you descend to the domain in which you can see with eyes and hear with ears.” Natural science of the present age does not contradict spiritual science; on the contrary, it is itself elemental spiritual science. Only because Haeckel applied to the evolution of animal life the laws which the psychologists since ancient days have applied to the soul, did he achieve such beautiful results in the field of animal life. If he himself is not of this conviction, it does not matter; he simply does not know the laws of the soul, nor is he acquainted with the research which can be carried on in the field of the soul.^e1 The significance of his findings in his field is thereby not diminished. Great men have the faults of their virtues. Our task is to show that Haeckel in the field where he is competent is nothing but an anthroposophist.—By linking up with the natural-scientific knowledge of the present age, still another aid offers itself to the spiritual scientist. The objects of outer nature are, so to speak, to be grasped by our hands. It is, therefore, easy to expound their laws. It is not difficult to realize that plants change when they are transplanted from one region into another. Nor is it hard to visualize that a certain animal species loses its power of eyesight when it lives for a certain length of time in dark caves. By demonstrating the laws which are active in such processes, it is easy to lead over to the less manifest, less comprehensible laws which we encounter in the field of the soul life.—if the anthroposophist employs natural science as an aid, he merely does so in order to illustrate what he is saying. He has to show that anthroposophic truths, with respective modifications, are to be found in the domain of natural science, and that natural science cannot be anything but elemental spiritual science; and he has to employ natural-scientific concepts in order to lead over to his concepts of a higher nature.

[ 5 ] The objection might be raised here that any inclination toward present-day natural-scientific conceptions might put spiritual science into an awkward position for the simple reason that these conceptions themselves rest upon a completely uncertain foundation. It is true: There are scientists who consider certain fundamental principles of Darwinism as irrefutable, and there are others who even today speak of a “crisis in Darwinism.” The former consider the concepts of “the omnipotence of natural selection” and “the struggle for survival” to be a comprehensive explanation of the evolution of living creatures; the latter consider this “struggle for survival” to be one of the infantile complaints of modern science and speak of the “impotence of natural selection.”—If matters depended upon these specific, problematic questions, it were certainly better for the anthroposophist to pay no attention to them and to wait for a more propitious moment when an agreement with natural science might be achieved. But matters do not depend upon these problems. What is important, however, is a certain attitude, a mode of thought within natural-scientific research in our age, certain definite great guiding lines, which are adhered to everywhere, even though the thoughts of various researchers and thinkers concerning specific questions diverge widely. It is true: Ernst Haeckel's and Virchow's conceptions of the “genesis of man” diverge greatly. But the anthroposophical thinker might consider himself fortunate if leading personalities were to think as clearly about certain comprehensive viewpoints concerning the soul life as these opponents think about that which they consider absolutely certain in spite of their disagreement. Neither the adherents of Haeckel nor those of Virchow search today for the origin of worms in lifeless mud; neither the former nor the latter doubt that “all living creatures originate from the living,” in the sense designated above.—In psychology we have not yet advanced so far. Clarity is completely lacking concerning a view point which might be compared with such scientific fundamental convictions. Whoever wishes to explain the shape and mode of life of a worm knows that he has to consider its ovum and ancestors; he knows the direction in which his research must proceed, although the viewpoints may differ concerning other aspects of the question, or even the statement may be made that the time is not yet ripe when definite thoughts may be formed concerning this or that point.—Where, in psychology, is there to be found a similar clarity? The fact that the soul² has spiritual qualities, just as the worm has physical ones, does not cause the researcher to approach—as he should—the one fact with the same attitude of mind as he approaches the other. To be sure, our age is under the influence of thought habits which prevent innumerable people, occupied with these problems, from entering at all properly upon such demands.—True, it will be admitted that the soul qualities of a human being must originate somewhere just as do the physical ones. The reasons are being sought for the fact that the souls of a group of children are so different from one another, although the children all grew up and were educated under identical circumstances; that even twins differ from one another in essential characteristics, although they always lived at the same place and under the care of the same nurse. The case of the Siamese Twins is quoted, whose final years of life were, allegedly, spent in great discomfort in consequence of their opposite sympathies concerning the North-American Civil War. We do not deny that careful thought and observation have been directed upon such phenomena and that remarkable studies have been made and results achieved. But the fact remains that these efforts concerning the soul life are on a par with the efforts of a scientist who maintains that living creatures originate from lifeless mud. In order to explain the lower psychic qualities, we are undoubtedly justified in pointing to the physical forebears and in speaking of heredity, just as we do in the case of bodily traits. But we deliberately close our eyes to the most important aspect of the matter if we proceed in the same direction with respect to the higher soul qualities, the actually spiritual in man. We have become accustomed to regard these higher soul qualities as a mere enhancement, as a higher degree of the lower ones. And we therefore believe that an explanation might satisfy us which follows the same lines as the explanation offered for the soul qualities of the animal.

[ 6 ] It is not to be denied that the observation of certain soul functions of higher animals may easily lead to this mistaken conception. We only need draw attention to the fact that dogs show remarkable proof of a faithful memory; that horses, noticing the loss of a horse shoe, walk of their own accord to the blacksmith who has shod them before; that animals which are shut up in a room, can by themselves open the door; we might quote many more of these astonishing facts. Certainly, the anthroposophist, too, will not refrain from admitting the possibility of continued enhancement of animal faculties. But must we, for that reason, obliterate the difference between the lower soul traits which man shares with the animal, and the higher spiritual qualities which man alone possesses? This can only be done by someone who is completely blinded by the dogmatic prejudice of a “science” which wishes to stick fast to the facts of the coarse, physical senses. Simply consider what is established by indisputable observation, namely, that animals, even the highest-developed ones, cannot count and therefore are unable to learn arithmetic. The fact that the human being is distinguished from the animal by his ability to count was considered a significant insight even in ancient schools of wisdom.—Counting is the simplest, the most insignificant of the higher soul faculties. For that very reason we cite it here, because it indicates the point where the animal-soul element passes over into the spirit-soul element, into the higher human element. Of course, it is very easy to raise objections here also. First, one might say that we have not yet reached the end of the world and that we might one day succeed in what we have not yet been able to do, namely, to teach counting to intelligent animals. And secondly, one might point to the fact that the brain has reached a higher stage of perfection in man than in the animal, and that herein lies the reason for the human brain's higher degrees of soul activity. We may fully concur with the persons who raise these objections. Yet we are in the same position concerning those people who, in regard to the fact that all living creatures spring from the living, maintain over and over again that the worm is governed by the same chemical and physical laws that govern the mud, only in a more complicated manner. Nothing can be done for a person who wishes to disclose the secrets of nature by means of trivialities and what is self-evident. There are people who consider the degree of insight they have attained to be the most penetrating imaginable and to whom, therefore, it never occurs that there might be someone else able to raise the same trivial objections, did he not see their worthlessness.—No objection can be raised against the conception that all higher processes in the world are merely higher degrees of the lower processes to be found in the mud. But just as it is impossible for a person of insight today to maintain that the worm originates from the mud, so is it impossible for a clear thinker to force the spirit-soul nature into the same concept-pattern as that of the animal-soul nature. Just as we remain within the sphere of the living in order to explain the descent of the living, so must we remain in the sphere of the soul-spirit nature in order to understand the soul-spirit nature's origin.

[ 7 ] There are facts which may be observed everywhere and which are bypassed by countless people without their paying any attention to them. Then someone appears who, by becoming aware of one of these facts, discovers a fundamental and far-reaching truth. It is reported that Galileo discovered the important law of the pendulum by observing a swinging chandelier in the cathedral of Pisa. Up to that time, innumerable people had seen swinging church lamps without making this decisive observation. What matters in such cases is that we connect the right thoughts with the things we see. Now, there exists a fact which is quite generally accessible and which, when viewed in an appropriate manner, throws a clear light upon the character of the soul-spirit nature. This is the simple truth that every human being has a biography, but not the animal. To be sure, certain people will say: Is it not possible to write the life story of a cat or a dog? The answer must be: Undoubtedly it is; but there is also a kind of school exercise which requires the children to describe the fate of a pen. The important point here is that the biography has the same fundamental significance in regard to the individual human being as the description of the species has in regard to the animal. Just as I am interested in the description of the lion-species in regard to the lion, so am I interested in the biography in regard to the individual human being. By describing their human species, I have not exhaustively described Schiller, Goethe, and Heine, as would be the case regarding the single lion once I have recognized it as a member of its species. The individual human being is more than a member of his species. Like the animal, he shares the characteristics of his species with his physical forebears. But where these characteristics terminate, there begins for the human being his unique position, his task in the world. And where this begins, all possibility of an explanation according to the pattern of animal-physical heredity ceases. I may trace back Schiller's nose and hair, perhaps even certain characteristics of his temperament, to corresponding traits in his ancestors, but never his genius. And naturally, this does not only hold good for Schiller. This also holds good for Mrs. Miller of Gotham. In her case also, if we are but willing, we shall find soul-spiritual characteristics which cannot be traced back to her parents and grand-parents in the same way we can trace the shape of her nose or the blue color of her eyes. It is true, Goethe has said that he had received from his father his figure and his serious conduct of life, and from his little mother his joyous nature and power of fantasy, and that, as a consequence, nothing original was to be found in the whole man. But in spite of this, nobody will try to trace back Goethe's gifts to father and mother—and be satisfied with it—in the same sense in which we trace back the form and manner of life of the lion to his forebears.—This is the direction in which psychology must proceed if it wishes to parallel the natural-scientific postulate that “all living creatures originate from the living” with the corresponding postulate that “everything of the nature of the soul is to be explained by the soul-nature.” We intend to follow up this direction and show how the laws of reincarnation and karma, seen from this point of view, are a natural-scientific necessity. [ 8 ] It seems most peculiar that so many people pass by the question of the origin of the soul-nature simply because they fear that they might find themselves caught in an uncertain field of knowledge. They will be shown what the great scientist Carl Gegenbaur has said about Darwinism. Even if the direct assertions of Darwin may not be entirely correct, yet they have led to discoveries which without them would not have been made. In a convincing manner Darwin has pointed to the evolution of one form of life out of another one, and this has stimulated the research into the relationships of such forms. Even those who contest the errors of Darwinism ought to realize that this same Darwinism has brought clarity and certainty to the research into animal and plant evolution, thus throwing light into dark reaches of the working of nature. Its errors will be overcome by itself. If it did not exist, we should not have its beneficial consequences. In regard to the spiritual life, the person who fears uncertainty concerning the anthroposophical conception ought to concede to it the same possibility; even though anthroposophical teachings were not completely correct, yet they would, out of their very nature, lead to the light concerning the riddles of the soul. To them, too, we shall owe clarity and certainty. And since they are concerned with our spiritual destiny, our human destination, our highest tasks, the bringing about of this clarity and certainty ought to be the most significant concern of our life. In this sphere, striving for knowledge is at the same time a moral necessity, an absolute moral duty.

[ 9 ] David Friedrich Strauss endeavored to furnish a kind of Bible for the “enlightened” human being in his book, Der alte und neue Glaube (Faith—Ancient and Modern). “Modern faith” is to be based on the revelations of natural science, and not on the revelations of “ancient faith” which, in the opinion of this apostle of enlightenment, have been superceded. This new Bible has been written under the impression of Darwinism by a personality who says to himself: Whoever, like myself, counts himself among the enlightened, has ceased, long before Darwin, to believe in “supernatural revelation” and its miracles. He has made it clear to himself that in nature there hold sway necessary, immutable laws, and whatever miracles are reported in the Bible would be disturbances, interruptions of these laws; and there cannot be such disturbances and interruptions. We know from the laws of nature that the dead cannot be reawakened to life: therefore, Jesus cannot have reawakened Lazarus.—However,—so this enlightened person continues—there was a gap in our explanation of nature. We were able to understand how the phenomena of the lifeless may be explained through immutable laws of nature; but we were unable to form a natural conception about the origin of the manifold species of plants and animals and of the human being himself. To be sure, we believed that in their case also we are concerned merely with necessary laws of nature; but we did not know their nature nor their mode of action. Try as we might, we were unable to raise reasonable objection to the statement of Carl von Linné, the great nature-researcher of the eighteenth century, that there exist as many “species in the animal and plant kingdom as were originally created in principle.” Were we not confronted here with as many miracles of creation as with species of plants and animals? Of what use was our conviction that God was unable to raise Lazarus through a supernatural interference with the natural order, through a miracle, when we had to assume the existence of such supernatural deeds in countless numbers. Then Darwin appeared and showed us that, through immutable laws of nature (natural selection and struggle for life), the plant and animal species come into existence just as do the lifeless phenomena. Our gap in the explanation of nature was filled.

[ 10 ] Out of the mood which this conviction engendered in him, David Friedrich Strauss wrote down the following statement of his “ancient and modern belief”: “We philosophers and critical theologians spoke to no purpose in denying the existence of miracles; our authoritative decree faded away without effect because we were unable to prove their dispensability and give evidence of a nature force which could replace them in the fields where up to now they were deemed most indispensable. Darwin has given proof of this nature force, this nature process, he has opened the door through which a fortunate posterity will cast the miracle into oblivion. Everybody who knows what is connected with the concept ‘miracle’ will praise him as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.”

[ 11 ] These words express the mood of the victor. And all those who feel like Strauss may disclose the following view of the “modern faith”: Once upon a time, lifeless particles of matter have conglomerated through their inherent forces in such a way as to produce living matter. This living matter developed, according to necessary laws, into the simplest, most imperfect living creatures. These, according to similarly necessary laws, transformed themselves further into the worm, the fish, the snake, the marsupial, and finally into the ape. And since Huxley, the great English nature researcher, has demonstrated that human beings are more similar in their structure to the most highly developed apes than the latter are to the lower apes, what then stands in the way of the assumption that the human being himself has, according to the same natural laws, developed from the higher apes? And further, do we not find what we call higher human spiritual activity, what we call morals, in an imperfect condition already with the animal. May we doubt the fact that the animals—as their structure became more perfect, as it developed into the human form, merely on the basis of physical laws—likewise developed the indications of intellect and morals to be found in them to the human stage?

[ 12 ] All this seems to be perfectly correct. Although everybody must admit that our knowledge of nature will not for a long time to come be in the position to conceive of how what has been described above takes place in detail, yet we shall discover more and more facts and laws; and thus the “modern faith” will gain more and firmer supports.

[ 13 ] Now it is a fact that the research and study of recent years have not furnished such solid supports for this belief; on the contrary, they have contributed greatly to discredit it. Yet it holds sway in ever extending circles and is a great obstacle to every other conviction.

[ 14 ] There is no doubt that if David Friedrich Strauss and those of like mind are right, then all talk of higher spiritual laws of existence is an absurdity; the “modern faith” would have to be based solely on the foundations which these personalities assert are the result of the knowledge of nature.

[ 15 ] Yet, whoever with unprejudiced mind follows up the statements of these adherents of the “modern faith” is confronted by a peculiar fact. And this fact presses upon us most irresistibly if we look at the thoughts of those people who have preserved some degree of impartiality in the face of the self-assured assertions of these orthodox pioneers of progress.

[ 16 ] For there are hidden corners in the creed of these modern believers. And if we uncover what exists in these corners, then the true findings of modern natural science shine forth in full brilliance, but the opinions of the modern believers concerning the human being begin to fade away.³

[ 17 ] Let us throw light into a few of these corners. At the outset, let us keep to that personality who is the most significant and the most venerable of these modern believers. On page 804 of the ninth edition of Haeckel's Natuerliche Schoepfungsgeschichte (Natural Genesis) we read: “The final result of a comparison of animals and man shows that between the most highly developed animal souls and the lowest human souls there exists only a small quantitative, but no qualitative difference; this difference is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls, or the difference between the highest and the lowest animal souls.” Now, what is the modern believer's attitude toward such a fact? He announces: we must explain the difference between the lower and the higher animal souls as a consequence of necessary and immutable laws. And we study these laws. We ask ourselves: how did it come about that out of animals with a lower soul have developed those with a higher soul? We look in nature for conditions through which the lower may develop into the higher. We then find, for example, that animals which have migrated to the caves of Kentucky become blind there. It becomes clear to us that through the sojourn in the darkness the eyes have lost their function. In these eyes the physical and chemical processes no longer take place which were carried out during the act of seeing. The stream of nourishment which has formerly been used for this activity is now diverted to other organs. The animals change their shape. In this way, new animal species can arise out of existing ones if only the transformation which nature causes in these species is sufficiently great and manifold.—What actually takes place here? Nature brings about changes in certain beings; and these changes later also appear in their descendants. We say: they are transmitted by heredity. Thus the coming into existence of new animal and plant species is explained.

[ 18 ] The modern believers now continue happily in the direction of their explanation. The difference between the lowest human souls and the highest animal souls is not particularly great. Therefore, certain life conditions in which the higher animal souls have been placed have brought about changes by means of which they became lower human souls. The miracle of the evolution of the human soul has been cast out of the temple of the “modern faith” into oblivion, to use an expression of Strauss', and man has been classified among the animals according to “eternal, necessary” laws. Satisfied, the modern believer retires into peaceful slumber; he does not wish to go further.

[ 19 ] Honest thinking must disturb his slumber. For this honest thinking must keep alive around his couch the spirits which he himself has evoked. Let us consider more closely the above statement of Haeckel: “the difference (between higher animals and men) is much smaller than the difference between the lowest and the highest human souls.” If the modern believer admits this, may he then indulge in peaceful slumber as soon as he—according to his opinion—has explained the evolution of the lower men out of the highest animals?

[ 20 ] No, he must not do this, and if he does so nevertheless, then he denies the whole basis upon which he has founded his conviction. What would a modern believer reply to another who were to say: I have demonstrated how fish have originated from lower living creatures. This suffices. I have shown that everything evolves—therefore the species higher than the fish will doubtless have developed like the fish. There is no doubt that the modern believer would reply: Your general thought of evolution is useless; you must be able to show how the mammals originate; for there is a greater difference between mammals and fish than between fish and those animals on a stage directly below them.—And what would have to be the consequence of the modern believer's real faithfulness to his creed? He would have to say: the difference between the higher and lower human souls is greater than the difference between these lower souls and the animal souls on the stage directly below them; therefore I must admit that there are causes in the universe which effect changes in the lower human soul, transforming it in the same way as do the causes, demonstrated by me, which lead the lower animal form into the higher one. If I do not admit this, the species of human souls remain for me a miracle in regard to their origin, just as the various animal species remain a miracle to the one who does not believe in the transformation of living creatures through laws of nature.

[ 21 ] And this is absolutely correct: the modern believers, who deem themselves so greatly enlightened because they believe they have “cast out” the miracle in the domain of the living, are believers in miracles, nay, even worshipers of the miracle in the domain of the soul life. And only the following fact differentiates them from the believers in miracles, so greatly despised by them: these latter honestly avow their belief; the modern believers, however, have not the slightest inkling of the fact that they themselves have fallen prey to the darkest superstition.

[ 22 ] And now let us illumine another corner of the “modern belief.” In his Anthropology, Dr. Paul Topinard has beautifully compiled the findings of the modern theory of the origin of man. At the end of his book he briefly recapitulates the evolution of the higher animal forms in the various epochs of the earth according to Haeckel: “At the beginning of the earth period designated by geologists the Laurentian period, the first nuclei of albumin were formed by a chance meeting of certain elements, i.e. carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, under conditions probably only prevailing at that epoch. From them, through spontaneous generation, monads developed (the smallest, imperfect living creatures). These split and multiplied, rearranged themselves into organs, and finally, after a series of transformations which Haeckel estimates as nine, they bestowed life upon certain vertebrae such as the amphioxus lanceolatus.” We may skip the description of the further animal species in the same direction and add here at once Topinard's concluding sentences: “In the twentieth earth epoch, we find the anthropoid ape approximately during the whole Miocene period; in the twenty-first, the man-ape which does not yet possess speech and a corresponding brain. In the twenty-second period, Man finally appears as we know him, at least in his less perfect forms.” And now, after having cited what is to be understood as the “natural-scientific basis of the modern belief,” Topinard, in a few words, makes a significant confession. He says: “Here the classification comes to an abrupt halt. Haeckel forgets the twenty-third degree in which the brilliant Lamarck and Newton appear.”

[ 23 ] A corner in the creed of the modern believer is thereby exposed in which he points with the utmost clarity to facts, concerning which he denies his creed. He is unwilling to rise into the human soul sphere with the concepts with which he tried to find his way in the other spheres of nature.—Were he to do this, were he, with his attitude of mind acquired through the observation of external nature, to enter upon the sphere which Topinard calls the twenty-third degree, then he would have to say to himself: just as I derive the higher animal species from the lower through evolution, so do I derive the higher soul nature from the lower through evolution. I cannot understand Newton's soul if I do not conceive of it as having sprung from a preceding soul being. And this soul being can never be looked for in the physical ancestors. Were I to look for it there, I would turn upside down the whole method of nature research. How could it ever occur to a scientist to show the evolution of one animal species out of another if the latter, in regard to its physical makeup, were as dissimilar to the former as Newton, in regard to his soul, is to his forebears: One conceives of one animal species having proceeded from a similar one which is merely one degree lower than itself. Therefore, Newton's soul must have sprung from a soul similar to it, but only one degree lower, psychically. Newton's soul nature is comprised in his biography. I recognize Newton by his biography just as I recognize a lion by the description of its species. And I comprehend the species “lion” if I imagine that it has sprung from a species on a correspondingly lower stage. Thus I comprehend what is comprised in Newton's biography if I conceive of it as having developed from the biography of a soul which resembles it, is related to it as soul. From this follows that Newton's soul existed already in another form, just as the species “lion” existed previously in a different form.

[ 24 ] For clear thought, there is no escape from this conception. Only because the modern believers do not have the courage to think their thoughts through to the end do they not arrive at this final conclusion. Through it, however, the reappearance of the being who is comprised in the biography is secured.—Either we must abandon the whole natural-scientific theory of evolution, or we must admit that it must be extended to include the evolution of the soul. There are only two alternatives: either, every soul is created by a miracle, just as the animal species would have to be created by miracles if they have not developed one out of the other, or, the soul has developed and has previously existed in another form, just as the animal species has existed in another form.

[ 25 ] A few modern thinkers who have preserved some clarity and courage for logical thinking are a living proof of the above conclusion. They are just as unable to familiarize themselves with the thought of soul evolution, so strange to our age, as are the modern believers characterized above. But they at least possess the courage to confess the only other possible view, namely: the miracle of the creation of the soul. Thus, in the book on psychology by Professor Johannes Rehmke, one of the best thinkers of our time, we may read the following: “The idea of creation ... appears to us ... to be the only one suited to render comprehensible the mystery of the origin of the soul.” Rehmke goes so far as to acknowledge the existence of a conscious Universal-Being who, “as the only condition for the origin of the soul, would have to be called the creator of the soul.” Thus speaks a thinker who is unwilling to indulge in gentle spiritual slumber after having grasped the physical life processes, yet who is lacking the capacity of acknowledging the idea that each individual soul has evolved out of its previous form of existence. Rehmke has the courage to accept the miracle, since he is unable to have the courage to acknowledge the anthroposophical view of the reappearance of the soul, of reincarnation. Thinkers in whom the natural-scientific striving begins to be developed logically must of necessity arrive at this view. Thus, in the book, Neuchristentum und reale Religion (Neo-Christianity and Real Religion), by Julius Baumann, professor of philosophy at the University of Goettingen, we find the following (twenty-second) paragraph among the thirty-nine paragraphs of a Sketch of a Summary of Real-Scientific Religion: “Just as in inorganic nature the physical-chemical elements and forces do not disappear but only change their combinations, so is this also to be assumed, according to the real scientific method, in respect of the organic and organic-spiritual forces. The Human soul as formal unity, as connecting Ego, returns in new human bodies and is thus enabled to pass through all the stages of human evolution.”

[ 26 ] Whoever possesses the full courage for the natural-scientific avowal of faith of the present age must arrive at this conception. This, however, must not be misunderstood;we do not maintain that the more prominent thinkers among the modern believers are cowardly persons, in the ordinary sense of the word. It needed courage, indescribable courage to carry to victory the natural-scientific view in face of the resisting forces of the nineteenth century.⁵ But this courage must be distinguished from the higher one in regard to logical thinking. Yet just those nature researchers of the present age who desire to erect a world conception out of the findings of their domain are lacking such logical thinking. For, is it not a disgrace if we have to hear a sentence like the following, which was pronounced by the Breslau chemist Albert Ladenburg, in a lecture at a recent (1903) Conference of scientists: “Do we know anything about a substratum of the soul? I have no such knowledge.” After having made this confession, this same man continues: “What is your opinion concerning immortality? I believe that in regard to this question, more than in regard to any other, the wish is father to the thought, for I do not know a single scientifically proven fact which might serve as the basis for the belief in immortality.” What would the learned gentleman say if we were confronted by a speaker who said: “I know nothing about chemical facts. I therefore deny the chemical laws, for I know not a single scientifically proven fact which might serve as the basis for these laws.” Certainly, the professor would reply: “What do we care about your ignorance of chemistry? First study chemistry, then do your talking!” Professor Ladenburg does not know anything about a substratum of the soul; he, therefore, should not bother the world with the findings of his ignorance.

[ 27 ] Just as the nature researcher, in order to understand certain animal forms, studies the animal forms out of which these former have evolved, so the psychologist, rooted in natural science, must, in order to understand a certain soul form, study the soul form out of which the former has evolved. The skull form of higher animals is explained by scientists as having arisen out of the transformation of the lower animal skull. Therefore, everything belonging to a soul's biography ought to be explained by them through the biography of the soul out of which this soul concerned has evolved. The later conditions are the effects of former ones. That is to say, the later physical conditions are the effects of former physical conditions; likewise, the later soul conditions are the effects of former soul conditions. This is the content of the Law of Karma which says: all my talents and deeds in my present life do not exist separately as a miracle, but they are connected as effect with the previous forms of existence of my soul and as cause with future ones.

[ 28 ] Those who, with open spiritual eyes, observe human life and do not know this comprehensive law, or do not wish to acknowledge it, are constantly confronted by riddles of life. Let us quote one example for many. It is contained in Maurice Maeterlinck's book Le Temple Enseveli (The Buried Temple). This is a book which speaks of these riddles, which appear to present-day thinkers in a distorted shape because they are not conversant with the great laws in spiritual life of cause and effect, of Karma. Those who have fallen prey to the limited dogmas of the modern believers have no organ for the perception of such riddles. Maeterlinck puts [forth] one of these questions: “If I plunge into the water in zero weather in order to save my fellow man, or if I fall into the water while trying to push him into it, the consequences of the cold I catch will be exactly the same in both cases, and no power in heaven or earth beside myself or the man (if he is able to do so) will increase my suffering because I have committed a crime, or will relieve my pain because I performed a virtuous deed.” Certainly; the consequences in question here appear to an observation which limits itself to physical facts to be the same in both cases. But may this observation, without further research, be considered complete? Whoever asserts this holds, as a thinker, the same view point as a person who observes two boys being taught by two different teachers, and who observes nothing else in this activity but the fact that in both cases the teachers are occupied with the two boys for the same number of hours and carry on the same studies. If he were to enter more deeply upon the facts, he would perhaps observe a great difference between the two cases, and he would consider it comprehensible that one boy grows up to be an inefficient man, while the other boy becomes an excellent and capable human being.—And if the person who is willing to enter upon soul-spiritual connections were to observe the above consequences for the souls of the human beings in question, he would have to say to himself: what happens there cannot be considered as isolated facts. The consequences of a cold are soul experiences, and I must, if they are not to be deemed a miracle, view them as causes and effects in the soul life. The consequences for the person who saves a life will spring from causes different from those for the criminal; or they will, in the one or the other case, have different effects. And if I cannot find these causes and effects in the present life of the people concerned, if all conditions are alike for this present life, then I must look for the compensation in the past and the future life. Then I proceed exactly like the natural scientist in the field of external facts; he, too, explains the lack of eyes in animals living in dark caves by previous experiences, and he presupposes that present-day experiences will have their effects in future formations of races and species.

[ 29 ] Only he has an inner right to speak of evolution in the domain of outer nature who acknowledges this evolution also in the sphere of soul and spirit. Now, it is clear that this acknowledgment, this extension of knowledge of nature beyond nature is more than mere cognition. For it transforms cognition into life; it does not merely enrich man's knowledge, it provides him with the strength for his life's journey. It shows him whence he comes and whither he goes. And it will show him this whence and whither beyond birth and death if he steadfastly follows the direction which this knowledge indicates. He knows that everything he does is a link in the stream which flows from eternity to eternity. The point of view from which he regulates his life becomes higher and higher. The man who has not attained to this state of mind appears as though enveloped in a dense fog, for he has no idea of his true being, of his origin and goal. He follows the impulses of his nature, without any insight into these impulses. He must confess that he might follow quite different impulses, were he to illuminate his path with the light of knowledge. Under the influence of such an attitude of soul, the sense of responsibility in regard to life grows constantly. If the human being does not develop this sense of responsibility in himself, he denies, in a higher sense, his humanness. Knowledge lacking the aim to ennoble the human being is merely the satisfying of a higher curiosity. To raise knowledge to the comprehension of the spiritual, in order that it may become the strength of the whole life, is, in a higher sense, duty. Thus it is the duty of every human being to seek the understanding for the Whence and Whither of the Soul.

• 1. It is necessary to make this statement, for today superficial readers are numerous, and they are always ready to read all manner of nonsense into the expositions of a thinker, even though the latter takes great pains to express himself precisely. For that reason I should like to add here quite especially that it would never occur to me to fight those who, resting upon scientific premises, follow up the problem of “spontaneous generation.” But even though it may be a fact that somehow mere “lifeless” substances do unite to form living albumin, this does not prove that, rightly understood, Redi's conception is wrong.
• e1. While research has been undertaken in the “field of the soul” by modern psychologists, the only difficulty is that modern psychology denies the existence of the soul apart from the physical body. (Editor.)
• 2. The adherents of Wundt must feel disagreeably affected by my speaking of “soul” in such outmoded fashion, while they swear by the words of their master who just recently has proclaimed that we ought not to speak of “soul” since, after the “mythologizing of phenomena has evaporated into the transcendental,” nothing has remained of this “super-real” soul substance but an “interrelated occurrence.” Well, Wundt's wisdom resembles the assertion that we must not speak of “lily” because we are merely concerned with color, form, the process of growth, and so forth. (Wundt, Naturwissenschaft und Psychologie, Natural Science and Psychology.)
• 3. There may be many people today who wish to inform themselves quickly about the teachings of spiritual science. They will find it very bothersome if we first present to them explicitly the natural-scientific facts in a light that will make them serve as the basis upon which an anthroposophical view may be erected. They say: we wish to hear something about spiritual science, but you give us natural-scientific facts which every educated person knows. This is an objection which shows very clearly how little our contemporaries are inclined to think seriously. In reality, those who make the above statement know nothing at all about the far-reaching consequences of their knowledge. The astronomer knows nothing about the consequences of astronomy, the chemist nothing about those of chemistry, and so forth. There is no salvation for them but to be modest and to listen quietly when they are shown that, because of the superficiality of their thinking, they know nothing at all about that which in their conceit they believe they have completely exhausted.—And even anthroposophists often believe that it is unnecessary to prove the convictions of karma and reincarnation by means of the findings of natural science. They do not know that this is the task of the human groups to which the inhabitants of Europe and America belong; and that without this basis the members of these groups cannot truly attain to spiritual-scientific insight. Whoever wishes merely to repeat what he hears from the great Teachers of the East, cannot become an anthroposophist within the European-American culture.
• 5. The writer of this essay cannot be charged with failure to acknowledge the great merits of our modern believers for the very reason that he himself, in his book Die Raetsel der Philosophie (Riddles of Philosophy), has presented these merits in connection with the spiritual evolution of their epoch, fully appreciating and acknowledging their value.

Anyone who regards spiritual science, as it is meant here and as I have been allowed to present it here for years, as something that is very far removed from ordinary human nature, in the ordinary life of man, something strangely remote, alien, and, as it were, otherworldly; who sees in spiritual research something that can only be acquired through special, extraordinary gifts, not accessible to ordinary human nature. In contrast to this, it has been emphasized time and again: spiritual science wants to be nothing more than the genuine continuation of the natural scientific world view for the spiritual realm, insofar as this has found its methods in more recent times, which, in relation to the research of material, external sensory phenomena, has led to previously unimagined results and successes. The difficulty in understanding the whole attitude and intention of spiritual science lies in the fact that, from the point of view of the present-day world-view attitude, it is difficult for man to realize that this spiritual science basically wants nothing more than to inner human thought and other soul experiences in a similar way, through purely inward processes, as certain external manipulations, certain external actions are refined and developed in the scientific experiment. Just as the scientific experiment, through which nature is to be coaxed into revealing its secrets, is basically nothing more than a refinement, in a certain sense an elevation, if I may use the word, of activities that are otherwise also carried out with external material things, which are only carried out in a certain, let us say, methodical sense, so that through their combination nature reveals its secrets to the human soul. Just as the scientific experiment is nothing more than a continuation, so to speak, of the external activity of man, so too is spiritual scientific research nothing more than a continuation, let us say, a refinement of what the human soul accomplishes in the ordinary course of life and in ordinary science in terms of thinking and other soul activities. The first difficulty is that the path from one to the other is not always sought in the way I indicated here eight days ago.

The other difficulty is that, when it comes to the results of natural science, people accept much more than they realize, and what is presented to them, if they find it plausible according to their common sense, even if they do not apply the methods themselves and cannot carry out the experiments in the laboratory or in the clinic. There is no desire to seek everything out directly, but to accept with common sense what the researcher has to give, who has familiarized himself with the methods. In relation to spiritual science, the researcher has no choice but to follow the same procedure as in natural science. He gives of himself in the same way, out of the same line of thought, that which he now researches so objectively through intimate inner soul processes, as the secrets of nature are researched through experiments. And he also counts on the fact that approval will come through common sense, which speaks for what the inner experiment, as I expressed myself eight days ago, has to give. Now, however, in the face of the results of spiritual science, in the face of the secrets of the course of development, of the destinies of the human soul, there exists in all men the desire not only to accept the results of research, but also to more or less investigate for themselves that which they are supposed to consider correct in this field. The paths that the soul can take in every human being, and which are indicated, for example, in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, do indeed offer every human soul the opportunity to convince itself and to verify within itself what the spiritual researcher has to say, by experiencing these intimate, inner processes in the soul. But these paths must be taken. And although many people repeatedly take this path, the subjective difficulty arises for the human soul that these paths are not easy, but are found to be difficult by the human soul, so that it loses patience after the first steps, or at least does not have the inclination to take them with the same conscientiousness with which the natural scientist prepares an experiment. And in all this a certain faith speaks in the human soul, a faith that is a prejudice compared to real spiritual research; but in human life it is prejudices that decide in most cases. Faith arises that the human soul, just as it is, if it only reflects a little, if it only develops a little those habits of thought, experiences and lives out those mental processes that are so immediately given in life, then it must come to realize what the secrets of inner human nature are. One has the feeling that it should not be difficult to recognize the most mysterious thing in the world, in the outer world, the human being himself, in his essence. One has this feeling that it should not be difficult. In order to recognize the inner workings of a piece of clockwork, one allows oneself to study the things. In the face of the most complicated, the most mysterious thing in the world of the senses that surrounds us, human nature, one would really like to believe that everyone can recognize the full truth about the nature of man without first preparing for a certain point of view, without first going through an inner journey of the soul in order to recognize one's own nature. One might think that it would be quite good, comfortable, perhaps even beautiful, if it were so, if one needed no preparation at all to explore the human being. But in contrast to this, one can only say: It is just not so, but to explore the human being in his innermost nature, the paths of spiritual research are needed. That is a truth. And whether or how the human being comes to terms with it is not considered in the face of this truth. Man must first acquire the means through a preparatory path, through which he can reveal his own secret.

And yet, the starting points are by no means a secret. The lecture eight days ago was already able to show this, and today I would like to return to the fundamentals with a few words. Every human being thinks in life, develops his thinking further, when he dedicates it to scientific use. Thinking and imagining is an everyday inner activity of the soul. The only thing that matters now is to face this thinking in such a way as one does not face it in ordinary life and in ordinary science, in order to explore the ways of the spiritual. In ordinary life and in ordinary science, people form images, concepts and ideas in order to use them to depict something external. And he is satisfied when he forms something external in his ideas. He rightly calls this the truth for ordinary life and for ordinary science, that he can form ideas that depict an external reality for him, visualize it inwardly, and allow him to relive it inwardly. Now it has been pointed out that where this ordinary thinking of everyday life and also the thinking of ordinary science ends, only that which is necessary for the exploration of the spiritual life of man begins. That is to say, the thinking, the same thinking that is used in everyday life, has to be experienced inwardly and strengthened inwardly in a different way than it is experienced and strengthened in ordinary life and within ordinary science. As I have indicated, it is strengthened by that inner process which, so to speak – the word should not be misunderstood – represents the inner, intimate, purely mental experiment, which at least initiates it through the process that one calls real meditation – if it did not sound pedantic, one could say 'in the technical sense of the word'. In this case, thinking is done in order to strengthen thinking inwardly, to experience the process of thinking. We do not usually experience it. We believe we experience it in ordinary life or in ordinary science. We do not experience it there. We have it, we handle it, we apply this thinking; but the soul is directed towards the outside world, towards something real besides thinking. The point is to be able to pay attention to thinking itself. But to do that, it must be intensified. That is to say, it must be driven in the way it is driven in the sense of meditation, in that one sets thinking in motion, not in order to visualize something external, not to revive something external inwardly, to depict it, but to experience inwardly only this process, this process of thinking, and to look at it in the experience. That is what matters. And for this it is necessary not to abandon oneself to the soul processes of ordinary life, but through inner arbitrariness, out of complete free will (I am here giving the fundamental principles; the details can be found in my book, How to Know Higher Worlds) — easily comprehensible images are introduced into the thinking, images that can be relied upon not to conjure up all manner of inner reminiscences and obscure the clear experience of the process; ideally symbolic images that are not intended to represent anything external, that are not meant to serve to visualize something external but only to set thinking in motion and in motion and thereby to strengthen inwardly, so that one does not merely practice this thinking but experiences it inwardly, that one now really experiences oneself as an inward thinker, just as one otherwise experiences oneself inwardly in one's muscle feeling.

If one pursues the development of the soul in this way on one side, one arrives, as I have described, at a certain point that represents a significant, even a shattering inner experience. And I will once again characterize how this experience makes one relate to human nature in a completely different way than one usually does in life. It is completely in agreement with the scientific way of thinking, even taking it to its furthest conclusions, and with the spiritual-scientific view. Within the ordinary thinking that one does as a person embodied in the sense world, one needs an organ for this thinking. And not only that, but every time we think, there must first take place an inner process that cannot be incorporated into thinking, or even into consciousness, but must precede it. Thinking can only take place when it has been prepared internally, by the organs. So that every time one thinks, two things happen: a process of which one is unaware, which first prepares the organism, the outer body, so that those processes take place which then come to consciousness as a thought, as an idea. By meditating, by concentrating all the powers of the soul on a particular idea, as it were, by concentrating them, holding them in the thought, not allowing the flow of thought to flow as it does in ordinary life, but holding the thought in, that is, stopping the thought, and now thinking not to depict something external, but to sense one's inner thinking, to sense the process of thinking — by accomplishing this, one notices inwardly: what one has actually done so far as thinking, how one has engaged in thinking, that ceases. One does not emerge from a clear conception of consciousness, one does not enter into a nebulous state; but this thinking, which is carried forward in its flow by the process of the outer world, ceases as such. One enters into an inner experience that initially brings one much more together with oneself, that leads one into the process that is pre-thought, that first prepares our body so that we can unfold thinking. You come down below the thinking. This cannot be proved in any other way than by direct experience. The thinking that one has in ordinary life seems like a river flowing towards the sea. Now you know: now you are in a deeper layer of being, now you are in the process that you cannot experience in ordinary life because it must precede thinking.

This process, however, if it is continued with patience, persistence and energy, as indicated eight days ago, leads far; it takes less time for some people, for some people years, although the individual exercise should not be exaggerated. This inner experience leads to experiencing what lies in thinking, not just thinking about it. This means experiencing thinking not as it reflects something external, but as it is formed within the human being, how it first takes hold of the organism and is shaped within the human being. At first, one does not know what this inner experience actually means. One feels, so to speak, as if one were coming down from the ordinary soul life at this or that point into a world that one has not known before. But then one first becomes acquainted with the significant result of what lies as a living force in thinking and what preceded the formation of our physical body, and preceded above all everything in human experience that one remembers back to in later life, all the way to birth, to conception and further back. That is to say, one learns to recognize oneself as a spiritual being who does not live in us in order to use the organism as an organ for perceiving the external world, but as a spiritual being who, before our birth, or, let us say, before conception, shaped that which, from the human spirit, from the human soul, must be shaped on the human body. One learns experientially to recognize what is formed from that trinity, which results from father and mother, but also from what lies beyond the line of inheritance and comes down from the spiritual world to connect with what is given through the line of inheritance. For this, it is only necessary to deepen the process of thinking, to inwardly strengthen the process of thinking. One can be led — of course not by ordinary thinking — to the intuition — for it must be an intuition — of that which has preceded our birth or our conception, which comes down from the spiritual world to connect with the physical body, which is given by the current of inheritance, in the physical world. Anyone who demands proof of this would first have to familiarize themselves with the nature of all ordinary proof. Facts cannot be proved at all. Just imagine that no one had ever seen a whale. No one would ever be able to prove from any zoological knowledge that a whale exists. There is no way to lead from any concepts and ideas to reality if the process of concepts and ideas is meant to be as it happens in ordinary life. And so, on the one hand, it leads us out of the world in which we live between birth and death and into the world from which we came when we entered our physical embodiment and into which we pass when we go through the gate of “death.” Thus the path that leads out of this sensual world into the spiritual world on the one hand, leads through a special inner development, a special inner handling of thought. And here it must be said that although spiritual science in its whole attitude, in its whole position to the world, really works out of the spirit of the natural-scientific attitude, there still arises that difference from ordinary natural science, which is conditioned by the fact that natural science is directed towards the outer world and that spiritual science wants to do the same for the world of the spirit that natural science wants to do for the outer world. In spite of the complete harmony, a difference – not an opposition, but a difference – emerges, which could be characterized from many sides, but for our purposes today it can be characterized in the following way: For ordinary life and ordinary science, what we accomplish in thinking is the final result, that which we want to arrive at. By working in thought in outer reality, we arrive precisely at that which we want from outer reality. All the activities that we apply to the knowledge of the outer world and of life in this outer world, insofar as they are soul activities, are only preparation for the spiritual-scientific path. In outer science, in the outer world, one thinks in order to arrive at the result of thinking. But this thinking, as practised in the outer world, only prepares the soul so that, through this thinking, the soul comes to a point of inner experience where it encounters the spiritual world. So everything that outer life can give us in terms of thinking, thinking power and the results of outer science is used differently in spiritual science than in ordinary life and ordinary science. It is used in such a way that it only forms the thinking, the thinking side of the human spirit and soul to a certain point. What is the result in ordinary life, in ordinary science, is a living preparation for spiritual science. And what then emerges as fact, as I have just described in the most elementary way, does not come during the effort. The inner effort is only to lead the soul to a certain point. There one still remains basically in the area of ordinary life, as long as one makes an inner effort, as long as one is in meditation. Only then, when one has just carried out the effort, when one has now let it have an effect on the soul and then again suppresses and quietly waits, the spiritual scientific results come. They can only appear as spiritual facts, for the vision of which one has prepared oneself by creating the inner spiritual eye. Just as nature produces the eye in the human organism, so that it may look out upon the outer world and receive light and colors, so man, through all his thinking and all the inner efforts of his soul, works toward meeting that which is to and must come to him from the other side. Inner revelation, inner approach to the soul must be what confronts one as a fact of the spiritual world. That is one side.

On the other hand, one can say that it is just as intimate an inner experience of the will as that which I have described was an inner experience of thinking. In ordinary life, one performs actions that arise from impulses of will, from wishes and desires. But one does not pay attention to the fact that there is something special in this will. That there is something special in the will of man comes to one when one withdraws from life, even if only for minutes, in meditation, and looks at how one has willed; when one inwardly directs the soul not to a willing that passes into the outer action, but to an inward beholding of the willing. Incidentally, anyone who performs their thought meditation in the right way will automatically come to this inner contemplation of the will. For meditation, in so far as it is also just a placing-in-the-middle-of-consciousness of a thought, is at the same time an intimate summoning of an inner volitional process. One experiences the volition in such a way that one is inwardly together with it. Through the intensification, through the strengthening of that which has already been called meditation for the previous soul experience, it follows quite naturally that one learns to direct one's attention to the inner process of willing in such a way as one never directs it when the willing simply passes over into outer action, because there one directs one's attention to what one wills in the outer sense world. But one must direct one's attention to a volitional process, insofar as the essence of this volitional process takes place within the soul. It must again be a very intimate process. And it is precisely this volition that one recognizes best of all in the meditation process itself, if one really experiences the meditation process only inwardly. And then it turns out that by doing this again and again with inner perseverance and energy, one finally comes to a point where one discovers an inner observer within oneself. It is difficult to express this, because it is so far removed from ordinary thought habits that it seems as if one is speaking of something terribly fantastic, whereas one is speaking of a reality that one really comes upon. Thus one discovers an inner man in oneself, who continually looks at what is going on in our volitions, in our whole volition, an observer of whom one is unaware in ordinary life because one does not direct one's attention to him. Not a thought, but a real being is constantly watching us and is in our will. Just as we relate to the things of external perception with our thoughts, so something in us relates to our will. What color and sound are for the senses and for the consciousness that perceives the external world, that is our will for an inner observer. There is an inner observer in us, for whom we provide the material for observation in our decisions of will and in our executions of will, just as colors and sounds provide the material for observation for us in the outer world.

It is difficult to talk about these things because one believes one is talking about something imagined, whereas one is talking about something that, when the soul has prepared itself, comes to meet it again. This higher consciousness is now such that one really goes through the most harrowing experience in the soul: one comes out of everything in which one is connected with the ordinary life of the soul, as if by an inner leap, and is able to put oneself in the place of this observer, even if only for a moment, I would say. There are enough of these moments. One feels towards one's whole human being, as he stands in ordinary life, now in the same way as one usually feels with this ordinary human being towards the things, the colored and sounding things of outer nature. If one carries this experience further, then at a certain point in one's inner experience one realizes what it means to unfold inner soul activity that does not make use of the bodily organ, but stands face to face with this outer physicality as the ordinary person stands with the table or the chair or any other external object. To experience one's soul life outside of the body, that is what one can experience. And then one knows what life looks like when one passes through the gate of death, when one lives free of the body, even when the physical body is destroyed. It is an inwardly vibrant soul life that then passes over into the spiritual world in order to live through the spiritual world and to take the forces from the spiritual world from now on. One gets to know these forces in their uniqueness, which are gradually the preparation for the soul being to descend to a new earthly embodiment after passing through the life between death and new birth.

Starting from what is present in the will of man, from what is present in thinking, in imagining, thus starting from the ordinary man, one arrives at the results of spiritual science. And these results of spiritual science are not something that the spiritual researcher has for himself. It is the greatest error to believe that the spiritual researcher creates anything new in the soul in relation to what is already there. Truly, just as little as the natural scientist creates anything when he studies nature, but only listens to its secrets, so the spiritual scientist creates nothing in relation to the inner life of the soul. He can only approach what is prenatal, what lives on after death, what the eternal powers of the human soul are, what the human spirit and human soul are.

Here again, I would say, a half or sometimes even completely selfish prejudice interferes with what the spiritual researcher actually wants to say. People say: the spiritual researcher can do something that other people cannot – and then they transfer this to his human value, they transfer this to his significance as a human being. But he has nothing in him that is different from what every ordinary person has in him. Because what he discovers as prenatal is always in human nature, and it does not become different for him just because he acquires knowledge of it. What goes out through the gate of death is present in the spiritual researcher as it is present in every human being. And the knowledge that the spiritual researcher acquires is no more real to the soul and spiritual existence of man than the knowledge of natural science is to the external world of nature. It would even be good if in literature dealing with such subjects certain words were not taken so literally that one inwardly, so to speak, scatters incense, as it were, and inwardly experiences something very special in one's feelings. Often, someone who can see into the spiritual world is called an initiate. But when the word 'initiate' is spoken, it is associated with something as if one were now dealing with a very special person. This should be avoided, but one should take things as they are to be taken in accordance with the descriptions just given. And the spiritual researcher himself is convinced: only the prejudices mentioned at the beginning prevent his results from being accepted just as they are by common sense, as the results of the chemist, the physicist and so on are accepted. For in principle there is no difference.

By developing thinking in the way it has been described, one comes to enter the spiritual world on one side. One encounters the prenatal life, the life of the human soul in the spiritual world, and from there one has a view of the spiritual world itself with its spiritual beings. This comes to one in such a way that one has a vivid picture of it. But one must realize that this vision differs from the perceptions, the sensations, the feelings one has in relation to the external sense world. Anyone who thinks that this beholding can be achieved by him in such a way that it is, as it were, only a foggy repetition of the beholding of the sense world, is completely mistaken. On the contrary, one must be clear about the fact that everything that makes the sense world just that is due to the fact that we behold it with our organs. Such colors as are in the outer sense world can only be perceived by an eye, such tones as are in the outer world can only be heard by a sense-perceptive ear. Nevertheless, one can speak of beholding, of spiritual beholding. One can speak of a soul eye, of a spirit eye, when one approaches the spiritual world from this side, to use Goethe's words, 'spirit eye'. The only difference between this kind of beholding and other forms of seeing is that in true clairvoyance one is always aware that one is evoking the vision oneself. Just as one is aware when writing that one is presenting as reality that which one has seen. But in this self-evocation, one follows an inner reality, a spiritual reality, just as one does not scribble something arbitrary when writing, but expresses an inner reality, albeit an inner reality that belongs to the outer world. This much more active, ever-present inner cooperation with the act of observation is precisely what distinguishes this – I now say: true – inner clairvoyance from the external sense perception that is given to us passively, that approaches us when we hold out the eye to it. But we also only acquire this ability to trace the spiritual world in a spiritual way when we have prepared ourselves so that the spiritual world comes to meet us as a result. Out of this experience the soul then draws the vision, and it has the need to do so because it corresponds to an inner urge to have that which otherwise lives and weaves as an experience, but is not yet reality, as a real picture before it.

And if you go to the other side, if you leave the world of the senses through the will, as has been described, and come to the inner observer who really accompanies you, but who is not observed because attention is withdrawn from him in ordinary life, then one feels: There is always someone within you who is watching you, who in turn expresses what you want, where you direct your intentions, what belongs to your sphere of desire, of will. But this watching now presents itself in such a way that one feels inwardly complicit with this spectator, this higher human being in the human being, this spiritual human being in the physical human being. One feels how he participates, how his doing is in everything, in everything. I called this inner participation an observer because it helps one to understand him; but he is not an observer in the sense of watching, but in the sense of participating. We feel the human being who passes through the gate of death even now in our body, if we bring ourselves to make him active in us in this way. But then we must call this inner activity, if we have called the other “clairvoyance”, “clairaudience”. “Mental ears”, to use a word from Goethe again, arise in the depths of the soul. One lives, so to speak, in a world of audible, spiritual vibrations, which one knows corresponds to inner reality. One knows that one is directly spiritual essence and can now enter into the “company” — to use this trivial word — of the other spirit beings that are in the spiritual world.

Now, however, when the terms “clairaudience” and “clairvoyance” are used, it must always be pointed out that it is precisely on this point that weighty and, I must even say, justified objections and misunderstandings arise against spiritual science. For with good reason — and I ask you to note that I say with good reason — the words “clairvoyance”, “clairaudience” and so on are widely disregarded and regarded as something that, in any case, does not can lead to a better knowledge of reality than ordinary thinking and imagining, but which, on the contrary, must lead away into all kinds of fantasies, all kinds of daydreams, yes, into a morbid way of thinking that is precisely the opposite of true reality. But here too, spiritual science not only stands on the same ground as natural science, but on the contrary: true spiritual science draws precisely the very utmost conclusions. And what has been characterized here in this context, and for which the words “clairvoyance” and “clairaudience” have been used, which are simply there, has absolutely nothing to do with what is often called that in ordinary life; I would now like to illustrate how this has nothing to do with it, perhaps in a far-fetched way.

By applying our thinking in ordinary life, practicing, practicing, we use our body for our thinking. How much of our body is not needed now. As I said, we will not consider the extent to which the nervous system is the organ of thinking. Now, in the lecture I gave eight days ago, I pointed out that ordinary thinking is connected with the fact that, from the moment we are able to think in life, a process of decomposition actually takes place in us, a process of decomposition in relation to subtle life processes. This is shown by spiritual science. I can only mention this today. I spoke about it in more detail last time, in the lecture eight days ago, but it will be explained in more detail in the following lectures.

Up to the point that one remembers back in life, a process takes place in the human being, and that is first in the prenatal period, before conception, in the purely spiritual world. A process takes place that aims at activities that, so to speak, build up the organism, that lie in the direction of the organism's life. Up to the point in life that we remember, this inner activity of strength, which is the not yet thinking thinking being, thinking power, ceases to build up the human being. From this moment on, it breaks down in man, actually perpetually carrying out destructive processes, which then add up and finally bring about the external physical death of man, which take the body of man away from his soul and his spirit. So that when we examine thinking from a spiritual scientific point of view, we find it bound to a process of disintegration, to a process that, when thinking proceeds as it does in ordinary life, breaks down. The breakdown must then always be replaced by thinking standing still in sleep. But the breakdown process is stronger, more intense, and ultimately slowly causes death, insofar as it is connected with those processes of the organism that are anchored in the organism of thinking. Of course, death is also connected with other processes. Thus, by developing this ordinary everyday thinking, we depend on our organization in such a way that this thinking is actually connected with a destruction of the organism. So what brings us death in the organism is connected with that which is the highest flowering of human inner experience for this world between birth and death.

This is an activity that must now be increased in the process, in the inner soul-searching that has been mentioned. Thinking through meditation and also the development of the will through meditation lead the human being to become independent of his body, to lift himself out of his body and carry out a special soul activity in which he maintains himself knowledgeably outside of his body and independently of his body. The “outside” is not meant so much in a spatial sense as in the sense that the person knows himself to be independent of the physical activity of his body. In the case of what in ordinary life is called clairvoyance, clairaudience and so on, which can intensify to the point of hallucination and illusion, there is now the disastrous superstition that one can thereby gain insights into the world that lie beyond birth and death. But through what is called clairvoyance or clairaudience in ordinary life, one cannot get to any processes or events in the spiritual world that lies beyond birth and death. For ordinary, everyday thinking, we have to destroy something that is a totality in our body, so to speak, and we have to destroy it to the extent that it lies in what we might call normal life activity. We place ourselves with our whole being in the environment and let it degrade by practicing and executing the thinking. In what is usually called clairvoyance or clairaudience, the whole human being is not confronted with the world, but only a part of the world is confronted in a morbid way, so that the human being does not go beyond thinking, but down; not rising into the supersensible, but moving down into the subsensible. Because he seizes less of his organ in this ordinary clairvoyance than in ordinary thinking, in this ordinary clairvoyance, thus because he seizes only a part of his organism, he comes to hallucinations, to illusions, which certainly also point to a reality, but to one that is less real than our ordinary sense reality, which we experience between birth and death. This ordinary clairvoyant with his supersensible clairvoyance, which must either be understood as something that must go below ordinary reality or else be misunderstood and lead to dreaming and fantasizing, to a morbid worldview, this supersensible clairvoyance is based on the fact that one sees less of the world than one perceives through the ordinary conception of the sensory world. One also leaves the world, so to speak, but in a morbid way; one limits oneself to something that lies below the reality of ordinary experience. And this hallucinatory, illusionary clairvoyance is more closely connected to physicality, and now to morbid physicality, than ordinary thinking, feeling and willing.

Therefore, spiritual science takes the view that it is precisely with true clairvoyance, true clairaudience, that all these morbid forces that can lead people to supersensible vision are overcome. What the genuine spiritual researcher develops is not the same as what the morbid person develops when he becomes clairvoyant and has hallucinations, as it is called in ordinary life. It is precisely what overcomes the powers of hallucination in man, what eradicates all powers of hallucination in man, what kills in man all that leads to illusions. One comes to spiritual reality precisely by moving away from that morbid immersion in the lower-sensual, which in ordinary life is called clairvoyance or clairaudience. Therefore, what has been described here, which consists precisely in not diving deeper into one's own organism as in ordinary clairvoyance, but rising above it, becoming independent of it, and thereby seeing and hearing in the spiritual world, is a clairvoyance that, in contrast to ordinary clairvoyance, is an absolutely healing process. It can only be healing, can only lead to an intensification of all illusion-free human experience compared to the experience as it exists in the ordinary world of the senses. While the hallucinator, the illusioner, the one who is often called a clairvoyant in ordinary life, is a fantasist because he goes down into the subsensory, in the one who develops true clairvoyance and true clear hearing , it is only that his healthy view of life is so heightened that there is much less possibility of his being under illusion than in the case of one who merely enters the world with his five senses and his common sense.

This is the source of endless misunderstandings, because time and again what has been described as true clairvoyance is confused with what in trivial life is so often called clairvoyance, clairaudience and so on, but which is due to some defect in the physical organism. One can have such a defect or cause it oneself through all kinds of unnaturalness, in so far as it is also easier and more convenient to achieve what one confuses with what can be achieved through a further development of healthy human perception. It must be expressly emphasized that overcoming the sub-sensible behavior of the soul is precisely what is achieved in the very best way - much healthier than through common sense - precisely through true clairvoyance and true clairaudience.

Thus one can say: spiritual science is an exploration. It is not correct to speak of a further development of the soul, for it is an exploration of the deeper forces that lie in the human soul and in the human spirit, to which one does not direct one's gaze because one has not developed the spiritual ear and spiritual eye, the organ for it, and does not direct one's gaze towards it in ordinary life. It is a seeking out of the eternal forces of the human soul. And if one holds fast to this, then one comes to say the following, which, when expressed in this way, may be surprising, but which is a matter of course for anyone who sees through the actual facts. On the surface, spiritual science, that is, the real knowledge of the human soul and the human spirit, is still something that is regarded by the majority of humanity as a fantasy, as a reverie, as something nonsensical, to which just a few people can devote themselves, who have actually lost their common sense through something. Seen inwardly, seen in accordance with the truth, the spiritual researcher actually has no opponent in the world. And the strange thing about it is that the spiritual researcher asserts nothing other than something that, basically, every person agrees with – with the very slightest exceptions, which in turn are based on particularly peculiar states of mind. With a few exceptions, every person must actually agree with him – they just don't know it, they just believe that they cannot agree with him. That is it! Because anyone who is just aware that they go through the world thinking cannot in reality be more opposed to the spiritual researcher. Because everyone who goes through the world thinking shows that thinking means something in the world; he thereby admits that thinking is a process that takes place above the world of the senses. By thinking, we inwardly experience something that takes place above the world of the senses, that does not belong to the world of the senses, one could perhaps also say that it takes place below the world of the senses. One admits this in the moment when one thinks precisely. One simply does not admit it, and by doing so one is an opponent of spiritual science. One admits it in the moment when one realizes that thinking, even in ordinary life, could not develop an image of the external world if it were in this external world, in the sense world. For if thinking belonged to the sense world, it could no more make an image of the sense world than a flame can make an image of a candle. It is the product of the candle, but the product can never make an image. So anyone who, in this sense, wants to be an opponent of the spirituality of thinking would have to be an opponent of spirituality in general. Because thinking is in itself something above the world of the senses, because it is evoked through inner effort, through an inner soul activity, therefore not just through processes, which take place like the other bodily processes. That simply arises from the fact that one lets this thinking judge about the world of the senses. And by admitting that thinking does not arise out of the sense world, but that it judges the sense world, one already takes the standpoint that thinking as such does not belong to the sense world, that it is something spiritual. If one wanted to take the standpoint that it is not something spiritual, that it arises out of the sense world, then one would have to organize one's opposition quite differently. And only he who says, 'I do not believe that this thinking has any significance beyond the sense world, so I stop thinking,' can truly be an opponent of the spirituality of thinking. I do not inwardly strengthen myself to any thought, but I abandon myself to the sense world; then thinking must come by itself. Anyone who does not abolish thinking can never be an opponent of the spirituality of thinking, if he only really thinks correctly; if he only 'goes' with his thinking to the appropriate conclusions. In fact, in practice, all those who think are of this opinion. For any other opinion is not an opposition to spiritual science, but an opposition to oneself. One asserts something different from what one practices in practice. Anyone who exercises thinking at all thereby acknowledges that thinking is spiritual.

Spiritual science now accomplishes nothing other than to lift this thinking out of abstraction, out of imagery, out of the fact that it merely means something, and that the spiritual researcher thus lives into the process of thinking that thinking becomes an experience for him. And one becomes immersed in this same experience that one otherwise has in thinking, but to which one just does not pay attention, so that one does not realize that it is an experience. At the moment when one no longer takes thinking as in ordinary life, where it means something, depicts something, but takes it as one otherwise lives physically in the body, experiences the process of life - in that moment the spiritual world, spiritual entities, the truly spiritual world, creeps into the experienced thinking, and the other is a self-evident progression.

The spiritual researcher therefore needs to refer to nothing but what every person who practices thinking actually admits. For in what he admits, in the training of thought, the spiritual world is found. In thinking, man is already clairvoyantly immersed in the spiritual world, except that instead of living thinking, he receives thinking that is merely a reflection. Therefore, I can again express the comparison that has already been described many times. When one stands before a mirror image, one experiences oneself inwardly, but one experiences oneself in such a way that the mirror provides the image. Everything is in the mirror, except that it provides the dead image that is not experienced. It is as if one could conjure away the mirror image and now experience the whole pictorially within oneself. This is how it is when, in thinking, one departs from one's pictorial nature, which really relates to the experienced thinking like the reflection, and passes over to the experience of thinking itself. As I said, the spiritual worlds creep into thinking. The I, the deeper I, the spectator living within us, creeps into the inwardly formed world of the will in the manner described.

Again, every person who understands himself is basically a follower of spiritual science, also with regard to this volition. For anyone who does not admit that there is something in the will that is just as inwardly conscious as we are conscious in our ordinary physical thinking, anyone who does not admit that there is another, inward man within man, comes, through consistent thinking, to have to say to himself: If I deny that there is something going on in me that relates to me as my view relates to external nature, if I believe that the mere physical organism carries out my will, then I must draw the logical conclusion: then I no longer have to inwardly summon up a will; then I must no longer believe that I can take a step in life through an inwardly but must lie down and wait until my organism walks around in the world and does what I then need only watch. He, then, who does not so deny the volition that he lies down on the sofa and says: I deny the volition, it is anchored in the physical organism, — he believes in this inner spectator. And the next step is only a further development of this conviction, attained directly through true, healthy, inner contemplation, that this spectator is there. Hence the spiritual researcher comes to the realization: I do not really have opponents in reality. People are only ever opponents of themselves. In theory, through their misunderstood concepts, they do not admit what they admit in practice by living. The spiritual researcher simply expresses what lies in every human being's natural world view. And so one will understand more and more that the spiritual researcher expresses nothing other than what people actually unconsciously live as their tangible world view between the lines of life in their ordinary natural life, even if they do not express it out of misunderstanding. This will be understood more and more, especially in the face of spiritual science. Then spiritual science will no longer appear as something strange, but as the self-evident explanation and as the self-evident spiritualization that one needs for life.

And so, as spiritual researchers, we come out of the human nature that stands in ordinary life and is active in ordinary science in two ways. We come out on the side of clairvoyance, in the true sense of the word, as it has been presented; on the other side, in the direction of clairaudience, where one enters into one's own observer, who then lives with other spiritual beings in the spiritual world, which man enters when he has passed through the gate of death. But there one comes into an immediate inner mobility, into an activity; there everything is just as active as everything here is passive.

If we now look at ordinary life, at the ordinary inner experiences of the soul, we must say that these inner experiences of man are such that, without his knowing it, the objects of clairvoyance and clairaudience are continually within him, that these objects are continually active in his ordinary mental life. What enters from the spiritual world remains active in us by going through conception and birth. This is what man, when he notices it, calls more the spiritual in his soul life. But that which passes through the gate of death, which lies in the will, so that it is like an inner spectator, that is what man, when he has it not in connection with the whole macrocosm but in the ordinary experience of the soul, calls more the soul in him. And the spiritual and soul aspects in all their diversity and variety ultimately lead back to these two aspects of human nature. The spirit always lies in what we develop on the side of thinking. One becomes ingenious — if the word may now be used only in a technical sense — without going the paths of the spiritual researcher, which may still remain in the unconscious, by developing one's thinking to ever greater inner mobility, to ever greater inventiveness, so that thoughts flow more abundantly and are more related to what belongs together in the sequence of ideas that one can have. Through this spiritualization, in which that lives which can be found in its true essence through the above-mentioned path of thinking and meditation, through this spiritual life in the human soul, one learns in life – but now practically, not theoretically – that which can be called knowledge of human nature. One learns what guides one to place the human being in the right way into the world. One learns what reveals the connections of the world before one's own soul. One thereby distances oneself in a certain way, by developing the spirit, from what expresses itself as a physical human being. Through the development of one's spiritual self, one approaches that which was primarily active when we entered the world of the senses. In a sense, then, by becoming spiritual, one distances oneself from what is directly experienced in the world of the senses. This is why, by becoming spiritual, one enters into a certain cool atmosphere. But by surveying the wise connections of the world, which reveal themselves to the inner soul, one can go far in this direction. One can gather a lot in the world, feel what the other does not feel, be able to express a lot about world connections, also invent things that are then translated into reality from the world connections. One can go far in this way. The whole process is such that the world, I would say, becomes more luminous, that it becomes transparent to us. It is the process of becoming spiritual, of the spirit rising within the human being like a preliminary stage, like a preliminary stage not yet imbued with true clairvoyance, of entering into the world from which we have come through conception or through birth.

One does not become soulful, but one becomes full of soul. The soul, as it develops, lies in the deepening of inner experience. Those who deepen their soul life do not yet arrive at the clairaudient experience of their inner observer, but this observer works in them in a particularly strong and intense way, so that their inner soul life becomes more real than it would otherwise be. He becomes soulful. As a result, he learns less from life about human nature and about a comprehensive, enlightened view of world affairs and of man's connection to world conditions. But he does become more real in his inner experience. The soul becomes more intense, it is inwardly strengthened. What lives in the will, one might say, vibrates and surges in the will during life, pleasure and suffering, joy and pain, which surge up and down and are basically connected internally with the will nature of the human being – this could be proved strictly psychologically, but there is no time for that – is experienced in a more intense way when the human being grows stronger within himself in this way. Not only what is present in him as pleasure and pain, what inner feelings arise from him, is experienced more intensely, but precisely through this strengthening of the soul, he can extend his pleasure and pain to that which is pleasure and pain, joy and pain, happiness and misery in other beings around him. This is connected with the soul-filled. But this in turn is connected with what passes through the gate of death as the essence of the individual personality, what is taken along through the gate of death by connecting in the way described eight days ago with what is now the spirit and what is achieved through meditation in thinking.

In this way one becomes strong in love by strengthening the soul. One becomes light in spirit by strengthening the spirit. But by strengthening the spirit, one alienates oneself, on the other hand, from the connection with the inner reality of the body, with the reality that places one in the sense world, in the way I have described. Therefore, one must not become hostile to reality in a false way, because otherwise one could very easily become unrealistic with this removal in the direction of the spiritual, with the abandonment of corporeality. One could lose the connection that living thinking has with reality, even if it is not consciously realized, but only unconsciously experienced, as is the case in ordinary life. Then, through a digression of the spirit, one would come to the point where thoughts spin out of one another, but where one no longer lives so intensely in these thoughts that one has the connection with reality. One then enters into a mental process in which one can think, but one loses the connection with reality. One becomes a doubter, a skeptic. And if this increases to a certain degree, one can go through all the torments of skepticism, one can only consider what takes place in thinking as sophistry. One becomes a skeptic who does not draw his spiritual nourishment from the source of reality.

And by straying, as it were, to the other side, to that process which strengthens the will internally, which expands the circle of the internal experience of pleasure and suffering, joy and pain beyond that which is within oneself, it may be that this inner self-nature is still so strong that it does not let go of that which is strengthening itself. Then it may be that while the person is indeed living with the environment, his empathy, his co-experiencing with the environment strengthens his selfishness. And it may even be that the compassion, the shared experience, hides behind the mask of selfishness, that the looking at the pain and suffering actually only becomes a shared experience through what it does to oneself, while the real compassion consists in spreading one's own self over what the other is experiencing. Thus it may be, to put it in extreme terms, that the unpleasant, the uncomfortable that pain causes us, is then experienced in a completely selfish way when the inner self does not release the strengthened soul life.

But that is why love is rooted in the strengthened soul life. And the human soul is that which bears the source of love within itself just as that which is spirit bears the source of knowledge of the world within itself. Spirit opens up and reveals to us the light that illuminates the world for us; soul ignites within us that which connects us with every being, with the innermost being of every being, that which allows us to live directly as human beings among other human beings, and that which allows us to live at all among other human beings. Love is the fundamental element of the soul. Light in the spiritual world is the fundamental element of the spirit. Anyone who really wants to go the spiritual research path, even if it is only a short way – for if one goes even a short way one can see for oneself – will see that what the spiritual researcher asserts is true.

Therefore, anyone who follows the path of spiritual research must above all ensure that what he develops as spirit does not lack the foundation of soul life. The spirit can only distance itself from the reality of one's own personality and thus from the grasp of world reality if love does not prevail in the soul. If love reigns in the soul, if the soul is permeated and energized by the element of love, then it is strong enough to hold the spirit, no matter to what heights of light it may rise. And again, if a person does not disdain to seek wisdom in the world, wisdom-filled connections – not wisdom that is identical with cleverness, but humble wisdom that prevails in the world – if he wants to realize this wisdom in himself and not just grasp it with his mind, not merely with abstraction, but allows it to submerge into the loving soul; when everything that is wisdom, light, is warmed through by what arises in the soul, which places man in life as a lover of humanity, and on the other hand, when wisdom, the spirit, makes him a judge of character, then, in turn, this is suitable to lead man away from egoism and to really carry love up into that which he, by adding knowledge to love, can experience as an overview of the world: the spirit that is rooted in the loving soul, warm soul love that allows itself to be illuminated by the spirit, that is an ideal of humanity.

And basically, everyone admits that this is the ideal of humanity, as it has been carried out. The opponents of spiritual science are only there because of misunderstandings. So that one can also say in a particular case: the spiritual scientist is really in complete agreement with what people say, yes, often with what they say against spiritual science. When, for example, Leonard Nelson wrote a very spirited essay in the September issue of the 'Neuer Merkur' about the present-day tasks in relation to philosophy, it seems as if everything that Nelson, who is one of the most brilliant people of the present day, expresses there could be characterized as opposition to spiritual science. The counter-check would be that the spiritual researcher has no need to say no to anything this man says. On the one hand, Leonard Nelson shows how man degenerates when he cultivates only the intellect; how he thereby enters into an abstraction that cannot lead him to any truly life-filled philosophy. In a much more consistent and higher sense, this must be admitted by the spiritual researcher who seeks the agony of skepticism, of doubt, which becomes suffering, when the spirit wants to develop in a one-sided way, without the root of soul love. Nelson only points to thinking and knows nothing about the fact that when this same thinking is experienced, a completely different world creeps into it, a world that is much richer in content than the sensual world and that remains closed to him. One completely agrees with what he positively asserts. He just does not allow himself to agree with himself, he misunderstands himself. Likewise, one can agree with him when he says on the other hand: When man now delves into his own nature, broods within himself, a false mysticism comes to light, man enters into a nebulous inner dreaming. He does not want to be anchored only through thinking; he believes that he is closer to the basis of the world precisely through feeling. In truth, it is only a subjective thing that is achieved there. The spiritual researcher is in complete agreement with what is said in a positive way. But the author of the essay, on the other hand, does not know that one discovers something completely new if one only goes the right way. He does not understand himself and basically only refutes himself by having a different view from the one he, if I may use the paradoxical expression, asserts as a view and practically exercises. What he does is completely in line with spiritual science. Basically, the spiritual researcher is not opposed to what people really mean; and they are only opponents because they misunderstand each other and thus misunderstand him, talk at cross purposes.

This can also be seen when a person, who believes that he must have a different worldview from that of spiritual science, and that precisely because of the certain results of natural science, lets himself go and replaces what he is only deluding himself about with what lives in him in a natural way. Yesterday I spoke about a thinker, and from what I said you will have gathered that I have the highest regard for this thinker. He is the Austrian philosopher Bartholomäus von Carneri. I respect Carneri because he, with such a strong spirit, tried to develop an ethic, a moral teaching, out of Darwinism. But he stands on ground that produces thoughts which naturally oppose what spiritual science says, because he himself does not understand, because he presents things that contradict what he asserts. Let us assume that such a man lets himself go and inwardly lives what he only thinks out in a way that is misleading to himself. Let us assume that such a man comes to a moment when he abandons himself to life and not to his crooked thinking. Let us assume that he would surrender to life in an elementary way and speak from inner strength, the same strength that had led him to his warped thinking. We can observe this in Carneri. Carneri had actually been born a cripple, with a warped spine, had grown up in great agony and had become a very old man. Life was truly agony for him. He could only write with his left hand, his right hand had been completely paralyzed throughout his life, and the same applied to the whole of the right side of his body, which was unusable in certain respects. In addition, there were the constant breathing disorders associated with such an organism. And yet, the man was standing on solid Darwinian ground and at the same time sought to found a world view for ethics that disregards what is misunderstood as dualism. After all, one could also claim that water is only one unit. But water is not a unit because it consists of hydrogen and oxygen. You are not really breaking with tradition when you speak of body, soul and spirit, but Carneri believed that. We can take him at his word.

I will give you an example from real life that may be dismissed as laughable by many who are accustomed to contemporary philosophical thinking. But it really does show how Carneri, the man who conjures up ethics out of materialism, who actually denies the independent powers of the human soul in theory, becomes his own opponent at a moment when he is forced to speak from the depths of his soul, becomes his own opponent and speaks for a moment as if he were the best supporter of a doctrine that recognizes the independence of the mind and soul of man, as I have presented it today. Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, a friend of Carneri, recounts how she once visited him when he had already reached a ripe old age, after he had had another attack that really showed how the discomforts of life can turn it into a torture. She said to him: “How have you been able to bear it all these years, keeping that smile, that kindness and joy of living?” Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, the Austrian poet, not only said it, but she “cried out in agony” when this person found it so difficult to breathe and had an attack of suffocation. Then she continues:

"Slowly he raised his head, which had sunk low on his chest, wiped the sweat from his forehead and cheeks with his trembling left hand, breathed deeply and looked at me with a look that was again all sun and willpower. ‘How –’ he smiled. 'But don't you understand that in my daily struggle with such a beast, I wanted to remain a human being, I had to remain a human being? I –' he smiled again, 'had my ambitions. Should' – he pointed to his still-twitching body – 'should be stronger than me? Should be able to rob me day after day? To make me loathe all the joy and beauty of life? Would I be a man if I did not remain the stronger? So it began and so it will end!.. ."

Marie Eugenie delle Grazie continues: “Outside it was spring. A blossoming apple tree swayed in front of the open bay window. Sucking in the bright, patient eyes of its beauty, Carneri spoke softly: ”How many trees do you think are blooming now, even though the worm is inside and on them? Should I be weaker or more foolish? Even nature, insofar as it does not think, does it like me. And the straight ones. Only one thing matters: how long you can do it. But that is strength. And we have so many words for what strength is. Should I think about which one is the right one?"

And he often did that. But his thinking did not keep pace with that inner attitude which emphasizes the strength of the soul in those moments when he felt that he was the victor over the mere externals of bodily life.

The materialistic view believes that when one has a human being before him as a physical creature, certain processes take place in his body, and these processes result in thinking, feeling and willing. The spiritual researcher does not seek to refute this view. It is precisely the peculiarity of his position that his relationship to the other sciences cannot be one of refutation. Rather, he is in a position to admit that everything is indeed quite correct: that every thought that expresses itself corresponds to a brain process. Something is happening in the brain!

The highest ideal of natural science will be to show what the organic process of thinking is. But what is the relationship between this organic process and thinking? I can only express it comparatively now, but it could be presented in detail. However, it will be understood quite well precisely through a comparison. When a person walks along a road and the road has a somewhat soft surface, so that every step is imprinted, the traces can be seen afterwards. Someone could come and say: Yes, there are certain impressions in the earth – I now investigate the forces in the earth that form these impressions from within the earth, that have caused the path to be formed in such a way. Someone who only looks at the earth and forgets that a person has walked over it might believe that. This is precisely how one proceeds when seeking the causes of thinking in the brain and in the actual processes that take place in it and accompany thinking. Just as the footprints did not come from inside the earth, so too what can be found in the brain does not come from inside the person, but is imprinted in it by the living soul, just like the footsteps in the ground. And just as the one who wants to derive the footsteps from the forces of the earth itself and not from the person who has stepped them in thinks wrongly, so too the one who believes that he can derive from the inner processes of the nervous system what takes place in the brain during the course of thinking under these nervous processes thinks wrongly. These are the traces that this living soul imprints. This living soul is not seen within, but it works and lives within. And it cannot be found through external research, but its paths, its destinies, its life can only be found through those processes that are purely inner soul processes and that have been spoken of today as the paths by which one finds the human soul and human spirit!

In conclusion, I would like to summarize in a few words what I have tried to express as the characteristic of the human spirit, which is effective above all in bringing in forces from the whole world, but not just forces, like the external forces of nature, but forces that are now truly forces of the inner human being and inwardly spiritualize what is given through the stream of inheritance. But it is the soul that lives and expresses itself in the fact that it can be found as an inner spectator, or perhaps better said, as a spiritual listener in the will. Thus soul and spirit permeate the human being. But soul and spirit are also involved in the way the human being relates not only to the temporal but also to the eternal worlds. And from what has been said, it is clear that the spirit leads up to those luminous heights where we can see through the world and see it in its connection with man himself, where the soul strengthens man inwardly, where the soul is the source of what human love is, what human knowledge is. The spirit is something that can be viewed under the symbol of light, but precisely of the inner light. Soul is something that can be viewed under the symbol of inner warmth, which spreads over all of life and expands the circle in which the soul can experience life, with relish and sorrow, painfully and joyfully. So that what the relationship is between the human soul and the human spirit, and again what the human soul and the human spirit together are in the human being, in the entire human being, who consists of the physical, but which is the carrier of the inner inner man, who spiritualizes himself and ensouls the bodily man, and who is the actual eternal in the temporal, — so that this relationship can be expressed by the words with which I want to conclude this reflection:

When man, warm in love,
gives himself to the world as a soul,
When man, light in mind,
acquires the spirit from the world,
In the spirit-illuminated soul,
In the soul-borne spirit,
The spiritual man in the bodily man
will truly reveal himself.

We are transported to Rammenau in Upper Lusatia, a place near Kamenz where Lessing was born. 1769, to be precise. A relatively small house stands by a stream. It is known that the ribbon weaving trade has been hereditary in the family since the time of the Thirty Years' War. The house was not exactly prosperous, but rather quite poor. A stream flows past the little house, and by the stream stands a seven-year-old boy, relatively small, rather stocky for his age, with rosy cheeks and lively eyes that are currently filled with deep sorrow. The boy has just thrown a book into the stream. The book floats away. The father comes out of the house and says something like the following to the boy: Gottlieb, what were you thinking of! You throw into the water something your father bought at great expense to give you great joy! The father was very angry because he had given the book to Gottlieb the other day as a gift, to the boy who until then had learned nothing from books except what one can learn from the Bible and the hymnbook.

What had actually happened? Young Gottlieb had absorbed what he had been given from the Bible and the hymnal with great inner strength, and he was a boy who had studied well at school. His father wanted to give him a treat and one day bought him 'Siegfried and the Horned One' as a present. The boy Gottlieb immersed himself completely in reading 'Siegfried and the Horned One', and as a result he was scolded for his forgetfulness and inattention with regard to everything he had been interested in before, with regard to his schoolwork. This upset the boy. He had grown so fond of his new book, 'Siegfried of the Horns', and took such a deep interest in it. But on the other hand, the thought was vividly present in his mind: 'You have neglected your duty!' Such were the thoughts of the seven-year-old boy. So he went to the stream and threw the book into the water without further ado. He received his punishment because he was able to tell his father the facts and what he had done, but not the real reason for it.

We follow the boy Gottlieb in this age into other life situations. We see him, for example, far from his parents' house, standing outside on a lonely pasture, from four o'clock in the afternoon, gazing into the distance, completely absorbed in the view of the distance that was spread around him. He is still standing there at five, still standing there at six, still standing there when the bells ring for prayer. And the shepherd comes and sees the boy standing there. He pokes him and makes him aware that he should go home with him.

Two years after the event we have just assumed, in 1771, Baron von Miltitz is staying with the landowner in Rammenau. He wanted to come there from his own estate in Oberau on a Sunday to have lunch and to socialize with his neighbors. He also wanted to hear the sermon beforehand. But he arrived too late and was unable to hear the Rammenau preacher, whom he knew to be a decent man. The sermon was already over. He was very sorry about that, and his regret was discussed many times among the guests, the innkeeper and the others gathered. Then they said: Yes, but there is a boy in the village who can perhaps repeat the sermon; they know about this boy. And now nine-year-old Gottlieb was fetched. He came in his blue peasant's smock, they asked him a few questions, and he answered them briefly with yes and no. He felt very little at home in the distinguished company. Then someone suggested that he repeat the sermon he had just heard. He gathered himself together and, with deep inward inspiration and the most heartfelt participation in every word, he repeated the sermon he had heard from beginning to end to his landlord's estate neighbor. And he repeated it so that one had the feeling that everything he said came directly from his own heart; he had absorbed it so completely that it was all his own. With inner fire and warmth, growing ever more fiery and warm, nine-year-old Gottlieb presented the entire sermon.

This nine-year-old Gottlieb was the son of Christian Fichte, the ribbon weaver. The lord of the manor of Miltitz was amazed at what he had experienced in this way, and said that he must ensure the further development of this boy. And the acceptance of such a concern had to be something extraordinarily welcome to the parents because of their meager external circumstances, although they loved their boy dearly. For Gottlieb had many brothers and sisters, and the family had grown quite large. The baron's offer of help was most welcome. The baron was so touched by Gottlieb's story that he wanted to take the nine-year-old boy with him immediately. He took Gottlieb to Oberau near Meissen. But young Gottlieb did not feel at home there at all, in the big house that was so different from what he had been used to in his poor ribbon weaver's cottage. In all the grandeur, he felt utterly unhappy. So he was given to a pastor named Leberecht Krebel in nearby Niederau. And there Gottlieb grew up in a loving environment, with the excellent pastor Leberecht Krebel. He immersed himself in everything that shimmered through the conversations that the brave pastor had with the exceptionally talented boy. And when Gottlieb was thirteen years old, he was accepted at Schulpforta with the support of his benefactor.

Now he was plunged into the strict discipline of Schulpforta. This discipline did not particularly appeal to him. He realized that the way the pupils lived together made it necessary to practice some secrecy and some cunning in their behavior toward the teachers and educators. He was completely dissatisfied with the way older boys were placed there as “senior companions,” as they were called, for the younger boys. Even at that time, Gottlieb had absorbed “Robinson” and many other stories. At first, school life had become unbearable for him. He could not reconcile it with his heart that somewhere where one should grow towards the spiritual world, he felt, there was concealment, cunning, deception. What to do? Well, he decided to go out into the wide world. He set out and just went through. On his way, the thought comes to him, deeply carried by feeling: Have you done right? Are you allowed to do this? Where does he go for advice? He falls to his knees, says a pious prayer and waits until some inner hint is given to him from the spiritual worlds as to what he should do. The inner hint was that he turned back. He turned back voluntarily. It was a great stroke of luck that there was an extraordinarily loving headmaster there, Rector Geisler, who let the young Gottlieb tell him the whole story and who had a deep inner sympathy for Gottlieb; who did not punish him, who even put him in a position that young Gottlieb could now be much more satisfied with himself and his surroundings than he could actually only wish for. And so he was also able to join the most talented teachers.

His aspirations were not easily satisfied. The young Gottlieb, who already longed for the highest at this age, was not actually allowed to read what he had previously heard about by hearsay: Goethe, Wieland, but especially Lessing, were at that time forbidden reading in Schulpforta. But there was a teacher who was able to give him a remarkable reading: Lessing's “Anti-Goeze”, that pamphlet against Goeze, which is supported by inner strength and contains everything that Lessing had to offer as his creed in a high, but free-minded way of thinking, in a free and frank language.

Thus Gottlieb absorbed at a relatively young age what he could from this “Anti-Goeze”. Not only did he appropriate the ideas – that would have been the very least for him – the young Gottlieb also adopted the style, the way of relating to the highest things, the way of finding one's way into a worldview.

And so he grew up in Schulpforta. When he had to write his final examination paper, he chose a literary topic. A strange final paper. It lacked what many young people do: they intersperse their schoolwork with all sorts of philosophical ideas. Nothing of philosophy, nothing of philosophical ideas and concepts was found in this final paper. On the other hand, it was already evident in it that the young man set out to observe people, to look at them into their innermost hearts, and strove for knowledge of human nature. This was particularly evident in this school assignment.

Now, in the meantime, the charitable Baron von Miltitz had died. The generous support that had been offered to the young Gottlieb, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, dried up. Fichte took his school-leaving examination at Schulpforta, went to Jena and had to live there in deepest poverty. He could not participate in any of the student life that was then in Jena. He had to work hard from day to day to earn what he needed for bare survival. And he could only devote a few hours to nourishing his deeply aspiring mind. Jena proved to be too small. Johann Gottlieb Fichte could not support himself there. He thought he would fare better in Leipzig, a larger city. There he tried to prepare for the position that was the ideal of his father and mother, who were devout people: a Saxon parish, a preaching position. He had, I might say, shown himself to be predestined for such a preaching post. He could become so absorbed in the traditions of Scripture that he was repeatedly asked to give short reflections on this or that Bible passage, even in his father's house. He was also asked to do this when he was with the brave pastor Leberecht Krebel. And whenever he was able to spend a short time at home, in the place where his parents' modest house stood, he was allowed to preach there, because the local pastor liked him. And he preached in such a way that what he was able to say was the biblical word in an independent but thoroughly biblical way, as if carried by a holy enthusiasm.

So he wanted to prepare for his rural theological profession in Leipzig. But it was difficult. It was difficult for him to get a teaching position that he thought he could fill. He worked as a tutor and a private teacher. But this life became hard for him. And above all, he was unable to really advance spiritually during this life. He was already twenty-six years old. It was a hard time for him. One day he had nothing left and no prospect of getting anything in the next few days; no prospect that, if things went on like this, he would ever be able to achieve even the most modest profession he had set his mind to. He could only be supported by his parents in the most frugal way; as I said before, it was a family blessed with many children.

Then one day he stood before the abyss, and the question arose like a wild temptation before his soul: No prospect for this life? — He might not have fully realized it, but in the depths of his consciousness, self-chosen death lurked. Then the poet Weisse, who had become a friend of his, came at the right time. He offered him a position as a private tutor in Zurich and made sure that he could actually take up this position in three months. And so, from the fall of 1788, we find our Johann Gottlieb Fichte in Zurich. Let us try to follow him with the gaze of the soul, as he stands in the pulpit of Zurich Cathedral, now completely filled with his own understanding of the Gospel of John, already completely filled with the endeavor to express in his own way that which is expressed in the Bible. So that when one heard his inspiring words resound in the Zurich cathedral, one could believe that someone had stood up who was able to pour the Bible into a completely new word in a completely new way, as if through a new inspiration. Many who heard him in the Zurich cathedral at the time certainly had this impression.

And then we follow him into another phase of his life. He became a tutor in the Ott household, at the “Zum Schwert” inn in Zurich. He only to a small extent submitted to the peculiar prejudiced view that was held of him there. He got on well with his pupils, less well with their parents. And we sense what Fichte is from the following. One day, the mother of the pupils received a strange letter from the tutor. What did this letter say? It said, roughly, that education was a task to which he – he meant himself, Johann Gottlieb Fichte – would gladly submit. And what he knew about the pupils and had learned from them gave him the certainty that he could do a great deal with them. But the education must be taken up at a certain point; above all, the mother must be educated. For a mother who behaves like that towards her child is the greatest obstacle to education in the home. I need not describe the strange feelings with which Frau Ott in Zurich read this document. But the matter was once again postponed. Johann Gottlieb Fichte was able to work in a blessed way in the Ott house in Zurich until the spring of 1790, so for more than a year and a half.

But Fichte was not at all suited to confine what his soul embraced to his profession. He was not at all suited to turn his gaze away from what was going on in the intellectual culture around him. He grew into what was going on spiritually around him through the inner zeal and the inner interest he took in everything that was going on in the world around him. Yes, he grew into all of it. In Switzerland, he grew into the thoughts that filled the minds of all people at the time, thoughts that were passed on from the erupting French Revolution. I would like to say that we can eavesdrop on him as he discusses with a particularly talented person in Olten the questions that were occupying France and the world in such a significantly intervening way at the time; how he found that these were the ideas should now be pursued; how he incorporated everything that occupied him internally, arising from his deep religiosity and keen intellect, into the ideas of human happiness, into the ideas of human rights, of lofty human ideals.

Fichte was not a solitary being who could only develop his soul rigidly out of his inner self. This soul grew together with the outside world. This soul felt, as if unconsciously, the duty of a human being not only to be for himself, but to stand as an expression of what the world wants in the time in which one lives. That was a deepest feeling, a deepest sentiment in Fichte. And so it was that at the very time when he was, one might say, most receptive to the growing together of his soul with what lived and breathed in his spiritual environment, he grew together with the Swiss element, and from this Swiss-German element we always find an influence in the whole of Fichte, as he later works and lives.

One must have an understanding of the profound difference between what lives in Switzerland and what, I would say, lives a little to the north in Germany if one wants to grasp the impression that Fichte's Swiss environment, Swiss humanity and human striving made on him. It differs, for example, essentially from other Germanic peoples in that it imbues everything that is spiritual life with a certain self-confident element, so that the whole cultural element takes on a political expression; that everything is thought in such a way that the person feels placed through the thought into direct action in the world. Art, science, literature, they stand as individual tributaries of the whole of life for this Swiss Germanic spirit.

This was what could also combine with Fichte's soul element in the most beautiful way. He was also a person who could not think any human activity or any human aspiration individually. Everything had to be integrated into the totality of human activity and human thought and human feeling and the whole human world view. In Fichte's work, what he could achieve was directly connected with his increasingly strong and powerful personality. Anyone who reads Fichte today, who engages with his writings, which often appear so dry in content, with the sparkling spirit of individual treatises, individual writings, will have no idea of what Fichte must have been like when he put all his inner fire, his inner presence in what he meant spiritually and what he had spiritually penetrated, into speech. Because what he was flowed into his speech. That is why he tried – it was a failed attempt – to found a school of rhetoric even back then in Zurich. For he believed that by the way the spiritual can be brought to people, one can indeed work in a completely different way than just through the content, however solid it may be.

Fichte also found a stimulating and soul-stirring relationship in Zurich, in the house of Rahn, a wealthy Swiss at the time, who was Klopstock's brother-in-law. And Fichte developed a deep affection for the daughter, Johanna Rahn. He was connected with Klopstock's niece by a close friendship that developed more and more into love. At first, the position as a private tutor in Zurich was no longer tenable. Fichte had to look further. He did not want to somehow become a member of the Rahn family and live off the Rahn family's funds, even though he was now, before he had made a name for himself in the world (he often spoke of this at the time). He wanted to continue to seek his path in the world; we must not say “his luck” when it comes to him, but rather “seeking his path in the world”.

He went back to Germany, to Leipzig. He thought he would stay there for a while; he hoped to find there what could be his real profession, to find that form of spiritual expression that he wanted to make his way in life. Then he wanted to return after some time to freely elaborate what he had united with his soul. Then something unexpected happened that changed all his plans for life. Rahn collapsed and lost all his wealth. Not only was he now tormented by the worry that the people he loved most had fallen into poverty, but he now had to take up his wanderer's staff and move on into the world, had to give up his favorite plans that had opened up to him from the depths of his soul.

Initially, a position as a private tutor in Warsaw presented itself to him. However, as soon as he arrived there and introduced himself, the aristocratess in whose house he was to enter found that the movements of Fichte, which were already then and later firmly and energetically found by some, were actually clumsy; that he had no talent at all for finding his way into any society. They let him know that. He could not bear that. So he left.

His path now led him to the place where he could first believe that he would find a person whom he held in the highest esteem among all the people not only of his own time but of the entire age, and whom he had approached after having been completely absorbed in the world view of Spinoza for a while ; a man whom he had approached by studying his writings, in which he had completely, completely found his way, so that, as the Bible or other writings had once stood before him, so now, in a very special new form, the writings of this man stood before him – namely Immanuel Kant. He made his way to Königsberg. And he sat at the feet of the great teacher and found himself completely absorbed in the way his soul could reflect what he considered to be the greatest teaching ever given to mankind. And in Fichte's soul, what lived in his soul out of his pious mind, out of his musings on the divine governance of the world and on the way in which the secrets of this governance have always been revealed to humanity, to the world, united with what he had learned and heard from Kant. And he developed the thoughts that arose in his soul into a work to which he gave the title “Critique of All Revelation”. Fichte was born in 1762, and was thirty years old when he wrote it. A strange thing happened at that time. Kant immediately recommended a publisher for the work that had so captivated him: “Critique of All Revelation.” The work went out into the world without the name of the author. No one thought it was anything but a work by Immanuel Kant himself. The good reviews flew in from all sides. This was unbearable for Fichte, who in the meantime, again through the mediation of Kant, had been offered a position as a private tutor in the excellent Krockow household, near Danzig, which he now found very appealing, where he could also freely pursue his intellectual endeavors. It was unbearable for him to appear before the world in such a way that when people spoke of his work, they actually meant someone else's. The first edition, soon out of print, was followed by a second, in which he named himself. Now, however, he had a strange experience. Now, to say almost the opposite of what one had said earlier was not possible, at least for a large number of critics; but one toned down the judgment one had had earlier. It was another piece of human knowledge that Fichte had acquired.

After he had spent some time in the Krockow house, he was able to make the plan, in the way he was now placed in the world, not outwardly, but spiritually - he had shown that he was capable of something - to go back to the Rahn house; only in this way he wanted to win Klopstock's niece for himself, now he could do it. And so he went back to Zurich again in 1793. Klopstock's niece became his wife.

Not only did he now continue to work in the deepest sense on what he had absorbed as Kantian ideas, but he also delved further into all that had already occupied him during his first stay in Zurich; he delved into the ideas of human goals and human ideals that were now going around the world. And he wove together the way he himself had to think about human endeavor and human ideals with what was now going through the world. And he was such an independent nature that he could not help but tell the world what he had to think about what the most radical natures were now thinking about human progress. “Contributions to the Correction of the Public's Judgments of the French Revolution” was the book that appeared in 1793.

At the same time as he was working on this book, he was constantly working on the ideas of the world view that he had gained from the Kantian world view. There must be a Weltanschhauung, he said to himself, which, starting from a supreme impulse for human knowledge, could illuminate all knowledge. And this Weltanschhauung, which asks about the highest in such a way that one could never find a higher for knowledge, that was Fichte's ideal.

In a strange way, the circumstances are linked. While he was still busy with the inner elaboration of his ideas, he received a letter from Jena, from Jena-Weimar. Such an impression had been made there by what Fichte had achieved that, when Karl Leonhard Reinhold left the University of Jena, Fichte was invited to take up the professorship of philosophy on the basis of what he had achieved. Those who were involved in the intellectual life of the University of Jena at the time greeted the idea of bringing this spirit, who on the one hand seemed to them to be a sparkling mind, but on the other hand, especially in matters of world view, to be striving for the highest, with the greatest satisfaction.

And now let us try to visualize him as the administrator of the teaching position that has been taken up. What had emerged as his Weltanschauung he wanted to convey to those who were now his pupils, starting from the year 1794. But Fichte was not a teacher like others. Let us first look at what had emerged in his soul. It is not possible to express this directly in his words – that would take too long – but it can be characterized entirely from his spirit. He was searching for a supreme being, one with whom the human spirit could grasp the stream of the world, the secret of the world, at one point, where the spirit was directly one with this stream of the world, with this secret of the world. So that man, by looking into this secret of the world, could connect his own existence with this secret, could thus know it. This could not be found in any external sensual existence. No eye, no ear, no other sense, no ordinary human mind could find it. For everything that can be seen with the senses externally must first be combined by the human mind; it has its being in the external world; one can only call it being if one's being is, so to speak, confirmed by what one observes with one's senses. That is not true being. At least, we cannot form any judgment at all about the true being of that which presents itself only to the senses. The source of all knowledge must arise from the innermost part of the I itself. But this cannot be a finished being, for a finished being within would be the same as that which is given to the outer senses as a finished being. It must be a creating being. That is the I itself, the I that creates itself anew every moment; the I that is not based on a finished existence but on an inner activity; the I that cannot be deprived of existence because its existence consists in its creating, in its self-creating. And into this self-creating flows everything that has true existence. So out of all sensory existence with this ego, and into the spheres where spirit surges and weaves, where spirit works as creativity! To grasp this spiritual life and activity where the ego is united with the spiritual activity and weaving of the world; to interpenetrate with that which is not external, finished existence, but what the ego creates out of the source of the divine life of the world, first as ego, and then as that which is the ideals of humanity, what the great ideas of duty are.

This was how Kantian philosophy had become embedded in Fichte's soul. And so he did not want to present his listeners with a finished doctrine; that was not what mattered to him. Fichte's lectures were not like any other lecture; his teachings were not like any other teaching. No, when this man stood at his lectern, what he had to say there, or rather, what he had to do there, was the result of long hours of meditation, during which he felt that he was inwardly immersed in the divine being, in the divine spiritual weaving and working that permeates and flows through the world, in a state that was elevated above all sensual being. After long inner communion with himself, in which he had communed with the world-spirit of the soul concerning the secrets of the world, he went forth to his listeners. But it was not his intention to impart what he had to impart, but to spread a common atmosphere from himself over his listeners. What mattered to him was that what had come to life in his soul through the secrets of the world should also come to life directly in the souls of his listeners. He wanted to awaken spiritual life, awaken spiritual being. He wanted to draw out of the souls of his listeners self-creative spiritual activity by making them cling to his words. He did not merely impart. What he wanted to give his listeners was something like the following. One day, when he wanted to illustrate this self-creative aspect of the ego — how all thinking activity can become in the ego and how man cannot come to a real understanding of the secrets of the world other than by grasping this self-creative aspect in the ego — as he was grasping the spiritual world with his listeners, as it were leading each spiritual hand into the spiritual world, 'wanted to achieve this, he said, for example: “Imagine a wall, my listeners!” Now, I hope you have now thought of a wall. The wall is now as a thought, as an idea in your soul. Now imagine the one who thinks the wall. Completely abandon all thought of the wall. Think only of the one who is thinking the wall!

Some listeners became restless, but at the same time, in the deepest part of their being, they were seized by the direct way, by the direct relationship in which Fichte wanted to place himself in relation to his listeners. The spirit from Fichte's soul was to grasp the spirit in his listeners.

And so the man worked for years, never giving the same lecture twice, always creating and reshaping it anew. For that was not what mattered to him, to communicate this or that in sentences, but to always awaken something new in his listeners. And he repeated again and again: “What matters is not that what I say or what I have to say should be repeated by this or that person, but that I should succeed in kindling in souls such flames which will become the cause for each person to become a self-thinker; that no one says what I have to say, but that each person is inspired by me to say what he himself has to say. Fichte did not want to educate students, but to educate self-thinkers. If we follow the history of Fichte's influence, we can understand that this most German of German philosophers did not actually educate any students of philosophy; he did not found a school of philosophy. Energetic men emerged everywhere from this direct relationship that he established with his students.

Now, Fichte was aware – and indeed had to be aware, since he wanted to lead the consciousness of man to the point of directly grasping the creative spiritual reality – that he had to speak in a very special way. Fichte's whole manner was difficult to grasp. Basically, all those who somehow participated in his way of teaching had not yet heard anything like what he practiced in Jena at the time. Even Schiller was astonished at this, and to Schiller he once spoke about the way in which he actually imagined his work in his own consciousness, for example as follows: When people read what I say, they cannot possibly understand what I actually want to say the way they read today. He then took one of his books and tried to read aloud what he thought was necessary to express what he wanted to say. He then said to Schiller: “You see, people today cannot recite inwardly. But because what is contained in my periods can only be brought out through true inward recitation, it just does not come out.

Of course, Fichte brought out something quite different from his own periods. What he spoke was spoken language. Therefore, even today, Fichte should be sought in the center of all the soul life to which one can devote oneself as the soul life of the whole German people; even today one should still have the effort to take in, with inner declamation, with inner listening, what otherwise seems so dry and so sober in Fichte.

Thus, as we let Fichte's intellectual development pass before our soul, we stand, as it were, on one of the intellectual summits of his being. And our gaze may well wander back to this remarkable intellectual journey.

We have visited Johann Gottlieb Fichte as he stood before Baron von Miltitz in his blue peasant's smock, a true red-cheeked, stocky peasant child, with no education other than a peasant child could have, but such that this education was already the innermost property of the soul in the nine-year-old. We have here an example of how a soul grows out of the German people, entirely out of the German people, which at first receives nothing but what lives within this German people, lives in the direct way of life of this people. We follow this soul through difficult circumstances, this soul, which is actually regarded as an ideal in the people, but must remain in the people, but must be left to the innermost impulse, the innermost drive of its being. We follow this soul as it rises to the highest heights of human inner activity, work, as it becomes a human shaper in the way we have just been allowed to describe it. We follow the path that a German soul can take, which grows directly out of the people and rises to the highest heights of spiritual being only through its own strength.

Fichte continued his teaching post in Jena until the spring of 1799. There had been all sorts of disagreements before then. For Fichte was certainly not a person who was easy to get along with, a person who would be inclined to make all sorts of detours in life and to make all sorts of soft gestures in his behavior towards people in order to make it easy to get along with him. But one important thing emerges that is significant for German life at that time.

The one person who was particularly pleased – and who agreed with Goethe on this point – was Karl August, who was able to appoint Fichte to his university in Jena. And I believe one can safely say, as an example of Karl August's complete lack of prejudice, that he appointed to his university the man who had applied Kantian philosophy to revelation in the freest way possible, but not only that – he appointed to his university the man who had advocated the freest humanistic goals in the freest, most unreserved way. I believe that one would not do justice to Karl August, this great mind, if one did not point out the high degree of lack of prejudice that this German prince needed at the time to appoint Fichte. A daring act, Goethe called this call. But I would like to say that Karl August and Goethe, who above all were and had to be the soul of this call, took it upon themselves to bring Fichte to Jena against a world of prejudice. I say it would almost be a wrong not to draw attention to the degree to which Karl August's lack of prejudice had developed. And for this purpose, I would like to read a sentence from Fichte's book, which is entitled “Contributions to the Correction of the Opinions of the Public on the French Revolution”: “They” – he means the princes of Europe, including the princes of Germany – “who are mostly educated in inertia and ignorance , or if they know anything, they know a truth expressly fabricated for them; they, who are known not to work on their education once they come to rule, who read no new writing except perhaps some watery sophistries, and who are always, at least during their years of rule, behind their age... .” That was in the last book that Fichte had written – and Karl August summoned this man to his university.

If you delve a little into the whole situation in which Fichte and those who appointed him found themselves, you come to the conclusion that the people who were of the mindset of the great, liberal-minded Karl August and Goethe actually waged a campaign against those who were in their immediate environment and who agreed with the appointment of Fichte as little as possible. And it was a campaign that was not at all easy to undertake, because, as I said, making a scene in the sense that one likes to make a scene in the world was not possible with Fichte. Fichte was a person who, through his crookedness, through his brusqueness, hurt everyone whom one would actually like to not hurt. Fichte was not a person who made a soft movement with his hand. Fichte was a person who, when something was not right for him, made his thrusts into the world with his fist. The way in which Fichte, with his full strength at the time, put what he had to tell the world into the world was not easy for Goethe and Karl August; it was very difficult for them, they groaned a little under it.

And so little by little the thunderstorms drew up. Fichte, for example, wanted to give lectures on morality, lectures that were printed as “Lectures on Morality for Scholars.” He found no hour but Sunday. But that was terrible for all those who believed that Sunday would be desecrated if one were to speak about morality in Fichte's sense to students in Jena on Sunday. And all manner of complaints were made to the Weimar government, to Goethe, but also to Karl August. The entire Jena Senate of Professors expressed the opinion that it caused an enormous stir and discord when Fichte held moral lectures at the university on Sundays – and he had in any case chosen the hour when the afternoon service was held. Karl August had to give way to Fichte's opponents in this matter, too, I would say first. But it would not be good if it were not made clear today how he had done it. Karl August wrote to the University of Jena at the time:

“We have therefore resolved, at your request, that the aforementioned Professor Fichte should only be allowed to continue his moral lectures on Sundays, in the hours after the end of the afternoon service, as a last resort.” The decree explicitly referred to the fact that “something as unusual as giving lectures on Sundays during the hours set aside for public worship” had occurred. But in issuing this decree, Karl August could not avoid adding the words: “We have gladly satisfied ourselves that if Fichte's moral lectures are similar to the excellent essay attached to this, they can be of excellent use.” But it continued to bother people. One could say that the opponents did not let up. And so it came about in 1799 that there was that unfortunate atheism dispute, as a result of which Fichte had to resign his teaching position in Jena. Forberg, a younger man, had written an essay in the journal that Fichte published at the time, which had been accused of atheism from a certain point of view. Fichte thought that the young man had been imprudent in what he had written, and he wanted to make a few marginal notes on it. But Forberg did not agree with this. And Fichte, in his free manner, which he not only used in the big things but in the smallest details, did not want to reject the essay just because he did not agree with it. He also did not want to make marginal notes against the will of the author. But he sent ahead an essay of his own, “On the Basis of Our Belief in a Divine World Government.” It contained words that were steeped in true, sincere worship of God and piety, words that may be said to have been elevated to the most spiritual level, but elevated to the most spiritual level, to that spiritual, of which Fichte wanted to say that it is the only real thing; that one can grasp reality only if one feels oneself with one's ego moving in the spiritual, standing in the spiritual current of the world. One must then grasp the existence of God not through some external revelation or external science, but in the living activity and weaving. One must grasp the creation of the world by flowing within it, creating oneself unceasingly and thereby giving oneself its eternity.

But Fichte's essay was accused of atheism all the more. It is impossible to recount this dispute, this accusation of atheism, in full detail. It is basically terrible to see how Goethe and Karl August had to take sides against Fichte against their will; but how Fichte cannot be dissuaded, now, I would like to say, from striking out with his fist when he believes that he has to push through what he has to push through. So it comes about that Fichte hears that they want to do something against him, want to reprimand him. Goethe and Karl August would have liked nothing better than to have been able to give this reprimand. Fichte said to himself: To accept a reprimand for what one has to scoop out of the innermost sources of human knowledge would be to violate one's honor - not the honor of the person, but the honor of the spiritual endeavor. And so he first wrote a private letter to the minister Voigt in Weimar, which was then put on file, in which he said: He would never allow himself to be reprimanded; no, he would rather resign. And when Fichte wrote about things of this nature, he wrote as he spoke. It was said: He spoke cuttingly when it was necessary. So he also wrote cuttingly – to everyone, whoever it was. There was no other way to avoid a complete collapse in Jena than to accept the resignation that Fichte had not actually offered, because a private letter had been put on record. So it came about that Fichte had to leave his very beneficial teaching post in Jena in this way.

We see him soon after that appearing in Berlin. We see him there appearing, now grasping the standing of the ego in the weaving and ruling world spirit from a new side: “The Destiny of Man” he wrote at that time. But he wrote it in such a way that he put his whole being, his whole nature, into this work. In this work he wanted to show how those who only look at the world of the senses from the outside, and only combine it with the intellect, lead to a world view that is without substance. How this only leads to a dream of life is the content of the first part. How to get away from seeing the world as a chain of external necessities is the content of the second part. And the content of the third part of 'The Destiny of Man' is the examination of what happens to the soul when it tries to grasp in its inner being that which creates the inner life, and which is thereby not only an imprint but a co-creation in the great creation of all world existence. After finishing the work, Fichte wrote to his wife, whom he had left behind in Jena at the time: “I have never had such a deep insight into religion as when I completed this work ‘The Destiny of Man’.”

With a brief interlude in 1805, during which he stayed at the University of Erlangen, Fichte then spent the rest of his life in Berlin, first giving private lectures in a wide variety of homes, lectures that were very forceful; later he was called to help at the newly founded university, which we will talk about in a moment.

I said that, with a brief interlude in Erlangen, he had now returned to Berlin. For what he had to give people was something he was always drawing from his soul, and casting anew in ideal form. In Erlangen, he presented his scientific theory and his world view with great zeal. It is strange that while he had an increasing number of listeners when he began his lectures in Jena, and the same was true in Berlin, the audience in Erlangen halved during the semester. Well, we know how professors usually accept this decrease; anyone who has experienced this knows that it is simply accepted. This was not the case with Fichte. When the number of students in Erlangen had fallen by half, he spoke out – admittedly only to those who were present, not to those who had left, but he assumed that they would find out – and delivered one of those thunderous speeches in which he made it clear to the people that if they did not want to hear what he had to say to them, they would only be open to external historical knowledge, not to reasonable knowledge. And after he had added what man becomes in life if, as a spiritual seeker, he does not want to acquire this reasonable knowledge, he said: “The time in which I read? I have indeed heard how little satisfaction there is with the choice of the hour. I do not want to take this too strictly, concluding from principles that actually go without saying and that would have to be applied here. I just want to consider those who are affected to be ill-informed and report it better. They may say that it has always been this way. If this were true, I would have to reply that the university has always been in a very poor state... I myself have a similar college to this one in Jena, where I read to hundreds of people from 6-7 o'clock in the summer and winter, which used to get very crowded towards the end. I just have to say: when I arrived here, I chose this hour because there was no other left. Since I have recognized the way of thinking about it, I will choose it with care and do so in the future. The reason for all these abuses is that there is a deep inability to deal with oneself, and a wealth of shallowness and boredom when, after lunch has been consumed at 12 o'clock, one can no longer stand in the city. And if you were to prove to me – which, I hope, cannot be done – that this has been the custom in Erlangen since its founding, that it is the custom throughout Franconia, indeed throughout southern Germany, I will not shy away from replying that, accordingly, Erlangen and Franconia and all of southern Germany must be the home of shallowness and lack of spirit.” He delivered a thunderous speech. You can think of such a thunderous speech as you like, but it is genuinely Fichtian, Fichtian in the way that Fichte wanted to be in it and always was in it in what he wanted to bring to people spiritually; that Fichte did not just want to say something with what he said, but to do something for the souls, to reach the souls. Therefore, every soul that stayed away was a real loss, not for him, but for what he wanted to achieve for humanity. For Fichte, action was the word. He was rooted in the spiritual world, and this enabled him to stand with others in the spiritual world at the same time as in a common spiritual atmosphere; that he really did not just theoretically advocate the proposition: the outer sense world is not the real thing, but the spirit, and the one who knows the spirit also sees the spiritual being behind all sense being.

For him, this was not just theory, but a practical reality, so that later in Berlin the following could happen: He had gathered his audience in his lecture room. The lecture room was near the Spree Canal. Suddenly, a terrible message came: children, including Fichte's boy, had been playing down below, a boy had fallen into the water, and it was said to be Fichte's son. Fichte set out with another friend, and while the audience were all standing around, the boy was pulled out of the water. The boy looked very much like Fichte's son, but he was not. For a moment, however, Fichte had to believe that it was his son. The child was pulled out of the water dead. He took care of the child. Those who know what a close family life there was in Fichte's house between Fichte, his wife Johanna and their only son, who remained the only one, know what Fichte went through in that moment: the greatest horror he could have gone through, and the transition from the greatest personal horror to the greatest personal joy when he could take his son back in his arms. Then he went into an adjoining room, changed his clothes and continued his two-hour lecture in the way he had always given lectures before, completely immersed in the subject.

But not only that. Fichte often provided examples of such engagement in intellectual life. For example, during his time in Berlin, we find him giving lectures that were supposed to be a critique of the contemporary era, a severe indictment of this era. He took a similar approach when reviewing the individual eras of history. That alone, in which he lived, he said, was the one in which selfishness had reached its highest point. And into this age of selfishness he found himself placed as the one who embodied selfishness in the person of Napoleon. Fichte basically never thought of himself as anything other than the opponent in spirit to Napoleon at that time, while the Napoleonic chaos was descending on Central Europe. And there is one characteristic of Napoleon which may be said of him: in the image of the man of Germanic stock, in the blue coat, which was the image of the peasant boy as described earlier, there arose an image of Napoleon, which was just as much the product of the most profound Germanic strength and Germanic outlook as it was of the highest philosophical view of life. We have arrived at a time in human existence, as Fichte said, when we have lost the realization that the spirit and spiritual essence pulsates through the world and also through human life, runs through human development, and that man is only of value in the course of history to the extent that he is carried by what is preserved of moral impulses, of moral world order from epoch to epoch. But they know nothing of this. We have arrived at an age in which we see generation after generation in the world appearing like links in a chain. The best have forgotten, as Fichte said, what must run through these chain links as a moral worldview. Napoleon has been placed in this world. A source of tremendous power, but a human being, as Fichte said, in whose soul individual images of freedom can be found, but never a real idea, a real concept of true, comprehensive freedom, as it works from epoch to epoch in the moral ideal of human beings, in the moral world order. And from this fundamental defect, that a personality which is only a shell, which has no soul-core, can develop such power, from this phenomenon Fichte derived the personality and the whole misfortune, as he said, of Napoleon.

If we compare Fichte, the most powerful German world-view man with his idea of Napoleon, and Napoleon himself, then, in order to make the whole situation clear, we must refer to a saying of Napoleon's, which, as is told, he did on St. Helena after his fall, because it is only through this that the whole situation is fundamentally illuminated: everything, everything would have gone. I would not have fallen against all the powers that rose up against me. There was only one thing I did not reckon with, and that actually brought about my downfall: the German ideologues! Let the little minds talk about the ideology of this or that, this self-knowledge of Napoleon's weighs, I think, more than anything one might want to object to Fichte's idealism, which was, however, thoroughly practical.

That it is not difficult for an idealist like Fichte to be practical at times can be proved by Fichte himself, and in a truly historical way. It became necessary for him to join his father's business as a partner, after his brothers had taken it over. There he was, a partner in the ribbon-making business of his family. His parents were still alive. And now we can see how he fared as a partner in a ribbon-making business. He was a good, careful businessman who really was able to help his brothers, who remained pure business people, a lot. In the face of all those who say, “Ah, these idealists, they understand nothing of practical life, they are dreamers!” — Fichte, speaking from the very essence of his entire existence, was able to say, especially in the lectures he gave on “The Task of the Scholar,” words that must always be repeated in the face of those people who speak of the impracticality of ideals, of the impracticality of the spiritual world in general. When Fichte spoke about the destiny of the scholar, he said the following sentences in the preface: “That ideals cannot be represented in the real world, we know perhaps as well as they, perhaps better. We only claim that reality must be judged by them, and modified by those who feel the strength within themselves to do so. Even if they cannot be convinced of this, they lose very little by it, once they are what they are; and humanity loses nothing by it. It merely makes it clear that the plan for the ennoblement of humanity does not rely on them. The latter will undoubtedly continue on its way; let benign Nature rule over the former and give them rain and sunshine, wholesome nourishment and undisturbed circulation of the fluids, and with that - wise thoughts, in due time!” This German man already knew about the meaning of ideals, and also about the meaning of practical life in the right sense. But Fichte was precisely this nature that was turned in on itself. One may call this one-sidedness, but such one-sidedness must appear in life from time to time, just as forces in life must act in such a way that they occasionally overshoot the mark, so that in overshooting the mark they achieve the right result.

Certainly, there was some harshness mixed into Fichte's behavior when he did not just want to give moral lectures to the people in Jena, but also wanted to practically fight all of the students' idleness, all of the drinking, all of the loafing around. He had already gained a certain following among the student body. In addition, a number of people had submitted a petition that this or that association, which was particularly idle, should be abolished. But he was a gruff character, he was a person who did not know how to make soft hand movements, but instead sometimes beat the air roughly with his fist – all of course meant symbolically. So then what happened was that a large part of the Jena student body was quite opposed to Fichte's practical moral effectiveness. And they got together and broke his windows. Which then prompted Goethe, who admired Fichte and was admired by Fichte, to the good joke: Well, that's the philosopher who traces everything back to the ego. It is indeed an uncomfortable way to be convinced of the existence of the non-ego when one's windows are broken; that's what you get for being the non-ego, its opposite!

But all this cannot be proof to us that Fichte's way of philosophizing was not in complete harmony with Goethe's way of philosophizing. And Fichte felt this deeply when, on June 21, 1794, soon after he had begun his lectures in Jena, he wrote to Goethe, sending him the proofs of his Theory of Knowledge: “I regard you, and have always regarded you, as the representative... (of the purest spirituality of feeling) at the present level of humanity. It is to you that philosophy rightly turns: your feeling is the same touchstone.” And Goethe writes to Fichte when he has received the Theory of Knowledge: ”There is nothing in what you have sent that I do not understand or at least believe I understand, nothing that does not readily follow from my usual way of thinking.” And Goethe continues along the following lines: I believe that you will be able to present to human souls in a proper way that which nature has always been in agreement with, but with which human souls must come to terms. And if today someone who finds that science, which Fichte had printed at the time, dry and un-Goethean, were to claim that Goethe had no sense for this matter, then one would have to reply to him as I did when I published Fichte's letters to Goethe in the Goethe Yearbook in 1894 at the Goethe-Schiller-Archiv in Weimar. In the Goethe Schiller Archive, there are excerpts from Fichte's “Wissenschaftslehre” written by Goethe himself, where Goethe wrote down sentence by sentence the thoughts that came to him while reading Fichte's “Wissenschaftslehre”. And finally, one also understands how one of the most German of Germans, Goethe, at that time, out of the purest spirituality of feeling, out of which he sought a new world view, had to reach out to him who, out of reason-energy, as the most German of Germans at that time, sought a philosophical world view. Goethe once put it beautifully when he spoke of his relationship to Kant's philosophy. He said something like this, not literally, but completely in line with the meaning: Kant came along and said that by looking at the world, man could only have sensory knowledge. But sensory knowledge is merely an appearance, merely something that man himself brings into the world through his perception. Knowledge must be set aside; one can only come to freedom, to infinity, to an understanding of the divine-spiritual existence itself through a faith. And what one might undertake, not in order to arrive at a belief, but to arrive at an immediate beholding of the spiritual world, to a living and weaving of one's own creative activity in the creative activity of the divine world spirit, and which Kant believes one cannot undertake, of which Kant says it would be “the adventure of reason.” And Goethe says: Well, then one would have to dare to bravely endure this adventure of reason! And if one does not doubt the spiritual world, but believes in freedom and immortality, in God, why should one not bravely face this adventure of reason and, with the creator of the soul, be able to place oneself in the creative spirituality that pervades and interweaves the world, in the world itself? - Only in a different way from how Goethe wanted to face it, he still found it with Fichte.

And this urge towards spirituality, towards an understanding of the creative wisdom of the world, had to emerge one day, even if it was in a brusque manner, by the creative self experiencing itself as one with the creative world essence within it. And according to Fichte's view, this was to happen through his theory of knowledge. As we have been able to characterize it, it is a direct deed of the German people, for we see Fichte's soul growing up from the German people, and Fichte was aware that basically his philosophy was always a result of his lively interaction with the German national spirit. With that, the German national spirit has presented to the world what it itself had to say about the world and life and human goals. It presented itself in the way that it could only present itself, in that it happened at the first onset of such a rugged personality as Fichte was.

Fichte was not easy to deal with. For example, when the university was founded in Berlin and Fichte was to elaborate the plan, he formed an idea of the university and worked out the plan for this idea in great detail. But what did he want? He wanted to create something so fundamentally new at the University of Berlin, at that time at the beginning of the 19th century, that we may say, without any contradiction arising, that this new thing has not yet been realized anywhere in the world; that the world is still waiting for it to be realized. Of course, Fichte's plan has not been realized, although, as he put it, he wanted nothing more than to make the university an institute that meant “a school of the art of real use of the mind.” So it was not people who know this or that that were to come out of the university, who were philosophers or natural scientists or physicians or lawyers, but people who are so immersed in the overall structure of the world that they can fully master the art of using reason. Imagine what a blessing it would be if there were such a university somewhere in the world! If only an art school could be realized somewhere that would produce people who have brought their inner soul to life so that they can truly move freely in the essence of existence.

But this personality was not easy to handle; it was there to give history a powerful impetus. Fichte also became the second rector of the university. He took such an energetic approach to his job that he was only able to serve as rector for four months. Neither the students nor the authorities involved could stand what he wanted to implement for any longer. But all of this was forged out of German national character, just as it appeared in Fichte. For when he delivered his 'Speeches to the German Nation', about which I have already spoken here repeatedly, not only during the war but also before the war, as well as about the great phenomenon of Fichte in general, he knew that he wanted to tell the German people what he had, as it were, overheard through his meditative dialogue with the world spirit. He wanted nothing more than to stir in their souls that which can stir in the souls of men from the deepest source of Germanness. The way in which Fichte positioned himself in his time and in relation to those whom he wanted to move in the direction of a soul that was equal to the tasks of world existence was not, however, likely to make any impression on shallow, superficial people other than that of curiosity. But Fichte did not want to create that at all. Of course, it is always the easiest thing to do when something like Fichte's spirituality comes into the world, to make fun of it. Nothing is easier than to criticize, to make fun of it. People did that enough. That put Fichte in serious situations. For example, as soon as he came to the University of Jena, he was already in a rather serious situation because he could not really agree with those – well, they were also philosophers. For example, at the University of Jena there was the one who was the senior philosopher. His name was Schmid. He had spoken so disparagingly about what Fichte had achieved up to that point, even though Fichte was now to become his colleague, that it was actually shameful that Fichte was now to become his colleague. So Fichte said a few words in the journal in which Schmid had expressed himself. And so it went back and forth. Fichte actually took up his teaching post in Jena by having the Jena journal in which Schmid had written insert: “I declare that for me Mr. Schmid will no longer exist in the world.” — So he stood next to his colleague.

The situation was a serious one. A less serious, but no less significant one was this: a journal called “Der Freimütige” was published in Berlin at the time. Kotzebue, the “famous” German poet Kotzebue and yet another person were involved in publishing this journal, putting it together. It is actually impossible to find out - I really don't think even the most intimate clairvoyance could find out! what this Kotzebue actually wanted in Fichte's lectures back then. But only for a while could it not be found out. It later became clear because the most malicious attacks on Fichte's lectures appeared in the “Freimütigen”, which at the time was making itself quite important in Berlin. Fichte finally had enough. And lo and behold, he took a number of these “Freimütigen” and tore them apart in front of the audience, tearing them apart in such a way that he - which he could do - poured an invincible humor over what this “Freimütige” had to say. The face of one of the listeners, whose reason for attending was previously unknown, became longer and longer. And finally, Mr. Kotzebue stood up with a long face and declared that he no longer needed to listen to this! He then left and did not return. But Fichte was quite glad to be rid of him.

Yes, Fichte was already able to find a tone that directly grasped the situation, in the way he practically engaged with the life that he wanted to shape as the innermost life of human existence. Although he lived entirely in the spiritual world, he was not an unworldly idealist. He was a man who rested entirely on himself and who took with all seriousness what he found in himself as his essential nature. Therefore, at a certain time, when Napoleon had overcome Prussia and the French were in Berlin, he could not remain in Berlin. He did not want to be in the city that had been subjugated by the French. He went to Königsberg, and later to Copenhagen. He only returned when he wanted to appear as the German man who presented the innermost essence of his nationality, of being a nation, of his national character, to his fellow countrymen in the “Speeches to the German Nation”.

Fichte is rightly perceived as an immediate expression of German nationality, as the expression of that which, as spirit, always lives in our midst, insofar as we are able to grasp Germanness in its spirit, not only in thought, as a philosopher put it so beautifully, who as a philosopher was not at all in agreement agreement with Fichte, Robert Zimmermann, who said: “As long as a heart beats in Germany that can feel the shame of foreign domination, the memory of the brave will live on, who, in the moment of deepest humiliation, under the ruins of the collapsed monarchy of Frederick the Great, in the middle of French-occupied Berlin, occupied Berlin, in front of the eyes and ears of the enemies, among spies and informers, to raise the strength of the German people, broken from the outside by the sword, from the inside by the spirit, and to create it anew in the same moment that the political existence of the same seemed to be destroyed forever, through the inspiring idea of general education, undertook to recreate it in future generations.” Even today, I would like to reiterate that, with regard to the content of much of what is in the “Speeches to the German Nation” and indeed what is in Fichte's other writings, we may have to think quite differently. What is important is that we feel the German spirit flowing through its products, and the renewal of the German spirit with regard to its position in the universe, as it is given in the “Speeches to the German Nation”. That we feel this as the spirit that is in our midst and that we grasp it only in the one example of Fichte, through which he has placed himself in an admittedly initially remote way in the German development. This spirit wanted to place itself in the evolution of the world powerfully and energetically, but deeply inwardly. Therefore, even in the time when his twilight years were already approaching, Fichte found the opportunity, precisely in the most intimate way, to once again cast and renew his entire theory of knowledge, to meditate on it again, and to bring it to his Berlin audience in the fall of 1813, which he had grasped as his deepest thoughts. There he once again, in the manner described, seized the soul of his listeners, casting his gaze on how impossible it is for a person to come to understand existence and its reality without wanting to grasp this existence in the spirit, beyond all sensuality. But to those people who believe they see any true existence in the world of the senses and in what is formed only after the world of the senses, he called out in the lectures that belong to the last that Fichte spoke: “Their knowledge is lost in misunderstanding and empty words; and they praise themselves for it, and quite rightly find that it is so. Take seeing, for example: an image of an object is cast onto the retina. On the calm surface of the water, an image of the object is also reflected. So, in our opinion, does the surface of the water see? What is the added element that must come between this image and the actual seeing that is present with us, but not with the surface of the water? They do not even have a notion of this, because their sense does not go that far. A special sense, a new sense, Fichte says, must be realized within oneself if one wants to experience that being in the spirit that makes all other being comprehensible in the first place. “I am, and I am with all my goals only in a supersensible world!” This is one of the words that Fichte himself coined and which, like a leitmotif, runs through everything Fichte said throughout his life, which he reaffirmed in a different way that fall of 1813. And what was he talking about then? That people must become aware that one can never get behind true being in the way one sees things and the world in ordinary life and in ordinary science. One must become aware that a supersensible sense lives in every human being and that man can merge into a supersensible world, can live into this sense as a creator in his ego in the creative, weaving world spirit. It is, as Fichte says, as if a seeing person comes into a world of blind people and wants to make them understand the world of colors and forms, and the blind people refuse to believe him. Thus, the materialistically minded person, because he has no sense for it, denies the one who knows: I am, and I am in the supersensible world with all my goals and creations. And so Fichte impressed upon his listeners this being in the supersensible, this life in the spiritual, this handling of a supersensible-sensual that he said:

“The new sense is therefore the sense for the spirit; the one for which there is spirit, and nothing else at all, and to which the other, the given being, also takes on the form of the spirit, and is transformed into it, to which therefore being in its own form has indeed disappeared.”

It is a great thing that in this way the confession of the spirit has been made within the German development of thought, before those who wanted to seek what, in the highest sense, the German people have to say when they speak from the innermost part of their being. For it is through Fichte that the German people have spoken. And for Fichte more than for anyone else it is true that the German folk spirit at that stage, as it could speak, spoke to the German people.

Whether we look at him externally, this Fichte, or turn our soul's gaze to his soul, he always appears to us as the most direct expression of German nationality itself, of that which is not only present within Germanness at some time or other, but is always present; which, if only we know how to grasp it, is always among us. Precisely through what Fichte is, how he presents himself to us, presents himself so that we have his image vividly before our soul, we would like to see him, to listen to him in spirit when he creates an atmosphere that spreads between his soul and the soul of his listeners, that we want to be very close to him: that makes us feel we can feel him, I would like to say, like a legendary hero, like a spiritual hero, who, as a leader of his people, can always be seen in spirit if this people only understands him correctly. They can see him by vividly imagining him as one of their best spiritual heroes.

And today, in the age of action, when the German people must struggle for their existence in an incomparable way, the image of the one who , German character, from the highest point of view, but also in the most energetic, in a single way; to describe it in such a way that we can believe in him more than in any other: we have him directly among us when we understand him correctly. For everything in him is so very much of a piece, it presents itself so directly that he stands among us in all his liveliness as we contemplate him; whether the individual trait emerges from the totality of his being or whether we allow the most intimate sides of his soul to affect us, he stands before us as a whole. He cannot be grasped by us otherwise, otherwise he is grasped in a haphazard, superficial way.

Yes, he can be seen how he kindles in his people the soul's devotion to the life-giving powers of the world, working within the creator, how he rises with this soul to experience in the spirit, and how he integrates himself as life into the developmental progress of his people. One need only open the eye of the soul. He will not be understood if he is not understood in this vivid way. But if you open your soul's eye to the greatness of your people, then he is standing among us.

The way he sought to work differently from other teachers, by standing before his audience and not speaking but acting with his words, acting as if it mattered little to him what he said, because it was only meant to ignite the soul of the listener, because something should happen to the soul, something should be done, and because the souls should leave the hall differently than they entered it, — this has the very peculiar effect that he must become alive to us in the way he worked from the people into the people, and that we believe we hear him when he had heard in lonely meditation, by which he well prepared himself for every spoken lecture, what he had heard in his self-talk with the world spirit, now did not present to his listeners, but converted it into the word that is action, so that he released those to whom he had spoken as other people. They had become other people, but not through his power, but through the awakening and ignition of their own power. If we understand him correctly in this way, then we can believe that we hear him keenly, how he wants to grasp the spirit directly with his word, with the sharpness, with the sharp knife of his word, which he previously grasped in the soul, by placing, as has been said of him, not just good, but great people in the world through his care of the soul.

If you really bring to life what he was, you cannot help but hear his words, his words that seem to come from the spirit itself, which in this Fichte only made itself a tool to speak, to speak out of the spirit of the world itself, inspiring, awakening fire and warmth and light. His words were full of heartiness, and they drove courage forward. His words became spirited when they flowed through the ears into the souls and hearts of the listeners; they carried spiritedness out into the world when the fire that these words ignited in the souls of the listeners made these listeners, as we so often hear from those who were Fichte's contemporaries, go out into the world as the most capable men. If you open your spiritual ear, you can hear, if you understand Fichte at all, the one who speaks from the spirit of his people, directly as a contemporary. And whoever has an ear for such greatness of nation will hear it in the midst of us. And rarely will a spirit stand before us in such a way that we can follow everything that it is into every single act of life. Do we not see the duty, the moral world order, as he represented it at the height of his philosophy, when we see the boy, how he, at seven years old, because he has grasped the love for “Horned Siegfried” out of inclination, throws it into the water because he does not feel in harmony with his duties? Do we not see the pensive man preparing for his lectures, who knows how to focus his mind on the secrets of the world, in the boy standing outside in the pasture and letting his gaze wander for hours in one direction into the secrets of nature until the shepherd comes and leads him home? Do we not feel the whole fire that inspired Fichte, that inspired him on his lectern in Jena, and later, when he spoke to the representatives, as he said, of his entire people in the “Speeches to the German Nation”? Do we not feel it already there, where he, repeating the sermon of the country pastor, made an impression on Baron von Miltitz? Do we not feel this spirit very close to us in every single thing, even in the smallest acts of his life, if we are able to feel just a little spiritually? Do we not feel how soulfulness, heartiness, moral courage radiates from this spirit into all subsequent German development? Do we not feel the eternal life that lives there, even if we cannot agree with the individual in the “Speeches to the German Nation”? Although they were confiscated twice by the censor in 1824, they could not be killed. They live today and must live in souls.

How we can see him, this Fichte, in our midst! How we can hear him, if we understand him correctly! We can feel him, if we feel with our soul how he inspires his listeners, how he inspires the entire German nation in its more distant development, how that which he created, what he allowed to flow through the continuous developmental current of his people, must remain immortal! We cannot help it, if we understand him correctly, we must feel this spirit of Fichte among us.

Although I already touched on Goethe's “Faust” in this space this winter, in a consideration of Goethe's world view in the context of German idealism, I will take the liberty today of coming back to you with a consideration of Goethe's “Faust” as a kind of introduction to the six lectures I have announced. I believe that in connection with Goethe's Faust, the world view that I am representing here yields so many insights that some light will fall on the following, which will be spoken here in the near future. Of course, today I will only be able to make aphoristic remarks about the topic I have set myself, because this topic is so extensive in itself that one can never get further than highlighting this or that point of view from a wealth of points of view. And of course it also follows that one must be one-sided with each such consideration of Goethe's “Faust”. But that is a risk one must be willing to take.

After a consideration of Goethe's “Faust” that lasted more than half a century, my old friend and teacher Karl Julius Schröer completed the third edition of his “Faust” edition 1892 with a preface in which the words are found: “Only the German way of thinking was able to solve the Faust problem.” And it is essentially on these words that I would like to base my reflections today.

According to a certainly justified opinion of Herman Grimm, who was so deeply involved in all that Goethe had striven for and experienced, the Faust problem will be the starting point for recurring reflections on Goethe's “Faust” through the centuries, even millennia, which will certainly differ considerably from one another in the succession of times. In this regard, Herman Grimm already spoke a very significant word in the 1870s, which I would now also like to mention in my introduction. Herman Grimm said at the time: “We are still too deeply immersed in the world that Goethe wanted to depict allegorically and symbolically in the second part of the play; here, too, only later times will gain the right point of view.” It may be said that the standpoint which Herman Grimm assumes here is as modest as it is lofty, for he speaks from a deep consciousness of all that has been poured into this Faustic poetry, which was given to the world through Goethe. And Herman Grimm continues: “We would do an injustice to Goethe's Faust if we took it only for what his many-colored experiences make it appear, and the time will yet come when the interpreters of this poem will occupy themselves more with what lies in it than with what merely clings to it.”

Of course, such statements must still apply in many respects today. Nevertheless, decades have passed since Herman Grimm wrote these words, and today, we may perhaps already entertain the hope, from the many insights that spiritual life has experienced, that we can get more into what lies in Faust than what hangs on Faust, as Herman Grimm puts it.

And so today I would like to draw your attention to how the world wandering that Faust undertakes from his study to the world, in which people more or less live, came about, and how through this world wandering, he gradually rises to the point of view of a worldview in the broadest sense of the word, which represents a kind of rebirth of Faust out of German intellectual life, insofar as Goethe himself participated in this German intellectual life. I believe that we shall only be able to arrive at a full understanding of the figure of Faust and its significance for life if we seek from the outset to delve into what is actually living in Faust's soul at that moment when we have him before us as a poetic figure at the beginning of the Faustic poetry, as it has now been completed by Goethe. What lives in Faust, as expressed in the opening monologue, “Have now, alas, philosophy...” and so on, speaks in a deeply significant way. But a kind of light must also be cast on what lives in Faust's soul at the moment that the poetry presents to us at its beginning, from a deepening into all that takes place later in the course of the events that the Faust epic represents. Faust stands there in opposition to the sciences that he lists as the sciences of the four faculties, and we see quite clearly from what he expresses how unsatisfied he is with the sciences that have affected his soul. We may ask: What does Faust really want? And perhaps this question can only be answered adequately if we bear in mind in the further course of the first monologue that Faust, despite having absorbed the sciences of the four faculties, has devoted himself to magic, that is, to what he has been able to learn as traditional, conventional historical magic from the various writings about this magic.

I would like to point out right away that a misunderstanding of the first Faust monologue can easily arise from the fact that one might believe that the moment in which Faust surrenders to magic coincides with the moment in which he speaks this monologue, and that Faust had not yet surrendered to magic before those feelings that live in this monologue go through his soul. That would be a misunderstanding and would make understanding the whole state of Faust's soul extremely difficult. Rather, we must assume that Faust, at the very moment when he expresses his feelings in that monologue, is already deeply immersed in what he addresses as magic; that he has done a great deal of study on this magic. And we can prove this from the Faustian legend itself. When the poodle that accompanies Faust on his Easter walk later takes on different forms and Faust does not know what is in this poodle, Faust reaches for a magical-occult book and now knows exactly, at least in his opinion, how he can use all sorts of incantations from these books to get to the bottom of the secret of this poodle and how he should behave towards this spiritual manifestation that he believes he has before him. We must therefore assume that Faust has already, to a certain extent, familiarized himself with these things.

Now we learn that Faust takes a book of magic and that he wants to assuage his dissatisfaction by first turning to the spirit of the great world, to the spirit of the macrocosm, as he puts it. What does he actually want? Perhaps we shall only be able to see what he wants if we delve a little into Goethe's soul itself, which indeed placed its feelings in the Faust character, at least during the time when the first Faust monologue and the first parts of “Faust” were created.

What world and worldview did Goethe actually face? Goethe was confronted with a worldview that could be built on the basis of what had been recognized about natural and spiritual life. He was in the midst of a worldview that fully took into account the scientific revelations made by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and so on. Goethe was confronted with what, in the spirit of Kant, could be called the world view of the Enlightenment, the penetration into the secrets of nature by means of the mind, which synthesizes the experiences of the senses and the experiences of history. What presents itself to the human soul in the way of ideas, which, as we would say today, are grasped in a healthy way by the normal mind and which arise above and beyond what can be investigated by the normal experience of the outer senses, it was such a world view that surrounded Goethe. How could he and his needs live into the world view that could give such a world view? He could not completely live himself into such a world view; for what Goethe constantly wanted, and what he now lets his Faust want, is a direct growing together of the innermost soul with what weaves and lives through the world outside, a growing together of the soul itself with the world secrets present in the world, with the deeper revelations and the revealing powers and entities of the world.

Now Goethe's Faust faced the view of the Enlightenment of nature and the spirit of the world in such a way that what could result in the way just characterized a world view seemed far removed from being able to grasp the entities that pervade the world and that he wanted to grasp with the innermost powers of the soul, with which he wanted to live together. For what this world view, based on the science of the time, could give him, at most it gave him knowledge, something that filled his head, his mind, but which could not identify so closely with human inner experience that one could really have entered with this inner experience into the forces that live and weave in nature and the spirit world. “Thus must I seek,” says Goethe's Faust, ”to get at the inmost powers and entities of the world in such wise that, by grasping them, my soul may be partaking in the spiritual-natural weaving and living of the world. But if I grasp only that which can be grasped from the present standpoint of a scientific world-view, then I grasp only in a dry, sober way with the knowledge these mysterious connections of the world, that which moves the world in its inmost being. And this knowledge can never give me that fullness which lies in grasping that which lets me live together with the secrets of the world.

And so Goethe's Faust wants to delve into what permeates and gives life to the world, into the world of nature and the spirit, in a different way. And since Goethe was certainly never of the opinion held by many people today and in the past, that what is current and has been achieved in their own time is necessarily right — in contrast to which one can say how gloriously far we have come — Goethe wants to tie in with what has gone before, from which the present has developed. And so he also lets his Faust tie in with the world view from which the world picture surrounding him has developed, with a world view that certainly had the belief that with what it gained, it entered into an experience of the secrets of existence. What kind of world view was that?

Well, you only need to pick up something like the works of Agrippa von Nettesheim or some other similar medieval philosopher, and you will be able to gain an insight into what Goethe's Faust actually means when it invokes the spirit of the macrocosm. Such concepts, such ideas, as surrounded Faust in the philosophy of the Enlightenment — I am referring to Goethe's Faust, not the sixteenth-century Faust — did not yet exist at the time when Agrippa von Nettesheim wrote. At that time, people did not yet form a picture of the world in such abstract terms as in the Age of Enlightenment. Instead, by developing philosophical worldviews, they lived, I would say, in images, in imaginations. But one also lived in the belief that one could bring about something through which nature and the spiritual world would express themselves intimately about what they actually are. And what one now got as a world view was at the same time interwoven with the feelings and perceptions of the soul, was in a certain way the same as what the soul experienced within itself. Today one would say: it was very anthropomorphic. That is certainly true; it was the case that in what he abstracted from the world, man felt forces that were related to the forces of his own soul. One spoke of sympathies and antipathies of things and similar forces in the natural world, as one experienced them in one's own soul existence. But further: In the time in which Agrippa von Nettesheim wrote, little was believed that could be attained by man through himself, that man could simply achieve by developing the powers of his soul life, by developing those powers of cognition in order to give them a higher form than that which man has by nature. They did not believe in the power of research of the human soul itself; they rather believed that through all kinds of external activities, these or those experiments — but not experiments in our present sense — they would, so to speak, give the spiritual that lives in nature the opportunity to show how it lives in natural facts. Through all kinds of events, it was thought that the secrets of nature could be discovered. It was not believed that consciousness can directly penetrate nature through the powers it acquires. It was believed that one had to perform certain actions or events in order to, as it were, by means of magic, make nature speak and express its spirit. Man's consciousness itself was to seek this separately. They wanted to do something in the external world that would cause nature to reveal its secrets and finally express how the forces in nature are arranged, from which man himself then builds himself out of nature and the spiritual world. So they wanted just what Goethe's Faust craves: to live together with the weaving and essence of nature itself; and they believed they could achieve it.

What stood before man as nature and spiritual world had been thoroughly permeated by spirit. And the development necessitated by the world had to set in place an outer image of nature, precisely the image of nature of a Copernicus, a Kepler, a Galileo, or what has come from that, an image of nature from which precisely that which these medieval philosophers wanted to seek out of nature has been removed. In this world view of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, and in what has been created from it, it was precisely these ideas that were the decisive, the decisive, the justified ones, which Goethe's Faust did not perceive closely enough, were not inwardly full enough to face the world with them in such a way that one can fully experience this world in one's own soul.

And so, in the moment in which the first monologue transports us, there lives in Faust's soul the urge to experience the secrets of the world through that ancient magic, to connect the laws and essence of the world with the experiences of his own soul. And he believed that he could achieve this by devoting himself to the formulas and images that were supposed to represent the macrocosm from the book he picked up.

But Faust – I emphasize this expressly – Goethe's Faust, not the sixteenth-century one – is precisely the human being, the personality of his time. Humanity advances precisely in its organization, even if it is not visible to a rough observation. In this time, one could no longer get behind the secrets of existence in the same way as Agrippa von Nettesheim, for example. One could no longer indulge in the belief that what one attains, whether through imagination or external influence, through magical experimentation, really has something to do with the innermost workings of the world. And so Faust is finally faced with the realization: Yes, I try it the way these ancients did, to connect with the spiritual, with the natural forces of existence - but what does it give me? Does it really lead me into what lives and moves in nature and the spiritual world? No, it gives me a spectacle - what a spectacle! But alas, only a spectacle!

And in this sense, Goethe's Faust is truly representative of the Goethean period. It has become impossible to reach the sources of existence in this way, to grasp infinite nature, not merely to penetrate it with ideas or with laws of nature, but to experience it. He cannot succeed because the time when one could believe that real knowledge of nature and the spiritual world could be attained in this way is past. What a spectacle! And he turns away from what the contemplation of the signs of the macrocosm can give him. He turns to the microcosm, to the earth spirit.

What is this earth spirit? Well, if you take the whole of what is presented in Goethe's “Faust” in connection with the appearance of the earth spirit, you find that this earth spirit is the representative of everything that, in the course of historical development, flows over the earth in the broadest sense flows over the earth, which works in such a way that what lies in our deepest drives, what, as it were, orbits the earth and places us human beings with our innermost selves into its currents, comes out of it into our soul, into our heart, into our very innermost being. In a sketch that he later made for his 'Faust', Goethe himself summarized the idea of this earth spirit, as it were, as a world and deed genius. This reminds us that what Goethe actually addresses in his poetry as the earth spirit is something that lives in the course of historical development, that has an effect on our soul, insofar as we are children of a particular age, insofar as certain impulses live in us, a certain form of that which can be achieved in existence in one way or another lives in us. But this depends on how we are placed in a particular epoch in relation to what flows out of the earth spirit that has been ruling over the earth throughout the ages. So this earth spirit, as it is written in Faust, may say:

... in the storm of action
I surge up and down,
Woe to and fro!
Birth and grave,
An eternal sea,
A changing weaving,
A glowing life,
So I create at the whirring loom of time
And work the living garment of the Godhead.

Now, I would like to say, a word is uttered in “Faust” that is often misleading when given a slightly exaggerated explanation. I do not want to fall into the trap that many all too easily fall into, of reading all kinds of things into a poem like the Faust poem. And I know very well that almost every explanation that one can dream up fits, if one twists it skillfully, almost everything. I would like to try to derive everything I have to say from the Faust legend itself. I now mean at this moment the word:

Two souls, alas! dwell in my breast,
The one seeks separation from the other...

One of these characterizes Faust as if it lived in all the impulses of this earthly life. He explicitly says of the other soul that it wants to rise from the dust of earthly life to the realms of the high ancestors. Now, I think it is an oversimplified explanation when one simply says that this is the lower and that the higher nature of man. Of course, with such abstractions one always comes close to the truth. One cannot go wrong, because the more abstract one is, the more correctly one will express oneself as a rule. But with a work of fiction such as Faust, it is important to accurately and specifically capture the feelings that are embodied in the work of fiction. And it seems to me, in fact, when Faust speaks of his two souls, that one soul is the one that experiences, above all, what the human inner being is, that experiences the influx of the forces, the impulses of the earth spirit, the one soul that perceives how impulses rise up from the deep foundations of human existence of the individual human individuality and fill the soul life. The other soul seems to me to be the one that has been active in striving for what the spirit of the macrocosm is to reveal, that wants to rise from the mere dust of earthly existence to the realms of high ancestors, that is, to all the spiritual that lives in the natural and spiritual world and from which the human being not only as a historical being, but from which he has emerged as a complete, as a whole being, as a natural and historical being, to the universe as it has gradually developed over the centuries, millennia, millions of years, into which the spirits of the centuries, millennia and millions of years have laid their impulses. It is to this universe, then, to the spiritual ancestors from whom this human being on earth has developed, that this soul wants to rise. Of course, as soon as one expresses such things in such sharply defined words as I have just done, one again makes the meaning somewhat one-sided. That too should certainly not be denied. But nevertheless, I believe that the two directions of feeling that live in Faust's soul and that he describes as his two souls are these: one of them goes out into the macrocosm, into the universe, and encompasses spiritual beings, as a whole, as a great thing, and nature at the same time, the whole cosmos, insofar as man is grounded in this cosmos as a microcosm. And in the other direction of feeling, I believe I must recognize that which flows from the current of historical becoming into the human soul and makes man a member, a child of a very specific time; so that we are Earth Spirit, as the opposite of the spirit of the great world, we are led to that which stirs in our own soul as the striving to embrace the full human being, in contrast to the individual expressions, which must always remain in the individual human life. Faust believes he can feel at one with this spirit, which makes man a whole human being, and indeed now as a historical being, by confronting the Earth Spirit. But the Earth Spirit rejects him. He refers him to the spirit that he understands. And at the same time he makes it clear to him how he, Faust, is not the same as the Earth Spirit itself. What is the underlying reason for this?

Now, we can perhaps recognize what is at the root of this if we consider the further progress of Goethe's Faustian poetry. Where does Faust feel he is placed immediately after he is rejected by the Earth Spirit? Wagner is the one he feels himself confronted with! And one may look for so much of the most noble humor in Goethe's world literature that one can, to a certain extent, be of the opinion: By the Earth Spirit rejecting Faust and pointing to the spirit that he understands, he is actually pointing him in a certain respect to the spirit of Wagner, whom Faust will face in the very next moment. Thus the Earth Spirit is actually saying to Faust: First become aware of how similar what lives in your inner being, what you have been given out of the spirit of the earth, is to the whole formation of Wagner's soul! And what emerges from this Wagnerian soul in the course of Goethe's poem? Yes, we see how Wagner lives on in the poem up to a certain point in time, which is precisely indicated to us in the second part of Goethe's “Faust” in the classical Walpurgis Night, where that which Wagner has brought forth out of his world view, the homunculus, must dissolve in the weaving and ruling of the whole world, as Goethe characterizes it in the various figures of the classical Walpurgis Night. And so we are led, I would say, to the ideal, to the ultimate goal of Wagner's striving. We may well call this the creation of the homunculus.

What then is this homunculus? Certainly, Goethe's Faustian poetry - and this is the incomparably great thing about it - presents in a magnificent, dramatic way these things that are otherwise often only the subject of abstract philosophical consideration. But that is precisely the great thing, that for once in the world it has been possible to bring that which other people can only approach in philosophical ideas to a truly poetic, genuinely artistic form. What then is this homunculus, this homunculus idea, when we present Goethe's world view, interwoven with his artistic sensibilities? Wagner is steeped in the world view that had developed by the time the young Goethe felt he was stepping into it, a world view that, so to speak, only takes into account the mechanistic view of nature and history, which emerged as the first product of what Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler - certainly out of necessity - had to make of the old world view. In place of the living, organic element, which in the pre-Copernican world view was interwoven into the human world view, into the world view of the philosophers, there now arises a world view that is more and more interwoven only with concepts and ideas that represent the world as a mechanical one. And so Wagner was still able to cling to the habit of deriving an understanding of the human being from the world as a whole, from the cosmos as a whole. Thus he was able to come to the view that man, too, could be created through a correspondingly complicated mechanistic juxtaposition of the mechanical laws that permeate and animate the world. And this creation of man, which brings only that into the image, into the conception of man, into that which one can feel and prove and experience about man, which flows from the mechanistic world view, we see this in what the ideal of Wagner represents, in the Homunculus.

Thus, the Earth Spirit clearly shows Faust the direction in which he would actually end up if he remained at the level of the world view at which he is currently standing. He points the way clearly, and one is tempted to say: Don't we see, when we want to dig deeper into the feelings and emotions that underlie the Faustian legend, that if Faust stops where he is before his world wandering, he would come to where Wagner comes: to grasp the human being as a mechanism that is only capable of life, even as an idea, if it can merge with what the world itself lives through and surges through, and where Faust's soul in particular wants to pour out into a higher, experienced knowledge, in contrast to the knowledge that Wagner can achieve, who is completely immersed in the world view of the Enlightenment.

Now we have to look a little into Goethe's soul itself if we want to discover what the role of Homunculus actually is in the whole of “Faust”. We know, if we have explored Goethe's world view a little, how Goethe sought knowledge in his own way, how he wanted to get behind the appearances of nature. Over many years, I have tried to show how Goethe worked in this direction in the introductions to my edition of Goethe's scientific writings and also in my book “Goethe's World View”. Goethe tried to find out for himself what lives in the processes and beings of external nature. And in a certain contrast to what surrounded him as science, he developed his metamorphosis doctrine, his ideas of the primal plant, the primal animal, of the primal phenomenon. What did he actually want with that? What he wanted with it is closely related to what he wanted to pour into his Faust, and what really shows how Goethe strove from a completely different attitude to knowledge than the science around him. In a passage in which Goethe seeks to describe what became clear to him during his travels through Italy, his idea of the archetypal plant, the mental image he sought to see in every plant and which would explain all plant life and every individual plant , he says: If you have this original plant, if you have truly grasped what this original plant should be, then you have something from which you can even invent individual plant forms that could live quite well. This goes to the very heart of Goethe's scientific endeavour. Through his scientific endeavour, Goethe did not want to arrive at ideas such as the world view of the Enlightenment around him. Goethe wanted to arrive at ideas that, so to speak, only represent in the soul, but activate the same forces that we have outside in plants, in animals, in all of nature itself. Goethe wanted to unite what grows and happens in the plant, and he did not want to have an idea that appears as an abstraction compared to what lives and weaves out there in nature; he wanted to have an idea that one can say lives in the imagination as something that is of the same nature as what lives out there in the plant. Goethe did not want to gain ideas that could be said to represent what is out there in the world, but in reality what is out there in the world is quite different. Goethe wanted to gain ideas through which what lives outside in a natural way would come to life in the soul in a way that is appropriate to the soul. That was his whole endeavour. Goethe wanted a kind of knowledge that can be described as living knowledge, as living together with nature. That is to say, he wanted to be able to walk through nature and its formations with the ideas he had in such a way that these ideas relate to the inner life of nature and its formation. As the forms of nature change, so should what lives in the soul change. There should be nothing living in the soul that the soul has merely abstracted from nature, but the soul should have merged with nature, lived together with it. Goethe strove for a knowledge that he really presents in a wonderful and artistic way in the fate of the homunculus in the classical Walpurgis Night. Homunculus is an idea derived from the human being, which must therefore remain with mere mechanism, with mere abstraction. Just as Goethe's ideas, Goethe's metamorphosic ideas, are not supposed to be such ideas, but rather represent the forces and living essence of nature itself, so this homunculus, instructed by a view of nature , which was even closer to nature than that which surrounded Goethe, taught by the natural philosophy of the ancient Greek philosophers, Thales, Anaxagoras, but also taught by the transformative being Proteus, must dissolve. Just as Goethe's metamorphic ideas should unite with nature itself, so should the homunculus unite with world events. He cannot live as he has emerged from Wagner's views. He is a mere idea, a mere thought. He must connect with existence. When the homunculus is seized by the living, the role of Wagner is played out.

Faust must begin a world wandering that takes him beyond what he could have achieved, but which must play out in this way, as the role of Wagner played out with the creation of the homunculus. And to this end, Goethe shows us how Faust now develops not those powers as his powers of knowledge that lead him to the macrocosm in the sense in which the macrocosm can only be grasped in the Copernican, Keplerian, Galilean way; but Goethe shows us how Faust now wills just that which the Earth Spirit can give out of the realm of the innermost, one might also say, the lowest forces of soul existence. With the forces that can come from this, Faust is to begin his journey through the world. And now we see Faust going through this journey through the events that are first presented in the first part of Goethe's “Faust”. There we see how Mephistopheles confronts Faust. I do not want to get involved here in all possible explanations of what this Mephistopheles actually is; but I want to go into what necessity shows us, that Goethe must go beyond what is presented in the first part of “Faust”. According to what we have just considered, Goethe has, to a certain extent, initially presented Faust as powerless in the face of the spirit of the macrocosm. But he does not immediately present him as powerless in the same way in relation to the spirit of the earth. But Faust – and this must certainly be emphasized – initially still stands by what a bygone age, from which humanity had in turn come to a more developed world view, still regarded as something right or at least as something possible. I will not go into what Mephistopheles becomes in his relationship with Faust in terms of the soul, nor into how Mephistopheles is more or less a realistic, more or less a mythological figure. I just want to draw attention to what happens to Faust under the influence of Mephistopheles.

On the one hand, in ancient times, magic, imagination or external actions were used to uncover the secrets of nature. Faust cannot be associated with this, as we will see. On the other hand, however, there was something else connected with the search for the secrets of the world in ancient times, something that has been preserved to our times: the belief that something could be learned about the secrets that prevail in man by, as it were, — we shall speak about this healthy power of the soul in particular tomorrow in connection with spiritual research — and that one exposes something in man that is less than this healthy power of the soul, which one can perhaps call, improperly but with a word that is understandable to us at this moment, the normal power of the soul. We need only recall words such as hypnotism, somnambulism, all the forms of superstitious clairvoyance, and we have the whole wide area into which we are led, perhaps in a not immediately transparent way, by the events of the first part of Goethe's Faust. And Mephistopheles is simply, I might say, such an emissary of the Earth Spirit, who for a while brings Faust to become really similar to the medieval Faust, be it the real historical Faust, who received his doctorate in Heidelberg in 1509, who is really an historical personality, be it the Faust of the folk book or one of the other numerous figures, or the Faust of the puppet show that Goethe got to know. This Faust of the puppet theater, this Faust of the sixteenth century, as he then continued to live on through the centuries, cannot be understood without taking into account unhealthy, morbid forces of the human soul, as we must call them today, forces of the human soul that are achieved by a damping down, a paralyzing of the human consciousness, as it is present in normal life. Whether one reads the life story of Faust — the Faust who received his doctorate in Heidelberg in 1509 — or delves into the book Faust, which appeared in 1589, one encounters on the one hand a real personality on the one hand and on the other a poetic personality, who is to the highest degree what today, with a more or less apt word, is called “medial”, “medial” with all the morbid, abnormal phenomena associated with it.

Now it is not immediately apparent that Goethe wanted to show Faust, for example, the mediality of the appearance of the earth spirit until the end of the first part of his “Faust”, but what happens really leads us into this realm. And one would like to describe Mephistopheles as the spirit who, in Faust's nature, evokes such a world view that people can believe that it solves deeper secrets of existence, namely, people who do not really trust in human full consciousness and therefore believe that one must first paralyze and cloud this consciousness in order to get behind the secrets of existence. In a book that is certainly one-sided but by no means undeserving, Kiesewetter has portrayed Mephistopheles as a kind of second ego of Faust, not as a higher ego, but as the ego that one recognizes if one disregards the part that expresses itself in a person's normal higher mental life and descends into the regions of the soul, where the instinctive nature, where, I might say, the sub-sensible — by no means the supersensible! — comes to expression. In a way that is not immediately apparent, but which becomes quite clear to anyone who follows the events in the first part of “Faust” with understanding, it now becomes apparent that Faust, in his wanderings through the world, really can be believed to be attained by the path of such an abnormal, subdued, somnambulant consciousness, or in the ordinary, trivial sense, by one who is not clear-minded. But something else is also made clear to us, something that is extraordinarily important for understanding both the human soul and the “Faust” poem. While Faust is becoming familiarized with everything that can be recognized with deeper, but only sub-sensuous, driving forces, which then expresses itself in the witches' kitchen, in Walpurgis Night and so on, he is at the same time becoming familiarized, we may say, with tragic-moral aberrations, with the rule of impetuous drives. Of course, what we encounter, for example, in the “Gretchen” poem is one of the perfect flowers of world literature. But it is perhaps one of the perfect flowers of world literature precisely because the poet has succeeded in depicting the tragedy that flows from human drives that are not clarified by what one can call higher human nature in the true sense of the word. And Mephisto throws together for Faust a certain world knowledge, a satisfaction of knowledge, with this emergence of blind instinct from the depths of the soul, where man abandons himself to his nature without accompanying his life with a moral judgment of the world. This is portrayed in Goethe's poetry in a grandiose and tragically manner. But at the same time it shows us how everything that is realized in the field of what is so often referred to as clairvoyance - we will talk about these things again in more detail tomorrow - what could be called somnambulistic clairvoyance, which arises from the consciousness being , that in addition to the powers of cognition, the corporeality of the human being is altered and used in this, even if it is a subtle change; how all that is achieved in this area is on exactly the same level of human nature as the blind nature of drives and passions. This result, which for many people is a terrible one, emerges from the way in which Goethe presents the aforementioned clairvoyance, somnambulism, as arising when one transforms into powers of knowledge what lives in the drives of the human being, in those instincts that have not yet been clarified into normal human cognitive ability, in the blind, unconscious instincts that follow impulses, but impulses not interwoven with the realm of moral judgment. And Goethe wants to show that such a view of the world, as expressed in the witches' kitchen on Walpurgis Night, is only the opposite of the blind rule of the drives, where man rules with his morbid soul life. This intimate connection between the lower human instinctual life and what is often seen as clairvoyance and which is believed to lead to higher knowledge of human nature, because one has no trust in normal human nature, is dramatically characterized in the first part of Faust. And it is stated with sufficient clarity that the person who attains such clairvoyance does not rise above normal people, but sinks below what are ordinary scientific powers of knowledge, into the same regions of human existence where blind drives prevail. If one wishes to study the physiology of blind instincts in greater detail, one can delve into the revelations of somnambulists, hypnotized subjects, and mediums. But if one wants to penetrate to the real higher secrets of existence (and we will talk about this in more detail tomorrow), one must realize that with such clairvoyance one does not rise above normal people, but sinks below them human being, — a clairvoyance that Goethe, not preaching morality but artistically depicting, dramatically interweaves into the aberrations of the human subconscious being. This is what Faust had to go through during that world wandering, which is presented to us in the first part.

And now we see how Goethe, in a remarkable way, at the very beginning of the second part, has Faust face both natural and spiritual life. He interprets this very clearly, I might say magnificently clearly, not, of course, with philosophically abstract words, but through the power of creation. We shall not concern ourselves today with the question, which has also been raised by some commentators on Faust, as to whether a personality such as Faust can really recover from the serious crimes he has committed in the events depicted in the first part when, as has been said, he goes out into the wide expanse of nature and experiences what is depicted at the beginning of the second part. To what extent the guilt that he has incurred continues to prevail in Faust's soul is not something we want to dwell on today. It can continue to prevail. What Goethe wants to show, however, is how Faust rises out of his entanglement in the sub-sensible humanity. And there we see Faust at the beginning of the second part, I might say, placed in the healthiest way in nature and see the spiritual world working on him in the healthiest way. For what Goethe presents by having the chorus of spirits act on Faust is really only an external dramatic representation of a process that can be described, more or less accurately, as an internal process that takes place in exactly the same way as it does when the genius seizes the poet, when it is not something in the external sense that has a magical effect on the person, when it is not human consciousness is dulled, as in some kind of somnambulistic vision, but rather where something flows into human consciousness, which is indeed a spiritual influence, but which does not flow into a consciousness that is tuned down, into a consciousness that is dulled, but into the consciousness that is most healthily immersed in the natural and historical life of humanity. And has Faust progressed on his journey through the world since he beheld the sign of the Macrocosm and addressed the world as a spectacle? Yes, Faust is further along, quite considerably further! And Goethe wants to show that Faust's healthy nature has withstood the temptations that Mephistopheles has brought upon him so far, and which have consisted in his wanting to push him down into the sub-sensible, into that which lives in man when instinctive forces and not elevated powers of knowledge are brought to some world-view. At the moment depicted at the beginning of Part One, Faust has opened the book of Nostradamus. The sign of the macrocosm appears before his soul. He tries to put himself in the place of that which can be represented to him through the words and signs of this macrocosm. “What a spectacle! But alas! Only a spectacle!” At this moment, one might say, Faust aspires to a kind of morbid mental life, in which he then also remains, although the word “morbid” should not be understood here in a philistine sense.

Now that Faust has been placed in the midst of a healthy experience of nature and spirit, and the spirit has had its effect on his normal consciousness, he utters another word, a parallel word, I would say, to the word “What a spectacle! But alas! Only a spectacle!” Faust confronts the phenomena caused by the sunshine; but he turns away and turns to the waterfall, which reflects in colors what the sun can do. “So let the sun remain behind me,” says Faust. He wants to look at the reflection of what the sun causes. ‘We have life in the colored reflection’ – a wonderful intensification compared to the first word: ”What a spectacle! But alas! Only a spectacle!” Now Faust can grasp how what appears to him as nature is truly spiritual, because he knows how to relate to what lives in nature in the sense of the word with which the second part of Faust concludes: “All that is transitory is but a parable” - grasping in the parable what lives spiritually in nature. And so we see how, at the beginning of the second part of Faust, through an effect of the spiritual world on normal consciousness, Faust is brought to a healthy position in relation to the world; how he is now really no longer, I would like to say, in the belief that one can achieve something by going back to the old magic, and how he has now also learned that one can achieve nothing with all that is false clairvoyance, that is somnambulism. Now he faces the world as a healthy person. He can nevertheless attain life in a colorful reflection, that is, attain what lies behind the world of nature and history.

And truly, we now see how Faust develops more and more into what Goethe himself wanted to develop into. Of course, when we look at Goethe's development of world view, everything appears to us, I might say, more in an abstract, philosophical form. But that is precisely, as I said, the great thing that Goethe has succeeded in doing, to shape it dramatically on the outside, which other people can only rise to in philosophy. And so we see that Faust is now able to place himself in the world of historical development, that he is able to find the eternal-meaningful, the spiritual-real in this historical development. But for this it is necessary that Faust now really experiences in his soul an increase of his powers of knowledge. Through what he has experienced with Mephistopheles, he has not experienced an increase, but a damping down of his power of knowledge; he is not seeing, he has been blinded. Now, out of historical becoming, he longs to have a figure like Helen of Troy brought to life before him again. How can he achieve this? Precisely by developing something within himself, which is so beautifully and profoundly portrayed in the scene that represents the “walk to the mothers”. Goethe himself confessed to Eckermann that he got the inspiration to include this mother scene in the second part of “Faust” from reading Plutarch, where it is described how a personality of ancient times, who went around in a difficult situation as if he were insane and spoke of the “mothers,” of those mothers who were referred to as goddesses, who were deeply revered in the secrecy of ancient mysteries. Why should Faust descend to these mothers? Goethe speaks to Eckermann in a strangely mysterious way. He says that with regard to this scene, he betrayed himself the least. We may well assume that Goethe did not express this in full, clear, abstract terms, but that which really lived in his soul as his path to the mothers in full, clear realization. I have often spoken about this path to the mothers, but today I would just like to hint: When we immerse ourselves in the ancient world view into which Goethe places Faust, into the classical age of Greek civilization, into which he has already placed us when he encounters Helen, when we immerse ourselves in this ancient world, into which Faust is now also supposed to plunge, we find that this ancient world brought forth something out of itself with the powers that were still peculiar to ancient man: powers of knowledge that, one might say, penetrate more deeply into the workings of the world because they were even more deeply connected to the nature of existence than the powers of knowledge of the souls of the time in which Goethe lived, which had already become more separated from the direct life with the natural existence and had to find the way back into the natural existence. But it has already been indicated that when man delves into the life of his soul, he can find something that is not the same as what was indicated earlier as the sub-sensible driving forces, as those impulses that leave a person blind, but still work as impulses; but that a person can dive down into the depths of their soul life with full consciousness, with nothing other than their normal consciousness, which only dives deeper into their soul. Then, through this immersion in his deeper soul powers, he attains something quite different from the sub-sensible soul powers of somnambulism or hypnotism or similar phenomena of human life, as just described. He has the possibility of descending so deeply into his soul that he really brings up powers that are just as conscious and that he masters just as much as the powers of normal consciousness, to which he is not a slave as in somnambulism or in ordinary mediumship. And that Faust descends to the mothers, after he has recovered as far as it has been indicated, that is precisely the dramatic representation of this descent to those powers of the soul, which, when we grasp them in our soul, bring an inner higher man to the outer world, so that we can also see more in the outer world than what the mere senses or the mind bound to the senses see.

And now we see how Faust can continue his journey through the world by consciously descending into the depths of the soul; and how, in contrast to this, Wagner is presented with his Homunculus , who only arrives at the abstract idea of humanity, which must merge with life, which cannot sustain itself, which, before an insight, if it merely remains mechanistic, is scattered. This is contrasted with what Faust achieves in the ascent of his world wanderings. But there is something else! We are also clearly shown how Mephistopheles really brought those forces to Faust that are below the senses, in that Mephistopheles, one might say, morally ends, if the word may be applied here in the classical Walpurgis Night, when he unites with the Phorcys, with those entities that are born out of the darkness and the abyss, out of that abyss that represents the lower human nature. If we really go into what Goethe, in his own words, has incorporated into 'Faust', it is presented to us quite clearly and distinctly. The forces that Mephistopheles now feels are with him on the classical Walpurgis Night are not superhuman, they are subhuman. One cannot arrive at a different view of the world with those powers of perception that go beyond the ordinary powers of perception, except by enhancing and enriching what one has in the ordinary powers of perception. But with the supersensible powers of perception, one arrives at something that is fundamentally poorer than normal human life. And it cannot be emphasized often enough that it was also said in Faust that the life that is attained through a dimming of human consciousness, whether through somnambulism or mediumship, is poorer than what man attains with his normal consciousness of the world. When man looks at the world with his normal consciousness, he has his two eyes through which he looks out into the world. This is a certain richness in the sensory world. Where Mephistopheles is with the spirits of darkness, they have only one eye between them and have to pass it from one to the other. They are poorer. Mephistopheles belongs to a world — at least he feels a kinship with this world — that is poorer than the normal human world. This world has nothing more to offer Faust, now that he has begun the descent to the mothers, that is, to the deeper forces of the human soul, to which Mephistopheles can still pass the key, but to which Mephistopheles himself cannot lead him.

And now we see how Goethe, at a higher level of his world wanderings, is able to place Faust in the right way in relation to the real, truly surviving spirit of the past. Indeed, Goethe has the following written next to the title of the third act of the second part: Classical-Romantic Phantasmagoria. This is not presented as reality, but he has life “in a colorful reflection”. He grasps it with the deeper but conscious powers of the human soul and then strips it away again, as we are shown in the fourth act of part two. And so, if time allowed, we could still teach many more things that would make it clear to us how Goethe lets his Faust undergo a world journey, out of the aberrations that arise when one has no faith in normal human consciousness. The old magic that Faust first falls prey to and surrenders to has no trust in what consciousness is able to give, and separates the events that are supposed to take place magically out there in all kinds of ceremonies from consciousness. What takes place in the weaving and working of the spirits outside of full consciousness is supposed to reveal the spiritual world; but not what takes place in normal consciousness, but what takes place in the subconscious, in the dark drives, is supposed to explain what flows through the world as a secret. From this Goethe had to lead his Faust to that which can be recognized as the spiritual world without any impairment of normal consciousness, through a further development of normal consciousness. This is, it seems to me, very clear, if not as an idea - Goethe himself said this - but as an impulse that is shaped entirely artistically, in Goethe's “Faust” among many others, it is also embodied. From this point of view, if I may use the trivial word, it really appears to be entirely in the role of Goethe's Faust when, after he has found the deepening of normal consciousness, he has really come to has really come to the point of rejecting all false seeking along false, magical, somnambulistic paths, and wants to face the world as a human being who seeks to know the higher only through an elevation of the soul forces.

Thus we read in the second part of “Faust”:

Unhappy phantoms! Thus you treat
The human race a thousand times over;
Even indifferent days you transform
Into hideous confusion of web-enmeshed torments.
Demons, I know, are hard to get rid of,
The spiritual bond cannot be severed...

And further: I have not yet fought my way into the open.
If I could remove magic from my path,
Unlearn the spells altogether,
I would be a man alone in front of you,
Then it would be worth the effort to be human.

Faust wants to be a person who, through neither outer magic nor inner clouding of consciousness, faces the world of the spirit and is also able to introduce this world of the spiritual from this consciousness into social human life, into the life of 'deed'. And this is portrayed towards the end of the second part of 'Faust' in such a wonderful, in such a grandiose way. So Goethe has tried in his own way to show how man, through a development of the powers within him, can truly penetrate to the secrets of existence, by also clearly and dramatically portraying the aberrations that stand in man's way.

One would like to say that the human being who wants to come out of human forces themselves to a coexistence with the spiritual world really stood in a Faustian form - not by being called Faust, but really in a Faustian form - already opposite Augustine, who indeed attributes to the Manichean bishop Faustus the possibility of coming close to the secrets of the world through an inner elevation of human powers of knowledge. Goethe, in allowing the medieval Faust to have an effect on him, found himself in a world that had already passed judgment on this kind of Faust. The judgment was that a person who wanted to come to the secrets of existence out of his own powers in such a way must fall away from the stream of humanity as an evil element. Goethe could not agree with this view. Goethe was clear about the fact that a human being can only be a complete human being when he is capable of realizing the striving of Faust, even if not in the old way in which the Faust of the folk tale or that of the sixteenth century wanted to realize it. And Goethe was able to arrive at this view because he was deeply imbued with what, as I have often said here, can be called idealism, world-view idealism in the development of German thought.

In these lectures, I have tried to present figures such as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in their - albeit only philosophical - striving to grasp the spiritual world. I have also sufficiently emphasized that one need not be a dogmatic adherent of any one of the Fichtean, Schellingian, or Hegelian schools in order to be truly impressed by the greatness of these figures, who stand at the center of German idealism. One should take them as seekers of knowledge, as human beings with a certain kind of inner life. Disregarding the details of their specific world-view, But they do stand there in a striving for a world-picture that is closely akin to Goethe's striving for a world-picture and that, when it is seen in its deeper inter-connections, shows itself to be fundamentally the same as the striving for a world-picture in Germany at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century. This striving is destined to continue to work within the process of German evolution.

We know that Kant developed a world view that was not related to Goethe's. I have often pointed this out. It cannot be justified here, I just want to mention it. Kant came to the view that, fundamentally, man cannot see into the deeper sources of nature and spirit. And he stated that if man really wanted to delve into the workings of the world with his ideas, he would need a completely different faculty of perception than he actually has. Then, not only concepts and ideas that depict things would have to flow into his knowledge, but the living stream of existence itself. We can see that Goethe felt this, for example, in his idea of metamorphosis with the primal plant, the primal animal, which Kant excluded from human cognition. And Kant said: “The one who wanted to embrace faith – I am quoting inaccurately, but it roughly corresponds to the wording – that he really looks into the sources of existence, would have to embark on an adventure of reason, to a kind of contemplative judgment; he would have to not only comprehend, but inwardly experience and contemplatively experience the stream of world existence itself.

In the beautiful little essay on “Contemplative Judgment,” Goethe expounds on this Kantian idea, and explicitly says: If one can rise to a higher region with regard to the ideas of freedom and immortality, why should one not also dare to take on the adventure of reason with what the human soul can otherwise experience in nature, in itself? What does Goethe actually want? That means nothing other than: Goethe wants to stir up such knowledge in himself that makes it possible for him, with what he has in his soul, to truly immerse himself in the living world, not just to know the world, but to experience it. Goethe himself strove for such knowledge and for such a position in relation to world phenomena, as he dramatically embodies them in his “Faust”. And Goethe had developed within himself the conviction that man can not only acquire knowledge that reflects a world outside of him, but that he can also awaken within himself a world of ideas that experiences the stream of the existence of the world; but that this is possible only by undertaking what Kant still calls an adventure of reason: to draw up from the depths of the soul the powers that can cognize more than the senses and the understanding limited to the senses. And that is the great thing, that Goethe, who regarded what he did as the nerve of his own cognitive faculty, at the same time understood as a vital impulse, that he felt compelled to solve the problem of knowledge not only philosophically, but as a living man; that for him the question of what can be known of the world and how one can work within the world of deeds, what one can hold in one's soul as the content of knowledge and as an impulse for action in the world of deeds, becomes a life problem. That is the great and significant thing, that for him the happiness and ruin of man depends on it; that for him the satisfaction of a longing depends on it, which concerns the whole person. But it is through this that the problem of knowledge could become for Goethe an artistic, a dramatic, a vital problem in the widest sense of the word. And because Goethe conceived knowledge as something that really leads to life, Faust, in his presentation, was truly satisfied in what he sought by growing together, as it were, with Goethe's world-view itself. For has not his soul, from the very beginning, sought to live in communion with what is spread out spiritually in nature? In Faust it is a quest from the very beginning. In order to realize it to some extent within himself, he needed his wanderings in the world. While he is still in his world, in the “cursed, dull wall-hole,” what kind of longing does he have there?

Oh, would you, full of moonlight,
For the last time on my pain,
Which I so many a midnight
At this desk herangewacht:
Then, over books and paper,
Trübsel'ger friend, you appeared to me!
Ah! could I but on mountain heights
In thy dear light go,
Around mountain caves with spirits hover,
On meadows in thy dawn weave,
From all knowledge smoke unburden,
In thy dew healthy me bathe!

He wants to get out with his soul, to unite with what lives in nature. He has come there, he has been reborn after his world wandering in that which Goethe has imbued with his soul and lives through as what can be called: the highest, most beautiful flowering of German intellectual life.

Therefore, it can be said that Goethe really did incorporate into his “Faust” what he had gained for himself in a struggling life of knowledge and the world throughout his entire life, for “Faust” accompanied him throughout his entire life. Many secrets are still contained in this “Faust”. But it also contains the fact that Faust's journey through the world has brought him to the point where, through the experiences of his own life, he has matured to take in what Goethe had acquired for himself, not as an adventure of reason, but as something that can be attained by descending to the 'Mothers', that is, by attempting in a healthy way to develop the normal spiritual powers already present in one's soul. In this way one finds not something below the soul nor something outside of it, but something truly super-sensuous. And the fact that within the development of the German soul a work like Faust has become possible characterizes the whole of this development, and determines the position which it must hold in the evolution of the world.

There was always an awareness that more is given with “Faust” than merely that which lived in Goethe. Of course, there were always Mephistopheles-like natures in the outer world as well; they cannot comprehend anything like that which lives in Goethe's Faust. And finally, I would like to point out to you just such an external Mephistophelean nature. I would like to read a critique of Goethe's “Faust” that was written in 1822, from which you can see that “Faust” was also judged differently from the way it is judged by those who try to immerse themselves in it selflessly. One would like to say, a criticism that comforts one that so very often the Mephisto natures in the world confront that which honestly and convincingly seeks the sources and reasons for existence. For such natures as that which wrote on Faust in 1822 are not so rare in the present day either. Now that I have tried to lead you on a journey through Faust's experiences, let us also hear something of the echo that Faust has found in a Mephistophelean nature. I shall omit those passages that are not suitable for a public lecture because they are too cynical. The prologue in heaven, where the Lord discusses Faust's nature with Mephisto, shows this man, after he has established “that Mr. von Goethe is a very bad versifier,” the following:

“This prologue is a true model of how one should not write in verse.”

And now the critic continues – in 1822, ladies and gentlemen! –:

"The ages that have passed have nothing to show that could be compared to this prologue in terms of presumptuous wretchedness... But I must be brief because I have taken on a long and unfortunately also boring piece of work. I shall show the reader that the infamous Faust enjoys an usurped and undeserved celebrity only due to the corruptive collective mind of an associatio obscurorum vivorum... I am not motivated by any rivalry for fame to pour out the lye of strict criticism on Mr. von Goethe's Faust. I do not walk in his footsteps to Parnassus and would be glad if he had enriched our German language with a masterpiece... Among the crowd of bravos, my voice may indeed fade away, but it is enough for me to have done my best; and if I manage to convert even one reader and bring him back from worship of this monster, then my thankless effort will not be regretted... Poor Faust speaks a completely incomprehensible gibberish, in the worst rhyming nonsense ever written in Quinta by any student. My preceptor would have beaten me if I had made verses as bad as the following:

Oh, full moon, thou that dost sow
On me my punishment,
For many a midnight
At this desk I have watched.

I will not dwell on the inferiority of the diction or the wretchedness of the versification; the reader has enough evidence from what he has seen that the author cannot compete with the mediocre poets of the old school when it comes to verse construction.

Mephistopheles himself recognizes that Faust was already possessed by a devil before the contract. But we believe that he does not belong in hell, but in the madhouse, with all that is his, namely hands and feet, head and so on. Many poets have given us examples of sublime gibberish, nonsense in grandiose words, but I would call Goethe's gallimathias a genre nouveau of popular gallimathias, because it is presented in the most vulgar and bad language...

The more I think about this long litany of nonsense, the more likely it seems to me that it is a bet that if a famous man comes up with the shallowest, most boring nonsense, , there will still be a legion of silly writers and gullible readers who will find and exegize profound wisdom and great beauties in this flat-footed nonsense.

And so it goes on. Finally, he says:

"In short, a miserable devil who could learn from Marinelli in Lessing. After him, I, in the name of common sense, reverse the judgment of Mrs. von Staël in favor of the aforementioned Faust and do not condemn him to hell, which could cool this frosty product, since even the devil feels wintery inside, but to be hurled into Cloaca Paranassus. By rights.

The world ignores such judgments. And the world sees in Faust one of the deepest attempts of the human spirit, not only in a philosophical way, but in a dramatic, very lively way, to present the problem of knowledge and humanity in the broadest sense to people, to fathom it at all. And there was always an awareness that Goethe succeeded not only in expressing the Goethean world view and Goethean sentiments in his Faust, but, as Herman Grimm says so beautifully, the entire world view of the entire century. And Herman Grimm was right to use this word. “We have,” he says, “a literature of our own, the purpose of which is not only to prove Goethe's credo, but also the credo of his entire century in Faust.”

I could also point out how deeply rooted the rebirth of Faust is in the entire German intellectual life after his world wandering. The depth to which this German spiritual life itself has sunk is shown by the fact that the whole wealth of this spiritual striving could find expression in a work such as Goethe's Faust, and Herman Grimm's words will certainly prove true: not only Goethe's Weltanschhauung, but the Weltanschhauung of the whole century. And a Weltanschhauung such as will live on in the coming centuries in the very broadest sense has been expressed in Goethe's Faust. That German intellectual life was able to produce this work will be a fact for all future times, which, despite all prejudices about German intellectual life, will be recognized by those who can grasp this German intellectual life impartially and objectively. By expressing the deepest striving of the German spirit through Goethe in Faust in such a great way, this German spirit has spoken for all time to all people of the development of the earth an imperishable word of knowledge of human life in being and in free will and in work, a word that will remain, just as will remain that which is the true, deep fruits of German spiritual life. Among these deepest, truest, most imperishable fruits will be found what we can find in Faust. And so we may say: by immersing ourselves in Goethe's Faust, we become acquainted with a part of the imperishable nature of the German spirit itself. And this German spirit has spoken to the whole world by being able to express such things as are hidden in an obvious secret in Faust, to use another of Goethe's words – obvious if one only seeks it. In the face of Faust, we may apply Goethe's own saying: “All that is transitory is but a parable.” But we may also expand on this saying: in works that, out of the transitory, incline towards the eternal, as Goethe's Faust does, the immortal speaks at the same time in an eternal way to the eternity of human existence.

Among the many prejudices against spiritual science, as it is meant here, are those that associate the methods of spiritual research, that which can be described as the paths of spiritual research, with an abnormal, pathological mental life. Although anyone who follows more closely what can be said about the course of such soul development, which is to lead to spiritual research, can only come to such a prejudice either out of ignorance, out of lack of knowledge, or out of ill will, this prejudice must be discussed at some point. For there is plenty of ignorance in the sense mentioned, as well as ill will, in the world. I do not wish to go into individual attacks that have been made against spiritual science from this particular quarter, but I would just like to discuss in general terms the possible attacks, the possible objections and prejudices, and show how unjustified they actually are in the face of the nature of true spiritual research. To do this, however, I must briefly present some material from a certain point of view that was already the subject of the lectures I gave here at the beginning of the winter. I must sketch out the way of spiritual research in a very sketchy way.

The way of spiritual research - as has been emphasized here again and again - is a purely inward path of the soul, a path that is only traversed within the life of the soul itself, and it consists of certain activities of the life of the soul, of certain exercises of the soul life, which lead this soul life from the point at which it stands in ordinary life to another point, from which it is precisely in a position to approach what can be called the spiritual world. Now, in summarizing a great deal, I have just dealt with the exercises that the spiritual researcher has to go through in two main groups in one of the lectures I gave this winter. The first exercises consist of forming one's thinking differently, in a certain way, from the way it is in ordinary life: exercises of thinking. They belong to the first group of spiritual research exercises. Exercises of the will, undertaken in a certain way, belong to the second group of spiritual research exercises.

Today, I will have to say a lot, of course in a brief summary, for a full understanding of which it is necessary either to know what has been said in earlier lectures or to read, for example, my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” or the second volume of my “Occult Science”. For I shall endeavor to show how thinking is changed by certain exercises, technically called meditation and concentration of thought, in comparison with ordinary thinking. I do not propose to go into the way these exercises are done, but I may mention at once that in the actual thinking exercises it is a matter of raising into consciousness what is always present in human thinking, and especially in the healthiest human thinking , but which remains more or less unconscious within this healthy human thinking of everyday life, for the reason that we carry out this thinking of everyday life in the sense of what could be called adaptation to the laws, to the processes of the outer world. We do not perceive the external world only through our senses; we think about the external world, we form ideas that become thoughts, we connect these ideas in our thought life. We connect them, when it comes to healthy thinking that belongs to reality, in a very specific, lawful way. Even that which is called logic can only describe how judgments are made, how thinking moves inwardly, so to speak, in order to arrive at what is called truth. The actual process of thinking, the inward activity of thinking, essentially remains unconscious in ordinary thinking. The aim of the first group of exercises is to bring to consciousness what happens in ordinary thinking but remains unconscious, so that we do not merely let our thoughts be woven and live under the compulsion of the currents of the world, but so that our full, conscious will comes to expression in our thinking.

We must realize, when we truly observe the process of thinking and imagining, that we are doing so in the sense that it is imposed on us as a compulsion of the flow of reality. The exercises, which are now particularly thinking exercises, aim to take such ideas and such kinds of ideas into consciousness in the processes that are called meditation and concentration of thought, so that one always has conscious will in the whole process of meditating, of concentrating, that there is no moment when the conscious will does not prevail. And if you have the necessary patience and the necessary stamina and energy to do such exercises, it turns out that you come to detach the activity of thinking, the act of thinking, so to speak, from what ordinary life is the state of being in thought, that one learns to concentrate not only on what is being thought, but on the process of thinking, on that inner weaving and life of the soul that takes place when one thinks. And I have also dealt with the accompanying phenomena associated with this inner discovery, which consists in becoming aware of the thinking activity in thinking. The accompanying phenomenon is this: that one can, to a certain extent, regard one's thoughts themselves, which one is otherwise accustomed to having in one's thinking activity, as something secondary, and indeed, that one can ultimately have them entirely outside one's thinking activity. One begins with certain thoughts, but one passes over to a mere conscious, volitional, fully volitional thinking activity. One is able to switch thoughts on and off and consciously control one's thinking activity. As a side effect of this, one certainly becomes firm and strong in this voluntary use of thinking activity. But at the same time one enters into a certain emptiness of consciousness, into an empty weaving and living of consciousness. Therefore, as I said, these exercises, which relate to mere thinking, must never be undertaken alone. Indeed, the exercises of meditation and concentration are already undertaken in such a way that, by going through them in consciousness, the ordinary element of the will undergoes training at the same time; so that one comes to raise into consciousness what is hidden in the will in ordinary life. And then one comes to find something quite real in ordinary volition, in ordinary will activity, something that is always there, but which otherwise remains stuck down in the unconscious. One cannot will just anything, nor can one pour just any volition into an action without the element I am speaking of being present in the activity. But it remains unconscious. Through those exercises which are based on a kind of concentration, meditation, on an inner, now more, I would say, soul-related activity, one comes to discover what otherwise, by willing, by letting a will flow into the action, unconsciously pours into the willing or into the action, but which one does not look at. Now one discovers it. Strangely enough, one discovers in the will something that resembles consciousness. One discovers a consciousness that is different from the usual consciousness. One discovers – and one must take this, what is now being looked at, not as an image, but as a reality, as a truth – that another consciousness than our ordinary daytime consciousness accompanies us continually, that we are just not aware of this other consciousness, if the paradoxical expression may be used. One discovers another person in the person. One discovers that which can be named: a consciousness that is constantly watching us. And one learns to handle this consciousness, which one thus discovers in the operations of one's will, like the ordinary consciousness. One also learns to connect this consciousness with the results that one has achieved through the thinking exercises, so that the two connect with each other to a certain extent and one is now able to perform soul tasks, which one now knows are completely free from any physical involvement. The latter must be an inner experience, and it becomes an inner experience.

Thus one develops one's soul life into a consciousness that is different from the ordinary one, and one gives this soul life a content by discovering the will in thinking, by discovering thinking as this “activity in itself.” Not in such an abstract way as it is done by ordinary philosophies or other sciences, but in a living way one discovers the thinking activity as a volitional activity. One can now also say that one discovers the will in thinking, and one can say that in the will one discovers a consciousness that can be addressed as a thinking consciousness, just as the ordinary everyday consciousness that we have in life is a thinking consciousness. In thinking, one discovers the will; in the will, one discovers objective thinking that is not otherwise handled by us – if I may use the expression – a thinker in us that is within us, that is objectively present. This essentially characterizes what is to be achieved.

Other accompanying phenomena of this process must also be characterized in order to have a complete picture when one has arrived at discovering thinking as an activity, to find in one's thinking that which can otherwise remain unconscious; I have described this in more detail in earlier lectures. Then one finds oneself confronted with something as one is otherwise confronted with the objects and processes of the external world. But an important, essential peculiarity arises. What one now experiences with the help of the developed thinking and that consciousness of which I have just spoken, that other consciousness than the ordinary one, what one discovers in this way, differs quite essentially from the soul experiences one otherwise has in ordinary life. One may interpret the process more materialistically or more spiritually, but that does not matter, just as it does not matter in the case of today's reflections, which are based on experience rather than interpretation. That which has entered into us through our ordinary experiences, through our perceptions, and which has become thoughts, ideas, is transformed in such a way that it can remain in our memory, in our recollection, as one says, even if, of course, quite different processes are behind this retention. Just as experiences of ordinary perception and ordinary thinking gain the possibility, through a certain process of the soul, of being stored directly in memory, and become, as it were, our memory treasure without our intervention, so it is not the case with those experiences that we make in the way I have just described, with the developed consciousness and the developed will-filled thinking activity. These experiences are made, but they pass by being made, so that one can actually only hold on to them for a moment. They do not become embedded in our organic life. One can compare their fleetingness with the fleetingness of dream experiences. But one is not saying more than a comparison. After all, the dream still has the peculiarity that it can at least be remembered in a certain way directly through itself. What is experienced in the spiritual world in the way described takes place, but does not pass through itself into the ordinary store of memory. And that is the peculiar thing about it: if one wants to face reality in the spirit, one can never proceed in such a way that one can simply extract from one's memory what one has once experienced and then have it again. You would not have it again; instead, you have to experience it anew. Of course, what I have described is slowly preparing itself; it prepares itself through all possible stages. But if you consider all the things described in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds,” for example, what you come to last is what I have just described.

Now you will say: So spiritual experiences can only be had and then have to be forgotten. They would have to, if nothing else were added. And the other thing that is added now is at the same time the special fact of spiritual loss, which must be taken into account if one wants to understand the relationship between the healthiest soul life and spiritual research, and how unfounded the prejudices are that somehow spiritual research could have something to do with pathological soul development. The peculiar thing at issue here is that the state of consciousness that is attained through the true, through the right spiritual-scientific path develops. It comes about, it is then there for our soul life. But the ordinary state of consciousness with which we otherwise live in everyday life remains as it was before we entered this other state of consciousness. That is to say, we remain capable of judgment or, for that matter, deficient in judgment in exactly the same way as we were before; we initially remain full of affect or less full of affect in exactly the same way as we were before. At first, it is possible to observe the other person, who one was before and who one has now remained, with the same objectivity with which one can observe today the processes that one went through emotionally yesterday, for example. Just as little is changed in the ordinary consciousness by the fact that one has attained this other consciousness, as the soul life that one went through yesterday is somehow changed by the fact that one looks at it today. And if it is changed, if you fantasize something into it, then the observation is not the one that can lead to any objectivity; then something must have taken place that is not in order. So you face your ordinary mental life in the same way that you face, I would say, a previous mental experience. The ordinary mental life remains completely intact. And if one wants to store up spiritual-scientific experiences, one must first take over into the ordinary consciousness, which has been preserved, that which one has experienced in the spirit, and then one can store it in one's memory in the same way as one can store experiences of the ordinary consciousness. But it is always necessary that the ordinary consciousness stands beside the newly attained consciousness and that what is undertaken for ordinary life is not undertaken with the newly attained consciousness, but with the ordinary consciousness. If, then, one wants to incorporate spiritual-scientific experiences into the ordinary life of thought, which can be preserved in memory, then one must first take them over from the other consciousness. If one wants to recognize that these spiritual experiences are true, then one cannot experience this in the other consciousness – this must be expressly emphasized – but one must judge them with the ordinary consciousness. They must be subjected to the judgment of the ordinary consciousness. Insight into the spiritual facts is gained through the developed consciousness; insight into the truth of these spiritual facts is initially gained through one's completely ordinary, healthy judgment, which remains completely intact if all exercises are completed in the proper manner.

But this is how the consciousness I have just spoken of differs from all pathological mental states. It differs from pathological states of consciousness in that the pathological states of consciousness develop out of the healthy ones – for my sake – that those that can still be considered healthy pass over into the pathological states of consciousness. The altered consciousness replaces the first. But even if you can think in succession: healthy consciousness, sick consciousness, healthy consciousness again, you cannot think in the actual conscious sense that you are normal, reasonable and crazy at the same time. Because then you would not be crazy. In the moment when you can judge your craziness with your normal mind, you are truly not crazy. This is the special fact that must be considered, that all altered consciousness, all morbid consciousness, arises out of the healthy one like a metamorphosis, and that one should never actually speak of a double ego – which has already been criticized by the excellent criminal anthropologist Benedikt – but should speak of an altered consciousness for the usual pathological phenomena.

This simultaneously characterizes the aim of spiritual-scientific exercises, the goal to which what is called spiritual research actually leads the human being. Now it is quite understandable – I say expressly: quite understandable – that anyone who does not immediately grasp the full essence of the matter at hand can easily fall prey to the prejudice: Well, yes, someone has done mischief with their soul life and has arrived at an abnormal soul life. Perhaps one could also, as one otherwise does, quite nicely, for example, in addition to the usual abnormal, morbid soul phenomena, which all basically have to be characterized by the fact that in reality not one consciousness can exist alongside the other but that one must develop out of the other, that one must replace the other. One could, in addition to these abnormal mental phenomena, simply register new ones – that is how it is done – in which one consciousness could exist alongside the other. For anyone who is not familiar with these things can, after all, basically come to no other conclusion than that the person who has come to such a different consciousness is basically subject to abnormal thinking, or also to abnormal volition or feeling in some way.

These things are quite understandable at first, although after all they do not stand in any other field than that in which someone who has reached a certain level of education in agriculture – and this is by no means meant to be disparaging! — can, from his point of view, also regard as a madman the person who, for example, spends the whole day dealing with quite clever mathematical operations, because it is human nature to regard as abnormal everything that one does not think and believe in oneself. Basically, the prejudices that are often brought against spiritual science from this side are nothing more than the instinct of human nature, just as characterized, to accept only that which one can experience inwardly.

Now, however, the fact is that there are indeed many opportunities to confuse true spiritual research with all kinds of nonsense. Spiritual research – that is, in a sense, given by the necessities of life – will initially speak to a smaller, closed circle of people, just as it ultimately happens in other fields. Of course, today those who have the task of speaking to people about spiritual research are often criticized for speaking to all kinds of small circles and the like, for speaking to people who have only just agreed to listen to the things. Yes, but I can see no objective difference between this process and the other, that at the beginning of a semester a number of students are enrolled with some lecturer, and he then also speaks to this closed circle. And unless other nonsense is going on, I cannot see why the closed circle of a lecture hall should be less called a sect, if one wants to use the term, than a number of people who hear something spiritual. But in spiritual science one is initially dealing with things that cannot be easily controlled by the processes and events of the external physical plane. If someone says that a composite body consists of these or those elements, then one can verify something like that immediately by external means. All spiritual-scientific results can also be verified, but it is necessary to first go the way of the spiritual researcher that has been described. So although these things can be verified, they cannot be verified in the ordinary state of mind in which other things that are purely taking place in the external physical world can be verified. Therefore, and I need not make a detailed transition to cite the experience I want to characterize, it happens that in this area, where verification can only be achieved by applying the appropriate means, there is in fact an enormous amount of what can be called a belief in the authority of what is said, what can be called mere empty talk. Yes, societies are easily formed for the purpose of spiritual life, from motives that need not be characterized here, which make tolerance, mutual love and mutual trust their first principle with a certain right. That is a fine principle. But experience has shown many times over that nowhere is there more arguing and disagreement than in such societies. And although such societies have often taken up the cause of venerating truth as the highest, experience shows that in no other field is truth less respected than within societies that claim to have such corresponding goals. And so it happens that within circles where supposedly spiritual science is practiced, much nonsense prevails. And then it is difficult for those who do not get involved in the matter itself, but judge things according to external symptoms and external events, to distinguish truth from nonsense. And now, in the further course of today's reflections, I would like to provide some information that can help to distinguish truth from nonsense in this field. Above all, I would like to emphasize that one should not be too critical of the prejudices that spiritual research has brought to the side just characterized today, that one can even find these prejudices understandable to a very large extent. I will now mention something very specific.

When one has entered the spiritual world in a certain way, when one has had spiritual experiences, that is, when one has come to know spiritual reality, then one arrives at what I have already characterized here several times, but which you can find precisely characterized in the books mentioned – one comes to what is called imaginative knowledge, not because it is just a matter of exercises in the imagination, of mere imagination in the ordinary sense, but because one comes into the position of having to express pictorially what one experiences. Of course, what a person initially has in terms of imagination, and also in terms of how he can put the ideas into words, how he can characterize the ideas, that refers to the physical world. If one is now transported into a completely different world and then does not characterize it differently, namely characterizes this other world as pictorial for oneself, then one forms false ideas about it. What is stated in detail about the spiritual world must always be absorbed with the awareness that everything the spiritual researcher describes flows out of fully conscious will activity, that he is not describing from some vague, indefinite , but that, in contrast to every half-remembered or visionary consciousness, he consciously, with full will, develops that which he presents as imagination, as images for the spiritual experiences. Just as he presents that which he presents in this sense, that everything is permeated by him willfully, so it must also be received in this sense.

To depict spiritual experiences, which are nevertheless really present in the life of the soul, even if they have to be depicted pictorially, it is of course necessary to take pictorial images from ordinary life, so that what is spiritually experienced is characterized by designating one thing with this color, another with that color, and so on. But there is a certain necessity — but now purely in a soul-spiritual sense, not in a physiological-organic sense — for the description of one, let us say, this color, this sound and this tactile experience, for the description of the other to use something else. And just as when speaking in a particular language one does not first explain that this word has this meaning and that word has that meaning, so too, when one describes one's spiritual experiences in concrete terms, the world of images in which one expresses oneself must be there like an inner language, like something through which one visualizes and represents the actual spiritual experience behind it. Now, if such a description of a spiritual experience occurs, and if this or that spiritual being is described in terms of red, blue and so on, which is quite correct and by which it is really represented, not just characterized, then of course the person who receives this description and is completely unfamiliar with the way it is actually meant can say: We know this! We know that from the field of psychology! We are well acquainted with those mental states in which soul experiences arise purely from the inner being as a secondary sense perception or as a hallucination or even as an illusion. It is therefore entirely justified when it is pointed out, for example, that there are people — after certain experiences have been gathered, even one-eighth of all people have this characteristic — who, for example, when they perceive a certain tone without seeing any color, add a color, but in such a way that it becomes quite objective to them. Such color phenomena, which are not evoked by an external impression but which arise from within and join a sound – I do not want to go into the various hypotheses that have been made about this – are called secondary sensory perceptions. And what people can experience in this way can go so far that, for example, when they pick up a printed matter, the individual letters appear to them in different colors according to their content, depending on whether it is an o or an a. In short, the psychiatrist can of course say: we know these things. And he can say this all the more when mental experiences occur that have the full character of sense perceptions but are formed from within as hallucinations. And if one often takes hallucinations that come to mind in a particularly vivid and plastic way, then one can say: Yes, is not the morbid soul life capable of really producing inner effects? And if one then hears what is presented from this or that side, the claim that they have developed in relation to the soul life, one finds exactly the same. The important thing is that, precisely because of the nonsense mentioned, secondary sensations or hallucinatory states very often occur in people who have a particular disposition to them, and then it is claimed that these are “higher experiences”, that they have really received something from the spiritual world. Yesterday, in connection with Faust, I already pointed out that nothing is given from the spiritual world, but these are mere transformations of the inner life of the instincts, which have merely arisen from within the human being. It does not give us more than the normal life of the soul, but rather less, because there is something that works below the level of the normal life of the soul and that only, when it is raised into consciousness, is transformed into things that look like the ordinary life of the soul. But there is a considerable difference between what is attained by true spiritual research and, if one wants to use the expression, true clairvoyance, and what is often called “clairvoyance” in ordinary life.

And this enormous difference will be noticed if you take what has been said: in all the activities of the spiritual researcher, in all the activities of the true clairvoyant, there is full volitional activity, there is no element in the realization of which you are not present, while the vision has the peculiarity that it comes about without the will being active in it. And one can even answer the question, “How does the spiritual researcher differ from the ordinary visionary, from the hallucinator?” — despite the fact that for many this will seem extremely paradoxical — by saying that they differ in that the spiritual researcher never has visions and hallucinations in the usual sense, precisely because his training in spiritual science goes far beyond the possibility of ever having hallucinations or visions in the usual sense of the word. And this is connected with the fact that what is a spiritual research experience, as I have said, must not be directly fixed in the human organization, but must always be experienced anew.

If spiritual-scientific experience were to become established in the organism in its immediacy, it could indeed lead to an illusory life, because it would then arise from the organism through itself, because it would become attached to the organism and the person would lose control over it. He can only be present at the production of impressions if he approaches each one, I might say, as a virgin, as he approaches, for example, an external impression. And only through this virginal approach to the spiritual experience each time can he know that he has an impression from the spiritual world, just as he knows through ordinary life that when he sees an external object, such as a clock, this clock is not hallucinated, but that there really is an external impression. Through what is happening between him and the clock, he can distinguish what he is now experiencing in direct activity in the external physical world from what arises in him that could, for example, force him into some hallucination or illusion. And again, only by maintaining the same spiritual experiences in the same state of virginity, by not forcing them into the physical body, but by constantly renewing them, does he know that he is not confronted with what arises from his own organization, but that he is always confronted with objective experiences that come from a spiritual world And one certainly still learns, if one is really involved in the way described in the living comprehension of the spiritual world, that inner energy, that inner strength, which one needs, in order to come, let us say, to imaginative knowledge, to recognize, curiously enough, as the same strength that dispels illusions and hallucinations. That is what matters. It is not the power by which hallucinations arise that one invokes, but precisely the power by which one dispels illusions and hallucinations and delusions, and whatever else these things may be called.

And so one could also cite something else, which in turn could be made as an objection in a very easily understandable way. When someone who is still inexperienced in these matters hears that a person who describes his spiritual experiences using terms such as 'world of color' or 'world of sound', as you do in my 'Theosophy', for example, illustrates the soul and spirit worlds in this way, he might say: Yes, if one has to come to the conclusion that one can recognize the spiritual world as a colorful world, as a resounding world, on the one hand all of this is considered a hallucinatory, visionary activity, a pathological state; on the other hand, however, we also know – he may object – that someone born blind cannot be brought to such visions, which play out in colorful images, through any process of spiritual schooling, nor can someone born deaf be brought to such auditory hallucinations. And it is very easy to refute this by saying: So we are dealing purely with the development of the person, which depends on the presence of certain organs.

An objection raised from this point of view is of no more value to the person who sees through things than the question: whether someone who has very good thoughts can express these thoughts in a language that he has not learned at the moment. He cannot, of course, express the thoughts in a language that he has not learned, quite naturally. So someone who is born blind cannot express in colors what he experiences mentally. But that does not mean that he cannot experience exactly the same things as someone who is able to express it in colors, that is, who also illustrates it to himself in colors, deliberately expressing it in this way. It is often necessary, though, to really get to know things intimately if one wants to see through the justification or non-justification of objections.

But if one does not look at things according to their inner character, according to their inner being, but according to how they appear externally, then one will very easily find that there are indeed – if I may use the trivial expression – there are some truly crazy people who belong to some movement that calls itself a spiritual research organization, and who come up with all kinds of stuff that can more or less really be put into the category that the psychiatrist is very familiar with. If, for example, someone approaches a psychiatrist and tells him that he is the reincarnation of John, the psychiatrist is fully justified in saying: We are dealing with an ordinary megalomaniac. From a spiritual scientific point of view, we are dealing with an ordinary megalomaniac because the truly reincarnated John would not express himself in such a way. But quite apart from that, it must be clear that when one is dealing with such phenomena, which must truly be described as pathological, one cannot characterize the essence of the matter in terms of it; for one must consider the whole way in which spiritual research has presented itself in our present time. It must be clear that a world-view is dominant today that leaves very, very many people unsatisfied for various reasons. I do not need to explain why various religious worldviews leave many, many people unsatisfied today, because that is too well known. But I need only point out that even those worldviews that are very often built on the so-called solid ground of the scientific way of thinking leave many people unsatisfied, and for two reasons. Firstly, partly because those who adopt the scientific way of thinking really do recognize that, as a rule, the answers to the big questions do not lie in the scientific results, as one can get them, but at most the clues to the questions themselves. For those who can see things clearly, scientific books usually do not lead to answers, but rather to more questions. That is one side of it. On the other hand, however, there are other reasons why building a worldview on a scientific or even on a modern basis today leaves some people unsatisfied. It must be said that building a worldview today on a scientific or historical basis requires a great deal. Above all, it requires making an effort to learn many, many facts and chains of facts. It cannot always be said that those who do not want to build a worldview on the basis of the scientific way of thinking really do so because they realize that nothing satisfactory, nothing easily satisfying, can be built on it; rather, very often it is simply out of laziness, out of an inability to familiarize themselves with the necessary facts and chains of facts. People shy away from dealing with the difficulty that today's science offers, for themselves. And so it turns out that very many people find it more convenient not to go the long way of preparation, which claims a certain scientific basis, but find it more convenient to take in what can actually be absorbed – sometimes as a mere phrase, as a nice saying – that which comes out of spiritual science in some way. One also likes it because it initially ties in with what is of direct personal interest to the individual. One likes it more, it satisfies one more than when one starts with nature and then tries to arrive at some understanding of the human being, insofar as this can be gained from natural science. In this way one has a long and arduous path to tread. Many want to avoid this. That is why people who actually have no opportunity to gain anything for their satisfaction through what the current education offers approach spiritual science, and then they do not develop in spiritual science what comes from spiritual science, but they carry into the spiritual scientific world current what they previously have in their whole organism, in their whole soul.

If someone has something in his whole affect, in his whole emotional life, which, if one describes things symptomatically from an external point of view, can be described as a tendency towards megalomania – I know very well that I am only expressing one symptom here – then it can of course very easily happen that this tendency towards megalomania is now brought into the spiritual scientific movement. And then it is quite natural that the person concerned connects what he hears about the human being, not in an objective way with the human being, but with what he himself develops through his tendency to feelings and emotions. And then it just happens that when he learns about the law of repeated earthly lives, he naturally finds it very satisfying when he can dream up some way to be, say, the reincarnation of so-and-so. But there is one who considers things rationally is quite clear about the fact that what the person in question has brought into spiritual science has led him to such an idea and that spiritual science cannot have led him to this idea. And anyone who takes into consideration what is only a very brief mention of the path of spiritual research in the last chapter of my 'Theosophy' — he does not even need to get to know it anymore — and who then still really takes it seriously with what can be gained from today's official psychiatry, from recognized psychiatry, cannot possibly come to the idea that something can be contributed to the illness of the soul life from the spiritual scientific path itself. Conversely, however, spiritual-scientific activities can be distorted and caricatured by what is brought into spiritual science by people who have the necessary aptitudes for it. Someone could enter the spiritual-scientific world-view current enter, let us say, the world of the stock exchange instead of the spiritual-scientific current of thought, and he might have such tendencies that develop into megalomania; then he would naturally live out his megalomaniacal ideas in all kinds of fantasies related to the world of the stock exchange. He might see himself as a special stock market king or something similar. If, instead of entering the world of the stock market, he enters the world of the spiritual-scientific school of thought, he will live out the same tendencies by considering himself, for example, to be the reincarnation of John the Baptist.

And so one can say: in a certain sense spiritual research itself suffers from the fact that many people who have failed in their quest for a worldview because of what is otherwise offered today for the quest for a worldview come into some spiritual research current and then clothe in all kinds of spiritual scientific ideas that which they would otherwise have lived out in a completely different way. It is easy to observe that especially in circles composed of people who, because of a failed world-view aspiration, profess a spiritual-research direction, many of them approach spiritual research precisely at the moment when they become disillusioned with what the external world can offer them. Now just think about what is actually happening here. Before this, the person lived with his predispositions, which naturally had to lead to some abnormality of the soul life at some point. This abnormality of the soul life would certainly have occurred. But at the moment when it is still hidden, when he no longer really knows his way around the outside world, he turns to some kind of spiritual research direction. The consequence of this is that he cannot be saved in the way I will shortly indicate, but that he carries what is stirring within him into the spiritual research direction. And because of all these facts it may just happen that because such a spiritual research direction is otherwise looked upon with envy, it is blamed for having caused mental illness in such people. Of course, on the one hand, every sane psychiatrist and every sane spiritual researcher will be quite clear about the true process. Now, in order to understand more in this field, it will be good to consider once more how the two types of consciousness, of which has been spoken, do not really have to behave in such a way that one develops from the other, that one replaces the other, but that they exist side by side, that full consciousness is present for two soul lives, but that they do not fall apart. These two souls should not be understood as more than what is already characterized in the concrete. This, then, is what must be borne in mind.

Now the question may be raised: Does this spiritual research as such have any positive significance for ordinary life, for the external life in the physical world? One might think that it has no significance, because it has just been said that what is experienced in the spiritual world cannot flow directly into ordinary consciousness. But the following can happen, for example. It can happen that a person in the spiritual world perceives this or that moral impulse, a moral motive that can only be recognized from the spiritual world. Our moral view from the spiritual world can certainly be enriched. Likewise, our natural view from the spiritual world can be enriched. Now, let us consider the case that one receives a moral impulse from the spiritual world through a spiritual experience, that is, an impulse to do this or that in ordinary physical life. Then, according to what has been discussed, this moral impulse, which is first experienced in the spiritual world, must be taken over into the ordinary physical consciousness and justified there, yes, placed in the world in the same way as moral impulses are otherwise placed in the world. In this way all possibility will be removed that a person might appear in the world and say: I must now do this or that, because this is my mission – a phrase that one hears very, very often precisely in the areas that I could only characterize by saying: 'Nonsense is being done with it'. The true spiritual researcher will never receive motivation from the spiritual world in this way. What he receives from the spiritual world enters his ordinary consciousness, and he now develops those ideas that are adapted to the external physical world, and with his will impulse he enters into this physical world, just as if one received an impulse to recognize some scientific connection. One will not present this scientific connection from the outset as an illumination, but will take it over into ordinary consciousness, test it against common sense and against all that one has so far known in the field of natural science, and will now begin, having taken it over, to place it in the system of natural scientific knowledge that one has developed. If one bears this in mind, it will never be possible to come into conflict or disharmony with the outer physical life. But someone who, on the basis of impulses that are compulsively inherent in him, as compulsive drives, ascribes this mission to himself can come into such a conflict, into such a disharmony, which then, of course, because it comes only from within him, is not at all adapted to the outer world, will fit into the outer world as badly as possible. He will tend to be a destructive individual rather than one who could enrich social life through what can be experienced in the spiritual world. The path that leads to spiritual research thoroughly familiarizes one with all these things. And it must be said that everything that is otherwise added to the described training group of thinking and will is essentially there to ensure that, on the one hand, the human being does not bring anything unhealthy into his spiritual life from the ordinary physical life, that he is truly free with his spiritual and soul life from his bodily life, and on the other hand, that he does not caricature what can be experienced in the spiritual realm by taking it, not into healthy reason and normal affect life, but into the pathological realm of affect life. But if what actually underlies experience in the spiritual world is developed in a healthy way of this kind, then one not only has something healthy in the spirit-research way, but one has something that is healthy-inducing, one really has something that also helps people in terms of their health. But it must proceed as I have described or at least outlined it today. Confusions, which then lead to the most unfortunate prejudices, will always occur.

In this way spiritual research comes to a deeper understanding of the human soul, to a vision of more in the human soul than can be seen in this human soul with the ordinary soul mood. And if one does not misuse the word, one can call such a view of what lives in the soul beyond the ordinary soul life a mystical view of one's own soul. One can call such a life a life in mysticism. Again, it is quite understandable when someone who is a layman in these matters says: Yes, we know mysticism quite well; we have come to know it quite well, only we call it mystical madness. For there is indeed a pathological condition that can be strictly defined and is called mystical madness. It leads from a purely pathological basis to a kind of soul-vision that is purely organic and physiological, for example to an inner brooding in which one then comes to find all kinds of religious visions of a visionary kind within oneself. In short, there is what is called mystical madness in psychiatry.

Someone who is grounded in spiritual research will not want to criticize the psychologist, although there are, of course, enough people who believe that they also understand spiritual science. He will not say: When you speak of mystic madness, you are dealing with a person who is sacred to God and to whom more is revealed than to others. No, the healthy spiritual researcher also describes the mystic madman as a mystic madman, just like the psychiatrist himself, in exactly the same sense and also with the same caution, which I do not need to go into today. In regard to everything that has natural, healthy justification, spiritual science stands completely on the ground of natural science, denying nothing that is accepted as justified by natural science, not even in the matters that have just been discussed. And so the spiritual researcher, without lapsing into dilettantism, can, if he is able to judge things, quite properly and positively agree with the psychiatrist on all pathological phenomena that are externally designated as symptoms of madness, be it as mystical madness, religious madness or the like. He will never deny that these things exist and occur here and there in a specific case.

But if true spiritual research is really done with inner energy, then it does indeed happen that certain types of abnormal mental life are healed and balanced out through what the person concerned experiences mentally, in the way it has been described today. If the person who does such exercises, as indicated today and as described in more detail in the books mentioned, comes to true mysticism, to that which can objectively occur in the human soul as spiritual-soul experience, then he may even have had a tendency, a disposition, to mystical madness before: this will disappear, it will be corrected! All false mysticism in the sense indicated is dispelled by true mysticism. And it can go much further. A tendency towards megalomania, or other things, can be overcome by finding one's way into spiritual-scientific life in this way. Not to mention the fact that the more and more this living in the spiritual-soul life is intensified, the energies that are developed there can also assert themselves further, into the life of the body. But I do not want to go into this chapter today, which can only be discussed in detail and in a special way. Thus, in this limited field, which has been discussed today, there is not only something healing in delving into spiritual research – and this could actually be extended in a certain way to all phenomena of the morbid soul life – but there is also something healing about it. And it must be understood in this sense. One must always be clear about the fact that what appears as spiritual research can easily be confused with the abnormal soul life because it deviates from the experiences of ordinary soul life, and that the abnormal soul life can also be confused by its carrier himself, of course, with that which is healthy soul life. And there one experiences the strangest things even with the bearers of abnormal mental life, when they turn to spiritual research. There is now so much available in the literature for the possibility of progressing to a certain degree on the spiritual research path that anyone, and anyone can use it safely, provided they follow the instructions. Now let us suppose that someone wants to make progress. At first he is driven by an inner impulse, a urge to advance. Often it is curiosity, a desire for sensationalism, to look into the spiritual world. In the course of his striving, however, he very often fails to achieve what he initially imagines. The reasons why this or that is not achieved, the reasons why this or that is achieved wrongly, are sufficiently explained in the books mentioned. However, because he does not really want to enter into the spiritual-scientific world-view current, the person concerned is unwilling to say that he is not making progress or that he is coming to a caricature of spiritual-scientific thought, and does not admit that he has neglected this or that, but is often inclined to say: the prescriptions are to blame; I have come to this or that which seems abnormal to me, the prescriptions are to blame or the person who gave the prescriptions. And especially when there is some kind of morbid disposition, a belief is very easily formed that can be characterized by a kind of persecution mania precisely towards the person who has given the instructions in any way, in order to make the soul's journey into the spiritual world through exercises. This is a very, very common phenomenon, one that occurs again and again and can be exploited, because of course it is very easy to refer to the testimony of such people. I do not wish to refer to individual cases, but only to show how, through the introduction of a morbid mental life into the spiritual-scientific world-view, the spiritual-scientific world-view as such can indeed be misunderstood. Therefore, anyone who wishes to become acquainted with this spiritual-scientific world-view would do well to become acquainted with it where it can be recognized in its essential nature.

And there it will be found that what I have said in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” is true, all that I have described today and otherwise: that man comes to certain harrowing experiences that can throw him off balance in a certain way, but not as an objective fact, as something that emerges from within. For all these reasons it may happen that in various writings dealing with such things - I have expressed this in the book mentioned - there is much talk of the dangers connected with the ascent into the higher worlds. The descriptions of such dangers are indeed apt to make fearful minds look upon this higher life only with shuddering. Yet it must be said that this danger exists only when the necessary precautions are disregarded. If, on the other hand, every precaution is taken that true schooling of the spirit provides, then the ascent will take place in such a way that the power of the manifestations will surpass in magnitude what the boldest imagination can conceive. And when it is said that man learns to recognize impending dangers at every turn, so to speak, he must face these dangers boldly and courageously. It is possible for him to make use of such forces and paths that are withdrawn from sensory perception. And he is threatened by temptations to take hold of precisely these forces in the service of a selfish, unhealthy interest or to use these forces in the wrong way due to a lack of clear thinking about the conditions of the sensory world. But if all the rules are really observed in the appropriate way, there can be no question of entering into an unhealthy soul life. And if they are not observed in the appropriate way, then one should not be surprised if what is to be achieved is not achieved. After all, this is what spiritual science has in common with other things in life. If someone is supposed to learn something at school and instead of going to school always goes behind the school, he will not achieve what is to be achieved at school either. Although this is a very trivial comparison, it is still an apt comparison.

There could be much more said about the various errors and prejudices that can be held against spiritual science. But anyone who is deeply immersed in this spiritual science itself knows that much of it is different from what one is accustomed to in ordinary education and worldviews today. Much is different. For example, a critic of my book 'Theosophy' recently said: Well, various things are claimed there, but they should first be examined objectively. If it is claimed that one can see this or that in the spiritual world, then, according to this critic, the objective test would be to sit five or six spiritual researchers down together on both sides and have them give their spiritual research experiences about one and the same thing. If they agree, then from this critic's point of view it is said to be self-evidently correct. The man criticized the book “Theosophy”. But if he had really read it – and one is almost tempted to believe that he is not at all able to understand a book written in this way – then he would have had to recognize that this path is out of the question; but that the only correct examination is possible if he tries to set out on the path of spiritual research himself. Everyone can investigate and will find that everything is confirmed by his own research. Why all this is possible is something I have recently discussed in a note on the sixth edition of my 'Theosophy'. But one must simply engage with the subject itself. Today one must already be able, I would say, to rise to the point of view that spiritual science is something that is, in a true, genuine sense, a continuation of the scientific way of thinking that the dawn of modern times has brought; but precisely because it, like natural science, wants to penetrate into the processes of the senses, into the spiritual world, and explore its secrets, it must also proceed differently than the natural scientific way of thinking, which is directed only at the external. And when one has understood the matter in this way, one will find that, basically, the way in which spiritual science is received does not differ so much, after all, in terms of understanding and also in terms of ill will, from the way in which other spiritual movements were received that were unusual for conventional views. Certainly, anyone who wants to attain higher spiritual experiences has a long, long way to go before they can get there. But today we live in a time of human development when everyone can develop to a certain extent within themselves, which can at least lead them to the conviction, to the own-achieved conviction, of what the spiritual path is. To understand that the results of spiritual science are true, one need only have common sense; this has been emphasized many times here. For the one who can research them can only recognize and confirm their truth through the common sense that he must have in addition. And when it comes to natural science, it is easier to say that a spiritual science initially leads one to questions that nature poses, that it enriches one's entire knowledge of nature, than that it simply deals with the so-called “meaning of life” in a philistine, pedantic way. It does find the meaning of life, but in a different way than one often imagines.

So, what is necessary for understanding spiritual research does not necessarily mean that one has to go a long way oneself, and also what one needs in the present, so to speak, for the security of one's soul – for that security that one can gain when one knows that this soul goes through births and deaths, that does not belong to temporality but to eternity - one does not even need to approach spiritual research itself; rather, when the spiritual researcher describes what he has researched and presents this description appropriately, then one already has in it what is needed. I have often mentioned this here, but it cannot be repeated often enough: just as little as one needs to feel the need to have the fact itself in front of one, but finds satisfaction in the picture, so it is the case that for certain soul needs one really has enough in the description that the one who is a spiritual researcher gives. Indeed, he can have what he wants for his soul's needs not only through his spiritual research, but also by drawing it from the spiritual worlds and carrying it down into the world in which he himself lives, by describing it for himself. That it is also necessary today to indicate those exercises by means of which one can take certain steps in spiritual research does not depend on the fact that only he can have the fruits of spiritual research who enters into the spiritual world itself, but on something quite different. It is connected with the fact that present-day humanity has indeed reached a point in its development where it no longer wants to accept things merely on authority, where it really wants to develop to at least that degree, that it can say: I can also judge to a certain extent what the spiritual researcher says. Therefore the development of spiritual research will take the course that a larger number of people will be found who take the first steps, which already lead very far, in the field of spiritual research, in order to be able to accept - without relying on authority and not only on the mere sense of truth, which is also sufficient for the needs of the soul - that which is brought from the spiritual worlds through spiritual research. For the needs of the soul, self-research would not be necessary. But for the needs of the time, self-research will develop more and more. For the needs of the soul, it is just as sufficient to hear what the spiritual researcher says as it is for the ordinary person not to carry out chemical experiments in a laboratory, but to accept the results of chemistry for ordinary life. Let each one now beat his breast and say to himself how much of his scientific knowledge he has accepted on authority. Undoubtedly, if we look at the matter in terms of truth, belief in authority has never been as great as it is today, although to many people this seems a completely paradoxical statement.

When all these things are taken into consideration, it must be said that spiritual science must indeed be something that wants to place itself in the spiritual development of humanity, from the present into the future, not because it ascribes this mission to itself only from spiritual worlds, but because one can recognize, according to what lives in humanity today as a need, as a possibility for development, that spiritual science is just as necessary for further development as Copernicanism was in the dawn of modern times, as Galilean science was, as Keplerian science was. He who sees through these things will not be able to despair, nor will he be able to become fainthearted in the face of all the misunderstandings that are brought against spiritual research. He will not become fainthearted, but rather, when he considers the great examples of history, he will see how, again and again, everything that has to be integrated as something new into the spiritual development of humanity is met with prejudice. Just as Copernicanism had to face prejudices, and as in the ecclesiastical field it was only in the course of the nineteenth century that it was allowed to be believed, so too must spiritual science, in principle, face prejudices.

But anyone who has followed the course of truth through human historical development for a little while knows that truth is something that is intimately related to the human soul. One can misunderstand the truth, but even if it were so misunderstood in a time, in an age, that it would have to disappear for the time being, it would rise again! For it has forces by which it forces its way through the narrowest crevices of the rocks of prejudice in the course of human development. One can hate the truth. But anyone who hates the truth will ultimately only be able to disadvantage himself. You can push the truth back in any age, but the truth cannot be completely suppressed, for the reason that it is, figuratively speaking, the sister of the human soul. The human soul and the truth are sisters. And just as discord can sometimes break out between siblings, but agreement will always come again when they remember their common origin in the right way, so too, when discord and hatred and misunderstanding breaks out between the human soul and the truth, there will always come times when it will be recognized from both sides, when it will be confirmed from both sides, that truth and the human soul belong together and have one origin in the eternal spirit of the world. Therefore, anyone who sees through such things, as I have tried to express figuratively, will be able to say with justification, as expressed in a proverb with which I will conclude today's reflections, in one of those proverbs that are said in certain regions of Germany: “A proverb - a truth”. Yes, it is a proverb and a truth: you can squeeze the truth, but you cannot crush it!

Reflections such as those we are considering this evening are meant to be an interlude in the otherwise continuous presentation of the humanities. In particular, I would like to try this evening to develop some of the ideas I touched on in my lecture last December on the intellectual and cultural situation in Austria. In our time, in which the concept of Central Europe, and also of Central European intellectual life, must increasingly develop as a result of difficult events and experiences, it seems justified to take a look at the lesser-known circumstances of Austrian intellectual life.

Hermann Bahr, who is known in the broadest circles as a witty man, as a man who cultivates the most diverse areas of literature, comes, I would say, from a typically Austrian region: from Upper Austria, and visited France, Spain and Russia at a relatively young age, and I know that at the time he was of the opinion that he could faithfully represent the essence of French and even Spanish and Russian intellectual culture to a certain extent. He even immersed himself so completely in Spanish politics that, as he assured us at the time, he wrote a fiery article in Spain against the Sultan of Morocco when he returned. Well, for decades now, after his world travels, he has been staying in Austria, working as a playwright, as an editor, as a general observer of art, and also as a biographer, for example of the much-misunderstood Max Burckhardt, and so on. Until recently, I tried to keep track of what Hermann Bahr was writing. In recent times, and actually for quite a while, one finds in his work an endeavor, which he often expressed himself, that he is searching, to discover Austria. Now imagine, the man who thought he knew French, even Spanish character, who wrote a book about Russian character, then goes back to his homeland, is such a member of his homeland that he only needs to speak five words and you immediately recognize the Austrian; the man seeks Austria! This may seem strange. But it is not so at all. This search originates from the quite justified feeling that, after all, for the Austrian, Austria, Austrian nature – I would say – Austrian national substance is not easy to find. I would like to describe some of this Austrian national character in a few typical personalities, insofar as it is expressed in Austrian intellectual life.

When I was young, many people were of the opinion, the then justified opinion, that when considering art, artistry, literature, and intellectual development, one looked too much to the past. In particular, much blame was attached to the scientific history of art and literature, for which a personality is only considered if they lived not just decades but centuries ago. At that time, considerations could hardly rise to the immediate perception of the present. I believe that today one could feel something opposite: in the way that considerations about art and artists are so commonplace, we now often experience that everyone more or less starts with themselves or with their immediate contemporaries. I do not wish to consider the present situation of Austrian intellectual life here, but rather a period of time that is not so far in the past. I do not wish to proceed in a descriptive manner. With descriptions, one is always right and always wrong at the same time. One touches on one or the other shade of this or that fact or personality, and both the person who agrees and the person who refutes will undoubtedly be right in the case of a general characteristic, in the case of general descriptions. I should like to give a symptomatic description. I should like to pick out individual personalities and in these personalities to show some of the many things that are alive in the Austrian intellectual world. You will excuse me if I start with a personality who is close to me. I believe, however, that in this case being close to someone does not prevent me from making an objective assessment of the personality in question. But on the other hand, I believe that in this person I have encountered a personality in life that is extraordinarily characteristic of Austrian intellectual life.

When I came to the Vienna Technical University in 1879, the subject, which was of course taught there as a minor subject, was the history of German literature, Karl Julius Schröer. He is little known and much misunderstood by those who have met him. I now believe that he is one of those personalities who deserve to live on in the intellectual history of Austria. However, an important literary historian once made some strange comments about Karl Julius Schröer in the presence of a party at which I was sitting next to him. There was talk of a German princess, and the literary historian in question wanted to say that this German princess, however talented she might otherwise be, sometimes, as he put it, “could be very wrong” in her literary judgments; and as an example, he cited the fact that she considers Karl Julius Schröer to be an important man. Schröer took up a position as a teacher of German literary history at a Protestant lyceum in Pressburg around the middle of the last century, at a momentous point in Austrian intellectual life. He later taught the same subject at the University of Budapest. Karl Julius Schröer was the son of Tobias Gottfried Schröer, who was mentioned in my previous lecture on Austrian identity. Tobias Gottfried Schröer was also an extraordinarily important figure for Austria. He had founded the Pressburg Lyceum and wanted to make it a center for the cultivation of German intellectual life. His aim was to help those Germans in Austria who were surrounded by other nationalities to become fully aware of their identity as part of the German intellectual world.

Tobias Gottfried Schröer is a personality who, from a historical-spiritual point of view, comes across in such a way that one would like to feel a certain emotion, because one always has the feeling: how is it possible in the world that an important mind can remain completely unknown due to the unfavorable conditions of the time, completely unknown in the sense that one calls “being known” that one knows that this or that personality has existed and has achieved this or that. However, the achievements of Tobias Gottfried Schröer are by no means unknown or unappreciated. I just want to emphasize that as early as 1830 Tobias Gottfried Schröer wrote a very interesting drama, “The Bear”, which has at its center the personality of Tsar Ivan IV, and that Karl von Holtei said of this drama that if the characters depicted were Schröer's creations, then he had achieved something extraordinarily significant. And they were Schröer's inventions except for Ivan IV. However, the level-headed man, the not at all somehow radically minded Tobias Gottfried Schröer, had a flaw. In those days, people could not be allowed to read what he wrote, so to speak, that is, this view was held by the censors. And so it came about that he had to have all his works printed abroad and that one could not get to know him as the important dramatic poet that he was. He wrote a drama in 1839 called “The Life and Deeds of Emmerich Tököly and His Fellow Rebels”. In this work, one encounters in a large historical painting all the intellectual currents that existed in Hungary at that time. And in the character of Tököly himself, one encounters what critics of the time rightly called a Hungarian Götz von Berlichingen, not so much because Tököly had to be called a Götz von Berlichingen, but because Schröer managed to depict Tököly in such a vivid way that the dramatic figure of Tököly could only be compared to Götz von Berlichingen. It was only by a strange mistake that Tobias Gottfried Schröer was sometimes recognized. For example, he wrote a paper “On Education and Teaching in Hungary”. This paper was regarded by many as something extraordinary. But it was also banned, and attention was drawn to the fact that this author - who was basically the calmest man in the world - was actually a dangerous person. But the Palatine of Hungary, Archduke Joseph, read this writing. Now the storm that had risen over this writing subsided. He inquired about the author. They did not know who he was. But they speculated that it was the rector of a Hungarian school. And Archduke Joseph, the Palatine of Hungary, immediately took the man - it was not the right one! - into the house to educate his son. What a tribute to a personality! Such things have happened many times, especially with regard to this personality. For this personality is the same one who, under the name Christian Oeser, has written all kinds of works that have been widely distributed: an “Aesthetics for virgins,” a “World history for girls' schools.” If you read this “World History for Girls' Schools” by a Protestant author, you will certainly find it quite remarkable, and yet it is true that it was once even introduced in a convent as the corresponding world history – truly, in a convent! The reason for this was that there is a picture of St. Elizabeth on the title page. I leave it to you to believe that the liberalness of the nuns might have contributed to the introduction of this “world history for girls' schools” in a convent.

After pronouncing such sentences, Karl Julius Schröer let his gaze wander over the times when the German essence was thoroughly misunderstood by other nations around it as a result of various events. He spoke about this as follows: “The German name was held in low esteem by the nations that owed it so much; at that time, the German was valued in France almost on a par with barbarians.” In 1846, he spoke to his audience at the German Lyceum in Pressburg! But in contrast to this, Karl Julius Schröer was full of enthusiasm for what one could say he saw as the German intellectual substance, not for what is merely called nationality in the ethnographic sense, but for the spiritual that permeates everything that holds the German essence together. I quote a few of Karl Julius Schröer's statements from this time, which now lies far behind us, for the reason of showing how peculiarly that which is called the confession of German nationality lives in the more outstanding minds. Basically, we have to keep in mind that the way the German stands by his nationality cannot be understood by the other nationalities of Europe, because it is fundamentally different from the way the other nationalities stand by what they call their nationality. If we look at the more outstanding and deeply feeling Germans, we find that they are German in the best sense of the word because they see Germanness in what is spiritually pulsating, but also as a force tinged with this spirituality, in what counts itself German; that Germanness is something like an ideal for them, something to which they look up, that they do not see merely as a national organism. And therein lie many of the difficulties why German character – even in our days, and especially in our days – is so misunderstood, so hated. Such Germans as Karl Julius Schröer want to achieve their Germanness through knowledge, by gaining insight into the possibilities of life and action that the living organism of a nation offers. And again and again Karl Julius Schröer's gaze wanders, not in arrogance, but in modesty, to the question: What world-historical mission in the development of the human race has that which, in this best sense of the word, can be called Germanness and German nature? And before world history it wants to be justified, what is built up in views on German nature. Much more could be said about the special position of such minds in relation to the German character. Thus Karl Julius Schröer, speaking from this attitude, says: “The world epoch that begins with Christianity is also called the Germanic world; for although the other nations also have a great share in history, almost all the states of Europe were founded by Germanic peoples... .” — this is a truth that, at least today, is not readily acknowledged outside of the German border posts. Of course, it is not heard, but it is not readily acknowledged. “... Spain, France, England, Germany, Austria, even Russia, Greece, Sweden and so on, were founded by Germans and imbued with the German spirit.”

And then Karl Julius Schröer cites for his listeners a saying of a German literary historian, Wackernagel: “Throughout Europe now flowed...” - namely after the migration of peoples - “A pure Germanic blood, or combining Roman-Celtic blood, now flowed a Germanic spirit of life, took the Christian faith... on its purer, stronger floods and carried it along.” There was no time in which the hatred of Europe would have prompted such views as today. They were views that arose in a thoroughly honest way from the contemplation of the German character by this mind. And so he expressed himself: “The civilized peoples of Europe are one great family, and it is a single great course of the nations of Europe that leads through all errors back to the source of truth and true art, on which all nations accompany the Germans, often overtaking them, but in the end one after the other falling behind them. The Romance peoples are usually the first in everything: the Italians, then the Spaniards, the French, then come the English and the Germans. One of these nations usually represents the culmination of a particular trend of the times. But lately, even the English have had their hour struck in art and science... “—said in 1846, though with reference to the development of intellectual life—”... and the time has come when German literature is visibly beginning to rule over Europe, as the Italian and French did before!"

Thus was the man rooted in his Austrian homeland. And since I later became very close to him, I know well that it meant nothing to him, absolutely nothing that could somehow be described in words: he would have wanted the domination of one nation over another—not even within Austria. If one wants to call an attitude like Karl Julius Schröer's national, then it is compatible with the acceptance of every nationality, insofar as this nationality wants to assert itself alongside others from the germ, from the source of its own being, and does not want to dominate these others. His concern was not to cultivate the supremacy of the German character over any other nationality or over any legitimate national aspiration, but to bring to full development within the German character what is inherent within that German character. And that is what is special about this man: that he felt himself intertwined with Austrian national character through his entire aesthetic sensibility, through his entire feeling, artistic feeling, popular feeling, but also through his scientific endeavors. He became, so to speak, an observer of this Austrian national character.

And so we see that as early as the 1950s, out of his deep love for the people, he collected those wonderful German Christmas plays that have been preserved among the German population of Hungary, and published “German Christmas Plays from Hungary”, those Christmas plays that are performed in the villages at Christmas time, at the time of the Epiphany. They are strange games! They were actually only printed for the first time in the mid-nineteenth century – and Schröer was one of the first to have such things printed. They have been preserved from generation to generation in the rural population. Since then, many such Christmas games have been collected in the most diverse areas, and much has been written about them. With such heartfelt love, with such intimate connection to folklore, as Kar! Julius Schröer wrote his introduction to the “German Christmas Plays from Hungary” at the time, hardly anything has been written in this field since. He shows us that manuscripts of the plays were always preserved from generation to generation, as they were a sacred ritual that people prepared for in the individual villages when Christmas season approached; and that those who were chosen to play, that is, to go around the village and the most diverse locales to play these games for the people, in which the creation of the world, the biblical history of the New Testament, the appearance of the three kings, and the like were depicted. Schröer describes how those who prepared for such plays not only prepared themselves for weeks by learning things by heart, by being drilled by some kind of director, but how they prepared themselves by following certain rules; how they did not drink wine for weeks, how they avoided other pleasures of life for weeks in order to have the right feelings, so to speak, to be allowed to perform in such plays. How Germanic character has absorbed Christianity can be seen, how this Christianity has flowed into these strange plays, which are sometimes crude, but always deeply moving and extraordinarily vivid. Later, as I said, others also collected these things; but none approached it with such devotion of his personality, with such a connection to what was being lived out, as Karl Julius Schröer, even if his representations, scientifically speaking, are long outdated.

Then he turned to the study of German folklore as it is spread throughout the vast territory of Austria-Hungary, of German folklore as it lives in the people. And there are numerous treatises by Karl Julius Schröer in which he presents this folklore in terms of its language and the intellectual life expressed through it. We have a dictionary, a description of the dialects of the Hungarian highlands, the area that was settled by German settlers on the southern slopes of the Carpathians, and still is today, although most of the area is Magyar. With tremendous love, through Karl Julius Schröer, I would say, every word was recorded that resonates with the dialect of this area; but we have always recorded it in such a way that one can see from his descriptions how his interest was directed towards seeking out what the cultural task was, what the particular way of life of the people who, coming from afar, had to push their way into the east at a certain time in order to temporarily cultivate their own culture in the midst of other peoples, later to remember it and then gradually to be absorbed into other cultures. What Schröer has achieved in this field will in many ways represent something for the future, like wonderful memories of the ferment that shaped German identity in the wide expanse of Austria.

Karl Julius Schröer later came to Vienna. He became director of the Protestant schools and later professor of German literary history at the Vienna Technical University. And I myself experienced how he knew how to influence those who were receptive to the presentation of directly felt intellectual life. Then he turned more and more to Goethe, delivered his “Faust” commentary, which appeared in several editions, and in 1875 wrote a history of German poetry that was met with much hostility. It became an example at the time after it was published, a “literary history from the wrist” called. However, Schröer's literary history is not a literary history written according to the methods that later became common in the Scherer school. But it is a literary history in which there is nothing but what the author experienced, experienced in the poetic works, in art, in the development of German intellectual life in the nineteenth century up to his time; because that is what he wanted to present at the time. Karl Julius Schröer's entire life and intellectual development can only be understood by considering the Austrian character of Schröer's entire personality, which brought the scientific and artistic into direct connection , and to experience it in direct connection with folklore, that folklore which, particularly in Austria, I would say, presents a problem at every point of its development, if one only knows how to experience and observe it. And one must often think, perhaps also abroad: Is this Austria a necessity? How does this Austria actually fit into the overall development of European culture?

Well, if you look at Austria in this way, it appears to be a great diversity. Many, many nations and ethnic groups live side by side, pushed together, and the life of the individual is often complicated by these underlying factors, even as a soul life and as a whole personality life. The things that now play from one nation into another, what comes to light through this lack of understanding and the desire to understand and the difficulties of life, it comes to one's attention at every turn in Austria, combined with other historical conditions of Austrian life. There is a poet who, with great but, I would say, modest genius, understood how to depict something of this Austrian essence. At the end of the 1880s and in the 1890s, he could occasionally be seen performing in Vienna when one came to the famous Café Griensteidl in Vienna and also in certain other literary circles. Yes, this Café Griensteidl basically belongs to Austrian literature; so much so that a writer, Karl Kraus, wrote a series of articles entitled “Demolished Literature” when it was demolished. Today, one still reads about Café Griensteidl as if it were a beautiful memory. Please excuse me for including this, but it is too interesting, because at Café Griensteidl, if you went there at certain times of the day, you could really see a cross-section of Austrian literature. But today, when you read about these things, you often read about the times of the waiter Heinrich, who later became famous, the famous Heinrich of Griensteidl, who knew what newspapers each person needed to have when they came in the door. But that was no longer the real time, the time of the somewhat jovial Heinrich, but the real time was that of Franz vom Griensteidl, who had lived through the days when Lenau and Grillparzer and Anastasius Grün gathered at the Café Griensteidl every day or twice a week, and who, with his infinitely dignified manner, would occasionally tell a story in his own way about one of these literary greats when you happened to be waiting for a newspaper. As I said, Jakob Julius David also occasionally appeared in the circle of people there. Actually, David only emerged in Austrian intellectual life at the end of the 1880s and beginning of the 1890s. When you sat with him, he spoke little; he listened even less when people spoke to him because he was severely hard of hearing. He was very severely short-sighted and usually spoke from a compressed soul, from a soul that had experienced how often in life what we call fate weighs heavily on the soul. When I spoke to the half-blind and half-deaf man, I often thought how strongly Austrian identity was expressed in this personality, who had gone through a difficult youth, a youth full of privation and poverty in the valley of the Hanna, in the valley through which the March flows, where German, Hungarian and Slavic populations border on each other and are mixed everywhere. If you drive down from this valley to Vienna, you will pass poor huts everywhere; this was especially the case when David was young. But these humble huts often have people as inhabitants, each of whom harbors in his soul the Austrian problem, that which, in all its broad specificity, contains the Austrian problem, the whole diversity of life that challenges the soul. This diversity, which wants to be experienced, which cannot be dismissed with a few concepts, with a few ideas, lives in these strange, in a certain way closed natures. If I wanted to characterize what these natures are like, which David has described as being particularly prevalent in Austrian life, I would have to say: they are natures that feel deeply the suffering of life, but they also have something in them that is not so common in the world: the ability to endure suffering to a certain extent. It is even difficult to find words for what is made of the often arduous experience, especially in these Austrian regions. There is no sentimentality, but a strong ability to experience the diversity of life, which of course brings about clashes, even among the lowest peasant classes. But this does not turn into a weariness of life, into some kind of world-weary mood. It transforms itself into something that is not defiance and yet has the strength of defiance. It transforms itself, if I may say so, weakness into strength. And this strength is realized in the area in which it finds itself through the necessities of life. And weakness, which in a sense had been transformed into strength, showed itself in David. This man was half blind and half deaf. But he once said to me: “Yes, my eyes cannot see much in the distance, but all the more so when using a microscope, I see close up.” That is to say, up close he observed everything exactly through his eyes as if through a microscope; but he looked at it so closely that one must say: In what he saw with his eyes, there was something great that intervened, explaining and illuminating what was behind it. And as a substitute for the wide-ranging view, this man had a deep gaze in the small field of vision that he overlooked with his microscopic eyes, an obsession with getting behind the reasons for things. And that was transferred to his entire mental life. This allowed him to see the people he wanted to describe, deep, deep into their hearts. And as a result, he was able to depict many, many types of Austrian life in poetry, drama, novellas, and even lyric poetry. How this entire Austrian mood can form in the soul, not into sentimentality, but into a certain inner strength, which is not defiance, but contains the strength of defiance, is particularly evident where Jakob Julius David speaks for himself. There he says:

Almighty! Thou hast taken much from me,
Thou alone knowest what I have lost;
My eye sees the beautiful world blurred,
And only muffled, muffled and quiet
Life's sounds come to my ailing ear.
Once it hurt me – and for my own good,
I thank you today that I previously criticized you
You have spared me much sorrow, many horrors
Saved me from hearing and seeing...

Indeed, the man was such that he did not have to see and hear many things in order to bring out of the depths of his soul many things that he wanted to embody poetically. As I said, I would like to show what is expressed in such Austrian sounds in individual symptoms. And one must not introduce a touch of sentimentality when Jakob Julius David speaks of his fate in this way:

In the west you see gray in the valley
The heaviest clouds hang –
That reminds me of the days,
Which have passed for me...

In the east, asleep in the light of the storm, That is my today...

But this “today” he uses up, he exhausts it, and for him it became the possibility of describing Austrian folklore in such a way that everywhere, quite remarkably, one sees individual destinies in his work – many of his novellas have only a few characters. These individual destinies make one say: The way in which the characters collide with each other because they are placed next to each other in the world by kinship or otherwise is extremely moving and takes us deep into realities. But what Jakob Julius David captures so, I would say, microscopically and yet movingly and vividly, very rarely occurs in such a way that a large painting of world history is not somehow behind it, with the individual event taking place against its backdrop.

This contextual thinking of the small, which does not become shadowy and blurred because it appears on such a background, that this letting the small happen is colored by the greatness of world-historical becoming, that is what we find to be the most characteristic of a well-known Austrian poet, but one who unfortunately is not well enough known. We are talking about the greatest poet of Austria in the second half of the nineteenth century, the poet whose home we find if we go just a little way west from the home of Jakob Julius David: we are talking about Robert Hamerling.

It is remarkable how the traits exhibited by individual personalities within Austrian intellectual life seem to clash, but when viewed from a certain higher perspective, they present themselves as qualities alongside other qualities, flowing together into a great harmony. It is remarkable: Karl Julius Schröer did not want to accept Robert Hamerling at all. To him he was a poet of secondary importance, a poet who, above all, is said to have destroyed his poetic power through his erudition. On the other hand, in Robert Hamerling there is the same attitude, the same noblest grasp of the German essence that I tried to describe in such a characteristic personality as Karl Julius Schröer. But that too is typical of Hamerling, and what I am describing to you here as typical personalities can be found in many, many others in Austrian life. I am trying to pick out only the characteristic traits that can really be presented as individual traits, but in such a way that they can stand for the whole. What is peculiar about Robert Hamerling is that he grows out of the smallest things. He comes from the Waldviertel in Lower Austria, from that poor region that bears its fruit only with difficulty because the soil is rocky and covered with forest, a region that is cozy and charming, and can be particularly enchanting in its hilly nature. Out of this peculiar nature and out of the limitations of the human character, Robert Hamerling's great spirit emerged. And he grew into a similar understanding of the German character to that of Karl Julius Schröer's spirit. We see this in one of Robert Hamerling's best poems, 'Germanenzug', where the way in which the German spirit lived in Robert Hamerling, the Austrian poet, is particularly clearly expressed. The ancient Germans move from Asia and camp on the Caucasus. Wonderfully, I would say, with magical vividness, it is described how evening falls, how the sun goes down, twilight reigns, the moon appears, how the entire army of Teutons camps, sleep spreads and only the one blond-haired , the spirit of Asia appears to him, releasing his people to Europe, and how the spirit of Asia permeates Teut with that which is in store for the Teutons up to their development in Germanness through history. There the great becomes great, but there also, with noble criticism, what is to be blamed is already expressed. There many a trait that especially people like Robert Hamerling see in Germanness is expressed by the goddess Asia. There the future is spoken of:

But however proudly you aspire, highly soaring, always still a blaze
you will keep the ancient sacred fire.
The dream-filled
drunkenness of God will live on in you...
You only strive because you love: your boldest thought
will be devotion that wants to sink into God.

Thus spoke Asia to the blonde Teut, the leader of the Germanic peoples to Europe, speaking in advance of the genius of Germanness, and continuing:

Do you know the highest path for your struggle
When you grow strong in certain unity in the future?
Do you know the beacons in the sea of time
Which, beckoning afar with the flame of purity,
Bring you to the last, most beautiful goal?
High above, they shine with an eternal radiance
The sacred ideals
Of humanity: freedom, justice, and light and love!
These are the last fully glowing flames
of the original light - to stir them up all together
into one glow in the quarrelling hustle and bustle
of the life of nations: that is your mission...

And Robert Hamerling could not help but consider the details that he presents, for example, as an epic poet or as a playwright, in the context of the great spiritual development of humanity. I would say that all these observers over there in Austria have something in common with microscopic vision, which, however, wants to reach beneath the surface of things; and Robert Hamerling shows it most beautifully. And they have something in common with western Austria, of which one can say: it has a certain right to place the individual within the greater whole. Because the way the valleys stand between the mountains in some areas of western Austria is expressed in turn in what lives in a poet like Robert Hamerling. We can see that a great variety of things are expressed in this Austrian intellectual life, in all its sides, which may perhaps repel each other, but which nevertheless represent a diversity that is unity in the whole picture of culture that one can draw.

And in this diversity, the sounds that come from other nationalities combine not in disharmony, but in a certain sense in harmony. It is of course not possible to say anything specific about what sounds from other nationalities into Austrian intellectual life as a whole. Only a few symptoms will be characterized. For example, within Czech literature – with regard to these descriptions, I must of course be cautious, since I do not speak Czech – we have a newer poet, a recently deceased poet, who, as someone who wrote about him put it, has become for his people something similar to what was said about a great Czech musician: that he was there like a whale in a carp pond. That is how Jaroslav Vrchlický is placed in the spiritual life of his people. In his works, the whole of world history comes to life: the oldest human life of the distant past, Egyptian, European life of the Middle Ages and modern times, Jewish intellectual life, the whole of world history comes to life in his lyric poetry, comes to life in his dramas, in his stories, and is alive everywhere. This Jaroslav Vrchlicky – his real name is Emil Frida – has an incredible productivity. And when you consider that this man has translated a large, large area of the literature of other nations for his nation, in addition to his own extremely widespread production, then you can appreciate what such a mind means for his nation. I have to read to you, because otherwise I might forget to mention some of the poets of world literature that Vrchlicky has translated for Czech literature: Ariosto, Tasso, Dante, Petrarca, Leopardi, Calderon, Camöens, Moliere, Baudelaire, Rostand, Victor Hugo, Byron, Shelley, Gorki, Schiller, Hamerling, Mickiewicz, Balzac, Dumas and others. It has been calculated that Vrchlicky alone translated 65,000 verses by Tasso, Dante and Ariosto. And yet this man was, I would say, the very embodiment of his nationality. When he emerged on the scene in the stormy 1870s – he was born in 1853 – it was a difficult time for his nation, with all the contradictions that had arisen; in relation to the Germans, all sorts of opposing factions had emerged within his own nation. At first he was much contested. There were people who said he could not write Czech; there were people who made fun of what Vrchlicky wrote. But that stopped very soon. He forced recognition. And in 1873 he was, one might say, like an angel of peace among the terribly feuding parties. He was recognized by all, and in his popular poetic works he resurrected entire paintings of world developments from all of them; just not – and this is striking – anything from Russian folklore! A man who wrote a short biography about him – before the war – expressly warned in this biography: one should see from this man in particular how little foundation there is for the fairy tale that the Czechs, or the western Slavs in general, have something to expect from the great Russian empire when they look within, as is often said.

We see this expansion in a different way, this: to see the individual experience against the background of the great interrelationships of humanity and the world — we see it in a different way in a poet whom I already referred to in my last lecture on Austrianness, the Hungarian poet Emmerich Madách. Madách was born in 1823. Madách wrote, one must say, truly imbued with a full Magyar spirit, among other things that cannot be mentioned here, The Tragedy of Man. This The Tragedy of Man is again something that does not tie in with the great events of humanity, but directly represents these events of humanity themselves. And one would like to say how Madách, the Magyar, the native of eastern Austria, presents this “tragedy of man”, which differs, for example, from the figures that Hamerling, in his own way, created out of the great painting of world history in “Ahasver”, “King of Sion”, “Aspasia”. They differ as the mountains of western Austria differ from the wide plains of eastern Austria, or rather – and I would like to be more precise here – as the soul, when it rises in the often so beautiful – especially when they are bathed in sunlight – valleys of western Austria and lets its gaze wander over the mountains that border these valleys, — how the soul, in this absorption, differs from that mood of going out into the wide open, but indefinite, that overcomes it when the Hungarian puszta, with its wide plain character, affects that soul. You know from Lenau's poetry, what this Hungarian puszta can become for the human soul.

A remarkable poem, this “Tragedy of Man”. We are placed directly at the beginning of creation. God appears alongside Lucifer. Adam dreams the future world history under Lucifer's influence. This happens in nine significant cultural images. In the beginning, we are introduced to the Lord and Lucifer; Lucifer, who wants to assert himself in his entire being towards the creator of this existence, into which the being of man is intertwined. And Lucifer admonishes the creator of the world that he is also there and that he is of the same age as the creator of the world himself. In a sense, the Creator must accept Lucifer as his helper. We hear the significant words in the poem: “If the negation” - namely Lucifer - “has even the slightest hold, your world will soon unhinge it.” With this, Lucifer threatens the creative spirit. The Lord hands Lucifer two trees, the tree of knowledge and the tree of immortality. But with these, Lucifer tempts man. And he tempts Adam, thereby causing Adam to lose paradise. And outside of paradise, Lucifer introduces Adam to what in the visions of Madách is the knowledge of the forces of nature, of the whole fabric of forces that can be gained through knowledge of man through the natural phenomena unfolding before the senses. It is the invisible cobweb of natural laws that Lucifer teaches Adam outside of paradise. And then we are shown how Lucifer makes Adam dream of the more distant fate of the world. There we see how Adam is re-embodied as a Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, and Eve, in her re-embodiment, meets him as the wife of a slave who is mistreated. Adam is seized by a deep melancholy; that is, he sees it in his dream, in which his later life, all his later embodiments, appear before the soul's eye. He sees it in such a way that he is seized by deep bitterness about what is to become of the world. And further, we are shown how Adam is re-embodied in Athens as Miltiades, how he must experience the ingratitude of the people; further, we are shown how he has to observe the declining culture and the penetration of Christianity in ancient Rome, in the imperial period. Among crusaders later in Constantinople, Adam comes to us in a new life. He is embodied again as Kepler at the court of Emperor Rudolf; as Danton during the French Revolutionary period. Then he is embodied again in London. There he becomes acquainted with that through which, according to the view of Madách, Lucifer has a characteristic effect on the present. The words must already be spoken that are written in it: “Everything is a market where everyone trades, buys, cheats, business is cheating, cheating is business.” It was not written under the influence of the war, because the poem was written in the 1860s. Then, in a later life, Adam is led to the end of time on Earth, to a landscape of ice, and so on. It is undoubtedly interesting, but one would also like to say that, like the Hungarian steppes, which extend into infinity and leave much incomprehensible and unsatisfactory – that is how this poem is. And only sporadically do we realize that the poet actually means that the whole thing is a dream that Lucifer inspires in Adam. And what the poet really wants to say is that this is how the world would be if only Lucifer were at work. But man also has an effect. Man has to seek his strength and counteract Lucifer. But this is hardly hinted at, only, I would like to say, hinted at at the end, but in such a way that what appears as positive in the face of the negative, in the face of sadness, in the face of suffering, must also be summarized, like suffering that develops into defiant strength. “Fight and trust” is what Adam is taught. But what man can fight for is not shown at all. What the world would become if it were left to nature alone is depicted. And this poem has grown out of a deep inner life and a difficult life experience.

Madách is also one of those natures who, in a different way, can be characterized by saying: Oh, this diversity of life, which is linked to the historical conditions of Austria, passed through his soul; but at the same time also the strength to transform weakness into strength.

Madách comes from old Hungarian nobility. He grew up in the Neögrader district. He lost his father very early. His mother was a spiritually strong woman. Madách became a dreamy, contemplative person. In 1849, after the revolution, he took in a refugee who was already gone when the police came looking for him; but the police still came to the conclusion that Madách had taken in this refugee. Madách was put on trial and sentenced to four years in prison. It was not so much the prison, which he accepted as an historical necessity, that had a severely distressing effect on Madách, but the fact that he had to separate from his wife, from his family, who was like his other self, whom he loved most tenderly, and that he not see her, not share in this life for four years, was devastating to him, that was the real hard blow of fate that made him doubt humanity, if it had not been for the fact that every hour he spent in prison was followed by the hope: you will see her again then. And so he wrote his poems, in which he imagined going through the door. Even after he was actually released, he wrote the last of these poems on the way home, in which he wonderfully describes the heaven that would now receive him. And he really did come home. The woman he loved so tenderly had meanwhile become unfaithful to him, she had left with another. And through the gate through which he wanted to enter in the sense of the poem he had written, he had to enter his treacherously abandoned home. In visions, the traitor and his betrayal often stood before his eyes. It was from such sources that his historical and human feelings, his feelings about the world, were formed. This must certainly be borne in mind if one is to appreciate this poetry, to which one might possibly have many objections.

For that is the point – and it would be interesting to develop this in detail – that the diversity that is in Austrian life and that is brought about by such things as I have mentioned can, again and again, broaden one's view and present one with tasks, so that one must directly link one's own experiences to the great experiences of humanity, yes, to the tasks of humanity. And just as with Hamerling, although he spent half his life on his sickbed, every poetic note he uttered was connected with the most direct experience, so too with Emmerich Madách on the other hand.

You see, this diversity – one can ask: did it have to be forged in the course of human development in Central Europe? Is there any necessity in this? If you look at the matter more closely, you do indeed get an insight into such a necessity, to find the most diverse human minds in a single area of space also united in shared destinies. And I would like to say that it always seemed to me like a symbol of what is present in the national community, in the diversity of the people, that nature, and strangely enough especially around Vienna, has already created something of a great diversity in the earth. Geologically, the so-called Vienna Basin is one of the most interesting areas on earth. As if in an earthly microcosm, as in a small Earth, everything that interacts with each other is brought together, but it also symbolizes what can explain to you that which is otherwise spread over the Earth's surface. And for those who have an interest in and an understanding of scientific observations, the contemplation of this Vienna Basin, with the numerous secrets of the Earth's formation that can be studied there, is deeply inspiring. One is tempted to say that the Earth itself develops a diversity that is bound into a unity in the center of Europe. And what is geologically present in the Earth is basically only reflected in what takes place above this Earth's surface in the minds of human beings.

I say all this not to make propaganda for Austria, but only to describe a characteristic feature. But this characteristic feature comes to the fore when one wants to describe Austria. And, I would like to say, when one goes into the field of exact science, of geology, one finds in Austria something that corresponds to what Austria's great poets claim as their most distinctive feature. If you observe Hamerling, if you observe Jakob Julius David, if you consider other great Austrian poets: the characteristic feature is that they all want to tie in with the great destiny of humanity. And that is also what gives them the most intimate and profound satisfaction. A man who was a friend of mine wrote a novel at the time, to Hamerling's great satisfaction, in which he attempted to express medieval knowledge in the form of individual figures in terms of cultural history. The novel is called “The Alchemist”. It is by Fritz Lemmermayer. And Fritz Lemmermayer is not an outstanding talent. He is even a talent who, after this novel, has hardly achieved anything significant again. But one can see that the essence that runs through the nation can take hold of the individual and find characteristic expression even in this untalented person, in all his volition.

As I said, even in the exact science of geology, something like this can come to the fore. It is probably a deep necessity that this is the case with the great Viennese geologist Eduard Sueß, perhaps one of the greatest geologists of all time, to whom we owe the study of the conditions of the Vienna Basin. Just the sight of this Vienna Basin, with its tremendous diversity, which in turn combines into a wonderful unity, could instinctively give rise to a great, powerful geological idea, which comes to light in this man and of which one must say that it could only have been developed from the Austrian character, for Eduard Sueß is an archetypally Austrian personality in his entire being: this unity in diversity, I would say, this microscopic imprint of the entire geology of the earth in the Vienna Basin. This is evident in the fact that Eduard Sueß, in our time, that is, in the last third of the nineteenth century, was able to make the decision to create a three-volume work, “The Face of the Earth,” a book in which everything that lives and works and has lived and worked in the earth in geological terms is pieced together into a significant, rounded image on a large scale, so that the earth becomes visible. Every aspect is treated with exactitude, but when one beholds the entire face of the Earth as Sueß has created it, the Earth appears as a living being, so that one immediately sees: Geology comes from the earth. If one followed Suess further, something would be created in which the planet would be directly connected to the whole cosmos. Suess takes the earth so far in this respect that, to a certain extent, the earth is alive and one only has the need to ask further: How does this earth live in the whole cosmos, now that it has been understood geologically?

Just as much in Austrian poetry is connected with the Austrian landscape and Austrian nature, so I believe that the geology of Austria in the narrower sense is connected with the fact that, perhaps, in the spiritual life of humanity: that from Vienna this book in the field of geology could arise, this book, which is just as exactly scientifically as ingeniously assessed and executed and in which really everything that geology has created up to Sueß is processed in an overall picture, but in such a way that one really believes at last that the whole earth is no longer the dead product of the usual geology, but as a living being. I believe that in this area, precisely what could come from Eduard Sueß's Austrian identity plays into the scientific achievements—by no means in any way into the objectivity of the sciences, which is certainly not endangered by this—what could come from Eduard Sueß's Austrian identity. And when you look into this Austrianness in so many different areas, you realize that figures like those created by Jakob Julius David really do exist, in whom a single trait of the soul often takes hold because the difficulties of life have pushed aside the others, and fills them so completely that the individual soul has its strength, but also its power and its reassurance and its consolation. These figures become particularly interesting when these souls mature into people of knowledge.

And there is a figure from the Upper Austrian countryside, from the Ischl area – I have already referred to the name in the previous lecture – there is the remarkable farmer and philosopher Conrad Deubler. If you imagine every figure that Jakob Julius David created from Austrian life to be a little younger, if you imagine the events of this life that shaped this life later to be absent and imagine them in the soul of Conrad Deubler, then any such figure could become Conrad Deubler. Because this Conrad Deubler is also extremely characteristic of the people of the Austrian Alpine countries. Born in Goisern in the Ischl region, he becomes a miller, later an innkeeper, a person who is deeply predisposed to be a person of insight. When I now speak about Conrad Deubler, I ask that it not be taken as discordant to point out that, of course, a world view such as Conrad Deubler's is not represented here; that it is always emphasized that one must go beyond what Conrad Deubler thought in order to achieve a spiritualization of the world view. But what matters is not clinging to certain dogmas, but being able to recognize the honesty and justification of every human striving for knowledge. And even if one cannot agree with anything that Conrad Deubler actually professed, the contemplation of this personality, especially in connection with characteristics of Austrian life, means something that is typical and significant in particular, in that it expresses how, from within those circumstances, there is a striving for wholeness that, in many respects, can be compared spiritually to being spatially enclosed by mountains. Conrad Deubler is an insightful person, despite not even having learned to write properly, despite having had very little schooling. Jakob Julius David calls the personalities he describes and sketches “musers.” In my home region of Lower Austria, the Waldviertel, they would have been called “simulators.” These are people who have to go through life musing, but who associate something sensitive with musing, who find much to criticize in life. In Austria, we call this “raunzing” about life. People grumble about life a lot. But this criticism is not dry criticism; this criticism is something that is immediately transformed into inner life, especially in figures like Conrad Deubler. He is a man of insight from the very beginning, even though he couldn't write properly. He is always going for books. In his youth, he starts with a good book, a book that aspires from the sensual to the spiritual: Grävell, “Der Mensch” (Man). Deubler reads this in 1830 (he was born in 1814), and Sintenis, “Der gestirnte Himmel” (The Starry Sky), Zschokke's “Stunden der Andacht” (Hours of Devotion). But he doesn't really feel at home with these things, he can't go along with these things. He is a contemplative by nature, and he is imbued with enthusiasm to find satisfaction for the soul not only for himself, but also for those who inhabit his village with him. Something in these people is striving out of the traditional worldview. Then Conrad Deubler becomes acquainted with the ideas that most deeply moved and stirred the times at that time – he becomes acquainted with writings that were written out of the spirit of Darwinism. He becomes acquainted with Ludwig Feuerbach, with David Friedrich Strauss. Later he becomes acquainted with the writings of Ernst Haeckel, but this is later. He reads all of this, devouring it. I will mention in passing that he was sentenced to several years in prison for dealing with such reading material and reading such things to his fellow villagers, and for founding a kind of library for his fellow villagers. It was from 1852 to 1856 – for religious disturbance, blasphemy and spreading blasphemous views! But as I said, I only mention this in passing, because Conrad Deubler bore the whole thing manfully. For him, it was a matter of penetrating to knowledge out of a fundamental urge of his soul. And so we see in this farmer what we may see in another spirit, I would say, on a higher plane of life, at the very end. We see in this spirit how attempts are made to reconcile the scientific way of thinking with the deepest needs of the soul. That Conrad Deubler could arrive at a purely naturalistic-materialistic view of life should, as I said, not concern us. For what matters is not that, but that in such people there lives the urge to see nature itself spiritualized. Even if they initially only accept it sensually, in them all lives the urge to accept nature spiritually. And from such a view of nature, a spiritualized view of life must nevertheless arise in the course of human evolution. So this simple farmer has gradually become a famous personality, especially among the most enlightened spirits of the materialistic epoch. He was an enthusiastic traveler and not only learned in his early youth in Vienna what he wanted to learn, he also traveled to Feuerbach in Nuremberg. But it is particularly interesting how his inn in Goisern became a place of residence for the most important people in the field of natural science and natural philosophy. Haeckel repeatedly stopped at Deubler's, staying there for weeks at a time. Feuerbach often stopped there. Deubler corresponded with David Friedrich Strauß, with the materialist Vogt, with the so-called fat Vogt, with all kinds of people, and we should not be disturbed by the unorthographic, the ungrammatical, but rather we should be struck by the unspoilt nature of the man of knowledge.

And I would like to say that this trait, which in Deubler appears in the rustic and coarse, appears in the man, whom I already referred to in the previous lecture, in a highly subtle way: Bartholomäus von Carneri, the real Austrian philosopher of the last third of the nineteenth century. Carneri is also the type of mind that is initially overwhelmed by Darwinism, but which shows all the more clearly how impossible it is for him to really accept science as it is accepted in Central Europe; how it is impossible for such a mind not to link science to the innermost striving of the human being, not to seek the path that leads from science to religious deepening and religious contemplation. Bartholomäus von Carneri is precisely one of those minds for whom it is true when Asia says to the blond Teut that the most serious thinking in the German spirit wants to arise out of love and come to the intimacy of God. Even if this intimacy with God comes to us, as it were, in atheistic clothing in Carneri, it still comes to us from the most intense and honest spiritual striving. Carneri, as a philosopher and as a man of world-view, stands entirely on the ground of the view that everything that is spirit can only appear to man in matter. And now Carneri is under the influence of a strange delusion. One could say that he is under the influence of the delusion that he now regards the world in terms of nothing but concepts and ideas, in terms of nothing but perceptions and sensations that are born of the spirit, with which he believes he can grasp and comprehend only material things, only the sensual. When someone looks at something sensual, says Carneri, this sensuality can be divided, but the division goes only so far that we can survey this limited thing with our senses. But when the division continues, when the differentiation becomes so fine that no sense can oversee it, then what lives in the differentiated material must be grasped by thinking, and then it is spirit, - spiritually out of the belief that actually only the natural is naturally understood. This is very characteristic, because Carneri's world view is really instinctive spiritualized materialism; one could even say purest spiritualism. And only through the trend of the times, through the effect of the times, did the deception arise that what Carneri speaks of can only be meant spiritually, when in fact it is fundamentally only expressions of the material. But what Carneri grasps so instinctively idealistically, consciously naturalistically, he must necessarily attach to ethics. And what man works out for himself in the way of morals becomes, for Carneri, because he strives for a certain monism of world view, only a sum of higher natural laws. And so Carneri, precisely because he is subject to the characterized deception, transfers the moral, the highest impulses of moral action, into the human soul like natural impulses. And there one sees particularly what is actually at work in minds like Carneri's. In their youth, they lived in a world view that made a fundamental distinction between spirit and nature. They could not reconcile this with the urge of their souls. What science has produced in three to four centuries, these minds had grasped instinctively: No, nature cannot be what it is or should be according to the old traditions; in many of its aspects, nature cannot simply be an abandoned child of the gods. What is the lawfulness of the world must live in nature.

And yet, although such people only wanted to be naturalists, it was basically the urge to give nature its spirit, which lived in them. This is what makes these men so extraordinarily characteristic. And if it can be shown, even in the case of Sueß, the geologist, how his nationality gave a special human colouring to his great work on geology, the same could be shown in the case of a philosopher like Carneri, if one were now to follow his inner life. Precisely what emerges from the observation with regard to the lawful connection between the most diverse nationally colored human minds, as they can be found in Austria, had the particular effect that there, in complicated form, in manifold form, human images stepped before the soul in such a way that riddle upon riddle arose. And in looking at human experiences, at people one has before one daily, one looked at something where the natural plays up into the moral and the moral plays down again into the natural. So it was that in Carneri a noble ethical world view of the historical course of humanity was intimately mixed with a certain naturalism, which, however, is basically only a transitional product, a transitional from which most of all that could be found as a later stage is represented here as a spiritual science, if one is only aware that everything in the world needs its historical development.

Thus, in Carneri's work, a certain view of the ethical, historical ethical life of humanity is combined with the natural life. For him, natural life and historical life merge into one. He sharpens his view of the natural phenomena he has observed so wonderfully, I might say so lovingly and intimately, for the phenomena of humanity, insofar as they take place between nation and nation. The one always clarifies the other. And Carneri had the opportunity, in particular, to be able to contribute to the development of Austria's destiny because he was a member of the Austrian Parliament for a long time and because he absorbed the basic conditions of Austria at that time in the most honest way into his soul. He was born in Trento in 1821, the son of a senior Austrian civil servant. It is remarkable that today I often have to describe personalities to you who were outwardly tormented by deep suffering. Carneri was a twin child. His twin sister developed quite well. But from the beginning he was afflicted with a curvature of the spine. He was ill all his life, paralyzed down one side. He also corresponded with Conrad Deubler. And although I have already been made aware from another source of what Carneri's external life was like, I would still like to present to you the words that Carneri wrote to Deubler on October 26, 1881, so that you can see what an extraordinarily physically tormented man Carneri was. “Do you know,” Carneri wrote to Deubler, ”that the description of your home has made my heart very heavy? It reminded me of the time when I was healthy. I have the forest just behind the house and I have not entered it for years because I can only walk on completely flat paths. I have long since renounced any higher enjoyment of nature, but also everything that is called social entertainment. Incidentally, I can't say that I feel any less happy as a result. Due to a muscle cramp in my neck (torticollis intermittens), which often extends across half of my body, my existence is an extraordinarily arduous one. But I don't mind, and that's what matters. In short, it will be difficult for me to visit you; but if it is feasible one day, I will. We are sticking together, even without knowing each other face to face, and that's the main thing."

And I have read here before how the Austrian poet Marie Eugenie delle Grazie, who knew Carneri well, described the exterior of Carneri from a moving scene. She describes it as follows: ”... “How could you bear it, all these years, and still keep that smile, that kindness and joy of life?” I cried out in agony when Carneri suffered such an attack in my presence. Slowly he raised his head, which had sunk low on his chest, wiped the sweat from his forehead and cheeks with his trembling left hand, breathed deeply and looked at me with a look that was once again all sun and willpower. “How so?” he smiled. ‘But don't you understand that in my daily struggle with such a beast, I wanted to remain a man, and become a man I had to? I —, he smiled again, ’just had my ambitions. That‘, he pointed to his still-twitching body, ’should be stronger than me? Should it be able to rob me of my days? To make me loathe all the joys and beauties of life? Would I be a man if I did not remain the stronger? So it began, and so it will end.

Thus speaks one who, due to the previously described deception, believes himself to be a naturalist, but who has absorbed a noble ethic from naturalism. But he also shows us a personality that, in a certain respect, contains within itself much that is genuinely Austrian: the ability to turn a strong soul into a strong soul and not to be able to bear weakness being taken as weakness, but rather acting — was particularly developed in this Carneri. And this sense is poured over his entire philosophy. And if you read his works, you will find this sense. But you will also find the infinitely loving response to the facts of life. Incidentally, it already emerges in his poems, in his various writings, which appeared as early as 1840. And the whole of Carneri – it was wonderful to look at him. He stands before me as I look down from the gallery of the Austrian House of Representatives. It was always an important day when one knew that Carneri would speak. Carneri, who was half paralyzed, who could only walk on flat paths, who could only speak in such a way that half of his tongue participated in the speaking, so to speak, that only half of his brain was only half thinking. This Carneri had conquered his physicality; that he now stood there and that his speech was imbued with the most tremendous acumen, with which he saw through everything that could be seen through, that could be condemned. And everywhere he found the right words, which shot like an arrow at those who were to be hit, and which could everywhere inspire those who wanted to be inspired. Carneri was far too much of an idealist for his speeches to always be followed by action. But his speeches were feared in a certain way. In a scholarly way, he presented to his parliament what he carried in his whole thinking – one might say: Austria. This lived and this spoke. And whether he spoke where he could agree with something or whether he spoke as an opponent – that which was discerning Austrian patriotism always spoke through Carneri; such a patriotism, which seeks the tasks of this Austrian national community in the whole historical development of mankind. And even when he spoke about individual matters, not in abstract terms but with all the color of his speech, a great historical trend came to life. And even when he had to reproach, when he had to reproach bitterly, I would say that in his thoughts the blood relationship between this thinker Carneri and Austrian-ness came to life. Therefore, anyone who is aware of this can never forget how the words of one of his last speeches must have sounded from Carneri's mouth, where he saw some things approaching that the opponents of Central Europe had overestimated, that were not as the opponents of Central Europe believed, but that could have been brought about by many out of lack of understanding. Carneri was one of those who saw it from afar, but who, above all, did not want to merely criticize it, so that Austria would remain truly strong. That is why his words of reproach had such an effect that they could remain in the soul. And those who heard such words of reproach, such words of reproach imbued with the deepest feeling, which he uttered in one of his last most brilliant speeches, where he said: “I document thereby express my conviction... which can be summarized in two words, two words which — and I have experienced many a serious moment in my sixty years — I utter for the first time in my life today: Poor Austria!” That such words could be spoken, that there were people who felt that way, is where the forces lie that today have their counter-image in the vilifications of Austria's opponents, outside of Austria, among the enemies of Austria. In Carneri, something of the spirit of those who, in all their diversity, strove to bring Austria powerfully into harmony, because they understood the necessity of the harmony of this diversity, lived.

In the end, he went blind. He celebrated his eightieth birthday in 1900 – by then he had gone blind. As a blind man, he wrote his Dante translation at the time. He dictated from memory, because he had Dante's Divine Comedy in his soul and was able to translate it from memory. At that time, his life was behind him. In many, it lives on, in more people than one might think. He had become blind, weak. As a blind man, he sat in a wheelchair; he had eighty years behind him, sixty years of work. “Realized” - I say this in parentheses - when this man was eighty years old and blind, the University of Vienna ‘recognized’ him by awarding him the doctorate as an eighty-year-old blind man and declaring that it understood something of his merits, with the words: ”We highly appreciate that you have been able to give your scientific ideas such a form that they are able to penetrate into further circles of the people, and that your honorable sir, in addition to the noblest devotion to Austria, has always represented those principles of freedom in your public activities, without whose unreserved recognition a successful advancement of knowledge and scientific work is not possible.” One must be glad that such things as Carneri has done for the benefit of his country and, dare I say it, for the benefit of humanity, are at least recognized; even if one can become eighty years old, blind and deaf before they are recognized. Well, that is the way things are going today.

Unfortunately, I have already taken up far too much of your time; but I could continue at length by attempting to describe, not by means of description, but by means of symptoms, in which, I believe - not always in such a refined way, of course - Austrian folklore lives, but which also shows what this Austrian folklore is when it can show itself in its noblest blossoms. I have mentioned these noblest blossoms because I believe that it is good if the population of Central Europe gets to know each other better in our difficult times, also in a spiritual sense. For time is forging a whole out of this Central Europe, and a unified spirit already prevails in this whole. And the better we get to know this unified spirit, the more alive it will appear to us, and the more we will be able to trust it. All the more will one be able to believe that, despite all misunderstanding, it cannot be overcome. In the German representatives of Central Europe there lives, in many cases, what I have already had to characterize as not simply an instinctive devotion to nationality, but an ideal to which one wants to develop, which consists in spirituality and in the development of strength, which one can only approach and which one can only truly appreciate when one regards it in connection with what leads to the salvation of all mankind. Indeed, there is something about the most German of Germans when they speak of their nationality that others cannot understand; for never does anything else live in the Germans but the duty: You must develop what wants to live through your nationality in the world! The duty to develop is, in a sense, to be national. Hence the constant urge to place one's own nationality within the context of the goals of all humanity. And so it was with Carneri, that in his soul-searching he found what, ethically, must be connected as the basic features of the development of all humanity with natural law. For him, this was one. But he regarded it with such love that for him the Germanic ideals were also part of the historical development of all mankind. And he could compare, and only because he really compared, he felt entitled to think about the Germanic as he did. I would have much more to say about it, but there is not enough time. A mind like Carneri's first looks at the essential nature of the various nations, and then he allows the value of his own nation to emerge before himself in the right image. He considers his own national substance in connection with other national substances. From this point of view, he says to himself: The freedom of all nations, the recognition of every nation, is compatible with everything German, because that lies in the whole German development. And this, for Carneri, is contradicted, for example, by the Pan-Slav ideal, which proceeds from the a priori view that supremacy must one day be granted to every nation; which works towards getting supremacy. In contrast to this, Carneri says: The leadership of the Germanic spirit, which dominates Europe and extends to the distant West, originates from the concept of morality, which, on the favorable soil that has made it flourish, bears beneficial fruits. It cannot, therefore, last any longer than this world is habitable. And precisely at the time when Carneri was a member of the Austrian parliament, the situation in Central Europe, particularly in the political sphere and in the field of political observation, was such that England and the English constitution were seen as a model. Many politicians wanted to model the constitution of all countries on the English model. And much else in England was seen as a model. Carneri was very much involved in such politics, where many of his comrades thought this way. But Carneri wanted to come to clarity. Carneri wanted to be objective in his view of humanity. But out of this objectivity arose his sense of belonging to the Germanic-Germanic essence and his objective assessment of a country like England. What I am going to share with you now, Carneri did not just write before the war – he died long before the war, after all – he wrote it in the 1860s. “England,” he says, ‘the country of continuous progress par excellence, will turn to general ideas if it is not to descend from the proud heights it has climbed. Nothing characterizes it better than the fact that it has become so ’practical' in the self-confident development of its greatness that it had to learn from the Germans that it had produced the greatest playwright in the world!” In a spirit like Carneri's, this is not just any kind of jingoism, it is a sense of belonging to the Germanic essence; a sense of belonging that arises from knowledge, that arises precisely from deep knowledge, and that does not want to allow itself to appear in the world and claim what it is entitled to claim before it can justify itself before the entire mission of humanity on earth. This is something that, whether it is spoken in Germany or in Austria, can find little understanding among the others, because it is basically the national conception of the specifically German.

With regard to Austria, however, I have, I believe, characterized something of Austrian-ness for you more than descriptive words can, by showing some of living people. And I hope that I have characterized Austrian character in these living people in such a way that, through the contemplation of these living people, the conviction can arise that this Austria is not just a motley collection, brought together by some arbitrary act, but that it corresponds to an inner necessity. The people I have tried to present to you prove this. And they prove this, I think, by the fact that one can say of them, as of deeply thinking souls, seeking a world view or an art out of a deep temperament, what has been said in another area and in another respect with reference to the Austrian Field Marshal Radetzky. The saying that was then repeated was once said with reference to the Austrian Field Marshal Radetzky: “In your camp is Austria!” I believe that one can expand on this saying and say of such people, as I have tried to interpret for you, that in their searching souls Austria lives, Austria lives as something that they feel is a necessity: “In their thoughts Austria lives!” And I believe that Austria lives in a very lively way.

In the course of my lectures here I have often spoken about the great period of spiritual development that may be called the time of German idealism. And in general it is well known today, even in wider circles, what the whole intimate spiritual process of development from Kant up through Hegel means for the spiritual life of humanity in general. However, when something like this is mentioned, I do not want to fail to add that the great thinkers who come into question here are never really properly appreciated, if one is still even remotely on the ground that leads one to accept as dogma what a person expresses as a truth that he has recognized or, let us say better, meant. One can go beyond this; then one is in a position to completely abandon the formulation of any human opinion, any human construct. But to see the way in which a person has sought truth, how, as it were, the truth instinct lived in him, the how of the search for truth, that is what remains as the eternally interesting thing about the figures of, in particular, the thinkers of the past. And in particular, what remains with respect to the thinkers of German idealism, among many other things, is what one can feel, so to speak, again and again when one delves into them: that they have achieved a certain ability to orient themselves with respect to what man can call truth, truth research, world view, that they knew, as it were, how impossible it is to orient oneself in the world if one relies only on taking in the impressions of the world, letting them take effect on one, in order to be at their mercy, like a plaything, so to speak. Above all, these thinkers knew that what can decide the sense of truth, the sense of worldview, must be sought in the depths of the human soul itself, since it must be brought up.

Karl Rosenkranz was a less recognized latecomer to these great thinkers, who also became less well known. And this Karl Rosenkranz tried in the 1860s of the last century to review in his mind's eye what had developed as an understanding of the human soul and its powers since German idealism through the influences of a more scientific way of thinking. I would like to read to you the introduction to today's reflections on how Karl Rosenkranz, the well-educated, subtle Hegelian, has commented on this soul-searching of the thirty years that followed the period of German idealism. Karl Rosenkranz wrote in 1863:

It can be said of these thinkers that they had a sense of the productivity of thought; they had confidence in the power of thought, which, by intensifying itself, can find within itself that source from which that which is able to enlighten the world bubbles forth. And they knew that no matter how much external methods and instruments of natural science are perfected, that which truly quickens the spirit in man is not to be found in the realm that can be conquered by external methods and instruments. I have often said here that the spiritual science that wants to be represented in these considerations cannot, for example, be in any kind of contradiction with the scientific world view of our time. On the contrary, it is in complete harmony with every legitimate formulation of the scientific world view. This spiritual science does not want to be some kind of new religion; it wants to be a genuine, true continuation of natural science, or rather of the natural scientific way of thinking. And one can say that for anyone who observes the development of science over the time that has passed since Karl Rosenkranz wrote what you have read, it offers impulses in every field that lead directly to this spiritual science, if one is really able to engage with it. And this natural science offers such impulses precisely when one engages with it where it itself attempts to extend its observations in such a way that they lead to the realm of the spiritual.

Now there is a science that is particularly suited to making it clear where natural science is leading when it wants to approach the realm of the spiritual in a way that is right for it and its methods. This science is called, with a somewhat cumbersome word, psychophysiology, and as a rule we are dealing with people in the field of psychophysiology who thoroughly understand how to apply the scientific methods that can be acquired in the various scientific workshops. Now there are already psychological laboratories, and in these psycho-physiologists we also have people who can be trusted to be familiar with the scientific way of thinking, with the way this scientific way of thinking relates to the world and its phenomena. We can now begin to understand what has been achieved in this psycho-physiological field. If you want to educate yourself in a short time, I advise you to take Theodor Ziehen's “Physiological Psychology”, because it gives a quick overview and because it is basically, even the older editions, at the complete level of today's research in this field. But you could just as easily look for this physiological psychology in some other author. If you now engage with this physiological psychology, you get an idea of how the person who uses scientific methods in the sense of the scientific way of thinking approaches the human being in order to examine that which I would say, clinically and in the sense of a physical laboratory, or a psychological laboratory for all I care, can be investigated in a person, what can be investigated in a person by the person expressing themselves spiritually and psychologically. And it may be said that even if what is science in this field today often represents an ideal, the various directions towards this ideal can already be seen everywhere, and anyone who is not prejudiced will want to fully recognize the great merits of the individual research in this field. Naturally, in the sense of today's scientific thinking, these researchers are endeavoring to seek the physical, the bodily, in everything that takes place in the human being in a spiritual and mental way, to seek those processes in the human body that take place while something spiritual and mental is happening in us. And in this field, as I said, paths have already been opened. And there one experiences something very peculiar at first. And at this moment, when I try to describe to you what one experiences, I emphasize that I initially place myself completely on the ground of what is justified in this field of science. One experiences something remarkable; one experiences that researchers in this field can investigate what we call the life of human ideas in a truly magnificent way. In our mental life, ideas are stimulated by external impressions that we can perceive. These ideas join together and separate from one another. This is what our soul life consists of, insofar as it is a life of ideas: we form inner images of the impressions from the outside world, and these images group themselves. This is a large part of our soul life. Now the psychophysiologist can follow how the ideas socialize inwardly, how they form, and he can follow the physical processes everywhere in such a way that he always sees: On the one hand, there is the mental process in the life of ideas, and on the other hand, there is the physical process. And it will never be possible, if one is only unprejudiced, to discover a real soul life in a person to whom such a physical counterpart cannot be shown, even if, as I said, proof is still a scientific ideal today. And so it is extraordinarily appealing, extraordinarily interesting, to follow in the human thinking apparatus — now really conceived as a thinking apparatus in the proper sense, in so far as it is bodily-physically constructed — how everything happens when man inwardly experiences his imaginative life. And it is precisely in this respect that the book by Theodor Ziehen contains something extraordinarily significant, yes, I would even say scientifically extraordinarily reasonable.

But now for the other peculiarity. The moment one has to speak of feeling and especially of will in the life of the soul, this psychophysiology not only fails, I might say instinctively, but with the truly modern psychophysiologist it even fails quite consciously. And you can see in Ziehen's book how, at the moment when one is supposed to talk about feeling and will, he does not get involved in it at all, continuing the investigations up to that point. How does he speak of feelings? Well, he says it bluntly: the natural scientist does not speak of an independent emotional life in man, but rather, in that one gets impressions from the outside - these impressions are stronger or weaker, they have these or other characteristics - a certain “feeling tone” is formed afterwards. He speaks only of feeling tone, and so, to a certain extent, of a way in which the sensation sinks in first, and then the image, into the soul life. That is to say, the psychophysiologist loses his breath — forgive the trivial expression, but it has to be said — at the moment when he is to pass from the life of images and their parallelization in the psychophysiological mechanism to the life of feeling. And if he is as honest as Theodor Ziehen, he admits this by simply saying what he does: In the past, people still thought naively, speaking of three soul powers, of a thinking or imagining, of a feeling, of a willing. But for the natural scientist, there can be no question of a feeling, of a real soul-being that lives in pleasure and pain like a real one. These are all only tones in which there are shades of what the life of perception and feeling is. So the scientist consciously, not just unconsciously, loses his breath; consciously he stops breathing scientifically.

And this occurs to an even greater extent when we speak of the third soul power, the will. In psychophysiology, we find nothing about the will except what is expressed: it cannot be found, it is impossible to find it, especially with the means of a rational, scientific way of thinking. It is an interesting and extraordinarily important result that must be noted and taken seriously. The natural scientist can say: Well, I have this scientific view; with this scientific view, I find, so to speak, the thinking apparatus, the mental apparatus for the soul life, insofar as it takes place in the mental life; I do not concern myself with the other! The scientific researcher can rightly say that. The amateur world-viewer, who likes to give himself the grandiose title of monist, will not easily notice that the breath has been suppressed quite arbitrarily, but he will believe that by passing over from the life of thinking into the life of feeling and of will, he continues to breathe, and he will see in the life of feeling and of will only a kind of product of the development of the life of thinking. And so it is only natural that we arrive at the strange conclusion that people like Theodor Ziehen say: the will is not present at all, the will is a pure invention.

What do we actually have when we speak of the will in any of our activities? Well, as people think in a trivial way of looking at things, will is already present when I just move my hand. But first of all I have the impression, I feel a mental impression that causes me to move my hand. And then my mental life passes over to the observation of my moving hand, which I may also perceive with senses other than the eye. But I have only a sum of ideas. I simply go from the impressions to the ideas of movement. That is, I am actually just constantly watching myself. And if one wants to be a part of these confrontations - I now say: of the dilettantish monism, of the world view - then one should feel how one is eradicating precisely that which is the most intimate inner experience — the life of feeling and the life of will — when man is made into what he must not be made into, when natural science is not left as natural science but is turned into a Weltanschhauung in an amateurish way.

For the spiritual researcher, however, the path of the natural scientist is of extraordinary importance, because this path has already been followed to such an extent that it clearly shows how far the scientific method of research can go. A clear boundary can already be seen. Particularly when one delves into the works of those thinkers who preceded the natural science direction, the thinkers of German idealism, one finds in them a clear awareness that the higher secrets of the world must be investigated by immersing oneself in the human soul. These thinkers were even ridiculed for wanting to unravel these secrets of the world, as it were, and develop them all from the human soul. But it is also characteristic of what these thinkers actually achieved, and it is particularly characteristic for the observer to compare what the German idealists achieved and what was then achieved by the scientific way of thinking and research. What did these German idealists achieve, these much-mocked German idealists? Hegel – perhaps I may, without seeming immodest, draw attention to the accounts I have given of Hegel in 'Riddles of Philosophy', in the new edition of my 'World and Life Views in the Nineteenth Century'. — Hegel tried to grasp everything that lives and moves in the world in pure thought, so to speak, to extract the entire network of thought from the abundance of phenomena, facts and things in the world. But one must admit, despite all objections, that this network of thoughts cannot be gained through contemplation, cannot be gained through external observation. For one tries only once to let the outside world have its effect on oneself, not to produce within oneself the source of thinking, which makes the soul active – nothing will come out of thoughts! But if one does not want to apply one's thoughts to the world, if one denies that thoughts can have any meaning, because they necessarily have to arise, one might say, out of the human soul, then one would have to renounce any mental discussion of the world. And not even Haeckel would want to do that!

By handling thought in general, one lives entirely in thought, in the awareness that thought expresses something that has significance for the world itself. The Hegelians were only aware of the fact that thought is an inner experience and, despite being an inner experience, has objective significance for the existence of the world. But if we now take a closer look at what the whole idealistic way of thinking has achieved – I will now say: through thought and in thought, for whose way of observation it has had such practice – we can hardly expect anyone today, for example, to go through Hegel's writings for what I am about to mention. But if someone does so, they come to the following: Hegel is a master in the handling of thought, which is not influenced at all by any sensual impression from outside; he is a master in the development of one thought out of another, so that one has a whole living organism of thoughts in his – well, let us use the terrible word – system. But let us take a closer look at this Hegel with all his thoughts. We can, I would say, divide him into two parts. The first part is where he develops thoughts. But all these thoughts relate to that which is externally sensual in the world. They are only, I might say, internal reflections of that which is externally sensual in the world. And the second part relates to the historical development of humanity, to social and state concepts, and it culminates in what the human being can develop in terms of perceptions, thoughts and ideas, which then express themselves emotionally as religion, visually as art, and in terms of ideas as science. So that is what Hegel wants to achieve by bringing the thought to life within him; he regards this as the innermost source of world existence, and he pursues it to the flowering of development in religion, in art, in science. But religion, art and science - are they not in turn merely something that has a meaning for the outer physical world? Or could anyone imagine that the content of religious belief could somehow have a meaning for a spiritual world? Or could he even believe that art, which must speak through the sensual tool, can have any meaning - an immediate meaning, of course - within the spiritual world? Or our science? Well, we will talk about that later.

Hegel does find the thought, but it is only a thought that, though it lives and moves within, only reflects the external. This thought cannot come to life in any world that could exist except the sensual-physical world. A spiritual world does not come about through Hegelianism, but only the spiritual image of the physical world.

And science? Precisely the science that followed, which is to be taken very seriously, now examines this thought, this thought life of the human being, and finds: it comes to it, in that it finds the thinking apparatus in man, as it were, for the thought life, right up to the feeling and will life; there it has to stop. If we now really hold the two together, must we not assume that, on the one hand, Hegelianism, for example, or in general that idealistic world view of which we have spoken, really did strive into a spiritual world — but found more than merely the spiritual counter-image of what is not spiritual? On the other hand, must we not say: So could not this Hegelianism, this idealism gain access to that which it must admit to its existence because thought could have no meaning as purely spiritual in the face of reality if there were not a spiritual world? It is interesting that everything that German idealism has just produced in terms of thought flows from the spiritual world, but that there is nothing in it but what the scientific way of thinking can assume as its thinking apparatus. But in other words, if one really wants to enter the spiritual world, and if one wants to enter it in such a way that one can stand before natural science, then one must enter the realm of feeling and will, but not in the sense in which one feels and wills in ordinary life, but in the way the natural scientist enters the world of nature. Now,

Now, from other points of view, I have often indicated here the ways in which one can truly enter the spiritual world while remaining on the firm ground of natural science. Today, through this historical overview, I only wanted to show how, through the thinking that one usually knows, even when it is driven to such purity, to such cold, sober, icy purity as in German idealism, one can indeed come to the conviction that there is a spiritual world, for this thinking is not won by an outer impression, it must itself come from the spiritual world. But one cannot enter the spiritual world through this thinking.

Why can one not enter the spiritual world through this thinking? As I said, I have often treated this question here from different points of view. Today, I would like to approach it again from a different point of view. We cannot enter into the spiritual world because in recent times we have increasingly tried to expunge from our thinking everything that the natural scientist no longer finds in it. This means that we have tried to expunge feeling and will from our thinking. To see that this is so, one has only to consider the basis of the great, most important significance of the natural scientific way of thinking. It rests on the fact that, when one goes about observing nature, one must, I might say, kill and paralyze all soul-life within oneself. Whether he is observing things and their facts or experimenting, the naturalist will strictly exclude everything that comes from his feelings and everything that comes from his will. He will never allow what he feels towards things to interfere with what he wants to express about what he has observed, what he would prefer to be the truth, so to speak, rather than what the things themselves say. It may be said that the scientific development of modern times, which goes back three to four centuries, has really provided a good training in what is called scientific objectivity. Selfless, in the good sense of scientific and in many ways ennobling, would be the right description for human life, which may be called the elimination of the self in the face of the language of natural phenomena. Great progress has been made in this respect. And in psychophysiology, we have even gone so far as to think in such a way that we no longer find feeling and will in thinking. That is to say, what was a method of research has already become practical, has already come to life. We should switch off the soul when observing nature. One has learned to exclude it in such a way that one can no longer find it in the whole field of observation. What remains unconscious in our thinking, when we give ourselves completely passively to the external world, as must be the ideal of the natural scientist — when he also sets up the experiments, it must be his ideal — unconscious in thinking remains that which can be called: will. It is precisely the endeavor to eliminate the will from thinking when one conducts research in relation to nature in today's sense. It remains unconscious because one always needs a will when one adds one thought to another – they do not do it themselves, after all – or when one separates one thought from another. Nevertheless, it remains the ideal of natural science to suppress as much as possible of this will that lies in the life of thought. It is therefore quite natural that the scientific ideal, I might say, makes the inner life of the soul die away for the sake of human habit. And it is much more due to this — and I expressly say: justified — scientific ideal that the exclusion of the soul has been able to take place as it has, that one must precisely disregard everything of the soul, exclude everything of the soul, if one wants to follow nature faithfully in the sense of today's natural science.

But there is another side to this. And it is extremely important to consider this other side. What is it that man seeks when he seeks knowledge? Well, first of all, when he seeks knowledge, he seeks something that is true apart from him. For if he did not think of truth as something separate from himself, he could create it for himself in every moment. That he does not want to do that is readily admitted. So when man seeks an ideal of knowledge, he seeks to bring to life within himself something to which he contributes as little as possible. Just consider how opposed people are today to self-made concepts, especially in the scientific field! So one strives to have something in one's knowledge that, I might say, reflects external reality, but which has just as little to do with this external reality as a mirror image has with what is reflected. Just as the mirror image cannot change what is reflected, so too should what comes to life in the soul as the content of knowledge not change what takes place outside. But then one must eliminate all soul activity, for then the soul can have no significance for knowledge. And when one strives so hard to eliminate the soul, it is not surprising that in this field the soul cannot be found. Therefore spiritual research must begin precisely where the scientific way of thinking must end. That is to say, thought must be sought in what the will is in thought. And this happens in everything that the soul has to undergo in those inner experiments, as has been mentioned here often enough, everything that the soul has to undergo in inwardly strengthening and intensifying the thinking, so that the will working in the thinking no longer remains unconscious to the thinking , but becomes conscious of this will, so that man really comes to experience himself in such a way that he, as it were, lives and moves in thinking, is directly involved in the life and movement of the images themselves and now no longer looks at the images themselves, but at what he does. And in this, the human being must become more and more, I would say, a technician, acquiring more and more inner practice, living into what happens through himself as the life of the imagination unfolds. And everything that the human being discovers in himself otherwise remains between the lines of life. It always lives in the human being, but it does not rise up into consciousness, the will is suppressed in the life of the imagination. When one develops such inner vitality, such inner liveliness, that one not only has images but enters with one's experience into this surging and ebbing, into this becoming and passing away of the images, and when one can take this so far you no longer bring the content of the ideas into your attention, but only this activity, then you are on the way to experiencing the will in the world of ideas, to really experiencing something in the world of ideas that you otherwise do not experience in life. This means that, if we are to remain true to what the scientific way of thinking itself leads to, we must go completely beyond the way in which natural science conducts research. In a sense, we must not take what natural science investigates, but we must observe ourselves doing natural science. And what is practiced in this way, and what can only lead to success if it is practiced for years – after all, all scientific results are only achieved through long work – what is achieved in this way is a living into a consciousness in a completely different world. What is achieved can only be experienced; it can be described, but it cannot be shown externally, it can only be experienced. For what is achieved in practice is, I would say, what the scientific way of thinking already points to. This scientific way of thinking tells us: If I go on my way, I come to a limit. I go as far as I can still find something human. There I do not find a world in which there is will and feeling. But this world, where feeling and will are discovered just as objectively as plants and minerals are otherwise discovered here, this world can be found if one can make this inner experience of the ideas effective in the soul between the lines of the rest of the imaginative life. Only now one experiences that which one can otherwise only sense. Today, the natural scientist will already be more or less inclined to say: It is blind superstition when someone claims that what is known in the physical world as thinking, as imagining, can somehow take place without a thinking apparatus, without a brain, without a nervous system. The natural scientist asserts this on the basis of his theory. One could easily believe — and laymen in relation to this spiritual research do believe — that spiritual research must disprove the scientist's assertion. This is not the case. On the contrary, in as far as this assertion can be well derived from the facts of natural science, the spiritual researcher is standing firmly on the ground of natural research in this field. Only he actually experiences what the scientist deals with on the basis of theory. For when one experiences this weaving and living, as I have indicated, in the world of ideas, then one knows: now one has arrived at the point where the thinking apparatus can give one nothing more. All thinking one has done so far is bound to the thinking apparatus. Now one has arrived at that inner experience, that weaving, that is no longer bound to the thinking apparatus.

But at the same time, one has arrived at something that, when stated, initially seems outlandish compared to the usual ways of thinking in the present day. But everything that has ever appeared in science and had to be incorporated into the intellectual development of the world was outlandish at first and then taken for granted. At first it seems strange, but it is a truth. By awakening this inner life and activity, one leaves the world one experiences between birth or, let us say, between conception and death here on earth. One leaves it and enters a world that one cannot experience in the physical body. Rather, one is in the world to which one belonged before birth or, let us say, when the spiritual soul was just beginning to adapt to what it had been given of the physical by the hereditary current, or what it gave itself. We are dealing with forces that do not use the thinking apparatus to develop an imaginative life, but forces that first form and fully develop the thinking apparatus only in the course of life after birth. For the inner nervous life, the inner nervous web, is only chiseled out and plasticized in the course of the first years and long beyond, when we have entered our physical existence. One is in the forces that shape the human being inwardly as plastic forces, so that he can become what he is; so that he is a creature of his spiritual and soul self. But one must not believe that one should not take this existence to the full, and I now mean, in practical earnest. For you see, out of a natural weakness of human nature, the spiritual researcher will always be asked to recognize first of all that which is the immediate present, which is, I might say, more the confused spiritual of the physical-sensual world. Here in the physical-sensual world, one gets to know things with the senses. But that which has formed these senses themselves, that which underlies these senses as the architect, that one gets to know, if one knows how to transport oneself out of the physical lifetime into the time that preceded the physical life and will follow the physical life, in the way it has been described. One gets to know a world with which this world here has basically no similarity. And in what I have described as the inner experience of the thinking activity instead of the thoughts, a real spiritual world opens up, in which the world really opens up, in which the human being is with other spirit beings when he is not embodied in the physical body. This world is just as concrete and just as vividly inwardly visualized as the external, real, physical world. Only, as I have already explained here, something else must be added.

We see that in the path taken by thinking, everything comes down to strengthening, to intensifying thinking, to an inward powerful experience of thinking. So it comes down to the fact that ultimately, before this inward powerful experience, the content of thinking lies, of course, only in consciousness, and the soul can truly experience itself in the weaving of the imagination. But there must be added, as a parallel experiment, I might say, to our life a culture, a development of the will element, of the will and feeling element. Now, while everything depends on inwardly strengthening this thinking, I might say, on becoming it, in the development of thinking into the spiritual world, everything in the other development of the will depends on develop the opposite qualities: calmness of soul, composure; that one becomes capable of confronting what we call our actions, the unfoldings of our will, in the way one can learn from the study of nature. Not that one becomes a cold person, sucked dry like a lemon; one does not become that. On the contrary, everything that otherwise often remains unused by the deeper-lying 'temperament and affects comes to the soul when it is subjected to the observation that comes from composure and calmness. If one first trains oneself, then trains, as Goethe, for example, trained himself in observing the types of plants and animals, if one first trains oneself to observe the outside world in such a way that one really practices self-denial and then does not transfer this pedantically and theoretically to self-observation, but acquire the appropriate reinforcement and then turn the view that you have sharpened on nature back to yourself, then you will find the possibility to observe your own soul life, insofar as it develops from will and from feeling, from sympathies and antipathies and flows into actions as will impulses. you gain the opportunity to observe this life of the soul in such a way that you now do not stand beside yourself in the figurative sense, but really stand beside yourself and consciously look at this person, as one can look at another person, or, as I said eight days ago: as one also bears one's own life of yesterday in one's memory, because one also does not change it. One looks at this by bringing an awareness out of the ordinary awareness. You really come to the possibility of saying to yourself: you keep still within the otherwise flowing stream of soul experiences that arise from feeling and will. By keeping still yourself, by attaining complete inner peace, by really standing still, not going along with the affects, not going along with the will impulses and so on, but just standing still with the soul, you naturally duplicate yourself. For it would be a bad thing if, as I said, one became an expressionless human being, if one did not remain completely within the whole of the temperament of the person who goes further; if one could not live with all his feelings and temperaments. But the other person, whom I called the spectator in the previous lecture, remains standing: This makes him stay there, and one's own soul life really begins to move around him, as the planets move around the sun. All a spiritual process! It is difficult to learn to stand still, but one cannot observe the life of the will if one cannot stand still. If one goes with the flow of the life of the will, one is always in the middle of everything. When you stop, you can observe it because, to use a crude expression, it rubs against you as it passes by and moves away from you. But all this does not have to remain theory – remaining in theory is of no use – but it must really become an inner practice of life. Then it is not an image, but reality, that a second person emerges from the first and unites with it. Just as under certain conditions oxygen unites with hydrogen, so too, as I have just described, the second person unites with the person who has been seized, who lives and weaves with the life of ideas. And this is now really a person who lives outside of ideas. While in the past one discovered in the images a spiritual, concrete world in which there are spiritual beings, just as there are animals and minerals here on earth, when what I have just described is added, through the second person being at rest in the face of the will impulses, one discovers in fact that that which out of this spiritual world always develops into the physical world, always finds its way into the physical world; that which in the spiritual world always strives to find physical expression either through union with the physical, as is the case with human or animal life, or through direct manifestation, as is the case, for example, with crystals.

And now what is often regarded as madness by people today is beginning to be experienced inwardly; what Lessing said, what he expresses so beautifully in his “Education of the Human Race”, is now beginning to be experienced. Now the human being knows – by having achieved this inner stillness in the face of the impulses of the will – that something lives in him that once wanted to unite with this body because it developed such powers earlier, as it is now developing again, as they are now showing themselves, and as they live in this body, just as the germ lives in the plant. And just as the germ in the plant is the source of a new plant, so that which is now being grasped in man is the source of a future life, which will be grasped when the time between death and birth or a new conception is completed. The repeated lives on earth become a thought, which is a real continuation of the scientific idea of development. And only someone who cannot take his thinking far enough to see that what lives in man really lives in this man, insofar as he is a physical being, as the plant germ lives physically in the plant for a new plant, that a spiritual-soul man lives, that this spiritual-soul man, I would like to say, , has its cover in the physical body, but the germinal development is for a following earth life. Only the one who cannot think sharply enough, who cannot really think out the thoughts that are already there today and that are also used in natural science, can escape the necessity of searching for these eternal powers of the human soul from the natural scientific way of thinking. of the human soul, which are sought entirely scientifically, by first simply, I would say seriously, taking science at its word: that it must stand still in the face of emotional and will life, but then it will reach precisely into this emotional and will life, by seeking it where it would otherwise remain unconscious: in thinking. And on the other hand, thinking is sought out where it otherwise hides; for in the will, where it flows in, this thinking hides. But precisely because this natural science is taken very seriously, these eternal powers of the human soul are discovered, which cannot be reached by observing man in the abstract and saying, “There must be something eternal in this man too”; for it is not so that one can reach this eternal something by extending the lines backwards and forwards as one likes, because it is not so. These lines are not straight, continuous lines. Just as, when I have a plant in front of me, this plant forms the germ and in the germ is the disposition for the new plant, I have to go from plant to plant, adding one link to the next. In the same way, when we achieve this second thing, calmness in the life of the will, I would say that we find another memory that lights up, the memory of earlier earthly lives. And in the same way, when we achieve this second thing – peace in the life of the will – I would say that we find, as if a memory were lighting up, a review of earlier earthly lives. Admittedly, most people will give up quite early on if they are to undertake research that is not as convenient as the study of the natural world. There you have the object or the experiment in front of you, you surrender passively, you observe. No, the spiritual world cannot be observed in this way! The spiritual world can only be grasped if you really change your inner being, bring it to life for the spiritual world. For the physical world, we have hands; for the spiritual world, we must first develop the ability to grasp ideas, which, like inner hands, like inner grasping organs, can grasp the spiritual world. The researcher is always active and engaged when he is truly immersed in the spiritual world.

But now I said, one usually stops early, one will not easily lead the way, which is a laborious one, to a successful end. Indeed, the desires that can be fulfilled in this exploration of the eternal powers of the human soul, these desires are certainly shared by many people – because it is not true, “beautiful”, “infinitely beautiful” it is to look back on past lives on earth! You experience it again and again, how people find it beautiful. Those who have had a little taste of what spiritual research is, and then call themselves spiritual researchers, we experience it again and again with them, that they look back on their previous lives on earth. These earlier lives are, of course, the lives of people who were important, and who can be found in history here and there. I once participated – as I have mentioned before – in a café in an Austrian city. The following people were present: Seneca, no – Marcus Aurelius, the Duke of Reichstadt, the Marquise Pompadour, Marie Antoinette, Emperor Joseph and Frederick the Great. And all these people really believed in their flashback to past lives on Earth!

In the real flashback there is something unpleasant for ordinary desires. This flashback really satisfies nothing but knowledge. And one must have a pure striving for knowledge if one wants to achieve anything at all in this field. If one does not have this pure striving for knowledge, then one can achieve nothing. One can achieve nothing in relation to outer nature if one cannot develop that selflessness in the good and bad sense of which I have spoken. But this must be increased if one now wants to develop, for instance, the ability to look back into earlier earth lives. And when this ability to look back arises in one's own experience, it is usually disappointing in the sense that it has now been interpreted. But it can never arise — and this is an empirical law — if one could somehow use what one learns from it in this earth life. I say: arise in oneself. So every time a review of earlier earth-lives really occurs within oneself, it can only satisfy one's knowledge. It can never help one in any way to satisfy any wishes in the earth-life in which one is living. If anyone believes that he must know his past lives in order to appreciate his position in the world, he will go very far astray if he tries to learn about these past lives by his own research. And in many other respects, too, the wishes that anyone may have are very seldom satisfied in any way by real, genuine spiritual research.

With regard to these desires, the following must be noted, for example: First of all, it is the case that anyone who enters into spiritual research more as a layman or as an amateur – but of course anyone can do that, you can read about it in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds” — who enters into it as a layman, he aspires above all to see a great deal, to see a great deal in the spiritual world. That is natural and understandable. And so he might believe that the experienced spiritual researcher is advising him to occupy himself with it a great deal and to devote all the time he has to spiritual research. A spiritual researcher who is aware of his responsibility and knowledgeable will not do that at all. He will not do it himself either, but he knows that it is very bad to withdraw one's ordinary thinking, the thinking one must apply in the outer world, from the outer world after becoming a spiritual researcher; that it is bad to withdraw one's thinking, which is directed towards the outer world, and no longer want to know anything about the outer world. If you become a mental ascetic for my sake and use all your thinking only to delve into the spiritual world, you will achieve nothing in reality. You will become a dreamy brooder. You will experience something within yourself that could border on, I would say, some kind of religious madness. But if you really want to become a spiritual researcher, it is necessary to take every precaution into account – and you will find them all listed in my book 'How to Know Higher Worlds' – in order to remain a reasonable person, the same reasonable person, as I said today eight days ago, who one was before one entered into spiritual research – at least no less reasonable. And to achieve this, the spiritual researcher tries to keep his interest aroused for everything that can arouse his interest in the outside world. Indeed, when one is in the process of developing as a spiritual researcher and is doing so as a rational human being, one will feel an ever-increasing need to broaden, not narrow, one's horizons in terms of observing and living with the world, to occupy oneself with as much as possible that is connected with experiences, observations and happenings in the external physical world. Because the more you are distracted from what you are trying to achieve, the better. In this way one achieves that thinking is again and again, I would like to say, disciplined by the outer, physical world and does not go on the free flight path, on which the soul can easily go, when it now withdraws from the outer world and buries itself as much as possible only into that, in which it believes to live as in a spiritual extended one. So, interest is what belongs to spiritual research like an external practical support.

Therefore, the beginner in spiritual research in particular will have to be advised not to change his usual way of life significantly, but to enter into spiritual research without attracting attention to this external way of life, so to speak. If one changes one's external way of life too much, then the contrast between one's inner experience and one's experience with the outer world is not great enough – and it must be great. All the things that people strive for today, who seek their salvation in, well, how should I put it, withdrawing from the world, founding colonies, wearing long hair when they have worn it short before, or wearing it short when they have worn it long before, or putting on special clothes and so on, and also acquiring different habits, all this is evil. This is bad because one is demanding two things of oneself: to adapt to a new way of life and at the same time to adapt to the spiritual world. But what I said here eight days ago must be emphasized: While in any pathological state that develops in consciousness, this pathological state is there and the rational human being is gone, when developing self-awareness for spiritual research, the old human being must remain entirely as he is, and alongside that, the other consciousness must stand. The two must always be there side by side. One can say, in trivial terms: In the case of the spiritual researcher, the developed consciousness, the experience in another world, stands completely separate from what he otherwise is in the world.

Nothing has changed in what one is in the world, other than what was previously. And one looks at what one was in the world, as one looks at one's experiences of yesterday. And just as one can no longer touch these yesterday's experiences, one does not touch what one was before entering the spiritual world. If you are a crazy person or a hypnotized person or a person who can somehow be considered pathological, then that is what you are and you cannot also be a reasonable person. Because you will never discover that someone is reasonable and a fool at the same time. That is precisely what matters, that one can say: the pathological consciousness is an altered consciousness; the consciousness has undergone a metamorphosis. If one is truly at home in the spiritual world, there has been no metamorphosis at all, but the new consciousness has taken its place alongside the old one. And that is the essential thing, what matters, so that man can really fully grasp the two consciousnesses.

A further, I might say, uncomfortable aspect of attaining such spiritual goals as those indicated arises from the fact that the natural scientist naturally becomes accustomed to remaining in his field and world with what results from his field; that he therefore rejects - if he did it only for himself, it would not matter - as a world view that which lives just beyond his world view. All greatness of ordinary life, even of practical life, all greatness of natural science, too, is based on the way of thinking that has developed over the last three to four centuries. And usually, spiritual science does not regard what science achieves for life, even for external life, with less respect, but often with more; it is fully recognized by spiritual science. But precisely this spiritual science also knows that scientific thinking is easy — forgive me for using a trivial expression again — if you reject what you need as a thought. Indeed, today it is already the case that inventing an experiment involves much more than observing what comes to light through the experiment. Reading the mind of nature is easy and convenient. For this, little inner activity is needed. This activity cannot be compared at all with that which is needed if one wants to develop within oneself what has been discussed today. And so it happens that those who, in their consciousness, stand on the strict ground of science, but who, in their instincts, abandon themselves to the comfort of read thoughts, say quite naturally: Well, yes, that is something so contrived and fanciful that comes from this spiritual science. But there is something that one must perhaps admit without arrogance and pride: a more astute thinking is needed to recognize spiritual-scientific truths. But they do present themselves to astute thinking, for example, even if the person to whom they are to present themselves has not become a spiritual scientist. Today, people do not want to believe in authority; but, hand on heart - I have said this often enough: How many people believe, despite never having seen the corresponding experiment, that water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, or other things! If you get to the bottom of things, there has never been a time as steeped in a belief in authority as the present day, and never a time as subject to dogmas as the present day. Only today one can say, as I stated decades ago in my introduction to Goethe's scientific writings, that people believe the dogma of experience, whereas in the past people accepted the dogma of authority. Just as one can apply in practical life, without having been in the laboratory oneself, what comes from the laboratory, so one can apply to one's world view, through corresponding really strenuous thinking, what the spiritual researcher brings to light and of which he knows that he has really discovered it in the spiritual world.

These are the inconveniences in relation to spiritual research; but many such inconveniences could be enumerated. The main thing is this, that people very easily shrink from what must arise as a kind of soul mood when the path into the spiritual world is taken. First of all – and I would like to develop what I have to say historically, so to speak – it is a matter of historical development. Most people say, for example: Oh, there have been so many philosophers and philosophies in the world, and they have all claimed different things. Oh, it is best not to deal with these philosophers and philosophies at all! But such a judgment arises only under the influence of the belief that one can grasp a philosopher only if one understands him as a dogmatist and not, I might say, as an inner artist of thoughts. You can understand him as an inner artist of thought, and then you will get a great deal out of him, especially if you study him very closely, let him have a very intimate effect on you and believe nothing of it, then go to the other and see again a serious endeavor that lives in the pursuit of truth, and you will become versatile. And precisely through this one acquires a sense for being at home in the spiritual world. Indeed, one then experiences that one becomes clear about this, especially when one genuinely follows the paths in the presence of nature research: everything one gets from observation and experiment is basically inner experience, and the outer should never be called a natural law or something like that, but — Goethe has already chosen the magnificent expression — archetypal phenomenon, archetypal appearance. And when more is experienced in the external sense world, it is experienced through the activity of the inner. Thought must reach under the phenomenon. You cannot get down under the phenomenon without thinking. This requires an inner strengthening of thought, a real inner powerful experience and continuation of the line of thought.

Under the influence of the scientific way of thinking, one does not want this. Therefore, from this point of view, the scientific way of thinking today still has something of the last remnant of ancient magic, as paradoxical as that may sound. Here it becomes clear to us that what we today call scientific experimentation and observation has developed in a straight line from ancient magic, where it was believed that through events — in the course of events through the ceremonial that was used as a basis — one could learn something that one did not experience inwardly. They shuddered at the thought of inner experience. They did not want to delve into things and wanted to be dictated to by the spirits outside, who magically live in the phenomena, that which one can only find by allowing one's inner experience to flow into the outer. But all such things are just as if someone were to say: The hands of the clock move forward because a little demon sits inside it, a little elemental spirit. Today, this is only noticed in a subtle way, but in the scientific experiment, or when the physiologists come and cut up small frog corpses to see the internal parts, you still have in mind that shudder at the secrets of nature that was present in ancient magic. This must also come out! One must not faint when one is called upon to extend one's thinking to include nature. One must have the strength to truly grasp natural phenomena. Among modern achievements — and all achievements, of course, are such — this particular weakness shows us what is commonly known as wanting to explore the spirit through external events, in that people get ready to sit around a table, for example, to seek the spirit through all kinds of mechanical, again external events, not by immersing one's own spirit in the essences of the world, but by external events. Of course, they only seek, well, let's say, in knocking tones or something else, the spirit. They don't think that they could find it much closer if they thought about the fact that when eight people are sitting around the table, there are eight embodied spirits that can be perceived differently than just the spirit that is knocking on the table through all sorts of nonsense. And so, like the other side, like a grotesque side, the counter-image of experimentation has become the order of the day, where one really wants to seek the spirit in the most crude way through things that one has to overcome.

But then there is another side to this, which today is often called a worldview in the popular sense. It is quite natural that little by little, I would say, a shyness has developed to really develop this inner soul activity, because it is considered to be something really subjective. One believes that one is merely working out a subjective thing. One only becomes aware that one can find the objective under the subjective when one really penetrates into the matter. One shies away from really developing the inner being. It would be just as if one shrank from developing arms and legs before birth, because one would believe that one would thereby bring something subjective into the world and that arms and legs could never perceive anything objective. One shrinks back, one does not want to develop the inner being. One wants to develop only that which, as we have said, is rightly linked to the mere thinking apparatus. That is to say, one only wants to let the thinking apparatus work in oneself; one really withdraws into the inactive life of imagination. And the consequence of this is that all kinds of world views develop, about which one could certainly agree with the modern psychiatrist if one only takes an entirely objective, unbiased point of view. One can certainly agree with the modern psychiatrist, for example, about what is called monism today. It is clear to both of us that those people who are monists in today's crude materialistic sense do not have the courage to develop their inner activity, that they only allow their thinking apparatus to function and that they can naturally only receive a reflection of the external physical world from their thinking apparatus. If you open a psychiatric book at random, you will find the definition of this state of mind: A set of ideas arises which the person concerned considers to be correct because he is not aware that they only come from the thinking apparatus; he considers these ideas to be correct in the absolute sense. In the psychiatric sense, this is called delusional ideas as opposed to obsessive ideas. Many delusional ideas today are worldviews! If you look at the spiritual-scientific world view, you will see that it cannot fall into either of these errors, neither into the superstition of the external view of nature, which is still based on something of magic, that is, superstition , nor can it play into the realm of delusions, because the spiritual researcher is very clear about the fact that he himself creates and brings forth what he inwardly generates for the purpose of exploring the world, and he also knows: He is allowed to create and bring forth it himself. Then it can touch the outer world. Thus he can never fall into a world view that would be nothing but a delusion.

But, as has often been suggested, the things that have been discussed again today arise when the scientific way of thinking, as it has developed over the past three to four centuries, is continued. But it must be continued in such a way that truth is not merely observed, but experienced. Therefore, a certain artistic feeling that goes into the most spiritual life is a much better preparation for spiritual-scientific experience than any other preparation. And therefore one will always find that the ascetic withdrawal from art, as it is so often noticeable in people who have aspirations of spiritual exploration of things, is of great evil, that in fact the spiritual research also broadens the horizon of the human being through the study of this artistic field. Hegel, for example, could not find a metaphysical meaning in art. For him, art was only the highest flowering of that which develops here in the physical world. But for the one who truly penetrates into the spiritual world, it is clear: that which must remain imagination here, as long as it moves on the physical plane as a human soul power, that is nevertheless born out of the spiritual, that is the physical image for the spiritual, that is the messenger that comes from the spiritual world. And if we can only grasp this supersensible mission of art, then we already have, I would say, a beginning for a truly living, atmospherically living penetration of the spiritual world. Otherwise, however, this spiritual science will continue to be treated as every spiritual impulse has been treated that has had to fit into the spiritual development of humanity. I have often pointed out here that by far the greatest number of people were hostile to the Copernican world view, understandably so, because it contradicted all habits of thought. Until then, people had thought: the earth stands still, one stands firmly on the stationary earth, the sun moves, the stars move. Now, all at once, one was supposed to rethink everything. And it cannot even be said that this Copernicanism became great precisely because, as monism demands today, it only looked at the external senses; for the external senses are precisely in line with what was thought earlier. The external sense world shows us, for this sense world itself, that the earth stands still and the sun moves. Copernicanism arrived at something new precisely by contradicting the sensory perception. And today one must arrive at something new by contradicting the usual conception of the soul as a matter of course, by contradicting precisely that which one would so easily believe is something in itself, namely what can be described as the eternal power of the human soul, namely thinking, feeling and willing, that one describes precisely that which now proves to be an inner semblance, an inner reflection of the truly eternal, and that the truly eternal, the truly eternal powers of the human soul, lie beneath this semblance. And only when one deepens one's imagination and thinking to such an extent that one goes beyond ordinary thinking to active thinking, where thinking becomes will – but will that is experienced, not merely observed as in the case of Schopenhauer – and where volition becomes thinking in that one can interpret it calmly, only then does one discover the eternal powers of the human soul, and one becomes aware that one is this physical human being, I would say, entirely according to a natural law, only conceived in a higher sense. One is this physical human being because one is transformed out of spiritual forces. In natural science, everyone knows: when you stroke the table in this way, warmth arises. There he believes in the transformation of forces. Today this is called the transformation of energies. Transformation of energies, transformation of forces, also exists in the spiritual world. What we are otherwise spiritually, transforms into the physical. This transformation of the spiritual is just as when heat is generated by friction.

All that is needed is a change in thinking habits. This is difficult for some people. Not only do they have thinking habits that they cannot let go of, but these thinking habits have even hardened into concepts. And when someone speaks today of the continuation of natural science, of the living continuation as it is meant here, then those who are so very much inside, stick-thick inside the habits of thinking, will look and say: He wants to found a new religion, that is quite clear, he wants to found a new religion! All this must be understood, must be taken for granted. And it will be understood if one allows the soul's gaze to wander a little over the course of the development of the human mind. But from a certain point of view, spiritual science does give a certain satisfaction for what the best of people have striven for. Not an easy satisfaction. Even people are afraid of this slight satisfaction, which is also something that is opposed to spiritual science. There is someone who once objected: Yes, this spiritual science wants to answer the questions, the secrets of the world. Oh, how dull life will be when all questions have been answered, because the fact that one can have questions is what life is all about. Such people, who think this way, would be surprised at what happens to them when they enter into real spiritual science! Indeed, the lazy person believes that spiritual science is something like a spiritual morphine to calm him down. That is not what it is at all. The questions do not become fewer, the riddles do not become fewer, but rather they increase. New riddles and mysteries are constantly arising. And if, as an ordinary materialist, you pick up Haeckel's “Welträtsel” (World Riddles) or his better works, then you will have answers! For the spiritual researcher, only the questions arise; only the questions leap out. And he knows that the questions that arise for him are not answered by theories, but by experience. He is looking at a development of infinite perspective. And by raising questions, he is precisely reviving the life of the soul, preparing it for the answers that are given by ever new and new events. Life becomes richer and infinitely richer as more and more questions are raised. Again, this is an inconvenience for many who seek comfort and not knowledge.

But on the whole, spiritual science is something that even the best people have sought, and what young Goethe already had in mind when he repeated to a wise man, whom he kept so hidden,:

The spiritual world is not closed;
Your mind is closed, your heart is dead!
Rise up, bathe, disciple, undaunted
The earthly breast in the dawn!

Yes, one must only find it, this dawn! He who seeks it from the bottom because he is afraid of the sun will not find this dawn in the right sense. And this is the one who, as a spiritual researcher, would be afraid of the whole, full, living human existence. He who now wants to withdraw into some aesthetic cloud-cuckoo-land in order to find the spiritual world is like a person who seeks the dawn because he is afraid of the sun, of the full shining sun. But one can also seek the dawn in another sense, in the sense that it is the afterglow of the sun, which always shines and which also shone before it rose for us for our day, for other areas. If one seeks the spiritual dawn in this way, then the opened spiritual knowledge becomes becomes a means, a tool for the realm from which one came before the transformation into the physical human existence and to which one returns after the transformation of the physical human existence, to that spiritual power with which one truly scientifically reveals to oneself the law of repeated earth lives. Spiritual science then becomes the dawn that one experiences as a reflection of the sun's activity, which one cannot have directly by observing the sun's radiance that is assigned to one in the realm in which one will one day stand here in the physical world, to that sun's radiance that spreads out in the spiritual world, into which one enters by that one has precisely the courage and strength to step out of the sensual-physical world in order to enter another, and in this other world, which one can experience, in the sense that Hegel now in turn correctly sensed when he said: Oh, how miserable is the thought that seeks immortality only beyond the grave. If you seek the immortal, if you seek the eternal powers of the human soul, you can find them. But they must be sought.

Because man is such a dual creature, he can truly find the other side of his nature. And for those who, from the standpoint of ordinary monism, disapprove of the search for the eternal powers of the human soul because it tears the soul apart into two parts, for them it must always be true that one says: Yes, one is no longer a monist when one admits that monon water breaks down and must break down into hydrogen and oxygen for knowledge, if one wants to learn to recognize it? One is truly no less a monist if one admits that true knowledge of the actual spiritual essence must be sought from that out of which the monon, the unity, the wholeness of man, becomes. But those who take such paths, as they have been tried to be characterized today, are certain that they lose nothing of what the world is to them and what they can be to themselves in the world by entering the spiritual world; that it is not a impoverishment of life that occurs, but an enrichment of life, and from this point of view, a higher satisfaction of life. Something new throbs through mind and soul, through thinking and heart, when that which can be aroused by the absence of fear of powerlessness, by the absence of shyness of courage, now permeates mind and soul, thinking and heart, in order to inwardly rise above oneself. And that is basically what the best have striven for.

But just as everything in the development of the spirit could only come into being at a certain point in time, so too could spiritual science only come into being at a certain point in time. But however it is viewed, however it is regarded, however it is ridiculed and mocked, it will live on just as truly as other things have survived that were ridiculed and mocked. When someone first said, “All life comes from life,” he was expressing something for which, in those days, he was condemned to suffer the same fate as Giordano Bruno. Today it is taken for granted. Thus in the world, truths are transformed into human conceptions, from craziness to self-evidence. For many, spiritual science is a craziness today. In the future, it will also fall prey to this fate of becoming a matter of course.

I have often characterized spiritual science, as it is meant here, in these lectures. It seeks to be a true continuation of the natural scientific world view, indeed of natural scientific research in general, in that it adds to those forces of the human soul that are used when man faces the external sensory world and uses his senses and mind to explore it, which is connected to the brain, that it adds to these forces, which are also used by all external science, those forces that lie dormant in the soul in ordinary life and in the work of ordinary science, but can be brought out of this soul, can be developed and thus enable the human being to relate in a living way to what, as spiritual laws and spiritual entities, interweaves and permeates the world, and to which man, with his innermost being, also belongs, belongs through those powers of his being that pass through birth and death, that are the eternal powers of his being. In its entire attitude, in its scientific attitude, this spiritual science wants to be a true successor of natural science. And that which distinguishes it from natural science and which has just been characterized must be present in it for the reason that, if one wants to penetrate into the spiritual world, one needs other powers for the spiritual world in the same way that natural science penetrates into the natural world. One needs the exposure of the cognitive faculty in the human soul, of cognitive powers attuned to the spiritual world.

Today, I want to show in particular that this spiritual science, as it is presented today as a starting point for the spiritual development of people in the future, is not brought out of spiritual life or placed in spiritual life by mere arbitrariness, but is firmly anchored in the most significant endeavors of German spiritual life, even if they have perhaps been forgotten due to the circumstances of modern times. And here we shall repeatedly and repeatedly encounter – and they must also be mentioned today, although I have repeatedly presented them in the lectures I have given here last winter and this winter – when we speak of the German people's greatest intellectual upsurge, of the actual summit of their intellectual life, we must repeatedly and repeatedly encounter the three figures: Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.

I took the liberty of characterizing Fichte, as he is firmly rooted in German intellectual life, in a special lecture in December. Today I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that Fichte, in his constant search for a fixed point within his own human interior, for a living center of human existence, is in a certain sense a starting point for endeavors in spiritual science. And at the same time — as was mentioned in particular in the Fichte lecture here — he is the spirit who, I might say, felt from a deep sense of what he had to say, as if through a dialogue with the German national spirit. I have pointed out how Fichte, in contrast to Western philosophy, for example, to the Western world view, is above all concerned with attaining a higher human conception of the world by revealing the human inner powers, the human soul powers. For Fichte, the human ego, the center of the human soul, is something that is constantly being created within the human being, so that it can never be lost to the human being, because the human being not only shares in the existence of this center of the human being, but also shares in the creative powers of this human being. And how does Fichte imagine that this creativity in man is anchored in the all-creative of the world? As the highest that man can attain to when he tries to immerse himself in that which weaves and lives in the world as the Divine-Spiritual. As such supreme spiritual-divine, Fichte recognizes that which is volitional, which, as world-will permeated by world-duty, pulses through and permeates everything, and with its current permeates the own human soul, but in this own human soul is now grasped not as being, but as creativity. So that when man expresses his ego, he can know himself to be one with the world-will at work in the world. The divine-spiritual, which the world, external nature, has placed before man, wants, as it were, to enter into the center of the human being. And man becomes aware of this inner volition, speaks of it as his self, as his ego.

And so Fichte felt himself to be at rest with his self, but at the same time, in this rest, extremely moved in the creative will of the world. From this he then draws the strength that he has applied throughout his life. From this he also draws the strength to regard all that is external and sensual, as he says, as a mere materialized tool for the duty of the human being that pulsates in his will. Thus, for Fichte, the truly spiritual is what flows into the human soul as volition. For him, the external world is the sensitized material of duty. And so we see him, how he wants to point out to people again and again throughout his life, to the source, to the living source of their own inner being.

In the Fichte lecture, I pointed out how Fichte stood before his audience, for example in Jena, and tried to touch each individual listener in their soul, so that they would become aware of how the All-Creative lives spiritually within. So he said to his listeners: “Imagine the wall!” Then the listeners looked at the wall and could think the wall. After they had thought the wall for a while, he said: “Now think of the one who thought the wall.” At first the listeners were somewhat perplexed. They were to grasp inwardly, spiritually, each within themselves. But at the same time, it was the way to point each individual to his own self, to point out to him that he can only grasp the world if he finds himself in his deepest inner being and there discovers how what the world wills flows into him and what rises in his own will as the source of his own being. Above all, one sees (and I do not wish to repeat myself today with regard to the lecture I gave here in December) how Fichte lives a world view of power. Therefore, those who listened to him — and many spoke in a similar way — could say: His words rushed “like a thunderstorm that discharges its fire in individual strikes”. And Fichte, by directly grasping the soul, wanted to bring the divine spiritual will that permeates the world, not just good will, to the soul; he wanted to educate great people. And so he lived in a living together of his soul with the world soul and regarded this precisely as the result of a dialogue with the German national spirit, and it was out of this consciousness that he found those powerful words with which he encouraged and strengthened his people in one of Germany's most difficult times. It was precisely out of this consciousness that he found the power to work as he was able to do in the “Speeches to the German Nation,” inspiring his people to a great extent.

Like Fichte's follower, Schelling stands there, especially in his best pages, one could say, like Fichte, more or less forgotten. If Fichte stands more as the man who wants to grasp the will, the will of the world, and let the will of the world roll forth in his own words, if this Fichte stands as the man who, so to speak, commands the concepts and ideas, then Schelling stands before us as he stood before his enthusiastic audiences – and there were many such, I myself knew people who knew the aged Schelling very well – he stands before us, not like Fichte, the commander of the world view, he stands before us as the seer, from whose eyes sparkled what he had to communicate enthusiastically in words about nature and spirit. He stood before his audience in Jena in the 1790s, at what was then the center of learning for the German people. He stood in Munich and Erlangen and Berlin in the 1840s. Everywhere he went, he radiated something of a seer, as if he were surrounded by spirituality and spoke from the realm of the spiritual.

To give you an idea of how such a figure stood in the former heyday of German intellectual life in front of people who had a sense for it, I would like to bring you some words about the lecture, which were written down by an audience member, by a loyal audience member because he met Schelling again and again: Gotthilf Heinrich Schubert. I would like to read to you the words that Schubert wrote about the way Schelling stood before his audience, “already as a young man among young men,” back in the 1790s in Jena. About this, Schubert, who was himself a deeply spiritual person, writes of a person who has wonderfully immersed himself in the secrets of nature, who tried to follow the mysterious weaving of the human soul into the dream world and into the abnormal phenomena of mental life, but who was also able to ascend to the highest heights of human intellectual life. This Schubert writes about Schelling:

Two things stand out in these words of the deep and spirited Schubert. The first is that he felt - and we know that it was the same with others who heard Schelling - that this man speaks from direct spiritual experience, he shapes his words by looking into a spiritual world and thus shapes a wisdom from direct spiritual experience that deals with this spiritual world.

That is the significance, the infinitely significant thing about this great period of German idealism, that countless people then standing on the outside of life heard personalities such as Fichte, such as Schelling and, as we shall see in a moment, Hegel, and from the words of these personalities heard the spirit speak, looked into the realm of these geniuses of the German people. Anyone who is familiar with the intellectual history of humanity knows that such a relationship between the spirit and the age existed only within the German people and could only exist within the German people because of the nature of the German people. This is a special result that is deeply rooted in the very foundations of the German character. That is one thing that can be seen from this.

The other thing is that, in this period, people were formed who, like Schubert, were able to ignite their own relationship to the spiritual world through these great, significant, impressive personalities. From such a state of soul, Schelling developed a thinking about nature and a thinking about soul and spirit that, one might say, bore the character of the most intimate life, but also bore the character of which one might say shows how man is prepared, with his soul, to descend into all being and, in all being, first of all into nature, and then into the spirit, to seek life, the direct life. Under the influence of this way of thinking, knowledge becomes something very special: knowledge becomes inner experience, becoming part of the experience of things.

I have said it again and again: It is not important to place oneself today in some dogmatic way on the ground of what these spirits have said in terms of content. One does not even have to agree with what they said in terms of content. What matters is the way of striving, the way in which they seek the paths into the spiritual world. Schelling felt so intimately connected — even if he expressed it one-sidedly — with what lives and moves in nature that he could once utter the saying, “To know nature is to create nature.” Certainly, in the face of such a saying, the shallow superficial will always be right in comparison to the genius who, like Schelling, utters such a saying from the depths of his being. Let us give the shallow superficialist the right, but let us be clear: even if nature can only be recreated in the human soul, in Schelling's saying, “To recognize nature is to create nature,” means an intimate interweaving of the whole human personality with natural existence. And for Schelling this becomes the one revelation of the divine-spiritual, and the soul of man the other revelation. They confront each other, they correspond to each other. The spirit first created itself in soulless nature, which gradually became ensouled from the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom and to man, as it were, creating the soil in which the soul can then flourish. The soul experiences the spiritual directly in itself, experiences it in direct reality.

How different it appears, when rightly understood, from the spiritual knowledge of nature which is striven for as the outcome, let us say, of Romance popularism. In the development of the German spirit there is no need to descend to the level of tone which the enemies of Germany have now reached when they wish to characterize the relation of the German spiritual life to other spiritual lives in Europe. One can remain entirely on the ground of fact. Therefore, what is to be said now is not said out of narrow national feelings, but out of fact itself. Compare such a desire to penetrate nature, as present in Schelling, where nature is to be grasped in such a way that the soul's own life is submerged in that which lives and moves outside. Compare this with what is characteristic of the Western world view, which reached its highest level with Descartes, Cartesius, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but has been continued into our days and is just as characteristic of Western culture as Fichte's and Schelling's striving is for German culture. Like Fichte and Schelling later on, Cartesius also takes up a position in relation to the world of nature. He starts by taking the standpoint of doubt. He also seeks within himself a central point through which he can arrive at a certainty about the existence of the world and of life. His famous “Cogito, ergo sum” is well known: “I think, therefore I am.” What does he rely on? Not, like Fichte, on the living ego, from which one cannot take away its existence, because it is continually creating itself out of the world-will. He relies on thinking, which is supposed to be there already, on that which already lives in man: I think, therefore I am — which can easily be refuted with every night's sleep of man, because one can just as well say: I do not think, therefore I am not. Nothing fruitful follows from Descartes' “I think, therefore I am”. But how little this world view is suited to submerging into nature with one's own soul essence can best be seen from a single external characteristic. Descartes tried to characterize the nature surrounding the soul. And he himself sought to address the animals as moving machines, as soulless machines. Only man himself, he thought, could speak of himself as if he had a soul. The animals are moving machines, are soulless machines.

So little is the soul out of this folklore placed in the possibility of immersing itself in the inner life of the external thing that it cannot find inspiration within the animal world. No wonder that this continued until the materialism of the eighteenth century and continued - as we will mention today - until our own days, as in that materialism of the eighteenth century, in that material ism that conceived of the whole world only as a mechanism, and which finally realized, especially in de Lamettrie in his book “L'homme-machine”, even came to understand man himself only as a moving machine. All this is already present in germinal form in Cartesius.

Goethe, out of his German consciousness, became acquainted with this Western world view, and he spoke out of his German consciousness: They offer us a world of moving atoms that push and pull each other. If they then at least wanted to derive the manifold, the beautiful, the great, the sublime phenomena of the world from these atoms that push and pull each other. But after they have presented this bleak, desolate image of the world, they let it be presented and do nothing to show how the world emerges from these accumulations of atoms.

The third thinker who should be mentioned among those minds that, as it were, form the background of the world view from which everything that the German mind has achieved in that time through Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Lessing and so on has sprung, is Hegel. In him we see the third aspect of the German mind embodied at the same time. In him we see a third way of finding the point in the soul through which this human soul can feel directly one with the whole world, with that which, in a divine-spiritual way, pulses, weaves and permeates the world. If in Fichte we see the will grasping directly in the innermost part of man, and in Schelling, I might say, the mind, then in Hegel we see the human thought grasped. But in that Hegel attempts to grasp the thought not merely as human, but in its purity, detached from all sensual sensations and perceptions, directly in the soul, Hegel feels as if, in living in the living and breathing and becoming of pure thought, he also lives in the thought that not only lives in the soul, but that is only meant to appear in the soul, because it reveals itself in it, as divine-spiritual thinking permeating all of the world. Just as the divine spiritual beings scatter their thoughts throughout the world, as it were, thinking the world and continually fashioning it in thought, so it is revealed when the thinker, alone with himself, gives rise to pure thinking, thinking that is not borrowed from the external world of the senses but that the human being finds as thinking that springs up within him when he gives himself to his inner being. Basically, what Hegel wants, if one may say so, is a mystical will. But it is not an unclear, dark or nebulous mysticism. The dark, unclear or nebulous mysticism wants to unite with the world ground in the darkest feelings possible. Hegel also wants the soul to unite with the ground of the world, but he seeks this in crystal clarity, in the transparency of thinking; he seeks it in inner experience, he seeks it in the world of thoughts. In perfect clarity, he seeks for the soul that which is otherwise only believed in unclear mysticism.

All this shows how these three important minds are endeavoring from three different sides to bring the human soul to experience the totality of reality by devotion to the totality of reality, how they are convinced that something can be found in the soul that experiences the world in its depths and thus yields a satisfying world view.

Fichte speaks to his Berlin students in 1811 and 1813 about attaining such a world picture in such a way that it is clear that he is well aware that one must strive for certain powers of knowledge that lie dormant in the soul. Fichte then says to his Berlin students in the years mentioned: If one really wants to have that which must be striven for in order to truly and inwardly grasp the world spiritually, then it is necessary that the human being finds and awakens a slumbering sense, a new sense, a new sense organ, within himself. Just as the eye is formed in the physical body, so a new sense organ must be developed out of the soul in Fichte's sense, if we are to look into the spiritual world. That is why Fichte boldly says to his listeners in these years, when, as far as he could achieve it in his relatively short life, his world view has reached the highest peak: What I have to say to you is like a single seeing person entering a world of blind people. What he has to say to them about the world of light, the world of colors, initially affects them, and at first they will say it is nonsense because they cannot sense anything.

And Schelling - we can already see it in the saying that Schubert made about him - has drawn attention to intellectual intuition. What he coined in his words, for which he coined a wisdom, he sought to explore in the world by developing the organ within him into an “intellectual intuition”. From this intellectual intuition, Schelling speaks in such a way that he could have the effect that has just been characterized.

From his point of view, Hegel then opposed this intellectual view. He believed that to assert this intellectual view was to characterize individual exceptional people, people who, through a higher disposition, had become capable of looking into the spiritual world. Hegel, on the contrary, was thoroughly convinced that every human being is capable of looking into the spiritual world, and he wanted to emphasize this thoroughly.

Thus these minds were opposed to each other not only in the content of what they said, but they were also opposed to each other in such profound views. But that is not the point, but rather the fact that they all basically strive for what can truly be called spiritual science: the experience of the world through that which sits in the deepest part of man. And in this they are united with the greatest spirit who created out of German folkhood, with Goethe, as Fichte, Hegel and Schelling have often said.

Goethe speaks of this contemplative power of judgment in a beautiful little essay entitled “Contemplative Power of Judgment”. What does Goethe mean by this contemplative power of judgment? The senses initially observe the external physical world. The mind combines what this external physical world presents to it. When the senses observe the external physical world, they do not see the essence of things, says Goethe; this must be observed spiritually. In this process, the power of judgment must not merely combine; the concepts and ideas that arise must not merely arise in such a way that they seek to depict something else; something of the world spirit itself must live in the power that forms concepts and ideas. The power of judgment must not merely think; the power of judgment must look at, look spiritually, as the senses otherwise look. Goethe is completely at one with those who have, as it were, provided the background for the world view, just as they feel at one with him. Just as Fichte, for example, when he published the first edition of his seemingly so abstract Theory of Science, sent it to Goethe in sheets and wrote to him: “The pure spirituality of feeling that one sees in you must also be the touchstone for what we create.

A wonderful relationship of a spiritual kind exists between the three world-view personalities mentioned and minds such as Goethe; we could also cite Schiller, we could also cite Herder, we could cite them all, who in such great times drew directly from the depths of German national character.

It must be said that all that was created in Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and in the others, contains something that is not fully expressed in any of them: Fichte seeks to recognize the spiritual world by experiencing the will as it flows into the soul; Schelling turns more to the mind, Hegel to the thought content of the world, others to other things. Above all of them, as it were, like the unity that expresses itself in three or so many different ways, hovers that which one can truly call the striving of the German national spirit itself, which cannot be fully expressed by any single personality, but which expresses itself as in three shades, for example, in relation to a world view in Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Those who do not stand as dogmatic followers or opponents to these personalities – one could be beyond such childishness today, that one wants to be a follower or opponent of a spirit if one wants to understand it in its greatness – but have a heart and a mind and an open feeling for their striving, will discern everywhere, in all their expressions, something like the German national soul itself, so that what they say is always more powerful than what is directly expressed. That is the strange and mysterious thing about these minds. And that is why later, far less important personalities than these great, ingenious ones, were even able to arrive at more significant, more penetrating spiritual truths than these leading and dominant minds themselves. That is the significant thing: through these minds something is expressed that is more than these minds, that is the central German national spirit itself, which continues to work, so that lesser minds, far less talented minds, could come, and in these far less talented minds the same spirit is expressed, but even in a more spiritual scientific way than in Fichte, Schelling, Hegel themselves. They were the ones who first, I might say, set the tone and for the first time communicated something to the world, drawing it from the source of spiritual life. Even for geniuses, this is difficult. But once the great, powerful stimulus had been provided, lesser minds followed. And it must be said that these lesser minds in some cases captured the path into the spiritual worlds even more profoundly and meaningfully than those on whom they depended, who were their teachers.

Thus we see in Immanuel Hermann Fichte, the son of the great Johann Gottlieb Fichte, how he strives in his own way for a spiritual science, and in such a way that he seeks a higher human being in the sensual human being who stands before us, who is grasped by the outer senses and outer science , whom he calls an etheric human being, and in whom lie the formative forces for this physical human being, which are built up before the physical body receives its hereditary substance from the parents, and which are maintained as the sum of the formative forces when the physical body passes through the gate of death. Immanuel Hermann Fichte speaks of an ethereal human being, of an ethereal human being who is inwardly strengthened and filled with strength, who belongs to the eternal forces of the universe just as the human being here belongs to the physical forces of the hereditary current as a physical human being, probably because of his association with his father, who was a good educator for him.

And one would like to say: How carried to higher heights we find the Fichtean, the Schellingian striving in a man who has become little known, who almost belongs to the forgotten spirits of German intellectual life, but in whom is deeply rooted precisely what is the essence of the German national spirit - in Troxler. Troxler - who knows Troxler? And yet, what do we know of this Troxler? Under the influence of Schelling, in particular, he wrote his profound > Blicke in das Wesen des Menschen in 1811 and then gave his lectures on philosophy in 1834. These lectures are certainly not written in a piquant way, to use the foreign word for something foreign, but they are written in such a way that they show us: A person is speaking who does not just want to approach the world with the intellect, with which one can only grasp the finite, but one who wants to give the whole personality of the human being with all its powers to the world, so that this personality, when it immerses itself in the world's phenomena, brings with it a knowledge that is fertilized by the co-experience, by the most intimate co-experience with the being of the world. And Troxler knows something about the fact that among those powers of the soul that are initially turned towards external nature and its sensuality, higher spiritual powers live. And in a strange way, Troxler now seeks to elevate the spirit above itself. He speaks of a super-spiritual sense that can be awakened in man, of a super-spiritual sense that slumbers in man. What does Troxler mean by that? He means: The human spirit otherwise thinks only in abstract concepts and ideas that are dry and empty, mere images of the external world; but in the same force that lives in these abstract concepts and ideas, there also lives something that can be awakened by man as a spiritual being. Then he sees in supersensible images the way one can see external reality with the eyes. In ordinary cognition, the sensory image is present first, and the thought, which is not sensory-pictorial, is added in the process of cognition. In the spiritual process of cognition, the supersensible experience is present; this could not be seen as such if it did not pour itself through a power that is natural to the spirit into the image, which brings it to a spiritual-descriptive sensualization. For Troxler, such knowledge is that of the super-spiritual sense. And what this super-spiritual sense bypasses, Troxler calls the supersensible spirit, the spirit that rises above mere observation of the sensual, and which, as spirit, experiences what is out there in the world. How could I fail to mention to those esteemed listeners who heard a lecture like the one I gave on Friday two weeks ago that in this supersensible sense and supersensible spirit of Troxler, the germs — if only the germs, but nevertheless the germs — lie in what I had to characterize as the two paths into spiritual science,

But there is another way in which Troxler expresses it wonderfully. He says: When the human being is first placed in his physical body with his soul, with his eternal self, when he stands face to face with the moral, the religious, but also with the outer, immediate reality, then he develops three forces: faith, hope and love. These three forces, which he continues to develop, he develops in life within the physical-sensual body. It simply belongs to the human being, as he stands in the physical-sensual world, that he lives in faith, in love, in hope. But Troxler says: That which is proper to the soul of man here within the physical body as faith, as justified belief, is, so to speak, the outer expression of a deeper power that is within the soul, which, through this faith, shines into the physical world as a divine power. But behind this power of faith, which, in order to unfold, absolutely requires the physical body, lies supersensible hearing. This means that faith is, in a sense, what a person makes out of supersensible hearing. By making use of the sensory instrument for supersensible hearing, he believes. But if he frees himself from his sensory body and experiences himself in the soul, then the same power that becomes faith in the sensory life gives him supersensible hearing, through which he can delve into a world of spiritual sound phenomena through which spiritual entities and spiritual facts speak to him.

And the love that a person develops here in the physical body, which is the flowering of human life on earth, is the outer expression of a power that lies behind it: for spiritual feeling or touching, says Troxler. And when a person delves deeper into this same power, which lives here as the blossom of the moral earthly existence, of the religious earthly existence, when he delves deeper into this love, when he goes to the foundations of this love, then he discovers within himself that the spiritual man has organs of feeling through which he can touch spiritual beings and spiritual facts just as he can touch physical facts with his sensory organs of feeling or touching. Behind love lies spiritual feeling or touching, as behind faith lies spiritual hearing.

And behind the hope that a person has in this or that form lies spiritual vision, the insight through the spiritual sense of seeing into the spiritual world.

Thus, behind what a person experiences as the power of faith, love and hope, Troxler sees only the outer expression of higher powers: for spiritual hearing, for spiritual feeling, for spiritual beholding or seeing. And then he says: When a person can give himself to the world in such a way that he gives himself with his spiritual hearing, spiritual feeling, spiritual seeing, then not only do thoughts come to life in him that so externally and abstractly reflect the external world, but, as Tro “sensible thoughts”, thoughts that can be felt themselves, that is, that are living beings, and ‘intelligent feelings’, that is, not just dark feelings in which one feels one's own existence in the world, but something through which the feelings themselves become intelligent. We know from the lecture just mentioned that it is actually the will, not the feelings; but in Troxler there is definitely the germ of everything that can be presented in spiritual science today. When a person awakens to this seeing, to this hearing and sensing of the spiritual world, when in this feeling a life of thought awakens through which the person can connect with the living thought that weaves and lives in the spiritual world, just as thought lives in us essentially, not just abstractly. Troxler feels his striving for spiritual science so deeply. And I would like to read a passage from Troxler from which you can see just how profound this striving was for Troxler. He once said:

"In the past, philosophers distinguished a fine, noble soul body from the coarser body, or assumed that the soul was a kind of covering for the face within this body, that the soul had an image of the body, which they called a schema, and that the soul was the higher inner man... In more recent times, even Kant in Dreams of a Spirit-Seer seriously dreams, in jest, an entire inward, spiritual man who carries all the limbs of the outward on his spirit body."

Troxler then draws attention to others who have more or less sensed this other side of the nature of the world from the depths of German spiritual endeavor. Troxler continues:

"Lavater writes and thinks in the same way, and even when Jean Paul makes humorous jokes about Bonnet's undergarment and Platner's soul corset, which are said to be , we also hear him asking: What is the purpose and origin of these extraordinary talents and desires within us, which, like swallowed diamonds, slowly cut our earthly shell? Why was I stuck to this dirty lump of earth, a creature with useless wings of light, when I was supposed to rot back into the birth clod without ever wriggling free with ethereal wings?"

Troxler draws attention to such currents in German intellectual life. And then he comes up with the idea that a special science could now arise from this, a science that is a science but that has something in common with poetry, for example, in that it arises from the human soul, in that not a single power of the soul, but the whole human soul, surrenders itself in order to experience the world together with others.

If you look at people from the outside, Troxler says, you get to know anthropology. Anthropology is what arises when you examine with the senses and with the mind what the human being presents and what is revealed in the human being. But with this one does not find the full essence of the human being. What Troxler calls in the characterized sense, spiritual hearing, spiritual feeling, spiritual seeing, what he calls supersensible spirit, superspiritual sense, that is part of it, in order to see something higher in the human being. A science stands before his soul, which does not arise out of the senses, not out of mere intellect, but out of this higher faculty of knowledge in the human being. And Troxler speaks very characteristically about this science in the following way. He says - Troxler's following words were written in 1835 -:

"If it is highly gratifying that the newest philosophy, which we have long recognized as the one that founds all living religion and must reveal itself in every anthroposophy, thus in poetry as well as in history, is now making headway, it cannot be overlooked, that this idea cannot be a true fruit of speculation, and that the true personality or individuality of man must not be confused either with what it sets up as subjective spirit or finite ego, nor with what it confronts with as absolute spirit or absolute personality.

In the 1830s, Troxler became aware of the idea of anthroposophy, a science that seeks to be a spiritual science based on human power in the truest sense of the word. Spiritual science can, if it is able to correctly understand the germs that come from the continuous flow of German intellectual life, say: Among Western peoples, for example, something comparable to spiritual science, something comparable to anthroposophy, can indeed arise; but there it will always arise in such a way that it runs alongside the continuous stream of the world view, alongside what is there science, and therefore very, very easily becomes a sect or a sectarianism. , but it will always arise in such a way that it runs alongside the continuous stream of world view, alongside what is science there, and therefore very, very easily tends towards sectarianism or dilettantism. In German spiritual life — and in this respect German spiritual life stands alone — spiritual science arises as something that naturally emerges from the deepest impulses, from the deepest forces of this German spiritual life. Even when this German spiritual life becomes scientific with regard to the spiritual world and develops a striving for spiritual knowledge, the seeds of what must become spiritual science already lie in this striving. Therefore, we never see what flows through German intellectual life in this way die away.

Or is it not almost wonderful that in 1856 a little book was published by a pastor from Waldeck? He was a pastor in Sachsenberg in Waldeck. In this little book – as I said, the content is not important, but the striving – an attempt is made, in a way that is completely opposed to Hegel, to find something for the human soul, through which this human soul, by awakening the power slumbering in it, can join the whole lofty awakening spiritual world. And this is admirably shown by the simple pastor Rocholl in Sachsenberg in the Principality of Waldeck in his little book: 'Contributions to the History of German Theosophy' — a small booklet, but full of real inner spiritual life, of a spiritual life in which one can see that one who has sought it in his solitude finds everywhere the possibility of rising from the lonely inner experience of the soul to broad views of the world that are hidden behind the sensual one and yet always carry this sensual one, so that one has only one side of the world when one looks at this sensual life. One does not know what one should admire first in such a little book, which must certainly make a fantastic impression today – but that is not the point; whether one should admire more the fact that the simple country pastor found his way into the deepest depths of spiritual endeavor, or whether one should admire the foundations of the continuous flow of German intellectual life, which can produce such blossoms even in the simplest person. And if we had time, I could give you hundreds and hundreds of examples from which you would see how, admittedly not in the field of outwardly recognized, but more in the field of forgotten spiritual tones, but nevertheless vividly surviving spiritual tones, are present everywhere in such people who carry forward to our days what can be called a spiritual-scientific striving within the development of German thought.

As early as the first edition of my World and Life Views, which appeared more than a year and a half ago under the title of Riddles of Philosophy, I called attention to a little-known thinker, Karl Christian Planck. But what good did it do to call attention to such spirits, at least initially? Such spirits are more tangible as an expression, as a revelation of what is now alive, what is not expressed in the scientific activity in question, but nevertheless supports and sustains this scientific activity in many ways. Such spirits arise precisely from the deepest depths of the German character, of which Karl Christian Planck is one. Planck has written a book entitled 'Truth and shallowness of Darwinism', a very important book. He has also written a book about the knowledge of nature. I will mention only the following from this book, although basically every page is interesting:

When people talk about the earth today, they talk, I would say, in a geological sense. The earth is a mineral body to them, and man walks on it as an alien being. For Planck, the Earth, with everything that grows on it and including man, is a great spiritual-soul organism, and man belongs to it. One has simply not understood the Earth if one has not shown how, in the whole organism of the Earth, the physical human being must be present in that his soul is outwardly embodied. The earth is seen as a whole, all its forces, from the most physical to the most spiritual, are grasped as a unity. Planck wants to establish a unified world picture, which is spiritual, to use Goethe's expression. But Planck is aware – in this respect he is one of the most characteristic thinkers of the nineteenth century – of how what he is able to create really does emerge from the very depths of the German national spirit. He expresses this in the following beautiful words in his essay 'Grundlinien einer Wissenschaft der Natur' (Foundations of a Science of Nature), which appeared in 1864:

“He is fully aware of the power of deeply rooted prejudices against his writing, stemming from previous views. But just as the work itself, despite all the unfavorable circumstances that arose from the author's overall situation and professional position,” namely, he was a simple high school teacher, not a university professor — “a work of this kind was opposed, but its realization and its way into the public has fought, then he is also certain that what must now first fight for its recognition will appear as the simplest and most self-evident truth, and that in it not only his cause, but the truly German view of things, will triumph over all still unworthy external and un-German views of nature and spirit.

What our medieval poetry has already unconsciously and profoundly foreshadowed will finally be fulfilled in our nation in the maturity of the times. The impractical inwardness of the German spirit, which has been afflicted with harm and ridicule (as Wolfram von Eschenbach describes it in his “Parzival”)” - this was written in 1864, long before Wagner's ‘Parsifal’! “Finally, in the strength of its unceasing striving, it attains the highest, it gets to the bottom of the last simple laws of things and of human existence itself; and what poetry has symbolized in a fantastically medieval way in the wonders of the Grail, the mastery of which is attained by its hero, conversely receives its purely natural fulfillment and reality in the lasting knowledge of nature and of spirit itself.

Thus speaks he who then gave the summary of his world picture under the title “The Will of a German”, in which an attempt is really made, again at a higher level than was possible for Schelling, to penetrate nature and spirit. In 1912, this “The Will of a German” was published in a new edition. I do not think that many people have studied it. Those who deal with such things professionally had other things to do: the books by Bergson, by that Bergson — his name is still Bergson! who has used the present time not only to revile but also to slander in the truest sense what has emerged from German intellectual life; who has managed to describe the entire current intellectual culture of the Germans as mechanistic. I have said here before: when he wrote that the Germans have descended from the heights on which they stood under Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Schelling and Hegel, and that now they are creating a mechanical culture, he probably believed that the Germans, when they march up with cannons, would declaim Novalis or Goethe's poems to their opponents! But from the fact that he now only sees—or probably does not see—guns and rifles, he makes German culture into a completely mechanistic one.

Now, just as the other things I have been saying during this period have been said again and again in the years before the war, and also to members of other nations – so that they must not be understood as having been prompted by the situation of war – I tried to present Bergson's philosophy in the book that was completed at the beginning of the war, the second edition of my “Weltund Lebensanschauungen” (World and Life Views). And in the same book I pointed out how, I might say, one of the most brilliant ideas in Bergson's work, infinitely greater, more incisive and profound — here again we have such a forgotten 'tone of German intellectual life' — had already appeared in 1882 in the little-known Wilhelm Heinrich Preuss. At one point in his books, Bergson draws attention to the fact that when considering the world, one should not start with the mineral kingdom and then the plant and animal kingdoms, and only then include man in them, but rather start with man; how man is the is original and the other entities in the continuous flow, in which he developed while he was the first, has rejected the less perfect, so that the other natural kingdoms have developed out of the human kingdom.

In my book Rätseln der Philosophie (Mysteries of Philosophy), I pointed out how the lonely, deep thinker, but also energetic and powerful thinker, Wilhelm Heinrich Preuss, in his book Geist und Stoff (Mind and Matter), and basically in fact, even earlier than 1882, this idea in a powerful, courageous way, - the idea that one cannot get along with Darwinism understood in a purely Western sense, but that one has to imagine: if you go back in the world, you first have the human being. The human being is the original, and as the human being develops further, he expels certain entities, first the animals, then the plants, then the minerals. That is the reverse course of development.

I cannot go into this in detail today – I have even dealt with this idea several times in lectures from previous years – but I would like to mention today that this spiritual worldview is fully represented in the German spiritual movement of the 1880s in the book by Preuss, 'Geist und Stoff' (Spirit and Matter). I would like to read to you a key passage from my book “The Riddles of Philosophy” so that you can see how a powerful world view, which is part of the whole current that I have characterized for you today, flows into the spiritual life of humanity in weighty words. Preuss says:

The center of this new doctrine is man, the only species on our planet that recurs: Homo sapiens. It is strange that the older observers started with natural objects and then went so astray that they could not find the way to man, which Darwin only managed in the most miserable and thoroughly unsatisfactory way by seeking the progenitor of the Lord of Creation among the animals, while the naturalist should start with himself as a human being, and thus gradually return to humanity through the whole realm of being and thinking! It was not by chance that human nature emerged from the evolution of all earthly things, but by necessity. Man is the goal of all telluric processes, and every other form emerging alongside him has borrowed its traits from his. Man is the first-born being of the whole cosmos... When his germs had emerged, the remaining organic residue no longer had the necessary strength to produce further human germs. What emerged was animal or plant...

In 1882, what the human soul can experience spiritually, presented within German intellectual life! Then Bergson comes along and by no means presents the thought in such a powerful, penetrating way, connected with the innermost life of the soul, but, one might say, in a slightly pursed, mincing, more and more indeterminate way. And people are overwhelmed by Bergson and do not want to know about Preuss. And Bergson apparently knows nothing about Preuss. But that is about as bad for someone who writes about worldviews as it would be if he knew about it and did not say anything. But we do not want to examine whether Bergson knew and did not say, or whether he did not know, now that it has been sufficiently proven that Bergson not only borrowed ideas from Schopenhauer and expressed them in his own words, but also took ideas from the entire philosophy of German idealism, for example Schelling and Fichte, and seems to consider himself their creator. It is indeed a special method of characterizing the relationship of one people to another, as Bergson now continually does to his French counterparts, by presenting German science and German knowledge as something particularly mechanical, after he has previously endeavored - which is probably not a very mechanical activity - to describe these German world-view personalities over pages. After a while, one realizes that Bergson could have kept silent altogether if he had not built his world view on the foundations of the German world view personalities, which is basically nothing more than a Cartesian mechanism, the mechanism of the eighteenth century, warmed up by a somewhat romantically understood Schellingianism and Schopenhauerianism.

As I said, one must characterize things appropriately; for it must be clear to our minds that when we speak of the relationship of the German character in the overall development of humanity, we do not need to adopt the same method of disparaging other nationalities that is so thoroughly used by our opponents today. The German is in a position to point out the facts, and he will now also gain strength from the difficult trials of the present time to delve into the German soul, where he has not yet succeeded. The forgotten sides of the striving for spiritual science will be remembered again. I may say this again and again, after having endeavored for more than thirty years to emphasize another side of the forgotten striving of German knowledge.

From what has emerged entirely from the British essence of knowing directed only at the outside world, we have the so-called Newtonian color theory. And the power of the British essence, not only externally but also internally, spiritually, is so great that this Newtonian color theory has taken hold of all minds that think about such things. Only Goethe, out of that nature which can be won from German nationality, has rebelled against Newton's theory of colours in the physical field. Certainly, Newton's theory of colours is, I might say, in one particular chapter, what de Lamettrie's L'Homme-Machine can be for all shallow superficial people in the world. Only the case with the theory of colours is particularly tragic. For 35 years, as I said, I have been trying to show the full significance of Goethe's Theory of Colours, the whole struggle of the German world-view, as it appears in Goethe with regard to the world of colour, against the mechanistic view rooted in British folklore with Newton. The chapter 'Goethe versus Newton' will also come into its own when that which lives on in a living, active way, even if not always consciously, comes more and more to the fore and can be seen by anyone who wants to see. And it will come to the fore, precisely as a result of the trials of our time, the most intimate awareness of the German of the depth of his striving for knowledge.

It is almost taken for granted, and therefore as easy to grasp as all superficially taken for granted things, when people today say: science is of course international. The moon is also international! Nevertheless, what individuals have to say about the moon is not at all international. When Goethe traveled, he wrote back to his German friends: “After what I have seen of plants and fish near Naples and in Sicily, I would be very tempted, if I were ten years younger, to make a journey to India, not to discover anything new, but to look at what has been discovered in my way.” Of course, science is international. It is not easy to refute the corresponding statements, because they are self-evident, as everything superficial is self-evident. But as I said, it is also international like the moon. But what the individual nations have to say about what is international from the depths, from the roots of their national character, that is what is significant and also what is effective in furthering the development of humanity from the way in which the character of each individual nation relates to what can be recognized internationally. That is what matters.

To this day, however, it cannot be said that precisely that which, in the deepest sense, represents the German character has made a significant impression on the path of knowledge in the period that followed. Within the German character itself, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel initially had such a great effect that posterity was stunned and that it initially produced only one or the other, one or the other side, that even un-German materialism was able to gain a foothold within the German spiritual life. But it is particularly instructive to see how that which is primordially German works in other nationalities when it is absorbed into them. And Schelling, for example, is primordially German. Schelling has had a great effect, for example within Russian spiritual life. Within Russian spiritual life, we see how Schelling is received, how his powerful views of nature, but especially of history – the Russian has little sense of the view of nature – are received. But we also see how precisely the essentials, what matters, cannot be understood at all in the east of Europe. Yes, it is particularly interesting – and you can read more about this in my writing “Thoughts During the Time of War” – how this eastern part of Europe in the nineteenth century gradually developed a complete rejection of precisely the intellectual life not only of Central Europe, but even of Western Europe. And one gets an impression of German intellectual life when one sees how this essential, which I have tried to bring out today, this living with the soul in the development of nature and the spirit, cannot be understood in the East, where things are accepted externally. In the course of the nineteenth century, consciousness has swollen terribly in the East, especially among intellectuals – not among the peasants, of course, who know little about war even when they are waging it. The intellectual life of the East is, however, a strange matter. I have already explained it: Slavophilism appears in the first half of the nineteenth century, in the 1830s, precisely fertilized by Fichte, Schelling and Hegel; but it appears in such a way that Fichte, Schelling and Hegel are only taken superficially , quite superficially, so that one has no inkling of how Fichte, Schelling and Hegel — the tools of the will, of the soul, of thinking — actually live objectively together with what outwardly interweaves and lives through the world. And so it could come about that this Russian element, which in terms of its sense of knowledge still lived deeply in medieval feeling, took up Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in such a way that an almost megalomaniacal view of the nineteenth century, which in literary and epistemological terms is really a kind of realization of Peter the Great's Political Testament, whether falsified or not.

What did they know about the German world view over there! In one of my recent lectures, I showed how Goethe's “Faust” truly grows out of what we, once again, can allow to affect our souls as a German world view. But we have only to hear Pissarew — who as a Russian spirit is deeply influenced by Goethe — speak about Goethe's Faust, and we shall see how it is impossible not to understand what is most characteristic and most essential to the German national soul. Pissarew says, for example: “The small thoughts and the small feelings had to be made into pearls of creation” - in “Faust he means the small thoughts, the human feelings that only concern people! “Goethe accomplished this feat, and similar feats are still considered the greatest victory of art; but such hocus-pocus is done not only in the sphere of art, but also in all other spheres of human activity."

It is an interesting chapter in the history of ideas that in the case of minds such as Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky or Khomyakov, for example, precisely that which lives great and significant as inwardness, but as clear inwardness, dark and nebulous sentimentalism, has continued to live in such minds and we could cite a long line right up to the present day, precisely from Russian ideological minds - how in this Russian ideological mind the conviction has generally formed: that which lives to the west of us is an aged culture, a culture that has outlived itself; it is ripe for extinction. The Russian essence is there, that must replace what is in Central Europe and they also meant Western Europe in the nineteenth century, especially England - what is in England.

This is not something I have picked out at one point or another, but it is a consistent feature of Russian intellectual life, which characterizes those who matter, who set the tone. In Kireyevsky's work, this intensifies around 1829 to a saying that I will read in a moment, and one will see from such a saying that what is heard today from the East did not just arise today, but that it is deeply rooted in what has gradually accumulated in this East.

But before that, I want to cite something else. The whole thing starts with Slavophilism, with a seemingly scientific and theoretical focus on the importance of the Russian people, who must replace an old and decrepit Europe, degenerating into nothing but abstract concepts and cold utilitarian ideas. Yes, as I said, this is something that is found again and again in Russian intellectual life. But where does this Slavophilism actually come from? How did these people in the East become aware of what they later repeated in all its variations: the people in Central and Western Europe have become depraved, are decrepit; they have managed to eliminate all love, all feeling from the heart and to live only in the mind, which leads to war and hatred between the individual peoples. In the Russian Empire, love lives, peace lives, and so does a science that arises from love and peace. Where do these people get it from? From the German Weltanschauung they have it! Herder is basically the first Slavophile. Herder first expressed this, which was justified in his time, which is also justified when one looks at the depth of the national character, which truly has nothing to do with today's war and with all that has led to this war. But one can point out that which has led to the megalomania among the so-called intellectuals: We stand there in the East, everything over there is old, everything is decrepit, all of it must be exterminated, and in its place must come the world view of the East.

Let us take to heart the words of Kirejewski. He says in 1829: “The fate of every European state depends on the union of all the others; the fate of Russia depends on Russia alone. But the fate of Russia is decided in its formation: this is the condition and source of all goods. As soon as all these goods will be ours, we will share them with the rest of Europe, and we will repay all our debts to it a hundredfold.”

Here we have a leading man, a man repeatedly lionized by the very minds that have more often than not rejected the ongoing development of Russian intellectual life. Here we have it stated: Europe is ripe for destruction, and Russian culture must replace it. Russian culture contains everything that is guaranteed to last. Therefore, we are appropriating everything. And when we have everything, well then we will be benevolent, then we will share with the others in a corresponding manner. That is the literary program, already established in 1829 within Russian humanity by a spirit, in whose immaturity, in whose sentimentality even Fichte, Schelling and Hegel have worked.

There is a remarkable conception in the East in general. Let me explain this in conclusion. For example, in 1885 an extraordinary book was published by Sergius Jushakow, an extraordinary book, as I said. Jushakow finds that Russia has a great task. In 1885, he finds this task even more directed towards Asia. Over there in Asia, he believes, live the descendants of the ancient Iranians – to which he also counts the Indians, the Persians – and the ancient Turanians. They have a long cultural life behind them, have brought it to what is evident in them today. In 1885, Yushakov said that Westerners had intervened in this long cultural life, intervening with what they could become from their basic feelings and from their worldview. But Russia must intervene in the right way.

A strange Pan-Asiaticism, expressed by Yushakov in a thick book in 1885 as part of his program! He says: “These Asiatic peoples have presented their destiny in a beautiful myth—which is, however, true. There are the Iranian peoples over there who fought against Ahriman, as Jusakhov says, against the evil spirit Ahriman, who causes infertility and drought and immorality, everything that disturbs human culture. They joined forces with the good spirit Ormuzd, the god of light, the spirit that gives everything that promotes people. But after the Asians had received the blessings of Ormuzd within their spiritual life for a while, Ahriman became more powerful. But what did the European peoples of the West bring to the Asians, according to Jushakow? And that is quite interesting. Yushakov argues that the peoples of the West, with their cultural life, which in his view is degenerate and decrepit, have crossed over to Asia to the Indians and the Persians, and have taken from them everything that Ormuzd, the good Ormuzd, has fought for. That is what the peoples of the West were there for. Russia will now cross over to Asia – it is not I who say this, but the Russian Yushakov – because in Russia, rooted in a deep culture, is the alliance between the all-fertility-developing peasant and the all-chivalry-bearing — as I said, it is not I who say it, Yushakov says it — and from the alliance of the peasant and the Cossack, which will move into Asia, something else will arise than what the Western peoples have been able to bring to the Asians. The Western peoples have taken the Ormuzd culture from the Asians; but the Russians, that is, the peasants and the Cossacks, will join forces with poor Asia, which has been enslaved by the Westerners, and will fight with it against Ahriman and will unite completely with it. For what the Asians, under the leadership of Ormuzd, have acquired as a coming together with nature itself, the Russians will not take away from them, but will join with them to fight against Ahriman once more.

And in 1885, this man describes in more detail how these Western peoples actually behaved towards the Asian people plagued by Ahriman. He does not describe the Germans, for which he would have had little reason at the time, but he, Yushakov, the Russian, describes the English. And he says of the English that, after all they have been through, they believe that the Asian peoples are only there to clothe themselves in English fabrics, fight among themselves with English weapons, work with English tools, eat from English vessels and play with English baubles. And further, in 1885, Yushakov said: “England exploits millions of Hindus, but its very existence depends on the obedience of the various peoples who inhabit the rich peninsula; I do not wish anything similar for my fatherland – I can only rejoice that it is sufficiently far removed from this state of affairs, which is as glorious as it is sad.”

It is likely that these sentiments, which were not only expressed by Jushakow in 1885, but also by many others, led to Russia initially not allying itself with the Asians to help them against Ahr Ahriman, but that it first allied itself with the “so brilliant as it is sad state” of England in order to trample the “aged”, “marshy” Europe into the ground.

What world history will one day see in this ring closing around Central Europe can be expressed quite simply. One need only mention a few figures. These few figures are extremely instructive because they are reality. One day, history will raise the question, quite apart from the fact that this present struggle is the most difficult, the most significant, the greatest that has occurred in the development of human history, quite apart from the fact that it is merely a matter of the circumstances of the figures: How will it be judged in the future that 777 million people are closing in on 150 million people? 777 million people in the so-called Entente are closing in on 150 million people and are not even expecting the decision to come from military valor, but from starvation. That is probably the better part of valor according to the views of 777 million people! There is no need to be envious about the soil in which a spiritual life developed as we have described it, because the figures speak for themselves. The 777 million people live on 68 million square kilometers, compared to 6 million square kilometers on which 150 million people live. History will one day take note of the fact that 777 million people live on 68 million square kilometers, ring-shaped against 150 million people on 6 million square kilometers. The German only needs to let this fact speak in this as well as in other areas, which prevents one from falling into one-sided national shouting and ranting and hate-filled speech, into which Germany's enemies fall.

I do not want to talk now about those areas that do not belong here and that will be decided by weapons. But we see all too clearly how, today, what one wants to cherish and carry as German culture is really enclosed, lifted up above the battlefield of weapons, enclosed by hatred and slander, by real slander , not only hatred; how our sad time of trial is used to vilify and condemn precisely that which has to be placed in world history, in the overall development of mankind, in this way. For what is it, actually, that confronts us in this German intellectual life with all its conscious and forgotten tones? It is great because it is the second great flowering of insight and the second great flowering of art in the history of humanity. The first great flowering of art was Greek culture. At the turn of the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, the development of Germany produced a flowering of which even a mind like Renan said, when, after absorbing everything else, he became acquainted with the development of Germany in Goethe and Herder: “I felt as if I were entering a temple, and from that moment everything that I had previously considered worthy of the divinity seemed to me no more than withered and yellowed paper flowers.” What German intellectual life has achieved, says Renan, comparing it with the other, is like differential calculus compared to elementary mathematics. Nevertheless, on the same page on which he wrote these words to David Friedrich Strauß, Renan points to that current in France which, in the event of the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, called for a “destructive struggle against the Germanic race”. This letter was written in 1870.

This German intellectual life has been recognized time and again. But today it must be misunderstood. For how else could the words be found that are spoken in the ring that surrounds us!

If we look across, not with Yushakov's eyes, but with unbiased eyes, to Asia, we see a human culture that has grown old, that also strove for knowledge, but that strove for knowledge according to an old, pre-Christian way. There, the ego is sought to be subdued in order to merge into the universe, into Brahman or Atman, with the extinction of the ego. This is no longer possible. Now that the greatest impulse in human history, the Christ impulse, has become established in human history, the ego itself must be elevated, strengthened, not subdued as in Oriental spiritual life, but on the contrary, strengthened in order to connect as an ego with the spiritual-divine in the world, which pulsates and weaves and lives through the world. That is the significant thing, how this is again shining forth in the German spiritual striving. And this, which is unique and which must be incorporated as one of the most essential tones in the overall development of humanity, is what is coming to life in the 6 million square kilometers, compared to the 68 million square kilometers. This fact must be obscured from those who, as I said, do not fight with weapons, but who fight with words and slander this Central European spiritual life. They must cover this fact with fog. They must not see it. But we must admit it to ourselves, we must try to explain to ourselves how it is possible that these people can be so blinded as to fail to recognize the very depth of this connection of one's own soul with the spiritual life outside in the world.

Boutroux, who traveled around here in Germany for a short time before the war and even spoke at universities about the spiritual brotherhood of Germany and France, now tells his French audience how the Germans want to grasp everything inwardly. He even makes a joke: if a Frenchman wants to get to know a lion or a hyena, he goes to the menagerie. If an Englishman wants to get to know a lion or a hyena, he goes on a world tour and studies all the things related to the lion or the hyena on the spot. The German neither goes to the menagerie nor on a journey, but withdraws into his room, goes into his inner self, and from that inner self he creates the lion or the hyena. That is how he conceives of inwardness. It is a joke. One must even say that it is perhaps a good joke. The French have always made good jokes. It's just a shame that this joke is by Heinrich Heine, and Boutroux has only repeated it.

But now, when you see how these people want to cloud their minds, you come up with a few things. You wonder: How do these people, according to their nationality, seek to delude themselves about what German nature actually is? For the Russians, it must always be a new mission. I have also described this in my booklet: “Thoughts during the time of war”. They must be given the opportunity to replace Western European culture, Central European culture, because it is the destiny of the Russian people – so they say in the East, anyway – to replace the abstract, purely intellectual culture built on war with a Russian culture built on the heart, on peace, on the soul. That is the mission.

The English – one would not want to do them an injustice, truly, one would like to remain completely objective, because it really does not befit the Germans to speak in a one-sided way based solely on national feelings. That should not happen at all; but when one hears, as in the very latest times in England, declaiming that the Germans live by the word: “might is right,” then one must still remind them that there is a philosophy by Thomas Hobbes, an English philosophy, in which it is first proved in all its breadth that law has no meaning if it does not arise from power. Power is the source of law. That is the whole meaning of Hobbes's doctrine. After it has been said from an authorized position - there is also an unauthorized authorized position, but it is still an authorized position in the outside world - that the Germans live by the rule “might makes right”, that they have have come far by acting according to the principle “might is right,” I do not believe that one is being subjective when one objects that this is precisely an English principle that has become deeply ingrained in the Englishman. Yes, one can well say: they need a new lie. And that will hardly be anything other than a terminus technicus.

The French – what are they deluding themselves with? They are the ones we would least like to wrong. And so let us take the word of one of their own poets, Edmond Rostand. The cock, the crowing cock, plays a major role in Edmond Rostand's play. He crows when the sun rises in the morning. Gradually, he begins to imagine that the sun could not rise if it were not for him crowing, causing the sun to rise. One has become accustomed – and that is probably also Rostand's idea – to the fact that nothing can happen in the world without France. One has only to recall the age of Louis XIV and all that was French until Lessing, Goethe, Schiller and others emancipated themselves from it, and one can already imagine how the conceit arises: Ah, the sun cannot rise if I do not crow for it. Now, one needs a new conceit.

Italy – I heard a not insignificant Italian politician say before the war: Yes, our people have basically reached a point, so relaxed, so rotten, that we need a refresher, we need something to invigorate us. A new sensation, then! This is expressed in the fact that the Italians, in order to dull their senses, have invented something particularly new and unprecedented: a new saint, namely, Sacro Egoismo, Holy Egoism. How often has it been invoked before Italy was driven into the war, holy egoism! So, a new saint, and his hierophant: Gabriele d'Annunzio. Today, no one can yet gauge how this new saint, Sacro Egoismo and its hierophant, its high priest, Gabriele d'Annunzio, will live on in history!

On the other hand, we can remain within the German spirit and consider what is truly interwoven with this German spirit and what was unanimously felt by the Germans of Austria and Germany, on this side and on the other side of the Erz Mountains, as the German people's – not in the Russian sense of mission, but in the very ordinary sense – world-historical mission. And here I may well conclude with the words to which I have already drawn attention when, speaking of the commonality of Austrian intellectual culture with German, I also spoke of Robert Hamerling. In 1862, when he wrote his “Germanenzug”, the future of the German people lay before Robert Hamerling, the German poet of Austria, which he wanted to express by having the genius of the German people express it, when the Germanic people move over from Asia as the forerunners of the Germans. They settle on the border between Asia and Europe. Robert Hamerling describes the scene beautifully: the setting sun, the rising moon. The Teutons are encamped. Only one man is awake, the blond youth Teut. A genius appears to him. This genius speaks to Teut, in whom Robert Hamerling seeks to capture the representative of the later Germans. Beautifully he expresses:

To whom will the word break out of the depths of the soul
As your people, so rich, so delicate, so powerful?
Who breathes so solemnly into the strings
His innermost being? To whom do the senses draw so magnificently
Into the blue of heaven, granite hieroglyphics
Of the soul's upsurge and the narrowness of life?
Who finally ties the strands
of the searching thought to the stars
so boldly and strives and fights on all paths?
Whom leads so high, so deep his urge, his foreboding?
Who grasps the near and the far so faithfully?
Where does every earthly and heavenly zone
reflect itself as in your thinking, O Teuton?

And what once lived over there in Asia, what the Germans brought with them from Asia like ancestral heritage, it stands before Robert Hamerling's soul. It stands before his soul, what was there like a looking into the world in such a way that the ego is subdued, the corporeality is subdued, in order to see what the world is living through and weaving through, but what must emerge in a new form in the post-Christian era, in the form that it speaks out of the fully conscious ego, out of the fully conscious soul. This connection with the ancient times in the striving of the German people for the spirit, how beautifully Robert Hamerling expresses it:

But however proudly you aspire, high above other swarms, you will always keep the ancient, sacred fire: the dream-filled, drunken rapture of God, the blessed warmth of heart of the ancient Asian homeland. This holy ray, a temple fire of This holy ray, a temple fire
Of humanity, free of smoke, with pure flame
Glow away in your chest and soul mate
You remain and pilot your rudder!
You only strive because you love: your boldest thinking
Will be devotion that wants to sink into God.

Thus the German-Austrian poet connects the distant past with the immediate present. And indeed, it has emerged from this beautiful striving of the German soul, which we have tried to characterize today, that all knowledge, all striving wanted to be what one can call: a sacrificial service before the Divine-Spiritual. Even science, even the recognition of the spiritual, should have the effect of a sacrificial service, should work in such a way that Jakob Böhme could say: When one searches spiritually, it is so that one must bring it to go its way:

Walking in God – And striving in God –
And dying in God – And being buried in God.

Hamerling expresses this by having the German Genius say to Teut:

You strive only because you love: your most daring thought
will be devotion, sinking into God.

The affinity of the German soul with God is so beautifully expressed here. This shows us how deeply rooted true spiritual striving is in the German national character. But this also clearly gives rise to the thought in our soul, the powerful thought, that one can ally oneself with this German national spirit, for in that which it has brought forth in spiritual achievements - one current guides the other - this German national spirit is at work. It finds expression in the great, immortal deeds that are being accomplished in the present. In conclusion, let me summarize in the four lines of the German-Austrian Robert Hamerling what emerges as German faith, German love, German hope of the past, present and future, when the German unites with what is the deepest essence of his people. Let me summarize what is there as a force – as a force that has confidence that, where such seeds are, blossoms and fruits must develop powerfully in the German national character despite all enemies, in the German national character – let me summarize what is there as a force in his soul, in the words of the German-Austrian poet Robert Hamerling:

And if ever the German name
should prove a hostile day,
From ocean to ocean will run
The course of the German spirit!

I have already presented some of the answers to the question: Why is spiritual research misunderstood? — in the lecture I gave here a few weeks ago on “Healthy Soul Life and Spiritual Research”. Today I would like to consider other points of view which may provide a more comprehensive answer to the question posed. Naturally, in view of the attitude of the esteemed audience, who are accustomed to finding it in these lectures, it cannot be my intention today to go into individual attacks here and there on what is called spiritual research here. If out of wounded ambition or other motives, here and there perhaps even from the ranks of those who previously believed themselves to be quite good exponents of this spiritual science, then these are matters which, when examined more closely, show just how insignificant such objections actually are in the face of the great tasks that spiritual research has to fulfill. Therefore, the necessity to deal with one or other of them can only arise here and there for external reasons. As I said, it is not my intention. My intention is to show how one can really have difficulties in understanding the spiritual science meant here, how it can be difficult for the soul to bring understanding to spiritual science, from the education of the times, from what one can acquire in terms of habits of thought, of feelings, of feelings of world view from our present time, how it can be difficult for the soul to understand spiritual science. In a sense, I do not want to explain the unjustified objections in their reasons, but rather the objections that arise from the times to a certain extent, one might say, completely justified objections, those objections that are understandable for a soul of the present.

Spiritual science is not only confronted with objections that arise from other currents of thought in the present day; spiritual science, it can be said, still has almost all other currents of thought opposed to it in a certain way, precisely from the point of view that has just been mentioned. When materialistic or mechanistic world-views arise, or, as one would like to express it today in a more educated way, monistic world-views, opponents arise who start from a certain spiritual idealism. The reasons such spiritual idealists have to put forward for their world view against materialism are, as a rule, extraordinarily weighty and significant. These are objections, the significance of which can certainly be shared by the spiritual researcher, who can certainly understand them and grasp them in the same way as someone who proceeds merely from a certain spiritual idealism. The spiritual researcher, however, does not speak about the spiritual world merely in the way, for example, that spiritual idealists of the ilk of Ulrici, Wirth, Immanuel Hermann Fichte — who, however, as we saw yesterday, does go into it more deeply — and others do. He does not speak merely in abstract terms, hinting that there must be a spiritual world behind the sensual world; he cannot leave this spiritual world undefined, cannot grasp it in mere concepts, he must move on to a real description of the spiritual world. He cannot merely content himself with a conceptual allusion to an unknown spiritual world, as the spiritual idealists would have it. Rather, he must provide a concrete description of a spiritual world that is revealed in individual entities that have not physical but purely spiritual existence ; in short, he must present a spiritual world that is as diverse and as full of content as the physical world is, and should actually be much, much fuller of content if it were described in reality. And when he not only speaks of the fact that there is a spiritual world in general that can be proven by concepts, but when he speaks specifically of a spiritual world as something credible, as something that can be perceived just as the sensory world , then he has as his opponents not only the materialists, but also those who only want to speak about the spiritual world in abstract terms from the standpoint of a certain spiritual-conceptual idealism. Finally, he has opponents among those who believe that spiritual science can affect any kind of religious sentiment, who believe that religion is endangered, that their religion is endangered when a science of the spiritual world appears. And there are many other individual currents that could be mentioned, which basically the spiritual scientist has to oppose in the manner indicated, and still understandably so today. So these are important objections, justified to a certain extent from a certain point of view, and I would like to discuss them by name.

And there is the first objection to the aspirations of spiritual science, which is particularly significant in our time, and which comes from the natural scientific world view, the world view that seeks to create a world view based on the progress of modern natural science, which is justifiably seen as the greatest triumph of humanity. And it must be said again and again that it is difficult to realize that the true spiritual researcher, after all, denies absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing at all, of what legitimately follows from the results of modern science for a world view; on the contrary, he stands in the fullest sense of the word on the ground of this newer natural science itself, insofar as it is a legitimate basis for a world view.

Let us look at this newer direction in natural science from a certain point of view. We can only emphasize individual points of view. In this way we are confronted with all those people who justifiably cause difficulties for spiritual science, because they say: Does not modern natural science show us, through the marvel of the human nervous system, and in particular the human brain, how what the human being experiences spiritually is dependent on the structure and functions of this nervous system and this brain? And it is easy to believe that the spiritual researcher wants to deny what the natural scientist has to say from his field of research. Only the amateur spiritual researcher and those who want to be spiritual researchers, but basically can hardly claim the dignity of an amateur, do much harm, because true spiritual research is always confused with its charlatan or amateurish activities. It is difficult to believe that, for example, with regard to the significance of the physical brain and nervous system, the humanist actually has more in common with the natural scientist than the natural scientist himself.

Let us take an example. I deliberately do not choose a more recent example, although with the rapid pace of modern science, many things change quickly and older research is easily overtaken by later research. I deliberately choose not to choose a more recent example, which could also be done; instead, I choose the distinguished brain researcher and psychiatrist Meynert, because I would like to take as my starting point what he had to say about the relationship between the brain and the life of the soul based on his brain research. Meynert is very knowledgeable about the human brain and the human nervous system in both healthy and diseased states. His writings, which set the tone in his field at the end of the nineteenth century, must command the greatest respect from anyone who becomes familiar with them. Not only for the purely positive research, but also for what such a man has to say on the subject. And this must be emphasized: when people who have easily acquired some kind of spiritual-scientific world view, without knowing anything, without ever having looked through a microscope or a telescope or without having done something that would even remotely give them the opportunity to get an idea of this miraculous structure of the human brain, for example, when such people speak of the baseness of materialism, then one can understand, on the other hand, with the conscientiousness of the research and the care of the methods, that one does not want to get involved at all with what is being said from the apparent spiritual-scientific side. When someone like Meynert studies the brain, he first finds that the outer layer of the brain consists of a billion cells in a highly complex way — Meynert estimates that there are about a billion of them —, all working together work into each other, sending their extensions to the most diverse parts of the human body, sending their extensions into the sensory organs, where they become sensory nerves, sending their extensions to the organs of movement, and so on. To such a brain researcher it then becomes apparent how connecting fibers lead from one fiber system to the other, and he then comes to the conclusion that what the human being experiences as a world of ideas, what separates and connects in concepts, in ideas, is separated and connected when the external world makes an impression through his sense organs, is absorbed and processed by the brain, and that it produces what are called soul phenomena from the way it is processed. When even philosophers come and say: Yes, but the phenomena of the soul are something quite different from movements of the brain, from some processes in the brain, — when even philosophers come and speak like that, then it must be said against it that what arises out of the brain as the life of the soul for such a researcher does not arise in a more marvelous way than, let us say, a clock, for example, in which one does not assume that a special soul-being lives inside it and gives the time; or, let us say, a magnet that attracts a body out of its purely physical powers. What there proves to be active as a magnetic field around the physical body – why, if we understand it in terms of greater complications, should that not be born out of the brain, the human soul life? In short, we must on no account belittle what comes from this side. Under no circumstances may we deny its justification without going into the matter in greater detail. One can scoff at the idea that this brain, by unwinding its processes, is supposed to produce the most complicated mental life, but one can equally find in nature an abundance of such processes, where one will not a priori speak of an underlying mental life. Not by starting from preconceived opinions, but by also engaging with what is justified in the minds of those who have difficulty in approaching spiritual research. Only in this way, I would say, can order and harmony be created in the confused minds of worldviews.

Thus there is no reason why that which is understood in the ordinary sense of life as the life of the soul should not be produced by a mere mechanical process, in so far as it takes place in the mechanics of the brain and nervous system. The nervous system and the brain can be so intricately arranged that the unrolling of its processes results in the soul life of man. Therefore, no one who merely has a naturalistic way of looking at things will be able to dispute the legitimacy of a scientific, materialistic world view. And it must be said that precisely because natural science has achieved such perfection and such a justified ideal in its field, it is actually difficult for spiritual science today to confront natural science, for the simple reason that the spiritual scientist must have the ability and capacity to fully recognize the justified things that come from this side. But for that reason it must be emphasized again and again that a mere composition of what is derived from the observation of nature, even if it extends to our own human life, can never, never be used to create a spiritual world view. If we want to get to the life of the soul, then this life of the soul must be experienced in itself, then this life of the soul must not flow from external processes, then one must not say that the brain cannot produce the soul processes of its own accord, but one must experience the soul processes.

In a certain area, everyone can experience the soul independently of the brain processes. This is in the moral area, in the area of the moral life. And here it is clear from the outset that what shines forth to man as moral impulses cannot result from any unwinding of mere brain processes. But I say explicitly: what can arise in man as moral impulses, insofar as the will, insofar as feeling is at work in them, insofar as the moral is experienced. So in this area, where the soul must grasp itself in its immediacy, everyone can come to realize that the soul has a life of its own, independent of the body. However, not everyone has the ability to add to this inner grasping, to this inner strengthening of the soul in the moral life, what Goethe, for example, added in the essay on 'Contemplative Judgment' mentioned yesterday, but also in many other places in his works. Not everyone can say, as Goethe did from the depths of his inner experience: If, in the moral world, we can rise to impulses that work independently of the body, then why should this soul not be able, with regard to other spiritual things, as Goethe says in contrast to Kant, to “bravely endure the adventure of reason” — as Kant called all going beyond sensory perceptions? That means not only to proceed to a spiritual-soul life by inwardly experiencing how moral impulses arise from the depths of the soul, and not from the life of the brain, but also to have other spiritual experiences that testify to the soul's spiritual perception with spiritual organs, just as we perceive the sensual with sensual organs. But for this to happen, the ordinary life in the world, to which one passively devotes oneself, must be supplemented by another, a life of inner activity. And this is what is lost today for many who have become accustomed to having the truth dictated to them from somewhere. They want something that appears from outside, something that can be based on solid ground, rather than inner experience. What is experienced in the soul itself seems to them to be something that is arbitrarily formed within, not firmly supported by anything. What should be true should be firmly based on what is externally established, to whose existence one has contributed nothing oneself.

This is indeed the right way to think in the field of natural science. Into the study of nature one will only bring all kinds of useless stuff if one adds all kinds of fantasy products to what the external senses offer and what one can get from the observed external sense material through the experiment or through the method. On the ground of natural science, this is fully justified. But we will see shortly how little it is justified on the ground of spiritual research. But even if one engages with the justified aspects of the scientific world view, one can see how it becomes weak through this unaccustomed effort of inner self-exploration, how it becomes weak when it is supposed to perform an activity that is indispensable if one wants to make even a little progress in spiritual science. To advance in spiritual science, it is not necessary to do all kinds of nebulous things, to train oneself to have certain clairvoyant experiences in the ordinary sense of the word, through hallucinations, through visions and so on — that is not the first thing, nor is it the last; that has already been discussed in the lecture on 'Healthy Soul Life and Spirit Research'. But what is indispensable if one is to arrive at a deeper understanding — I do not want to say, at becoming a justified follower — of spiritual science, that is a thinking that has been worked through, a really worked through thinking. And the cultivation of thinking suffers to a great extent from the fact that one has become accustomed to observing only the form of appearance. Outwardly, in the sensual world, in external observation or in experiment, one abandons oneself to what external nature expresses, and in this field one represents what experiment says. One does not dare — and yet one is right in this area — to say anything as a summarizing law that is not dictated from outside. But the inner activity of the soul suffers from this. Man gets used to becoming passive; man gets used to trusting only what is, as it were, interpreted and revealed to him from outside. And seeking truth through an inner effort, through an inner activity, that falls completely out of his soul habit. But it is necessary above all when one enters spiritual science that thinking is worked out, that thinking is so worked out that nothing escapes one of certain lightly-donned objections that can be made, that above all, that one foresees what objections can be made; that one makes these objections oneself in order to gain a higher point of view, which, taking the objections into account, would find the truth. I would like to draw your attention to one example, as an example among hundreds and thousands that could almost be suggested by Meynert. The reason I do this is because I was just allowed to mention to you that I consider Meynert to be an excellent researcher, so that it cannot be said that I am somehow belittling people here. When it comes to refutation, I do not choose people whom I hold in low esteem, but precisely people whom I hold in the highest esteem.

In this way, we encounter Meynert, for example, in how he conceives of the formation of the perception of space and time in man. Meynert says: Let us suppose – and this example is particularly relevant to us now – that I listen to a speaker. I will gain the idea that his words are spoken little by little, in time. How does this idea arise, Meynert asks, that one has the notion that words are spoken little by little, in time? Well, you can imagine that Meynert is talking about all of you who understand my words in such a way that they appear to you bit by bit, in time. Then he says: Yes, this time only arises through the brain's perception; that we think of one word after the other, that only arises through the brain's perception. The words come to us, they come to our sense organs, they go from these sense organs in a further effect to the brain. The brain has certain internal organs through which it processes the sensory impressions. And there arises - internally - through certain organs the conception of time. The conception of time is thus created there. And so all perceptions are created from the brain.

That Meynert does not just mean something subordinate can be seen from a certain remark in his lecture “On the Mechanics of the Brain Structure,” where he talks about the relationship between the outside world and the human being. He says that the ordinary, naive person assumes that the outside world is as he creates it in his brain. Meynert says: “The daring hypothesis of realism is that the world that appears to the brain would also exist before or after the existence of brains.” However, the structure of the brain, which is capable of consciousness, which allows the same to be considered responsible for shaping the world, leads to the negation of this hypothesis. That is to say: the brain constructs the world. The world as man imagines it, as he has it before him as his sensory world, is created by processes of the brain, from within. And so man not only creates the images, but he also creates space, time, infinity. For all this, Meynert says, certain mechanisms of the brain exist. From this, man creates, for example, time.

It is a pity that in such lectures, which of course have to be short, one cannot always go into all the individual transitions of these thoughts. That is why some things may appear opaque. But the actual crux of such a way of thinking will be apparent. It must be said that as soon as one is on the way to regarding the brain as the creator of the soul-life as it is found in man in the beginning, then what Meynert says is entirely justified. It lies on this path; one must arrive at it. And one can only avoid such a conclusion if one has a thinking process so well developed that the often very simple counter-arguments immediately come to mind. Just think what the conclusion would be if Meynert's argument were correct: you are all sitting there, listening to what I am saying. Your brain organizes what I say in time. Not only does your auditory nerve convert it into auditory images, but what I say is organized in time. So you all have a kind of dream image of what is being spoken here, including, of course, the person standing in front of you. As for what is behind it, naive realism, says Meynert, assumes that there stands a man like yourselves who speaks all this. But there is no compulsion here; for this man with his words, you create him in your brain; there may be something quite different behind it.

The simple thought that must impose itself, that it also depends on the fact that, for example, I now arrange my ideas in time myself, so that time does not just live in your brain with you, but that time already lives in it, as I place one word after the other – this easily attainable thought does not come at all if you drill in a certain direction. That time has an object, that it lives out there, can be easily seen in the case I have mentioned. But once you are in a certain direction of thought, you do not see left or right, but continue in your direction and arrive at extremely sharp and highly remarkable results. But that is not the point. All the ingenious results that may arise in the course of such a train of thought can be strictly proved, the proofs may strictly interlock. You will never find a mistake in Meynert's thinking if you go on in his stream. But what matters is that thinking is so thoroughly worked through that the counter-arguments can be dealt with, that thinking finds out of itself what throws the whole stream out of its bed. And this, to make thinking so mobile, so active, is precisely what prevents the very justified immersion in the external world, as science must strive for. Therefore, as you can see, this is not a subjective difficulty, but a very objective one, due to the times. This can be experienced in all possible fields.

For more than a hundred years, philosophers have been gnawing away at the old Kantian word with which he wants to unhinge the concept of God. If you merely think of a hundred dollars, they are not a single dollar less than a hundred real dollars. A hundred thought, a hundred possible dollars are exactly the same as a hundred real dollars! On this, that conceptually, mentally, a hundred possible dollars contain everything that a hundred real dollars contain, Kant builds his entire refutation of the so-called ontological proof of God's existence. Now, anyone with agile thought will immediately come up with the most definite objection: for someone with agile thought, with developed thought, a hundred imaginary thalers are, in fact, exactly one hundred thalers less than a hundred real thalers! They are exactly one hundred thalers less. The point is to be made aware of how one has to think, not just that what one thinks can be logically proved. Of course, Kant's fabric of ideas is so firmly supported that only with the utmost acumen can logical errors be detected in it. But what matters is not just to have in mind what arises within certain habitual currents of thought, but to have thought worked out so that one's thinking is truly within the objective world, so that one's thinking is not just within oneself but within the objective world, so that the counter-instances flow to one from the objective world itself. Only a mature thinking can achieve such counter-instances, and only through this does one's thinking acquire a certain affinity with the thinking that objectively pulses and permeates the world.

I said that it is important to grasp the soul in action, so to speak. What is really at issue is that when man wants to grasp the soul, he does not merely draw conclusions based on the fact that it is impossible to develop soul life from the brain and its processes; rather, this soul life must be experienced directly, independently of brain life. Then one can speak of soul life. Today, people look at this inner active experience as if something were being built up inwardly only in the imagination, whereas the true soul researcher knows exactly where imagination ends and where, through the development of one's own soul life, where he does not spin out of fantasy, but where he has connected with the spiritual world and draws from the spiritual world itself that which he then expresses in words or concepts or ideas or images. Only in this way will the soul be able to gain knowledge of itself.

I will now have to develop what appears to be a rather paradoxical view, but a view that must be expressed because it can really shed light on the nature of spiritual research. From what I have said before, you can already see that the spiritual researcher is not at all averse to the idea that the brain produces certain ideas from within itself, so that the soul life that can arise without inner participation can really only be a product of the brain. And a certain habit, which has arisen precisely through the formation of the present, consists in the following: For the reasons indicated, a person becomes averse to seeking anything that he is to consider true through inner activity. He condemns all of this as fantasy or reverie, and then he brings it not only theoretically in his views, but practically to the point that he really excludes what the soul works out in itself, that he excludes it as much as possible in his work towards a world view. When one excludes the life of the soul in this way, the ideal that emerges is the picture of the materialistic world view. What does one actually do when one excludes this inner life? Yes, when one excludes this inner life, it is roughly the same as when one releases one's bodily-physical life from the life of the soul. Just as the watchmaker who has worked on the watch, who has worked his thoughts into it, leaves the watch to itself when it is finished and the watch itself then produces the phenomena that were first placed into it by the watchmaker's thoughts, so the life of the soul can indeed continue, continue in the brain, without the soul being present. And with the present system of education, people are becoming accustomed to this. They not only become accustomed to denying the soul, but actually to eliminating the soul; in short, not to respond to it through inner activity, but to rest on the laurels of what is merely produced by the brain. And the paradox that I want to say is that the purely materialistic world view, as it appears, is in fact a brain product, that it is in fact automatically generated by the self-movement of the brain. The external world is reflected in the brain, which passively sets the brain in motion, and this materialist world view arises. The strange thing is that the materialist is quite right for himself if he has first eliminated the soul life. Because he has taken pure brain-life as his basis, nothing else can appear to him but pure brain-life, which then produces soul-life out of itself, as roughly formulated by the naturalist Carl Vogt: the brain sweats out thoughts, just as the liver sweats out bile. Those thoughts that arise in the field of materialism are indeed sweated out. The image is crude, but they do indeed arise from the brain, just as bile comes out of the liver. This is how errors arise. Errors do not arise simply from saying something wrong, but from saying something right that is valid in a limited field, that is even valid in the only field one wants to have.

The materialistic world view comes not from a logical error, but from the tendency of the mind not to exert itself intellectually, not to deepen its thinking, as has been explained here in the last lectures, not to stir up its inner soul life, but to abandon itself to what the body can do. The materialistic world view does not come from a logical error, but from the tendency of the mind not to be inwardly active at all, but to abandon itself to what the body says. This is the secret of the difficulty in refuting materialism. If someone who does not want to engage his soul life excludes activity from the outset and basically finds it more comfortable to produce only what a brain produces, then it is not surprising that he gets stuck in the realm of materialism. He cannot accept, however, that this brain itself — thank God he has it, because he would not be able to create it with all his materialistic world view! — that this brain itself is created out of the wisdom of the world and that it, because it is created, built up out of the wisdom of the world, is so arranged that it in turn can work like a clock; so that it can be entirely material and produce through itself. This wisdom is a kind of phosphorescence, a phosphorescence that is in the brain itself; it brings out what has already been put into it spiritually. But the materialist does not need to concern himself with this, but simply leaves to what has condensed out of the spiritual, I might say into matter, and which now, as with the work of the clock, produces spiritual products.

You see, the spiritual researcher is so grounded in the justified view of nature that he is compelled to utter something that might seem as paradoxical to some people as what has just been said. But you can see from this that one must already go into the nerve of spiritual science if one wants to judge this spiritual science. And it is also understandable to find, because what can be said again is so well founded, - it is also understandable that so many objections and misunderstandings arise. Spiritual research that is taken seriously is all too easily confused with all that is done in a dilettante manner and which can very easily be mistaken for true, thorough spiritual research. I have often been reproached for the fact that the writings I have written on spiritual science are not popular enough, as they say; that the lectures I give here are not popular enough. Well, I neither write my writings nor give my lectures in order to please anyone, to speak to anyone's heart as they want it to be; but I write my writings and give my lectures as I believe they should be written and given so that spiritual science can be presented to the world in the right way. In older times there was also spiritual science - I have mentioned this often - although spiritual science had to change through the progress of humanity and at that time came from different sources than the spiritual science of today. From the outset, only those who were considered mature were admitted to the places where spiritual science was presented. Today, such an approach would be quite nonsensical. Today we live in public life, and it is taken for granted that what is being investigated is carried into public life, that all secrecy and the like would be foolish. This secrecy cannot be any more than what is otherwise present in public life today: that those who have already studied something are then offered the opportunity to hear something further in more detailed lectures. But that is also done at universities, and in the whole of external life. And when people talk about some kind of secretive behavior, it is just as unjustified and unfounded as when people talk about secretive behavior in university lectures. But so that not everyone who does not want to make an effort to penetrate the subject can penetrate it in so-called popular writings that are so easy on the eye, or rather believe they can penetrate it, the writings are written and the lectures are held in such a way that some effort is necessary and some thought must be applied on the way into the secret science. I am fully aware of how prickly and scientific some of the things I present are for those who do not want such prickly science. But it must be so, if spiritual science is to be properly integrated into the spiritual culture of the present time. It is not surprising that when people here and there, in small or large groups, devote themselves to spiritual science without having any knowledge of the progress of science in our time and with a desire to speak with a certain authority, they are denounced by scientists. Something special, something significant must be seen in the form in which the messages are given. This must be seen in that inner activity, activity of the soul, is necessary in order to see how the soul itself lives as something that uses the body as an instrument, but that is not the same as the physical.

Now, if we look at all this correctly, where do the misunderstandings come from? When the soul develops, when it develops the forces slumbering within it, as has been explained here several times, then the first of these slumbering forces is the power of thought, which must be developed in the way that has just been indicated again. If the soul wants to develop the forces lying dormant in it, it needs a certain inner strength, a certain inner power. It must exert itself inwardly. This is not what people like under the influence of the present time, this inward exertion. Artists are the ones who like it most. But even in the field of art, people have now progressed so far that they would rather just copy nature, having no idea that the soul must first strengthen itself inwardly, must first work inwardly to add something special and new to mere nature. So the power of thinking is the first thing that must be strengthened. Then, as the lectures of the last few weeks have shown, feeling and will must also be energized. And this energizing, that is what it is actually called, that one says: Yes, everything in this spiritual science arises only in an inward way. People shy away from the idea of acquiring strength through something inward, and they do not even consider the considerable difference that must exist between the perception of external nature and the perception of the spiritual world.

Let us take a good, hard look at this difference. What difference arises? With regard to external nature, our organs are already given to us. The eye is given to us. But Goethe has now spoken the beautiful word: “If the eye were not solar, how could we see the light?” As true as it is that you would not hear me if I did not speak, that you must first come to me with your listening in order to understand what is being said, so true is it for Goethe that the eye arose from sunlight itself, light itself, albeit indirectly through all kinds of hereditary and complicated natural processes, the eye has arisen, that the eye not only creates light in the Schopenhauerian sense, but that it itself is created by light. That is to be firmly held. But one could say: thank God for those who want to be materialistic: they no longer need to create their eyes, because these eyes are created out of the spiritual; they already have them, and by perceiving the world, they use these already finished eyes. They direct these eyes towards external impressions, and the external impressions are reflected; with the whole soul they are reflected in the sense organs. Let us assume that a human being could only experience the development of the eye with his present consciousness. Let us assume that. Let us assume that a human being enters nature as a child, with only the predisposition for the eyes. The eyes would have to arise through the influence of sunlight. What would take place in the growth of the human being? The result would be that through the sunbeams, which are not yet visible themselves, the eyes would be brought out of the organization, and by sensing: I have eyes, he senses light in the eye. By knowing the eye as his, as his organization, he senses the eye living in the light. In this way, it is basically the same with sense perception today: the human being experiences himself by experiencing in the light. With his eye in the light, he experiences what has been developed through sense perception, where, as I said, thank God, we already have our eyes.

But this must also be the case with spiritual research. There must really be brought out of the still unformed soul the organic, there must first be brought out spiritual hearing, spiritual seeing. The organic, the spiritual eye, the spiritual ear, as it were, must first be brought out of the inner being, to use these expressions of Goethe's again and again. There one must really feel one's way in the spiritual world by developing one's soul, and then, by feeling one's way in it, one forms the organs, and in the organs one experiences the spiritual world just as one experiences the physical-sensual world in the organs of the physical body. So first of all that which man already has here for sense perception must be created. He must have the power to create the organs first in order to experience himself in the spiritual world through these organs.

What stands in the way of this is what can truly be called nothing more than the inner weakness of the human being that has been produced by today's education. Weakness, that is what holds man back from taking hold of his inner being in the same way that one takes hold of something with one's hands. It is a foolish expression to say, but let us say it, to take hold of one's inner being in such a way that it is really active inwardly, as it would be if one first created hands to touch the table. So he creates his inner being to touch what is spiritual, and with the spiritual he touches spiritual. It is weakness, then, that keeps men from penetrating to real spiritual research. And it is weakness that gives rise to the misunderstandings that stand in the way of spiritual research: inward weakness of soul, an inability to see the possibility of reshaping the inwardly material into inwardly spiritual organs in order to grasp the spiritual world (because we still have traces of Faustism). That is one thing.

And there is a second point, which can be understood if one is willing to do so: Man always has a strange feeling about the unknown; above all, he has a feeling of fear about the unknown. Now, in the beginning, everything that can be experienced in the world of the senses is a complete unknown, which cannot only be explored in the spiritual world, but about which one must also speak when speaking of the spiritual world. One has a fear of the spiritual world, but a fear of a very special kind, namely a fear that does not come to consciousness. And how does the materialistic, the mechanistic, the, as one says today, “educated” — materialistic it is, after all! — monistic world view arise? It arises from the fact that there is fear in the soul of that breakthrough of sensuality, because one is afraid precisely of the fact that if one breaks through to the spiritual through sensuality, one comes into the unknown, into nothingness, as Mephistopheles says to Faust. And Faust says: “In your nothingness I hope to find the All.” Fear of what can only be sensed as the nothing, but a masked fear, fear that wears a mask! It is necessary to realize that there are subconscious or unconscious soul processes, soul processes that proliferate down there in the soul life. It is remarkable how people deceive themselves about many things. For example, it is a very common delusion to believe that one does not really want something out of a very thick selfishness, but one wants it out of selfishness. Instead, one invents all sorts of excuses about how selflessly, how lovingly one wants to do this or that. In this way, a mask is placed over the egoism. This occurs particularly often, for example, in societies that come together to cultivate love. Yes, one can even make studies about such masking of egoism quite often. I knew a man who repeatedly stated that what he was doing, he was doing entirely against his actual intention and against what he loves; he was only doing it because he considered it necessary for the good of humanity. I kept saying: Don't fool yourself! You are doing it out of your own selfishness, because you like it, and then it is better to admit the truth. Then you are on the ground of truth when you admit that you like the things you want to do and do not keep any such mask.

Fear is what leads to the rejection of spiritual science today. But this fear is not admitted. They have it in their soul, but they do not let it up into their consciousness and invent reasons, reasons against spiritual science, proofs that man must immediately begin to fantasize when he leaves the solid ground of sensual observation and so on. Yes, they invent very complicated proofs. They set up entire philosophies, which in turn can be logically incontestable. They invent entire philosophical worldviews that actually mean nothing more to those who have insight into such things than that everything they invent – be it transcendental realism, empiricist realism, be it more or less speculative realism, metaphysical realism, and whatever these “isms” are called – arises from fear. These “isms” are invented and worked out from very strict lines of thought. But at bottom they are nothing more than the fear of setting the soul on the path that leads to experiencing in its concreteness what one feels to be the unknown. These are the two main reasons for the misunderstanding of spiritual science: weakness of the soul life, fear of the supposed unknown. And anyone who understands the human soul can analyze today's worldviews in terms of it. On the one hand, they arise from the impossibility of strengthening thinking itself in such a way that the counter-instances immediately reach it, and on the other hand, there is the fear of the unknown. Sometimes, because of the fear of penetrating into the so-called unknown, one even lets the unknown be unknown, and many say: Yes, we admit: behind the world of the senses there is still a spiritual world, but man – we can prove this strictly – cannot penetrate into it. Most people then start, when they want to prove something, with the words, “Kant already said,” because they always assume that the person to whom they say, “Kant already said,” does not understand anything about Kant. So people invent proofs that the human mind cannot penetrate into the world that lies behind sensuality. These are only excuses, however ingenious they may be, excuses for fear. But they do assume that there is something behind sensuality. They call this the unknown and prefer to found an agnosticism in Spencer's sense or in some other sense, rather than find the courage to really lead their soul into the spiritual world. |

Recently, a strange Weltanschhauung has come into being, the so-called Weltanschhauung of the “as if.” It has even been transplanted into Germany. Hans Vaihinger has written a thick book about the Weltanschhauung of the “as if.” In this philosophy of life, one says: Man cannot say that such concepts as the unity of his consciousness really correspond to reality, but man must look at the phenomena of the world as if there were a unified soul, as if there were something at the basis of it all that is conceived as a unified soul. Atoms – the as-if philosophers cannot deny that no one has ever seen an atom and that one must think of the atom in such a way that it cannot be seen, because even light is only supposed to arise through the vibrations of the atom. At least the as-if philosophers do not speak of the fable of the atomic world that still haunts this or that corner. But they say: Well, it just makes it easier to understand the sensory world if we think of the sensory world as if atoms existed.

Those who have an active soul life will notice the difference between moving with their active soul life in a spiritual reality, in the unified soul weaving, or merely asserting a concept in external, intellectual realism, as if the phenomena of human activity were summarized by a soul being. At least if one really stands on the practical ground of world-views, one will not be able to apply the as-if philosophy well. For example, a philosopher who is highly esteemed today is Fritz Mauthner, who is regarded as a great authority because he has finally transcended Kantianism. Whereas Kant still conceived of concepts as something with which reality is summarized, Mauthner sees language merely as that in which the world view is actually concluded. And so he has now happily brought about his “Critique of Language” and written a thick “Philosophical Dictionary” from this point of view, and above all acquired a following that regards him as a great man. Well, I do not want to go into Fritz Mauthner today, I just want to say: one could now try to apply the as-if philosophy to this Fritz Mauthner. One could say: let's leave it open whether the man has spirit, has genius, but let's look at what he is spiritually as if he had spirit. You will see, if you go about it sincerely, that you will not succeed. The 'as if' cannot be applied where the thing does not exist.

In short, it is necessary, to say it once more, to get to the root of spiritual science itself and that one knows precisely in spiritual science what this spiritual science must recognize as justified on the ground on which misunderstandings can arise. For, however much these misunderstandings are misunderstandings on the one hand, it is equally true on the other hand that these misunderstandings are nevertheless justified if the spiritual scientist is not fully able to think along with what the natural scientist is thinking. The spiritual researcher must be able to think along with the natural scientist. Indeed, he must even be able to test the natural scientist at times, especially those who always emphasize standing on the firm ground of natural science. Admittedly, even if one only tests it superficially, as it stands with an apparently purely positivistic world view, which rejects everything spiritual, then the following becomes apparent. As you know, I do not underestimate Ernst Haeckel where the esteem is justified; I fully recognize him. But when he speaks of Weltanschauung, it is precisely in this that his weakness of soul reveals itself, which is not capable of pursuing anything but the one path he has taken. And here we come upon an example that must be emphasized again and again when one is seriously concerned with the present time. We come upon the infinitely widespread superficiality of thinking and the general dishonesty of life. For example, we see how Ernst Haeckel points out that one of the greatest authorities to which he himself refers is Karl Ernst von Baer. And again and again we find Karl Ernst von Baer cited as a man who is supposed to prove the purely materialistic world view that Haeckel derives from his research. How many people go to gain insight into what is actually behind today's scientific endeavor? How many people go and touch something like this? How many people stop to consider that Haeckel writes: Karl Ernst von Baer can be seen as someone who speaks in the way that Haeckel derives from it! So one naturally believes that Baer speaks in the way that Haeckel can derive from it. Well, I will read you a few passages from Karl Ernst von Baer: “The earth is only the seedbed on which the spiritual heritage of man proliferates, and the history of nature is not only the history of progressive victories of the spiritual over matter. That is the fundamental idea of Creation, to the end of which, no, for its accomplishment, it causes individuals and generations to fade away and builds the future on the scaffolding of an immeasurable past.

Haeckel constantly cites this wonderful, spiritual view of the world! We must pursue scientific development. If only this were the case to some extent today with those who want to be called to it, one would not have to struggle so terribly against the superficiality that produces the countless prejudices and errors that then stand in the way of such a pursuit as spiritual science as misunderstandings.

Or let us take a look at an honorable man in the nineteenth-century quest for a worldview: David Friedrich Strauß, an honorable man – they are all honorable, after all! Starting from other views, he ultimately wants to place himself entirely on the ground: The soul is only a product of the material. Man has emerged entirely from what today's materialism wants to call nature. When one speaks of will, there is no real will, but rather brain molecules somehow revolve, and then the will arises as a haze. In this context, David Friedrich Strauss says: “In man, nature has not only wanted upwards in general, it has wanted beyond itself.” That is: nature wills! One has arrived at the point where one can be a materialist without even taking his words seriously. Man is denied the will because man is supposed to be like nature, and then one says: that nature has willed. One can easily pass over such a matter. But anyone who is serious about striving for a worldview will realize that such things are the source of countless aberrations and that these things are instilled into the public consciousness. And from what then arises from this instillation, misunderstandings arise regarding true spiritual science and true spiritual research.

And from the other side come the objections of those who profess this or that religious creed and believe that their religion is endangered by the coming of a spiritual science. I must emphasize again and again: it is the very same people who opposed Copernicus, Galileo and so on, who objected that religion would be endangered if it were to be proposed that the earth moves around the sun. One can only say to these people: how timid you actually are within your religions! How little you have grasped your religion if you are immediately afraid that your religion could be endangered if anything is researched! I always have to mention that theologian, who remained a good theologian and a devout follower of his church, who was a friend of mine, who was then elected rector of the University of Vienna in the 1990s and who, in his speech, which he gave about Galileo, said: “There were once people – we know that within a certain religious community these people existed until 1822, when it was allowed to believe in the Copernican world view! – there were once people who believed that something like the Copernican or Galilean world view could endanger religions. Today we have to be so far, said this theologian, this devout priest and follower of his church until his deathbed, that we find religion in particular to be deepened, strengthened by the fact that we look into the glory of the works of the Divine, that we learn to recognize them more and more. That was Christian talk!

But more and more people will emerge who say: Yes, this spiritual science says this or that about Christ; one should not say that. We imagine the Christ to be like this or like that. One can even come and tell these people: We do indeed accept what you say about the Christ, exactly as you say it. We just see a little more. We do not see this Christ as just a being, as you do, but as a Being, even as a cosmic Being, who gives the earth meaning and significance in the whole universe. But you are not allowed to do that. You are not allowed to go beyond what certain people see as the right thing. Spiritual science provides insights. Through the realization of the truth, one can never want to somehow justify something that is called a religious creation, even though there will always be fools who say of spiritual science that it wants to found a new religion. Spiritual science does not want to found a new religion. Religions are founded in a completely different way. Christianity was founded by its founder through the Christ Jesus living on earth. And just as little as any science will explain the Thirty Years War when it recognizes it, so it will explain just as little anything else that was there in reality. Religions are based on facts, on facts that have happened. Spiritual science can only claim to understand these facts differently, or perhaps not even differently, but only in a higher sense than one can without spiritual science. But it is equally true that, whether from a high or a low point of view, by understanding the Thirty Years' War, one does not somehow establish something in the world that is connected with the Thirty Years' War. It is always the superficiality that sometimes also feels limited in its perceptions and does not want to engage with the things that are actually at stake. If one were to engage with spiritual science, one would recognize that although the materialistic worldview may easily lead people away from religious feeling and religious contemplation, spiritual science establishes precisely that in man which can be a deeper religious experience, but only because it lays bare the deeper roots of the soul and thus leads man in a deeper way to an experience of that which has emerged externally and historically as religion. Spiritual science will not found a new religion. It knows only too well that Christianity once gave meaning to the earth. It will only try to deepen this Christianity more than others who do not stand on the ground of spiritual science can deepen it. From materialism, however, something like this has been achieved, as, for example, David Friedrich Strauß concluded, who calls the belief in resurrection a humbug and then says: The resurrection had to be put forward, because Christ Jesus said many noble things, said many truths. But if you say truths, says David Friedrich Strauß, you do not make a special impression on people; you have to embellish it with a great miracle, the miracle of the resurrection. But then all Christian development would be a result of humbug! That, indeed, is what materialism has brought. Spiritual science will not do that! Spiritual science will try to understand from its very foundations that which lives in the mystery of resurrection, in order to present to mankind, which has now advanced and can no longer understand it in the old way, that which materialism has called a humbug, in the right way. But the aim here is not to engage in religious propaganda, but only to draw attention to the significance of spiritual science and to the misunderstandings that stand in its way and that stem from an assumed religious life.

Today, people have not yet reached the point where materialism would have a bad moral result on a large scale, but it would soon have it if people could not penetrate the spiritual self-active foundations of the soul life through spiritual science. Spiritual science will also mean something for what humanity needs as a moral life, which can give people a rebirth at a higher level of this moral life.

These things can only be characterized in general terms. Time does not permit a detailed description. I have tried to at least characterize some of the misunderstandings that are repeatedly found when spiritual science is judged. I would never want to engage with what arises from the general superficiality of our time, at least not in the sense of refuting anything. Sometimes one could at most engage with it in the sense of providing a little material to make people smile or perhaps even laugh.

As I said, one cannot engage with the kind of superficiality that is spreading today and that is, in a sense, setting the tone because printing ink on white paper still has a great magical effect. But insofar as the objections that are made, even if they say nothing at all, are instilled into the public, one must speak of them. And the misunderstandings that arise from what comes out of such instilling are what one has to struggle with at every turn today if one takes something like spiritual science seriously. Again and again one encounters objections that do not arise from some activity of the soul, but are instilled by the general superficiality that reigns and lives in our time. But anyone who is familiar with spiritual science knows, as I have often explained here, that this spiritual science must and will develop in the same way as everything that, in a sense, must incorporate something new into the spiritual development of humanity. From a certain point of view, such an encounter was granted to the newer natural scientific world view until it became powerful and could work through external power factors and no longer needed to work merely through its own power. Then the time comes when, even without the soul being activated, world views can be built on such factors that have power. Is there a big difference between two things? Those who today base their monistic world-views on many grounds consider themselves wonderfully exalted, sublimely above those who may stand on the ground of a religious-theological world-view and, in the opinion of the former, are quite dogmatically limited, swearing only by authority. For anyone who looks into the way in which misunderstandings arise, it is of no great merit in terms of what the human soul really works for, whether one swears by the church fathers Gregory, Tertullian , Irenaeus or Augustine, and also look upon them as authorities, or whether one looks upon the church fathers Darwin, Haeckel, Helmholtz, insofar as they are really church fathers, and swears by them. What matters first is not whether one swears by one or the other, but what matters is how one stands in the process of acquiring a world view. And in a higher sense, in a much higher sense than mere abstract idealism could, the following will apply to spiritual science: at first it will be met with misunderstanding and error everywhere; but then what at first appeared as fantasy, as reverie, will become a matter of course. This is how it was with Copernicanism and Keplerism, and how it is with everything that is to be incorporated into the spiritual development of mankind. At first it is nonsense, then it becomes a matter of course. This is also the fate of spiritual science.

But this spiritual science has something important to say to humanity, as can be seen from everything I have said in other lectures and will probably also emerge from today's lecture. It has something to say to humanity that points to the living entity that makes a human being a human being in the first place: it does not present itself to him for passive contemplation, does not reveal itself to him from the outside, but he must grasp it himself in a living way, he can only recognize its existence through his own activity. We must overcome the weakness that regards everything as fantasy whose existence cannot be grasped in passive surrender, but only in active inner cooperation with the whole of the world. Only when he realizes that knowledge of it can only become his if it becomes active knowledge will man know what he is and what his destiny is. The spirit already has the strength to struggle through, and it will struggle through against all misunderstandings that are justified in the sense intended today, and all the more so against those that arise from the superficiality of the time. For it is a beautiful saying, which Goethe claims is in harmony, as he himself says, with an ancient sage:

If the eye were not solar,
How could we behold the light?
If the god-own power were not in us,
How could we delight in the divine?

The divine spiritual essence that weaves and lives through the world is that from which we originated, emerged. Our material world is also born of the spiritual. And only because it is already born and man does not need to produce it in his own activity, does man, if he is a materialist, believe in it one-sidedly today. The spiritual must be grasped in living activity. The divine spiritual must first weave itself into the human being, the spiritual sun must first create its organs in the human being. Thus one could modify Goethe's saying by saying: If the inner eye does not become spirit-like, it can never behold the light that is the essence of the human being. If the human soul cannot unite with that from which it has come from eternity to eternity, with the Divine-Spiritual, which is one being with its own being, then she will be unable to grasp the glimpse of light into the spiritual, then the spiritual eye will not be able to arise in her, then she will never be able to delight in the Divine in the spiritual sense, then the world will be empty and barren for human knowledge. For we can only find that in the world for which we create the organs for.

If the outer physical eye were not sun-like, how could we behold the light? If the inner eye does not become spirit-sun-like, we can never behold the spiritual light of the human entity. If man's own inner activity does not become truly spiritual and divine itself, then never can that which makes him a true human being, the spirit of the world, which lives, weaves and works through the world and comes to human consciousness in him, even if he does not come to God-consciousness, never can that come through his soul's pulsations.

On March 23 and 24, I will speak here again, tying in with Nietzsche's tragic world view with Wagner and about some more intimate, more precise truths that can lead the human soul to truly break through the world of the senses and enter into the living spiritual life. I will then speak in more detail about this path of the human soul into the spiritual world than has been possible so far.

On the development of the German world view in the present day

As one of the greatest tragedies of the soul, Nietzsche's intellectual life presents itself in the development of humanity in terms of intellectual culture in the last third of the nineteenth century and shines not only through the nature of its course, but above all through its very special relation to much that lives spiritually in the present, shining over into the immediate present.

In the lectures I had the honor of giving during the winter, I tried to characterize German intellectual life from various points of view in the period that can be called the great age of German idealism, the period in which a Fichte, a Schelling, and a Hegel, among others, emerged from the depths of the human soul, and perhaps one can say, even more from the depths of the soul's strong forces, to world picture that is really a kind of background to that tremendous flowering of modern intellectual life that is revealed in Herder, Lessing, Goethe, Schiller and the others who belong to them. In one of the last lectures, I then tried to show how the tone of German intellectual life, struck by these great minds, has lived on to our days, but one can say: it has lived on more under the surface of the popularized intellectual life, so that in many ways it has appeared to us as a sound that has faded away, as a forgotten striving within the German intellectual development of the nineteenth century and into the present.

And indeed, anyone who looks at the huge break that occurred around the middle of the nineteenth century in Central European cultural life can easily understand why the character of the time more or less just faded away unnoticed. It was out of an intellectual and intellectually related power of mind that German intellectual life at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in the first third of the nineteenth century, sought to penetrate into the depths of the secrets of the world through the aforementioned minds. And we shall not be doing Hegel an injustice if we take a little time to consider what was in his consciousness: that he had succeeded in driving the development of human thought so far that a supreme goal had been achieved within this development of human thought. And the turning point just mentioned shows us how, after the first third of the nineteenth century, thinking, the intellectual life in particular, was brought to the point where, one might say, a kind of rest, a kind of breathing space, became necessary. Only minds that could approach their intellectual work with the same energy as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel could occupy themselves with the innermost and, if the word is not misunderstood, one can say, most abstract powers of the soul so intensely and powerfully. And one could not sustain the long breath that was necessary for that breadth of an idealistic worldview. The consequence of this was that a paralysis set in which, with regard to all that these very minds sought in the highest, testifies to a certain lack of understanding, one might say, to a certain paralysis, even today. As high as thinking, feeling and the purely spiritual will, which is directed not towards the external but towards the life of the soul itself, rose with Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, it was not possible to rise in the culture as a whole. The reality value in this striving could not be felt consistently. But it was felt that reality should be sought through this striving. And, as a continuation of this striving, a thirst arose for reality, a thirst for that on which man can stand firmly. This was expressed in the fact that one initially entered into a sharp opposition to all that the above-mentioned spirits had created. In their abstract trains of thought one could not find the reality for which one thirsted. And so it came about that the thirst for reality wanted above all to be satisfied by what the outer senses offered, that the human spirit wanted to penetrate first into all that the strict, safe natural science could establish, which was limited to the senses and the mind bound to the human brain, as a world view.

The leading spirit, by whose contemplation one can almost see what was at stake in this turning-point in modern spiritual life, is Feuerbach. One need only characterize a few thoughts of his world-view to see what is at stake. Feuerbach started precisely from Hegel. He started from the idealistic conception of the world which the German mind has created. But the living soul of Feuerbach was confronted with the question: What is all that a Hegel has been striving for? What can be found on the path that runs in such abstracted thought movements? There is nothing to be found that leads to the spirit itself. Everything that can be found on this path about the spiritual world is nothing more than what the soul creates out of itself, what the human soul finds within itself on the basis of the reality of the body, what it penetrates to. All that it has created, it projects out into the world, so to speak; that becomes its spiritual world. And so, out of the thirst for reality, a placing of the human being in the world-view picture arises, just as he is directly in the sense world. One wanted to take the human being as a whole human being, but precisely for that reason one had to omit from what one saw as reality what arose on the path of this spiritual life. And so man's attention was directed to how he presents himself within the realm that could now be called reality, the realm of the senses and what the brain-bound mind could make of this realm of the senses.

How did man stand before himself with such a world view? Man stood before himself in such a way that he could know: A spiritual world is opening up in you, a world is opening up in you that you must not miss if you want to partake of true human dignity. Something lives in you that must go far, far beyond nature. But how could man come to terms with what he had to bring forth within himself, to create within himself, and what could not appear to him as reality in the sense of the natural existence? This question, translated into the realm of feeling, forms, one might say, a crucial nerve of the entire world-view striving in the second half of the nineteenth century, indeed, into our own days. The human being who cannot justify himself to himself with what he produces spiritually: that became the great question, that became the anxious riddle of life, not so much in this formulation in which I express it, but in the sensations and feelings in which it pushed its way up from the depths of precisely the most striving souls.

And the spirits that emerged in the nineteenth century, which had to raise questions of world view and could not bring themselves to that faded tone in German intellectual life, as mentioned a few weeks ago, initially faced this very characterization of the life-question, world-view question in this way. It is as if for a time the strong forces could not be found among the leading exponents of the world view, in order to find anything at all that could provide an answer to the questions that have just been described. A remarkable fact presents itself here. Those who are philosophers, leading philosophers, who attempt to construct a Weltanschhauung out of natural science, all of them feel, as it were, this powerlessness just described. And this powerlessness fundamentally permeates nineteenth-century philosophy.

In a strange way, the Feuerbach worldview, and with it everything that now set the tone, was confronted by a musician, a personality in whom abstract thinking did not live so much, who initially did not want to follow the usual path of abstract thinking in matters of worldview, in order to arrive at the solution of the world's riddles. A personality was confronted with Feuerbach's question who, in his deepest inner being, lived and worked musically and wanted to work in this way: Richard Wagner. It was in the forties when Richard Wagner grappled with Feuerbach's world view in his soul. Before Richard Wagner's soul, in which everything was alive musically, not in concepts, ideas and thoughts, stood the man whom one had placed at the center of the world view and who, for the reasons characterized earlier, was first and foremost a mere sensual man. But this man was confronted by a soul that was musically active. The musical element lives and moves in the sensual realm. But it cannot live and weave only in the sensual, unless it is grasped as in the soul of Richard Wagner. Here in the musical, the sensual itself works as a spiritual, it must work as a spiritual. For if we turn our senses to nature, wherever we want, what is in the truest sense of the word musical content cannot come to us directly from nature. Goethe says: Music is the purest form and content, for it has no actual model in nature, as the other arts do. And yet, it makes a complete impression on the mind; and everything that makes an impression on the mind is spiritual. Thus in music there is an element that cannot be attained by following the paths of mere observation of nature, that cannot be seen by the human being that Feuerbach placed in the image of nature. And yet, in the realm of music, there is an element that, to an extraordinary degree, accommodated the urge of the time for sensory perception and sensory comprehension. And since Richard Wagner's soul lived in the remarkable (one cannot say discord, but rather consonance), being entirely musical, but not as a philosopher's soul, but rather as a musical soul, a soul seeking knowledge, it could not be otherwise than that in Wagner's musical ideas, in Wagner's musical feelings, the questions mentioned played a role in a completely different way than they could have done in a philosopher's soul.

And another element was added. It would be fascinating to characterize in detail how this second element came to be in Richard Wagner's soul. But there is no time for that. I will only hint at what this second element is and how it was added to the first. A second element is added: the contemplation of what had been created out of the Germanic spirit and soul within Central Europe in the way of myths and of the permeation of life with the mythical. Gradually, a wonderful contrast emerged in Wagner's soul, which, as it appeared in Central Europe, is nowhere else present in the spiritual development of mankind. And recently it appeared in Richard Wagner's soul like a renewal of Germanic myth. There we have an intimate coexistence and interweaving of the human soul with all that is elemental in nature, a loving engagement precisely with the sensually alive. It is to the Teutonic view of nature that we are appealing in these words, to that view of nature which can only live in souls that feel no direct discord between the soul and the physical in human life, because they sense the soul in such a way that this soul not only lives within the human being, but is one with that which blows in the wind, works in the storm, in everything that lives and pulsates in nature as soul and, I would say, the human being himself, who can be experienced inwardly, experienced again outwardly. And in addition to this feeling, this recognizing feeling and feeling-recognizing of nature, which is contained as a basic drive in all the abilities of the Germanic people, there is also a looking up to a world of gods that is well known, that can of course be interpreted in a naturalistic way, but this interpretation is at least one-sided. This upward gaze to Wotan, this upward gaze to Donar, this upward gaze to Baldur, to the other Germanic gods and to all that is connected with these Germanic gods in Germanic myth, this upward is really what the spiritual man finds when he does not merely direct himself towards nature, but when he abandons himself to his own productivity, his creative power. This world of Germanic gods and heroes and heroic geniuses is full of life. But it is not exhausted if it is seen as mere symbolism of nature.

Now Richard Wagner had taken up the view that the human being initially appears to be an end of nature's creation. What the human being forms in terms of ideas about a higher world arises in the human being. According to the newer world view, as it has just emerged, no such reality can be ascribed to it as to sensory things. The anxious question arose in him: How can one even come to a creative process in human life? Nature creates. It creates through its various stages of being up to and including the human being. The human being becomes aware of himself. The human being experiences what he produces. It appears merely as something created by the human being, which has no value in terms of reality. How can we have confidence in what the human being creates within himself? How can one trust it so that it forms a basis for man not merely to place himself in nature as it has created him, but so that he can place himself in the creation with something valid?

A figure, a central figure, had to arise in Wagner's soul, who would place himself in nature in this way, but also, with all the powers that nature itself has given him, give himself strength, security, and the ability to develop beyond the natural existence. But Richard Wagner had to assume that when man creates from his inner being, he is in fact only projecting the images that his imagination has produced, adding a non-real realm to the real realm. What right does the human soul have to create something beyond nature? This question of feeling and emotion arose. What right is there, already in the existence of nature itself, in the blowing wind, in lightning and thunder, to sense spirituality and even more: to create a spiritual being above all of nature, as in Germanic mythology? How can one find a link between the two? Philosophy could not do it in those days, insofar as it was the prevailing philosophy. Richard Wagner's musical soul undertook it. It actually undertook it out of an urge that was at the same time a deeply characteristic trait of the newer Central European essence in general. How so? Yes, if you compare what Germanic myth, the Germanic way of penetrating into the natural world, is with what Greek myth, Greek penetration into natural life, was, then only an external observer can believe that the two are in the same field. Because that is not the case. Here too it would be interesting to probe into the deeper psychological underpinnings, but again, one can only characterize them with a few sketchy strokes.

The whole of Greek intellectual life is geared towards looking outwards and creating myths from the plastic forms that the soul undertakes with what is presented by the outside world, bringing the myth to life in forms, in plastic forms. The way the Greek feels and senses is how his feeling and sensing passes from his own being into the external world, flows fully into external existence. And so the wonderfully rounded plastic forms come into being, which live within Greek myth and then out of Greek myth in Greek art.

The same is not true of Germanic myth. Only with great difficulty can one dream such complete forms, such as the forms that live in Greek myth, the figures of gods and heroes of Greek myth, into Germanic myth. If one does this, then fundamentally Germanic myth becomes something quite different. If one wants to understand Germanic myth, one must be able to let that sense of humanity lovingly enter into the nature of things without bringing it to plastic form; one must let this essence rise up to the figures of the gods Wotan, Donar, Baldur and so on. And one must also refrain from creating fixed, rounded figures up there. If one really wants to live oneself into this myth, then everything must remain mobile, so only mobile sculpture can express plastic movement, which was actually alive in the Germanic souls. But how can one, then, when one enters into the essence of the matter itself, find a bond between what is felt in nature, what directly confronts one in the sensory world, and what is seen above as the world of the gods? One can only do it – and one only knows that one can do it when one has absorbed the basic nerve of Germanic myth in the right way – one can only do it through musical feeling. There is no way to find those currents that the soul must follow from Wotan down into the existence of nature, and again up from the existence of nature into the life and weaving of the gods in Valhalla – there is no other possibility than musical intuition, that musical intuition which in what it has before it has immediately an inwardness, has a spiritual element that is completely sensually realized.

And that is the fundamental difference between that great epoch of human development that we feel as Greek and that which we feel as Germanic. In Greek intellectual life, the I was not yet so alive, human self-awareness was not yet so developed as it was to develop within Germanic intellectual life and up into German intellectual life. The Greek lived with his entire soul life more outwardly. What is significant in the progress of humanity is that in addition to this Greek life outwardly, there is the inner grasping, the inner strengthening. But the inner life cannot be grasped in a formative way. If it is to be felt artistically, it must be felt in music, just as the Greek life must be felt in sculpture. And just as there is a transition from the more self-free way of the Greek world view to the ego-permeated way of the newer world view, there is a transition from sculptural creation to musical feeling in the progress of humanity.

That is the tremendously significant thing, that Richard Wagner was the personality who, not out of the arbitrariness of the soul, but out of the experience of what pulsated in time itself, could have as his personal experience precisely that which was the experience of time. The musical element, which therefore had to be in the world view, was felt by the thoroughly musical soul of Richard Wagner. And so it came about that Richard Wagner, entirely out of the need of the time, out of the deepest nerve of the spiritual life of the time, was able to connect the myth with the musical element. And what the ongoing philosophy could not be, could not express in words, concepts and ideas, was expressed in the musical element. There it is. And when we have to experience the philosophical, when we have to experience the purely intellectual like a fading sound, one is tempted to say: the musical enters through Richard Wagner in the second half of the nineteenth century, and this musical becomes a substitute for the path of knowledge, which is otherwise sought in a completely different way.

And now, as events of this kind are bound to occur in the life of man as an inner destiny, something else occurred for Richard Wagner. His acquaintance with Feuerbach remained somewhat unsatisfactory for Richard Wagner. On the one hand, his passion for music was strong enough to enable him to find what could not be found by pure reasoning, but on the other hand, as is inevitable in our modern times, he was also driven to consciously absorb what he was doing, to consciously create enlightenment for himself about the relationship between his artistic work, which he perceived as completely new, and the deepest world secrets of existence. And here Schopenhauer's philosophy came to his aid. It is not so important to consider this philosophy as it must be taken objectively, but rather to consider it as it affected Richard Wagner. This Schopenhauerian philosophy showed him that man, when he clings to his intellectuality, to his mere imagination, can never penetrate the secrets of existence. He must draw much deeper forces from the depths of his being if he wants to live together with the secrets of the world. Therefore, for Schopenhauer, everything that was merely intellectual, everything that lived only in thoughts, in concepts, in ideas, was something that not only produced mere images of existence, but that had to produce such mere images that actually only give a dream of existence. But if the soul really wants to grow together with reality, it must not merely think, it must draw deeper forces from its depths. And Schopenhauer found that if man really wants to recognize the forces of existence, he cannot grasp them in thought, in imagination, but that he must grasp them in the living will, in the weaving of the will, not in intellectuality. And further, Schopenhauer was able to show how all that is valuable in the individual human being comes out of this element of will: all that is ingenious, all that is devotion and willingness to sacrifice for the world, yes, even compassion itself, which permeates everything moral. All this is connected with deeper forces than mere intellectuality. In short, man must go beyond the merely pictorial, the life of imagination, and connect himself with that in which the thirst for reality, of which we have spoken, can be more fully satisfied than in mere intellectuality, which is bound up with the physical life of the brain. But in what the will experiences, Schopenhauer not only found the center of the human personality, but in it he also found the center of all real art. All other arts, Schopenhauer imagines, must take the representations out of the will, must shape the images. There is only one art that does not become an image, but that is able to reveal the will directly to the outside world, as it reveals itself within man, and that is music. For Schopenhauer, musical art thus takes center stage in the whole of modern artistic life, and through this, one can also say that Schopenhauer senses something of the primal musical character of all true world-view striving. And even if one does not want to or perhaps cannot accept Schopenhauer's ideas, one must recognize in what Schopenhauer unconsciously felt about human will and its connection with the musical, something that in turn is most intimately connected with the lifeblood of intellectual life in modern times.

How must Richard Wagner, with his profoundly musical soul, have felt about a world view like Schopenhauer's, which showed him what music actually means in the overall world life? Did he not basically have before him in music that of which he had to say: however the scientific world view may shape itself, the fact of music will never be made clear or explainable in human nature by the scientific world view. Where man becomes musical, the spirit reigns in man, and yet there is no need to go into an abstract intellectuality, into abstract concepts, into a mere world of ideas, but one remains within the realm of the obvious. And the urge arose in Richard Wagner to now shape the music itself in such a way that he could feel it to be fulfilling, so to speak, such an ideal, which Schopenhauer tried to achieve in relation to his view of music. A performing, productive artist like Richard Wagner was in a different position from Schopenhauer, the philosopher, when it came to such truth. Schopenhauer, the philosopher, could only look at music as it presented itself to him. It appeared to him as an object, so to speak, and in it he sensed the rule and pulsation of the will. In Richard Wagner, the productive man, something different arose. He now really felt the urge to develop the musical element to such an extent that something would take effect in the musical element that he expressed, which would show exactly how the spiritual and the sensual can, one might say, consciously merge in music.

And from this point of view, “Tristan”, “Tristan and Isolde”, does indeed appear as the one work of art by Richard Wagner – after all, it was composed only after “Tannhäuser”, “Lohengrin” and so on – in which he consciously wanted to reshape the musical element in such a way that everything that was musically given as a means of expressing the weaving and working of the most sensual element was at the same time a metaphysical, a supersensible working in the most sensual element. Thus, in Richard Wagner, his ideal of the further development of the musical was truly something like an ideal of knowledge of modern times. And again, this ideal of knowledge of modern times is most consciously striven for by Richard Wagner in Tristan.

Tristan is the work that first kindled Friedrich Nietzsche's enthusiasm for Richard Wagner. The young Nietzsche sought to penetrate the music of Tristan. And this penetration into an element that was only sensual to the extent that a spiritual element pulsates everywhere in everything merely sensual — this penetration into Tristan became the occasion for Nietzsche's experience with Richard Wagner, with Richard Wagner's art, with Richard Wagner's philosophy; it was the occasion of the experience that Nietzsche had with Schopenhauer and with all that can now be linked to the interaction of the three souls, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Wagner. And for Nietzsche, who actually started out in philology but, with his ingeniously comprehensive mind, absorbed everything he could from philology, something special now begins, something with which, I would say, the introduction, the exposition is given to his life tragedy, which now actually unfolds with a wonderful inner necessity, despite its apparent contradictions. These apparent contradictions in Nietzsche's mental life are nothing other than the contradictions within a deeply moving, harrowing life drama, a life tragedy; they are the way contradictions in a tragedy must be, because life itself, when it flows in its depths, cannot exist without contradictions. What then is this deepest peculiarity of Nietzsche's soul life? Other minds that have striven in modern times, when they feel the need, form a certain world and life view, a sum of concepts and ideas, perhaps also another element of the soul that is supposed to lead into the secret depths of existence. when such minds, such souls, can come to find a certain lack of contradictions in the individual parts of the world view, they take up this world view, reject other things that contradict their world view, and thus live with their world view developed within them.

Nietzsche's soul was not at all suited to live like that. There is a fundamental difference between Nietzsche and all other people of world views. Nietzsche is not a productive spirit when compared to other people of conviction. Nietzsche would never allow himself to be compared, if one does not want to proceed externally, with productive minds or philosophers like Fichte, like Schelling, like Hegel, even with Feuerbach, even with Schopenhauer himself. Nietzsche is not a soul in whom thoughts arise directly, which seem credible to him, which are the basis for a certain opinion about the world. In this sense, Nietzsche's soul is not creative at all, even if it does not appear so at first glance to those who look at it superficially. Nietzsche's soul seems to be called to something else. While other men of world-views develop world-views, so to speak, strive to grasp the logical side of these world-views, it becomes necessary for Nietzsche to let what the most important world-views in the second half of the nineteenth century offer him affect his soul in such a way that the question of feeling arises in the soul: How can one live with these world-views? What do they give to the soul? How can the soul progress by allowing these world views to affect it? The world views of others become the vital questions, the world views that emerge as the most important world views in the second half of the nineteenth century. Can the soul become happily aware of its own value? Can it develop healthily under the influence of these or those world views? For Nietzsche, this is not the formulated question, but it is the question of his feelings, the inner urge that comes to life in his soul. Therefore, one can say: it was Nietzsche's destiny to experience the most important and prevailing worldviews of the second half of the nineteenth century in his own soul, to experience them inwardly, in terms of their value and fruitfulness.

And so it ignited, which had come to him from philology while he was still in his full youth – he even became a professor at the University of Basel before he had completed his doctorate, at the age of only twenty-four – so it ignited in him, first of all, what actually had to ignite in a mind that kept pace with its time. We have already characterized what lived and breathed and presented itself particularly in a spirit like Feuerbach, and in a spirit like Schopenhauer. And now it approached Nietzsche through the personality of Richard Wagner. What did Wagner become for Nietzsche in the 1860s? As strange as it may sound, Wagner basically became a problem of knowledge for Nietzsche. How can one live with what had become of the musician Richard Wagner in the sense of the newer development of the spirit, of the newer world-view, how can one live with that in a human soul that wants to experience the fertilizing forces of life within itself? That becomes the fundamental question for Nietzsche. And he must relate this fundamental question, which becomes a way of experiencing life for him, to his philology, to that which had come to life for him from the Greek, which was, after all, the most important subject of his studies. At first, the musical element in Tristan made such an overwhelming impression on Nietzsche that he felt: something truly new is entering into the development of the modern spirit, there is life that must bear fruit. But what are the more intimate connections through which this life can bear fruit for humanity as a whole?

In seeking an answer to this question, Nietzsche looked back to the Greeks. And through his perception of Richard Wagner's music and art, Greek culture presented itself to Nietzsche in a completely different light from the one that had been presented to him earlier. Nietzsche, at least, viewed what had been said about Greek culture before him as something one-sided. After all, Nietzsche believed that people had repeatedly and repeatedly wanted to draw attention to the cheerful element of the Greeks, to the element of the Greeks that was directly full of the joy of life, as if the Greeks were basically only the playing children of humanity. Nietzsche could not admit this from his view of Greek culture. Rather, it came to his mind how the best minds of ancient Greece felt the inner tragedy, the sorrowful nature of all physical-sensual existence, how they felt that a person who lives only within physical-sensual existence, when he has higher needs in his soul, must nevertheless remain completely unsatisfied. Only the soul can be satisfied within physical-sensual existence. And according to Friedrich Nietzsche, the Greeks were not dull and obtuse. On the contrary, as he saw it from a closer examination of this Greek character, the Greeks sensed the tragic, the sorrowful in their immediate existence, and they created art for themselves, in Nietzsche's opinion, everything they could produce from their spirit, precisely in order to overcome the disharmonies of sensual existence. They created art in their minds as an element that would lift them above the ambiguity of external sensual existence. For Nietzsche, Greek art became the harmonization of sensual existence. And it was clear to him that this striving for a spiritual content that transcends sensual content was intimately connected with the fact that the Greeks, even in their best period, had something within them that Schopenhauer directly called the will and that worked in man in the depths of the soul, which in the intellect, in understanding, in imagination only leads to images.

And in particular, Nietzsche liked to look back to the oldest Greek thought. Yes, in the oldest Greek philosophers, in Thales, Anaxagoras, in Heraclitus in particular, in Anaximenes and so on, Nietzsche found everywhere that they did not create as newer philosophers do through thinking, thinking and but by the fact that deep in their souls they still carried something of what worked in the subconscious element of the will, which could not be resolved in mere conception and which they incorporated into their world view. Nietzsche endeavored to present all the great lines in the beautiful treatises he wrote on philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks. But in Socrates he recognized the man who, through mere intellectuality, had to some extent rejected the originally healthy, deeper forces of the will. Therefore, for Nietzsche, Socrates was the actual bringer of the intellectual element, but also the slayer of all original great potentialities for the spiritual development of mankind. And by introducing the Socratic era, which lasted until modern times and found its expression in world views, humanity replaced the mere dream of intellectuality with an elementary standing within that which is more than mere image, which is inner reality. Nietzsche now saw this in effect in Schopenhauer's assertion: that the idea is a mere image, but that the reality for which one thirsted lives in the depths, below the surface of mere idea, in the human element of will. In this Schopenhauerian assertion, Nietzsche found something that in turn went back to the age that had been replaced by the age of intellectuality. And Richard Wagner's art seemed to Nietzsche to be a renewal of the original art of humanity itself, something truly new compared to what humanity had cultivated as art before and what could not completely become art because it did not go down to the very elements of the human soul.

Thus, for Friedrich Nietzsche — from his view of Greek culture and from his view of the decline of the deeper human element in later Greek culture — Richard Wagner became a completely new phenomenon in the course of human development, a recovery of deeper artistic elements than had been present since the Socratic age. For that which can become a truly human world view and way of life must arise from these deeper foundations. In what art can it then live? In the musical alone can it live in the sense of Nietzsche. Therefore, that which otherwise appears as art must, in the sense of Nietzsche, be born out of the musical, out of a primal musicality. For him, Richard Wagner really became the figure Nietzsche was looking for, and who, I would like to say, solved the great doubts of his world view for him. For Richard Wagner was the one for him who did not philosophize about the deepest secrets of the world, but made music. And in the musical element lives the will element. But if one wants to find in the development of mankind itself that from which all art must have sprung, including poetry, one must go back to an age in which the musical element lived, albeit in a naive, more primitive way than in Richard Wagner, but still as music.

From such sentiments, Nietzsche's idea for his first work emerged: “The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music.” For that which otherwise lived artistically had to have emerged from the element of musicality. And so Nietzsche's first work, I would like to say, was transferred to art the world view of Schopenhauer from the effect of will as a real element compared to mere imagination. And Richard Wagner was the fulfillment of what was necessary for Nietzsche. One must imagine these things as they must have lived as the inner experience of a soul as thirsty for knowledge as Nietzsche's was. All the happiness that Nietzsche could experience, all the fulfillment of longings and hopes that could come to him, were given to him by the fact that he could say to himself: What has been destroyed by Socratism, by intellectualism, in the development of mankind, can be revived. For all art will arise from the musical element, as Greek tragedy arose from the musical element. And Richard Wagner is already showing the dawn. So it will arise.

Nietzsche's relationship with Richard Wagner is both a very personal matter and a question of insight. What is significant about Nietzsche's own spiritual life is that he does not present what he strives for as his ideals, that he does not say: this or that must happen. Thus, what he considers necessary to realize does not initially arise from his own soul, but he always looks to Richard Wagner's soul, and in the way Richard Wagner lives as an artist, he also finds the answers to the questions he must ask as his own insights. That is the significant thing in Nietzsche's life.

And now Nietzsche becomes a critic of his time, a critic, I might say, above all of what presents itself to him in German intellectual life in the last third of the nineteenth century. And as such a critic, Nietzsche writes his four “Untimely Reflections.” There should have been many more. But for reasons that will become apparent in our reflections, there remained only four. In the living experience of Richard Wagner's work, in grasping what was at work in Wagner's music, Nietzsche saw the effect of man and his soul reaching out beyond mere nature, the possibility of finding something, even if one stops at the sensual element, of finding something that carries man beyond mere nature. And now Nietzsche faced the world with this conviction that man, if he understands himself deeply enough below the mere intellectual element, can truly come to the spiritual. In this conviction, Nietzsche turned to what the time had now produced. One must ask: What did Nietzsche find first? He found that the age had been overwhelmed by Feuerbachianism, by this focus on the mere sensual and on the intellect bound to the brain, in the strict sense, if not in the broader sense, by all that had now developed into the prevailing world view.

Of course, I know very well that there may be all kinds of philosophers who say: Oh, philosophy has long since gone beyond materialism. — But even if one supposes that in the whole way of thinking, in the habits of thinking, one is still deeply immersed in it even today. And Nietzsche saw around him how deeply his time was steeped in it. And he now chose a characteristic personality: David Friedrich Strauß — Strauß, who had also started out from Hegelianism, who had come from Hegelianism to a world view that he then expressed in his “Old and New Belief”, who had gone completely from Hegelianism to the materialistic coloring of Darwinism , who saw nothing in the external world, including now also the world of man, but only natural development, who believed that man, if he stood firmly on the ground of newer knowledge, could basically no longer be a Christian, because he should not accept the spiritual ideas that Christianity demands of one. Nietzsche took on this David Friedrich Strauß, so to speak. But Nietzsche did not proceed as a philosopher usually does, but differently. For Nietzsche, it was not the image of nature that was there first, not some scientific habit of thought, but for Nietzsche there was the feeling: if the development of world view continues in direct spiritual life, then it will continue as it begins with what emerges from the music and from the whole art of Richard Wagner.

What then is the position with regard to the world-view of David Friedrich Strauss, which is regarded by many as the only valid modern philosophical system, in the light of the spiritual development that may be achieved through the permeation of spiritual evolution by the art of Richard Wagner? This is the question Nietzsche had to ask himself. He did not ask himself: Is this or that in Strauss's system false? Can this or that be refuted? That was not the issue for Nietzsche at all; rather, the issue for Nietzsche was to show what kind of soul and spiritual element of humanity lives in a worldview like Strauss's, what kind of person is needed to produce such a worldview, a worldview that clings only to the gross material and the sensual. What sort of person must one be who produces such materialism, what sort of person must one be who is a mere Philistine, in contrast to the spiritual man, in contrast to the man who allows the spirit to work in everything that lives and moves in him, in contrast to Richard Wagner? He must be a Philistine! That the world-view of modern times has become so materialistic because the Philistine element has poured itself out in it, that is what Friedrich Nietzsche wanted to show in his untimely consideration “David Friedrich Strauß, the Philistine and Writer”. Later he changed the title to “... Confessor and Writer”.

And so he shows everywhere how a certain trivial way of thinking, how trivial habits of thought, how philistine a nature prevent David Friedrich Strauß from seeing the spiritual in the sensual. And Friedrich Nietzsche continued to compare what he experienced as a living sensation in the personality of Richard Wagner with what is present in the current education under the influence of the materialistic way of thinking. And further, he asks himself: What is the relationship between a productive person like Richard Wagner, who brings the inner forces of the human soul to the surface of his work, and what lives in the ongoing highly respected and admired time formation? And there Nietzsche finds: This time formation has become such that it now gasps and breathes heavily under its abundance of external knowledge, under its abundance of history. To a certain extent, one knows everything or at least seeks to know everything, seeks to relate everything to history. One can give a historical answer to any question. But to bring to life in oneself what one knows, to give birth to something human out of the soul, is paralyzed by the abundance of the historical. And so man gnaws at what he absorbs historically – whether he absorbs it historically from history or from science is no longer important – man gnaws and suffocates on the historical. And by gobbling up the historical, what should come out of him, what man should freely bring out of himself as spirit, gets stuck in the depths of his being. “The Use and Abuse of History for Life” is the second ‘Untimely Reflection’.

And then Nietzsche turns his gaze to Schopenhauer himself, to a mind — as Schopenhauer was in Nietzsche's sense — who had managed to see everything that lives externally as mere ‘dream’, to regard everything that lives externally as mere 'dream', so far as to regard history itself as nothing more than a sum of repetitive life sequences that only acquire value if one is able to take into account that which lives itself out in them and behind them. Nietzsche regards a mind like Schopenhauer's, which must see the greatness of man entirely in terms of productivity, as the ideal of a human being. Again, he compares the time with what such an ideal of humanity represents. It becomes clear to him: if we look at this or that person, if we look at the third or fourth person – what are they all, compared to what could appear from Schopenhauer's philosophy as the full human being? As I said, one may have whatever opinions one likes, be a follower or an opponent, it does not matter, but what does matter is how Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche. What are individual people, even the most learned and knowledgeable, compared to such a human personality, who sought to shape from the soul that which lived humanly in its universality? They are the patchwork of life, and therefore the whole of culture is patchwork. That a renewal, a revitalization of the whole of culture can take place under the influence of that which now lives in Schopenhauer's philosophy of complete humanity, and that this is urgently necessary, is shown by Nietzsche in the third of his “Untimely Meditations”: “Schopenhauer as Educator”.

But then, as the Bayreuth festival approached, he wanted to describe the positive side first. Like the other two “Untimely Meditations,” “Schopenhauer as Educator” is also dedicated to the critique of the time. But what can be given by the productive man of the time, how the time is to be renewed, how out of what lives in the depths of man's soul, something new must flow into the time, that appeared to Nietzsche in the art of Richard Wagner. It now really understood how to grasp the sensual directly so that it presented itself as a supersensual. “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth” - the fourth ‘Untimely Consideration’, 1876, was intended to show what Wagner could become for the world.

Now, for Nietzsche's soul life, this writing ‘Richard Wagner in Bayreuth’ was at the same time, in a certain respect, a farewell to his friendship with Richard Wagner. From then on, the friendship quickly began to cool and basically soon ceased.

And now let us again take the whole inwardness of Nietzsche's soul, the whole weight that weighed on it from questions of world view, and let us add to this that Richard Wagner has become something like the content of Nietzsche's soul, like that towards which he has focused all his thinking and feeling and perceiving. And he must separate from Richard Wagner! And the separation becomes complete when Richard Wagner writes his “Parsifal”. We have a number of things in the Nietzsche publications that are intended to point to the real reason why Nietzsche separated from Wagner. Not even the words that Nietzsche himself communicates about his separation from Richard Wagner seem to me to be convincing. For a personality as artistic as Friedrich Nietzsche was, a personality that must also have felt all of the life of the world view permeated by the artistic, such a personality cannot possibly view “Parsifal” as an entirely unappealing because he believed that Richard Wagner had previously depicted the pagan world of the gods, Siegfried and the others, and now, as a kind of counter-reformer, had swung back to Christianity. What Nietzsche describes as falling down before the cross, and what he is said to have found distasteful, does not appear convincing when one looks at the full range of both Wagner's and Nietzsche's intellectual lives. For ultimately it would come down to the trivial view that Friedrich Nietzsche could not have walked with the work of art that is Parsifal because of the content of Parsifal; he would have fallen away because of a disagreement with the theory. It would be a terrible thing if we had to think in these terms about Friedrich Nietzsche's falling away from Richard Wagner. There was something quite different here, something that, I believe, can only be found if we attempt to use a more profound psychology to uncover the actual underlying reasons. In this short lecture, however, we can only sketch out these ideas.

What did Richard Wagner actually achieve? We have seen that in his basic soul feeling, he started from Feuerbachian materialism, passed over to a feeling of the Schopenhauerian world view, but was actually always imbued with the life element of musicality. Everything he has written, even in theory, is only parallel to this musicality. And in music – if I may express myself trivially – he pointed out the way in which the transcendental, the spiritual, can be found by penetrating into the sensual. But he also started from the assumption that one cannot find the real, the thing for which the sense of reality thirsts, by the path of the intellectual, I might say in that rarefied human spiritual life that was played out in Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. One had to put the whole, full human being into it, and basically only the sensual man emerged. We have seen how only music gave the sensual and the supersensual at the same time. For Richard Wagner, then, man was at the center of his world view. But one had to penetrate into all depths of man, and according to the whole nature of Richard Wagner's soul, Wagner could only penetrate into these depths of man musically. Musically he sought to penetrate – I say intentionally: musically he sought to penetrate – the depths of the human soul in Parsifal. In the music of Parsifal, we have before us a musical work that shows how man can be conceived, felt and sensed at the center of an anthroposophically effective world view, so that the sensual, the musical, becomes so spiritual that it seizes the finest, most intimate sides of the human soul. For that is what happens in the resolution of the Grail problem in Parsifal.

Richard Wagner could only achieve this because in his life of feeling, which was completely permeated by the musical element, he had progressed from Feuerbach through Schopenhauer to the direct grasp of that which lives in humanity that exists beneath the purely intellectual and abstract soul element. Richard Wagner, in his own way and principally as a musician, had reached the spiritual man in his “Parsifal”.

Richard Wagner was Nietzsche's object of study. Up until 1876, Nietzsche actually lived much more in Richard Wagner than in himself. He saw in Richard Wagner what he hoped for and strove for in the development of the modern spirit. He did not draw it from his own soul as an ideal. Nietzsche was young and enthusiastic, young and ingenious when he encountered Richard Wagner. In Richard Wagner, a world-view and philosophy of life that was already fully developed in a later stage of development confronted him. What Wagner had gone through to bring his soul into such a feeling, which could come to 'Parsifal' through 'Siegfried', what Richard Wagner experienced in his soul, the harrowing thing that had to be lived through, it had already been lived through when Nietzsche approached Wagner. What was already balanced, already filled with harmony, already promising the future, was what Friedrich Nietzsche encountered when he met Richard Wagner and, I would like to say, made him his object of knowledge. Nietzsche was able to fully absorb what Richard Wagner had gone through in the 1850s, for example, when he wrote down words like the one he wrote to Röckel in 1854 about his deeply suffering feeling about the essence of the world. This deeply suffering feeling about the essence of the world had to be transformed into inner soul strength, into activity. And when Nietzsche came closer to Richard Wagner in the 1860s, he was able to experience in Wagner what the suffering of the soul had become. He, Nietzsche, was able to experience it already in the radiance of a light that shone with hope. Words such as those written to Uhlig in 1852 also show how Richard Wagner knew suffering, which Nietzsche sensed in the Greeks, but which Nietzsche only looked at and observed in its balance in Richard Wagner. Words such as those Wagner wrote to Uhlig show how Richard Wagner came to know this suffering. Before he had come to sense the power in the human soul that can lead to the Temple of the Grail, that can lead to the Siegfried energy, he had come to know doubt of all that is small and human, doubt that is the very foundation on which the great and human must build. Thus Richard Wagner writes: “In general, my views on the human race are growing ever darker, my dear friend; more often than not I feel I must express the conviction that this species is bound to perish completely.”

You only have to take this context to hear the most intimate strings of the human soul resonate: before the hero who “through compassion, knowing” penetrates to the temple of the Grail, lies all that one can experience in human doubt and human suffering when one looks at what is around one, especially in a materialistic time. Richard Wagner has gone through the ascent from suffering to the exercise of creativity. And he basically stood radiant as a victor before Nietzsche when he first met him. But Nietzsche, as a young man, knew how to look sympathetically, sensitively at this victorious nature.

But for Nietzsche it was the case that the youthful power living in him was able to rise to meet that which confronted him in Richard Wagner, but not later the matured power, which had cast off youthful enthusiasm and the breadth of feeling and now wanted to shape out of itself. Richard Wagner had gone through Feuerbachianism. Nietzsche did not go through it, Nietzsche did not suffer from Feuerbachianism, Nietzsche did not first get to know the all-too-human before he allowed the high and ideal and spiritual-human in Richard Wagner to have an effect on him. And that seems to me to be the psychological reason why the soul of Friedrich Nietzsche now fell back into Feuerbachianism, if we take it in the broader sense, was overwhelmed.

Now, when Friedrich Nietzsche could no longer keep up, everything that stemmed only from enthusiasm and should have come from the power of deeper understanding fell away from him. He had to let go and undergo for himself what Richard Wagner had already mastered. Then the second period in Nietzsche's life began, which begins with the publication of the collection of aphorisms “Human-All Too Human,” which then continues with “The Wanderer and His Shadow” to “Dawn” and “The Gay Science , where Nietzsche attempts to come to terms with the scientific worldview, with everything within the scientific worldview that, in the modern era, must be the basis for any higher philosophical worldview.

And that is the tragedy of Friedrich Nietzsche's soul, the terrible tragedy, that he had previously experienced the greatest thing in youthful enthusiasm and now, when he came to himself, he had to descend, so to speak, consciously descend, in order to recognize the all-too-human in its connections with natural facts, after the highest human. But Nietzsche had the courage within him to go through this difficult path of knowledge. He had the courage to ask himself: What does this soul life look like when we look at it in the light of science? When we look at it in the light of science, man has passions. They seem to arise from the depths of his will, but if we look more closely, we find all sorts of purely physiological reasons, reasons of this bodily life. We find that man lives out concepts and ideas. But we find the mechanical causes for these ideas and concepts everywhere. Finally, we find ideals in human life. Man says to himself that these ideals are something divine. But when we investigate what man actually is, we see how he gives birth to his ideals out of his physiological element, out of his bodily element, and how he only dreams them into something that is said to have been given to him by the gods. What man perceives in everyday life as his longings born out of the body, what is born out of the flesh, out of the blood, what presents itself to him as ideals, but what does not come from higher spiritual worlds, but is just like the foam that rises from the bodily life, is not the highest human – humanly all-too-human. |

Nietzsche, after having lived through all that the nineteenth century in its second half could give him through Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner, had to form his own view of his soul, which science could give him, and he had to undergo, in particular, — his writing, with which he begins this period of his life was dedicated to Voltaire. He had to undergo what one might call a plunge into that dead science, the science of mechanism, of the dead in contrast to the living, which Fichte claimed was the truly German world view. In the second period of his life, Nietzsche was overwhelmed by a Western world view. He completely immersed himself in this Western world view. But it did not become for him a mere sensation of thought; he could not absorb it like a Western mind. He absorbed it after having stood for so long in the primeval Germanic, German world-view. It became for him, for example, that all the perspectives which the soul-materialists later drove out of these world-views lay within it. With a keen mind, Nietzsche was able to show how everything that was called an ideal and that which one believes to have received as a gift from God could arise out of the needs of human nature, which are connected with flesh and blood. Nietzsche himself expressed it thus: all his ideals seemed to him to have been frozen, to have become cold, because they appeared to him to have arisen out of the humanly-all-too-human. Indeed, what small minds and dull minds have produced by developing this process of Nietzsche's world view development to excess is already present in Nietzsche, but in such a way that, while it is ingenious in Nietzsche, in those who then built on it it is the opposite of ingenious. One could even say that the whole dullness of modern psychoanalysis is already contained in Nietzsche's second period of development, with all that was tried to be derived from human nature in a materialistic-spiritualistic way. Small minds say to themselves: Well, we can investigate that, and the truth must be accepted. — So small minds can even accept, for example, deriving from Schopenhauer that all striving for a worldview, all striving for spiritual connection with the world, that goes beyond mere factual science — yes, it is not a fairy tale that I am telling — is a consequence of human sexuality. So that all philosophy for certain minds of the present has its basis in human sexuality, for all spiritual striving is rooted in human sexuality. Of course, Nietzsche, who saw the original basis, the justified original basis for the soul in the physiological, in the purely natural, was too ingenious and, I might say, too tactful to go beyond the cognitive. But he did not merely have to develop a world view. Smaller minds simply say to themselves: This is truth, one must accept it. So one must also accept as truth that philosophy is only a consequence of sexuality. But Nietzsche had to experience above all to look at the fruitful in human nature, which can be influenced by a truth. Knowledge as destiny of life, that is the characteristic in Nietzsche's psychological tragedy. And so something began to live in Nietzsche's soul in this second epoch of his psychological life. Nietzsche was too great to let it go far, but it continued to work as a background of disgust for a merely naturalistic psychology, for a merely naturalistic explanation of everything moral, as he had attempted it, the disgust for what can arise when one continues in this field, which seems so justified, which seems so justified, in a materialistic psychology, — the disgust. Now imagine the tragedy in such a development of the soul, which first experiences all of humanity's fruitful happiness in Schopenhauer and Richard Wagner and then, through the necessary development and the connection with this necessary development of time, as Nietzsche himself had , to develop a world view in which the experience begins to be met with disgust at the point of the soul life, and the necessity to save himself from the disgust of life.

We are now close to and in the eighties of the nineteenth century with regard to Friedrich Nietzsche's soul life. From the natural scientific world view, he had gained something for his soul life that showed him the beginning of disgust with all the bitterness with which disgust can thus prevail in the soul, deep within. And what Nietzsche tried to express in The Gay Science is basically nothing other than an intoxicated way of leading us away from the disgust that does not come to consciousness. For of course, one suffers from this disgust, but such things remain in the subconscious. It is not expressed. Something is expressed in the soul that veils the disgust, that covers it up: “Happy Science” – in the sentences, in the expressed content. That which I had to characterize as lying in the depths of the soul then forms the transition to another kind of world view, which Nietzsche now had to experience further from a certain deepening of the natural scientific life of the nineteenth century, as he also carried it into the understanding of the soul life.

And now something developed in Nietzsche's soul – of which one can say: it absorbed, like a continuous drive, this primeval Germanic that lived in Richard Wagner, in Schopenhauer – now something strange lived itself out in Nietzsche. Now comes the last period of his life, which then leads to the catastrophe. And in this catastrophe, without one realizing it if one does not go deeper into the foundations of his soul life, what he had taken from Western philosophy, namely from French moral philosophy, , from Guyau, from Stendhal, but also from others in whom he had completely immersed himself, and what he had gained from these in connection with a deeper understanding of Darwinism, that worked together with the Eastern European element. One cannot understand the last period in Friedrich Nietzsche without considering how, in all his feelings, in everything he felt and thought, the same element was shining forth that, for example, permeates Dostoyevsky's art as a psychological element in Dostoyevsky. This peculiarity of the Russian East, that in the directly natural the whole human being is grasped, but in such a way that this directly natural is also seen and felt as the living out of the spiritual, that the instincts are felt spiritually at the same time, that what is not felt physiologically, as in the West and in Central Europe, but is felt spiritually — that now pushed its way into Nietzsche, into the soul on which that which I have just characterized had settled in a shattering way. Into this soul flowed all the riddles of worldviews from the West and the East. In mere scientific and physiological soul-contemplation, he could see the all-too-human. But it would have become repulsive if he had pursued it further. Now he drew a deepening from the contemplation of human life itself. Only now did he actually approach human life, where this contemplation was stimulated in him, namely through the influence of Dostoyevsky.

And now an urge arose in him, a longing for a spiritual deepening of what is merely presented in the sensual world. And this urge, this longing, could only be expressed lyrically in this last period of his life, because of his talents. And that is connected with the uncreative in Nietzsche. He needed what had an effect on him; that he could experience. For him, creative spirits could become objects, like Richard Wagner. Whatever created the world view of his time could become an object for him. What flashed and lit up in the second period of his life, the period of Human-All-Too-Human and so on, as a future soul-creation, now entered the sphere of Nietzsche's third period. Man became for him such that Nietzsche said to himself: This man must be placed at the center of the world view — but not in the sense in which anthroposophy appears in Troxler in the sense of the lecture that I was able to give here a few weeks ago. He would have been able to find him had Nietzsche been what one might call an epic-dramatic nature. If someone is of an epic-dramatic nature, they can go out of themselves to the contemplation of the spirit, then they develop the spiritual world, then they create it. Nietzsche was not like that; Nietzsche was of a lyrical nature. In order for that which was yearning in him, that which was urge and drive in him, to come to life, Nietzsche needed something to meet him in the outside world. A spiritual world did not arise from his soul. And so, when he sought the higher man in man, this man could only arise, I would say, in his lyricism, because lyricism, the lyrical element, is the basic element of the work Also sprach Zarathustra , where Nietzsche wanted to show how nature emerges from its merely natural state to become human, but also how man can go beyond nature to become a superhuman, how man can become a superhuman by continuing the development of nature. But because Nietzsche was only lyrical in his entire soul, this superhuman arose in him as a longing. And basically, in all that confronts you in the lyrically so great, so powerful work “Also sprach Zarathustra”, nowhere can you grasp the superhuman. Where does he live then? Where do we encounter him in some form? Where do we encounter something that could live as a higher human being in man and lead man beyond nature? Where do we find something that would describe him? Everywhere we encounter lyrically shaped longings, everywhere we encounter great, powerful lyricism, but nowhere do we find anything that can be grasped intellectually, so to speak. Nietzsche could now encounter as much as an indefinite, foggy image of a superhuman in the third period of his life.

And another nebulous one. Nietzsche could say to himself: When I look at this human life, it presents itself to me in such a way that I have to experience it as formed out of certain preconditions. But it must carry within itself preconditions that correspond to all real forms of nature and spirit. And the thought was already alive in Nietzsche: the plant develops from the root to the flower and fruit, and in the fruit the germ; and the germ is again the starting point for the root, and from the root the plant comes again. A cycle, a becoming that takes place rhythmically, that returns to itself: eternal return of human existence is the idea that arises in Nietzsche. But where is that contained – which again could arise from an epic-dramatic nature – that in present human life really shows the spiritual-soul as a core or germ, as something that would repeat itself in a later life on earth? Abstract eternal return occurs in Nietzsche, but not a concrete grasp of the real spiritual-soul in man. Longing for that which can take shape beyond the sensual human being, longing for the rhythm of life that occurs in recurring earthly lives, but an inability to see into these great mysteries of existence: the third period of Nietzsche's work.

The first period gives him a person for his longings and hopes, for his thirst for knowledge, whom he can put before him. This person ultimately becomes, I would say, like the mysteries of nature can become for the observer. One penetrates as far as one oneself has the predispositions of what one wants to seek within oneself. One cannot go further. Thus Nietzsche was able to penetrate Richard Wagner as far as Nietzsche himself carried the potential for Richard Wagner's world and life view. A person in the first period of their life, the science of the present in the second period of their life, which is now supposed to fulfill their hopes and desires. What is ready for the future in the present as spiritual germs, in a spiritual science as we are thinking of it today, must develop out of the general realization that the higher spiritual man lies in the sensual man, that in one earth life lies the sequence of earlier earth lives and the starting point of later earth lives, of that which is not yet there, which can therefore only work as something indeterminate, as nebulous. Nietzsche must also live through this: a man of the present who confronts him as a complete human being; natural science, which satisfies the thirst for reality of modern times; the indeterminate longings of the times themselves, which he is not yet able to shape.

These are the successive external facts that confronted, that had to confront, Friedrich Nietzsche in an age that, so to speak, wanted to draw breath within the development of German thought after the intellectual development had reached a climax, a point where thoughts really mystically enter the spiritual world. For it is a Schopenhauerian delusion, it is a Nietzschean delusion, it is a delusion of all those who in the second half of the nineteenth century surrendered to the delusion that Hegel's thoughts were only intellectualistic. But this belief had to arise because people did not have the breadth of breathing to carry themselves up to the height and energy of Hegel's world view. But this breathing had to arise for the simple reason that Hegel and the other minds that belong to him had indeed ascended to supersensible concepts, but in these supersensible concepts there is nothing supersensible in them. Look at the whole of Hegel's philosophy: it is decidedly based on supersensible concepts. It consists of three parts: a logic that consists of supersensible concepts, a natural philosophy, and a philosophy of spirit that only encompasses the human soul between birth and death, that which is realized in the material world and so on. In short, spiritual knowledge is only applied to what is around us in the material world. Supersensible knowledge is there. But supersensible knowledge does not recognize anything supersensible. Therefore, in the second half of the nineteenth century, this supersensible knowledge, which does not recognize anything supersensible, had to lead to it being described as completely unsatisfactory, so to speak, and to people turning to the material world itself. the musical element could enter, could create the bridge over to the time when people tried to grasp the path directly from the spiritual, through spiritual knowledge itself, which we will talk about in more detail tomorrow. This is what was significant for spiritual life in the second half of the nineteenth century and up to the present day. Nietzsche's harrowing psychological experiences arose from the perishing of supersensible knowledge and the overwhelming of the human soul by mere sensory knowledge, from clinging to that which now entered as a substitute from a completely different world.

How a deep soul had to suffer tragically in an age that had no depth in the prevailing currents of thought can be seen in Nietzsche's soul, and that is basically the tragedy that took place in Nietzsche's soul : the striving for depth, for an experience in the depths, which should have been there if Nietzsche was to have come to satisfaction, which was not there and which finally plunged Nietzsche's spirit into utter despair. I need not go into the physiological and medical background of his illness, but what took place in his soul is at least characterized in its main lines in what I have tried to characterize. And so we see how this life of world-view, which is so overwhelmed by the current of materialism, affects a soul that, by its very nature, strives beyond materialism; how, when the human soul has a deeper need, mere materialism or mere positivism, or in general what the second half of the nineteenth century was able to bring such a soul, must have a tragic effect. That is why it seems so tragic when we see how Nietzsche, at the beginning of his literary career, when he wrote his Birth of Tragedy, tying in with the great personality of Richard Wagner, entered in the copy that he sent to Richard Wagner himself: “Create the day's work of my hands, great spirit, that I may complete it!” In the intimate dedication that he addresses to Richard Wagner, Nietzsche implores the great spirit of the world to deliver to him a day's work in which he can experience what his soul wants to experience, and through which he can describe to humanity how one experiences the spirit in sensual earthly life, how man leads his soul beyond the merely natural, so that he too can find the way into the spiritual. The tragedy was bound to be fulfilled because the nineteenth century could not give Nietzsche what he had implored of the great spirit. The spirit could not supply the daily bread of his hands. The spirit of the nineteenth century could not supply it, and so it could not be completed by it either.

So it is that in what Nietzsche later created, especially at the end of his conscious life on earth, before his life passed into derangement, we have scraps, individual statements, aphorisms, drafts, notes from and about questions of world view. But basically, we have everywhere rudiments, questions, riddles that peer like the sphinx into the spiritual future of mankind. This may be said in the face of the fact that Nietzsche is also among those minds that are now so denounced by the enemies of Central Europe: In Friedrich Nietzsche's soul there lived questions, there lived world-view riddles in an immediately personal way, which will shine forth—whether in connection with the personality of Friedrich Nietzsche or separated from it, because Friedrich Nietzsche, after all, also only took them from the faithfully co-experienced world-view life of the nineteenth , but in the entire spiritual development of mankind, in a perhaps still distant future, and which will find satisfactory answers, but only when one—which Nietzsche could not yet fully do—will fully understand, with feeling, the deepest meaning of what Goethe meant when he quoted the saying of an old spiritual researcher, in which it is pointed out that man can indeed penetrate into the depths of the world, but that he must first find this depth within himself through self-knowledge, yes, must create it within himself. Nietzsche was on this path in his consideration of Richard Wagner, but could not go this path to the end. This path will prove again and again the truth of this saying attributed by Goethe to an ancient spiritual researcher, by which Goethe wants to express that we can find every depth, every infinite depth in the things of the world, if we have first gained the deepening in our own self-knowledge. Goethe expresses it in the words with which we want to conclude this reflection today:

If the eye were not sunlike,
How could we behold the light?
If the divine power of God were not within us,

Yes, a person only sees as much light in the world as they are able to ignite within themselves. A person only finds as much divinity in the world as they are able to shape within themselves through self-knowledge.