I. The Nature of Anthroposophy

Since the earliest times, it has been felt that the study of the human being is the most worthy pursuit of human research. Anyone who allows themselves to be influenced by what has come to light over time as knowledge of the human being can easily become discouraged. A wealth of opinions presents itself as answers to the question: what is the human being, and what is his relationship to the universe? The most diverse differences between these opinions arise in contemplation. This can lead to the feeling that man is not called to such research and that he must refrain from achieving anything that can give satisfaction to the feeling mentioned.

Is such a feeling justified? It could only be so if the perception of different views on a subject were a testimony to man's inability to recognize anything true about the subject. Anyone who wanted to accept such a testimony would have to believe that the whole essence of a thing should suddenly reveal itself to man, if knowledge could be spoken of at all. But it is not the case with human knowledge that the essence of things can suddenly reveal itself to it. It is rather the case with it, as with the picture that one paints, for example, of a tree from a certain side or photographs. This picture gives the appearance of the tree, from a certain point of view, in full truth. If one chooses a different point of view, the picture will be quite different. And only a series of pictures, from the most diverse points of view, can give an overall idea of the tree through their interaction.

In this way, however, man can also only look at the things and entities of the world. Everything he can say about them, he must say as views that apply from different points of view. It is not only so with the sensory observation of things, it is also so in the spiritual. With regard to the latter, one should not be misled by the above comparison and imagine that the diversity of points of view has something to do with space. Each view can be a true one if it faithfully reflects what is observed. And it is only refuted when it is shown that it can legitimately be contradicted by another view given from the same point of view. A difference between one view and another given from a different point of view, on the other hand, is as a rule meaningless. Anyone who views the matter in this way is protected against the obvious objection that every opinion must appear justified when viewed in this way. Just as the image of a tree must have a very specific shape from one point of view, so must a mental view from one point of view. But it is clear that one can only prove an error in the view if one is clear about the point of view from which it is given.

We should get along much better in the world of human opinions than we often do if we always kept this in mind. One would then realize how the differences of opinion in many cases arise only from the diversity of points of view. And only through different true views can one approach the essence of things. The mistakes that are made in this direction do not arise from the fact that people form different views, but rather from the fact that each person wants to see his view as the only legitimate one.

An objection to all this presents itself easily. One could say that if man wants to present the truth, he should not give an opinion, but rise above possible opinions to an overall view of a corresponding thing. This demand may sound acceptable. But it is not realizable. For what a thing is must be characterized from different points of view. The chosen image of the tree being painted from different points of view seems appropriate. Anyone who wants to avoid looking at the different images in order to gain an overall picture might end up painting something very blurry and foggy; but there would be no truth in such a blurry picture. Nor can truth be gained by a knowledge that wants to encompass the object with a single glance, but only by combining the true views that are given from different points of view. This may not correspond to human impatience; but it corresponds to the facts that one learns to recognize when one develops a meaningful striving for knowledge.

Few things can lead so strongly to a genuine appreciation of truth as such a striving for knowledge. And this appreciation may be called genuine because it cannot be followed by faintheartedness. It does not lead to despair in the striving for truth, because it recognizes truth as such in limitation; but it protects against the empty arrogance that, in its possession of truth, believes it can encompass the comprehensive essence of things.

Those who take this sufficiently into account will find it understandable that, in particular, knowledge of man should be sought in such a way that one tries to approach his nature from different points of view. One such point of view shall be chosen for the following remarks. It shall be characterized as one that lies between two others, as it were, in the middle. And it is not to be asserted that there are not many other points of view besides the three considered here. But the three shall be chosen here as particularly characteristic.

The first aspect to be considered in this regard is anthropology. This science collects everything that can be observed about humans and seeks to gain insights into their nature from the results of its observations. For example, it considers the structure of the sensory organs, the shape of the bone structure, the conditions of the nervous system, the processes of muscle movement, etc. With her methods, she penetrates into the finer structure of the organs and seeks to learn about the conditions of feeling, of imagining, etc. She also investigates the similarity of the human being to the animal and seeks to gain an idea of the relationship between humans and other living beings. She goes further and examines the living conditions of primitive peoples, who appear to be lagging behind in their development compared to civilized peoples. From what she observes in such peoples, she forms ideas about what the more developed peoples were once like, which have progressed beyond the level of education at which those remained. She studies the remains of prehistoric people in the layers of the earth and forms concepts about how cultural development has progressed. She examines the influence of climate, the seas, and other geographical conditions on human life. It seeks to gain an understanding of the conditions of racial development, of the life of nations, of legal conditions, the development of writing, of languages, etc. The name anthropology is used here for the entire physical study of man; it includes not only what is often counted in the narrower sense, but also the morphology, biology, etc. of man.

At present, anthropology generally keeps within the limits that are now considered to be those of scientific methods. It has compiled an enormous amount of factual material. Despite the different types of representations in which this material is summarized, it contains something that can have the most beneficial effect on the knowledge of human nature. And this material is constantly growing. It corresponds to the views of the present time to place great hopes in what can be gained from this side in elucidating the human riddle. And it is quite natural that many consider the point of view of anthropology to be as certain as they must regard the next one to be characterized here as doubtful.

This other point of view is that of theosophy. Whether this term is fortunate or unfortunate is not to be examined here. It is only a second point of view in relation to the anthropological view of man that is to be characterized. Theosophy assumes that man is above all a spiritual being. And it seeks to recognize him as such. It bears in mind that the human soul not only reflects and processes things and events perceived by the senses, but that it is capable of leading a life of its own, which receives its stimuli and content from a source that can be called spiritual. It relies on the fact that man can penetrate into a spiritual realm just as he penetrates into a sensory one. In the latter, man's knowledge expands as he focuses his senses on more and more things and processes, and forms his ideas on the basis of these. In the spiritual realm, however, knowledge advances differently. The observations are made in inner experience. A sensual object presents itself to man; a spiritual experience arises within, as if rising from the center of the human being itself. As long as a person cherishes the belief that such an ascent can only be an inner matter of the soul, so long must Theosophy be highly doubtful to him. For such a belief is not far from the other, which assumes that such experiences are only further inner workings of what has been observed by the senses. It is only possible to persist in such a belief as long as one has not yet obtained the conviction through compelling reasons that from a certain point on, the inner experiences, like the sensory facts, are determined by something that is an external world to the human personality. Once one has obtained this conviction, then one must recognize a spiritual external world just as one recognizes a physical one. And then it will be clear to everyone that man is connected with a spiritual world in relation to his spiritual nature, just as he is rooted in a physical world through his physical nature. It will then also be understood that materials for the knowledge of man can be taken from this spiritual world, just as anthropology takes materials for the physical man from physical observation. Then the possibility of research in the spiritual world will no longer be doubted. The spiritual researcher transforms his soul experience in such a way that the spiritual world enters into his soul experiences. He shapes certain soul experiences in such a way that this spiritual world reveals itself in them. (How this happens is described by the writer of this sketch in his book: “How to Know Higher Worlds?” Berlin, Philosophisch-theosophischer Verlag.) This kind of inner life can be called “clairvoyant consciousness.” But one must keep far from this concept all the nonsense that is done in the present with the word “clairvoyance”.

To arrive at inner experience in such a way that these or those facts of the spiritual world reveal themselves directly to the soul requires long, arduous, and self-denying soul-searching. But it would be a fatal mistake to believe that only those who experience spiritual realities directly through such soul-searching can reap the fruits of their soul-searching. The case is quite different. When spiritual facts have been revealed through the appropriate soul-searching exercises, they are, as it were, conquered for the human soul. When the spiritual researcher communicates them after having found them, they can be understood by every person who listens to them with a healthy sense of truth and unprejudiced logic. One should not believe that only a clairvoyant consciousness can have a well-founded conviction of the facts of the spiritual world. Every soul is tuned to recognize the truth of what the spiritual researcher has found. If the spiritual researcher wants to assert something that is untrue, this will always be ascertainable through the rejection of the healthy sense of truth and unbiased logic.

The direct experience of spiritual knowledge requires complicated soul paths and soul activities; possession of such knowledge is necessary for every soul that wants to have a full consciousness of its humanity. And without such consciousness, a human life is no longer possible from a certain point of existence.

Even if Theosophy is able to provide knowledge that satisfies the most important needs of the human soul, and that can be recognized by the natural sense of truth and by sound logic, there will always be a certain gap between it and anthropology. It will always be possible to show the results of Theosophy regarding the spiritual essence of man and then be able to point out how anthropology confirms everything that Theosophy says. But there will be a long way from one field of knowledge to the other.

But it is possible to fill the gap. In a certain respect, this is done here by sketching an anthroposophy. If anthropology can be compared to the observations of a wanderer who walks from place to place and from house to house in the plain in order to gain an idea of the nature of a region; if theosophy resembles the overview that can be gained from the summit of a hill over the the same district: then anthroposophy is to be compared with the view that one can have from the slope of the hill, where the individual is still in front of one's eyes, but the manifold is already beginning to merge into a whole.

Anthroposophy will observe the human being as he presents himself to physical observation. But it will cultivate observation in such a way that the physical fact is used to seek out the reference to a spiritual background. In this way, anthroposophy can lead from anthropology to theosophy.

It should be noted that only a very brief sketch of anthroposophy is intended here. A detailed presentation would require a great deal. The sketch is intended to take into account only the physical body of man, insofar as this is a revelation of the spiritual. And within these limits, anthroposophy is meant in the narrower sense. It must then be followed by a psychosophy, which considers the soul, and a pneumatosophy, which deals with the spirit. In this way, anthroposophy leads into theosophy itself.