The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Spiritual science or “theosophy” is widely unknown even today. You may probably hear some judgement and criticism about this spiritual science, but only few people deal really with it. One surely knows a little about it in the circles of our educated people. Those few people deal most seriously and in quite scientific sense with the questions of the spiritual life, take the most elementary phenomena of this spiritual life as starting point and go up then to the highest questions which the human being can put to himself, to the questions of death and life, of the development of the whole humanity, even questions of the evolution of our planet or planetary system. Such questions find a widespread prejudice by which people think to be entitled not to get themselves into such attempts. Since what, they mean, can one suppose behind it? Any sect based mainly on dilettantish ideas.—They know very little that the human beings who belong to this supposed sect study the important questions with scientific seriousness and thoroughness after methods and authorities that are just quite unknown to most of our present educated people. They do not suspect that talking about spiritual science as something sectarian is equally reasonable, as if one considered chemistry or botany as something sectarian.

Since one believes, scientific methods are not at all possible compared with these questions, and believes to be offhand about such attempts. Today, indeed, one admits that one has to do preliminary studies in chemistry or botany, has to go to the resources to understand something of them, but one does not admit that it is necessary or even possible to do that concerning the highest questions of the spiritual life of humanity. Indeed, one is in case of spiritual science still in another situation than compared with chemistry or botany. These sciences treat things and questions that concern special fields of life and one can make use of that which they give within these special relations of life. However, we have to regard that which is done with scientific thoroughness in the area of spiritual science as questions of big significance for the human future, for our whole life praxis, for the firmness and confidence of our whole life.

If one considers the question of the significance of spiritual science for the future, I have to point with some words to the whole being of this spiritual science at first. This is necessary, although I already had the honour several times to speak about these questions and about the method of spiritual science in this city. If there is talk of science today, one has that science in mind which is based on our senses and on everything that one can attain with the reason, which is bound to the outer instrument of the brain. The question always originates concerning the highest areas of existence how far one can penetrate with such a science into these areas which tell something about the questions: how is the nature of life? How is the nature of death? Which is the nature of humanity generally and its development?

Spiritual science argues that there is not only an outer science, which is connected with a particular level of human cognitive faculties, but that these cognitive faculties are capable of development, so that—if we only want it—we can unfold higher cognitive faculties than those are which observe in the sensory-physical world with the senses and understand with the reason bound to the brain. As well as the present science points to the experiment, to attempts with outer, mechanical means, spiritual science points to an attempt which can be done solely with the means of our soul itself. Our soul behaves in the normal life in a particular way. However, one can change this way, so that we can also put questions to the spiritual world as we put them to the phenomena of nature with experiments. Not with outer attempts and tools we can penetrate into the spiritual world, but while we wake slumbering soul forces. There are particular soul exercises—they are discussed in detail in my writing How Does One Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds?—, intimate performances of our soul which can strengthen our will, so that we can perceive contents in our soul or by our soul where we perceive nothing in the so-called normal life. Then we experience moments by such soul exercises that you can compare, on one side, with falling asleep, that are quite different on the other side. What do we experience at first if we fall asleep? We experience if we observe only externally that the outer impressions stop and, finally, unconsciousness spreads out in us.

There that technique to which spiritual science refers shows that we have to talk of unconsciousness in this case of falling asleep only because we cannot develop so strong forces if all outer impressions stop, that the soul feels its own being and that it cannot establish a relationship to its environment in which it is then and which is spiritual. If now the human being opens himself to particular contents of thought and feeling, he can also feel as a being if all outer impressions are quiet. Then he is in the same situation as someone is who sleeps, and, nevertheless, his situation is radically different. He can exclude all outer impressions consciously and by his will and everything that speaks, otherwise, in the wake state to him by the senses and the reason. Then he is not unconscious but lets the full contents of the soul life light up.

I can only indicate the soul exercises. With the usual mental pictures, we can never develop such strong forces. Another kind of mental pictures is necessary to put those forces in motion in our soul; we can call them symbolic ones. We can open ourselves to a picture so that we do not admit outer impressions in our soul, quieten our recollections, and free the soul as it were. I imagine, for example, a rose or something else, and I let this symbol come to life in myself as the only image to which I dedicate myself. This is not appropriate to deliver usual, physical truths; however, it can work like a seed in our soul. As a seed which is planted in the earth stretches its roots in all directions, this image sends out its different ramifications into the whole soul life, and this image grows in us. Indeed, if we want to do such intimate soul exercises, our soul life must have a steady hold; we are not allowed to be dreamy, fantastic, confused people. We have to know for sure what we do and that we have such an image in our soul.

Let us imagine, for example, three cases of actions out of compassion, and from the comparison [of the actions] we try to develop not an entire image of thought but an entire image of feeling of compassion. Now we try to forget everything that actions of compassion are in our world and let this impulse solely be active in our soul. Then we have such a sensation, from which the roots go out to rich, full contents of the soul. Thereby we can reach that moment gradually which can be compared with falling asleep, and which is, nevertheless, quite different from it. The everyday impressions, joy and sorrow, all thoughts have to sink down. Somebody who wants to become a spiritual researcher has to exclude all outer impressions while he has developed his will with such inner experiences. He has to establish that condition which the soul experiences if the body is in the state of unconsciousness. Then soul states are created in which quite different states of consciousness exist where the soul positions itself quite different to the outside world where it is for the soul like for a blind-born who has seen no colours and forms and sees them after an operation. In this clairvoyant state he sees something else than that which surrounds him, otherwise, in the physical world; he receives new impressions from the spiritual world which forms the basis of our physical-sensory world.

Then we may say, if the human being falls asleep in the evening, the whole human being does not exhaust himself in that which lies in the bed, but the core of the human being, the spiritual-mental, has left this outer cover. This core has no organs in the normal consciousness, but it has received spiritual-mental organs by the soul exercises characterised just now by which he feels moved into a new world. The real experience in the spiritual-mental is thereby given; a new world of observation is thereby given, and then from these elementary facts of spiritual experience we ascend to the highest facts. Now there are such single persons who do exercises full of renunciation to develop their souls as tools. If then these persons tell some people who are interested in such matters what they have found out in other states of consciousness, these believe it. With someone who becomes familiar with theosophy only cursorily it is comprehensible if he believes this, because if one knows only that which exists on the surface of life, it is exceptionally difficult to form an idea of how this spiritual science is practised. Hence, it is comprehensible that most people misjudge it. I have to emphasise this. One can understand that such persons only believe those revelations of the spiritual world that one attains in the described way. For most educated people it immediately suggests itself to regard such persons as daydreamers, romanticists, and sectarians.

However, one misjudges a particular fact: the developed soul, the developed other consciousness is necessary to do research in the spiritual world, to discover the spiritual truths. Even if today few people can only develop their souls as tools to behold into the spiritual world with them and then to inform what they have grasped there, it is enough for those who approach the matter with a certain sense of truth and with impartiality.

The trained soul of the spiritual researcher is necessary for discovering such truths; for understanding the facts, only unprejudiced logic is necessary. If such things are informed, they agree for everybody who wants to think in much higher degree with the whole life than any other philosophy does. Hence, everybody can check the probative force of that which the spiritual researcher informs. However, it is not enough to familiarise yourself with the results, because the logic and the whole system of concepts of the soul development to ascend to the higher worlds is subtle and strict. You can say that more strict demands are put on logic and comprehension than in the usual science in any field. However, if one does not want to judge the matters in a breath, but is anxious in the whole soul to settle in the way of this new imagination to understand what arises about the highest questions of existence, then this settling does not possibly work like suggestion, but the soul can pursue it consciously. Every soul can familiarise itself in those areas where the highest questions of human existence, of time and eternity are treated.

Does this proclamation of spiritual science or theosophy have any meaning for the human civilisation of today and the future? One has to put this question. Since one could argue, there can be people who are interested in such things because of certain longings, but they are mavericks who prefer to contemplate in their rooms, but would have nothing to do with the big processes in the human civilisation.—One cannot say this if one surveys the course of human development with understanding so that just the time at which we live now faces our soul after its being.

Our time has developed from that which humanity has experienced from prehistory up to now. From the present developmental level again the experiences of the future human beings develop. If we look back at the human states of consciousness, you realise that you are prejudiced if you believe that the whole soul condition, the way of thinking, the way how he forms ideas and concepts of his environment, that the states of the human consciousness are almost the same at all times. That is not the case. Indeed, one applies the word development to the transformation of the outer forms, but seldom to the human soul life, and just concerning the human soul life, is the concept of development something that points us deeply to the most important questions of humanity.

The spiritual-scientific investigation of the human soul and the conclusions, which you can draw from it, show that. Since at ancient times the human consciousness lagged far behind, it was different from that of today so that we can speak of times of the human development at which the human soul lived even in a kind of clairvoyant state of consciousness. However, it was not in such a way, as it is with the today's trained spiritual researcher. The clairvoyant state of the today's trained spiritual researcher takes place with full consciousness that he also has in the normal life. That was not the case with the old clairvoyant. He had a more dreamy clairvoyance, a dreamlike consciousness. It was in such a way that we can say, what the human being experiences today in his dreams is an atavistic rest of the ancient state of consciousness. While today dream images mostly mean nothing particular for the reality of the outside world, those old states of consciousness were images that you can compare, indeed, to our dream images, nevertheless, they were different from them. The images that were often symbolic were the contents of an old clairvoyant consciousness, which was not penetrated with modern intellectuality. In the soul of the prehistoric human beings, these images surged up and down. The prehistoric human beings possibly did not always have such pictorial consciousness. Wake states and sleeping states also alternated, but while these merge into each other with us and a mostly meaningless dream state is between them, the third state of consciousness existed in ancient times, the state of such a pictorial consciousness, in which our sensory images did not surge up and down in the soul but symbols as art has them at most in weakened form.

These symbols surged up and down with full liveliness in these three states of consciousness, and they were not like our dream images that we must not refer them to a reality, but they were clearly directed upon a reality, so that the outer reality was recognised with them, even if only in symbols. One experienced a spiritual world that was behind the sensory world. Thus, the prehistoric human beings had a picture consciousness, so that they did not need our today's intellectuality and wisdom of the wake consciousness. For it, they beheld into a spiritual world in the pictures of a dreamlike clairvoyance.

Now one may ask, is there anything in the outer world that proves that to some extent what you spiritual researchers behold there, if you look back at prehistory? Is there anything that can deliver a document that once humanity could behold into the spiritual worlds?—Oh, there is such a thing! However, the human beings have to learn to interpret this thing in right way. What is preserved of the prehistoric attempts to penetrate into the inner being of the things? With the prehistoric humanity, we look in vain for a science as we have it today, but legends and myths have been preserved. Now the present enlightened human being says that this corresponds to the childish imagination of the ancient humanity; we have entered into the manhood of science now. However, someone who delves into the myths of the various peoples experiences something else than such a superficial rater, he experiences that these images are associated in miraculous way everywhere [with the spiritual life of humanity]. If one penetrates into these images, deep connections with this spiritual life of humanity and its culture present themselves. One gets more and more respect for the wonderful arrangement of the pictures in the ancient myths and legends, so that you often say to yourself, what are all philosophies of the present compared with the wonderful pictures that the myths have preserved. They agree all over the world and they comply with that which the spiritual researcher can find with his method in the spiritual world, so that we have to ask ourselves, where from do these old images come which can be found all over the world?.

A conscientious research finds the explanation only if it supposes that these things are remains of an ancient clairvoyance. One judges wrong if one says, the myths of the ancient peoples have arisen from childish imagination. No, we can understand them only if we assume that our ancestors beheld with their clairvoyant picture consciousness [into the spiritual world].

Still about 1800 numerous persons had a notion of the fact that there was such pictorial wisdom and that the wonderful spiritual voices from the myths of the various peoples tell of a primeval wisdom. At that time they were still clear in their mind that the peoples which one regards as decadent today have only descended from a higher point of view that, however, everything that humanity has as culture today goes back to primeval times where the knowledge of the spiritual world was still alive.

There were serious researchers who were convinced of this fact. If we ask Aristotle, Plato, and the other Greek philosophers, we find numerous passages where they speak about the fact that any science goes back to the primeval wisdom that the gods had given the human beings. Plato speaks of human beings of the Cronus age who took over the old wisdom directly from the spiritual world. The spiritual researchers do not only say to us that this was in such a way, but also, why this ancient clairvoyance gradually disappeared from humanity.

There we come to the important law that you can also observe in nature that is especially obvious, however, in the spiritual life of humanity: the fact that for the development of a certain force at first another force has to withdraw. The ancient human beings who could behold in certain states of their consciousness into a spiritual world did not yet have our intellect; they had no science, no civilisation in our sense. Intellectuality had only to develop. Development is something that leads us to the deepest questions of the soul life. Our intelligence, the intellectual condition that we have today, where we completely rely on the sensory perception and on the reason bound to the brain could enter in the general human consciousness only while the old clairvoyance withdrew for a while, was drowned by the intellectual consciousness.

Somebody who knows something of the basic character of the Middle Ages knows that the peculiar spiritual development of the Middle Ages can be explained if one knows that the Middle Ages were the time in which gradually the old clairvoyance disappeared. The biggest impulse in the human development, the Christ impulse that will once induce humanity to take up clairvoyance completely had the task to make the old clairvoyance withdraw. Thus, a peculiar phenomenon appears with the advent of the new time: the old clairvoyance withdraws, only the traditional truths remain which one had gained with the old clairvoyance. Thus, the branches of knowledge propagated in the Middle Ages which were gained on the basis of the old clairvoyance. However, one did not know that, one had only understood the ideas which were found in primeval times, yes, one applied them even quite wrong at the end of the Middle Ages.

One example: Aristotle was already at the turning point of the intellectual age, but he still saw back in dark notion at the time in which the human being knew something by clairvoyance, at the processes of human imagining and feeling, at the human evolution, and he describes this. He did no longer have the ancient clairvoyance; he had the tradition only. There he said, if the human being is active in his soul, in his wake state, we deal with the physical body at first, and this has its organs. However, Aristotle would still have been reluctant to regard the material body as the only member of the human being. He pointed to a higher member that has its centre near the heart, and from this supersensible member certain currents originate which go up especially to the brain and spread as supersensible currents in the human body. One still called these currents “cold light” in the Middle Ages that pours forth in particular into the brain to invigorate its physical organs. Still in the Middle Ages people spoke of this cold light which spreads out where the physical heart is.

One can understand Aristotle only if one knows that that which he lets originate from the heart is thought as supersensible currents that he does not mean physical strands, organs, or the like. Now the Middle Ages came. The people lost the understanding of the old clairvoyance. They read Aristotle, and through the Middle Ages the faith in Aristotle was like a faith in the Bible. Aristotle was the basis of natural science, of medicine, of everything. Everything was based on Aristotle. However, people had no idea of that which, actually, Aristotle had meant. Thus, a peculiar mental picture could develop just with the most religious supporters of Aristotle, with those who believed bravely in him, but did no longer understand him. Since—as everybody knows—it is not necessary that everything is understood that one believes. Mental pictures could develop so that one did not mean supersensible currents that originate in the heart but sensory strands. Thus, Aristotle's believers believed that from the heart the nerves originate.

Now the great researchers and thinkers came at the end of the Middle Ages, like Giordano Bruno, Galilei and others who designed a new worldview on the basis of the worldview of Copernicus. However, Aristotle's believers were not inclined to accept this new worldview simply. Galilei and Giordano Bruno pointed to the real world of the senses because now the time began in which the human beings should develop their knowledge by sensory observation and intellect. There it happened that Galilei led a friend who was a good Aristotle believer in front of a corpse and showed him that the nerves originate not from the heart but from the brain. The friend saw this and said, yes, it seems to be in such a way, as if the nerves originate from the brain, but I read something different with Aristotle, and if a contradiction exists, I believe Aristotle.

This time was ripe to dismiss what of the ancient clairvoyance was handed down as tradition, because it was completely misunderstood. At that time, there was a special impetus of the intellectual development. Many physical concepts lead back to the way of thinking of Galilei with which we still work today. The material, mechanical thinking was directed immediately upon the outer sensory world and upon its intellectual understanding. The age of intellect was dawning in scientific areas, and now we can observe from that time up to now repeatedly how the human being wants to conquer this area of the human soul life whose most important part was the conquest of the outer reality with the intellect. The following shows a particularly drastic expression how one could think solely materially in the Middle Ages, but still had the old tradition.

None of the old clairvoyant wise men would have come up with the idea that the spiritual world is “on top,” that there is a blue firmament, which encloses our world. The old clairvoyants did not think this way; one only misunderstood them later. There one pointed to the fixed starry sky as a kind of bowl that surrounds our world. It was a great moment, when Copernicus pulled the rug out from under the feet of the human beings as it were. It was a great moment when Gordano Bruno expanded this “bowl” into the infinity of the physical space. However, Giordano Bruno put something else beside the sensory picture. We need only to call a few words of Giordano Bruno in mind and we realise that he accomplished the great action to put a spiritual picture beside this sensory picture. He said that everything that surrounds us in the sensory world is rooted in the thoughts of the universal spirit, which manifest in the outer forms, in that which we perceive with the senses. If Giordano Bruno points to the endless cosmic space and looks for the being of the things manifest to the senses, this was for him, nevertheless, nothing but the embodiment of the thoughts of the universal spirit. Giordano Bruno calls the human mental pictures shades of the divine thoughts, not shades of the outer things. If Giordano Bruno turns the physical view to the outer world, the idea of the universal spirit enters into his soul mysteriously, and the human concepts are not shades of the outer sensory things but the thoughts of the universal spirit.

It is very important that we face Giordano Bruno as a great spirit who points to the cosmic space but also strongly to that which connects the human soul with the primeval spirit. You can compare this attitude already with the intelligence and the attitude of the today's science which was still fertilised, however, by the traditions of the old clairvoyance. One may say, a shade of the old clairvoyance and of the relationship with the divine-spiritual world still lived in Giordano Bruno. However, to us only the picture remained which he designed of the outer sensory world, and no more that which was still alive in him at that time. The picture of the old clairvoyance that lived in him disappeared. You only need to pursue the development without prejudice up to now, then you realise that more and more the mere intellect spread in the normal consciousness.

Hence, what has one to say about our age? There one may say that we live so surely in the age of intellect, of reason and its application to the sensory world. Now one has to investigate the peculiar effect of the intellect in the sense of spiritual science compared to the clairvoyant knowledge. This differs substantially from the knowledge of the intellect and the sensory observation. The difference consists in the fact that any clairvoyant knowledge that anyhow enables the connection of the human being with the spiritual world works on our mood, and from it, a feeling of the position of the human being in the whole universe arises. The clairvoyant knowledge is powerful, it pours sensations and feelings in our souls, it satisfies our longings, strengthens our hopes, kindles our love. One cannot imagine that the human being participates in the supersensible knowledge without changing it into feeling and sensation. Hence, we realise how the pictorial legends and myths were taken up in the images of ancient peoples not indifferently, but in such a way that the whole soul either could be delighted and given to a supersensible world or be contrite about its own smallness. This also belongs to the nature of intelligence that it darkens any supersensible knowledge in a way. We can observe that in our usual soul life. When any pictorial image which appears, as one says, intuitive or on the way of inspiration is grasped in abstractions, the deep emotional contents disappear which it gives the whole personality and the whole soul life. Intellect brings understanding largely, but extinguishes any immediate soul effect of the supersensible knowledge.

I bring in nothing made-up, nothing that you cannot read in numerous books. There the representatives of intelligence point to Buddha, to Christ, to Zarathustra, to Pythagoras and so on and say, the human soul faces the big world, it grasps the world in different way. The fact that the supersensible knowledge reaches to the soul was connected with strong courage for existence that caused the consciousness of our connection with the spiritual of the world. Indeed, intelligence leads to understanding on the surface of the things, but it cannot evoke a feeling of inner courage. Thus, we see despondence, feebleness toward the penetration of knowledge as a characteristic feature of our time. Our time praises and emphasises that which science accomplishes. They do that rightly. However, where people believe to think deeper they say that the human being does not come to the primal grounds of the things. Neither Pythagoras, nor Christ, nor Zarathustra would have known how to say something about these primal grounds. Nevertheless, this proves very well that instead of the old knowledge and confidence a knowledge of despondence appeared.

There are two forms of resignation. The old clairvoyant could say, as well as in my conditions, in my age the human abilities have developed, they are not sufficient to behold into the primal grounds of the things—- one has to resign.—This was another resignation than that which we find today. Why did the old clairvoyant resign? Because he realised: as I am, I am not yet capable to attain knowledge.—He resigns out of modesty, out of the consciousness that in him, indeed, the highest forces are, but that he cannot unfold them because of his imperfection. This is heroic resignation, full of confidence; this is the human being to whom the gates of the world riddles are not closed.

However, one says today, the human being cannot at all penetrate [into the knowledge of higher worlds]; as well as he is constituted; his cognitive faculties can never be so highly developed.—This is a fundamental resignation. It differs quite substantially from the heroic resignation; it has something arrogant because it declares the level of knowledge to be absolute. What it cannot recognise is generally beyond the human knowledge.

The age of intelligence is fulfilled with other sensations, with sensations of negative kind because it cannot be productive, in contrast to the times of the old clairvoyance. Humanity had to come to this point if it should lose all old mental pictures, also those of faith, and for that, it required the culture of intelligence.

However, the inner life would become banal if only the intelligence should be entitled to illumine the inner life of the human being. Hence, spiritual science or theosophy appears in the present and shows that it is possible again to bring out forces from the depths of the human soul that penetrate the intelligence with a higher cognitive power which leads the human beings again into the spiritual worlds. Thus, the new clairvoyant knowledge wants to be an incentive and a help to the intellectual knowledge, and it gives humanity again that which it needs to possess the light of intelligence not only that leaves the soul empty, but also to possess such a knowledge which again brings strength and confidence and hope in our lives. Numerous human beings long for such knowledge that can be changed into courage and power in our soul. Someone who understands the whole spirit of the new development from the aurora of the intellectual age up to its today's climax will also understand that for the future of humanity the fulfilment of the soul with contents is necessary. Since intelligence only would be able to extinguish the soul, but would not deliver new soul contents. Advanced people of the present criticize the old mental pictures or register them at most as history. One dives, so to speak, back to register the old mental pictures. However, spiritual science will be,—although it is true science—always such a science, which gives the powerful feeling of the coherence with the spiritual worlds. It wants to give our souls contents and to fertilise them with contents.

With it spiritual science points to its future mission. Such a science will again give sensation and feeling in the most natural way. Indeed, intelligence builds the bridge from the ancient times to the future, but the mission of spiritual science is to penetrate this intelligence with the living value of the spiritual life as food for the souls. Because in our time intelligence has reached its highest development, just this time was chosen by those who know how to interpret the spirit of the time to attempt to intervene by spiritual science to conquer [living soul contents for] the soul gradually again.

Thus, spiritual science positions itself not as something arbitrary or as something arbitrarily invented in our age, but as something that has to get to know the real sense, the deepest tasks, and riddles of our age. If the human soul opens itself to spiritual science with complete impartiality, then it will feel that spiritual science copes with any outer science concerning logic and intellect that it develops the logic in such a way that it appears as a force of love, of compassion, of life security in our souls. Any soul will feel the high sense of spiritual science and understand whose nature we can summarise with the words:

The things of cosmic space
Speak to the human senses;
They change in the course of time.
The human soul lives recognising,
Spatially unlimited and not
Confused by the course of time,
In the realm of the eternal spirit.

Dear attendees!

The point of view from which I am to speak this evening at the request of some local friends of the theosophical or spiritual scientific world view is by no means a popular one in the world and recognized in wider circles. With the exception of a few, relatively few of our contemporaries, who, from a deep knowledge and long study of the subject, have gained an intensely effective conviction in the direction of the world view under consideration, with the exception of these, this point of view is everywhere met with opposition, doubt and misunderstanding. And anyone who speaks about such a subject for the first time in a particular place does not, of course, harbor any illusions that a mere suggestion of a few remarks that can be made in a short lecture can somehow lead to conviction. This evening, I find myself in the somewhat dubious position of having to cite a variety of things from the theosophical worldview, for which there is sufficient evidence for those who delve deeper into the subject, but which cannot be cited this evening with all the necessary proof.

In accordance with the wishes of our local friends of our world view, we will start with a figure in the spiritual development of humanity who must, to a certain extent, be of interest to this part of the world in which we find ourselves, because he lived here in this city for a long time. We will then move on to a personality who, as everyone must recognize, has had a profound impact on the intellectual life of our time – Goethe. Not that it is to be shown that one could only find confirmation in the world view of Paracelsus and Goethe of what can arise from spiritual science, but it is to be shown that figures are already given in them which, precisely in their struggle and striving, show that what spiritual science or Theosophy wants has been longed for and striven for by those who, with the approach of modern spiritual development and our present time, tried in their own way to interpret the signs of the times and the needs of the human soul.

But before we can tie in with the spiritual significance of Paracelsus and Goethe and the path that development has taken from Paracelsus to Goethe, we must first characterize the point of view of Theosophy as it presents itself to us in the world today. Theosophy or spiritual science is by no means to be confused with any religious It has no intention of interfering with outward religious observances, nor of forming a religion or sect of its own. Such a thing is far from its mind, for its sources are such that it cannot in any wise impair religious beliefs or convictions.

On the other hand, the subject characterized finds its opponents namely among those who believe that they stand firmly on the ground of natural science, which is also appreciated by spiritual researchers. The greatness of the spiritual-scientific view is that, in terms of its way of thinking, it stands entirely on the ground of scientific thinking; but, starting from this scientific thinking, it wants to lead up to the highest regions of existence, which the human soul longs to know. It longs for this because man needs views of higher worlds if he wants to be secure in his work within the outer visible world in which he has to work. It is into the world of the spiritual, into that world which can also be called the supersensible world, that theosophy or spiritual science should lead. At the same time, this indicates, my dear ladies and gentlemen, what must create an enormous number of opponents for you at the present time, because even today, quietly thinking first scientists admit that what is achieved by the means of ordinary science cannot provide any information at all about the highest powers and entities that permeate and permeate this world. So it is often admitted that a spiritual world underlies our sensual one. But even if such level-headed people of the present do not want to put themselves on the level of those people who, out of materialistic thinking, want to say: Man knows that nothing is real but what surrounds us, they still often stand on the ground that they say: May a supersensible world exist behind our sensual world — but the powers of human knowledge are so limited that one has to stop before this spiritual world.

That there is a spiritual world to which man belongs with his soul and with what lives spiritually in him, just as man belongs to the outer world with his physical powers, is something that is to be made known to the world again through spiritual science. The second is that one can penetrate into this world with the same means as in natural science. It will be good, since our time is limited, to now draw attention to how man, in the way of natural science and its thinking, can look up into the spiritual world. Natural science penetrates into what it wants to explore through observation, but it also penetrates through experiment. Exploration through observation, but also through experiment, are also the means of spiritual science. Here too, it must be emphasized that spiritual science must place itself quite honestly and sincerely on the ground of a Goethean saying that anticipated the method of our science:

Mysterious in the bright day
Nature cannot be robbed of the veil,
And what it may not reveal to your mind,
You cannot force it with levers and screws.

What does such a saying mean in essence? It means that we can penetrate into the outer world of things and into the forces on which they are based with all the tools that are made in the world. And if we disregard the new instruments of natural science, we already know that in the elementary realm, the world of the infinitely small has been explored through the microscope, and the infinitely large world, the macrocosm, through the telescope. In this way, one penetrates into the world of things, but one cannot penetrate into the world of the spirit. Only the spirit of man can penetrate into the world of the spirit, and there can only be one tool: the spirit of man himself.

Now it is the case that what this spirit is in man has certain limits, that only certain things can be grasped that are bound to the intellect. You can read about what can only be touched on here, and what means more than all power and all riches, that man can be led further, that he can penetrate into completely different worlds, in my writing: “How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds”.

Just as one does it in the laboratory, as in the clinic, so one cannot make the human soul suitable to penetrate into the supersensible world. Only through purely spiritual processes can one do that. One understands the whole meaning of this spiritual process when one realizes the following example, which shows that one can be very clever in thinking, in the way it is done in the methods of natural science.

If you have water, you know that this water can be understood if you break it down into its two parts: hydrogen and oxygen. You know that. But to examine what hydrogen is and what oxygen is, you have to separate it, the oxygen or the hydrogen, and then you can look at it on its own.

The mind and soul are now in the human being, as he stands in the world, connected with the whole body, like oxygen and hydrogen with water. Our soul and spirit perceive only the external world through the senses, through the mind, in colors, sounds, smells and tastes. One forms a picture by discovering the laws of nature. Everything that reaches the spiritual and soul reaches it in the same way as oxygen, when it is combined with hydrogen in water. But if we want to examine it, we have to separate it from the physical just as we have to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen when we want to examine it. Now there are means to secrete this spiritual-mental: meditation, concentration. All these are means by which something is achieved in the soul that is similar to what the chemist achieves when he breaks down water into oxygen and hydrogen.

To characterize this, we will see what fills people between waking and sleeping in terms of volitional impulses, hopes and worries. All that which fills us so, if we look more closely, we will find [and we will see] that it is not there without external cause. We know that when we see the red roses, we then hold on to the image, as one has not created the image itself in the soul. This is also how we find the laws of nature through our mind. When we look at our hopes, as well as our desires and passions, we find them stimulated by external factors. How can we say that we have acquired this through our own will? We know how it happens through external influences, through unknown depths of our soul life. Our pain, our joy, our suffering and our desire are prepared by the outer world without our intervention. We have not placed the experiences in the soul at the center of the soul. That is what the spiritual researcher must undertake. When the spiritual researcher brings such ideas, which he has made himself, into his soul through pure inner will, we say “symbols”. For example, let us imagine the light emanating from some cosmic body. But we imagine this light as the body of a spiritual being, which also has a body of light, just as we have a body of flesh. If you tell me that this is a mistake, I would like to point out that when we use such images as spiritual instruments, we do not in any way succumb to the illusion that we are thereby gaining an idea of the external world. When such images are given, they are not intended to be true in the sense that our usual images of the external world are true; they have the function of serving as facts of the soul. The person needs infinite patience and energy to arrive at such images, because he must reject all thoughts that relate to the external sense world. He must become as a person is in sleep. When all external impressions are silent and the mind is also silent, while the person is surrounded by darkness and unconscious, the person who devotes years and years to inner exercises – as soon as we have our own idea of the moral content – will come to be in relation to the outside world and the rest of the soul life as he is in sleep. Only that the unconsciousness is not there. Powers arise there. Now we know that the soul is a spiritual being that can give itself content. The soul does not arrive there in platitudes, as in mysticism. Through the same kind of efforts at contemplation as a person makes externally with the help of physical tools, the soul comes to experience itself inwardly. There it comes to an experience that is as free of corporeality, of materiality, as oxygen is free of hydrogen when they are chemically separated.

It is difficult to believe in it from the outset. But it is no more difficult than believing in a new scientific finding, to believe that a person comes to know that he has spiritual eyes and spiritual ears. An initial finding that can be gained through this path is that a person becomes aware of what actually happens when we fall asleep at night. Spiritual science tells us that what remains in bed is what man has in common with the plant world, an external corporeality, but that an inner spiritual-soul core of being emerges from this corporeality. This spiritual-soul core of being is not in the physical being of man from the time of falling asleep to the time of waking up, but in his own world. Man is just not able to perceive this. But it is perceived when the human being has acquired spiritual eyes and ears. Then the person knows that he is in a world in which spiritual facts take place just as they do in our sensual world. Every night, nature separates what the spiritual researcher has obtained as consciousness, only the person does not know it. Now an important result of spiritual science comes to light: that by means of spiritual science one can give proof of something that great minds have always suspected, which is, however, regarded as a dream in the widest circles, but which will make a way through world culture, like many other things that have lived through many a contradiction in the world. I would like to draw attention to something similar. Not so long ago, mankind believed that lower animals, small lower animals, can develop from mere inanimate matter, lifeless matter. It was even believed that worms could develop from river mud. And until a few centuries ago, it could be found in books that were considered scholarly how animals developed here.

It was a great deed of the Italian naturalist Francesco Redi to have pointed out to people that nothing can develop from non-living matter, but that only living things can develop from living things. In truth, there was a living germ in this river mud, originating from living beings. The man who recognized this and first expressed it barely escaped the fate of Giordano Bruno.

Modern spiritual science must apply this sentence: “Living things come only from living things” to man, but must then also come to proofs that stand just as high above the sentence “Living things come only from living things” as man stands above all living things, because with man we are dealing with an individual, while all other living things present themselves in groups and species. In our time, it is quite natural that we have to speak in terms of the spiritual and soul-related in the same way that Francesco Redi does in terms of the living; that we have to say: If a person is born with certain aptitudes and abilities, and even with a certain destiny, and people then think that this is based merely on heredity, this is based merely on inaccurate observation, just as it was based on inaccurate observation that people believed that worms can develop from river mud.

Spiritual research shows, as Lessing demonstrated, that as a human being grows up, the features become more and more distinct, the abilities become more and more distinct, and the soul and spiritual express themselves more and more. Then we may say that it is not only inherited from father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, but we must trace it back to the spiritual and soul, which is laughed at in the present, but which will become established in the same way as the sentence: 'Living things can only arise from living things'. What is born with us, what shapes us from birth or from conception, comes from a previous life on earth, and what we now carry within us as our spiritual and soul essence is something that will continue to live in the spiritual world when we pass through the gate of death, to form a body again in a later life on earth. In line with the natural sciences of our time, spiritual research comes to the view of different earth lives, to that doctrine of reincarnation decried as madness and to that doctrine of karma, which says that what we experience, what we are and how we face the world can be an effect of what we have done, experienced and felt in previous earth lives. That what we do, experience and feel now will be a cause for what we will do, experience and feel in a later life on earth.

Thus the spiritual researcher divides his life between what is between birth and death and a new birth, and in this he is a spiritual being. One only attains independence, the distinctiveness of the human being, through spiritual science, when one separates the spirit. Just as little as one can recognize oxygen as long as it is connected to hydrogen in water, so little can one recognize the spirit as long as it is connected to the body. When it is separated from the body, it can be recognized. Then one also recognizes that it cannot be destroyed by the body, that it characterizes it as something lasting, as something eternal.

When we see this spiritual science or theosophy emerging in modern times, it should not be something that ties in with the old, that can be picked up here or there. For example, some people say: Yes, this spiritual research with its doctrine of reincarnation and karma is only bringing something that we find in Buddhism. But we can find that it differs in its most important and essential aspects from the doctrine that Buddhism teaches as the doctrine of reincarnation, something that it recognizes from within through the spirit. It is a mistake to think that it is based on Buddhism; no, it stands on its own ground. It comes to what it wants to recognize through the investigations of those who make their own soul into an instrument that can penetrate the spiritual world.

We can see how the best of our minds, with all their yearning, have tended towards what spiritual science today wants to pick as a ripe fruit from the tree of knowledge. And so we come to direct our gaze to a mind that we understand when we have spent a long time in the area, as I was able to do near Maria-Einsiedeln, and we know that this spirit saw the light of day, that this is the birthplace of this spirit, that Paracelsus was born there in 1493 and lived there until the age of fourteen. We find a remarkable spirit in this Paracelsus. It is so very special in the soul when you are in this nature of Maria-Einsiedeln. What surrounds us in nature reminds us of how the boy grew up in wonderful surroundings into what later confronts us so greatly in his spirit. And this awakens the wish in us: May those who will be our successors be fairer to us than we were to our ancestors. We say so lightly: Yes, actually Paracelsus had a very commendable aspiration, but what he brought to light, no one can take seriously today, we have gone beyond that. In short, in a more or less veiled sense, one says nothing other than that such a person is a drip. If only posterity would be fairer to us, because what the botanist now knows will be able to be characterized in the same way after a few centuries, because only a short-sighted person will be able to say that this will last for all eternity.

But Paracelsus is an individuality who presents himself as strange to those who want to penetrate into the higher world because he was a wiser and more characteristic expression of his time, a time that seems strange precisely in a time when it presents itself as such. Paracelsus appears to us as if from his earliest youth he was intimately connected with everything that works and lives in nature. One cannot but apply the words spoken by Goethe to Paracelsus:

Nature! We are surrounded and embraced by you – unable to step out of it and unable to get deeper into it. Uninvited and unwarned, she takes us into the cycle of her dance and carries on with us until we are tired and fall out of her arms. She is forever creating new forms; what is there has never been, what was does not return – everything is new and yet always the same.

In a wonderful way, Goethe honors this interweaving of people with nature there. With Paracelsus, it was present only in the sense that he saw in his spirit, not just with his eyes and mind. And it was still the case that he did not need the kind of soul training that has been described today. Rather, it was his nature to perceive the spiritual forces of nature when he heard the trees rustling and felt the wind playing through the room; he never perceived in isolation what is found in nature. He said, “A soul is expressing itself, as in a human being who is not just made of papier-mâché.” Thus, Paracelsus saw in nature not only the outer appearance, but gestures for the spiritual entities that are present in a supersensible world and are active in nature. Therefore, wherever he encountered a natural fact or a natural being, he sought the spiritual and soul-like. He was predestined for this by the way he had grown up. He therefore always said later that he was proud of the way he had remained a primitive man: I did not grow up with wheat bread and figs like the Sugar Fairies, I grew up with rye porridge and coarse rye bread. From this close relationship with nature, an inner certainty arose in Paracelsus, a connection with the spiritual world. It is also a wonderful life, how the boy walked through nature at his father's hand in Maria-Einsiedeln, and how much he had already learned in the earliest days of childhood about the secrets of nature.

And how differently it touches us when we saw the man grow up, feeling so strongly this coexistence with nature that he dared to oppose what was around him. We just have to put ourselves in the shoes of the science of the time. The focus was not on the facts of nature, but rather on ancient traditions, traditions preserved in books, which were passed down. People listened to what people said, what Aristotle and Galen had taught. What I am telling you now is by no means a mere legend, to show how things were at that time. It was believed and taught by Aristotle that the nerves of the human being do not originate in the head but in the heart. Galileo had a friend who was a scholar. He pointed out to him that it could easily be demonstrated on a corpse, but his friend did not want to believe it. So Galilei took him there and showed him on the corpse that the nerves emanate from the brain, and then the learned gentleman said to him: “That may be right, you may be right, but when I see nature and ask Aristotle, I am more inclined to believe Aristotle.”

It is clear to see how enormous the efforts had to be to lead back to the source of nature. Paracelsus did not want to learn from books. Therefore, we see him traveling through all neighboring countries: England, France, Hungary, Poland, Turkey. Those who want to know about the world must not let it come to them, but go there. The world is like a large organism: it makes humanity healthy and sick. But health in France is one thing, health in Germany is another. Paracelsus wanted to read in the great book of nature. Therefore, he did not hesitate to hear what the farmers and the shepherds said, and even what the knackers said. He knew that with their elementary observation they could find something for true knowledge.

It was not surprising, therefore, that this Paracelsus, after he had, so to speak, put all the learned works behind him, according to which the others were taught, that he wanted to express what he had learned in word forms that were deeply related to what nature spoke to him. He expressed what nature allowed to shine into his soul from its spirit: he wanted to shape it, not in Latin, as was customary at the time, but in his mother tongue. That was what brought him into such stark contradiction with the scholarship of the time. When he was called to Basel, he not only taught what he had observed himself, but also dared to teach it in German. And when he went against other customs of the time, he was no longer tolerated. His wonderful teaching, so to speak, broke his neck. He had performed cures that were appreciated by the respected people of the time, esteemed by Erasmus and other great minds, but never had he confronted his patients in such a way that he would have seen a fee. It was the spiritual and mental state of the people that he was referring to. He never just saw what was on the outside. He said, “My main remedy is love. I immerse myself in my patients with love and feeling; and that which was in the body came to life in the soul of Paracelsus. When the image of the inner illness of a person met with the own soul of Paracelsus, then the image of the plant or mineral that he had to process arose in his soul as if by itself. This is why he had his great and significant successes. Even if, in a certain sense, he could be seen by people as a tramp, he was a great benefactor of humanity.

But that did not prevent something like the following from happening. A great gentleman went to Paracelsus to be cured by him. A fee of one hundred thalers had been agreed upon. Paracelsus prescribed a remedy. After taking it three times, the gentleman recovered. But then he said: “Yes, if I have recovered so quickly, it is not worth a hundred thalers.” And although Paracelsus did not usually attach particular importance to payment, Paracelsus flew into a rage and had “evil notes” printed, as it was said at the time, or as they say today: pamphlets. He had them passed around. A friend then advised him to flee, and he lost his job.

But that was how he usually felt about life. On the surface, the story of his death may be a legend, but the doctors had hated him so much that it does not seem incredible that an individual in Salzburg pushed him down a slope and killed him – in 1541. Since Paracelsus was a very temperamental person and represented with all his enthusiasm what he experienced, it can be said that this has an inner truth, especially when we look at the last picture of Paracelsus with his furrowed face, then we have the feeling: He met a tragic end because what lived in greatness in his soul was not compatible with the smallness of his time.

When we consider how he viewed the times, we can say: He has not yet been able to penetrate to the teaching of repeated earthly lives, but he knows that the human being standing before me is not a being that exhausts itself with its physical existence, but a being that has an inner nature, is connected to inner invisible forces of a supersensible world. Yes, he said: Man can only be recognized if he is seen as a threefold being. First of all, there is the human being who can be known with the physical mind. But above this physical world there is another world that can only be seen with the eyes of the spirit. This human being is taken from the astral or sidereal world, as Paracelsus also called it. He then further distinguishes the highest human being, who belongs to the purely spiritual world. There Paracelsus saw two others interwoven into our sensory world, and the human being interwoven with these two others, and knew that the human being belongs in the spiritual-soul world.

And then Paracelsus said again: When we look at this human being, the way he thinks and ponders must indeed present himself as a spiritual-soul being. When he saw how a choice was made within his organism regarding food, for Paracelsus this was a sign that between the person who thinks and researches and the one who presents himself in the body, there is still another one present. He speaks of a spiritual body that is taken along when a person passes through the gate of death.

Paracelsus calls this inner man the inner alchemist because he transforms the substances of nature so that they can become a builder of the human being. And Paracelsus is aware that he must not only use external means if he wants to heal people, but that the supernatural powers are at work when a person is healthy or sick. Therefore, he not only says: “The person must have passed a nature test, but he is also a pious man.” He knows that if he wants to heal people, he must penetrate to the deepest hidden causes of the illnesses. Therefore, when I am standing in front of a sick person, I know that I have a preparation, but more than anything else, if I can let something overflow in my soul, that is my hope. That in the spiritual course of events, what I have gained as a spiritual experience can also flow in, that the power of my hope, which completely permeates me, can flow out.

There is still much to be said, but one can divert one's gaze from Paracelsus in order to get to know him in yet another way, in a later, even more awakened spirit, in Goethe. And here, the figure of Paracelsus stands quite remarkably beside the contemplation of Goethe, as if Paracelsus were looking over Goethe's shoulder, and especially when one devotes oneself to the contemplation of Goethe's life's work, “Faust”. It is remarkable that in terms of external characteristics, Faust bears some similarity to Paracelsus. But this is understandable. Besides the sixteenth-century Faust, Goethe always had the figure of Paracelsus before his soul. And just as Paracelsus once placed the ancient Galen to one side, so we read of this Faust: He put the Bible behind the bench for a while and became a man who lives in the world. Paracelsus did not put the Bible behind the bench, but he turned away from the old medical books and wanted to gain independent knowledge. And when we follow Faust, in everything as Goethe describes him, how he goes out with the country people and how he is remembered by them, how his father taught him as a boy, the image of this boy Paracelsus, holding his father's hand, comes to mind. And one has the same image as Goethe gave in the walk before the gate.

But one thing is still very strange. Paracelsus lived to be 48 years old. He passed through the gate of death after a life of rich inwardness, and if he had had good health, not affected by the smallness of his time, he would also have had to say: There you stand alone; which is the ideal of “Faust.” Can we not imagine Faust as being as old as Paracelsus when he died? There is nothing to prevent us. But while Paracelsus would have stood there through his rich, precious, appreciative inner life, through the harmonious balance with all the longings of the world, Faust stands before us – at about the same age at which Paracelsus stands at the height of eminent satisfaction and knowledge, Faust stands before us in despair. Paracelsus could not have stood there with the words:

“I have now, alas! studied philosophy,
jurisprudence and medicine,
and unfortunately also theology
with great endeavor.

Paracelsus would have said: Thank God that I soon ran away when I was supposed to study all these things, and went to nature. Therefore, he had a different relationship to the great things of nature than Faust. No one would have said of him:

You resemble the spirit you comprehend, not me!

Rather, he was akin to the spirit that

In the floods of life, in the storm of action
I surge up and down,
weaving back and forth!

and from which Faust turns away in horror:

terrible face.

And so Faust stands, despairing of what science can give us, yet unable to find what he seeks, having surrendered to magic. We can, of course, only touch on this, as time is of the essence.

Goethe lets his Faust go through everything that man can achieve through his aberration, he lets him go through all the aberrations that man goes through when he does not enter the spiritual world in the right way, and he presents this particularly in the witches' kitchen. The one depicted in Faust does not arrive in a harmonious way at what Goethe particularly desired in his “Faust”. Only Goethe penetrates more and more, especially through his Italian travels, more and more into what nature gives him.

Eminent Spirit, you gave me, gave me everything
I asked for. You did not turn
your face to me in the fire for nothing.
You gave me the magnificent nature for my kingdom,
the strength to feel and enjoy it. You do not
allow only cold, astonished visitors,
grant me to look into their deep chests,
as into the bosom of a friend.
You lead the line of the living
before me, and teach me my brothers
in the silent bush, in air and water.

This interweaving with the spirit of nature is something that Faust possesses: but he has not yet reached the point where he can recognize the spirit in a mature form. Therefore, Goethe must depict the recognition of the higher world in the characterized form of the witches' kitchen. But we move on and see how he — Faust — arrives at the imperial court and how he has to amuse the emperor in all sorts of ways, and finally has to bring him Helen from the underworld. We see how Goethe lets him descend into the realm of the mothers, that is, into the world of the soul and spirit. But at first he only brings up the image of Helen. But in the course of time he must bring up not only the image that resembles the spiritual Helen, but also what she really is in the spiritual world. What is needed for this? That he gets to know the right connection between body, soul and spirit, namely the physical body, the etheric and the astral body in the spiritual-scientific sense. Just as Faust initially fails to hold on to Helena, but first has to connect body, soul and spirit, so this soul must first be presented in such a way that the body can penetrate into it from one side and the spirit - homunculus - from the other. Goethe uses a strange image here, which people have studied a lot about:

He is not lacking in spiritual qualities,
but all too much in the tangible and practical.

And Thales advises him:

Give in to the praiseworthy desire
to start creation from the beginning!
Be ready for rapid action!
You move according to eternal norms,
through a thousand and one forms,
and you have time until the human being.

That he - the homunculus - is to become human is clearly stated. Furthermore:

Come with me spiritually into the moist expanse,
There you live equally in length and breadth,
You can move about here as you like;
Just do not strive for higher orders.

The comments come entirely from the text because the emphasis is on the word “order” as if he had been striving to receive an order. But it is a very simple matter. As so often, Goethe was speaking his Frankfurt German, and people also printed it that way, but it should simply be written Orten: “But do not strive for higher places”. When he arrives at the classical Walpurgis Night, the Homunculus, who is not lacking in spiritual qualities, is advised that he must pass through such realms of nature, through what natural science teaches, that man develops through the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms to human corporeality.

You have to start at the very bottom. The passage through the greenness of the plant world is depicted to characterize what a person experiences when they reach the plant stage, and Homunculus says:

It grunelt so.

And now to come to what is brought about in man through love, we experience the end of the second act, where Homunculus, who has progressed so far that he has the powers of the three kingdoms of nature within him – this is shown to us by the allusion to the elements – is dashed against the shell of Galathea. Then, when the spiritual has become so embodied through the three realms, this appears to us as the image of Helen.

Then Goethe shows further how Faust develops. It is wonderful how he demonstrates how Faust comes to ever deeper realization, which Goethe shows as complete only at the moment when the eyes go blind. Darkness outside, but inside the light shines. Through experiencing the spiritual world, he can become free from the external world. He shows us this by the fact that Faust only experiences inner vision when the outer light goes out. And yet, Goethe should not present Faust as Paracelsus. Faust falls into misfortune: He can only come to the realization of the spiritual light by dying to the external, by becoming a completely different person. Paracelsus was able to lead his enemies to their deaths.

Why did such a transformation of human research and forms of knowledge occur on the path from Paracelsus to Goethe? The answer is provided by an event that occurred a few years after Paracelsus passed through the gates of death, and which was experienced as a major event on the path from Paracelsus to Goethe. The world was introduced to the Copernican system of the world. It has not yet been realized what this means. Until then, the earth had been regarded as the center around which the firmament moves. Now, through Nicolaus Copernicus, the ground was taken from under people's feet, so to speak. There has been no greater upheaval in the world view. What was the fruit of such a change? That from now on such a path of the soul could lead to direct knowledge of the spiritual world. Until now, a supreme being had provided a worldview that recognizes that which is in physical space as the only thing, and presents it as if the senses recognize it. A sensual process was presented as the decisive one, and the solution to the riddles of the world was sought in external facts.

Paracelsus now faced the world unperturbed by such a materialistic solution to the world's riddles and acquired what he could recognize through direct observation of nature. But in his time, the solution of the world's riddles was otherwise sought in external facts and sensory processes. But this meant that the power to direct oneself to the spiritual in the innermost part of the soul was suppressed for a while in the innermost part of the soul.

Faust cannot gain any satisfaction from his yearning for the spiritual world. The human soul had been taught different ways of thinking. Faust faced spiritual science with despair, because the first thing that reveals itself as spirit to him is: “Don't talk to me like that!” – which is how Goethe made Faust a person of the eighteenth century. Goethe had to experience in Faust what he was to attain in the spiritual world. In this way, Goethe also characterized our immediate present, our time.

Goethe made his Faust character a tragic one, saying: In our time, man has not yet reached the point where he can penetrate into the spiritual world without losing the context of the world of sense. Faust had to lose his eye.

Spiritual science or theosophy, however, has a kind of fulfillment of what Goethe characterized as the task of modern times, because spiritual science wants to be a balance between what modern science has brought about as facts and what the spirit can be as a fact of the spiritual world. Man needs this, and we need nothing more as proof of this than the correctly understood Faust figure. Man needs not only his theory of the development of external facts, but he needs a knowledge of what is the bearer, the creator of the external world. And so, in addition to the law of Francesco Redi, that living things can only arise from living things, there is another: spiritual and soul forces in present earthly life arise out of spiritual and soul forces in earlier earthly lives.

Thus, spiritual-mental aspects will appear as the very legitimate continuation of natural science, as it were a re-embodiment of a Faust. A Faust who does not need to go blind, and yet has spiritual eyes and spiritual ears, so that it will be as we can read in Goethe:

Hark! Listen to the storm of the hours!
The new day is already born for the ears of the spirit.
Rock gates creak and rattle,
Phoebus' wheels roll and clatter.

What a roar brings the light!
It drums, it trumpets,
the eye blinks and the ear is amazed,
unheard-of things are not heard.

Thus Paracelsus appears as a personality that we still find in ancient times, where people still had an old heritage, where the spiritual powers of vision could draw from the spiritual world. But the time came when the spiritual powers of the soul were obscured by external materialism. Now we are at a time when they will develop again, and science will be warmed and enlightened by the assurance, hope and fulfillment of all that we strive for in our thoughts and meditations. Thus science will become much more useful, but spiritual science or theosophy will teach that man, with his innermost core of being, belongs to the spiritual world.

Perhaps it would be good today to reflect on spiritual-scientific questions that could serve one or the other when it comes to defending spiritual science externally. For precisely when we meet for the first time in a place where, so to speak, a kind of beginning or starting point of the spiritual-scientific movement is to be considered, it is quite good to bring to mind some of the moral questions that often arise for us, , especially when we ourselves are already working in this or that branch and then stand before people who come to us without any knowledge of spiritual science and want to know something that could perhaps lead them to a conviction or at least to an attitude towards spiritual science.

In this case, spiritual science must refer to transcendental, spiritual experience. And just as the message of the spiritual scientific world view is brought to us today, it is a narrative, a narrative of what the spiritual researcher — by making his soul an instrument to research in the spiritual world — can reveal and which has the same certainty for him as the fact that roses or tables and chairs exist for our external perception, that is, an immediate certainty of perception.

But what does that matter to us, who do not have such direct certitude of vision? the others might ask. For us it can only lead to our believing what the spiritual researcher says. Now I have always emphasized that this is not the case. It is true that the things of the higher world can only be known by penetrating into them; but if they are then only logically presented, it is such that everyone can grasp them if he applies his reason in the right way, so that he can say to himself: 'Everything that is said here agrees more with the facts than anything that is said by another philosophy'. We can therefore calmly apply our reason and find that from the logic that underlies things, the matter can already be grasped. It is not so easy, but it does come about that even the non-seeing person can form a well-founded conviction.

Of course, what can be said to outsiders will not be enough for the actual proofs. But if we take certain things that anyone can know and compare them with what the spiritual researcher says, then we can basically get quite far. Let us take just one very elementary spiritual truth: the truth that a person consists of four parts: the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body and that which we call the I. Of these four members, the outer world only knows the physical body, and of course everyone is free to deny that there is such a thing as an ether body or an astral body or the I.

One can say: Everyone speaks of the ego; but it is still refuted. The ego is like a kind of flame that is consumed by the fuel of the physical body like a wick. — This is how they wanted to refute the philosopher Bergson, who refers to the persistence of the ego.

But we can see how the ego survives individual perceptions. Every day shows this, since every night the ego is extinguished and cannot be experienced as something that continues uninterruptedly.

One could accept that these supersensible elements can be denied; but there is one thing that a person cannot deny, namely, that he perceives three kinds of inner experiences within himself. One is that he experiences representations in his soul. For everyone knows that when he looks at an object and then turns around and still has the impression of it, he has experienced a representation. The second thing that a person experiences, and which he must distinguish from his perceptions, are the emotions: pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, sympathy and antipathy. And there is a third thing that a person cannot deny: that he has impulses of will.

Let us take the world of imagination: a person can form an idea by letting the world of perceptions take effect on him. He can also form ideas by reading a novel, because a person also has ideas when he reads something. You all know that a person sometimes has it hard and sometimes not so hard in terms of his ideas. The images that a person instinctively likes to indulge in have a different effect than those that they indulge in with distaste or that cause them difficulties. You all know that a difficult calculation has a different effect on the way you think than a novel does. We notice that we become tired from the life of images when it takes effort on our part. This can be all the less doubted since it is a means to fall asleep more easily. It is not necessarily images that particularly irritate us, nor those that worry us, but rather those that are difficult for us. In any case, every person can experience this in themselves: falling asleep relatively easily when they immerse themselves in a world of images before falling asleep, bound by a sense of duty.

Let us now take the emotions. Lust and sorrow, joy and pain, worry, grief and the like are something that can, under certain circumstances, cause us external difficulties at such moments. A person who is severely affected by his emotions will find it difficult to fall asleep. Even joyful experiences will prevent him from falling asleep peacefully.

If you pay attention to such things, you will soon notice that emotions are a greater hindrance than perceptions when going to sleep, and especially emotions that are related to the most intense interests of the ego. If a person is anticipating a particular event, they often won't sleep for weeks. Just try it: an event that is bound to occur with a certain degree of certainty, for example the appearance of a comet – if you are not an astronomer who has an ego interest in it – will keep you awake quite well. Not the astronomer, because he has calculated and is waiting anxiously to see if his calculation is correct.

Now we can look at these emotions from another perspective. We can, in a certain respect, associate sleep with the clairvoyant side of a person. The state of sleep is such that the person is unconscious. Clairvoyance is only: sleep permeated by spiritual light, conscious sleep, if we may define it in this way. It should therefore be favorable for clairvoyant states when one is free of all emotional upheaval, and unfavorable when one is filled with it. This can be confirmed by many things that can also be known externally, for example, in the case of Nostradamus, who in the 16th century was an important clairvoyant of the kind that he had prophetic clairvoyance, so that even pure historians cannot doubt that events that he brought into verse were fulfilled and that, when compared, show that he made quite wonderful statements. Even the historian Kemmerich has recognized this because it cannot be denied. Kemmerich himself says that he had set himself completely different tasks: he only wanted to provide evidence that health conditions for humans have improved since the 16th century. And then he came to deal with Nostradamus.

When we follow Nostradamus, it is interesting to consider his life circumstances. He was a person who possessed such clairvoyant powers that were based on disposition, so that they were found in the whole family. But in his case they came up in a special way because he was a devoted, wonderful doctor. He did great things, especially during a plague epidemic in Provence. But then it was said that he was a secret Calvinist. This harmed him so much that he had no choice but to give up his medical practice. You have to understand what that means! The powers are in the personality after all! Physicists find that when forces dissolve in nature somewhere, they are utilized elsewhere. - Only in spiritual areas, people do not want to know anything about it. If a person develops such powers in his profession, then such beneficially developed as this as a doctor, so must such forces, which are released, manifest themselves elsewhere. And they all turned into clairvoyant powers in Nostradamus, because he had a certain original clairvoyance, as did Paracelsus.

Now, look: Nostradamus describes quite nicely how he came to foresee future events. He had a laboratory. But it was not a laboratory like chemists have. It was a room, a room next to his apartment, with a glass roof. From there he observed the course of the stars, letting the transformation of the constellations affect his soul. And then the things came to him that he could say about the future. It arose as an intuition. It leaped out of his mind. But in order for such things to come to him, he had to be completely free of worry and care and agitation of mind. There we have an example of how, in clairvoyance, just as in healthy sleep, there must be an absence of agitation of mind.

Now let us go further and inquire about the connection between a person and their will impulses, insofar as these will impulses have a connection with the moral. Let us again consider the moment of falling asleep. This is an important moment for a person, because, as spiritual science tells us, this is when they pass over into the astral world.

Let us consider the moral impulses in this moment of falling asleep. In order to observe these, one must pay great attention to such processes. Those people who are so careful make the following experience: So the moment of falling asleep approaches. While before the eye had seen clearly, now the outlines of the objects become more and more indefinite. Something like fog covers them. It is as if the person feels cut off from their surroundings. There is also a change in the physical body in relation to a certain something: one can no longer move the limbs. They can no longer follow a force that they used to follow. Furthermore, the person notices that they feel as if certain things, which must be described as impulses of the will, are being brought to mind all by themselves. The things he has made appear before him as a unity, things he has made in such a way that he does not have to reproach himself. And he feels an immense bliss over everything he has done well. Through good spirits, people are protected from the bad things appearing before their soul. Of course, feeling bliss over the good that has been done cannot occur if no good has been done. But then, people are generally not so bad as to do nothing good.

The person who is paying attention senses how something arises like a thought that remains dark and yet distinct before the soul: Oh, if only this moment could be held on to, oh, if only it could always remain like this! Then a jolt occurs and consciousness is gone.

While good impulses evoke bliss and promote falling asleep, bad impulses hinder it even more than emotions. A person falls asleep with great difficulty over pangs of conscience. Under certain circumstances, will impulses are an even worse hindrance than emotions to enter the spiritual world into which we are to enter. The life of imagination makes it relatively easy, the emotions are already more difficult, and remorse about actions for which we can reproach ourselves is the least likely to let us enter the spiritual world.

Usually, the images, that is, our images, keep watch; as we let the images of the day pass before us, we usually fall asleep quite well. But when sensations are added, they are a less good guard; we fall asleep less well under arousal. But what most guards our sleep, so that we best enter devachan, are the volitions, the volitions that have led us to moral deeds. When in our retrospective view we come to a point that fills us with satisfaction, with moral satisfaction about a good deed in which our will impulse has been expressed, then the moment of bliss is there that carries us over into devachan.

If we pay attention to what spiritual science has to say, we will find that there is already agreement between these observations and what has been found through clairvoyance. For spiritual science tells us: Man belongs to the astral world with his etheric body. Because he belongs to the astral world with his etheric body, he lives in his perceptions as in something that is not inherent in the physical world. The physical world gives us perceptions. But we have to turn away from them, and then we are left with something else: ideas. These are already supersensuous. Man has these ideas because the forces of the astral world reach into his etheric body, so that man stands in a certain connection with the astral world through his ideas. Secondly, spiritual science tells us that emotions are something that is not only connected to the astral world, but also to a higher one; for human beings also have emotions in connection with the lower devachan. Thirdly, spiritual science and all occultism teaches that through the moral work of the will impulses, the human being is connected to the higher devachan world, the world of the so-called formless devachan.

Thus, in man, these three types of soul life indicate three ways of connecting with the higher worlds. Compare what is experienced in ordinary life with what spiritual science says. It is in agreement. Imaginations do not hinder falling asleep, because we have to enter the astral world through them. On the other hand, in order to enter the world of Devachan, we must have such emotions that allow us to enter a higher spiritual world. We cannot fall asleep through such emotions, which make us toss and turn on our bed. The world of moral will impulses signifies our connection with the higher world of Devachan. We will not be allowed to enter there if we do not have such volitional impulses that we do not have to reproach ourselves for. So we cannot really sleep if we have pangs of conscience. We are locked out there. And the bliss we feel when we do a good deed is an outward sign that we are allowed to enter the devachan world. No wonder that people experience this as a bliss in which they would always like to live. They feel so close to the higher devachan world that they would like to remain there. Unless a person is clairvoyant, he cannot imagine these highest states other than as the feeling of falling asleep, which occurs as bliss and moral sensation.

Thus we can show man: You have a soul life within you. What you imagine manifests itself in such a way that it brings you into connection with a higher world, and in such a way that it makes it easiest for you to enter the higher world; it is related to the astral. What the human being lives out in this way is like a shadow of the higher world. Emotions separate us more, because through them the human being is connected to the lower devachan world; will impulses, on the other hand, separate us even more, because they are connected to the higher devachan world.

The whole thing is, however, still connected with other facts: what is most effective after death in Kamaloka are the emotions and moral impulses. Ideas about the sensory world die off, only those of the supernatural can be taken along by the person. On the other hand, our emotions haunt us after death and remain. Because they are what keep us in Kamaloka for a certain amount of time. For example, a person who is very bad would not be able to enter Devachan at all through his remorse between death and a new birth, but would have to reincarnate without it. Without moral impulses he would not be able to ascend to the higher devachan world; he would have to return and make up for it in a short time. Since he had no good emotions, even the lower devachan is closed to him.

Thus we can compare and show that we can gain an insight into the facts of ordinary life, of the ordinary life of the soul, if we explain them in terms of spiritual science.

I would like to tie in with what has just been said another fact that will seem important to you if you turn your spiritual gaze to the fact of the doctrine of reincarnation, of repeated earthly lives. If we incarnate repeatedly on earth, it must have a certain purpose. After all, evolution would serve no purpose if we did not experience something through it! What is the point of reincarnation? Through the facts of spiritual insight, we come to see how very different human life is in different ages. Let us think back to ancient times, when people spoke Greek or Latin and did what was customary at the time! What is required today: that children be sent to school, only came about late. While today we see an illiterate person as an uneducated person, this was not the case in the past. Otherwise, our statistics would have to call Wolfram von Eschenbach, for example, an uneducated person. Something else that is not considered education today was different in ancient Rome, for example: every Roman citizen – even those who plowed their fields – knew exactly the content of the Twelve Tables and much else that was related to the organization of the civil state. The Romans did not need to run to the lawyer for every little thing. – That is one example. If these great differences were known, people would no longer ask why we have to keep reincarnating as children; surely it is not necessary! No, it is not! Each time we return, civilization has changed so much that we have to learn something new. So, we were born in completely different circumstances, and it is absolutely necessary to keep coming back until the Earth has reached its goal.

Now we can best distinguish what a person can become in the successive cultures if we know that the various qualities that have been listed today as an inner soul life gradually develop in the outer culture. In our time, it is characteristic that of the impulses listed, the greatest value is placed on the imagination. We live in a culture of the imagination. The intellect is being developed. In Greek and Roman culture, people did not think so much, but they perceived more than people do today. Something funny, but at the same time something great, is contained in what Hebbel, the playwright, wrote in his notebook: Let us assume that Plato was reborn; then he would become a high school student and would have to read Plato in the Greek language, and the high school teacher is terribly dissatisfied because he does not understand Plato and beats him. - That is what Hebbel wanted to dramatize. Well, on the one hand it is quite comical, but on the other hand it is quite understandable. Because it is true that today the high school teacher represents much more than even the great philosopher Plato in his time. It is just that today, in a certain sense, one looks at the world shortsightedly. Today's farmer thinks more than the Greek philosopher thought. In contrast, in those days the perceptive faculty was much more developed. Man was connected with all of nature. Perception was then the same as what we now call imagination. Today, perception is no longer learned, only by those who undergo training. It is quite possible for someone to get far in what he learns in the laboratory, and yet be very inexperienced outside, unable to tell the difference between wheat and rye. So we can say that people today have a lot of imagination, but in those days they were trained in perception. Thus we can distinguish between two epochs: one of perception and one of imagination. Then a third will follow, through which the movements of the soul will be developed, which today only take place on the side. A person who begins to undergo a certain development must indeed already anticipate what general human culture is to become in later times. He must therefore foster the movements of the soul. It may easily happen that someone begins to develop their emotions towards higher worlds and then, in contact with other people, has the culture of ideas. Then he will observe that one time the right thing is felt, another time the wrong thing. A purely intellectual person will accept what is right and reject what is wrong on logical grounds. It will take a long time before a higher cultural level is reached in which one will feel a sense of pleasure in the face of what is right and a sense of displeasure in the face of what is wrong. This then gives one certainty about true and false being; for what is required is not just a conception of true and false being. We do not need long to prove a matter, for we grasp it in a moment. Today we must prove, develop. Then it will no longer be necessary to prove, but to please. Therefore, when we incarnate again, a soul culture will follow the culture of perception of the Greeks and the culture of imagination of our time. Then another culture will follow in relation to the impulses; then the will impulses will undergo a great education. Those people who will incarnate then will pursue, so to speak, a Socratic ideal. If that were not the case, a person, no matter how clever he is, could be an ideal scoundrel; it would be in vain that Hamlet wrote on his tablet that one can smile and smile and smile and yet be an out-and-out scoundrel.

The era of emotional upheaval is followed by an era of pronounced morality. As occult research shows, this will present itself in a very special way. Let us assume that people become ever wiser and wiser. One can become wise in the way of today's way of thinking. One can even use one's wisdom to stage evil deeds. But strangely enough, in the epoch after next, this will happen: the evil of the impulses of the will will have a paralyzing effect on intellectuality! This will be the peculiarity of the moralistic cultural epoch: immorality will have the power to kill intellectuality. A person in this epoch must therefore develop in such a way that he must follow his intellectuality with his morality. We can therefore say: We have the Greco-Roman culture as a time of the culture of perception, ours as a time of the intellectual. Then comes the time of the culture of feeling and after that the time of the actual morality.

Now it is interesting to observe how an important impulse affects people in these successive cultural epochs. Here we have to refer back to what was said before, that the faculty of perception connects us with the physical, the faculty of imagination with the astral, the emotions with the lower devachan and morality with the higher devachan.

Thus, if an impulse were to reach a person in Greek and Roman times, the person was schooled to perceive particularly what approached from outside. Therefore, the impulse of the Christ event enters the world as an external perception. Now we live in the culture of ideas. Therefore, our cultural epoch will achieve its goal by knowing Christ as something that is perceived from the astral world as an inner idea. He will manifest himself as an etheric form from the astral world. In the next epoch, in the time of the emotions, the human being will particularly express his emotions in order to see the Christ astral. And then in the morality epoch, the Christ will reveal Himself as the highest that man can experience: as an I that shines forth from the upper devachan world.

Thus, the perception of the Christ will also develop further. In his ideas, in his imaginations, man will now perceive the Christ in a natural way.

Thus we see from these representations that man can find a certain agreement between what spiritual science says and what happens in the world, provided that man brings something to it.

These are points that can be touched upon for a local association to answer some of the numerous questions through which man can approach the spiritual world.

Do not think that I wish to speak to you today about understanding between the different classes of people of the present day, as is so often the case now from certain quarters, where it is said that it is necessary to talk about understanding. I would like to speak of a quite different kind of understanding, as we shall see shortly. To speak of that understanding is out of the question when we look at how this life has developed over the last decades, perhaps even longer and right up to our own day, how it has now run its course into loudly speaking facts, which are, however, quite frightening for some people who would not have dreamed of these facts a short time ago. What good would it do to speak of understanding in this way compared to what can be heard on the site where this understanding is so often longed for today?

A few days ago you could hear all sorts of things from one such side, in Bern, at the so-called League of Nations Conference. What was said there about the desirable and, as people believe, possible international life of the near future truly reminded one of the speeches of certain statesmen, speeches that were always made from the same basic tone in the spring and early summer of 1914. Let us quote a few words from one such speech by a former statesman of the later belligerent powers. They went something like this - he said this to his Reichstag -: “Thanks to the efforts of the cabinets of the governments of the major European powers, we can assume that European peace will be secured for a long time to come. - In May 1914! That was the peace that was spoken of, that then came, and that caused at least ten million deaths and crippled eighteen million people! That is how people knew what lay dormant at the time.

I myself, if I may make this personal remark, in the spring of 1914, in the face of what one could see approaching, if one was not blind and deaf to the realities, had to speak the words in a meeting that I was able to hold in Vienna: We are suffering from a creeping cancer in the social organism of the present, which must break out as a mighty ulcer in a very short time. - You could talk like that back then.

Now, I think the facts have shown that one was more right when one spoke of the creeping cancerous disease in the social order of the present than when one spoke as the statesmen of that time spoke to anesthetize, to awaken illusion in the people. And so now, again, very, very many people are talking about what is to come between the peoples in terms of international life. And they are talking past and thinking past what is and will be the most important and essential thing and what is already being announced today by loudly speaking facts; they are talking past the actual true social demands of the present.

How did some people describe the life of so-called modern civilization until the terrible years that began in 1914? One could hear again and again how enormously mankind had progressed, how compared to earlier times it was possible to travel quickly over long distances of the earth to do business, how thought flew across the earth at lightning speed, how science and art - what is called science and art in certain circles - were spreading and so on. Song after song of praise was sung for this modern civilization. And the last four and a half years? What has become of this modern civilization in Europe in the course of it? How could it come about? Only because this modern civilization, to which such songs of praise were sung, rested on a foundation that was undermined, not by anything hostile to humanity as such, but by the most justified demands of a large part of the present population of the earth in the most diverse directions. They did not perceive what this civilization has brought us as an existence worthy of humanity.

But this civilization was only possible because it rose like a superstructure on the substructure, which consists in the fact that countless people did not have an existence worthy of a human being. And the thing that must be regarded as the worst is that a deep gulf had opened up in terms of understanding, a gulf between those who, on the one hand, sang the praises and those who, on the other hand, had to call out again and again from the meetings that they had taken from their hard work: it can't go on like this!

There was little inclination in the leading, leading circles to reach the kind of real understanding that should have been sought for decades, indeed for perhaps more than half a century. For this half century, the proletarian movement has been growing more and more. And it is growing in such a way that one can say: Up to now the life of the proletarian population has stood there like a powerful world-historical critique of what the ruling and leading classes had done in world history, in the development of mankind. Today the facts speak this language of criticism, which has been held up to these ruling classes so and so often. How have the hitherto ruling classes very often responded to the cry: “Things cannot go on like this”? It was only necessary - I would like to cite examples - not to go so far as, for example, a characteristic personality who stood out from the ruling classes of the immediate past, such as the German Emperor, who said with reference to the proletarian masses, insofar as they acted as socialists: “These animals that undermine the soil of the German Empire must be exterminated. Or another time he said - these are his own words: These people are the enemies of the divine world order. - They are not merely the enemies of other people, but the enemies of the divine world order. - As I said, there was no need to go that far, but people did have strange ideas. In the German Reich, for example, for certain reasons which I do not wish to criticize here, the Social Democrats had voted in favour of war credits, at least a large proportion of the Social Democrats had voted in favour of war credits, and had also - again for reasons which I do not wish to discuss - done their military duty, had generally behaved in a certain way towards the so-called world war. Do not believe that the opinion of people from bourgeois intellectual circles was so rare that, when they saw how patriotic the Social Democrats behaved, they seriously believed - that is a fact - that the soldiers of the future would actually be all men who would dutifully allow themselves to be used for what they would have been quite gladly used for, especially in the previous empire, if things had turned out differently, but very differently, than they did. They would have been very gladly used to approve taxes in the Reichstag of blessed memory.

Now, even some socialists did not dream of the loudly spoken facts that have now come to pass. Even on the socialist side it has often and repeatedly been emphasized: After this world war, the government will not be able to deal with the proletarian population in the same way as before; it will have to take their will into consideration. Well, the facts have changed quite a bit, haven't they? This government, at least a large part of it, cannot take much account of the will of the proletarian population today.

If you look at both sides, you can see on the one hand what the Austrian socialist Pernerstorfer characterized the attitude of certain bourgeois circles during the World War as saying: These millions, in so far as they belonged to the belligerent states, would gladly make their peace with Social-Democracy; but they would like a peace on the condition, for instance, which would correspond to that to which the other, to whom one offers lifelong friendship, accepts it, but that the person concerned hangs himself afterwards. - But if we look at the other side, there was also no possibility of evoking much understanding. I may well speak from personal experience here, for I worked for years as a teacher at the workers' educational school founded by Wilhelm Liebknecht, helping to develop the world view that had formed in proletarian souls. Anyone who knows what developed in the proletarian soul also knows what proletarian demands were contained in what resounded through the souls of the proletarians again and again in those meetings, which they often took away from their working hours and from their physical health. This was expressed again and again in three different ways. Some, however, did not speak with a full and broad understanding of what was revealed in these three things, but there was a deep feeling in the proletarian souls about what was interwoven in these three demands, even if they did not seem to be expressed as demands. The first was clothed in the words: materialist conception of history; the second was clothed in the word, in the word of surplus value, which is of great importance to the proletarian; and the third was what the proletarian has meant for decades, even if he spoke from his understanding, from his conception, by the class struggle, which indicated how in recent times the proletarian has become within the class struggle what one can call the class-conscious proletarian.

What is actually clothed in these three words? At first it looks quite theoretical, quite scholastic, when one says: one is committed to the materialist science of history; but today we want to speak in practical terms and not theoretically. What was actually meant by what the proletarian wanted and wants to express in relation to his world view when he speaks of a materialist view of history? Since that time, since modern capitalism has developed simultaneously with modern technology in the course of modern history, he has been able to hear an old song from the leading, leading circles. But the proletarian, when he looked at the leading circles, noticed very little of what is claimed today to be stimulated in the human soul by this old song. Then the people of the leading circles spoke: Man lives in a certain social order from generation to generation. Just as historical life develops, so lives mankind; and it lives according to laws which correspond to a divine world order. It was called a moral world order, it was perhaps also called the ideas, if one wanted to be enlightened, which govern the historical life of mankind.

The proletarian looked at those circles who spoke as if their lives were conditioned by spiritual and moral powers that walk and weave through the world. But he, for his part, had nothing of these moral powers; he probably saw even less of a divine world order working itself out in the facts. One spoke of a divine world order, but one did not see it, this divine world order. Above all, he did not see it in the actions of people, in the behavior of people towards each other. After all, he had been - and this had been developing for centuries - locked into the capitalist economic order, the soulless, desolate capitalist economic order. It had come up at the same time as modern technology, which had called many people away from the old craft, which was said to have a golden bottom - it had a golden bottom in a certain way - but it had no golden bottom, which the modern proletarian experienced at the machine in the factory. For him, this social order was expressed in his standing at the machine, in his being harnessed into the capitalist economic order. And he saw, as this newer technical and capitalist life emerged, how the leading circles had set up as a modern state according to their interests what they had taken over from a certain social organism from ancient times. Above all, he saw how the leading circles, from what they had as income through the modern economic order, through the modern state, how they employed their so-called spiritual leaders, how they employed their teachers, their lawyers, their physicians and so on. And, as I said, he noticed little of the fact that a divine, moral world order was at work in this spiritual leadership. Rather, because he was used to looking at the dependence of man on the economic order, he noticed how these leading circles were also dependent on the economic order. Capitalism, modern technology, the system of exploitation, he saw that they placed the spiritual leaders in the places where they stood. When this modern spiritual life emerged in the modern state, it was often said in certain circles of this spiritual life: “Oh, this distant Middle Ages, philosophy, worldly wisdom - and by that they meant science in general - was in a certain sense the handmaiden of theology. However, it was less emphasized from this side that in more recent times science had truly not become something that was a free science on its own, but that it was a faithful servant of the modern state system. Again, there was no need to go as far as a famous modern physiologist who once said of a learned body, the Berlin Academy of Sciences: those scholars who belong to this Berlin Academy of Sciences are the intellectual protection troops of the Hohenzollerns. As I said, there was no need to go that far; but one could see, for example - and it all came to a certain height during the World War - one could see strange things during this World War. Certainly, the mathematicians, the chemists, one cannot immediately prove how they obey orders from above; on the other hand, their science shines less brightly, is less conspicuously connected with what pulsates through life. History is more closely related to that which pulsates through life. Anyone who has followed what has been produced as history, especially by those who have worked and ruled as civil servants in this area, could probably form a more unbiased judgment than many others, for example, if he looked at everything that was said about the historical significance of the Hohenzollerns during this world war and even before, truly long before. Truly, the history of the Hohenzollerns will look different when it is written in the future! It can be said that what these gentlemen produced in this field was a faithful reflection of what those in power actually wanted; it was really not a free intellectual life, it was nothing more than a spiritual superstructure over the economic order of the last centuries and especially of more recent times. What wonder, however, if the proletarian, looking at all these conditions, said to himself: Oh what, all moral world order, all ideas in history! What has divine world order to say! Every human being is dependent on the economic foundations. As these economic foundations are, so he spreads out his thoughts, so he lives out his feelings, so he ultimately thinks in relation to his religious ideas: all an ideological superstructure! What is truly real is the economic order!

As I said, one can understand that which arose as an impression from the immediate life in the soul of the proletarian. This proletarian was compelled - the ruling class itself had to call him to a certain education, it could no longer use the old uneducated, the old illiteracy in its economic order - this proletarian was compelled within the education he wanted to receive, which he longed for, to accept what had come up as science, as the whole scientific thinking about the world in the newer times.

But this proletarian was also compelled to do something else than absorb science in the same way that the ruling circles, for example, absorbed this newer science, which arose at the same time as modern technology and capitalism. I would like to cite again and again an example that I already brought here the other day to illustrate this question. I have just spoken about this area. One could be such a daring natural scientist as Karl Vogt, the fat Vogt, one could be a scientific popularizer like Büchner, one could be quite free-thinking, quite enlightened in the manner of both; one could say to oneself: away from me all the old prejudices. But the effect that this modern scientific attitude had on these classes was quite different from the effect it had on the soul of the modern proletarian. The leading circles spoke of the fact that human beings are descended from animal creatures. I don't want to say now whether this doctrine is nonsensical or in any way justified, but they did say so, I just want to state the facts. But this doctrine was conceived by the ruling classes in such a way that it only got into people's heads. It was possible to gain a head superiority. But in social life, in the social order of life in which one stood, laws prevailed that were truly not derived from the basic view that all men descended in the same way from some animal or other. And people found it convenient not to set up the social order, not even to think about it in terms of this modern scientific view.

I once stood, as I said, I mention this fact once again here in this city, on a joint podium with Rosa Luxemburg, who recently met her tragic end. She and I were speaking about science and the workers to a large working-class audience near Berlin. In her particularly unique way, in her calm and composed manner, she spoke at that time above all from the spirit of modern science; but she was speaking to modern proletarians. She spoke to these modern proletarians like this: Just look at science today. It is said that man does not have his origin in some primordial spiritual state, for, she said - and I quote her words almost verbatim - man was originally a quite indecent being who climbed trees, and from such beings we are all descended. Of course - she then said - there is no reason to make distinctions of rank between people, as we do in today's social order. - Yes, you see, one could be an enlightened person and be in the circle of the leading, ruling class, one could have a head conviction, but that which was spoken in this way had a different effect on the modern proletarian. The modern proletarian approached this - it must be said - bourgeois science with great, with enormous confidence, for he believed that it contained the absolute truth. And because he had been called away to the machine, into the factory, into the capitalist economic order, because he had been torn out of everything that had gone before, because he no longer had any traditions, because he could not remain in a completely new relationship to life, he was compelled to take what this bourgeois science gave him as directed at the whole person and to ask himself: Is this the way the world is in the eyes of this modern science?

This is the main direction of the spiritual life of the modern proletarian. That is what compels him again and again to feel in his soul that things cannot go on like this. And behind this lies one of the demands.

The second of the demands, one could hear it again and again and again if one did not merely belong to the leading circles and thus thought in a certain way about the proletariat, but if one, living among the proletariat, could think and speak with the proletariat - one could feel and sense it again and again and again. Anyone who lived within these circles knows that Karl Marx and his successors threw something into the working class in a theoretical way with the concept of “surplus value” and everything connected with it, which had an igniting effect. For in this modern working class there was something that understood, deeply and painfully understood, from the living conditions of modern times, what surplus value is.

This is the point where one must say: Today we stand at a turning point in historical development. That which lived in the modern proletariat was a criticism of what the leading circles have done so far in the historical development of mankind. Today the modern proletariat is called upon to act. This action will only be possible if, precisely on this point, which follows on from the word surplus value, we have the courage to go beyond what Karl Marx meant when he spoke of surplus value and what is connected with it, wherever we want to make progress in human life itself.

What was it, then, that evoked such a deep, sensitive understanding in the soul of the modern proletarian in connection with this surplus value? It was that which touched the basic nerve of the whole modern economic system. What is economy? Economy, on the basis of which we all live materially? What is commodity, production, circulation, consumption? Into this cycle of economic life, in which only commodities should circulate, there has entered, in a certain form since ancient times, that which can only be characterized by saying: within the modern capitalist economic order, the labour-power of the modern proletarian continues to live in the same way as a commodity. It is bought, it is exchanged like a commodity for other commodities. - This is what the modern proletarian feels. Whatever has happened in small chunks to divert his attention from this fundamental fact, so to speak, we are deep in a context in which proletarian labor is nothing more than a commodity. Here the modern proletarian feels much more than one has actually been compelled to express in theoretical words, even in socialist science; here the modern proletarian feels the whole inhumanity of his existence. He sees in his existence only the continuation of the old slave existence, of the medieval system of serfdom. The slave is sold as a whole person; the modern proletarian, because he owns nothing himself, must carry his labor power onto the labor market, which is bought from him. But can one carry one's labor power to the labor market without carrying oneself? Are we not so bound up with it as human beings that we suffer the fate that our own labor power suffers? That is what matters: Not only a different form of remuneration, which is nothing more than a purchase of labor power as a commodity, but the disrobing of labor power from the commodity character in modern economic life must be striven for. This is precisely the more or less clearly expressed question of the modern proletariat: how can it happen that man, even if he has nothing else to contribute to the social organism but his labor power, can be given an existence worthy of a human being? What does it actually mean that his labor power, which can in no way be compared to any commodity, is no longer a commodity? What is that actually? That is the great lie of life: that which can never in reality become a commodity, labor power, is turned into a commodity in modern life. This makes it an experimental lie, a lie of fact thrown into reality; it must be transformed into truth - this is how one could radically formulate the demand on this point.

And the third thing is what the modern proletarian sees: It is struggle. He looks at modern economic life; he has a feeling in the depths of his soul that in economic life salutary things can only blossom out of public spirit. How would this public spirit express itself in a particular case, for example? Well, one can say in a special case: the entrepreneur, the employer and the worker, they produce together. The commonality, the public spirit, should therefore consist in the fact that they have the same interest towards the social organism. Instead, the entrepreneur buys the worker's labor power like a commodity, while they produce the product together. He gives him nothing more from the product than the purchase price for this commodity. The employment contract, however more or less disguised it may appear, does not help to overcome this. As long as this labor contract is concluded for the use of the proletarian's labor, this contract must always turn labor power into a commodity. The only thing that must be possible is that the contract between what is now called the worker and what is now called the entrepreneur need not be concluded, must not be concluded about labor, but must be concluded about the division of the product between the worker and the manager of labor. There is no other justice in this field. There is no other real expression of what is called public spirit in this field. But what does the modern proletarian see instead of such a public spirit? Well, he sees the class struggle. He sees his class producing out of physical labor-power in struggle with the entrepreneurial class, and he sees surplus-value flowing into the entrepreneurial class without his having any share in the “destinies” which this surplus-value has within the social organism.

The proletarian is really not so stupid as to believe that surplus-value need not be produced. If everything produced by manual labor were eaten up, then there would be no schools, no spiritual culture at all, then no state system could exist; there would be no taxes and so on; for all that is in these things, which the proletarian also knows to be necessary for the development of mankind, flows from surplus value. But the proletarian wants something else. And those who regard the modern proletarian question merely as a question of bread conceal the facts. Certainly, it is a bread question; but it depends on how this bread question is felt. The modern proletarian today feels it from a completely different background, from the feeling of an inhuman existence. That is what matters. And instead of a sense of community, he feels the class struggle between himself and the one with whom he jointly produces for the social organism.

What, then, is the experience of this modern proletarian in modern life? By posing this question, appropriately enough, one can already arrive at the practical measures by which the proletarian demands of modern times can be satisfied in the future. One can say: Yes, so far it has proved to be in a certain way a truth, a truth of the last centuries, that spiritual life is only something like a superstructure, like an ideology, like a smoke that comes out of what the mere economic system is. But deep down the proletarian feels a longing for a real spiritual life, for a spiritual life that is there to satisfy every human existence. Even if he says that all spiritual life comes out of the economic order, in his unconscious he wants precisely a spiritual life that does not come out of the economic order, he wants a free, self-sufficient spiritual life, he wants a true spiritual life. That is one thing.

The second is that he looks at the modern state. What does he see in this modern state? He sees the class struggle in this modern state, and he has the feeling that where the class struggle prevails, something does not prevail that arises from every human consciousness as a necessary demand of life. In a social order in which the class struggle can prevail, privilege prevails; for whence would the struggle of the leading circles against the propertyless circles come if not from privilege? But privilege must not prevail - so says the soul - justice must prevail. That is the second demand. It is the one that can be expressed in something like this: The modern proletarian sees in the modern state the embodiment of the class struggle. But he demands justice on the ground where the class struggle prevails. And on the ground of the modern economic order he sees the development of that which turns his labor power into a commodity. He sees himself caught up in this economic process. Certainly, theoretically the proletariat has hitherto established as a science that everything is dependent on national economic life. But in the depths of the soul, there it rummages: I want to become independent of the economic life that now prevails; I want a completely different life from that which is dependent on this economic life.

If we look from this point of view at the great, widely spoken facts of the present, which are troubling Europe and will continue to do so more and more, they speak like this: A spiritual life has arisen out of the purely material interests of the leading, leading circles. That is not what gives all human beings an existence worthy of a human being. What the leading circles have made of the modern state through the development of technology and capitalism has resulted in a community of privilege, not of right. And class struggle must cease; legal life must take its place. In economic life it has resulted that labor power has been harnessed to the circulation of commodities; human labor power is brought to the commodity market. Human labor power must be taken out of the pure economic cycle. That is what is expressed in the present world-historical facts. How did all this come about?

Well, you need only look at a few facts, which could be multiplied a hundredfold, from the point of view of a particular question. It will perhaps surprise you that we are talking here about the very point of view I am now suggesting. However, today we are at a decisive turning point in the social movement. In recent times we have often heard the phrase, more or less wittily expressed, but it is certainly not, not merely a phrase: that which brought about this world war catastrophe has not been there since mankind has had a historical memory. This has been repeated often and often. But the sentiment is less often emphasized: Well, if this is the case, if people have managed to kill ten million people and cripple eighteen million in a relatively short time, if this has happened in an incomparable way, why do people not perhaps feel comfortable asking themselves: in order to make such things impossible, must we not resort to new thoughts, to thoughts that are just as impossible compared to the previous habits of thought as this world war is compared to the previous experiences of human history? You will have to excuse me if I express the thoughts meant here somewhat radically to one side or the other. Let us look at individual facts which, as I said, could be multiplied a hundredfold. Austria is a very characteristic example of how a state lived under the conditions of the past era. I can talk about it right now because I have spent three decades, half of my life so far, in Austria. It is precisely in this Austrian state that one can study what actually lies at the heart of what can, indeed must, destroy a social organism in our time. When, in the sixties, a so-called bourgeois constitutional life began to develop out of the old Austrian patriarchalism and despotism, deputies were elected to the Austrian Imperial Council according to four curiae: firstly, the curia of the large landowners; secondly, the curia of the Chamber of Commerce; thirdly, the curia of the towns, markets and industrial towns; fourthly, the curia of the rural communities. The latter were not elected directly, but indirectly, because the rural communities were not considered so secure. The representatives of these four curiae were now in the Austrian Imperial Council and made laws, made rights. But what does that mean? It means that they were purely economic representatives, representatives of pure economic life in the parliament, and they made laws. What must come out of that? The interests of economic life must simply be transformed into laws, into rights, into rights over labor, into rights over property. Strange as it may seem, many a bourgeois national economic speech has been made about property: Ownership is a right, ownership of the means of production, ownership of land is a legal relationship. Because everything else that you will define about property has no meaning in the economic process. Only that which establishes ownership, the right to make exclusive use of an object to the exclusion of others, is significant. Having the right to dispose of it is what constitutes the basis of the national economy. In the existing state, we are dealing with a privilege rather than a right.

There is one example that could be multiplied indefinitely. Where this was not determined by an electoral law in the old order, it could do so by itself. The association that called itself the Association of Farmers was, for example, a purely economic representation of interests in the German Reichstag. Let's take another example. In the German Reichstag there was also the so-called Center, a purely religious community. Spiritual life was carried into legal life. Spiritual interests were expressed in legal life. All this is connected with what the interests of the hitherto leading circles gradually became in the modern state. When modern times came along with their technology, with capitalism, this state, as it had emerged from the Middle Ages, was found as a framework. First of all, the intellectual life was incorporated into this state, theology was trained, theologians, as they wanted them in the state, lawyers, physicians, especially schoolmen; all this was trained. The entire intellectual life was incorporated into the state. People were hypnotized by the idea that the state would serve our interests, so let's teach in it, let's administer intellectual life in a way that suits our interests, in a way that can emerge from the state itself.

And on the other hand, it was believed that progress would be served by incorporating certain branches of the economy, the postal system, the telegraph system and the railroad system into this modern state. That is the tendency: to merge everything into the modern state. That is a bourgeois tendency. Socialism, too, is basically nothing other than the inheritance of the bourgeoisie, which it has inherited by taking up again the ideas of the old cooperative system, thereby taking up the capitalist economic order, which must rightly be overcome on the basis of its demands. But the fact that he now wants to turn the social organism into a large cooperative, using the framework of the state, is the bourgeois legacy. A healing, a real recovery of the social organism can only come about if one has an eye for how the damage under which we live has arisen precisely because three areas that have nothing to do with each other have been merged together, and that the modern state had to absorb everything because more and more was being asked: What should the state do? - We have seen what it can do in the devastation and destruction of Europe over the last four and a half years! Today it is more appropriate to ask: What should the state actually refrain from doing? What is better if it does not do it? - This is the question we should be asking today. If you look at the whole circle of debates as we have conducted them so far, you will not be surprised when I tell you that on the basis of the most conscientious consideration of social life, really with equally good science, which only cannot be presented in all details in the course of a single lecture, one comes to the demand to make the most necessary practical demand today for the satisfaction of proletarian needs, namely: To take the road back with regard to nationalization, with regard to welding together three things that are quite different from each other in life.

To help us understand each other better, let me remind you of those three fundamental ideas of modern times that emerged at the end of the 18th century from the innermost needs of humanity, from the French Revolution, like a motto of modern times: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. - Well, it was by no means stupid people in the 19th century and right up to the present day who have shown again and again that these three ideas are not compatible with each other, that freedom is not compatible with equality and so on. Nevertheless, anyone who can feel that, feels that these ideas themselves are healthy stages of human life, even if they contradict each other. And why do they contradict each other? They only contradict each other because they have been raised as a demand more and more within what can never be a single centralization in itself, but which must divide into three independent members developing side by side. In the future the social organism, if it is to work healthily, must first of all divide itself into a spiritual organism, where all spiritual life has its own legislation and its own administration, where from the lowest teacher onwards man does not listen to the orders of a state, is not forced into the power of economic life, but lives solely and exclusively in an organization founded on spiritual laws themselves, where he knows himself to be completely within a spiritual world, a purely spiritual world. It is not a question of our being tied more and more into an official organization, into a bureaucracy; for spiritual life can only develop if the heart and mind develop for individual initiative, for that which lies in the personal, in the individual abilities of man. If they are cultivated in a free spiritual life, then such a spiritual life will develop which can offer every human being an existence worthy of a human being. For then that which develops as spiritual life will not be based on economic compulsion, not on state compulsion, but will spring solely from the impulses that underlie free humanity. He who produces spiritually will speak to all men and the spiritual organization will have the sole interest of cultivating spiritual individualities. Individual human abilities are a unity, a unity in schools, secondary schools, universities, a unity in art and science. These more purely spiritual branches, however, work in unity with those individual faculties which flow into capital in the social organism.

Capitalism can only be placed on a sound basis by becoming the bearer of a free spiritual life. That alone would make it possible to fulfil the demand that is usually made today for the socialization of the means of production. For only a free spiritual life can give rise to social understanding, and only in a free spiritual life is it possible to constantly transfer to the general public that which comes about with the help of the means of production and the land. This first of all with regard to the free spiritual life.

What is the constitutional state, the actual political state, must also develop as an independent organization in the healthy social organism. It has to do, for example, with the regulation of the administration of leadership relations. But above all it has to do with the regulation of human labor, which must be lifted out of the mere economic process, not by abstract laws, but by people themselves.

How must the economic process proceed? On the one hand, the economic process is dependent on what is at its limit, on the natural basis, on the available raw materials of an area, on the yields of the soil and so on. One can improve the yield of the soil to a certain extent through technology; but there is a limit to this, a limit which is erected for prosperity, a limit on which prices depend. That is one limit. In a healthy social organism there must be a second limit. This second limit is the legal and political organism, which develops independently alongside the economic organism. In the political organism, that which affects all men equally, that which democratically concerns every man, where every man must come to an understanding with every man, is at work. This is the ground on which the measure and nature of human labor must be decided on the basis of the interests of this humanity. Only then, when the measure and nature of human labor is decided on the legal ground independent of the economic ground, then this labor flows into the economic process, then the labor power of man is price-forming. Then no one dictates the price to labor power, then it is as price-forming as the land with its yields and so on is price-forming itself. That will be the great economic law of the future, that economic life will be caught between two boundaries, so that the measure and price of human labor will not be determined by the economic forces themselves.

And the third independent area will be economic life itself. For the sake of brevity, I can only hint at the significance of this transformation of economic life. I will give you a concrete example so that you can see that I am not presenting you with complicated theories here, but with what can be read from practical life and can be incorporated into practical life. You only have to name one word, and then every man and his thoughts are immediately involved in this word in economic life - well, one in a different way than the other - you only have to name the word “money”. But you see, most people know money; some know it from the abundant quantities in which they have it, some from the small quantities in which they have it; but they believe they know it. But what money actually is in the social organism, not only do everyday people have no real idea, but our learned economists of today have very little idea of what money actually is. Some are of the opinion that money is based on the metal value of the gold or silver on which it is based; others are of the opinion that it is a mere stamp, depending on whether the state stamps more or less thin instructions on goods and so on. One speaks of a metaphysical process of money and so on, as all things are; one always has the need in science to choose quite learned words. But none of this matters; on the contrary, the most learned gentlemen today agree that there must be something for money as a means of exchange. That which must be there is the treasure of gold, to which one must always return in order for money to have value.

Now, of course, since England is the world power and insists on gold, the gold currency cannot be overcome overnight in international trade. But the question must be raised precisely with regard to the recovery of economic life: What about the fact that people say that circulating money, regardless of its form, must always be related back to the amount of gold that is available in any state, because, they say, gold is a popular commodity, a commodity that does not change its value for a long time. - You can read up on all these theories. They refer to the excellent properties that gold has in order to be represented by money.

Now, what is it that money actually refers to, as national economists believe that money refers to gold? Here a greater advance in science is necessary. An answer is needed which people will not believe in today. I will speak of this in more detail in my forthcoming booklet on the social question. People today still claim not to believe in this answer. But if you take an unbiased look at economic life, you will get the answer when you ask: What is the real, actual equivalent value of circulating money? - He receives the answer, however strange it may sound to people today: gold is only an illusory value, wherever it may be. - That which in truth corresponds to money is the sum of all the means of production existing in a social territory, including land. Everything that is only expressed by money refers to this. All the beautiful qualities which the national economists ascribe to gold, so that it can give the currency, all these qualities, they are in truth to be ascribed to the means of production. Hence the question must arise precisely from the circulation of commodities with the aid of money: How can that which, though in ever-continuing transformation, in ever-continuing reorganization, but as a best value, underlies all national economy, how can it become such a uniform basis of economic life as money itself, which is only the representative? All that lives in the means of production, as common as money is in its nature, so common must the means of production be. That is to say, their circulation must be such as corresponds to the fact that no one can work on the means of production except by the cooperation of the whole social organism.

There are two things to be considered. First, that the social organism would lose an infinite amount if individual abilities were excluded. Man should work for the social organism through his individual abilities as long as he has them and as long as he wants to use them. But the moment he ceases to work for the social organism, the means of production which he administers must be transferred by the rule of law to the generality of the social organism.

I need only point to one branch of our modern life, and the matter is settled. It is that branch which modern man must regard as the most insignificant, the most insignificant, the most insignificant, because it is so treated in modern capitalism: that is spiritual life. What one produces spiritually is certainly connected with one's individual capacity; but thirty years after death it passes into the public domain and no longer belongs to one. - This most insignificant good, this most insignificant good, is treated in this way today. People are looking for a way to transfer what the individual produces into society. It is about this transition. It is also quite fair in the spiritual field. For what one has on the basis of one's individual abilities is nevertheless owed to the social organism, and one must give back to the social organism what one has gained on the basis of one's individual abilities.

So in the future, through the rule of law, what is produced with the help of material means of production must also be transferred to the general public. It is not necessary to think about how the means of production can be socialized bureaucratically, as in the previous social order. Those who oppress have grown out of capitalism. Thus, in the future social order, the oppressor will be recruited from within bureaucratism, from the ranks of those who today call themselves socialists, if one would only work towards a cooperative socialization of the means of production. But a just development of what the individual produces out of his individual abilities, a just transition is that into socialization. That is what we have to strive for. Then, if you think this through, you will realize: Many have said from an old economic organization and state order, spiritual order: if we want to keep humanity together, then we need what supports each other, throne and altar. Well, in modern times the throne is often a presidential chair and the altar a Wertheim cash register. But the attitude is often very similar in both cases.

The only question is whether things would be much better if the throne and the altar were merely transformed into an office and a machine and a factory, and if everything became mere bookkeeping instead of the previous administration. What is demanded as a social demand is deeply justified; however, we are living in a historical turning point. We need ideas that thoroughly transform the old. And just as intellectual life, economic life and political state life have striven towards each other under the influence of the bourgeois circles of modern times, so the modern proletarian should understand that the way back must be taken. After all, has this modern proletarian acquired an understanding of the organization by studying how the individual economic and life circles must interact with one another, has he studied the class struggle, has he really become acquainted with the economic circles in their relationship to one another? He would have to understand that the unity of the social organism is not disturbed, but on the contrary promoted, if not a mere uniform centralization, in which everything is muddled up, is sought, but if the three branches, spiritual organization, legal or state organization, economic organization, are separated from one another with their own administrations, with their own laws.

Don't tell me it's complicated, how sovereign states should interact! It will all happen in a much more intensive way, in a much more harmonious way than now, where everything is chaotic and confused. If the modern proletarian, looking and feeling his demands, strives for really practical solutions to his life's questions, for the fulfillment of his hopes, then he will turn to this organization, which may still sound strange today. And I do not believe that in other circles there could ever be so much understanding for the newer historical things as in proletarian circles. Oh, I have seen it, because in the last four and a half years I have often and repeatedly made suggestions to people in this direction, I have told them: what is demanded by this threefold structure is not an abstract program, not a figment of the imagination that arose in one night, it is based on life, it is what will be realized in the next ten, twenty, thirty years, especially in Europe. And it will be realized whether you like it or not; you only have the choice of either accepting reason now and realizing some things out of free choice, or you will be faced with revolutions of the most monstrous kind. - Well, the revolutions are coming soon!

Therefore I believe that he who has been placed by the external conditions of life in that which at first says nothing humanly, in the lifeless machine, has been harnessed into the desolate capitalism, I believe he must have an understanding for such ideas which differ from the old, but which are intimately related to the new, the emerging, the becoming. And I have the conviction and believe that they will gradually sink into the hearts and souls of the newer man, the modern proletarian in particular, I have the conviction: If the proletarian understands these demands and the possibility of their solution in the right sense, then, by becoming a class-conscious proletarian who works towards his liberation, he will liberate his class, and thus at the same time liberate man, then he will put something else in the place of the class: the tripartite healthy social organism. He will then not only become the liberator of his class, but the liberator of all humanity, that is, of everything that deserves to be and should be liberated as truly human in humanity.

Discussion

The organizer expresses his astonishment in deeply felt words that the workers' movement is being met with understanding from a hitherto unknown side. He expresses his thanks not only for the lecture, but also for the intellectual work that preceded it.

1st speaker (Dr. Schmidt): Agrees with Steiner's objective, asks about the path to realization. This had been mapped out by the socialist movement to date: Party, trade union, cooperative movement. As today, the three areas of life will remain interlinked in the future, but will be shaped by the supporters of the socialist movement. The first goal must be to change the economic order in the sense of equality.

2nd speaker: It will be easy to agree on the content of the objective. Threefolding is a utopia (reference to Fourier). The path to it is predetermined by the development trend of the time: the class struggle.

3rd speaker: The intellectual movement must also be taken into account. Every revolution has been prepared by ideas.

4, Speaker: The experience of war has confirmed the materialist view of history. Contradicts the statement that socialism adopts the bourgeois belief in the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat has no other purpose than to prepare for the abolition of the state. Spiritual freedom will only be possible in a community of freely producing people. Only the proletarian mass movement has a chance of success.

Rudolf Steiner: What the honorable speakers have said will not actually offer much opportunity to go into detail on one or the other, for the reason that it is quite natural that the objections made are based on the common views. I would like to say that I have been able to anticipate in every detail the things that have been said. I would just like to take up a little more of your time with regard to a few points that seem important to me.

First of all, I would like to draw your attention to the following. When something like what I have said this evening is said, one can always hear a kind of objection, which consists in the fact that it is said: I can't really imagine how things will turn out in reality. And on the other hand, it is almost demanded that one should not give utopia. I do believe that it will take some time before people realize that what I have said this evening really relates to a utopia in the same way that black relates to white: it is the opposite of a utopia. Things are a little bit connected. What I wanted to say really cannot be characterized in any other way than as I have already said to some people: That lies in the development trend of the next ten, twenty, thirty years. And whether we like it or not, we will have to implement it, either through reason or through revolution. There is simply no choice not to carry it out, because time itself wants it. And the development of mankind has already at times really followed guidelines which it has taken, and has apparently taken them back again, and of course it is not a question of a real return to earlier conditions, but of course the way back is then a way to a completely new form. It is true, of course, that we know that trade union life, cooperative life and political party life have achieved tremendous things in recent times and that we owe a great deal to them. But on the other hand, it must be said that in all the things that have been achieved there must be something unsatisfactory, something not yet finished. Today we are not convinced that there are new facts. But there is indeed something there that finally demands a different kind of orientation than we have had up to now! When people say that I have overestimated the power of the idea - I was not talking about ideas at all! I have just said the opposite of what could be described as the power of the idea. What did I actually put forward as a demand? I put forward a possible social organization. I pointed out how people should relate to each other so that they can find the right thing. A utopian always starts from the idea that this is how the social order should be organized. Basically, he thinks he is smarter than everyone else; you have to wait for him, and once he has spoken, you have nothing more to say. If he can't make contact, he sits in his attic and waits. It never occurs to me, not in the least, to wait for a millionaire, nor to believe in any way that I know better about this or that than another person.

You see, there is a very general social phenomenon that man as an individual cannot achieve, that is human language itself. It has been said countless times that if a person lives on a desert island, grows up alone, without hearing other people speak, he himself will not be able to speak. Language develops from a social phenomenon in people, through other people. It is the same with all social impulses. We cannot arrive at anything social except by people interacting in the right way; that is why I had to develop an idea. It does not occur to me to believe that one can reform anything with an idea. I tried to answer the question: How will people develop if they relate to each other in the right way, if they manage economic life on the one hand, legal life on the other, and spiritual life on the third? Associations will preferably be set up in the economic state, composed of producers and consumers, of professions and so on; if they live in the democratic constitutional state, the ideas, the impulse of the equality of all men before reality will grow out of quite different conditions. When they are inside the spiritual organization: How will they interact there? You see, you only have to look at reality. A judge can have aunts, uncles, grandfathers, grandchildren and so on, he can love them very much, love them tenderly, and that is good. But if someone steals, and he is supposed to judge as a judge, he will have to condemn it in exactly the same way, from the other source, as he would have to condemn a complete stranger.

I have often been told by professors that I want to divide humanity into three classes. I want the opposite! In the past, people were divided into the nurturing class, the teaching class and the military class. But today's doctrine teaches nothing. The nurturing class is nothing more than a class of force, and the military class is given the task of telling the dispossessed what the haves want! Yes, you see, that is precisely what is to be overcome: the estates, the classes are to be overcome precisely by dividing the organism as such, separately from man. Man is the unifying factor. On the one hand, he will be part of the economic organism, and on the other hand, by being part of the economic organism, he can also be a member of the representation of the political state; he can also belong to spiritual life. This creates unity. I want to liberate man precisely by dividing the social organism into three parts. One only has to understand what this is about: It is the opposite of a utopia, it is a real reality. It is about calling on people not to believe that some tricky utopia is being thought up, but to ask: How should people be organized so that they can find the right thing on their own by working together? That is the radical contrast to everything else. All the others start from the idea; here we start from the real social division of people, here we really point out that all differences are wiped away by the fact that man himself, as a mere human being, forms the unity. And therefore I would be sorry if precisely that view made an impression which declares the opposite of all utopianism to be a utopia! That is what I am actually sorry about, because it has not hit the nerve of my arguments. That is the important thing, and I would like to draw particular attention to that.

So it's not about overestimating any power of the idea. There is no emphasis here on the power of utopia, but on what people will say and think and feel and want when they are placed in the social organism in a humane way. Precisely because the thinking here is real, it is of course difficult to point out details. It is possible; but anyone who gets into the habit of thinking in real terms knows that if you really let people judge, let them judge from within themselves, they may even judge a concrete case differently, and both ways can be right. Let me give you the following example:

You see, one will naturally have to make use of the means of production in the future through one's individual abilities; for he who can manage any business will not have to manage production for his own sake, but because those who work for him enter into a free contract with him, because they realize that their work will prosper better if it is well managed. This is something that absolutely must be taken as a basis in the future, something that will arise of its own accord. Then you have to say: something new will actually emerge under the conditions that are being created here; there will no longer be any ownership, but only administration. We will then only know one administration. For I have pointed out that material property can be treated in a similar way to what is regarded today as the most precious thing, spiritual property. This means that after a certain period of time - and we don't mean “after death”, but when the business is no longer working productively with the means of production - the means of production are transferred to another management. This is very complicated in detail, but precisely because the thinking is realistic and not utopian, it can only be pointed out: People will find the right relationship with each other if they are in the right position. That is what matters.

You see, after such decisive facts have occurred, after the world war has just happened, one can have the opinion that new ideas really must come, but one cannot always emphasize again: We must stand still with our demands! That is what has been proclaimed for decades. We won't get anywhere by saying: we want a society that develops freely, we want a free social society for people - but how? - I have said that up to now it has been a kind of policy, now it is a matter of fact. The previous speaker quite rightly referred to Russia. That is quite right. At the moment when such decisive facts really emerge, we can no longer just grope around in uncertainty. Yes, it is a matter of being able to imagine something quite definite. And that, I believe, is what can be seen from what I have presented: it is not a program, but a direction. You can continue the present conditions from their present starting point wherever you want, if you only want to. Just take the reconstruction of the former conditions as it is in Russia. You can at any time in any field, when state administration has begun, throw off this spiritual life by first establishing free schools, by establishing free cooperatives in economic life, and so on. You can continue to work on any point, whatever the starting point may be. You must not imagine all this according to Swiss conditions. Life is becoming more and more international. In Germany, for example, something completely different is needed today than a few years ago. You can continue to work from any starting point; it will just be a matter of continuing to build. And I am counting on it, whether in a cooperative, in a trade union, in any party, there is already the possibility that something will emerge; wherever you sit, you can organize things in such a way that these three parts emerge in all areas. Then we will arrive at an organization that is truly appropriate and demanded by a healthy social organism, and not at a utopian or utopian socialization.

Avoiding any utopia is what we should strive for above all else, to eradicate any belief that we can do anything with abstract ideas. You can only do something in social life with people who know what they want in the very specific situation in which they find themselves. It is not a question today of a struggle between those who are still to be called the dispossessed and the haves. If they work, as is the direction of movement that I have outlined today, if the haves and the have-nots work in the right way, things will turn out in their favor. If the haves resist, they will soon have lost their property. But the point is that the masses have a knowledge of what is to happen. And you see, in this respect, one might say, it is even worse with social impulses than with medical and technical materials. If someone knows nothing about building bridges and yet wanted to build one, it would collapse. If someone cures someone, well, you usually can't prove whether the patient died despite the cure or perhaps even as a result of the cure; that's where things get tricky. And when it comes to the social organism, that's where things get the most tangled, because you usually can't prove what's a cure and what's a cure, which is why people usually talk in vague terms. You see, I heard a speaker who also talked about social things; he mainly wanted to prove that you don't really need anything else, just Christ, then everything will be fine in social life. Well, you shouldn't think that a debate about this is being started now. But I have experienced the following. I had to remind myself of something I read in my schoolboy days, I think almost forty-five years ago. It said that Christ was either a hypocrite or a fool, or he was what he described himself as: the Son of the living God. - As I said, I am not criticizing, neither in one direction nor in the other; I only remark: I was in Berne the other day, and a gentleman made a speech there after the League of Nations Conference, in which he said that the whole League of Nations is wrongly organized - I believe myself that it is wrongly organized - but he said that it will be wrongly organized if it is not dealt with: Christ was either a fool, or a hypocrite, or he was the Son of the living God, as whom he described himself. - In short, everything that was in my textbook forty-five years ago was presented by the Lord to his faithful congregation. And that is the most important thing to note: In between lies the world war! The people, after having had two millennia to bring their things to the world, have come so far that the world war has nevertheless come. Doesn't all this indicate that something has to be learned from the world war? Is it not socially better and healing for the social organism if something new is really learned in the socialist field, in the field of socialist knowledge, as a result of the world war? Do we have to say that we are conservatively sticking to the old ideas, which have also been shipwrecked in many respects by the world war? That is what I particularly want to emphasize: it really was foreseeable and it is very important to me - I say this without any rejection - and I am very glad that things have been said as they have been said. But I would like to emphasize that much damage has been done in the world by the conservative standstill, by the rigid emphasis on what has been said over the centuries and what has now been said for decades, by this rigid emphasis, by this standstill in this conservatism! May socialism not cause damage to itself through this conservative standstill! For this damage would be very, very great, perhaps much greater than that which has already been done elsewhere.

You may have heard from what I said at the end of my lecture that it is precisely out of socialism, and even more so out of the proletariat, that the liberation of that which is to be liberated in man can take place. So it is not a question of an idea, it is not a question of overestimating an idea, and I have also said nothing about socialism having to unite with the state enterprise and the like; rather it is a question of solving a problem of humanity!

And because I believe that the individual is quite indifferent to what he demands of himself, he should demand something in common with other people. One cannot help but fail with socialist demands if one wants to make them as an individual. You have to make them in the human community.

So what I demand is not some idea, not some utopia, but what people will be able to say of their own accord when they are inside the social organism.

Dear attendees! The events unfolding today in the field of the social movement, which are alarming for some, seem to truly lead people who observe them to a new language, a language that is unfamiliar compared to everything that has been experienced in the course of human history. In view of what is coming to the surface today from the depths of social life, must we not conclude that, despite the fact that what is called the social question has been in the making in humanity for more than half a century, the thoughts and will impulses of people are actually quite poorly prepared for what is being expressed in facts today? For decades, anyone who has had the opportunity to gain access to the real social movement has very often had the opportunity to notice how socialist thinkers, those thinkers who, with all their hearts, believe they are in line with the proletarian will , how such thinkers repeatedly pointed out that the economic facts themselves, which have emerged in the development of people through modern technology and capitalism, that these economic facts themselves, through their own progression, will, as it were, bring about something like a solution to the social question. If I am to briefly indicate what was thought there, it is something like the following:

The spread of economic life, with the division of labor and everything else that goes with it, has all led to the fact that the private capitalist economy has gradually been concentrated in the hands of a few, and that ever larger and larger masses of the proletariat have been harnessed to this will of a few. It was hoped that that which had so to speak extended an economic power over the proletariat would be driven to the point where it would destroy itself, as it would to a certain extent no will be able to advance on its own path, and where the proletariat, as I said, will be in a position, through the development of economic facts, to take power into its own hands, which it was previously dominated by. From radical revolutionary views, which played a role in this direction in earlier times, one has moved on to more reformist ones, through which it was expected that the gradual transition of economic power from the capitalist enterprise to the proletarian enterprise itself would take place through the measures that could be brought about by the proletariat within the regulated life of the state. So, to a certain extent, it was thought that objective facts independent of people would bring about a certain crisis, and with this crisis a certain solution to the social question.

Do we not already see clearly today that it has become different, that all thoughts that have moved in this direction actually miss the point? Do we not see that it is now the proletarian as such, with his will, with his demands, who is bringing about the facts that are now, as I said, appearing on the horizon of historical life in such a frightening way for many people? Does this not force us to look at proletarian life and to demand that we should no longer allow ourselves to be beguiled by what has been regarded as the right thing for decades by the doctrine?

In the lectures that I have recently been allowed to give on this question, I have already pointed out that these present facts, above all, force us to direct our consideration of the social question to the realm of the proletarian himself. And I have already stated why the proletarian has become what he actually appears today. What is the position of the proletariat, with its desires, its impulses, its demands, in the light of the present situation? Is it not that of a powerful criticism of world history, of that which the leading circles of humanity have hitherto regarded as correct and have made the basis and guiding principle of their actions? A criticism that could not be expressed in words is expressed by this criticism, which simply lives in the characteristics and actions of the present proletariat.

This present proletariat sees itself harnessed into pure economic life by the economic process that has been looming for a long time. And again I must emphasize, for the sake of the context, what I have already discussed in the earlier lectures, that in that this modern proletariat finds itself harnessed into bare economic life with its entire destiny, it above all, in the deepest sense, as unworthy of it that the proletarian's labor power for this present economic life means the same as the commodity that is brought to market, the circulation of which is regulated according to supply and demand, and which can be bought. However things may be expressed, even by socialist thinkers in this field, the feelings that prevail among the proletariat, that which lives in the unconscious depths of the proletarian soul, is much more important than that which is consciously thought and expressed. And these feelings are as follows: How is it possible, within the capitalist economic order, to divest the human labor power that the proletarian has to offer on the market and that can be bought, of the character of a commodity?

By stating this, attention is drawn to the first link in today's social question, to the extent to which this social question is an economic question, to what extent it is a wage question. Now, anyone who has learned over the decades not just to think about the proletariat, but to think with the proletariat, knows how the Marxist doctrine, which pointed out to the proletarians with particular intensity how their labor power as a commodity is integrated into the economic process, has taken hold. One must refer again and again to the illumination that Karl Marx has given to this matter, since this illumination lives on intensely in the faith and perception of the proletariat. The capitalist, within today's economic system, is the one from whom the proletarian worker sees how he is called to the factory, how he is called to the machine, how he is paid for his labor.

Marx then tried to make the following clear to the proletarians. He tried to show them that the proletarian's labor is actually essentially underpaid. This labor power must be continually produced by the food and other means of subsistence that the proletarian needs. If the proletarian is able to obtain food and other means of subsistence, then he can restore his labor power that has been expended in the economic process, and then he can perform his work. This leads to the situation – or so the view goes – that the employer pays the worker what is necessary to produce this labor, but that he lets him work far beyond the time that would be necessary to earn what is necessary to produce this labor. This is how the added value arises, which, as I said, had such a profound effect on the proletarians' perceptions. The worker produces for the entrepreneur. He produces more than the entrepreneur compensates him for. And what he produces more is the entrepreneur's profit. Achieving this added value by changing the economic process has become the ideal of proletarian endeavor.

Now, esteemed attendees, the opinions that have been formed about these matters, in both bourgeois and non-bourgeois circles, basically all point in the same direction. These opinions all suggest that proletarian labor for the production of goods must itself necessarily be treated as a commodity. In the face of this, one is indeed compelled to look deeper into economic life and to ask oneself the question: Is there perhaps something quite different at the bottom of it all than what proletarians and non-proletarians believe? Has this part of the social question been grasped correctly at all? The development of the facts, which the present shows, proves that this cannot be the case, that the matter has been grasped correctly. If we examine the matter more closely, we see that the economic process must necessarily be exhausted by the production, circulation, and consumption of commodities.

We may ask: What is it that actually gives this economic process its laws? What does what happens in the economic process depend on? Nevertheless, everything that happens in the economic process comes down to human needs and interests, however it is disguised. Everything that happens in the economic process boils down to the production of what is demanded by human needs and, as a result, consumed by people. And every view of what a commodity is, my dearest present, proves to be false in the face of a real economic study; every other view, except the one that regards the commodity as that which acquires its value by being consumed in the most expedient way [by] human society, by man in general. It is through the most expedient use that the commodity acquires its value. And everything that is the exchange of the commodity in the economic process is determined precisely by this. The mutual values of the commodities can only depend on the extent to which these commodities are consumed.

Anyone who now delves into this fundamental character of the commodity within the economic process will realize something that unfortunately many people have not realized: that human labor power is something that cannot be compared at all with what a commodity is, and that therefore, because it cannot be compared in real terms, because there is no relationship between labor power and a commodity, it cannot be a commodity. A strange contradiction, isn't it? On the one hand, one must actually recognize that human labor power is quite incomparable to a commodity and therefore cannot be exchanged for one; on the other hand, one sees that within today's economic order, proletarian labor power has truly become a commodity. What is the basis for this contradiction of life? This contradiction of life is based on the fact that the employee cannot actually buy the labor power from the worker. And by believing that he can buy it, one is labouring under a great fallacy. It is a fundamental economic fallacy that expresses itself in the belief that one can buy human labour at all. In reality, one does not buy it. What does the employer buy from the employee? In truth, the employer buys the services from the employee. The goods produced by the employee and the value of these goods are determined by their relation to other goods on the labor market. And the real fact of the matter is that the employer does not pay at all for the goods produced by the employee, that he, as a result of today's economic process, so to speak, evades payment – one can put it so radically – and that he pays for something else that, in principle, should never be paid for within the human social order because it can never be a commodity: he pays for labor. And he pays for this labor to the extent that he is able to do so, in that he holds the economic power, that he can, so to speak, exert a compulsion on the employee, that this employee, in order to live, goes to the machine, goes to the factory.

Thus we have the fact, the serious and significant fact, that something in our economic life has shifted, that something is being hidden, concealed. The fact is hidden that in reality one buys goods from the employee or purchases services, but evades the payment for this purchase, that is, one does not actually buy them, but forces the worker to give them up voluntarily in return for something else. By feeling like today's proletarian, he feels that his existence is degrading. And we will never be able to properly penetrate the souls of the modern proletariat if we are unable to see the matter in this way, if we are unable to rise to the view that a commodity must be consumed in the most expedient way if it is to serve the economic process in the right way. When proletarian labor power is commodified, it must take on the character of the commodity, that is, it must be consumed in the economic process. In this way, the human being is consumed, and it is in this mere consumption that proletarian man perceives what is degrading about it.

But how is it possible that such a concealment, that such a masking of the facts has actually occurred? Here again, proletarians and non-proletarians in the present day are not at all in agreement. What must be seen in this area is that the integration of human labor into the social process, into the coexistence of human beings, cannot be a question of economic life at all, that what regulates this labor must be taken out of the economic process.

This brings us to what is so necessary for the recovery of the social organism, and to being able to shed light on the damage caused by the fact that the social organism, in its own structure, is not understood in the right way. This social organism is viewed as if it were a unified, centralized structure. This view is just as wrong as it would be wrong to believe – as I have already pointed out in earlier lectures – that the human natural organism is a single centralized system. This centralized natural organism has, for example, the processes of rhythmic life, of breathing and of the heart, and the processes of the sensory-nervous system, in addition to the processes of metabolism. All of this is merely centralized in one place – and it works, each with a certain independence and serves the other precisely through its independence. The lungs take in air from the outside, quite independently of what is going on in the processes of the sensory nervous system and in the processes of metabolism. But it is precisely because these organs are independent that they harmonize best with each other. With regard to the social organism, such a consideration has not yet been reached. The necessary relationship between all economic aspects of social organization and all legal aspects has not yet been recognized.

In more recent times, it has become apparent that, to begin with, the leading classes have, as they say, nationalized certain branches of economic life. It has been deemed right and in the interest of human progress to nationalize, or one might say socialize, such branches of economic life as the postal service, the telegraph, the railways and the like. In doing so, they added further branches of this economic life to those already previously administered by the state. The leading and governing circles were the first to take this step of socializing economic life. But they were followed along this path by the views of the proletarian circles and their leaders. And today, what is being thought in this [area] comes to a head in the demand for the total socialization of the entire economic life. Thus, the proletariat is only drawing the final conclusion of what the leading circles have begun and which they have indeed limited according to their advantage. But if it were to be realized, the entire social organism would become a unified, centralized system. This is detrimental to its health. If it is to be healthy, it must be just as internally structured as the natural human organism. For just as air enters the natural human organism to be further processed in that natural human organism in a completely different way, in a completely different way than the food that enters the metabolism, so too must that which lies in the legal life, what is effective in the legal life, in the system of public rights, must enter the social organism in a completely different way than that which is in the economic life and leads to the production of goods, to the circulation of goods and to the consumption of goods.

What is the basis of economic life? As I have already pointed out, it is human interest. The laws that serve human interest must be realized in economic life. In this process, one person is always confronted with another person, depending on their interests: the consumer with the producer, one professional group with another, and so on. In a healthy social organism, alongside what takes place purely as a result of the effect of human interests, another element of this social organism must exist: the element in which the life of public law unfolds. This life of public law is based on human impulses that develop in a completely different, radically different way than impulses that lie in human needs and lead to the economic process. That which expresses itself as a need in human life and leads to the economic process arises from the elementary nature of human nature and the human soul. This is something that does not directly depend on man as such.

The situation is different with law, with everything that can be established as public law through the coexistence of people. This law is formed in a similar way to human language itself. Human needs are there by nature, insofar as they intervene in economic life. Human law, which has to do with the relationship from person to person, must, insofar as you are human, must ignite in the direct intercourse from person to person, as language is formed, or at least formed, in the intercourse from person to person. While political economy is concerned with the relationship between circles of interests, what is the life of public law is concerned with relationships that may take place only between human and human, independently of everything else. Relationships must be justified by the law, by which man feels himself within human society, worthy only as a human being. Such legal impulses cannot arise out of economic life itself. If such legal impulses were to be formed out of economic life itself, then they would always be only a transformation of economic interests. However you imagine the state or human society, or however you want to call it, to be formed, if rights are established in it according to economic interest, then these rights will only be the expression of revelation, only the transformation of economic interests. Just as little can arise from the economic organism that is present in the legal system as can arise from the metabolism that is present in the respiratory process.

What is important, dear attendees, is not that it goes without saying that people who are involved in economic life know what rights between people are, but rather that, in addition to the independent economic life in a healthy social organism, an equally independent legal life must arise, which, precisely because of its relative independence, can in turn intervene in the economic life in just the right way.

Nothing has shown more forcefully that this is a necessity than the relationship in which human labor power has been incorporated into the modern economic process. To understand this, one need only realize what is meant here by public law. In the economic process, one is concerned only with goods, the exchange of goods, and so on. The economic process does not include, for example, the ownership relationship; the ownership relationship belongs in the legal sphere. Why? What does it actually mean if I am the owner, say, of a piece of land? It means that the human institutions within which I live have been established in such a way that I alone have the right to use that land in the economic process. This is a right to this land; this is a right that is quite different from what can take place according to the laws of the economic process. And so one could cite many things that would define the opinion one must have about the difference between the actual economic life and the legal life.

Human labor power, by its very nature, because it is incomparable to the commodity, as I have discussed, does not belong in economic life, but in legal life. Today, there is a lot of talk about the socialization of economic life. The only question, dear attendees, is whether this socialization can really be achieved with the means and ways in which we are trying to achieve it today. What matters is not that we have this or that view based on certain human demands, but that we can also realize them, that they make the life of the social organism possible.

It is not considered that everything that can develop in an independent life of public law must have a social character from the outset, that it works from the outset towards socialization, towards the socialization of human society. And only when this public law is not brought about by the pure relationship between human beings, not brought about from the elementary sense of right itself, but from political or economic power, then it bears not a social character, but an anti-social character. The rights that we have in today's social body largely bear this anti-social character, because they do not serve to establish a relationship between people that arises from the elementary sense of right and wrong, but rather they serve to offer advantages to one class or another, to one profession or another, and so on.

In a healthy social organism, the relationship between employer and employee must not be based on an economic relationship, but must be based on a legal relationship. The relationship between employer and employee with regard to the labor force must be established not within the economic process, not within the institutions that are established within the economic process, but in a separate legal organism. This has certainly already been attempted in the course of modern life with the establishment of trade unions and the like and employment certificates and the like. However, anyone who understands this modern life will know that all these are only surrogates for what the proletarian actually feels as his natural demand from the foundations of human nature. But, dear ladies and gentlemen, if you say that the relationship between employer and employee is a legal one, and in truly civilized countries it is based on a contract between employer and employee, then you are only obscuring the real facts. Of course, this contract is concluded, and a great deal is made of it; but what use is this contract in real life when it is concluded about something that should never be concluded about, according to the nature of the economic process and the legal process? According to the nature of the social organism, an employment contract can only be concluded about what the employee produces for the employer as goods. If it is concluded for the purpose of regulating the relationship between the employee's labor and the employer, then it is based on a false social foundation.

As you can see, esteemed attendees, one must look for things at much greater depths than one usually does today, otherwise one will increasingly encounter the objection: Yes, what you want is actually already there, that is already being striven for. But if it is pursued in the very wrong way, it destroys the healthy organism instead of contributing to its healing. Since human labor can never be compared to a commodity, it must be lifted out of the mere economic process and placed in the realm of the legal, and no contract should be made at all about it. It should be placed in human social life by means of quite different forces and impulses. Contracts that are concluded within the economic sphere between the person who manages the work and the person who does the work should relate only to the services. Then, if they were based on performance, the proletarian would be able to see how he actually stands within the economic process; then he would have an overview of what can flow from his own free will into his own upkeep from this economic process, and what is necessary for the upkeep of the entire social order. However strange it may still sound to people today, the worker would be in complete agreement with what is withdrawn from his own labor, from his work performance, for his own gain. Because he would reasonably understand: I must be part of the social organism, I must serve it, and I enter into a contract with the entrepreneur, by which I do not sell my labor, but through which what I achieve is regulated in a healthy way in the social organism.

What is important, dear attendees, in real life, is not that rights develop out of economic life, but rather that life itself is shared, so to speak, on the one hand economic life, on the other the legal life, that on the one hand people integrate themselves into the circumstances of economic life according to human interests, human needs and according to what must be produced afterwards, and that on the other hand they in turn lift themselves out of this mere economic process and can place themselves in such a human coexistence in which only the relationship between human being and human being plays a role. What matters is that we really separate these two areas in life, not just in thought, not just in institutions, but really separate them in life.

Therefore, when we speak of the recovery of the social organism today, we must also speak of the fact that, in addition to other needs, this healthy organism has, on the one hand, the economic body, which is concerned solely with the circulation of goods, and, on the other hand, the legal body. Both bodies have their own legislation and their own administration. The legislation and administration of the economic body arise out of the economic process of circulation, out of the needs of this process of circulation. What is determined by the legal body in relation to the relationship between people will arise out of quite different prerequisites. And one can say: the actual state life, which has to include the determination of public rights, security, what is called political in the narrower sense, and economic life – must stand side by side like sovereign states. They will best interact like the individual parts of the human organism when they are independent.

If this seems too complicated to you, dear attendees, then you should also remember that what really matters is not whether something seems complicated or not, but whether it is necessary for life; because life itself is complicated. As soon as legal life is distinguished in a healthy way from mere economic life, the socialization of the social organism occurs. For the legal life as such has an effect, proceeding from the democratic principle on which it must be based, socializing.

Of course, you may already believe that some of the things being tried are similar to what is being called for here. But anyone who delves deeper into the matter will find that the very thinking of today's world is moving in the opposite direction. A certain idolatry of the state is what has taken hold in all minds. That is why economic life and the state, political life and the economic process should become one.

As I said, in this point proletarians and non-proletarians do not see eye to eye. It is not a matter of drawing up a social program, but of realizing how human social life must develop so that out of this social life, through what people will do, the healthy will arise, the healthy will form. But in modern times, this healthy element has been resisted. Nationalization has become more and more popular. And those who wanted to retain control over their private economic lives sought at least some kind of support from the state, so that they could then use the state to further their private interests. Confusion, a merging of economic life with political life, which should be kept strictly separate for the healthy organism, has become the ideal for many.

The situation is similar with regard to intellectual life. Today, the social question is not only a unified one, but, in the sense that I have just tried to explain, it is first of all an economic question, because ways and means must be sought to lift labor out of the circulation of commodities in the social organism itself, through the right interaction of humanity. This social question is a legal question because it must first be comprehended in a comprehensive way as an independent legal life, which is precisely what will have a socializing effect. This independent legal life, of which we do not even have the beginnings today due to the course of recent history. But something similar must be said with regard to the intellectual life. In the last two lectures I have already indicated how deeply it actually intervenes in the proletarian question of the present, without proletarians and non-proletarians having the right ideas about it. And I have already pointed out one thing: Again and again, those who, as I said, do not think about the proletariat but with the proletariat, can hear from the proletariat itself or from the leaders of the proletariat: What is going on in intellectual life, everything artistic, everything religious, everything scientific, customs, law and so on, that is actually an ideology, that is not something that has its own independent reality in itself, but it is something that arises out of the economic process, which is, so to speak, a spiritual superstructure of the economic process, depending on the relationship between the economic classes in the historical course of humanity, depending on how they stand today, depending on the way in which the individual is connected to what he does in economic life, depending on that he forms ideas, artistic perceptions, religious beliefs. This economic, purely material life is reflected in these ideas and feelings. Indeed, they may in turn have an effect on economic institutions, arising from these ideas and feelings. But originally these ideas and feelings are rooted entirely in purely material economic life, they are merely its reflection. This is the fundamental conviction of the proletarian soul today. You can hear this over and over again, and it is encapsulated in the saying: All spiritual life is actually just an ideology. And you can see how this attitude towards spiritual life, arising from the proletariat's entire disposition, fills the proletarian soul, even if it does not yet realize this, but all of this takes place in subconscious concepts. You see, these things can actually only be learned from life. What has emerged, I would say, simultaneously with the development of modern technology and modern capitalism in the historical development of humanity, modern, scientifically oriented thinking, has a completely different effect on the members of the previously ruling class and on the proletarian. No matter how much the ruling classes may be inclined to say, “Oh well, the proletarian doesn't want what he demands out of some scientific way of thinking, but it's a bread question or something like that.” Of course it is also a bread question; but how this bread question comes to light depends on completely different things, it is by no means as banausically oriented as many members of the ruling circles believe. And it is true that at the time when a certain form of scientific orientation had taken hold of the intellectual life of people in the leading circles, it was precisely at that time that the worker was tied to the machine, to the factory, that he was torn out of other life contexts and had no other context. Because the bleak machine and soulless capitalism do not provide him with a sense of life. He was forced to answer the question, “What am I as a human being in the world and in social science?” from within himself. Then he turned his great trust, his boundless trust, to the leading circles and took from these leading circles, as his heritage, the scientific orientation. The proletarian was in a completely different situation from the members of the leading circles. These leading circles could easily turn to the modern science that provides good information about nature and the natural course of human development from the lowest living creature to today's perfect human being. But these leading circles did not need to ask themselves the question: How do I actually stand within human society if this is true about man? They had their old traditions, even if they no longer believed in these old traditions, even if they were or are free spirits, even if they are atheists. They are part of human society, as it has been formed, certainly not according to the principle of scientific orientation, but out of old religious, out of old social impulses that really have nothing to do with today's scientific orientation.

Yes, dear attendees, one can be a naturalist, a natural scientist like Büchner, one can be completely convinced that everything that happens is only in the natural order, but one will only come to a certain theoretical conviction for the head. With one's whole being, one is part of the human social order, the structure of which is conditioned in a completely different way than by such a scientific foundation. One must learn in life what it means that the bourgeois-oriented person can gain a scientific conviction through the scientifically oriented way of thinking. The proletarian, however, needs what religion gives the other person, and he demands that from the scientific orientation.

If you let life teach you, you can see the difference in how the scientific orientation speaks from the soul of the member of the previously leading circles, and how differently it enters into the soul of the proletarian when you speak to him of this fully scientific orientation, which is supposed to instruct him about his position as a human being among other human beings, as a human being in the world and in human society in general. Let me give you an example that could easily be multiplied a hundredfold, even if I have to go into the personal for a moment. I once stood on the same podium, directly in front of a rather large gathering of the Berlin proletariat, giving a speech together with Rosa Luxemburg, who recently met a tragic end. Rosa Luxemburg spoke to the proletarians about science and the workers. She spoke in her own simple and inspiring way. She spoke like someone who speaks in the spirit of modern scientific orientation. She made it clear to these people that it is a prejudice to believe that man descended from something angelic, that he was somehow rooted in a spiritual life of the distant past. No, she said, man was not such an angel in prehistoric times, man was not such an angel at all in the place of prehistoric man; he behaved most indecently by climbing like monkeys in trees, and from such beginnings he had raised himself to his present existence. This does not justify the distinctions that are made in the human order today, it justifies a completely different consciousness of man as man.

You see, dear attendees, this is something that the proletarian has heard over and over again. And when one speaks of the uneducated proletariat, one simply does not know what is going on in the proletarian movement. But this is also something that seizes his soul quite differently, seizes it with the power of a creed, than the soul is seized by the leading circles. One must look at it. And then one will be trained to reflect on where it actually comes from. Then one arrives at the following. Then one arrives at being able to answer the question of how it actually happened that, as I said, another thing developed at the same time as modern technology and modern capitalism. The other thing that has developed is that the earlier, relatively independent spiritual life has developed out of the instincts of humanity, which today, however, must be transformed into conscious impulses. The leading circles, whose interests were linked to the emerging state, were guided by these instincts. What we call the “state” today is actually only four centuries old. And it is a prejudice to believe that there have always been states in our sense in our historical development. The earlier development was something quite different. But with what has developed there, the interests of the leading, guiding circles have become connected. Only the interests of the modern proletariat have been excluded from this, they have simply been excluded by the modern economic process. The consequence of this was that just as individual circles and individual areas of economic life have been introduced into the state in modern times, so has intellectual life been introduced into the state, schools, secondary schools, universities; and efforts are being made to introduce more and more and more into this purely political life of the state.

What happened as a result? The state sucked out the spiritual life. And anyone who follows the process that took place here closely knows that not only did the administration and legislation of this spiritual life become dependent on the state, but the content of so-called science and the other branches of the spiritual life became very dependent on the state life of the circles that had previously been in charge. The state became the decisive factor for the impulses of humanity's intellectual activity. Therefore, the state had its interests represented by these intellectual powers. And the consequence of this was that what emerged in intellectual life now really became only a reflection, only a superstructure, of those interests that were connected with state life by the ruling circles. It is the truth that through an historical process, the spiritual life has become a reflection, a superstructure, an ideology at the time when the proletariat was excluded from participating in this state life. What could it want other than to participate in this state life like the other classes?

And so we see how this intellectual life – it can't just be mathematics, but it can be in other branches – has really become a mirror image of what is happening outside in purely political life according to the interests of the ruling circles. Perhaps especially in the present catastrophe of humanity one will already be able to see this for oneself. Anyone who has taken the trouble to follow the course of German history, culminating in this world war catastrophe, will be able to see quite well that what the scholars have told the people as “history” was only an expression of the various areas of the state will of the ruling powers. For I would like to ask the question: Will the history of the Hohenzollerns perhaps look the same in the future as it has done so far? It will very much reveal how it has so far been a reflection of what the leading circles wanted according to the powers they had. (Applause.) That is particularly striking in such an example. But these examples could be multiplied, where the corresponding thing may not be so radical, but perhaps all the more effective precisely because it is hidden.

The modern proletarian saw this, dear attendees. From this he formed the view that all intellectual life is merely a reflection, merely a superstructure of what is happening below in the real process. And since he was deprived of participation in political life, he formed the view that everything intellectual is only a reflection of the economic process as such.

Those who really have the opportunity, and even the ability, to penetrate these processes will come to the realization that, at the dawn of modern times, the proletariat great confidence in the leading circles, to accept from them as inheritance what had been developed in the intellectual life, [this germination, which became an unhappily soul-destroying inheritance]

And so it has come about that the modern proletarian has indeed been placed in circumstances that he, in his nature, perceives as inhumane, but that he still thinks today, continues to think about the circumstances in the same way as he has learned from the leading circles. In this regard, esteemed attendees, one makes the strangest experiences about human illusions. Those who know that the last consequences of bourgeois thinking are rampant in the proletarian soul and in the soul of thinkers who serve proletarian life know that it is necessary for the social question to be understood as a spiritual question in its third aspect as well. It will only be understood as a spiritual issue if the proletariat also experiences the fact that it will want to think differently from what it has learned from the leading circles in addition to everything else that it experiences in its soul.

This is perhaps not what one would expect if one looks more deeply into the events of recent history. Perhaps it will be even more terrible than what is happening today, for those who are frightened by such things, when not even the proletarians have come to the conclusion that they do not have to transform the conditions in which they feel unhappy, but that humanity has to rethink, to think differently about the conditions themselves. Then they will realize that what must be overcome is the modern scientific orientation, and that a new spiritual life must be accepted – a new spiritual life for which perhaps the proletarian, precisely because he can be the first to be disillusioned with the old, is being prepared in the right way. Perhaps he, the proletarian, is the right modern man, while the others cannot break away from that which is old tradition.

Now, one can, again, especially me – forgive me for mentioning something personal for a moment – one can perhaps make the objection to me in particular: Well, you usually speak of an intellectual life, you must think that is the right thing. Do you think that today's proletarians are more willing to accept this intellectual life than the bourgeois or other leading classes? I certainly do not believe that for the present time, for the facts clearly indicate the opposite. But in this respect, do the proletarians as proletarians judge at all? Have the proletarians become free enough to gain an inner judgment, a truly inner judgment? Have they not received the scientific orientation, the whole way of thinking of the inner man, from the leading circles? The ruling circles are opposed to this new spiritual life because they live in old traditions, and because the newer school of thought must radically break with the newer traditions with regard to the thinking, feeling and willing of man. And to be against it, the others have learned from these ruling circles – except for a few exceptions, of course. When the time comes that the proletarian realizes that the human soul must become desolate through the lack of a spiritual life, that something quite different is needed than a mere ideology, a mere reflection of purely material reality, then he will certainly not go back to the old world-view traditions; but he will need the realization of the connection between man and the spiritual world. This knowledge of the connection between man and the spiritual world can only be properly integrated into the social organism if a third element is added to the two already mentioned. This means that the developments of recent centuries, which have been pushed forward to a certain extent, must be reversed. what has been nationalized in the field of intellectual life is denationalized, when, alongside the independent economic body and the independent legal body, a third area of the social organism is the area of intellectual life, which is immediately freed from all other influences and impulses and is left to its own devices. It is only when it can arise out of free human initiative that the spiritual life can flourish and take hold of people. Of course, one can learn something when forced to do so by circumstances. But one cannot let the spirit take effect on one, experience the spirit as it can only truly be effective for human coexistence when the spirit is left to its own devices. And however strange it may sound to the thinking habits of today's people, we must strive for a time when not only the economic body receives its own legislation [and] administration from its own relationship, when not only the legal life receives its democratic structure from the relationship between human and man, but where the spiritual life is also completely independent of the economy and the state, purely on its own, so that it can only give the state and the economy even more good through its achievements, because it only develops them energetically in its own field.

I would say that people today still think very retrogressively about this matter. Above all, they think according to comfortable habits of thought. Time and again, the question is raised, also with regard to the spiritual part of the social question: what do the proletarians actually want? Are there not enough aspirations today? Are not all kinds of educational associations being founded here and there, lectures being given by the leading circles, and other educational opportunities being provided for the proletariat? Well, dear attendees, the proletariat may go to all of this. What does it receive there? It receives what it has received for centuries and what it perceives as an ideology, as a mere spiritual superstructure of the economic order, which it basically cannot use for the real development of its soul. One may well-intentionedly justify all of this, but it has no value for the recovery of the social organism. For the recovery of the social organism, it has value only if one turns to a school of thought that makes itself independent of the other two social fields, which is therefore suited to bring real spiritual life into the development of humanity.

What will be the consequence of this spiritual life also imprinting itself on the human being for his entire human existence and for the consciousness of his human dignity, so that it can be a real asset in life for him? The proletariat can only think of the intellectual life that has passed from the ruling circles to the proletariat as a legacy in the manner described, as being there more or less for the entertainment of the ruling circles. And finally, in most cases it is only there to serve these leading circles, for they have ultimately managed to form a closed society for themselves with their intellectual life. There is an abyss between what the members of the leading circles receive for themselves as art, religion, science, custom and even as law, and what those outside these leading circles, as proletarians, cannot understand at all, because it is born out of the mere impulses of the ruling circles, which are aimed at making these ruling circles a closed society.

Mutual understanding would only be possible if there were a common spiritual life. This common spiritual life can only develop on the basis of a socializing constitutional state that has been established from the economic body. And it can develop on the other side when there is complete emancipation from the other two powers, the spiritual life itself. For this spiritual life will have a completely different impact than what is regarded as the spiritual life today. And this spiritual life will be soul-bearing, will be able to fulfill man quite differently than religious views once fulfilled, to which the modern proletariat will certainly not return.

Thus the social question is indeed, in the most eminent sense, a spiritual question, ladies and gentlemen. What is needed is a yearning for a new spiritual life. And an attempt at a solution in this area can only come about by acquiring a sense of what such an independent new spiritual life wants to bring into humanity. Objections are always easy. You can start with the very lowest objections; you can say: No, let's free the school so that, firstly, its maintenance is based only on what people voluntarily give for it, then we will return to the age of illiteracy. We shall not do that, dearest attendees, nor will the highest studies suffer if they are freed from the other powers; but we will see how, precisely when this spiritual life is emancipated from the other powers, it will have the right effect on those people who are otherwise involved in economic or legal life. It will have an effect because they and those who lead them will then be aware that they are voluntarily leading to this spiritual life so that they can grow into the rest of the healthy social organism. What matters is not what one or the other wants today with regard to this healthy social organism, but what people will do when it is striven for, or when it is at least realized to a certain extent. People will then most certainly, let us say, for example, only admit to the administrative body of the constitutional state those who have a certain school education. And I really believe that I am one of those who can not only think about the proletariat, but can think with the proletariat. I know that which will prevail in the people who grow out of the modern proletariat and integrate themselves into the tripartite, healthy social organism. These people will certainly not refuse to admit only those into political life who have received a certain education. But illiteracy will have ceased to exist wherever it still exists today; it will certainly not begin again.

This is how specific questions are answered, because today it is important above all to point out the major impulses as such. Today we need a realistic view of these things, a view that can be immersed in life and can form ideas about the forms that life must take so that, in this life, people gradually turn their impulses into a healthy social organism. Because it must be repeated again and again: The social question has emerged, is manifesting itself, revealing itself in powerful facts, in facts that are quite terrible for some. It has not emerged in such a way that it will be solved by doing this or that tomorrow, and then it will be solved, then it will cease to exist – no, the development of humanity is such that this social question is now here, that it must be viewed in this threefold way as an economic, legal and as a spiritual question, and that when people see it this way, when a feeling about it becomes a social feeling in such a way that it becomes a self-evident demand for people to distinguish between the three parts of the social organism, then the ongoing solution of this social question will always arise from human behavior. For economic life will always consume people to a certain extent. The legal system must always protect him from this consumption, always protect him from what economic life wants. The social question cannot be solved all at once; the social question is solved in a continuous process of becoming. And to gain insight into it means to delve into the becoming of humanity from the outset, as its dawn is in the present, as the sun must rise for it more and more towards the future.

Thus it turns out that a realistic view of the social question must be seen in a completely different way than it is usually seen. One thinks that it can be solved by this or that; it could be solved by offering one's hand to a reorganization of the social organism itself, indeed only to a real formulation of the social body, to an organism that has the three limbs described, which, if they are independent, can then work together in the right way. As long as we do not engage with these things, we will not be able to practice a real healing art of the social organism in the social question. Wherever the attempt may come from, from the proletarian or non-proletarian side, it will be quackery. And things have come so far today, esteemed attendees, that one should truly ask oneself the serious question: how do you practice real healing in this field, rather than quackery?

Of course, I do not think that such a thing can be achieved overnight. The socialists do not think that either; they talk about a slow development, insofar as they are based on a certain rationality. But with every single measure that man takes, he can already orient his thinking and acting towards the threefold social organism. If those who want to take part at all - and basically, every human being is granted this, to one with greater, to the other with lesser responsibility - if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take part in the development of the social order, if those who want to take The social organism must be structured into the three distinct parts described, if everything that is done in legislation, everything that is done in administration, and everything that is done in ordinary life is oriented in this way, then we are moving towards what we must move towards. It is easy to think about how happiness is established by the social organism. It is not a proper thought. A proper thought, Most Excellent Presence, is to realize, above all, how the social organism can be made viable and healthy. Then, precisely because the spiritual life is emancipated from other powers, because the legal life stands in its independence, because this legal life, in its independence, has a socializing effect on economic life, precisely because of this, the possibility will arise that in this healthy social organism, through completely different factors than through its processes themselves, what people call a dignified, perhaps even a happy existence, will be established. The human organism, the natural organism, must be healthy. Does its healthiness already give us the elevation of the soul, the satisfying soul life? No, it does not give us that. Our organism, when it is sick, certainly it depresses the soul life, it makes us unhappy, humanly speaking. But when it is healthy, we must still strive for something else in order to have a gladdened, a contented soul, one that is inwardly filled with spiritual life, in a healthy organism. We will only be able to do this if we have a healthy organism, if we are not paralyzed by illness. The social organism must be made viable; then the people who live in the viable, healthy social organism will be able to base their happiness on other factors of life. The proletarian world – we must not harbor any illusions about this – cannot do it today, because it is tied to the mere economic organism. It must be liberated from the mere economic life in the healthy social organism. Only then will the social impulse be able to take on the right modern character, especially in the proletarian masses of humanity.

Simply by saying these things, the weight they carry for present-day life must be felt, esteemed attendees. In these matters, he who devotes himself to them, as I believe with real inner understanding, is not so absorbed that he merely wants to gain a view or merely wants to be right in some form or another, but is so absorbed that he thinks above all of gaining something that can have an effect on real life, that can enter into people's hearts, into their souls, from which their actions and their life situation must surely arise.

What I am saying here in these lectures is what I have been saying for a long time, even while the terrible catastrophe of war raged. I have said it to many who were in leading positions at the time, saying on the one hand: It is not invented, it is not that one should think that I am representing something imagined, but what is represented here has been taken from the views of the developmental forces of humanity, namely of European humanity for the next ten, twenty, thirty years. This wants to be realized. That it wants to be realized does not depend on any of us, it will be realized because it is inherent in the development of humanity and wants to be realized objectively. One can only say to the person who wants to intervene in social life in some way: You have the choice either to intervene in the sense of these forces or to oppose them. In the first case it is possible to serve the development of the times through reason; in the other, one simply has to wait idly for revolutions and cataclysms. These revolutions and cataclysms have come more quickly than many people believed, to whom I spoke of them years ago.

And now it is taking on different forms, though. And there are already more people who are sympathetic to such things because the facts speak even more clearly today. But on the other hand, I also said the following to those to whom I was allowed to speak about the same thing that I have already discussed here: I could imagine that people would set about attacking things in reality in such a way that they would move in the direction indicated in the treatment of the social question. Then something could arise from it that might not leave a stone unturned in what I myself say today, but that would be beneficial. Because I don't have the faith that I am so clever as to know every single thing that needs to be done, but I do have the unquestioning faith that reality itself is tackled with these things. And if you open yourself to such reality, then those people who place themselves in this threefold organism will be so clever that they will work together to achieve the right thing. Therefore, of what I say today, no stone need be left unturned; everything can turn out differently, but it will turn out as it lies in the direction of developmental reality. That is what matters.

Therefore, it was a certain satisfaction for me – everyone tries to do what they can do in the place where the fate of life has put them – it was a certain satisfaction for me to see how an appeal that wants to speak to people about the terrible catastrophe of the last few years, an appeal that also contains in brief words, with a few suggestive sentences only, but which indicates that this can be justified in full detail, that this appeal has found well over a hundred signatures in Germany, and around a hundred signatures among the Germans of Austria, in a relatively short time, and now also signatures of Swiss personalities, which we must value particularly highly for this cause.

And I believe that through this appeal, which is to appear in the near future, supported by those personalities who today can already more or less intensively, or less intensively, identify with such a will as it is characterized here, that with this appeal, I believe a beginning will be made. I will then support what is only hinted at in this appeal, what one must feel more through this appeal, with what one already understands oneself. This booklet is already in print. And so I hope, dear readers, that precisely those ideas which I believe correspond to a realistic social view can enter the human soul in these difficult times, now supported by a larger number of people reflecting on them. And that is necessary. The facts that are emerging today on the horizon of world-historical becoming challenge us to do so.

And it would be a failure if everyone did not try, in their own place, to arrive at some kind of judgment that can be realized in their actions, to arrive at a judgment about what is actually needed. What is actually the true nature of what is called the social movement? Today we have to start with what later has to be a kind of schooling like the multiplication table is today, or like the four types of arithmetic. We must begin with the insight: how is the social question shaped as an economic, legal and spiritual question? And will humanity be able to live in the future if it must continually solve recurring problems within the development of the social structure as an economic, legal and spiritual question?

Today's facts speak so strongly, and they are already intervening so strongly in the lives of many people. And it is already becoming apparent that they will intervene in the life of every single person. These facts are so strong. They reveal themselves in such a way that they must lead people to the conclusion, to the feeling: I must acquire some kind of view in this area, I cannot continue to stand in the present turmoil of facts with a sleeping soul. Otherwise, if it is impossible to find any understanding for a development in these matters that is born out of the soul, then it would have to come to the point where people's instincts simply gain the upper hand, that these instincts bring about the decision, which would then be not a decision but a terrible test for humanity, a gruesome test for humanity, that the instincts bring about this test, this horrible fate. In view of what is now emerging, but which can perhaps still be averted if only each individual consults with himself, the words repeatedly come to our lips, welling up from the heart that wants to take part in the fate of the times and in the fate of people in this time: one tries to penetrate into the essence of the social movement before it is too late.

The program of this second public performance was the same as the previous one in Zurich

Dear attendees!

Allow me to say a few words about our performance. This will seem all the more justified given that the art form we want to present cannot yet be considered complete, but rather a beginning, a will, or I could also say the inclination towards a will, to express the human soul in a certain way in a particular art form. We know very well that more accomplished things are being done in the related fields, of which there are many today, in terms of artistic perfection. We know that we cannot compete with what is being achieved in the related arts. But we do not want to compete with them either.

For us, it is not about dance-like or similar art creations in addition to others, but rather about seeking forms of movement art based on certain foundations that are not otherwise sought. This means seeking the expression of spiritual experience through movements of the human organism, through the positions of groups of people in relation to each other, and also through the movement of positions of groups of people in relation to each other. What I have just described, which underlies the matter as a basis, is something that is rooted in Goethe's world view. Goethe's great, powerful world view is expressed in various fields. Above all, it expresses itself in the fact that Goethe found ways to judge that which lives and exists in the world from a certain deeper, spiritual point of view.

Our endeavor is based, first of all, on the way in which Goethe himself observed life and the forms of living beings. Goethe's great and significant theory of metamorphosis is fundamental. I do not wish to be theoretical in these introductory remarks, but only to point out how Goethe observed the growth and weaving of plants, and then also of animals and humans, and how it became clear to him that a deeper, intuitive look at this growth shows how each individual organ is a metamorphosis, a transformation of another organ of the same being. Goethe saw the leaf in the plant blossom, and in turn the plant blossom in the fruit; the same applies to animals and human beings. But now it becomes clear to Goethe that not only is each individual organ a transforming organ of other organs, but that the whole living being is also only a transformation of an [organ], so to speak: every organ is the whole plant, the whole animal.

What Goethe first saw, I would say more scientifically, can also be fully felt artistically, without becoming soberly intellectual. And it is an attempt to feel artistically with regard to the movement systems within the human being. If I want to briefly describe in a few words what underlies our art form, I would say: the whole human being should express movements that represent him as a single larynx. So that one can see in what the human being expresses through his movements that which one otherwise hears when the human being, through the individual members of the organism, through the larynx and its neighboring organs, forms sounds, combinations of sounds, and tones and combinations of tones out of himself.

There is, however, a need to look artistically and intuitively at the whole area that underlies the human larynx. Then we find that in what the human being does not see in the processes of the cabbage head, but which is expressed only in what then becomes speech and sound, there is something that is more determined in the disposition than in what actually comes to expression and what passes over into the manifestation of word and sound, of word combinations and sound combinations. All that is expressed through the larynx can be visibly expressed by the whole human being. We express this by letting the whole human being make movements that proceed in the same way as the movements that the larynx produces when speaking, singing, and so on.

But there is something else in all that a person can express through the larynx. The whole soul speaks along with the sensations and movements that we express. When we express ourselves through speech, there is an underlying mood of the soul to what is revealed through language: rhythm, pure artistic assonance is expressed. This is in turn expressed by us by bringing groups into movement and into position in relation to one another. First of all, what we present through individual people is a representation of the whole human being as a large larynx, but visible, not audible. Everything we present in groups is what permeates word and sound as sensation, glows as mood and the like, presented in language as purely artistic rhythm, alliteration, assonance and so on.

And one can say: In this way we are trying to achieve an art form that does not give an instantaneous expression of the human soul, but which, according to certain laws, gives a lasting expression of the soul. Just as in speech, the larynx makes movements that are based on certain laws, whereby combinations of sounds and tones arise, and just as there is something in the lawfulness as there is in the organ, we do not try to express the soul life through facial expressions or pantomime. We do not seek to achieve our art form in this way, but by basing our movements on an inner lawfulness, which is just as internally structured as the musical work of art itself is internally structured in harmony and melody. In our system, the individual or groups of people cannot express anything that flows out of them only in the moment through pantomime or mime. Rather, what is subjectively expressed by the individual person is about the same as the relationship between the performance of a Beethoven sonata by one artist and that of another. In this way, we exclude everything arbitrary, everything subjective; all facial expressions, pantomime plays no role for us, not the individual gesture, but only the connection with the individual work of art. If you do see gestures, pantomime, facial expressions, then please consider this an imperfection of our art form; we have certainly not yet reached the stage where we would like you to see them, as I have just mentioned.

Of course, our art is supported by music and recitation, so that on the one hand the soul can be heard, and on the other hand, as I said, through the whole person, who has become the larynx, it comes to visible representation.

Dear esteemed audience, please do not take this evening's performance as something we imagine is already a perfect art – you will see many imperfections. But take it as a beginning, and you may do it justice to such an extent that you see: one can also dare this attempt in this field alongside related arts. Do us the favor of characterizing from this point of view; forgive the mistakes that you may see. We will endeavor to correct the mistakes, and from this beginning, through us or through others who work in this field, much more perfect work in this field will yet come about.