Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

World Downfall and Resurrection
GA 204

2 April 1921, Dornach

Translated by Harry Collison, revised by Karla Kiniger

The writings of John Scotus Erigena emanate from a mode of thinking which shines over from the first centuries of Christendom into the 9th century. The mental process, the whole life of thought and idea in those first centuries of Christendom was different from what it came to be later on. A great and fundamental change occurred in the 4th century of our era. From the middle of the 4th century onwards, the thinking of men consisted to a far greater extent in an exercising of the reasoning faculty. Until that time, all knowledge and all mental life sprang far more from a kind of inspiration than later on when, with increasing consciousness, men began to work out their own thoughts for themselves. Now the kind of consciousness that was natural before the 4th century still echoes on in sayings like that of John Scotus Erigena—that man forms judgments and draws conclusions as a human being but knows as an Angel. This idea—which springs up in John Scotus Erigena as a kind of reminiscence, as a heritage from an earlier form of knowledge—was a fact acknowledged by anyone who thought at all in the days before the 4th century of our era. It never occurred to men in those days to attribute thoughts to the human being as such. Thoughts were attributed to the Angel working within the human being. An Angel indwelt the body of a man; the Angel was the knower and the human being shared in the knowledge.

Consciousness of these things died away altogether after the 4th century and in men like John Scotus Erigena it flashed up once again, was drawn forth as it were with effort from the soul. This very fact indicates that man's whole way of looking at the world had changed in the course of that century. And that is why it is so difficult for us today to understand the mode of thinking of the first centuries of Christen' dom. Indeed, this understanding can only come from Spiritual Science. It is a question of forming true and really adequate conceptions of the thought and outlook of men in those early Christian times.

The Eucharistic controversy, as it is called, had already appeared on the scene in the days of John Scotus Erigena, and discussion was rife on such subjects as predestination. This is an unmistakable indication of the fact that what was previously more of the nature of inspiration, removed altogether from the domain of controversy, had now been drawn into the sphere of discussion and debate. But as the centuries took their course, many things were no longer understood at all, as, for example, the first verses of the Gospel of St John in the form in which they are commonly rendered. If we read the first verses of this Gospel carefully, we find a statement that has been overlooked altogether by adherents of the Christian Faith throughout subsequent centuries. Think of the first verses of the Gospel of St John: ‘In the beginning was the Word’. And then: ‘All things were made by him [i.e.: by the Logos]; and without him was not anything made that was made.’

If these words are taken literally, their purport is quite clear: namely, that all things visible were made by the Logos, that the Logos, therefore, is the creator of the things of the world. In the Christian mind after the 4th century, the Logos—rightly identified with the Christ in the sense of St John's Gospel—is not regarded as the creator of things visible, but the Father God is substituted for the Logos. The Logos is known as the Son, but the Father, not the Son, is conceived as the creator. This doctrine has persisted through the centuries and completely contradicts the words of the Gospel of St John. One cannot take this Gospel literally and maintain at the same time that the creator of things visible is the Father God and not the Christ.

And now we must try to understand the kind of thinking in which such a fundamental change came about in the 4th century. In the early Christian centuries, thought was based upon the knowledge of the spiritual world that had survived from ancient paganism. We must try to understand the attitude of men living in the first centuries of Christendom to teachings such as those now living on in the form of the Eucharist. The essence of the Eucharist is, as we realise, contained in the words: ‘This is My body’ (the bread); ‘this is My blood’ (the wine). There was a real understanding of this mystery in those early centuries, even among men who were by no means learned but whom the Eucharist drew together in simple devotion to Christ. What did such a mystery really signify to these men?

Teachings of religious wisdom permeated the whole of antiquity. The further we go back in time, the more deeply was this teaching founded upon the nature of the Father God. When we study the religious beliefs of very ancient times—beliefs which then survived in decadent form—we find everywhere that veneration was paid to the element flowing down from the primal ancestor of a tribal stock. In his Germania, Tacitus speaks of the peoples who, having found their way into the Roman Empire, became the founders of the new civilisation, and of how they still harked back in remembrance to these tribal deities, although to some extent they had already adopted a different form of worship, the worship of Gods of locality. The conception, therefore, was that generation after generation had passed by since the existence of an ancient ancestor who had founded the tribal stock, and that the soul and spirit of this father of the tribe still held sway, down to the very latest generation. Men thought: the bodies of all who constitute the tribal stock are under this ancestral sway. These bodies are all related, they have one common origin. One common blood flows through the veins of them all. The body and the blood are one. And in revering the soul and spirit of the father of the tribe, men felt the sway of the Divinity behind this tribal ancestor whose soul and spirit worked upon and through them as a people. They beheld the sway of this Divinity in the bodies, in the blood flowing through the generations and they felt the presence of a mystery in the forces of the body and of the blood.

In the days of ancient paganism men had a real perception of the forces of the Divinity ruling in the body and flowing through the blood. Whenever an adherent of that ancient view of the world saw blood flowing from animals or from human beings, he saw in the blood the body of the Godhead and in the bodies that were built up by this blood, the bodies of the members of the tribe, the form, the image of the Godhead. People of today have no longer any real conception of how the Divine-Spiritual in those times was worshipped in this material form.

And so, the power of the Godhead flowed through the blood of the successive generations. The Godhead shaped His image in the bodies of the generations. The soul and the spirit of the father of the tribe had been in the presence of the Godhead and as the primal ancestor he then worked with divine power upon and through his progeny. The father of the tribe was worshipped as the divine ancestor.

Now it must be remembered that the forces working in the body of man are of the nature of the forces of the Earth. This is not merely an ancient belief but an actual truth for, as you know, the origin of the human physical body lies in still more ancient times, and now, when the physical body has the mineral kingdom within it, the forces of the Earth are working in the body and in the blood of man.

In human blood there work not only the forces introduced with the foodstuffs but the forces that are active in the planetary body of the Earth as a whole. If a man lives in a region where the soil is red, or its geological constituents include certain metallic substances, his blood is influenced by the Earth. Again, the bodily form of the human being is itself affected by the Earth. In warmer zones the human body is not the same as in colder zones. The bodily nature and the forces working in the blood are fundamentally influenced by the forces of the Earth. This truth—which can only be revealed today by spiritual investigation—was a matter of course in the instinctive knowledge possessed by the men of old. They knew that the forces of the Earth pulsate in the blood. When we today connect the telegraphic apparatus in station A by means of a wire with the telegraphic apparatus in station B, this is only one part of the connection. The current of electricity must be led through the wire. But the current must be ‘circuited’, as we say. You know quite well how this is done—simply by sinking plates in the Earth. The Earth does the rest. This has been discovered today by modern science. We presuppose that the electric current works in the Earth. In olden times men knew nothing about electricity or electric currents, but on the other hand they knew something about their blood. Standing on the Earth they knew: there is something in the Earth which also lives in the blood. They did not speak of electricity but of an earthly force living in their blood. We no longer know that Earth-electricity is living in the blood. We are content to rely on mathematical formulae and the science of mechanics. But the men of old connected their picture of the Godhead with the very body of the Earth. They felt the sway of the Godhead in the blood, in the body, in the Earth. It was their picture of the Father God. This picture of the Father God was based upon the principle of the primal ancestor of the tribe, which the people conceived as the initial focus of the forces of the Godhead. But the Earth was the medium through which this Godhead manifested and the forces of the Earth in the blood, in the whole human body, were held to be workings of the Godhead.

Now another conception too was associated with this picture of the Father God in the days of antiquity. Men said to themselves: Every' thing would be well if the earthly forces only were working upon the being of man, but this is not the case. The Moon is working in the neighbourhood of the Earth. In short, the Earth is not working alone, but together with the Moon. And with this mingling of Earth and Moon forces there was associated the idea not only of one single Godhead of the Earth but of the many subordinate gods of paganism. All the forces working upon body and blood were woven into this ancient conception of the Godhead.

No wonder that all striving for knowledge in those times was directed to the forces of the Moon and of the Earth. A subtle and intricate body of knowledge grew up, a ‘science’ as it were of the Father God, and we have an echo of this in the first three sections of the great work of John Scotus Erigena, On the Division of Nature. He himself no longer possessed the knowledge in its real form, for he lived in the 9th century after Christ. None the less his books contain fragments that are a direct heritage from primeval wisdom, fragments in which we read that in all material existence there lives the Father God—creating but not created—and the other Divinities who both create and are themselves created. These other Divinities are the Beings of the Hierarchies.

I he visible world spread around the human being is created and does not create, and man is to look forward to a world wherein the Godhead rules as the Godhead at rest—neither creating nor created but receiving all things into himself. Such is the substance of the fourth section of the work of John Scotus Erigena.

This fourth section treats of soteriology and eschatology. It speaks of the history of the Christ Jesus, of the Resurrection, of the gifts of the Divine Grace, of the ending of the world and the return to the Godhead at rest. The first three sections, particularly, echo the conceptions of antiquity for, as a matter of fact, the thoughts become genuinely Christian only when we reach the fourth. The first three sections contain (Christian thoughts, but are derived, in essence, from ancient paganism. And so, it was among the Church Fathers of the first centuries of Christendom. Their conceptions were relics of the ancient era of paganism. Let me put it in these words: In Nature, in the created world around him, man gazed upon the region of the Father God. Behind Nature he saw an Ideal world. He beheld the workings of certain forces in nature; and in the succession of the generations, in the development of humanity itself in the different races and peoples he saw the ruling of the Father God.

Now in the first centuries of Christendom there was added to this conception another sphere of knowledge which has been entirely lost. The earliest Church Fathers spoke as follows, although such doctrines have been exterminated altogether by their later exponents. They said: The Father God has worked in the blood flowing through the generations and in all that has shaped itself into the bodies of men, but the Father God has been engaged in perpetual warfare with the powers who oppose him, namely the Nature Spirits. The minds of men during the first centuries of Christendom were imbued with the idea that the Father God had never succeeded in working alone but had been obliged to wage perpetual warfare against the Nature Spirits ruling in the things of the outer world. The teachings of the earliest Church Fathers were to the effect that in the pre-Christian era men believed in the Father God but could not distinguish him from the Nature Spirits. What these men of old really believed in was the whole world of the Father God combined with the kingdom of Nature. It was from this that they conceived the visible world to have proceeded. But, said the Church Fathers, this is an error. All these different Nature Gods are working in Nature but at a certain stage they insinuated themselves into the things of the Earth. The things of the Earth we perceive with our senses, the things that are outside us, that have become earthly, do not proceed from these Nature Spirits, nor from the Father God who worked creatively only in the metamorphoses of pre-earthly existence. The Earth we see proceeded not from the Father God and not from the Nature Spirits, but from the Son, from the Logos whom the Father God sent forth in order that He (the Logos) might create the Earth. And the Gospel of St John is there as a token and a memorial that the Earth is not, as the ancients believed, created by the Father God. The Father God sent forth the Son, and the Son is the creator of the Earth.

It was for the upholding of the teaching contained in the first verses of the Gospel of St John that the early Fathers of the Christian Church were fighting. So difficult was it for the growing faculty of human intellect to understand this teaching that Dionysius the Areopagite preferred to say: Whatsoever is created by the human intellect is Affirmative Theology, but Affirmative Theology does not penetrate into those regions where the real mysteries of the world are contained. These regions can only be attained by the negation of all predicates, by speaking of God not as essentia but as super-essentia, by speaking not of personality, but of super-personality. In other words, when everything is negated, then, through Negative Theology alone can the real mystery of existence be fathomed. But neither Dionysius the Areopagite nor a successor like John Scotus Erigena (who was already permeated by the forces of intellect) believed that human reason was in any way capable of explaining these mysteries of world existence.

And now try to think what is implied by the assertion that the Logos is the creator of the world. Think of what was present all through pre-Christian antiquity but had grown somewhat dim at the time of the approach of the Mystery of Golgotha. Men said to themselves: The Godhead works through the blood, through the body. And they associated with this the conception that when the blood runs in the veins of human beings or of animals, the Gods have been deprived of it. The blood, they said, is the lawful possession of the Gods. Therefore, we can draw near to the Gods if we give the blood back again to them. The Gods desire the blood for themselves. Men have taken possession of it and it must be given back again to the Gods. Hence the blood sacrifice in the days of antiquity.

But now came the Christ Who taught that the things of the Earth have not proceeded from the Gods who desire the blood for themselves. Christ directed the minds of men to all that works in their being before the forces of the Earth work upon them. Think of the bread—the substance wherewith man is nourished. He takes bread into his body. It is a means of nourishment and passing through the organism reaches a certain point before it is transformed into the forces of the blood. But it is not changed into blood until it has passed through the whole digestive tract. Only then do the forces of the Earth begin to work. As long as the foodstuff has not passed over into the blood, the earthly forces have not begun to work. Christ, therefore, taught men to see God not in the blood but in the bread before the bread becomes flesh, and to see God in the wine before the wine passes into the blood. There is the Divine, there is the incarnate Logos. Look not upon what flows in the blood, for what flows in the blood is a heritage of man from the Moon period, from pre- earthly time. Away, therefore, with the conceptions of the blood, of the body, of flesh. Turn your minds to what is not yet blood and not yet flesh, to what is prepared on the Earth around you without the influence of the Moon; turn your minds to what comes from the Sun! For we see things through the light of the Sun and when we eat the bread and drink the wine we receive in them the powers and forces of the Sun. Things visible exist not through the Father but through the Logos—the Son. Such was the message of Christ.

Here, you see, the mind of man is turned not to the kind of knowledge derived by the ancients from Nature, but in the direction of the Sun, to the forces poured down by the Sun to the Earth. Instead of deriving his conceptions of the Divine from physical, earthly things, man must behold the Divine in the Spiritual, in the Logos. The Logos superseded those ancient conceptions of the Father God. In other words, the mind of man was directed to the Spiritual. In pre-Christian times man had perceived the Divine with forces generated in his own organic being and these forces then arose within him in the form of vision. A vision of the Divine also proceeded from the blood. But now man must seek for the Divine in acts of purely spiritual contemplation. He must regard the things visible around him as having proceeded from the Logos, not from those beings who subsequently had insinuated themselves into the Earth as a result of the activity of a God who had created in pre-earthly existence.

Only in the light of this knowledge can we begin to understand the ideas and mental outlook of those who lived in the first centuries of Christendom. All that I have been describing was an indication to men that their conceptions of the Divine must be drawn from the forces of their consciousness alone, and from no other source. Men were directed to the Spiritual and the time had now come when it was possible to say to them: In the days of the old dispensation the Earth was so powerful that it was the source of your conception of the Divine. But those days have passed away. The Earth can no longer give you anything. Your own forces and your own forces alone must lead you to the Logos, the creative principle. Hitherto you have worshipped only the Godhead who created in pre-earthly existence; now you are to revere the principle that is creative in earthly existence. And this must be done through the power of your Ego, of your Spirit.

The early Christians, therefore, were wont to say: The end of the world is at hand. They meant the downfall of that Earth from which man drew his knowledge without conscious effort. To speak of this ‘world ending’ was to voice a profound truth, because hitherto the human being had been a son of the Earth, had relinquished himself to the forces of the Earth, relying upon his blood to give him knowledge. But this era had passed away. The kingdom of Heaven had drawn near, the kingdom of Earth had come to an end. Man was not, nor could he be henceforth, a son of the Earth. He must make himself a companion of I he Spiritual Being Who had come down to the Earth—of the Logos, of the Christ. And so, this downfall of the world was prophesied for the 4th century of Christendom. It signified the downfall of the Earth and the dawn of that kingdom in which man would feel himself dwelling as a Spirit among Spirits—it is our own time. The modern mind will find it exceedingly difficult to realise that in the first centuries of Christendom men did not look upon their existence as earthly, but as an existence within the kingdom of the Spirit after the Earth, as it had been when men drew their powers from its sources, had come to an end. Nobody who has ever really understood the thought-life of the earliest Christians will say that their belief concerning the end of the world was superstition because it did not come to pass. In the form in which the early Christians held this belief it did actually come to pass. The early Christians would have regarded the condition in which man lives as a Spirit among Spirits as the ‘new Jerusalem’. Only they would have said: We hold that man has entered already into the kingdom of Heaven, but he is so sinful that he knows it not; he imagines that Heaven flows with milk and honey, that there are no evil spirits in Heaven against which he must protect himself. The early Christians would have said: Hitherto these evil spirits were within the things of Nature; now they have been released and are whirling in their hosts invisibly around the human being who must guard against them.

In the sense of early Christian thought, then, there had been a world ending. But it was not realised that in place of the God indwelling the Earth, the God who proclaimed his being in the events of Earth, there had come the supersensible Logos Who must be known in the Supersensible and to Whom men must aspire with supersensible forces. If we recognise this we shall find that over the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries too, there hovered another mood, another feeling of a world ending. Once again men were expecting the downfall of the world. They did not yet understand the thoughts of the early Christians but out of this mood which spread over the whole of civilised Europe in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries there came the urge to seek the path to Christ in a more material form than that in which it should properly have been sought. Men ought to have recognised that the Logos must be found in the Spirit and not in the phenomena of the natural world. This finding of the Logos in the Spirit was not understood by men who once again were imbued with the feeling of world ending, and they sought to find the Logos by a more material path.

Out of this feeling grew the mood which gave rise to the Crusades. Men set out to find the Christ in His grave in the East, and to hold fast to him in the throes of this misinterpreted feeling that the downfall of the world was at hand. But the Christ was not to be found away yonder in the East. Those who had sought to find Him visibly in the tomb were told: He Whom thou seekest is not here. Seek for Him in the Spirit.

And now, in the 20th century—and it will be so increasingly in the days to come—there is again the same mood of world downfall, albeit in their lethargy and indifference men no longer give heed to it. Nevertheless, the writer of The Decline of the West [Oswald Spengler] has made a deep and perceptible impression upon his time. This mood of world downfall will become more and more widespread.

Yet in truth one need not speak of the downfall of the world. World ending there has been, in the sense that the Spiritual can no longer be derived from the source of Nature. The question now is for man to realise that in very truth he is living in a spiritual world. An error is responsible for the loss of the direct knowledge that he is living and moving in a spiritual world. This is the error that has brought calamity upon us and that will make the bloodshed of wars more and more terrible. Human beings are as if possessed—possessed by the evil powers who cast their minds into confusion; and they no longer speak as if they were voicing what lives in the Ego. They are possessed as by a psychosis—a psychosis much talked about, but little understood.

The downfall of the world conceived by the first Christians has come about and the new era is upon us. But the new era must be recognised and understood. It must be realised that in very truth when the human being ‘knows’, he knows as an Angel; when he becomes conscious in his own true being, he is conscious as an Archangel. The spiritual world has come down to us and it is only a question of being conscious of it. That is the all-important thing. Many people imagine that they take the words of the Gospel literally and in all earnestness. Yet in spite of the unequivocal statement in the Gospel of St John that all created things are not to be explained on the basis of their sub-earthly forces but as having been created by the Logos, in spite of this, men have adhered to the Father God who is, indeed, to be recognised as one with the Christ but as that Person of the Trinity who was creative until the Earth took shape. The true Regent of the Earth is Christ—the Logos.

Understanding these things was hardly possible any longer in the days of John Scotus Erigena in the 9th century of our era. And that explains why his book On the Division of Nature is on the one hand so grand and significant but on the other so chaotic that Spiritual Science alone can help us to make anything of it.

As I have said, in the fourth section John the Scot speaks of the Being who is not created and does not create. If we really understand John Scotus Erigena when he speaks of the Godhead at rest, of the Godhead to whom all things return and in whom they are united, then we have the further stage. The world that is described in the first three sections of the work has come to an end. The world of the Godhead at rest—the Being who is not created and does not create—is upon us. The Earth is going towards its end—in so far, that is to say, as the Earth is Nature. I have reminded you many times that even our geologists today are saying that nothing more is really coming into being on the Earth. It is, of course, quite true that plant life continues; animals and human beings continue to come into existence through propagation. But the Earth, taken as one great whole, is not the same as it once was. It is breaking up, falling to pieces. In its mineral sphere the Earth is already disintegrating. The eminent geologist Suess makes this statement in his book Decline of the Earth. He says that we are moving about on the disintegrating ashes of the Earth. He speaks of a certain region where this is clearly evident and shows that it was not so in earlier epochs. Such was the view of the world and of life in the first centuries of Christendom—derived, of course, not from the natural but from the moral facts of human evolution.

We have been living since the beginning of the 15th century more within the ‘Godhead at rest’ than did John Scotus Erigena. The Godhead at rest is waiting until we are active enough to attain to Imagination and Inspiration wherewith we may see the world around us as a spiritual world, knowing that we are verily within that spiritual world from which the earthly world has been cast off, that we are living after the world ending has come to pass and that the new Jerusalem is with us.

Truly it is a strange destiny of men that living in the spiritual world they know it not, nor are willing to know it. All interpretations which present true Christianity as if it were bristling with inadequate ideas, such as that of a world ending which has not come to pass and is merely a figure of speech, all such interpretations are empty and futile. It is only a question of understanding the real meaning of the Christian writings. We must realise that the conceptions of men during the first centuries of Christendom related to a world that was altogether different after the 4th century.

The Church fathers of the early Christian centuries tried to bring the teachings of the old pagan wisdom into connection with the Mystery of Golgotha, but they did not believe that, to begin with, men would be capable of understanding them. Therefore, they preserved the mysteries of olden times in the form of dogmas which were to be matters of belief, but which men were not supposed to understand. These dogmas are not superstitions or untruths. They are, after all, quite true in themselves, only they must be understood in the right way, namely, by the application of those faculties and forces which have been developing in man since the time of the 15th century.

Since the middle of the 15th century the Consciousness Soul has been developing. When a man is evolving his thoughts and concepts today he is altogether lacking in any realisation that in his acts of knowledge he is an Angel. He will say: But I am simply thinking about the things I have experienced. And most certainly he will not say that in his ‘knowing’ he is a spiritual being, nor that in self-consciousness he is a yet higher spiritual being. Men seek for knowledge today with the shadow of that kind of intellect which lived among the Greeks, in Plato and in Aristotle, nay even among the Romans, and was still alive, to some extent, in a man like John Scotus Erigena in the 9th century.

The very fact that we need no longer allow ourselves to be led astray by the intellect can be a help to us. Today men are running after a shadow—after the shadow that is their intellect. They allow themselves to be misled by this intellect instead of striving to attain Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition which will lead them into the spiritual world. The fact that the intellect has faded into shadow is good in itself. But with shadowy intellect we have evolved our natural science and this sphere of knowledge must now be worked upon further. The Godhead has come to rest in order that we ourselves may labour. The fourth condition is upon us. It only remains for men to become conscious of it. And if they do not, then nothing new can come into being on the Earth, for what the Earth once received as a heritage has passed away. The new has to be created.

A man like Spengler saw the ruins which still remain of bygone civilisation. They lie before us clearly enough. The frame of mind in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries was that of a world doomed. Then came the Crusades—achieving nothing because men were seeking in the material world for what ought to have been sought in the Spirit. And when the Crusades failed, the Renaissance came as a kind of makeshift. Greek culture was brought to light once again and is still being offered to human beings in the form of education. Greek culture is there, but it did not come to light in the Renaissance as a new thing. The only new thing that has come into being since the beginning of the 15th century consists of the mathematical and mechanical conceptions we apply to outer Nature. But the ruins of antiquity are forever with us. They are inculcated into the minds of the young in the form of their academic training and so constitute the basis of civilisation. Oswald Spengler gazed at these ruins of the Renaissance. Like great erratic blocks they float across the ocean of life that is travailing to give birth to something new. If we have eyes only for these floating blocks, then we see nothing but downfall. Nobody can galvanise our civilisation in the form in which it exists today. It is going to pieces, falling into ruin. A new civilisation must be brought into being from out of the Spiritual by a primal power of creation, for the fourth condition is upon us. This is the sense in which we must interpret the writings of John Scotus Erigena, whose wisdom—which he himself found difficult to under' stand—was drawn from the Mysteries still cultivated in Ireland.

What I have told you here is not only the result of Spiritual Science. Ancient documents tell us exactly the same, that is, if we really understand them and shake off Alexandrian influences in the form of science that goes by the name of philology. One cannot help saying that in their modern form these things show few traces either of real philology or real philosophy. In our methods of ‘cramming’ and in our examination schedules today there is exceedingly little room left for the ‘philo’. That must be brought from somewhere else, but we stand in dire need of it.

In this lecture I wanted first of all to speak of John Scotus Erigena and, secondly, to show you the paths along which we can come to an understanding of the now faded wisdom of antiquity. The Gospel of St John states quite clearly: The Logos, not the Father God, is the creative principle. But facts like this pass by unheeded in our time.

Erster Vortrag

[ 1 ] Die Zeit der materialistischen Entwickelung liegt ja vorzugsweise in der Mitte und in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Heute mag uns zunächst von dieser materialistischen Entwickelung mehr die theoretische Seite interessieren. Manches von dem, was ich heute über diese theoretische Seite sagen werde, kann aber auch in ungefähr derselben Weise für die mehr praktische Lebensseite des Materialismus gesagt werden. Allein, wie gesagt, davon wollen wir heute absehen, wir wollen mehr sehen auf dasjenige, was durch die ganze zivilisierte Welt in der Mitte und in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts als die materialistische Weltanschauung aufgetreten ist.

[ 2 ] Bei einer solchen Sache handelt es sich eigentlich um ein Zweifaches. Es handelt sich erstens darum, daß wir uns klar sein müssen darüber, inwiefern so etwas wie die materialistische Weltanschauung zu bekämpfen ist, daß wir gewissermaßen in uns tragen müssen alle diejenigen Vorstellungen und Ideen, durch die wir gerüstet sein können, um die materialistische Weltanschauung als solche abzuweisen. Allein neben diesem Gerüstetsein mit der nötigen Vorstellungswelt haben wir gerade vom Gesichtspunkte der Geisteswissenschaft aus noch etwas anderes nötig. Wir haben nötig, diese materialistische Vorstellungsweise zu verstehen, zu verstehen erstens ihrem Inhalte nach, zweitens aber auch zu verstehen, inwiefern in der Menschheitsentwickelung einmal diese extreme materialistische Weltanschauung auftreten konnte.

[ 3 ] Es könnte als ein Widerspruch erscheinen, daß auf der einen Seite hier gefordert wird, man müsse die materialistische Weltanschauung bekämpfen können, und auf der anderen Seite wiederum, man müsse sie verstehen können. Es ist dies für denjenigen, der auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft steht, nicht in Wirklichkeit ein Widerspruch, sondern es ist nur ein scheinbarer Widerspruch. Die Sache verhält sich vielmehr so. Im Laufe der Menschheitsentwickelung müssen Momente auftreten, welche zunächst diese Menschheit in einer gewissen Weise herunterziehen, welche die Menschheit unter ein gewisses Niveau herunterbringen, damit sie sich dann durch sich selber wiederum heraufheben könne. Und es würde für die Menschheit keine Hilfe sein, wenn sie dutch irgendeinen göttlichen Ratschluß oder dergleichen davor bewahrt werden könnte, nicht die Niederungen des Daseins durchmachen zu müssen. Es ist für die Menschheit, damit sie zum vollen Gebrauche ihrer Freiheitskräfte komme, durchaus notwendig, auch in die Niederungen sowohl der Weltauffassung wie des Lebens herunterzusteigen. Und das Gefährliche liegt eigentlich nicht darin, daß zur rechten Zeit - und die war für den theoretischen Materialismus eigentlich die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts - so etwas auftritt, sondern das Gefährliche besteht darin, daß wenn im Laufe der normalen Entwickelung so etwas aufgetreten ist, dann daran festgehalten wird, daß dann dieses für einen gewissen Zeitpunkt Notwendige hinübergetragen wird in künftige Zeiten. Und wenn man sagen kann, daß der Materialismus in gewisser Beziehung für die Menschheit eine Prüfung war in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, die durchzumachen war, so ist es auf der anderen Seite auch wiederum richtig, daß das Festhalten an dem Materialismus jetzt einen furchtbaren Schaden bringen muß, und daß dasjenige, was wir an furchtbaren Weltkatastrophen und Menschheitskatastrophen durchmachen, eben darauf beruht, daß die Menschheit an diesem Materialismus in weiten Kreisen festhalten möchte.

[ 4 ] Was bedeutet eigentlich der theoretische Materialismus? Er bedeutet die Anschauung, daß der Mensch zunächst der Umfang desjenigen sei, was die materiellen Prozesse seines physischen Leibes ausmacht. Der theoretische Materialismus studierte die physisch-sinnlichen Prozesse des physischen Leibes, und wenn auch zunächst dasjenige, was er in diesem Studium erreicht hat, mehr oder weniger am Anfange ist, so hat er doch die letzten Konsequenzen in bezug auf die Weltanschauungen bereits gezogen. Er hat den Menschen gewissermaßen erklärt als den Zusammenfluß dieser physischen Kräfte, er hat sein Seelisches erklärt als etwas, was nur hervorgerufen wird durch das Zusammenarbeiten dieser physischen Kräfte. Er hat aber auch eingeleitet die Untersuchung der physischen Natur des Menschen. Dieses letztere, die weitere Untersuchung der physischen Natur des Menschen, das ist dasjenige, was bleiben muß. Was das 19. Jahrhundert als Konsequenz aus dieser physischen Untersuchung gezogen hat, das ist das, was eine vorübergehende Erscheinung bleiben muß in der Menschheitsentwickelung. Aber als solche vorübergehende Erscheinung wollen wir sie zunächst einmal begreifen.

[ 5 ] Was liegt denn eigentlich da vor? Nun, wenn wir zurückblicken in die Menschheitsentwickelung und an der Hand desjenigen, was ich in der «Geheimwissenschaft im Umriß» angegeben habe, ziemlich weit zurückblicken, dann müssen wir sagen: Dieses Menschenwesen hat die verschiedensten Stadien durchgemacht. - Wir brauchen uns ja nur zu beschränken auf dasjenige, was das Menschenwesen im Laufe der Erdenentwickelung selber durchgemacht hat, und wir werden uns sagen müssen: Dieses Menschenwesen ging im Verlauf der Erdenentwickelung von einer allerdings im Verhältnis zu seiner heutigen Gestaltung primitiven Bildungsform aus, wandelte dann diese Bildungsform um und kam immer näher und näher derjenigen Gestalt, die eben der Mensch heute hat. Solange man im groben der menschlichen Gestaltung bleibt, so lange wird man, wenn man das geschichtliche Dasein des Menschen verfolgt, die Unterschiede nicht so außerordentlich groß finden. Wer etwa nach den Mitteln, die für die äußere Geschichte vorhanden sind, die Gestalt eines alten Ägypters oder selbst eines alten Inders vergleichen will mit der Gestaltung eines Menschen der heutigen europäischen Zivilisation, der wird nur verhältnismäßig kleine Unterschiede finden, wenn er eben durchaus im gröberen der Betrachtung bleibt. In bezug auf dieses gröbere der Betrachtung treten ja die großen Unterschiede gegenüber den primitiven Bildungsformen, die der Urmensch gehabt hat, erst hervor in den Zeiten, die weit hinter den geschichtlichen zurückliegen. Aber wenn wir ins feinere hineingehen, wenn wit in das hineingehen, was sich allerdings den äußeren Blicken verbirgt, dann gilt das nicht mehr, was ich eben gesagt habe, dann muß man durchaus sagen: Zwischen dem Organismus eines heutigen Zivilisationsmenschen und dem Organismus eines alten Ägypters oder selbst eines alten Griechen oder Römers ist ein großer, ein bedeutsamer Unterschied. Und wenn auch die Umwandlung in viel feinerer Weise sich vollzogen hat in geschichtlichen Zeiten, so hat sie sich eben doch in bezug auf alle feinere Gestaltung des menschlichen Organismus vollzogen. Und was sich da vollzogen hat, das hat eine gewisse Kulmination, einen gewissen Höhepunkt erreicht in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. So paradox es klingt, es ist durchaus so, daß in bezug auf seine innere Formung, in bezug auf dasjenige, was der menschliche Organismus überhaupt werden kann, der Mensch um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts am vollkommensten war, und daß gerade seit jener Zeit eine Art Dekadenz wiederum eintritt, daß der menschliche Organismus in Rückverwandlung begriffen ist. Daher war es auch in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts so, daß namentlich diejenigen Organe am vollkommensten ausgebildet waren, welche als die physischen Organe der Verstandestätigkeit dienen.

[ 6 ] Was wir den menschlichen Verstand, den menschlichen Intellekt nennen, das braucht ja physische Organe. Diese physischen Organe waren in früheren Zeiten bei weitem weniger ausgebildet, als sie es in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts waren. Es ist durchaus so, daß dasjenige, was wir zum Beispiel am Griechen, was wir selbst an solchen vollendeten Griechen bewundern, wie Plato oder Aristoteles es waren, darauf beruht, daß diese Griechen nicht so vollkommene Denkorgane im rein physischen Sinne hatten, wie die Menschen des 19. Jahrhunderts sie hatten. Je nachdem man den Geschmack dazu hat, kann man sagen: Gott sei’s gedankt, daß die Menschen der Griechenzeit nicht so vollkommene Denkorgane hatten wie die Menschen des 19. Jahrhunderts! - Ist man aber ein Nüchterling des 19. Jahrhunderts selber und will man diese Nüchterlingheit beibehalten, dann kann man sagen: Die Griechen waren eben Kinder, die haben noch nicht jene vollkommenen Denkorgane gehabt, die der Mensch des 19. Jahrhunderts hat, und man muß daher mit einer gewissen Nachsicht auf das herunterschauen, was Plato und Aristoteles zutage gefördert haben. - Gymnasiallehrer tun das oftmals, indem sie sich ungeheuer erhaben fühlen in der Kritik über Plato und Aristoteles. Aber verstehen wird man das, was ich jetzt eben angedeutet habe, nur dann vollkommen, wenn man sich bekanntgemacht hat mit Menschen, die es ja auch gibt, welche bis zu einem gewissen Grade eine Art Schauvermögen haben, dasjenige, was man, im besten Sinne des Wortes, eine Art hellseherisches Bewußtsein nennen kann.

[ 7 ] Bei Menschen, die ein solches hellseherisches Bewußtsein heute haben, kann das Vorhandensein dieses hellseherischen Bewußtseins — diejenigen, die etwa in diesem Auditorium ein solches hellseherisches Bewußtsein haben sollten, mögen mir die Erzählung dieser Wahrheit verzeihen - gerade auf der mangelhaften Ausbildung der mangelhaften Verstandesorgane beruhen. Es ist durchaus eine ganz gewöhnliche Erscheinung, daß wir innerhalb unserer heutigen Welt Menschen treffen können mit einem gewissen hellseherischen Bewußtsein, die eigentlich von dem, was man heute den wissenschaftlichen Verstand nennt, außerordentlich wenig haben. Und so wahr dieses ist, so wahr ist aber auch das andere, daß nun solche hellseherischen Menschen dazu kommen können, gewisse Dinge, die sie selber durch ihre Erkenntnis hervorbringen, aufzuzeichnen oder zu erzählen, und daß in diesen Erzählungen, in diesen Aufzeichnungen Gedanken leben, die viel gescheiter sind als die Gedanken derjenigen Menschen, die, ohne Hellseherisches zu entwickeln, mit den allerbesten Verstandeswerkzeugen arbeiten. Es kann vorkommen, daß vom Gesichtspunkte der heutigen Wissenschaft aus dumme - verzeihen Sie den Ausdruck -, dumme hellseherische Personen Gedanken produzieren, durch die sie zwar nicht gescheiter werden, aber die gescheiter sind als Gedanken der autoritativsten Wissenschafter von heute. Diese Tatsache ist schon durchaus vorhanden. Und worauf beruht sie? Sie beruht darauf, daß solche hellseherische Personen gar nicht nötig haben, irgend etwas von Denkorganen anzustrengen, um zu diesen Gedanken zu kommen. Sie schaffen aus der geistigen Welt heraus die betreffenden Bilder, und da drinnen sind schon die Gedanken, sie sind schon fertig, während die anderen Menschen, die nicht hellsehend sind und nur denken können, zur Ausbildung ihrer Gedanken ihre Denkorgane ausbilden müssen. Schematisch gezeichnet, wäre das so. Nehmen wir an, solche hellseherischen Personen bringen in allerlei Bildern irgend etwas aus der geistigen Welt heraus; das hier (siehe Zeichnung, rot) sei so etwas, was durch solche Personen aus der geistigen Welt herauskommt. Aber da drinnen sind Gedanken, es ist ein Gedankennetz drinnen. Das denken die betreffenden Personen nicht, sondern sie schauen es, sie bringen es mit aus der geistigen Welt heraus; sie haben nicht nötig, Denkorgane anzustrengen.

[ 8 ] Schauen wir einen anderen an, der nicht hellseherisch begabt ist, sondern der denken kann, von dem Roten da ist nichts vorhanden bei ihm, das bringt er nicht heraus; er bringt auch aus der geistigen Welt dieses Gedankengerippe (siehe Zeichnung links) nicht heraus; aber er strengt seine Denkorgane an und bringt dann durch seine Denkorgane dieses Gedankengerippe zur Welt (siehe Zeichnung rechts).

[ 9 ] Man kann, wenn man heute die Menschen betrachtet, die Abstufungen zwischen diesen zwei Extremen überall bemerken. Für denjenigen, der sein Anschauungsvermögen nicht geschult hat, ist es allerdings außerordentlich schwer, zu unterscheiden, ob der andere wirklich gescheit ist in dem Sinne, daß er durch seine Verstandesorgane denkt, oder ob er gar nicht durch seine Verstandesorgane denkt, vielmehr irgendwie etwas herschafft in sein Bewußtsein, und daß nur das, was bildhaft ist, was imaginativ ist, sich bei ihm entwickelt, aber so schwach, daß es von ihm selber nicht bemerkt wird. Und so sind alle möglichen Menschen heute vorhanden, die sehr gescheite Gedanken hervorbringen, aber deshalb gar nicht gescheit zu sein brauchen, während andere sehr gescheite Gedanken denken, aber in gar keiner besonderen Weise mit irgendeiner geistigen Welt in Beziehung stehen. Das Einschulen auf diese Unterscheidung, das gehört zu den bedeutsamen psychologischen Aufgaben in unserer Zeit und es liefert die Grundlage zu wichtiger Menschenkenntnis in der Gegenwart. Wenn Sie das zur Erklärung nehmen, so wird es Ihnen nicht mehr so unverständlich sein, daß sich der empirischen übersinnlichen Betrachtung eben ergibt, daß in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts der menschliche Organismus bei dem Gros der Menschen eben die vollkommensten Denkorgane hatte. Es wurde niemals so ausschließlich viel gedacht wie um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, und so wenig gescheit wie um diese Zeit.

[ 10 ] Gehen Sie nur zurück - das tun nur die Menschen heute nicht in die zwanziger Jahre oder vor die zwanziger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts und lesen Sie durch, was damals wissenschaftlich produziert war, so werden Sie sehen: das hat noch einen ganz anderen Ton, da lebt eben noch durchaus nicht jenes ganz abstrakte, auf die menschlichen physischen Denkorgane angewiesene Denken wie später, ganz zu schweigen von solchen Dingen, wie sie etwa ein Herder oder Goethe und Schiller hervorgebracht haben. Da leben noch großartige Anschauungen darinnen. Daß man das nicht glaubt, und daß die Kommentare heute so sprechen, als ob das nicht der Fall wäre, darauf kommt es ja nicht an. Denn diejenigen, die diese Kommentare schreiben und die Goethe und Schiller und Herder zu verstehen glauben, die verstehen sie eben nicht, die sehen das Wichtigste bei ihnen nicht.

[ 11 ] Das ist eine wichtige Tatsache, daß um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts der menschliche Organismus in bezug auf seine physische Gestaltung gewissermaßen bei einer Kulmination, bei einem Höhepunkt angekommen war und daß er seitdem wiederum zurückgeht, und zwar - in einer gewissen Weise für das verständige Erfassen der Welt - rasch zurückgeht.

[ 12 ] Mit dieser Tatsache hängt aber zusammen die Ausbildung des Materialismus in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Denn was ist denn eigentlich dieser menschliche Organismus? - Dieser menschliche Organismus ist ja ein getreues Abbild des Geistig-Seelischen des Menschen. Man braucht sich gar nicht zu verwundern, daß dieser menschliche Organismus in seinem Bau manchem, der eben nicht auf das Geistig-Seelische einzugehen vermag, schon wie die Erklärung des ganzen Menschen erscheint. Insbesondere, wenn man die Hauptesorganisation und im Haupte wiederum die Nervenorganisation berücksichtigt, tritt das ja stark hervor.

[ 13 ] Ich habe neulich in Stuttgart innerhalb meiner Vorträge ein Erlebnis erwähnt, das wirklich geeignet ist, Licht zu werfen auf diese Sache. Ich sagte: Es war so am Beginne des 20. Jahrhunderts in einer Versammlung des Berliner Giordano-Bruno-Vereins, da sprach zunächst ein Mensch - was ich einen handfesten Materialisten nenne -, ein sehr kundiger Materialist war es, der den Gehirnbau ebensogut kannte, wie man heute den Gehirnbau, wenn man gewissenhaft studiert hat, wirklich kennt; und er war einer von denjenigen Menschen, welche in der Analyse des Gehirnbaues eigentlich schon die ganze Seelenkunde sehen, welche sagen: Man muß nur erkennen, wie das Gehirn arbeitet, dann hat man die Seele, dann beschreibt man die Seele. - Nun war es interessant; er malte auf die Tafel diese verschiedenen Hirnpartien auf, also die Verbindungsstränge und so weiter, und lieferte da eben jenes wunderbare Bild, das man ja bekommt, wenn man diesen menschlichen Gehirnbau verfolgt. Und er glaubte eben durchaus mit der Schilderung dieses Gehirnbaues etwas gegeben zu haben, was Seelenkunde ist. Nachdem er seine Auseinandersetzungen gemacht hatte, erhob sich ein handfester Philosoph, ein Herbartianer. Dieser Herbartianer sagte: Gegen die Ansichten, die der Mann entwickelt hat, daß man schon die Seelenkunde besitzt, wenn man den Gehirnbau erklärt, gegen diese Ansichten muß ich mich natürlich entschieden wenden; aber gegen die Zeichnung, die er gemacht hat, brauche ich mich gar nicht zu wenden, diese Zeichnung stimmt ganz gut auch mit meiner Herbartschen Ansicht überein, daß die Vorstellungen sich miteinander vergesellschaften, daß von einer Vorstellung zu der anderen gewisse Verbindungsstränge rein seelischer Art gehen. Und er fügte hinzu, er könne als Herbartianer ganz gut dieselbe Zeichnung machen, nur würden bei ihm die einzelnen Kreise und so weiter nicht Gehirnpartien bedeuten, sondern Vorstellungskomplexe. Aber die Zeichnung würde ganz dieselbe bleiben!

[ 14 ] Sehr interessant, sehen Sie! Wenn es darauf ankommt, die Sache in die Wirklichkeit hineinzustellen, da sind die Leute ganz entgegengesetzter Ansicht; wenn sie Zeichnungen machen von derselben Sache, so müssen sie eigentlich dieselben Zeichnungen machen, und der eine ist ganz und gar Herbartscher Philosoph, der andere ist handfester materialistischer Physiologe.

[ 15 ] Worauf beruht das? Das beruht darauf, daß es in der Tat so ist: Wir haben das geistig-seelische Wesen des Menschen, das tragen wir in uns. Und dieses geistig-seelische Wesen, das ist der Schöpfer der ganzen Form unseres Organismus. Und wir brauchen uns nicht zu verwundern darüber, daß da, wo der Organismus seine vollkommenste Partie hat, im Nervensystem des Gehirns, daß da das Abbild, das die geistig-seelische Wesenheit heraussetzt, vollkommen ähnlich sieht diesem geistig-seelischen Wesen. Es ist in der Tat so, daß da, wo der Mensch am meisten, wenn ich so sagen möchte, Mensch ist, in seinem Nervenbau, daß er da ein getreues Abbild ist des Geistig-Seelischen, so daß derjenige, der zufrieden ist mit dem Abbild, der vor allen Dingen ein Sinnliches vor sich haben will und zufrieden ist mit dem Abbild, in der Tat dasselbe, was man zunächst mit Bezug auf den Menschen im Geistig-Seelischen sieht, auch in dem Abbild sieht. Und da er kein Verlangen hat nach dem Geistig-Seelischen, da er gewissermaßen nur das Abbild will, so hält er sich an den Bau des Gehirns. Und weil dieser Bau des Gehirnes ebenso besonders vollendet sich darstellte dem Betrachter um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, so lag es wiederum, wenn man die damalige Veranlagung der Menschheit nimmt, ungeheuer nahe, den theoretischen Materialismus auszubilden. Denn was liegt eigentlich beim Menschen vor? Wenn man den Menschen als solchen betrachtet - ich will ihn hier schematisch zeichnen - und dann den Gehirnbau nimmt, dann ist das so, daß zunächst der Mensch ein dreigliedriges Wesen ist, wie wir wissen: der Gliedmaßenmensch, der rhythmische Mensch und der NervenSinnesmensch. Wenn wir den Nerven-Sinnesmenschen ansehen, so haben wir den vollkommensten Teil des Menschen vor uns, sozusagen den am meisten menschlichen Teil. In diesem am meisten menschlichen Teil spiegelt sich die äußere Welt (siehe Zeichnung, rot). Ich will dieses Spiegeln dadurch bezeichnen, daß ich zum Beispiel die Wahrnehmungen durch das Auge bezeichne. Ich könnte auch die Wahrnehmungen durch das Ohr zeichnen und so weiter. Die äußere Welt also spiegelt sich in dem Menschen, so daß wir vorliegen haben den Bau des Menschen und die Spiegelung der äußeren Welt in diesem Menschen. Solange wir den Menschen so betrachten, können wir eigentlich gar nicht anders, selbst wenn wir über die manchmal recht groben Vorstellungen des Materialismus hinausgehen, als den Menschen materialistisch zu deuten. Denn wir haben auf der einen Seite den Bau des Menschen. Wir können diesen Bau verfolgen in all seinen feineren Gewebestrukturen und bekommen, je mehr wir gegen die Kopforganisation heraufgehen, ein getreues Abbild des Geistig-Seelischen. Und wir können dann weiterverfolgen dasjenige, was sich von der Außenwelt in dem Menschen spiegelt. Das ist aber bloßes Bild. Wir haben die Realität des Menschen, die wir in ihre feineren Strukturen hinein verfolgen können, und wir haben das Bild der Welt.

[ 16 ] Halten wir das recht gut fest: wir haben des Menschen Realität in seinem Organausbau und wir haben dasjenige, was sich drinnen im Menschen spiegelt. Das ist eigentlich alles, was zunächst der äußeren sinnlichen Beobachtung vorliegt. Bei dieser äußeren sinnlichen Beobachtung liegt also im Grunde das Folgende vor: Diese ganze Struktur des Menschen zerfällt, wenn der Mensch stirbt, zerfällt als Leichnam. Außerdem liegen ihr die Bilder der äußeren Welt vor. Wenn Sie den Spiegel zerbrechen, kann sich nichts mehr spiegeln; die Bilder sind also auch vergangen, wenn der Mensch durch den Tod geht. Ist es also nicht natürlich, daß da der äußeren sinnlich-physischen Beobachtung nichts anderes vorliegt als das, was ich eben angeführt habe, daß da gesagt werden muß: Mit dem Tode zerfällt die physische Struktur des Menschen? - Die spiegelte früher die Außenwelt. Was der Mensch in der Seele trägt, ist Spiegelbild; das vergeht aber. Diese Tatsache stellte einfach der Materialismus des 19. Jahrhunderts hin. Er mußte sie hinstellen, weil er schließlich von anderem nichts wußte. Nun wird die Sache schon anders, wenn man ein wenig eingeht auf das menschliche geistige und seelische Leben selber. Da aber betreten wir schon ein Gebiet, wohin die physisch-sinnliche Beobachtung nicht dringen kann.

[ 17 ] Nehmen wir eine naheliegende Tatsachenreihe der Seele heraus, die einfache Tatsachenreihe, die damit gegeben ist, daß wir der Außenwelt beobachtend gegenüberstehen. Wir beobachten die Dinge, wir nehmen sie wahr, haben sie dann vorstellungsgemäß in uns. Aber wir haben auch ein Gedächtnis, ein Erinnerungsvermögen. Was wir an der Außenwelt erleben, das können wir wiederum heraufheben in Bildern aus den Tiefen unseres Wesens. Wir wissen, welche Bedeutung diese Erinnerung für den Menschen hat. Bleiben wir zunächst bei dieser Tatsachenreihe stehen. Nehmen Sie diese zwei inneren Erlebnisse: Sie schauen durch die Augen die Außenwelt an oder hören sie mit Ihren Ohren, nehmen sie sonst mit Ihren Sinnen wahr. Da sind Sie in einer gegenwärtigen seelischen Betätigung. Das geht über in Ihr vorstellungsgemäßes Leben. Das was Sie heute erlebt haben, Sie können es in ein paar Tagen aus den Untergründen Ihrer Seele in Bildern wiederum heraufheben. Es geht ja in irgendeiner Weise etwas in Sie hinein, Sie holen es wiederum aus sich heraus. Es ist unschwer zu erkennen, daß dasjenige, was da in die Seele hineingeht, von der Außenwelt herrühren muß. Ich will mich jetzt gar nicht weiter einlassen auf etwas anderes als auf den reinen Tatbestand, der ja offen zutage liegt, daß das, was so erinnert wird, von der Außenwelt kommen muß. Denn wenn Sie irgendeinen roten Gegenstand gesehen haben, so erinnern Sie sich wiederum an den roten Gegenstand, und was in Ihnen vorgegangen ist, ist nur das Bild des roten Gegenstandes, das wiederum in Ihnen heraufkommt. Also es ist etwas, was die Außenwelt in Sie hineingeprägt hat, tiefer hineingeprägt hat, als wenn Sie sich nur unmittelbar vorstellend in der Außenwelt betätigen. Aber stellen Sie sich jetzt vor: Sie gehen an irgend etwas heran, beobachten es, sind also in einer gegenwärtigen Seelenbetätigung gegenüber dem Beobachteten. Sie verlassen es; nach einigen Tagen haben Sie Veranlassung, die Bilder des Beobachteten wieder aus dem Untergrund Ihres Wesens heraufzuheben, da sind sie wieder da; sie sind blasser, gewiß, aber sie sind da, sie sind bei dem Menschen da. Aber was war in der Zwischenzeit?

[ 18 ] Nun bitte ich Sie, halten Sie das fest, was ich Ihnen gesagt habe, und vergleichen Sie dieses eigentümliche Spiel von gegenwärtigen Wahrnehmungsvorstellungen und Erinnerungsvorstellungen mit dem, was Sie gut kennen als das Bild des Traumes. Sie werden unschwer bemerken können, wie mit dem Erinnerungsvermögen das Träumen zusammenhängt. Die Traumvorstellungen brauchen ja nur nicht sehr konfus zu sein, dann werden Sie sehen, wie sie an die Erinnerungsvorstellungen anknüpfen, wie also eine Verwandtschaft besteht zwischen dem Träumen und demjenigen, was da aus den lebendigen Vorstellungen in die Erinnerung übergeht.

[ 19 ] Aber jetzt betrachten Sie etwas anderes. Der Mensch muß organisch vollkommen gesund sein, wenn er sozusagen das Träumen richtig vertragen will. Zum Träumen gehört, daß man sich organisch völlig in der Hand hat, daß der Moment immer wiederum eintreten kann, wo man weiß: Das ist ein Traum gewesen. — Es muß irgend etwas nicht in Ordnung sein, wenn jemand nicht zu dem Moment kommen könnte, wo er vollkommen durchschauen würde: etwas ist ein Traum gewesen. Man hat ja Menschen kennengelernt, die haben geträumt, daß sie geköpft worden sind. Nun denken Sie, wenn diese Menschen hinterher nicht unterscheiden können dieses geträumte Köpfen von dem wirklichen Köpfen und glauben würden, daß sie nun wirklich geköpft sind und würden doch weiterleben müssen, bedenken Sie doch nur einmal, wie wenig solche Menschen, ohne konfus zu werden, die Tatsachen durch das Unterscheiden zusammenbringen könnten. Sie müßten fortwährend erleben: Ich komme eben vom Köpfen. - Und wenn sie voraussetzen müßten, daß sie das glauben müßten, dann kann man ja ungefähr ermessen, welche Worte sich da ihren Lippen entringen würden. Also, es handelt sich darum, daß der Mensch immerzu die Möglichkeit hat, sich so in der Hand zu haben, daß er Träume von dem In-der-Wirklichkeit-Drinnenstecken mit seinem Vorstellen unterscheiden kann. Aber es gibt doch auch Menschen, die können das nicht. Es gibt Menschen, die erleben allerlei Halluzinatorisches, Visionäres und dergleichen und halten es für Wirklichkeiten. Die können es nicht unterscheiden, die haben sich nicht so stark in der Hand. Was bedeutet das? Das bedeutet, daß bei diesen Leuten das, was im Traume lebt, einen Einfluß auf ihre Organisation hat, daß ihre Organisation angepaßt ist der Traumvorstellung. Sie haben irgendwo etwas nicht vollständig ausgebildet in ihrem Nervensystem, was vollständig ausgebildet sein sollte; daher ist der Traum in ihnen tätig, er wirkt in ihnen.

[ 20 ] Wenn also irgend jemand seine Traumvorstellungen nicht von den erlebten Wirklichkeiten unterscheiden kann, so bedeutet das, daß die Traumkraft in ihm organisierend wirkt. Sobald der Traum unseres ganzen Gehirnes mächtig würde, würden wir überhaupt die ganze Welt als Traum anschauen. Wer solch eine Tatsache in ihrem vollen Werte betrachten kann, der wird nach und nach zu Dingen kommen, zu denen sich allerdings unsere gewöhnliche Wissenschaft heute nicht aufschwingen will, weil sie nicht den Mut dazu hat; er wird dazu kommen, einzusehen, daß in dem, was im Traumleben kraftet, dasselbe liegt, was in uns Organisationskraft ist, was Wachstums-, Belebekraft ist. Nur dadurch, daß gewissermaßen unser Organismus so in sich konsolidiert ist, daß er so feste Strukturen hat, daß er widersteht dem gewöhnlichen Traum, nur dadurch hat die Kraft der gewöhnlichen Träume nicht die Macht, seine Struktur auseinanderzureißen, und der Mensch kann unterscheiden das Traumerlebnis vom Wirklichkeitserlebnis.

[ 21 ] Aber wenn das Kind klein ist und heranwächst, wenn es also immer größer und größer wird, da ist eine Kraft in ihm. Das ist dieselbe Kraft, die im Traume ist, nur daß man sie beim Traume ansieht. Und wenn: man sie nicht ansieht, sondern wenn sie im Leibe wirkt, diese Kraft, die sonst im Traume ist, dann wächst man durch sie. Und man braucht nicht einmal so weit zu gehen, auf das Wachsen hinzuschauen. Auch wenn Sie täglich zum Beispiel essen und das Gegessene in sich verdauen, es in dem ganzen Organismus verbreiten, so ist es durch die Kraft, die im Traume lebt. Wenn daher irgend etwas im Organismus nicht richtig ist, dann hängt das auch mit unrichtigem Träumen zusammen. Es ist dieselbe Kraft, die in dem Traumleben äußerlich angeschaut wirkt, und die da in einem wirkt selbst bis in die Verdauungskräfte hinein.

[ 22 ] So können wir sagen: Wir werden gewahr, wenn wir nur das Leben des Menschen richtig anschauen, die wirksame Traumeskraft in seinem Organismus. Und indem ich das schilderte, diese wirksame Traumeskraft, betrete ich eigentlich in dieser Schilderung dieselben Wege, die ich betreten muß, wenn ich den menschlichen Ätherleib beschreibe.

[ 23 ] Denken Sie sich, irgend jemand könnte durchschauen alles dasjenige, was im Menschen wächst vom Kinde auf, was im Menschen die Verdauung bewirkt, was im Menschen wirkt, um den ganzen Organismus in seiner Tätigkeit zu erhalten; denken Sie sich, ich könnte dieses ganze Kraftsystem nehmen, herausnehmen aus dem Menschen und es vor den Menschen hinstellen, dann hätte ich den Ätherleib vor den Menschen hingestellt. Dieser Ätherleib, dieser Leib also, der sich nur in Unregelmäßigkeiten in dem Traume offenbart, war in sich viel mehr ausgebildet vor dem Zeitpunkte im 19. Jahrhundert, den ich angeführt habe. Er wurde immer schwächer und schwächer in seiner Struktur. Dafür wurde der physische Leib immer stärker und stärker in seiner Struktur. Der Ätherleib kann in Bildern vorstellen, er kann traumhafte Imaginationen haben, aber er kann nicht denken. Und sobald in irgendeinem Menschen der Gegenwart dieser Ätherleib besonders stark tätig zu sein beginnt, dann wird er das, was ich vorhin sagte, er wird etwas hellseherisch; aber er kann dann weniger denken, denn zum Denken braucht er gerade den physischen Leib.

[ 24 ] Daher ist es nicht zu verwundern, daß die Menschen, wenn sie im 19. Jahrhundert das Gefühl hatten, sie könnten besonders gut denken, eigentlich zum Materialismus hingetrieben wurden. Was ihnen zu diesem Denken am meisten half, das ist dieser physische Leib, mit anderen Worten ausgedrückt. Aber mit diesem Denken gerade, mit diesem physischen Denken hängt die besondere Art des Gedächtnisses zusammen, die im 19. Jahrhundert entwickelt worden ist, es ist ein Gedächtnis, das womöglich wenig bildhaft ist, womöglich in Abstraktionen verläuft.

[ 25 ] Interessant ist solch eine Erscheinung. Ich habe öfters den Kriminalanthropologen Moriz Benedikt angeführt; ich möchte auch heute ein interessantes Erlebnis, das er selber erzählt in seinen «Lebenserinnerungen», anführen. Er hatte eine Rede zu halten auf einer Naturforscherversammlung, und nun erzählt er, daß er sich auf diese Rede, indem er Tag und Nacht nicht geschlafen hat, zweiundzwanzig Nächte lang vorbereitet hat. Zweiundzwanzig Nächte hat er die Rede vorbereitet, und am letzten Tag, bevor er die Rede gehalten hat, ist ein Journalist bei ihm erschienen, der sollte diese Rede veröffentlichen. Er diktierte sie ihm. Er hatte die Rede nicht niedergeschrieben, erzählt er, er hatte sie nur dem Gedächtnis eingeprägt. Er diktierte sie dem Journalisten; also im Kämmerchen diktierte er sie dem Journalisten und dann hielt er bei der Naturforscherversammlung diese Rede. Was der Journalist nach dem Diktat abgedruckt hat, stimmte nun bis aufs Wort genau mit dem überein, was Benedikt dann der Naturforscherversammlung vorgetragen hat. — Ich muß sagen, ich bewundere so etwas außerordentlich! Denn man bewundert immer dasjenige, was zu leisten man selbst niemals imstande wäre. Das also ist eine sehr interessante Erscheinung. Der Mann hat zweiundzwanzig Nächte lang daran gearbeitet, Wort für Wort einzuverleiben seiner Organisation, was er vorbereitet hat, so daß er niemals hätte irgendeinen Satz anders sagen können in der Wortfolge, als wie er saß in seinem Organismus, so fest saß er da.

[ 26 ] So etwas ist nur möglich, wenn man die ganze Rede absolut aus dem allmählich sich formenden Wortlaut dem physischen Organismus einprägen kann. Es ist schon richtig so, daß man das, was man da ausdenkt, so fest dem physischen Organismus einprägt, wie die Naturkraft das Knochensystem fest aufbaut. Dann ruht diese ganze Rede wie ein Gerippe im physischen Organismus. Es ist ja das Gedächtnis gewöhnlich an den Ätherleib gebannt, aber hier hat sich der Ätherleib ganz im physischen Organismus abgedruckt. Der ganze physische Organismus hat etwas in sich, wie er seine Knochen in sich hat, was als ein Gerippe dieser Rede dasteht. Dann kann man auch so etwas machen, wie es der Professor Benedikt gemacht hat. Und so etwas ist eben nur möglich, wenn dieser physische Organismus in seiner Nervenstruktur so ausgebildet ist, daß er in seine Plastik dasjenige hineinnimmt, ohne Widerstand hineinnimmt, was in ihn hineingebracht wird, nach und nach allerdings, zweiundzwanzig Tage beziehungsweise zweiundzwanzig Nächte hindurch mußte es hineingearbeitet werden.

[ 27 ] Man braucht sich da nicht zu verwundern, daß jemand, der so auf seinen physischen Leib baut, das Gefühl bekommt, dieser physische Leib ist das einzig Arbeitende im Menschen drinnen. - Und es war schon das Leben des Menschen allmählich so geworden, daß es sich ganz und gar in den physischen Leib hineinarbeitete, und er daher auch zu dem Glauben kam: der physische Leib ist alles in der menschlichen Organisation. Ich glaube nicht, daß ein anderes Zeitalter als dasjenige, welches auf den physischen Leib diesen großen Wert legt, hätte zu einer so grotesken Erfindung - verzeihen Sie diesen Ausdruck - kommen können, wie es die Stenographie ist. Denn man hat ja, als man keine Stenographie gehabt hat, nicht solchen Wert darauf gelegt, das Wort und die Wortfolge so unbedingt festzuhalten und so festzuprägen die Worte, wie sie im Stenogramm festgehalten werden wollen. So festprägen kann sie ja nur der Abdruck im physischen Leib. Also nur die besondere Vorliebe für das Abprägen im physischen Leibe bewirkt auch die andere Vorliebe, dieses abgeprägte Wort zu erhalten, ja nicht irgend etwas zu erhalten, was um ein Niveau höher erhoben ist. Da hätte die Stenographie nämlich nichts zu suchen, wenn man diejenigen Formen festhalten wollte, die sich im ätherischen Leibe ausprägen. Es gehörte schon die materialistische Tendenz dazu, um etwas so Groteskes zu erfinden, wie es die Stenographie ist.

[ 28 ] Nun, das sollte nur erläuternd hinzugefügt werden zu dem, was ich zu dem Problem beitragen möchte: das Verstehen des Auftretens des Materialismus im 19. Jahrhundert. Die Menschheit war bei einer gewissen Verfassung angelangt, die hinneigte zu dem Einprägen des Geistig-Seelischen in den physischen Organismus. Sie müssen das, was ich gesagt habe, als eine Interpretation nehmen, nicht als eine Kritik der Stenographie. Ich will nicht, daß die Stenographie heute gleich abgeschafft wird. Das ist niemals die Tendenz, die solchen Charakteristiken zugrunde liegt. Denn man muß sich ganz klar sein: Damit, daß man etwas versteht, will man es ja auch nicht durchaus gleich abschaffen! Es gibt vieles in der Welt, was notwendig ist zum Leben, was aber auch nicht zu allem dienen kann - ich will das Thema nicht weiter ausführen - und was man doch auch in seiner Notwendigkeit begreifen muß. Aber wir leben, das muß ich immer wieder betonen, in einem Zeitalter, in dem es durchaus notwendig ist, etwas mehr in die Tiefe sowohl der Naturentwickelung wie der Kulturentwickelung einzudringen, sich sagen zu können: Woher kommt die eine oder die andere Erscheinung? - Denn mit dem bloßen keiferischen Aburteilen und Abkritisieren ist es nicht getan; man muß alle Dinge der Welt wirklich verstehen.

[ 29 ] Was ich also heute ausgeführt habe, möchte ich dahin zusammenfassen, daß uns die Entwickelung der Menschheit zeigt, daß gewissermaßen die Strukturvollendung des physischen Leibes in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts einen Höhepunkt erreichte, daß jetzt schon wieder die Dekadenz eintritt, und daß mit diesem Vervollkommnen des physischen Leibes der Aufschwung der theoretischen materialistischen Weltanschauung zusammenhängt. Ich werde ja über diese Dinge in den nächsten Tagen von dem einen oder anderen Gesichtspunkt aus das eine oder das andere noch zu sagen haben. Heute möchte ich gerade dieses vor Ste hingestellt haben, was ich eben zusammengefaßt habe.

First lecture

[ 1 ] The period of materialistic development lies primarily in the middle and second half of the 19th century. Today, we may be more interested in the theoretical side of this materialistic development. However, much of what I am going to say today about this theoretical side can also be said in much the same way about the more practical side of materialism. However, as I said, we will refrain from doing so today. We want to focus more on what emerged throughout the civilized world in the middle and second half of the 19th century as the materialistic worldview.

[ 2 ] There are actually two sides to this issue. First, we must be clear about the extent to which something like the materialistic worldview must be combated, that we must carry within ourselves all those concepts and ideas that can equip us to reject the materialistic worldview as such. However, in addition to being equipped with the necessary conceptual framework, we need something else from the perspective of spiritual science. We need to understand this materialistic way of thinking, first in terms of its content, but secondly also in terms of how this extreme materialistic worldview was able to arise in the course of human development.

[ 3 ] It might seem contradictory that, on the one hand, we demand that we must be able to combat the materialistic worldview and, on the other hand, that we must be able to understand it. For those who stand on the ground of spiritual science, this is not really a contradiction, but only an apparent one. The situation is rather as follows. In the course of human development, moments must arise which initially drag humanity down in a certain way, which bring humanity down below a certain level, so that it can then raise itself up again through its own efforts. And it would not be helpful for humanity if it could be prevented by some divine decree or the like from having to go through the lower stages of existence. In order for humanity to make full use of its powers of freedom, it is absolutely necessary for it to descend into the lower stages of both worldview and life. And the danger does not actually lie in the fact that something like this occurs at the right time—which for theoretical materialism was actually the middle of the 19th century—but rather in the fact that when something like this occurs in the course of normal development, people cling to it and carry over into future times what was necessary for a certain period of time. And if one can say that materialism was, in a certain sense, a test for humanity in the middle of the 19th century, which had to be undergone, then it is also true, on the other hand, that clinging to materialism now must bring terrible damage, and that what we are going through in terrible world catastrophes and human catastrophes is based precisely on the fact that humanity in wide circles wants to cling to this materialism.

[ 4 ] What does theoretical materialism actually mean? It means the view that human beings are initially the sum total of the material processes of their physical bodies. Theoretical materialism studied the physical and sensory processes of the physical body, and even if what it achieved in this study is more or less at the beginning, it has already drawn the ultimate conclusions with regard to worldviews. It has, in a sense, explained man as the confluence of these physical forces; it has explained his soul as something that is brought about solely by the interaction of these physical forces. But it has also initiated the investigation of the physical nature of man. This latter, the further investigation of the physical nature of man, is what must remain. What the 19th century drew as a consequence of this physical investigation is something that must remain a temporary phenomenon in human development. But let us first understand it as such a temporary phenomenon.

[ 5 ] What is actually before us? Well, if we look back at human development and, using what I have indicated in “The Secret Science in Outline,” look back quite far, then we must say: This human being has gone through the most diverse stages. We need only limit ourselves to what the human being has gone through in the course of Earth's development, and we will have to say: In the course of Earth's development, this human being started out from a form of development that was primitive in relation to its present form, then transformed this form of development and came closer and closer to the form that human beings have today. As long as we remain within the broad outlines of human form, we will not find the differences so extraordinary when we trace the historical existence of human beings. Anyone who, for example, wants to compare the form of an ancient Egyptian or even an ancient Indian with the form of a human being of today's European civilization, using the means available for external history, will find only relatively small differences if they remain at the level of a rather coarse observation. In relation to this coarser observation, the great differences from the primitive forms of education that primitive man had only become apparent in times far behind historical times. But when we go into the finer details, when we go into what is hidden from the outer gaze, then what I have just said no longer applies, then one must say: there is a great, significant difference between the organism of a person of today's civilization and the organism of an ancient Egyptian or even an ancient Greek or Roman. And even if the transformation took place in a much more subtle way in historical times, it nevertheless took place in relation to all the finer structures of the human organism. And what took place there reached a certain culmination, a certain high point in the middle of the 19th century. As paradoxical as it may sound, it is absolutely true that in terms of its inner formation, in terms of what the human organism can become, human beings were at their most perfect around the middle of the 19th century, and that since that time a kind of decadence has set in, so that the human organism is in the process of reverting. That is why, in the middle of the 19th century, those organs that serve as the physical organs of intellectual activity were most perfectly developed.

[ 6 ] What we call the human mind, the human intellect, requires physical organs. In earlier times, these physical organs were far less developed than they were in the middle of the 19th century. It is certainly true that what we admire, for example, in the Greeks, in such accomplished Greeks as Plato or Aristotle, is based on the fact that these Greeks did not have such perfect organs of thought in the purely physical sense as the people of the 19th century had. Depending on one's taste, one can say: Thank God that the people of the Greek era did not have such perfect organs of thought as the people of the 19th century! But if one is a sober-minded person of the 19th century and wants to maintain this sobriety, then one can say: The Greeks were just children; they did not yet have the perfect thinking organs that people of the 19th century have, and one must therefore look down with a certain indulgence on what Plato and Aristotle brought to light. High school teachers often do this by feeling tremendously superior in their criticism of Plato and Aristotle. But what I have just hinted at can only be fully understood if one has become acquainted with people who do exist, who to a certain extent have a kind of vision, what one might call, in the best sense of the word, a kind of clairvoyant consciousness.

[ 7 ] In people who have such clairvoyant consciousness today, the existence of this clairvoyant consciousness — those who should have such clairvoyant consciousness in this auditorium, for example, may forgive me for telling them this truth — is based precisely on the inadequate training of the inadequate organs of the intellect. It is quite a common occurrence that we can meet people in our world today who have a certain clairvoyant consciousness but who actually have very little of what we now call scientific understanding. And as true as this is, it is also true that such clairvoyant people can now come to record or recount certain things that they themselves bring forth through their knowledge, and that in these accounts, in these records, there live thoughts that are much more intelligent than the thoughts of those people who, without developing clairvoyance, work with the very best tools of the intellect. It can happen that, from the point of view of present-day science, stupid—forgive the expression—stupid clairvoyants produce thoughts which do not make them any smarter, but which are smarter than the thoughts of the most authoritative scientists of today. This fact is already quite evident. And what is it based on? It is based on the fact that such clairvoyant individuals do not need to exert their thinking organs in order to arrive at these thoughts. They create the relevant images from the spiritual world, and the thoughts are already there, already complete, while other people who are not clairvoyant and can only think have to train their thinking organs in order to form their thoughts. Schematically drawn, it would be like this. Let us assume that such clairvoyant individuals bring something out of the spiritual world in all kinds of images; this here (see drawing, red) is something that comes out of the spiritual world through such individuals. But inside there are thoughts, there is a network of thoughts. The people concerned do not think this, but they see it, they bring it out of the spiritual world; they do not need to strain their thinking organs.

[ 8 ] Let us look at someone else who is not clairvoyant but who can think. There is nothing of the red there in him; he cannot bring it out. Nor can he bring this skeleton of thoughts (see drawing on the left) out of the spiritual world. but he strains his thinking organs and then brings this skeleton of thoughts into the world through his thinking organs (see drawing on the right).

[ 9 ] If you look at people today, you can see the gradations between these two extremes everywhere. For those who have not trained their powers of observation, it is extremely difficult to distinguish whether the other person is really intelligent in the sense that he thinks through his intellectual faculties, or whether he does not think through his intellectual faculties at all, but rather somehow creates something in his consciousness, and that only what is pictorial, what is imaginative, develops in him, but so weakly that he himself does not notice it. And so today there are all kinds of people who produce very clever thoughts but are not necessarily clever at all, while others think very clever thoughts but have no special connection with any spiritual world. Learning to make this distinction is one of the most important psychological tasks of our time, and it provides the basis for an important understanding of human nature in the present. If you take this as an explanation, it will no longer be so incomprehensible to you that empirical supersensible observation shows that in the middle of the 19th century, the human organism had the most perfect thinking organs in the majority of people. Never has there been so much thinking as in the middle of the 19th century, and so little intelligence as at that time.

[ 10 ] Just go back—something people today don't do—to the 1820s or before, and read through what was produced scientifically at that time, and you will see: it has a completely different tone; there is still no trace of the completely abstract thinking that later depended on the human physical organs of thought, not to mention such things as those produced by Herder, Goethe, and Schiller. There are still great ideas living there. That people don't believe this, and that today's commentators speak as if this were not the case, is irrelevant. For those who write these commentaries and believe they understand Goethe, Schiller, and Herder, do not understand them; they do not see what is most important in them.

[ 11 ] It is an important fact that around the middle of the 19th century, the human organism had, in terms of its physical structure, reached a kind of culmination, a peak, and that since then it has been in decline, and indeed — in a certain sense, for the intelligent understanding of the world — in rapid decline.

[ 12 ] However, the development of materialism in the middle of the 19th century is connected with this fact. For what is this human organism? This human organism is a faithful reflection of the spiritual and soul aspects of the human being. It is not surprising that the structure of this human organism appears to many who are unable to grasp the spiritual and soul aspects of life as the explanation of the whole human being. This is particularly evident when one considers the organization of the head and, within the head, the organization of the nerves.

[ 13 ] I recently mentioned an experience in Stuttgart during my lectures that is really suitable for shedding light on this matter. I said: At the beginning of the 20th century, at a meeting of the Giordano Bruno Society in Berlin, a man spoke first — someone I would call a staunch materialist — a very knowledgeable materialist who knew the structure of the brain as well as anyone today who has studied it conscientiously; and he was one of those people who, in their analysis of the structure of the brain, actually see the whole science of the soul, who say: One only has to understand how the brain works, then one has the soul, then one can describe the soul. Now it was interesting; he drew the different parts of the brain on the blackboard, the connecting strands and so on, and presented that wonderful picture that one gets when one traces the structure of the human brain. And he believed that with his description of the structure of the brain, he had provided something that was psychology. After he had presented his arguments, a staunch philosopher, a Herbartian, stood up. This Herbartian said: "I must of course strongly oppose the views that this man has developed, that one already possesses psychology if one explains the structure of the brain; but I do not need to address the drawing he made, I need not object at all; this drawing agrees quite well with my Herbartian view that ideas associate with one another, that certain connecting strands of a purely mental nature run from one idea to another. And he added that, as a Herbartian, he could easily make the same drawing, except that in his case the individual circles and so on would not represent parts of the brain, but complexes of ideas. But the drawing would remain exactly the same!

[ 14 ] Very interesting, you see! When it comes to placing things in reality, people have completely opposite views; when they draw the same thing, they must actually draw the same drawings, and one is entirely a Herbartian philosopher, the other a solid materialist physiologist.

[ 15 ] What is the basis for this? It is based on the fact that it is indeed so: we have the spiritual-soul nature of the human being within us. And this spiritual-soul nature is the creator of the entire form of our organism. And we need not be surprised that where the organism has its most perfect part, in the nervous system of the brain, the image that the spiritual-soul essence projects outwards looks perfectly similar to this spiritual-soul essence. It is indeed the case that where the human being is most, if I may say so, is most human, in his nervous constitution, he is a faithful image of the spiritual-soul being, so that those who are satisfied with the image, who want above all to have something sensual before them and are satisfied with the image, actually see in the image the same thing that one sees at first glance in the spiritual-soul aspect of the human being. And since they have no desire for the spiritual-soul aspect, since they want only the image, so to speak, they adhere to the structure of the brain. And because this structure of the brain appeared to be particularly complete to observers in the mid-19th century, it was again, given the disposition of humanity at that time, extremely easy to develop theoretical materialism. For what is actually present in human beings? If we consider human beings as such—I will sketch this schematically here—and then take the structure of the brain, we see that human beings are, as we know, threefold beings: the limb-human, the rhythmic human, and the nerve-sensory human. When we look at the nervous-sensory human being, we have before us the most perfect part of the human being, so to speak, the most human part. The external world is reflected in this most human part (see drawing, red). I want to describe this reflection by referring, for example, to the perceptions through the eye. I could also draw the perceptions through the ear, and so on. The external world is thus reflected in the human being, so that we have before us the structure of the human being and the reflection of the external world in this human being. As long as we view the human being in this way, we cannot really do otherwise, even if we go beyond the sometimes rather crude ideas of materialism, than to interpret the human being in a materialistic way. For on the one hand we have the structure of the human being. We can trace this structure in all its finer tissue structures and, the more we ascend towards the head organization, the more we obtain a true image of the spiritual-soul realm. And we can then trace what is reflected in the human being from the external world. But that is merely an image. We have the reality of the human being, which we can trace into its finer structures, and we have the image of the world.

[ 16 ] Let us keep this clearly in mind: we have the reality of the human being in the development of his organs, and we have that which is reflected within the human being. That is actually all that is initially available to external sensory observation. In this external sensory observation, the following is basically present: this entire structure of the human being disintegrates when the human being dies, disintegrates as a corpse. In addition, the images of the external world are present. If you break the mirror, nothing can be reflected anymore; the images are therefore also gone when the human being passes through death. Is it not natural, then, that there is nothing else available to external sensory-physical observation than what I have just mentioned, that it must be said: With death, the physical structure of the human being disintegrates? - It used to reflect the external world. What the human being carries in his soul is a mirror image; but that passes away. This fact was simply stated by 19th-century materialism. It had to be stated because, after all, nothing else was known. Now, things look different when we delve a little deeper into human spiritual and soul life itself. But here we are already entering a realm where physical and sensory observation cannot penetrate.

[ 17 ] Let us take an obvious series of facts about the soul, the simple series of facts that is given by the fact that we observe the external world. We observe things, we perceive them, and then we have them in our minds as images. But we also have a memory, a capacity for recollection. What we experience in the external world, we can in turn bring up in images from the depths of our being. We know what significance this memory has for human beings. Let us remain with this series of facts for the moment. Take these two inner experiences: you look at the external world through your eyes or hear it with your ears, or perceive it in some other way with your senses. You are then engaged in a present mental activity. This passes into your imaginative life. What you have experienced today, you can bring up again in a few days from the depths of your soul in images. Something goes into you in some way, and you bring it out again. It is not difficult to see that what goes into the soul must come from the outside world. I do not want to go into anything other than the pure fact, which is obvious, that what is remembered in this way must come from the outside world. For if you have seen any red object, you remember the red object, and what has gone on inside you is only the image of the red object that comes up again in you. So it is something that the external world has imprinted on you, imprinted more deeply than if you were only engaging in immediate imagination in the external world. But now imagine that you approach something, observe it, and are thus engaged in a present mental activity toward what you are observing. You leave it; after a few days, you have reason to bring the images of what you observed back up from the depths of your being, and there they are again; they are paler, certainly, but they are there, they are there with the person. But what happened in the meantime?

[ 18 ] Now I ask you to keep in mind what I have told you and compare this peculiar interplay of present perceptions and memories with what you know well as the image of a dream. You will easily notice how dreaming is connected with the faculty of memory. Dream images need not be very confused, and then you will see how they are connected to memory images, how there is a relationship between dreaming and what passes from living images into memory.

[ 19 ] But now consider something else. A person must be organically completely healthy if they want to be able to dream properly, so to speak. Dreaming requires that you have complete control over your body, that the moment can always come again when you know: That was a dream. — Something must be wrong if someone cannot reach the moment when they completely realize that something was a dream. We have all known people who have dreamed that they were beheaded. Now think about it: if these people were unable to distinguish between this dream of being beheaded and actual beheading, and believed that they had really been beheaded and would have to continue living, just consider how little such people would be able to reconcile the facts without becoming confused. They would have to constantly experience: I have just come from being beheaded. And if they had to assume that they had to believe it, then one can roughly imagine what words would escape their lips. So, the point is that human beings always have the ability to control themselves to such an extent that they can distinguish dreams from being in reality. But there are also people who cannot do this. There are people who experience all kinds of hallucinations, visions, and the like and consider them to be reality. They cannot distinguish between the two; they do not have sufficient control over themselves. What does this mean? It means that in these people, what lives in their dreams has an influence on their organization, that their organization is adapted to their dream images. Somewhere in their nervous system, something that should be fully developed is not fully developed; therefore, the dream is active in them, it has an effect on them.

[ 20 ] So if someone cannot distinguish between their dream images and the realities they have experienced, it means that the power of dreams is organizing them. As soon as the dream became powerful enough to take over our entire brain, we would see the whole world as a dream. Anyone who can consider such a fact in its full significance will gradually arrive at things which our ordinary science does not want to accept today because it does not have the courage to do so; he will come to realize that what is at work in dream life is the same thing that is our organizing power, our power of growth and life. It is only because our organism is, so to speak, consolidated within itself, because it has such firm structures, because it resists ordinary dreams, that the power of ordinary dreams does not have the power to tear its structure apart, and human beings can distinguish between dream experience and reality.

[ 21 ] But when the child is small and growing up, when it is getting bigger and bigger, there is a force within it. It is the same force that is in dreams, only that in dreams we see it. And when one does not see it, but when it works in the body, this force that is otherwise in dreams, then one grows through it. And one does not even need to go so far as to look at the growth. Even when you eat every day, for example, and digest what you have eaten, spreading it throughout your entire organism, it is through the force that lives in dreams. Therefore, if something is not right in the organism, it is also connected with incorrect dreaming. It is the same force that appears to be at work externally in dream life and that works within us, even down to our digestive powers.

[ 22 ] So we can say: If we look at human life correctly, we become aware of the effective power of dreams in the human organism. And in describing this effective power of dreams, I am actually following the same path that I must follow when describing the human etheric body.

[ 23 ] Imagine that someone could see through everything that grows in a human being from childhood, what causes digestion in a human being, what works in a human being to maintain the entire organism in its activity; imagine that I could take this entire system of forces, remove it from the human being and place it before the human being, then I would have placed the etheric body before human beings. This etheric body, this body that reveals itself only in irregularities in dreams, was much more developed before the point in time in the 19th century that I mentioned. It became weaker and weaker in its structure. In contrast, the physical body became stronger and stronger in its structure. The etheric body can imagine things in pictures, it can have dreamlike imaginings, but it cannot think. And as soon as this etheric body begins to be particularly active in any person of the present, then it becomes what I said earlier, it becomes somewhat clairvoyant; but it can then think less, because it needs the physical body in order to think.

[ 24 ] It is therefore not surprising that when people in the 19th century felt they were particularly good at thinking, they were actually driven toward materialism. What helped them most in this thinking was, in other words, the physical body. But this way of thinking, this physical thinking, is connected with the special kind of memory that developed in the 19th century, a memory that is perhaps less pictorial and tends toward abstraction.

[ 25 ] This phenomenon is interesting. I have often quoted the criminal anthropologist Moriz Benedikt; today I would like to mention an interesting experience that he himself recounts in his “Memoirs.” He had to give a speech at a natural science conference, and he recounts that he prepared for this speech by not sleeping for twenty-two nights. He spent twenty-two nights preparing the speech, and on the last day before he was to deliver it, a journalist arrived who was supposed to publish it. He dictated it to him. He had not written the speech down, he said, he had only memorized it. He dictated it to the journalist; he dictated it to the journalist in his little room, and then he gave this speech at the naturalists' meeting. What the journalist printed after dictation was exactly the same as what Benedict then presented to the naturalists' meeting. — I must say, I admire something like that extraordinarily! For one always admires what one would never be able to achieve oneself. This is therefore a very interesting phenomenon. The man worked on it for twenty-two nights, incorporating word for word into his organization what he had prepared, so that he could never have said any sentence differently in the sequence of words as it sat in his organism, so firmly did it sit there.

[ 26 ] Something like this is only possible if you can imprint the entire speech absolutely from the gradually forming wording into the physical organism. It is indeed correct that one should imprint what one thinks out so firmly on the physical organism as the force of nature builds up the skeletal system. Then this whole speech rests like a skeleton in the physical organism. Memory is usually bound to the etheric body, but here the etheric body has been imprinted entirely on the physical organism. The entire physical organism has something within itself, just as it has its bones within itself, which stands as a skeleton of this speech. Then one can also do something like what Professor Benedikt did. And something like this is only possible if this physical organism is so developed in its nerve structure that it takes into its plasticity, without resistance, what is brought into it, gradually, however; it had to be worked into it over twenty-two days or twenty-two nights.

[ 27 ] It is not surprising that someone who relies so much on their physical body feels that this physical body is the only thing working within them. And it had already become the life of man that it worked itself completely into the physical body, and he therefore came to believe that the physical body is everything in the human organization. I do not believe that any age other than one that places such great value on the physical body could have come up with such a grotesque invention—forgive me for using that term—as shorthand. For when there was no shorthand, no one attached such importance to recording words and word order so precisely and imprinting words so firmly as they are recorded in shorthand. Only the imprint in the physical body can imprint them so firmly. So it is only the special preference for imprinting in the physical body that also causes the other preference, namely to preserve this imprinted word, and not just to preserve something that is raised to a higher level. Stenography would have no place there if one wanted to record the forms that are expressed in the etheric body. It took a materialistic tendency to invent something as grotesque as shorthand.

[ 28 ] Well, that should just be added by way of explanation to what I would like to contribute to the problem: understanding the emergence of materialism in the 19th century. Humanity had reached a certain state of mind that was inclined to imprint the spiritual and mental on the physical organism. You must take what I have said as an interpretation, not as a criticism of shorthand. I do not want shorthand to be abolished today. That is never the tendency underlying such characteristics. For one must be quite clear: just because one understands something does not mean that one wants to abolish it immediately! There are many things in the world that are necessary for life, but which cannot serve every purpose—I do not want to elaborate further on this topic—and which one must nevertheless understand in their necessity. But we live, I must emphasize again and again, in an age in which it is absolutely necessary to delve more deeply into both the development of nature and the development of culture, to be able to say: Where does this or that phenomenon come from? For it is not enough to simply judge and criticize; one must truly understand all things in the world.

[ 29 ] What I have said today, I would like to summarize by saying that the development of humanity shows us that, in a sense, the structural perfection of the physical body reached a peak in the middle of the 19th century, that decadence is already setting in again, and that the perfection of the physical body is connected with the rise of the theoretical materialistic worldview. I will have more to say about these things in the next few days from one point of view or another. Today I would just like to put forward what I have just summarized.

OSZAR »