# 19. Defense Against an Attack from the Bosom of the University

A few words on the Fuchs attack in July 1920

Some time ago I said in this weekly that I have no inclination for polemics. I believe that I have amply demonstrated this by the fact that I have left unchallenged a considerable number of outrageous attacks, most of which degenerate into vicious personal insults. Above all, it seemed necessary to me to devote my time and energy to the positive development of the scientific research direction which I have been trying to present to the world through my writings for thirty-five years. What is available in these writings gives others today, as it seems to me, sufficient documentation to undertake the necessary factual-scientific defense of this line of research. Recently, this task has been undertaken by academically and artistically capable personalities. This line of research provides guidelines for the social question that has become so burning in our time. In Stuttgart, a number of personalities have come together who, convinced of the fruitfulness of these social guidelines, are working tirelessly through the Bund für Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus. In other places, they have been joined by others who strive to work scientifically and socially with understanding.

The recent experiences of two of these defenders of work, Dr. Walter Joh. Stein and Dr. Eugen Kolisko, with their lectures in Göttingen, are described in the previous and this issue of this weekly journal. I myself can only be grateful, in the interest of the cause, that they have accepted their not exactly desirable role.

Unfortunately, one must conduct a defense even in matters that are brought to light in such a way as the allegations of Professor Dr. Fuchs in Göttingen. All my writings speak with absolute self-evidence against such absurdities as that my anthroposophy spiritually transports us back to the Middle Ages, for anyone who wants to read. For anyone who follows how my anthroposophy follows on in a straight line from what I already wrote in the 1980s, it is simply ridiculous to say that I am feeding my readers and listeners with oriental teachings borrowed in particular from northern Buddhism.

Evidence for or against the scientific nature of anthroposophy must be presented from completely different angles than those that seem to be available to Professor Dr. Fuchs after his previous, merely invective-filled statements. If Professor Fuchs declares what he thinks about the natural facts known to him to be natural science, that is his private matter. Nowhere have I stated that anthroposophy agrees with what he and those spiritually like him think about nature and spirit. I have repeatedly tried to prove that the facts of nature do not demand what he and the naturalists of his ilk think, but what is demanded by anthroposophy. In this sense I speak of the harmony between natural science and anthroposophy. Anyone who, like Professor Fuchs, turns this fact into its opposite and makes insulting statements on the basis of this opposite is speaking an objective untruth.

A researcher who is to be taken seriously must be required to have a sense of objective facts. Anyone who is presented with an anatomical specimen that speaks against an absurd assertion can only be taken seriously scientifically if he first looks at the specimen and considers its connection with other facts. Professor Dr. Fuchs hears that in Stuttgart my baptismal certificate has been produced against the stupid claim that I am a Jew. He says, like so many others who unscrupulously spread the lie that I am Jewish, that there are also baptized Jews. Well, my baptismal certificate contains data that speak so against my descent from Jews that they alone reveal the assertion of my Jewishness to be stupid nonsense. I need not say that I myself attach no importance to my ancestry from this point of view. For me it is merely a matter of the fact that it is a brazen lie to make me a Jew. But for me, anyone who talks about facts in this way, as Professor Fuchs does about my alleged Jewishness, even if only in passing, is not a scientist. I have a more serious view of conscientiousness in the scientific way of thinking. Whoever proves in one field that he lacks a sense of facts, I do not believe that he can have it in another field. An anatomy that seduces with its facts as Professor Fuchs did with my baptismal certificate would be devoid of any scientific character for me. For the time being, I will confine myself to these few sentences. What Professor Fuchs has said about priority and the like is something I can leave to those who really read my writings and can understand their questions.