Farewell for the Anthroposophical University Courses

GA 322 — 16 October 1920, Dornach

My dear friends! We have come to the end of the scientific course organized by the Goetheanum. Perhaps I may remind you today of the words with which this series of scientific courses was opened. It was said that the goal we have set ourselves here at the Goetheanum, as something necessary for the development of humanity itself, is a spiritual deepening that can lead to reconciliation, unity, and mutual enrichment between religion, art, and science. For it is precisely in this union of religion, art, and science that we must see, from our spiritual-scientific point of view, that which can lead to the further development of humanity in a healing way, that which can intervene in an effective way in the social life of humanity, can intervene as necessary so that we can avoid the clearly perceptible descent into barbarism and do not strive toward a twilight, as is now to be scientifically proven, but on the contrary, out of necessity, misery, and error, toward a new dawn for humanity. And perhaps, after recalling our starting point, I may add a few words about what we actually had in mind when we organized these courses. This time, our main goal was to show how what we mean here by spiritual science can have a fruitful effect on the individual sciences.

In order to demonstrate this, so to speak, at the outset, we needed to hear from a number of personalities who each come from a specific contemporary discipline and who are therefore just as much at home in the spirit of their individual disciplines as they are in what, in a summarizing and spiritually penetrating way, spiritual science seeks to bring into our civilization. It was not important to us to present spiritual science as such to you this time, but rather that experts from their respective fields could present the effective content of spiritual science to you from the spirit of their fields.

It has indeed been a painful experience that disturbances have arisen in the implementation of these intentions, for example, in the field that is particularly important to us, the field of medicine, where we have not been able to show how a bridge can be built to spiritual science through direct speech from the field itself. It is in the nature of this beginning, in which we still stand in our spiritual scientific work, that much of what we have said in our courses has been, so to speak, permeated by a kind of critical tone, critical of the shortcomings to which the individual sciences have come through their specialization. But you will already have seen the thoroughly positive aspects that can arise from the alliance of spiritual science with the individual sciences.

Certainly, my dear friends, one can still say today: Yes, what is external science, official science, state science, and so on, has the trained individual sciences. What you are offering at first is all in an initial state. Yes, but, my dear friends, one must consider our situation. Across broad fields of scientific life, it is necessary to have resources, many resources, in order, for example, to proceed with the experiments that must be undertaken, that can be undertaken, if it is to be fully demonstrated what spiritual science can do for the individual sciences. We are, in a sense, a small community in the midst of a scientific enterprise that has enormous resources at its disposal in the direction just described, because it has the support of the state. We certainly do not strive for this, but once people understand this one point in the impulse of the threefold social organism, that the spiritual life must be placed on its own feet, then we will not lack the means to work in the same way as the present sciences, even with regard to external experiments. But what can be determined from the goal of spiritual science will already be evident in the arrangement of the experiments and in the entire production of the experimental equipment. We cannot undertake extensive research trips, nor can we carry out the experiments that have been described. And so the first thing we could give you was intended more to show the direction in which progress must be made in order to call you to collaborate with us. And you will have noticed how, despite our limited resources and the difficulty of our work, our directions are strictly defined for the most diverse fields of study.

In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to one particular point. Ladies and gentlemen, it is easy today to argue against what spiritual science recognizes as the laws of human development. For it recognizes that humanity on earth has reached a point in its development where, simply through the driving forces inherent in this development itself, it is predetermined that humanity will advance to much more conscious states of religious feeling, artistic activity, and scientific striving than has been the case up to now. One can, I say, argue against this and say that it would be much better to remain in naivety. One can declare that only instinctive human beings are actually right, that by rising to clearer states of consciousness, the instincts that are believed to guide human beings safely would be reduced. Certainly, one can say all that. But it does not matter what preconceptions and prejudices one has regarding what is necessary for the progress of humanity; what matters is what the signs of the times themselves demand of us. That one must do it one way or the other, ladies and gentlemen, is something that everyone imagines according to the particular nature of their preconceptions and prejudices; and that if all people did what one or the other feels is right for themselves based on these preconceptions and prejudices, if all people did that, then everyone would think that this would be the surest way forward.

In response to these things, I must repeatedly refer to a small experience I once had in a southern German city—which no longer exists—after a lecture I gave on “Wisdom and Christianity.” What happened then, and which has not happened to me for a long time now, was that what I had just said, although it was spoken in exactly the same spirit in which I always speak, did not displease two Catholic priests who were in the hall. They probably understood a great deal of what I had said in my lecture, and so they came up to me after the lecture and said: Yes, you didn't actually contradict Christianity, we can't object to much of what you said; but you see, what you say can only be said to those who are prepared for it, to those who fulfill certain prerequisites. But the way we represent Christianity—said these two Catholic priests—is for all people, we represent it for all people. One must always be polite, so I said: Reverend, I believe you when you say that this is your subjective opinion; but after all, everyone thinks that if everyone did things the way they do, it would be for the good of all people. But whether I believe that I am doing the right thing for all people, or whether you believe that you are doing the right thing for all people, is completely irrelevant. What matters is that, setting aside our preconceptions, our sympathies and antipathies, we acquire a spiritual ear for what the times demand of us, for what the history of human development itself tells us. And here I want to say something very simple to you: Of course, every Sunday you preach from your pulpit in the way you think all people can hear, in the way you think all people can be edified by it. But I ask you only this small thing: Do all people still come to you today? - They couldn't say yes, of course! - Well, I say, you must admit that certain people are left out; they are the ones I am talking about, because they also need to hear about Christian development.

Hearing the voices of facts, even in the historical development of humanity, is what matters. And so we cannot argue against the fact that humanity has now reached a point in its development where it must strive more and more consciously toward its goal, where much of what could formerly be pursued naively and instinctively must now be permeated by a clearer, brighter consciousness. That is what we want to understand within spiritual science. And that is why we must above all have a relationship with this spiritual science, a very real relationship with scientific endeavor, which must strive, out of knowledge, to promote conscious knowing, feeling, and willing. And, my dear friends, you will have seen from the way in which the individual sciences have been dealt with here by more than thirty personalities before you, how individual sciences, that which spills over into the artistic realm, have been dealt with. you will have seen how, with the full conscientiousness that has developed in recent times through the individual sciences, these sciences are to be permeated by the humanities. We need, for example, a new relationship to language. Yes, my dear friends, that sounds paradoxical, and yet it is true: we need a new relationship to language if we want to make progress in human development.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, we often experience today that when we come from those spiritual scientific foundations from which the anthroposophical striving wants to flow, when we represent this or that from these foundations, people come and say: Well, just look, I have here—some article in a journal, I have some book, that's all anthroposophy! Yes, in the early days, when I was advocating anthroposophy, people even came and referred to this or that pulpit speaker who supposedly represented anthroposophy. But, my dear friends, there is a problem of time here that is of great importance. We have simply reached a point in human development where, even if what I have just said, where people come and say, ‘That is pure anthroposophy,’ is in most cases foolishness, it can nevertheless be said: We have reached a point in human development where many people, simply by using external words, say things that to the superficial observer sound very similar to what sometimes has to be said about intimate matters from an anthroposophical perspective. Today, it is no longer possible to distinguish whether something written by someone with a routine in writing in our highly intellectualized civilization comes from one source or another, or whether it truly speaks from a genuine, honest, and true representation. However, it is not important that something here or there is reminiscent of anthroposophical reality, but rather that what is said truly comes from anthroposophical sources. Therefore, it is not enough today to simply follow and accept something word for word.

Today, it is entirely possible for charlatans to create the appearance of representing the same thing as someone who draws from true sources and follows true paths to their goal by cobbling together what they have learned. I believe that there is something extremely significant behind what I am saying here. What lies behind this is that we must accustom ourselves in our paper age to no longer look merely at the external content of what is written or printed, but to acquire a view, a feeling for what lies behind the words and between the lines; to place ourselves completely within a spiritual context and not merely judge by the surface of the words. But this, my dear friends, requires that we acquire certain feelings toward language that are only now possible, and these feelings can only arise from a spiritual deepening of linguistics. Such a spiritual deepening of linguistics has been pointed out in our course.

I would also like to draw your attention to what has been said here in recent days with regard to the view of human history. It has been pointed out how a mind as significant as Wilhelm von Humboldt strove for a deeper understanding of history at the beginning of the 19th century, but how it became impossible in the second half of the 19th century, given the general cultural and civilizational conditions, to even understand what a man like Humboldt wanted. And it has been pointed out that Humboldt could not have had any further influence because the pursuit of mere ideas in history cannot lead to anything. Ladies and gentlemen, ideas as such are abstractions. They are not forces that can influence events; they cannot, of course, direct the history of humanity. On the other hand, it has been rightly pointed out that the humanities reveal the true sources that are effective in human development, showing in detail the spiritual forces behind the course of events.

But what does such a spiritual-scientific deepening of history lead to? It leads to human beings not merely standing instinctively in their age, but because they see through the spiritual activity in the past, they can also take their own stand in the present with full consciousness and consciously confront the spiritual forces that want to advance human activity. The signs of the times speak very clearly that we must go beyond the purely abstract judgment that is often expressed: We should learn from history. Yes, what can we learn from history, which is actually the only one recognized today? From a spiritually deepened history, we will learn to place ourselves in the world with positive goals in a positive way.

You may have found it pessimistic, ladies and gentlemen, when, in early spring 1914, during a series of lectures to a small circle in Vienna, I attempted to characterize our time—the time I was referring to then—when I said: Anyone with social awareness, with an understanding of what is at work in human beings today—it was spring 1914!—anyone with a deeper insight into the forces at work in human beings who is able to assess our present situation must find that in the social life of the entire civilized world we are rushing toward the outbreak of a creeping social cancer. A carcinoma in social relations is at work among us which, in the very near future, I said at the time, must come to a terrible outbreak.

That was the statement of, let us say, an idealist in the opinion of the practitioners. How did the practitioners themselves speak at that time? One need only point to the practitioners who were entrusted with the fate of humanity. There was a foreign minister in Central Europe who declared at that time: Thanks to the efforts of the European cabinets, our political situation is visibly easing. Our relations with Petersburg,“ declared this Central European foreign minister at the time, ”our relations with Petersburg are as friendly as can be imagined. And negotiations have been initiated with England which, although not yet concluded, promise to provide a good basis for peace in Europe." Those who spoke from the standpoint of the humanities had to speak of a creeping social cancer. The practitioners spoke of what had been announced as détente, as friendly neighborly relations. And these practitioners spoke just a few weeks before the general turmoil began, in which 10 to 12 million people were killed and three times as many were maimed. This is the terrible expression of what the newer civilization has brought about and against which, at the last moment, so to speak, in order to make a mark, what came out of spiritual science had to turn. Were there at that time, among those to whom the fate of humanity was entrusted, any insights that arose from history and could be followed? No, everything was blind, blind especially in those spheres where history was being made at that time. Into this darkness must come that which can be taken up by human consciousness from spiritual scientific knowledge. When those like Ranke, with their fear of the spirit of history — as it has been called here — no longer parade on the lecterns, but when the real spirit of human development is spoken of from the lecterns, only then will the time have dawned when the destiny of humanity can be guided in a reasonable manner; for it must be recognized today that a reasonable practice, a practice that is beneficial to humanity, can only go hand in hand with that which is brought forth from the spheres from which the development of humanity is guided.

And, my dear friends, it will have become apparent from much of what has been said here about mathematics, physics, psychology, and chemistry how, in a way that may seem paradoxical to the present age, serious spiritual science seeks to lead us to the spirit. This spiritual science does not recommend, on the basis of its findings, all kinds of mystical speculation about natural phenomena. Nor does this spiritual science recommend that Sunday pastime of knowledge which, in a spiritualistic manner, quotes spirits who apparently have nothing else to do but to convince people in the most convenient way possible that there is a supernatural world. Spiritual science wants nothing to do with such events, in which instead of serious knowledge, people are presented with a theater of knowledge. Spiritual science points out that one must remain strictly objective toward the external world and toward phenomenalism. And as paradoxical as it may seem, all mystification, speculation, theorizing, and spiritualizing of any kind about external nature must disappear; for only when one faces pure phenomena, when one perceives pure phenomena in renunciation, does one come to develop, in the perception of these pure phenomena, those inner abilities that then lead directly to the spirit, to the real grasping of the spirit. It is a sin against the spirit if one does not remain before the pure phenomenon, but instead reads all kinds of things into the pure phenomena.

This has been shown to you in detail for various scientific fields, and it has been shown to you in a field that must be particularly close to our hearts today, in the field of education, how the human soul is permeated with such a mindset, which on the one hand comes from pure phenomenalism, but on the other hand [must be] filled by us with the impulse of spiritual science, how from a state of mind that arises from these foundations, a real pedagogy can emerge, a pedagogy that truly takes human nature into account, that takes human nature into account in such a way that, in the becoming human being, in the child, it has something like a continuous revelation before it. My dear friends, let us ask ourselves, where is the visible source of that which continually drives humanity forward? What brings human beings forward comes to us from the gray depths of the spirit, in that with each new generation something grows toward us from these gray depths of the spirit through what enters from the spiritual foundations of the world into this physical world through heredity and in the other ways that have been described to you in the course of these lectures. Decadent denominations have always counted only on what man carries within himself as a refined egoism of the soul. This makes him ask: What will become of me when my body decays into dust? Spiritual science is certainly able to give the answer to this question on the basis of knowledge: What will become of me? But let us follow the spirit from which the decadent creeds speak. They speak everywhere to the most selfish instincts of human beings, which do not want to pass away when their bodies decay; they do not speak out of knowledge, they speak to the selfish instincts. For as soon as one speaks out of knowledge, one must not only speak of what lies beyond the gates of death, but one must speak of what lies beyond the gates of birth or, let us say, of conception. One must not only point to the spiritual worlds we enter after death, but also to the spiritual worlds we pass through before our birth or before our conception, whose impulses we carry down into the physical worlds and which we are to realize here. These things have been discussed in detail from various points of view. But let us now, at the end of our course, remind ourselves once again how differently the teacher stands before the developing human being who says to himself: From the spiritual worlds, this human child, whose development has been entrusted to me, brings something into my life. This basic feeling is carried, for example, by our Waldorf teachers every time they enter the classroom. And it is such feelings that matter, not abstract pedagogy.

These feelings, this attitude of the human being toward the whole development of humanity, is what, my dear friends, puts the soul of human beings so deeply into the art of education that one can then speak in such a beautiful way about what happens in school, as Dr. von Heydebrand has spoken here before you. When one knows how to connect the sensory world with the supersensory world in this way, then the enthusiasm that is necessary for the healing of our social life arises. Such enthusiasm must also come from educational impulses, as [Herbert] Hahn has described here for workers' educational efforts, which do not rely on bourgeois-patriarchal impulses, but want to listen to what the signs of the times are saying, what is simply necessary from the spirit of human development.

And if one approaches the pure sciences of knowledge in this way, I would say, and transfers them to the field of education, thereby acquiring a feeling for how the things that inspire our ideas can become alive in human action, then one can transfer what knowledge is into practical social thinking. This is what Dr. Boos, for example, wanted to point out in his lectures on social life, and what others wanted to point out when they spoke about the social results of our spiritual scientific endeavors.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, what the spiritual sciences are is truly something extremely serious, something that seeks to develop completely the forces that understand how to act in accordance with the indications of the signs of the times. But this also gives rise to a very specific kind of attitude, if I may use this often misused word. You see, ladies and gentlemen, time and again things come up like those that were written down on a piece of paper and handed to me when I entered this hall. It says: Why does the social work of the anthroposophical movement proceed in a separatist manner? Wouldn't cooperation with the religious-social movement provide a powerful impetus? I ask you, does the person who can ask such a question have even the slightest inkling of what this spiritual scientific movement actually wants? Does the person who asks such a question have any sense of the seriousness with which this spiritual science is pursued? No, otherwise they would not be able to ask such questions. I do not shy away from rejecting in the strongest terms anything that comes from such a mindset, for we already know today that anything that seeks to draw from such depths, including a social will such as this spiritual science, cannot compromise itself. And I can only ever give the answer: if someone has such a desire to join forces with the religious-socialists, let them either join them as an individual, or let them persuade the religious-socialists to join us. We are not concerned with separatism, but with bringing together all those forces that really want to at least understand the signs of the times.

From such endeavors, my dear friends, emerges that which leads from the realm of knowledge, from the realm that is more the realm of knowledge, to the realm of art. And I have spoken a great deal about art in reference to what was to be realized here in this building. I have also been able to say a few things about the artistic realm, albeit only in outline, based on what has been said here about the art of declamation and recitation. Where have we ended up in such realms with our materialistic orientation, ladies and gentlemen? We have reached the point where we gradually no longer have any recitation at all. We have reached the point where we gradually no longer know what declamation and recitation are: that they are actually the elevation of language to a certain sphere. The special shaping of prose in particular was increasingly regarded as the actual art of declamation, and a completely unartistic naturalism was also introduced into the art of acting, for example. It is precisely through the way in which the humanities perceive the human being in his or her entirety that they are able to follow the intimate inner processes that take place in the practice of the art of singing, in the practice of the art of declamation, and which must gradually be absorbed more and more by human consciousness.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, if one works seriously in this way, working from very specific foundations that truly have nothing to do with the ultimate consequences of materialistic desires, then one cannot make compromises. Ladies and gentlemen, I must emphasize strongly that we cannot compromise, that we must follow our path based on correctly recognized goals and the sources to which our knowledge has led us. It is sometimes quite astonishing how little this is understood today by some people. But we will have to stand firm on the position that we will not compromise in any direction. We want to seriously strive for an art form that comes from our spiritual sources. That is our honest desire.

The building is there. In the last few weeks, since this building has been standing there, all kinds of people have been able to come in. And look, some people even liked this building, albeit for their own purposes. If we wanted to make compromises, oh, we could quickly become famous with this building. I need only reveal one example to you: a few days ago, the entire troupe of Mr. Max Reinhardt from the former German Theater in Berlin came to us to perform their plays here in these rooms. It was considered quite appropriate that we should compromise with the Reinhardt theater! No, we will not compromise, not even with the art that emerges from the materialistic underground of the Reinhardt theater! (Lively applause.) We will draw from the sources we have worked our way up to. And if the world denies us the means to do so, then we will simply not finish what needs to be finished. But we will not attempt to establish our connections with the world in such a way as would present itself as a good opportunity if, as has been suggested to us, Mr. Moissi were to recite the Lord's Prayer here—I believe in “Jedermann,” the famous play that is now being performed everywhere.

I just wanted to suggest, ladies and gentlemen, how convenient it would be for some people to exploit what is now available. We will ensure that it serves only its pure purpose, its pure goal. Ladies and gentlemen, a bridge can be built to a truly vibrant art form precisely through a deeper understanding of the humanities. And that it can also be built to an honest religious sentiment, well, you will certainly have been able to feel that through everything that has been said here. That we have a particularly difficult time in this regard, even here in free Switzerland, you could convince yourselves if you took note of all the slander and myths that are circulating about our intentions, about our entire being. But I will not bother you further with that. I just wanted to point out, with a few strokes that could of course have been drawn quite differently, now that we are about to part, what actually inspires us. You will understand, precisely from this characteristic of our goals, from everything that motivates us to do what we do, that it gives us great satisfaction that personalities who are involved in scientific life or who aspire to be involved in scientific life were here among us, wanted to participate in what is being done here at the Goetheanum. And you will believe me when I assure you—I can assure you on behalf of all those who are sincere and earnest in their anthroposophically oriented spiritual scientific endeavors—when I assure you that it was precisely this deepest satisfaction that we felt in seeing these personalities from scientific life here, for this is the time when our spiritual science, if it is to mean anything at all in the world, must be taken up by science.

Some people have found it strange that what is said to be a high spiritual endeavor has now condescended to social activity. In the present age, any spiritual striving that does not seek to transition to social activity must actually be regarded as inwardly dishonest. Only those ideas of knowledge are truly rooted in the human inner life that find their outlet in social activity, that are compelled to social activity.

My dear friends, it is not our fault that our ideas on the threefold social order have gradually been misunderstood, especially among the broad circles of the newer proletariat. This is due to the proletarian leadership. And until the proletariat realizes that its greatest enemies are its leaders, this proletariat will not be able to achieve any clarity. Even here, in the last few days, it has been said in many different ways that what we write or have printed is not accessible to the proletariat, that it is too high and so on. My dear friends, such statements reveal the imitation of the bourgeois, the bad bourgeois. For once the proletariat breaks free from parroting the science that led it into materialism, which arose not on its own foundations but on bourgeois foundations, it will understand spiritual science above all else. For spiritual science is there for all people and can be understood by all people. However, bourgeois in the sense that bourgeoisie has gradually turned to materialism, that is a different view.p>

I have encountered many things in my life. I will mention nothing personal except what may be symptomatic of the general situation. I also worked for many years as a teacher at a workers' school among proletarians. But I have also lectured on a variety of subjects to members of other classes. For example, I once gave a lecture on literary history to a group of women. It was a group of women that had come together because the men avoided anything intellectual, leaving it to their wives as a women's affair. And so a course was put together for me to lecture on literary history. But once these women managed to organize an evening to which the men also came, and they asked me to speak about Goethe's Faust for that evening. And I spoke about Goethe's Faust in the way one can only speak to people who spend their days playing the stock market or doing something similar, such as healing the sick with current official medicine and the like. All these different circles were there. They all assured me that they found it very difficult to understand what I had said about Goethe's Faust in such a popular way, because, they said, Goethe's Faust was such a special thing, Goethe's Faust was not a play. That was the general opinion of those really bourgeois, quite high-standing circles. Yes, if you had worked and toiled all day, people said, you couldn't possibly sit down in the evening and read Goethe's Faust; Blumenthal was the right thing to read.

I'm just quoting! - Gradually, those things that have basically descended from this bourgeois mentality into the proletariat must disappear, and it is precisely those things in which the root causes of our actual decline are to be found that must disappear. They must be sought in the spiritual realm, and they must be remedied from the spiritual realm. Therefore, a true, honest spiritual science today cannot present itself to the world without also offering social impulses. And these social impulses must be understood from all possible perspectives in order to truly comprehend the current state of the world.

We must also mention here the rift that appeared in Central European spiritual life in the first half of the 19th century. Mr. Rudolf Meyer from Berlin pointed out this intellectual rift particularly clearly in his discussion of Herbart's pedagogy. At the same time, he hinted at all the forces of destruction associated with this rift, with this—in other words—intellectualization of, for example, the entire art of education. And it is true, this rift is there. Much has been quoted in recent years in Central Europe from Fichte and Goethe. It was always terrible when these things were quoted, because those who quoted them did not understand them, and those to whom they were quoted understood them even less, because this intellectual life has been buried. It must be revived. Today we have a spiritual life that appears one-sided throughout the world, but which is thoroughly imbued with what lived, for example, as a one-sided theory of evolution in Darwin, what lived in Spencer, in Huxley, and so on.

Yes, but, my dear friends, what are the thoughts that live in that natural science, in that science in general? Let us examine them impartially, and we will find what they are. The thoughts of today's contemporary scientists are precisely those thoughts which, I would say, belong only in economic life. If Herbert Spencer, Huxley, Darwin, and the others had become factory managers or heads of economic enterprises, then their thoughts would have been appropriate there. For under the peculiar constellation that exists, due to the special distribution of production, consumption, and trade, economic thinking has developed with particular refinement in the Western world. But this thinking has been, I would say, wrongly transferred to all kinds of scientific fields and all kinds of state affairs. It must remain in the area for which it is actually intended. On the other hand, we must find new paths for science. Those who are Darwinists and Spencerians have often seen nothing more in Goethe than a precursor of Darwin. In most of my writings, I have sharply opposed this view, always pointing out that all sorts of things may have been achieved in specific areas with what comes from Darwin and Spencer, but if we want to move forward, we must take up Goetheanism; we need something greater than the supposed insights of the second half of the 19th century. Thus, in all fields, we must learn to place ourselves in the course of human development by attempting to understand the working of the spiritual powers and forces in this course of human development from the spirit of anthroposophy.

Now I would like to address in particular, but I would like to say this so that the others can hear it too, those who are students, my dear fellow students who were here this time, and I would like to say only this to you: You see, my dear fellow students, we are still in a special situation today—I have already hinted at this to you in other places—we are still in a special situation in that we can only bring you what we believe will become great and significant in your souls, so that you may become our co-workers in the necessary striving for progress of humanity. We cannot give you degrees, offices, or dignities today as long as we cannot intervene more forcefully in what is also necessary, namely the emancipation of spiritual life from the state and from economic life. But only if we find a large number of people and human personalities of your kind who can see what possibilities for growth must lie in the spiritual-scientific endeavor as it is meant here, if we find personalities from your circles who are willing to fight alongside us truthfully and courageously and make the circle of fellow fighters ever larger, then the time will come when nothing will stand in the way of those who strive for life out of science, without coming up against the obstacles and hindrances of the outer world, standing firmly on the ground of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. And we would like to give ourselves over to the hope that you, who have been here this time to our deep satisfaction as the pioneers of our cause from among the student body, may be so happy that you will be able to advance in droves and ever-increasing numbers to strive in the direction of spiritual science. It is out of the heart we have here for spiritual science that we had to welcome you, and it is out of that heart that we will accompany you in your work for our cause when you now go out again into the world to your work, which at the same time should be, at least in some measure, a collaboration with our striving.

And those who have participated in what has been organized here this time, coming from the widest circles, will have convinced themselves that there is nothing here of a frivolous striving, nothing of any kind of preference or of what might arise from a not very deep sympathy for all kinds of mysticism and the like, but that there is something here that comes from those human depths where conscience grows for the great tasks of humanity.

My dear friends, because this is a beginning, may what we have achieved so far, however inadequate it may be — we can calmly admit that —, may it be as inadequate as it is, nothing could deter us from continuing on this path, not even if it were proven to us that it is inadequate — except perhaps if we found that others were striving better. Then we would gladly put our inadequacy aside and step back. But as long as we cannot find that others are striving better, it is our most sacred duty to strive in our own way, out of the conscience of the spirit of humanity. And it is in this spirit that we warmly welcomed you all here three weeks ago, and it is in this spirit that we speak to you today, as we wish to continue our work here, sending you our warmest farewell greetings, farewell greetings that mean that such events must increasingly give rise to strength for that which leads to the dawn of humanity, not to its impending twilight. We were glad that you were all there; we give ourselves to the hope that what has been initiated with this course may be repeated very often, that it may be repeated before more and more people. Above all, however, we give ourselves to the hope that what I called the completion of the building here at noon today may come into being. What is desired here will only be complete when those who have seen, heard, and felt here go out into the world and each continues to work in their own place according to their abilities. Then each will be a building block. Then that great edifice of spiritual life, artistic being, and social effectiveness will unfold, which we truly and urgently need today for the recovery of humanity.

With these feelings, dear friends, let us part today and hope that we will meet again here in the not too distant future to do something to make the building blocks necessary for this great edifice of humanity ever more suitable and effective.

With this in mind, I bid you a fond farewell from the bottom of my heart, from the hearts of all those who work honestly, truly, and sincerely for the cause symbolized by this building, where we have been able to spend some time together in the spirit of cooperation for the betterment of humanity.