World Mysteries and Theosophy

GA 54 — 2 March 1908, Hamburg

Spiritual Science and Social Issues

When people today hear the term “social issues,” they have a wide range of feelings, depending on their life situation and experience and on how seriously they are able to take life. And so it must be with an issue that should actually be of greater concern to people today than it actually is. This may seem paradoxical. Those who are directly affected by what the term “social question” encompasses are certainly concerned with it. However, those who are still spared from coming into direct contact with the underlying causes of the social question are still not thoroughly convinced that this question is something that every thinking person has an unconditional duty to address in our time. And those who live for the moment, who close their eyes to the demands of the day, may find that either they themselves or their descendants, precisely because of their ignorance, could have bad experiences. Even today, when people talk about the social question in the sense that our time must find a way out of the situation in which many people find themselves as a result of the way our social coexistence is structured, one often hears the words: there have always been rich and poor, there has always been a social question, as long as humanity has existed and strived. It is therefore not surprising that even in our time, those who are not blessed with good fortune express this in a more or less clear manner and want to fight to conquer what fate has not given them. There have always been rich and poor, those who are oppressed and those who are more or less blessed with good fortune. — With these words, one wants to brush aside the very peculiar and peculiar nature of the social question, to make it unclear. One points to the slave uprisings of antiquity, to the revolts of the Middle Ages, and to other events where the oppressed sought to obtain their rights, and comforts oneself with such phenomena.

Everyone today should know that what is currently called the social question is really something new in human life, that it is something completely different from similar movements in other periods of historical life. For those who are seeking a solution to the social question today are, above all, people within our social order who have only existed in this form, as they stand before us today, for a short time. The oppressive situation is at most a result of the last 120 to 130 years; it has been created by the current, infinitely significant advances in human culture. We see this progress emerging at the end of the 18th century, when those machines and so on sprang from the minds of our inventors. Since those times, since life has increasingly converged in industrial centers and cities, the wage laborer, the proletarian in today's sense of the word, has emerged. What we now call the social question cannot be separated from this class of people, which was actually created by the tremendous progress of human culture. The slave of antiquity only fought when he felt particularly oppressed, and he was not aware that any other social order could remedy his life and his oppression. The situation was similar in the Middle Ages. The modern proletarian, however, is increasingly demanding that it is not this or that individual issue that needs to be fought, but that only a thorough reform, perhaps even a complete upheaval of conditions, can change his situation. And this conviction has found enormous support among the working class, much greater support than those who close their eyes to it believe. It is sometimes quite astonishing to those who see through things that there are still people who do not take all these things seriously.

Now it might seem quite strange if, in the face of such a practical requirement of the day, in the face of such a question of life, someone comes along to illuminate it from the standpoint of spiritual science. Most people have the mental image that it is something impractical, the most impractical thing in the world, that it sprang from the minds of a few dreamers and deals with all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality. People hear that there is a world movement called spiritual science, which teaches about what exists in the world as supersensible and about the various beings that surround us, which underlie the human being's own supersensible nature. People also hear that this spiritual research speaks of many facts, such as repeated earthly lives and the great law of the spiritual causation of our actions and destinies. They hear that it leads up to all kinds of higher worlds and so on. It is easy to believe: What practical and useful knowledge can someone who deals with such things have about a question of life such as the social question!

But there is a special connection with practical life. We want to talk about this topic today, precisely to show how spiritual science only has real meaning when it is able to intervene in practical questions of life. We ask ourselves: What should we focus our attention on when we talk about social issues? — It is clear to see that social issues exist, and this is most evident to those who are concerned with life. We could point out that with the flourishing of our industry — especially in England — social conditions of the most terrible kind have arisen. For those who wanted to make industry fruitful for what they called their world, the only question was: How can labor be produced most cheaply? And so we see those excesses that have often been described, how industry produces strong shadows as well as strong light, and how the blessings of our machines, railroads, and steamships developed throughout the 19th century. But we also see how, as a result, people have to work, sometimes for hours on end, which undoubtedly exceeds all human capabilities. We know that it was not only adults who were kept working twelve, sixteen, eighteen, and twenty hours a day, and sometimes even longer, in the industries of England during the 19th century. People who are not directly affected simply do not know about these things. We also know that children of the most tender age were employed in factories in an almost unbelievable manner. We know how people became blind to the impossibility of such a thing.

We need only point to one fact, the fact that once in Parliament there was a debate about whether it was not outrageous that children were employed in industry for eighteen to nineteen hours a day, as was the case, and a doctor objected that under certain circumstances there was no other option! And when the gentleman was asked whether he did not consider a working day of twenty-four hours to be impossible, he replied: I am deeply convinced that the platitudes that are spoken in such matters should not always be taken seriously, and I am not in a position to specify any working hours below twenty-four hours that could in any way be described as detrimental to health. Such a thing characterizes much more than the fact itself the situation into which humanity has been brought by what is at the same time such a blessing for it. And who has not experienced in life, if he knows how to open his eyes, how sometimes even children of the most tender age, when they are sent to school, cannot learn anything, how all the efforts and ideals to make them human beings come to nothing because, as a result of social hardship, they are not equipped with the powers that are reasonably sufficient for a dignified existence.

It is not possible to describe the social hardship into which humanity has often been brought; that would require too many images to be conjured up. But we need only use what has been said for other purposes, only allow what you have seen to rise up in us as a feeling, and we will no longer be able to deny that one thing is certain: The great advances of the human spirit, those tremendous advances that have constructed machines and so forth, that have enveloped our entire earth with an unparalleled transportation network, this development of the human spirit has not, not at all, kept pace with another line of thought, with the thought about what is the best possible way for humans to live together. No one today would believe that a machine could construct itself, that no intellectual power, no mental power, had to be applied to bring the machine into being and create a transport system. But how many people today, even if they do not admit it, feel deep down that human coexistence should happen all by itself, that no mental power is needed to intervene in this mechanism, just as one intervenes in the mechanism of a factory?

Admittedly, one need not go as far as a great natural scientist of the 19th century, who said: Oh, humanity has made tremendous progress in knowledge and understanding of the world, but in terms of morality, humanity has not advanced one step! — One need not go that far, but what has just been said, that very few people who are not directly affected by social misery today feel the need to concern themselves with social issues, is an undeniable fact.

But if we look at those who are concerned with social issues or who should be concerned with them, what do we see? There is, for example, a book published not long ago by State Councilor Kolb: “As a Worker in America.” With tremendous selflessness and genuine dedication, this man took a break from his bureaucratic office and went to America. In order to get to know social life, he worked hard in a bicycle factory. I must say in advance—so that I am not exposed to the danger of being accused of unfairness in my assessment—that this man's deed is extremely commendable and cannot be valued highly enough. But let us now look at a single statement in this book. There is a sentence in this book that is characteristic enough, which reads: “How often in the past, when I saw a healthy man begging, did I ask with moral indignation: why doesn't that scoundrel work? — Now I knew.” So says the government official in question. “In theory,” he adds, “things look different than in practice, and even the most unpleasant categories of national economics are quite tolerable when dealt with at a desk.”

Well, one might say that a whole world of human feelings and human actions speaks from such a sentence. We have before us a man who has risen to a position that is outwardly referred to as a government official. He reveals that he knew so little about life that he called anyone who did not work a scoundrel, that he first had to leave his office and go far away to America to get to know the life for which he was supposed to give advice, to which his actions related. So you can study, achieve an excellent position, and still need such a thing! You don't have eyes to see to the left and right, you know nothing about life. That is possible!

When we become aware of this, we may ask ourselves whether it could be that certain things are so bad because some of those who matter spurn getting to know life. There is much talk today about all kinds of improvements, proposals, and things that should be put in place. They must be put in place by people. Shouldn't there be a slight difference between things put in place by people who understand something about life and people who admit in such a grandiose way that they understand nothing? What good is all this talk if one does not realize that what matters is who is talking about it and whether the person talking about it knows anything. How much of what buzzes through life could be completely empty chatter, and how much of what is empty chatter could actually be put into practice and come to life? — The question is certainly justified. But there are many who are thinking about the social question today; far too many, if we take the question more seriously, if we consider what is necessary to understand something really useful about this question. Today, there are a whole series of people who say: the moment conditions improve, the moment conditions are changed, people's lives and their situation will also improve. We know that above all, perhaps the most widespread and comprehensive social theory of the present, socialism itself, also takes this position. We know that it always emphasizes: Oh, don't come to us with all kinds of suggestions about how people should improve, how people should behave! Don't come to us with all kinds of moral demands! What matters, they emphasize, is simply to improve conditions.

This can be symptomatically countered by a do-gooder who appears in various places in Germany with his social theories, who always says: Yes, people claim that people must first become better if conditions are to improve. But, he says, everything depends on humanity being placed in the right conditions. — And he also tells how, here and there, taverns were restricted and how, as a result, there were actually fewer drunkards in such places, and a number of people were better off as a result. He then preaches to the workers that love of humanity and mutual brotherhood are empty phrases. Everything depends on creating such working and living conditions that everyone has a comfortable existence, then the moral state on earth would come about by itself.

Well, you know that socialism is largely based on such a view. This is nothing other than a consequence of the materialism of our time, a materialism that, unlike spiritual science, is unable to look into the inner life of human beings and recognize that all conditions, insofar as they are relevant to the social order, are created by human beings, are the result of human thoughts and feelings, but believes that human beings are a product of external circumstances. This belief is extremely paralyzing for a fruitful consideration of social life. It is paralyzing, and we do not want to provide any theoretical proof for this today, but rather we want to provide historical evidence.

If anyone was suited to be a social reformer, it was Robert Owen at the turn of the 18th to the 19th century. He had two virtues that enabled him to intervene in social life from his point of view: an open mind to industrial progress and to the damage, human welfare, and human happiness that this progress brings. He had an open mind and an open heart for human suffering, and on the other hand, he had the goodwill and initiative to provide at least a number of people with a dignified existence. He lived in a materialistic age and was therefore, like so many others, initially dependent on the theory that all that was needed was to bring about the right conditions in order to develop a thoroughly moral humanity. And so he founded a small colony in America that could be called exemplary in every respect, if the conditions had been right. He had guaranteed people a dignified existence through external institutions. Among hard-working and ambitious people, he had degenerates who were to be inspired by the example of the former to become decent human beings. This resulted in a model economy, which in turn gave its creator the idea of trying the same thing on a larger scale. Then came the second colony, which was just as practical and philanthropic. But he, who had not only theorized that changing conditions would bring about the improvement of the human condition, had to experience the disappointment that we characterize with his own words. Because people were not ready for the conditions, he wrote: What good is any improvement in conditions if general customs and general knowledge are not first elevated? First, it is important to enlighten people internally, especially about their spiritual powers; only then can we think about the social question being solved in a manner worthy of it.

This is the judgment of a practitioner, not a theorist, and in a certain sense it is characteristic of how little humanity learns from facts that, despite this disappointment, the same theories are repeatedly asserted. But anyone who is able to look a little deeper into the souls of the people of our time will know that such an individual phenomenon is connected with the development of human souls in the present in general. Whether one admits it or not, the basic conviction today is that anything can be done if external circumstances are changed and if damage that threatens humanity is quickly remedied by legislation. These are the basic convictions of our time. And when we see, for example, that laws are repeatedly motivated by the argument that inexperienced humanity must not be left at the mercy of this or that group of people, then we fail to realize that we have a completely different task than making laws, namely to educate inexperienced humanity so that it can be self-determined in its actions.

It is not easy to shift one's gaze from conditions to people. But this is the task of spiritual science. It shifts our focus completely away from conditions and entirely toward people. Let us ask ourselves, in relation to all the things that surround us as conditions and circumstances: Where do these circumstances and conditions come from? — Insofar as they are not imposed by nature, they are the result of human feeling and thinking. What are conditions today were thoughts and impulses of will of people who lived before. And circumstances are as they are because people have made them so. If we want to create better conditions, then above all we must learn more, we must develop better thoughts and feelings and impulses of will. But if we look around at social theorists, even the most radical ones, such as social democrats, we see that most of these theories do not go beyond what people have always thought. They spring from the same thoughts and impulses that gave rise to our circumstances and led to our situation. We must be able to have people who know life and understand the forces behind it. What was Robert Owen lacking? He had to admit it himself: knowledge of human nature! You can never get to know people if you establish a worldview that focuses only on the external. As soon as one's view is clouded by materialism, focusing only on the outer human being, as soon as one does not know what lies behind this physical body and thus does not acquire the ability to look behind the scenes, so to speak, one is completely incapable, truly incapable, of understanding anything about the forces that direct and guide life. But that is precisely the task of spiritual knowledge. It must be admitted that today it does not fulfill its task everywhere to the right degree; it must be admitted that within the circles that seek it, the highest questions of existence are often played with. That is not what matters, but rather what spiritual research can be for us. And it can be more than just something that teaches us, that gives us dogmas; it can be a powerful education of our innermost soul forces. That is the best that can be gained from spiritual science, if we consider the spiritual scientific worldview from the point of view of what it can do for people. Then the picture presents itself as follows.

We have been able to talk here about the views that spiritual research has on the most diverse areas of life. We have been able to talk about its teachings on this and that. But that is not what we want to talk about. Anyone who becomes acquainted with spiritual science will notice one thing: in one important respect, it differs from everything else that is theory today. And that is important. Today, in most cases, people are quick to form a worldview, and they prefer to have a well-rounded picture of the world as soon as possible. Those familiar with the circumstances know that many materialists are often materialists for the sole reason that they do not think very deeply, that they think in short terms. And materialism makes it easy, very easy, for its adherents. It is easy to understand and comprehend the structure of the world from purely material facts, especially when illustrated with photographs showing how human beings have developed. One need only stare at them and one can follow the entire course of world development from the mental images one is accustomed to in everyday life. It is easy to follow what materialists say about the mysteries of the world because one's thoughts do not become entangled and no special demands are made.

It is not that simple with spiritual science. It does not make things easy for people, because it starts from the real and true premise that the world is profound in its mysteries and that one must make an effort, one must delve deeply into the nature of things if one wants to understand the world. And so what spiritual research has to say about becoming human and human beings, about becoming worlds and world beings, is something that entangles our thoughts in the most manifold ways, sometimes forcing us to delve into minutiae, sometimes leading us to the greatest vistas of humanity. But this has a certain consequence, and we can speak openly about this consequence. It trains the mind and prepares us to understand this complicated human life when we encounter it in individual cases. Some will say: The worlds that spiritual science describes have made me quite dizzy. — Yes, is that a bad sign for spiritual science? It would be better if this way of looking at things did not make people dizzy, but rather invigorated and strengthened them, so that they would be ready to grasp life with strong soul forces. But this is how practical mental images of the world and life are: when a person thinks briefly about the mysteries of the world, they also think briefly about the social order. And so we see that what famous people think today about social issues is a fairly accurate mental image of what is offered to us as a materialistic worldview, incapable of penetrating the depths of life. At the same time, everyone has the vague feeling that what causes them difficulty is some kind of fantastical, dreamlike stuff, and that spiritual knowledge must be something fantastical, dreamlike, or at least quite idealistic, and in any case unsuitable for truly practical purposes in life. More than a hundred years ago, Fichte said to his students in Jena: Those practical people who always find comprehensive ideas impractical because ideas and ideals are not always applicable in life only prove that they were not counted on in the plan of creation. May a benevolent providence give them sunshine, food, and wise thoughts. — Fichte also spoke about the inability of some people to form a mental image of the spirituality of the self: “Most people would find it easier to imagine themselves as a piece of lava on the moon than as a self.” But it is a necessity of life to form a mental image of the self.

If we look at life and social issues from this perspective, then we must say we regard spiritual science as the great school of life, which makes it impossible for someone to go through life, attain a certain position, even become an advisor or consultant in life, and then have to go far, far away on vacation to get to know life, so as to no longer be convinced that anyone who does not work is a good-for-nothing. Spiritual science makes such a thing impossible.

Therefore, we are not merely speaking from a spiritual standpoint, from some views on the relationship between spiritual science and socialism, but we are speaking of something else. We regard spiritual science as a real thing, not just as a sum of dogmas, but as something that gives knowledge and wisdom, and indeed such knowledge and wisdom that flows into our immediate life at every moment and opens our eyes so that we are equal to this life. Thus, spiritual knowledge is the general basis for every judgment, whether we are judging in the field of social life or that of education. Our judgment becomes healthier because it springs from true human nature when we start from spiritual scientific points of view. We say that first one must be imbued with what spiritual research can give, then one will come to a correct judgment oneself. Someone might ask: How does a follower of spiritual science think that this or that parliamentarian should judge a question if, in his opinion, he has judged it wrongly? From a spiritual point of view, this is not the right question to ask. Rather, it must be said that it is not a matter of telling someone how to think, but rather of being convinced that, once they are imbued with fundamental truths, they will arrive at a clear judgment in every position. We do not dictate his judgment to him, but he will find the right judgment. In this respect, spiritual science is the most liberal principle of life that can exist. It does not dogmatize, but presents people with the opportunity to always have their own healthy, free judgment in all matters.

Circumstances — as we have assumed — are often regarded as something that could make people different, and people think abstractly about how circumstances can be changed. Spiritual science deals solely with the real human soul, with circumstances between human beings. Now, it would be quite impossible today to go into individual concrete matters relating to the social question. However, we can point out this or that if we want to find the building blocks that show us the way to intervene in the right way in our lives. For it is up to each of us to intervene. If we want to find the building blocks, then we must ask ourselves: What is the fundamental fact, the basic phenomenon, on which all misery, all social suffering in the world, depends? Spiritual knowledge can show us this fundamental fact by presenting us with a reality that is not understood or recognized by the majority of people today. This fact is connected with a fundamental phenomenon of all development. To put it bluntly, it shows us, through a deeper observation of life, that hardship, suffering, and misery do not depend solely — and least of all, when you get to the bottom of it — on external circumstances, but on a certain state of mind and, in connection with this, on its external effects.

The practitioner who thinks himself very clever will find this ridiculous. But it is the most practical thing thing in life, which cannot be emphasized enough. It is the statement that you will become more and more convinced of, that hardship, misery, and suffering are nothing more than a consequence of selfishness. We must understand this statement as a law of nature, not in the sense that hardship and suffering must always occur when an individual is selfish, but that suffering—perhaps in a completely different place—is nevertheless connected to this selfishness. Like cause and effect, selfishness is connected to hardship and suffering. In human life, in the social order of mankind, selfishness leads to the struggle for existence. The struggle for existence is the real starting point for hardship and suffering, insofar as they are social. Now, based on our current way of thinking, there is a conviction that makes what is now being claimed seem downright absurd. Why? Because today we are convinced that a large part, indeed the vast majority, of human life must be based on selfishness. Although people do not want to admit this in words and theories, in practice they will soon admit it. They admit it in the following way. They say: It is quite natural that people should be rewarded for their work, that people should personally receive the fruits of their labor — and yet this is nothing more than the implementation of egoism in national economic life. We live under selfishness as soon as we live by the principle: We must be personally rewarded; what I work for must be paid to me. — The truth is so far removed from this idea that it seems completely nonsensical. Anyone who wants to convince themselves of the truth about selfishness should take a closer look at all kinds of universal laws. They would have to thoughtfully consider the question of whether work that is personally rewarded as such is really what sustains life, whether this work is what matters. It is strange to raise this question. But only when we think about it will we be able to shed light on the social question.

Imagine — this is a paradoxical comparison — a person transported to an island. He should provide for himself there alone. You will say: He must work! — But he must not only work, that is not what matters, something must be added to his work. And if the work is merely work, then under certain circumstances it can be absolutely useless for his life. Imagine that the person on the island did nothing but throw stones for a fortnight. That would be strenuous work, and according to ordinary human standards, he could earn quite a lot of money for it. Nevertheless, this work has nothing to do with life. Work is only life-promoting and has value if something else is added to it. If this work involves cultivating the earth and the earth yields produce, then work has something to do with life. Even in lower beings, we see that work is separate from production. Thus, we see a possibility of arriving at the tremendously important proposition that work as such has no meaning for life, but only that which is wisely directed. Through wisdom imparted by humans, that which serves humanity must be brought forth and created. Not understood in the smallest detail, today's social thinking sins against this statement. And it is not a matter of anyone coming up with beautiful abstract theories, but real progress depends on each individual learning to think in a social sense. Today's thinking is often antisocial. It is antisocial, for example, when someone is outside on a Sunday afternoon and says, inspired by the occasion: I am going to write twenty postcards. It is right and socially minded to know and feel that these twenty cards will cause so many postmen to climb so many stairs. It is socially minded to know that every action one takes has an effect in life. But now someone comes along and says that he thinks socially insofar as he realizes that writing cards means that more mail carriers have to be employed and fed. — That is like thinking about what to build to create jobs when there is unemployment. But it is not a matter of creating work, but of ensuring that people's work is used solely to create valuable goods.

If you think this through to its ultimate consequences, it no longer seems so strange when the age-old saying of spiritual science is uttered, which today sounds as incomprehensible as possible: In social coexistence, the motivation to work must never lie in the individual's own personality, but solely in devotion to the whole. — This is often emphasized, but never understood in such a way that it is clear that misery and hardship arise from the fact that the individual wants to be rewarded for what he has worked for. But it is true that real social progress is only possible if I do what I earn in the service of the whole, and if the whole gives me what I need, in other words, if what I work for does not serve myself. Social progress depends solely on the recognition of this principle, that one does not want the fruits of one's labor in the form of personal remuneration. Someone who knows that they should not have anything for themselves from what they earn, but that they owe work to the social community and that, conversely, they should not claim anything for themselves, but limit their existence solely to what the social community gives them, will pursue very different goals. As absurd as this may seem to many today, it is true. Our life today is marked by the opposite sign: the sign that people want to claim more and more, as they say, the full fruits of their labor. As long as thinking continues in this direction, we will find ourselves in increasingly worse situations.

This antisocial thinking leads to a shift in all concepts. Consider how widespread socialism speaks of exploiters and the exploited. Who is the exploiter and who is the exploited when we think clearly? Let us look at the person who works for a pittance to make a garment. Who is his exploiter? It could be the person who buys the garment and pays a very low price for it. Is it only the rich who buy this garment? Doesn't the same worker who complains about exploitation buy this same cheap garment? And doesn't he demand today, within the social order, that it should be as cheap as possible? See how the manual laborer, who works all week with bloody fingers, can wear the dress on Sunday for a cheap price because another person's labor is being exploited! With clear thinking, this has nothing to do with wealth or poverty, but solely with what our world's mental image of human beings is. Now, someone could easily say: if you demand that a person's existence should be independent of their performance, then the ideal is most beautifully fulfilled in the civil servant. Today's civil servant is independent. The measure of their existence does not depend on the products they produce, but on what is considered necessary for their existence. — Certainly, but such an objection really has a very big flaw. What matters is that each individual is able, in complete freedom, to respect this principle and put it into practice in their life. What does not matter is that this principle is enforced by general force. This principle, which makes what has been personally acquired and what is to be acquired independent of what one works for the whole, must prevail in the life of each individual. And how does it prevail?

There is only one way it can prevail, one that will seem quite impractical to the so-called practitioner. There must be reasons why people work, and work diligently and devotedly, if self-interest is no longer the driving force behind their work. Those who patent their achievements, thereby showing that they consider self-interest to be the most important thing in life, do not in truth create anything real in relation to social life. But those who are guided solely by love in their efforts to achieve something worthwhile, by love for all humanity, to whom they gladly and willingly give their work, are truly creating something for life. Thus, the impulse to work must lie in something quite different from remuneration. And that is the solution to the social question: the separation of remuneration from work. For that is a worldview that appeals to the spirit in order to awaken such impulses in human beings that they no longer say: If only my existence is secure, then I can also be lazy. The only way to achieve this is through a worldview that appeals to the spirit. In the long run, all materialism will lead solely to the opposite.

Now someone might say: That's a nice little sample of the social question; that's quite cute! Haven't we always preached that people are selfish and that we have to reckon with their selfishness? And now the spiritual worldview comes along and says that things can be different. — Well, it has certainly always been preached that it could not be otherwise, and people have taken credit for this and said: He is a true practitioner who counts on human egoism. — Certainly, but unfortunately, people's thinking does not turn the tables here. For those who blame everything on circumstances, who blame everything on institutions, must at least admit that because circumstances have been as they have been up to now, this drive and impulse has also entered into human beings. But that is where their thinking falls short. For otherwise they would have to say: Yes, under all circumstances, a completely different environment will be created when the mental image becomes established that it is indecent to base everything on personal self-interest. — Materialism becomes inconsistent even with its own premises.

We must realize that the impulses that can be given by spiritual science have never before been attempted in human development. In this respect, it is a new spiritual movement, and it will have the power to work into the innermost depths of the soul, because it goes into the innermost depths of the world. Only a worldview that goes into the innermost depths and brings forth the truth there can show us the true face of the world. It is never right that we can become bad through true knowledge when we see the true face of the world. It is true that evil in human beings can only come from error, from delusion. Therefore, spiritual science, based on the knowledge of human nature, builds on the idea that through it, we will achieve what the noble Owen was so mistaken about. He says: It is necessary that people first be enlightened, that morals be improved. But spiritual knowledge says: Emphasizing this principle alone is not enough; the means must be provided whereby the soul can be ennobled. For when souls are ennobled and sharpened by a worldview that reaches into the spiritual, then the conditions and external circumstances, which are always a reflection of what human beings think, will follow. People are not determined by circumstances, but insofar as circumstances are social, these circumstances are created by people. If people suffer from circumstances, they actually suffer from what their fellow human beings inflict on them. And all the misery that has come about through industrial development—as those who seek the truth must admit—came solely from the fact that people did not consider it necessary to apply the same power of mind that they applied to beneficial external progress to improving the lot of those people who are needed to transform this progress.

Whatever you have studied in your external life, study the laws of human coexistence just as diligently! But when people live together, it is not only bodies that live together, but also souls and spirits. Therefore, only spiritual science can be the basis for any social worldview. And so we see that what the deepening of the spirit offers us can indeed bring each of us what enables us to contribute to the great social progress from our humble position within our sphere. For this progress will not be achieved by abstract measures, but is the sum of what the individual soul does. And a worldview such as that of spiritual science is the only one that approaches the individual soul in such a way that it truly elevates that soul above itself. If our social misery has its cause in personal self-interest, in our position in our social orders, then only a worldview that lifts the ego above personal self-interest can help. Strange as it may seem, nourishment does not come solely from our work; nourishment, instead of hardship, suffering, and misery, comes from spiritual scientific deepening. Spiritual science is a means of giving people nourishment and prosperity in the true sense of the word.

And so, even in our changed circumstances, what Goethe said about true liberation from all the obstacles and misfortunes of life remains truly valid. Goethe says in his poem “The Secrets”:

From the power that binds all beings,
The person who overcomes himself is liberated.

And this sentence, which Goethe said about the individual human being, also applies to humanity insofar as this human being is a social being: And from the power that binds all beings, those people who overcome themselves liberate the world.