# 59. The Social Question

It is not easy to talk about the "social question" today. An infinite number of factors are currently influencing our judgment on this question in the most unfavorable way. No matter has been "confused by party favor and hatred" like this one. As in few fields are the views so sharply opposed. What is not put forward? And how soon one realizes that many of the views that emerge stem from spirits who walk through the world of facts with the greatest possible shyness.

However, I cannot consider the obstacles placed in the way of a desirable assessment of the social question by party passions to be even the worst. After all, only those who are within the party drive are misled by them. Those outside this drive always have the opportunity to form a personal judgment. It seems to me that a much more significant obstacle lies in the fact that our thinking minds, our scientifically trained culture bearers, do not want to succeed in finding a sure way, a *methodical way* of tackling this question.

I always and repeatedly come to this conclusion when I read writings on the social question by authors who are to be taken seriously because of their scientific education. I have noticed that in this field the way of thinking that our researchers have adopted under the influence of Darwinism is *not yet* having a beneficial effect. Do not misunderstand me. I recognize that the Darwinian way of thinking is one of the greatest advances that mankind has been able to make. And I believe that Darwinism must have a beneficial effect in all areas of human thought if it is applied correctly, i.e. in accordance with its spirit. In my "Philosophy of Freedom" I myself have delivered a book which, in my opinion, is written entirely in the spirit of Darwinism. My approach to the conception of this book was quite peculiar. I thought about the most intimate questions of human spiritual life. I did not concern myself with Darwinism at all. And when I had finished my thought process, the idea occurred to me: You have made a contribution to Darwinism.

Now I find that sociologists in particular don't do it that way. They first ask the Darwinian-thinking natural scientists: How do you do it? And then they transfer their methods to their own field. In doing so, they make a big mistake. They simply transfer the laws of nature that prevail in the realm of organic nature to the realm of human spiritual life; exactly the same is supposed to apply to human development as can be observed in animal development. Now there is undoubtedly a sound core in this view. A similar law can certainly be found throughout the world. But it is not at all necessary that *these same laws* should therefore operate in all areas. The laws which the Darwinists have found operate in the animal and plant kingdoms. In the human kingdom we have to look for laws which are conceived in the spirit of the Darwinian ones -- but which are as specifically peculiar to this kingdom as the organic laws of development are to the natural kingdoms mentioned. We have to look for our own laws for the development of mankind, even if these are conceived in the spirit of Darwinism. A simple transfer of the laws of Darwinism to the development of humanity will not lead to satisfactory views.

I was particularly struck by this again when reading the book for the sake of which I am writing these thoughts: " *Die soziale Frage im Lichte der Philosophie*" by Dr. *Ludwig Stein* (published by Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart 1897). The author's approach is dominated by the intention of dealing with the social question in a way that corresponds to that of Darwinian natural science. "What Buckle accomplished a lifetime ago for the concept of causality in history, namely that he, supported by the emerging statistics, proved its unconditional validity for the whole of historical life, must be done today, now that we have acquired the achievements of Darwin and his successors, for that of development" (p. 43). Starting from this tendency, Ludwig Stein examines how the various forms that dominate human social coexistence have developed. And he tries to show that "adaptation" and "struggle for existence" play the same role as in animal development. I will first pick out one of these forms to illustrate Stein's approach: the religious one. Man finds himself in the midst of various forces of nature. These intervene in his life. They can be useful or harmful to him. They become useful to him when he finds means by which he can use the forces of nature in such a way that they serve his existence. Man invents tools and devices to make the forces of nature serve him. In other words, he tries to adapt his own existence to that of his environment. Many attempts may be made which prove to be in error. But among the countless many there will always be those that do the right thing. These remain the winners. They survive. The erroneous attempts perish. What is useful survives in the " *struggle for existence*". Among the forces of nature, man finds invisible ones as well as visible ones. He calls them the *divine powers* alongside the purely natural ones. He also wants to adapt to them. He invents religion with sacrificial service and thereby believes he can move the divine powers to work for his benefit. Stein views the emergence of marriage, property, the state, language and law in the same way. All these forms have arisen through the adaptation of man to his environment; and the present forms of marriage, property, etc., have been preserved because they have proved to be the most useful to man in the struggle for existence.

You can see that Stein is simply trying to apply Darwinism to the human domain.

In a subsequent article, I will use the book mentioned above to show where such a transfer leads.