Art and Anthroposophy The Goetheanum Impulse: Summer Art Course 1921

GA 77b — 26 August 1921, Dornach

Dear attendees,A very serious philosopher, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, spoke from his deepest insight the sentence: What kind of philosophy you choose depends on what kind of person you are. - For a philosophy that wants to talk about moral and ethical, moral-social aspects from its own field, such a sentence is, if you look more closely, downright devastating. For if, in its highest realizations, which are supposed to be the philosophical ones, one only reflects what one already is as a moral and social human being, then philosophy, world view, cannot possibly provide impulses for morality and the social. And anyone who takes such a sentence seriously will have to ask themselves the important question: How can knowledge, how can a body of knowledge have any kind of impelling effect on the moral, on the social life? For in our time, scientific thinking, which permeates all the life forces of human beings, would indeed like to have a certain authoritative effect on the moral and social life. This question seems to me to have a very special significance for our time, and to an even greater extent for anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. For anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to be an active force in life. And how could it become one if it could not find any impulses for morality, for social life, which arguably include the greatest problems of our present time. Again and again, however, one is referred to the special nature of today's scientific spirit when such a question is raised.

This scientific spirit, it would like to develop in a way that actually contradicts Fichte's dictum. Today's scientific spirit, which has developed the way of thinking and the methods that are particularly suitable for the external, independent nature of man, would like to deliver results that cannot be said to be the way man is. And in fact, it will make a lot of sense if someone says today: a chemist who forms a world view, a physicist who forms a world view, will be pushed by the objectivity of his view to develop something that is valid for all people, so to speak, that cannot be said to be similar to what the human being is as a whole. In a sense, objective science must flourish independently of the moral or other state of the soul.

One can say: this science has risen to its highest triumphs in the last few centuries, especially in the very last century. Not that one would want to believe that it is already sophistically oriented spiritual science, it still has this meaning to an increased extent. For anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to be an active force in life. And how could it become that if it could not find some impulses for morality, for social life, which arguably include the greatest problems of our present day. But again and again, when such a question is raised, attention is drawn to the special nature of today's scientific spirit.

One can say that this scientific nature has risen to its highest triumphs in the last few centuries, especially in the very last century. Not that one would believe that they already talk this way, that they say: you don't make social life with moral principles. That was considered almost the most outstanding axiom in the socialist-thinking circles of modern times, that all the social life drawn from moral or socially conceived maxims is an illusion. And the socialists' social attitude actually fed on this axiom. It was said that what really matters is not how some class, how some individual person thinks about what should actually happen socially, but that it matters that one turns to those people in whose egoism, in whose entirely natural, elementary egoism it lies to shape the world as it must be shaped – and that is the proletarian demand. I would like to say that, precisely because of the modern spirit of science, every moral principle, every social view not based on egoism, has been eliminated. And as long as we do not realize what this means for the whole course of the world in modern times, and as long as we do not want to see how our social needs arise from the feelings and thoughts of human beings, we will not be able to approach what our time particularly needs in this respect.

The scientific spirit of modern times is therefore powerless against moral and social impulses, as is simply shown by the historical course of events. What emanates from this spirit, however, flows through a certain social necessity into the minds of the broadest classes of people. And it is out of this attitude that even those who know nothing about science, who have not arrived at science, judge the social affairs of this world. What does that mean in this case? The social affairs are viewed in such a way that everything that must appear in a healthy way as a social and moral evaluation of some fact for humanity is also, as in the shaping of science, eliminated. Anthroposophically oriented spiritual science wants to take this fact into account in particular. It wants to become a power that is able to unleash such moral impulses in the individual human being that these moral impulses can prevail in a socially beneficial way. But then the anthroposophical school of thought must lead, I would say, in the way people who develop it look at world phenomena, to bring the moral and the social into it so that one sees it.

In the lecture you gave earlier, you humorously showed how people are talked into all sorts of things in our social and economic life, and how these people then add these things to their household goods. Such things must be seen in their symptomatic aspect, and they are seen in their symptomatic aspect only when one can draw the connecting lines from them to the great events of world history. For if it were not for the fact that people let these things be talked into them by the peddlers, then there would not be that either – for things are connected in social life – which at the end was told to us about the horrific militarization of economic life.

What is truly effective in the here and now is what matters. And I would like to paint a picture for you, prompted, so to speak, by the humorous account I have just given, of how such peddling has an antisocial, dare I say it, anti-moral effect.

Once, when I was at a fair, a trader was selling huge amounts of soap. Now, ladies and gentlemen, an observation that really leads to social thinking must inspire the human mind to arrive at a point in life where soaps are offered that can be used for washing. But that was completely out of the question with the soaps offered by this trader. Those who tried it afterwards soon gave up the attempt to wash themselves with it permanently. But the trader did great business, and I will tell you how he did it. He had large bales of such soap next to him. He stood on a podium; he took a number of soaps from the first bundle. Now he was, in the best sense, what you might call a representative person. In the most wonderful phrases, he presented the excellence of his soap to his audience, and he called forth the opinion that this must be a particularly valuable soap, which one can pay well for, through everything he did there. And then he sold about ten soaps, piece by piece, for a very high price, the individual piece. This price was paid by those who happened to have the money in their pockets, and they were very happy to have received such good soaps; for they recognized the quality of the soap by the high price. Now they were standing there. The man had achieved as a representative personality what he wanted to achieve, and he was no longer interested in being this representative personality. Therefore, he said later: Oh, the way I've been selling the soaps up to now, they're much too expensive! These soaps are only worth half the price. I will sell them at half price from now on. And now he had the kind of customers again who would buy from him, and he was able to suggest to them that he was such a good man that he would sell the soap cheaper than the first buyers, who were still standing there, had received it. They didn't complain, but instead — excuse the harsh expression — opened their mouths wide. But then, when he still had a considerable number of bars of soap from the first bundle, he said: “But I'm a good man, I won't sell this last bar of soap at all, I'll throw it away.” And so he threw all the soap among the audience and they could pick it up for free.

I am telling you this fact not only because it is grotesque in itself, but because I also learned something else that is highly interesting. All this had happened and the salesman went to his second bundle, and he did it again in the same way, and in all three stages, and he again got rid of his bars of soap in all three stages!

This seems to me to be extraordinarily symptomatic, ladies and gentlemen, because when I look at the big businesses that are being done in the world, and when I look at the consuming public and how it relates to them, then I actually see all three stages continually there, and one can see from the perception of these three stages how internally impossible our economic structure actually is. But precisely under the modern spirit of science, this truly healthy, truly practical thinking has been lost. For practical thinking, which does not remain within the routine, but becomes a true purpose in life, must above all see reality in things, see what lies within them, not what is only outwardly before the eyes, and in which one can beguile people with all kinds of suggestions.

It is very often slanderously said of anthroposophical spiritual science that it seeks to exert some kind of suggestive power. In the example I have told you, which certainly did not originate with an anthroposophist, there was a great deal of suggestive power that is very common today, a suggestive power that its audience knows very well.

In contrast to this, anthroposophical spiritual science wants to provide something that is capable, through its inner vitality, of effectively seeing through social and moral connections, of finding something in the human being that find something that may be as Fichte's sentence expresses it: that it is of the same nature as the human being itself, but at the same time can be effective within the moral and social world. But if we really want to understand the spiritual life, then, ladies and gentlemen, we have to make some effort, and so, just to illustrate my train of thought today, allow me to go into something that can illustrate it a little from a completely objective point of view, without regard to personalities, from a certain quarter.

You see, when I spoke about it in Stuttgart, people from all sorts of different quarters believed that I consider Count Hermann Keyserling's comments about me to be a lie, and people from various quarters believed that I was personally annoyed and speaking about such a matter for some personal reason. But that was not the case at all, because I can give you the most honest assurance: I couldn't care less about what Count Hermann Keyserling thinks of me; I don't care about a personal attack. But there is something else I do care about: I care about looking at the phenomena that occur in our lives in terms of their ethical and moral value. And here I must say the following: I consider it one of the greatest achievements of modern science that – even if not always in practice, at least in the theories expressed – this modern science tends towards the proposition that one should not simply express what one subjectively believes to be true, but that one must absolutely recognize the obligation to first truly fathom the truth of what one expresses.

It is usually not recognized that there is something extraordinarily progressive in the assertion of this sentence, because anyone who is a historian or a scientist cannot and must not content themselves with the excuse that they have heard this or that here or there, but they are obliged to recognize the basis of truth for what they say. And this principle must be incorporated into our moral life, because if the moral life is to be the basis of the social, then morality must be permeated by objective truth and not merely by subjectively believed truth, because it is not this subjectively believed truth that has an effect on social life, but only objectively experienced truth. It must be said that we are now living in an age in which the split between knowledge and belief has led to a situation in which, whenever someone asserts something that they have believed and that subsequently turns out to be objectively untrue, they excuse themselves by saying that a person is entitled to assert what they believe to be the truth to the best of their knowledge and belief. My dear audience, this principle allows the possibility of every possible objective untruth entering into public life, and only by combating this principle can morality be brought into our social life, and into our business and economic life. Therefore, because I always want to make use of the spirit of truth that is necessary for anthroposophy on the one hand and for all of modern life on the other, I had to assert this spirit of truth in the face of what has occurred on the characterized side. I was interested in this as a cultural phenomenon, not as a personal matter, and as a cultural phenomenon it actually leads to that deeper concept of truth that we so urgently need today.

You see, it is easy to say that Count Hermann Keyserling is not an opponent of anthroposophy. Count Hermann Keyserling himself wanted to prove to me that he was not an opponent of anthroposophy, and that is why he wrote me a long letter a long time ago. But this long letter was written in a handwriting that I could not read; the lines that went across were always crossed by others, the letters were written in a highly sloppy and careless manner, and I really could not finish reading this letter. The person who is able to judge the world and people not according to arbitrary principles but according to essential inner symptoms could say to himself – this writing is of course not the reason I want to give for the underlying facts, but it is a symptom –: this writing, and the way such a letter is brought about, does not provide the human basis for what is attributed to Count Hermann Keyserling from certain quarters. And if you then approach his works, you find something, you find what I now express as my conviction: if Count Hermann Keyserling were to say that he was a very devious opponent and enemy of anthroposoph , dear ladies and gentlemen, I would believe him and I would find it entirely justified, because the person who writes Count Keyserling's books cannot be a follower of and cannot be an objective judge of anthroposophy. But if he says that he is not an opponent, then he is telling an objective untruth. When Count Hermann Keyserling says that he is not an opponent of anthroposophy, to me that says much more about his dishonesty than if he had honestly said that he must be an opponent. I do understand that there must be opponents; but the fact that there are people, numerous people, who today even become fashionable, who simply say the opposite of what is now their inner truth as an outer truth, that goes against the principle of anthroposophy, which looks everywhere for inner truth and not for outer truth, which is then no truth but only an apparent truth.

I wanted to emphasize this, dear attendees, for the reason that one should not always misjudge what the innermost impulse of anthroposophical sentiment is, and so that one may know that this anthroposophical sentiment touches the nerve of the present world, and it makes the claim not only to say what has already been said in the same sense, but to say it in a way demanded by the spirit of the time; but that demands that we even learn to think anew about lie and truth.

This, however, is the only thing that can guide us when we approach such an important problem as anthroposophy as a moral and social creative force. For there we must look at the fact that anthroposophy not only embraces this modern scientific spirit, this modern scientific spirit, but that it also develops that which is already present as a germ in this modern science, developing this germ more and more, while this germ is not developed by this modern science. Therefore, my dear audience, in its beginning, Anthroposophy is quite like modern science, but by inwardly grasping the essence of this modern science, it leads in its further course to where not only the facts of external nature are understood, but where the facts of the inner life of man are also understood, for example, the instincts or the will.

And we will only come to grasp the true core of anthroposophy, on the one hand, and to understand the moral and social impulses of anthroposophy, on the other, if we realize how the [scientific] spirit, which otherwise only grasps external natural facts, can can reach in, transforming and metamorphosing itself, into what the human being is in his instincts, for example, in his will impulses; for this is connected with the actual character of our present epoch, which began in the 15th century and in which we still find ourselves today. In the 15th century, the first seeds of the modern scientific spirit were sown, and this modern scientific spirit had to develop in a one-sided way. I cannot go into this in more detail now; I have explained it many times in other places. It had to develop the inner soul constitution in such a way that it was capable of pursuing the connection between external natural phenomena in a lawful way. In order that this one-sided power of the human soul-life might develop vigorously in spite of its one-sidedness, the other powers of human life and human organization had to be left behind for a while.

What first developed in a one-sided way was that which guided human beings to let a conscious soul-life take the place of an old instinctive soul-life. No matter how much one may declaim about the fact that man has lost his naivety as a result of consciousness having taken the place of the old instinctive, such declaiming has no more value than if one complains that one used to be twenty years old and looked a certain way, and now one is older. These things cannot be criticized, but must simply be recognized in their necessity. From the 15th century onwards, humanity had to pass over into consciousness, and it did so first in the realm of imaginative life. But even this imaginative life was formerly placed in the instinctive life. Those who are truly familiar with the totality of civilization and cultural life that preceded the 15th century, including Greek civilization, know how all the powers of the human soul worked instinctively in those days, and how even what was called scientific worked, in certain respects, much more instinctively, out of the instinct-based human soul condition, than it does today. And in this human soul-condition, borne by instinct, in which a world necessity beyond human beings was at work, a kind of threefold structure of this social life has always emerged, approximately, until the 15th century, as human beings have worked in social life. The instincts have worked, I might say, with natural certainty – if I may use this not quite proper expression. People have integrated themselves into the social organism through their instincts, and through what they have done in the process, what they have achieved – whether in these or those life situations that arose from people acting on instinct – a certain structure of the social organism has emerged in the spiritual sphere, in the legal-constitutional sphere and in the economic sphere.

This threefold social order, which today must be spoken of consciously, was basically present, even if this is not apparent to some people today who do not understand the threefold social order at all. , by feeling that he was part of the social life, he received what he needed to satisfy his imaginative, [his soul's] and his will needs, he received it from a spiritual member of the social organism, from a state-legal and from an economic one. They were in a relationship that was understood by humanity at that time through their instincts and that they could satisfy through their predispositions. Of course, today we no longer know what to do with this old structure.

But now came the newer time. It was the time when people developed their imaginative life one-sidedly. It was the first half of the 15th century, the 16th, 17th century, and partly still the 18th century. Beneath the imaginative life that had become conscious, there still glimmered what was left of the inheritance of the old instincts. And I would like to say that something instinctive was still at work in the moral and social spheres, while man passed over this world and looked at that which was now already emerging from his fully conscious life of ideas. But since then, since the 18th century, these instincts have completely died out, and what remains are only abstract traditions. We do not live today with an elementally generated morality and justice of the social world; we live because the instincts that used to establish social orders are no longer active. And as much as the Marxists believe that they live in Marxism, they live in the most ancient traditions, which can be seen from the fact that they always want to explain the conditions of social life from the prehistory of wild and barbaric peoples.

This is what has developed up to our most recent times. But this, ladies and gentlemen, has also led to the fact that man now only wants to approach social and moral life with his imagination, which has been developed one-sidedly, and that out of the old tradition, moral institutions and social institutions have arisen alongside it, for which only traditions remain, with which human life in its reality is no longer connected. And while instinct, the instinct-based state of mind, has, out of a sense of world necessity, placed the spiritual alongside the legal and the economic, the not yet fully developed life of ideas, the one-sidedly developed life of ideas, lacks the possibility of seeing through this structure of the social organism. What the human being can think and what he has in the way of traditions are mixed up in a chaotic way. He does not have the impetus to see the correct characteristics of spiritual, legal-state, and economic life, and in recent times he has mixed them up into chaos in all areas of state life.

This chaos is the latest phase in the development of the social organism. Man, placed in the social order, wants to receive from the spiritual life, out of his human nature, what this alone can give him in his freedom; he wants to receive from the legal-state life what this alone can give him when all mature people can have a say, and from the economic life what this alone can give when it is formed out of expertise and specialist knowledge in associations. Everything that a human being, in accordance with his nature, can only receive from a properly structured social organism, he should receive today from a chaos, from a chaotic formation of this social organism.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the fundamental cause of the crisis we are facing today; for everything you can describe in the field of education, in the field of the free intellectual life, insofar as it has still retained its freedom, everything you can describe in the fields of business life, the other economic sectors, all these are special crises in the face of the great crisis, [which consists in] the fact that man today, without the broad masses actually knowing it, is placed in a social chaos that actually rejects his innermost being. And this rejection manifests itself in the revolutionary, social-revolutionary forces of the present. And as long as one does not realize that the basis for our present world crisis lies in this modern powerlessness of man to see through the structure of the social organism, one will also be unable to have any understanding for the reforming forces of this world crisis.

Within the threefold structure of the social organism, however, there is one area that works differently from the others: the economic area. Economic life, which produces goods according to human needs, is subject to a certain necessity. These needs arise. This economic life still gives itself its social impulses in the same way as it used to give them according to old traditions. Man must pay attention to this. He has no freedom here, no arbitrariness. With regard to the legal and state life, and especially with regard to the spiritual life, he can divert attention from that which is really essential to him, and for the reasons I have given, modern humanity has diverted its attention from the structure of the social organism. This has become evident: that this turning away has initially only led to the neglect of progress in intellectual and legal life, but that economic life, as was to be expected from such neglect, could not but develop in a one-sided way. And so today we have a public thinking that basically pays no attention to intellectual and legal life, but continues to work in old forms, in old traditions, and which, through the natural economic necessities to see everything it thinks at congresses and other gatherings, in war and peace resolutions, solely in the light of this economic life.

And the means by which man could truly intervene in social life in the past were his instincts and his will. Anthroposophy shows us how man, through the activity of his will and his instincts, continually draws from a subconscious realm, just as he draws strength from sleep, which is also a subconscious state. Anthroposophical knowledge must absolutely place what the human being experiences in relation to the actual essence of his will in parallel with what he calls sleep. It is a sleep that we continually carry around in us as we let our will impulses work from the unconscious, just as the refreshing forces that approach our life work from what we gain in our sleep. But in relation to social life, this unconscious was only possible in a certain period of time; it has no longer been possible since the middle of the 15th century.

And here natural science is subjecting itself to a great, a powerful illusion: it wants to explain everything scientifically, it wants to include the human being in this scientific explanation, and from the principles it has formed about natural facts, it now wants to explain instinct and will. She constructs views about instinct and will that are actually only continued views about external natural existence. But anthroposophical spiritual insight shows us that instinct and will are rooted in their deeper essence in the spiritual and not in the natural, which we can only reach with natural science. Instinct and will are rooted in the spirit; they only integrate themselves in the human being. They reveal themselves in the human being in a natural shell. It is only this natural shell that science approaches; it does not approach the actual essence of instinct and will at all. But by taking the path from external natural science to a spiritual science, anthroposophy is able to see through not only the shell, the cover of instinct and will, but the true essence of instinct and will. And in so doing, it not only brings up into abstract thinking that which works as instinct and will, but the essence of instinct and will comes alive in the life of imagination. Anthroposophy begins as the most modern science as knowledge; in the further pursuit of its path, it leads to life, it leads the human being to submerge into those depths where instinct and will are rooted spiritually in the spirit. She may say, because she is a living being, with Fichte: What view one forms depends on what kind of person one is – because she is able, through her liveliness, to be allowed to work in the sense of this saying and yet be able to bear fruit for the moral, for the social life.

What kind of mind one has, dear attendees, depends to a certain extent on the nature of the rest of the human organism. But if we focus only on what lives in the mind, we fail to grasp the rest of the organism; then the rest of the organism seems like an unknown. Thus, for the modern scientific mind, that which works in the will below the level of the life of ideas still appears as an unknown. If, then, this modern science works in the way that the human being is constituted, it does not see through, and therefore does not experience, what is in the human being's will nature, because it does not penetrate into this will nature of the human being. By rising from knowledge to full life, anthroposophy flows with all human consciousness into the stream of instinct and will, making them conscious, and one thereby acquires the possibility of working not only on one's thinking but on one's whole human being. But then, when we have a science that works on the whole human being, then, while we think, that which may influence this thinking arises in the other person. Then knowledge and life work as an organic whole, where one determines the other simultaneously, not one after the other. Then, in this organic interaction, philosophy, including moral philosophy, may be what the human being can make of them by virtue of his or her nature.

These, esteemed attendees, are the things we must look at if we want to recognize anthroposophy as a moral and social impulse. This is what anthroposophy believes it has to say to our time in this regard, to which it feels obliged to say it. And it must be convinced that the possibility of replacing the oppressive forces with constructive ones will not arise until people decide, when discussing economic issues, to look at what is beneficial for the spiritual and for the legal life, until they have a true heart for what alone can become lawful and what can only arise from the harmony of all of all mature human beings in their independent legal lives, before they do not have a deep feeling that genuine spiritual life can only flourish when it is left to its own devices, that the three can only work together as they once worked together out of instinct, when consciousness out of man finds its way to the secrets of the world, to which it once found its way when it still worked only instinctively.

This time will be the time when people no longer marvel at the world like Woodrow Wilson — at least he was, even if he is no longer — justify the state administration of school education by saying that only the state is capable of creating the conditions of freedom in which the free individual can live. Well, my dear audience, such a freedom is only to be allowed to prevail if it is conditioned, that is, made necessary by state institutions.

And further, in his great book “The State”, published in 1889, Woodrow Wilson says: the state must not give up control of the schools, because what the state needs for its power, for its authoritative effectiveness, it can best achieve by owning the teaching.

Now, my dear audience, anyone who feels what freedom of spiritual life should and must be must rebel against a maxim that says: the state must instill in children what it needs for its preservation – because by saying this, it is saying that the state must establish in schools that which is not freedom of spiritual life, which is the deepest lack of freedom in spiritual life.

As long as scientists do not have an eye, an eye of the soul, to look up to what is thought about the spiritual, about the legal, there can be no improvement in our present moral life, which underlies the social, and in this social life itself, because we not only need a critique of the old moral instincts, a critique of the old social concepts, we need the creation of new moral impulses and new social impulses. But these can only come about through a science, through a knowledge that, by spiritualizing human knowledge itself, is also capable of penetrating into the spiritual world.

Art and Anthroposophy The Goetheanum Impulse: Summer Art Course 1921

GA 77b — 26 August 1921, Dornach

4. Anthroposophy as a Moral Impulse and a Creative Social Force