# 41. Isn't the Word “Theosophy” Misleading?

The question is: “Isn't the word ‘theosophy’ misleading? If translated literally, it would mean ‘wisdom about God’. However, what is usually called theosophy is not concerned with the actual science of God, but with the nature of man, reincarnation, karma and so on.”

The word is not misleading if it is understood correctly. It does not mean “science of God”. Theosophy differs from ordinary science not in the subject matter it deals with, but in the way it arrives at its ideas. Man is a dual being and his knowledge is also twofold. He is divided into a transient and an eternal essence. The sense organs belong to the transitory nature of man. What he recognizes through them therefore also belongs to the transitory world. And when the mind deals with the experiences of these sense organs, combines them, seeks to investigate their laws, etc., it is also dealing with the transitory. In this sense, ordinary science deals only with the transitory. All botany, physiology, history, etc., which come about in this way, belong to the realm of the transitory. In them, the transitory part of man recognizes. Now, an immortal part also lives in this man. This can be awakened within. This happens when a person works on himself in such a way that his inner senses are awakened. He then gains insights into the supersensible world just as the outer eyes gain insights into the sensible world. It is therefore no longer a matter of knowledge in the sense of ordinary science, but of knowledge in a completely different state, into which a person places himself through inner development. He then does not need to recognize other objects, but he views the same objects that are dealt with in ordinary science in a different way. Science, for example, deals with plants, that is, through them, the mortal human being describes what he has around him as the plant world. Theosophy also deals with plants, but through them, the immortal part of the human being directs the awakened higher senses to the plant world. The theosophical observations are therefore meant from a different point of view than those of ordinary science. The part of human nature that is imperishable, that is, that has a share in the supersensible world, is called the divine essence in man. In theosophy, therefore, it is not the perishable but the “inner”, the “divine man” who recognizes. It is not what it treats, but how it treats things that distinguishes theosophy from ordinary science. It is the wisdom that has come about in human nature through divine power.

Thus, Theosophy can never contradict the results of external science. For both initially proceed side by side. However, it is natural that Theosophy must also illuminate all facts in its own way, which are otherwise the subject of ordinary science, for example, the facts that are perceived through the microscope, or the phenomena of the starry sky. It does not then say anything about them that can contradict the perceptions of the natural scientist, but rather what results from these perceptions when the awakened inner sense observes them. What then comes out through them can contradict science just as little as the statements of a seeing person about an object can contradict the information that a blind person makes about this object on the basis of the sense of touch. If scientists were willing to understand this, they would no longer fight against the theosophical worldview. They would realize that they cannot reject its results any more than a blind person can reject the information of a sighted person about the world of colors. But scientists are intolerant in this regard. They do not want to remain in their own field and allow others to do the same, but simply declare: What we see is the only truth, and what is not investigated in our way is error, unscientific. Therefore one can hear it said: What Theosophy teaches are fantastic ideas, because in the sense of our science such things simply do not exist. But it is not considered that the one who knows nothing about the inner senses cannot judge the results of Theosophy. At least one truth should be admitted, that is, that a person who does not perceive something cannot decide about it, but only the person who perceives it. If a thousand natural scientists say: this is superstition, because we do not see anything of it, that weighs nothing against a single person who has seen the corresponding thing.

Or else, it is also said that theosophy speaks of things that exceed the human capacity for knowledge. Man cannot know anything about them. To this the theosophist has the answer: How can anyone speak of the limits of the capacity for knowledge? He cannot know more than that he does not *notice* a higher capacity for knowledge in himself. But can he then conclude from this that others do not have such a capacity either? Can anyone claim to be the sole absolute standard for all human knowledge? If only people would stick to what *they* recognize as positive and not try to draw conclusions about others! No one should try to determine where human knowledge ends. For each one can only say how far his own knowledge extends. A little episode will be related here which is quite suitable for shedding light on all this. When Eduard von Hartmann's “Philosophy of the Unconscious” (1868) appeared, a great campaign was launched against it by natural scientists. In particular, it was the supporters of a certain way of thinking, which was linked to the name of Darwin, who found Hartmann's explanations of the nature of animals and humans from a Darwinian point of view to be completely unscientific. Hartmann was considered by them to be an absolute ignoramus of all “recent scientific achievements” and his teachings to be the product of crass unscientific behavior.

Among the numerous opposing writings against the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” was one by a man who initially did not give his name: “The Unconscious from the Perspective of the Theory of Descent and Darwinism”. It was a brilliant refutation of Hartmann's teachings. The opposing natural scientists were delighted to have this new ally. There were some among them who declared that they could never have said anything better themselves, for the unknown author had forcefully emphasized everything that they themselves had on their minds against Hartmann's dilettantism. Others said that the unknown author should reveal his identity, as they considered him to be one of their own. After some time, a second edition of the work, which was so welcome to the natural scientists, appeared. Now the author gave his name. It was Eduard von Hartmann. Whatever one may think of Hartmann's philosophy, one thing was irrefutably established by it: Hartmann could say everything that the natural scientists had to say against him, that he was superior to them all. People should learn from such examples. They should understand that objections may have no value at all under certain circumstances. Such objections can always be made by the person who has taken a higher standpoint and then lowers himself to a lower one. No theosophist will deny that his assertions can be objected to from the standpoint of sensual science, if the scientist in question takes the intolerant standpoint that everything that is not evident to him is nonsense. Every theosophist who is truly at the height of his position can say to himself everything that opponents from a non-theosophical point of view would say. Just as Hartmann was able to present what non-philosophers had to object to him. - If the theosophist takes the position of the ordinary scientist and disregards the insights of the higher senses, then his assertions will be no less scientific than those of the official representatives of science. — Researchers should talk less about what “man” cannot know, but instead remain aware of the limits of their own knowledge. Communication between theosophy and natural science will be easy at the moment when natural scientists stop regarding themselves as infallible judges in all matters about which they have not researched.

It may be admitted that many natural scientists do this in theory; but in the practice of their behavior there is something quite different. They are mostly unaware that this is the case. Due to their way of thinking, they speak about the things of their subject as if the positions of their sensory knowledge made any kind of supersensible research impossible. In many cases, the stumbling block is not *what* they say, but *how* they say it. That is why our natural scientists should familiarize themselves with the results of theosophy. Their whole manner would then change. There would be something in the tone of their observations that would make it impossible for the observations of purely external reality to be repeatedly perceived as a contradiction to theosophy and to have this effect on the public.