{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 191/1919-10-12/p017","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"It was only after the fourth century that the feeling entered more and more into men's souls that up here, in this bony empty cavity,—for an empty cavity it is, as I have often had occasion to explain to you,—here, up here are seated the organs of intelligence, and this intelligence Is somehow connected with heredity, with blood-relation- ship. It was only during this period, when the transition was finally effected from a belief in the divine nature of the intelligence to a belief in its transmission along physical paths,—it was only then that what I may call the *intel* lectualising of the religious impulse through the rule of the priesthood could be finally effected. And when the intellectualising process was very far advanced, and people had come to regard the intelligence as bound up solely with a man's bodily constitution, then it was all up with the rule of the priest, too. Priest-rule could only hold its ground so long as people could be made to understand the old traditions *of* the divinity of the intelligence. The economic type of man emerged at the moment, the epoch-making moment, when the belief in the divinity of the intelligence had vanished, and when man's feelings were leading him ever more and more to the belief that it was the physical man which is the actual vehicle, the organ for the evolution of thought. You should only know what a fight, priest-rule fought, and how it is still fighting even to-day. Anyone, for instance, who is acquainted with catholic theological literature, knows how priest- rule is still fighting—fighting with every conceivable philosophic argument—to maintain that the *intelligence* which has its seat in man is something additional that comes to him from without. Read any sort of catholic theological literature that you happen to come across, and you will find them no longer denying what, indeed, for the present- day man no longer admits of denial, that all the rest of his attributes are bound up with his bodily frame, but they cling fast to the intelligence as an exception, as something that is of a divine spiritual nature and has nothing to do with man's bodily frame. And yet, in the general consciousness of mankind it is not so. In respect of the general consciousness of mankind, a feeling has grown up ever more and more among men, a sense that it is our body, too, which enables us to think, which Is the basis of the intelligence as of other things. And so ever more and more man has arrived at a consciousness that he is really only a physical being. And it was only under the sort of spirituality which proceeds from regarding oneself as a merely physical being that it was possible for the economic type of man to make his way to the top.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"III. Fundamental Impulses in History","site_heading":null,"date":"1919-10-12","location":null,"word_count":476,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/191/1919-10-12/p017","alignment_confidence":"medium","alignment_reason":"beads:length","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"not_established","translator":null,"identified_edition":"LA1963","book_title":"Cosmogony, Freedom, Altruism","publisher":null,"publisher_inferred":false,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/LA1963/19191012p01.html","evidence":null,"reason":"no_translator_named","note":"Neither the lecture's own page nor rsarchive's lecture list names a translator for it. No translator is established for this lecture: nothing at the level of the lecture names one. Do not attribute this English to a translator, and do not borrow a credit from another lecture of the volume. Cite the German for anything load-bearing."},"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["English"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"de","edition":"original","edition_basis":null,"is_original":true,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/191/1919-10-12/p017"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/191/1919-10-12/p017","paragraph_aligned":true}],"record":{"record_type":"unknown","scope":"volume","note":"How this text was taken down (shorthand transcript, listeners' notes or manuscript) is not on record here. Unknown is not an assurance of a stenogram: check the edition's own notes before resting an argument on one word.","evidence":null,"evidence_translation":null,"evidence_source":null},"german_anchor":{"de_prefix":"1919-10-12","de_passages":[{"locus":"GA 191/1919-10-12/p016","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/191/1919-10-12/p016"},{"locus":"GA 191/1919-10-12/p017","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/191/1919-10-12/p017"}],"bead_confidence":"medium","pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false,"length_check":{"de_words":599,"en_words":708,"ratio":1.18,"partial":false},"correspondence":"established","note":"English passage numbering is edition-relative, so the same number need not name the same paragraph in the German. The German original passage(s) above are the edition-invariant anchor — fetch them (lang='de') to verify wording before quoting across editions."},"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 191/1919-10-12/p016","passage_number":16,"text":"Man versteht den großen Philosophen Arzstoteles schlecht, wenn man nicht weiß, daß Aristoteles, indem er den höchsten Teil der me schlichen Seele Dianoetikon nannte, sich klar bewußt ist: dieser höchste Teil der menschlichen Seele, der ein intellektueller ist, der ist heruntergeträufelt aus geistig-seelischen Welten. Das wußte Aristoteles genau. Ja, das wußten die Menschen auch noch in den ersten Zeiten des Christentums genau. Dieses Bewußtsein, daß die menschliche Intelligenz göttlichen, geistigen Ursprungs ist, ging erst im 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert verloren. Im 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert fingen die Menschen eigentlich erst an, nicht mehr zu glauben, daß das, was sie als Gedankenkraft in sich haben, von oben, aus den geistig-seelischen Welten bei ihrer Geburt auf sie herunterträufelt. Im Inneren der Seele der Menschen war da ein großer Umschwung. Wenn wir in das 1., 2., 3. christliche Jahrhundert zurücksehen, so finden wir durchaus die Menschen so, daß sie sich sagten: Gewiß, ich bin von Vater und Mutter geboren, aber so, wie ich weiß und es nicht bloß ergrübelt habe, daß mein Auge ein Licht sieht, so weiß ich, daß meine Intelligenz von den Göttern kommt. — Das war ein unmittelbares Bewußtsein, das die Menschen hatten, wie das Bewußtsein, das von einer Wahrnehmung herrührt. Erst seit dem 4. Jahrhundert hatte man immer mehr und mehr das Gefühl: Da oben, in diesem knöchernen Hohlraum - denn ein Hohlraum ist es ja, wie ich Ihnen in verschiedenen Betrachtungen auseinandergesetzt habe -, da sind die Organe für die Intelligenz, und diese Intelligenz hat etwas zu tun mit der Vererbung, mit der Blutsverwandtschaft. Nur in diesem Zeitalter, in dem dieser Übergang sich vollzog von dem Glauben an die Göttlichkeit der Intelligenz zu der Vererbung der Intelligenz auf physischem Wege, konnte sich das vollziehen, was man nennen möchte Intellektualisierung des religiösen Impulses durch die Priesterherrschaft. Und als die Intellektualisierung schr weit fortgeschritten war und man über die Intelligenz nur die Anschauung hatte, daß sie an der menschlichen Leiblichkeit haftet, da war es auch aus mit der Priesterherrschaft. Die Priesterherrschaft konnte nur so lange bestehen, als man die alten Traditionen von der Göttlichkeit der Intelligenz dem Menschen klarmachen konnte. Der ökonomische Typus Mensch kam in dem weltgeschichtlichen Augenblicke herauf, als der Glaube geschwunden war an die Göttlichkeit der Intelligenz, als der Mensch immer mehr und mehr gefühlsmäßig überging zu dem Glauben, der physische Mensch sei im wesentlichen der Träger, das Organ für die Gedankenentwickelung.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":393,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/191/1919-10-12/p016"},{"locus":"GA 191/1919-10-12/p017","passage_number":17,"text":"Man muß nur wissen, wie die Priesterherrschaft immer kämpfte, ja bis heute noch kämpft. Wer zum Beispiel die katholisch-theologische Literatur kennt, der weiß, wie die Priesterherrschaft heute immer noch mit allen möglichen philosophischen Beweggründen kämpft dafür, daß die Intelligenz, die im Menschen sitzt, etwas ist, was hinzukommt zum Menschen. Lesen Sie etwas Beliebiges, was Sie gerade auffangen können aus der katholisch-theologischen Literatur, so werden Sie finden, wie das ja nicht mehr geleugnet wird, was für den gegenwärtigen Menschen sich gar nicht mehr wird verleugnen lassen: daß die übrigen Verrichtungen an dem menschlichen Leiblichen haften. Man will aber retten dasjenige, was die Intelligenz ist, als etwas Göttlich-Geistiges, das nichts zu tun hat mit dem Menschlich-Leiblichen. Für das allgemeine Menschheitsbewußtsein ist es aber nicht so. Für das allgemeine Menschheitsbewußtsein ist es so, daß immer mehr und mehr das Gefühl, die Empfindung entstanden ist: Der Leib ist dasjenige, was einen auch befähigt zu denken, was die Grundlage ist auch der Intelligenz. Und so ist immer mehr und mehr der Mensch zu dem Bewußtsein gekommen, daß er eigentlich nur ein physisches Wesen sei. Und nur unter dem Einfluß einer solchen Geistigkeit, die davon ausgeht, daß man nur ein physisches Wesen sei, konnte der ökonomische Typus Mensch an die Oberfläche dringen.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":206,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/191/1919-10-12/p017"}],"english":["GA 191/1919-10-12/p016","GA 191/1919-10-12/p017"],"method":"length","confidence":"medium","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":599,"en_words":708,"ratio":1.18,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.17,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":8353,"original_word_count":7159,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"not_established","translator":null,"identified_edition":"LA1963","book_title":"Cosmogony, Freedom, Altruism","publisher":null,"publisher_inferred":false,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/LA1963/19191012p01.html","evidence":null,"reason":"no_translator_named","note":"Neither the lecture's own page nor rsarchive's lecture list names a translator for it. No translator is established for this lecture: nothing at the level of the lecture names one. Do not attribute this English to a translator, and do not borrow a credit from another lecture of the volume. Cite the German for anything load-bearing.","warning":"No translator is recorded for this edition. An unattributed translation cannot be weighed as a witness: you cannot tell which hand made the choices in it. Cite the German for anything load-bearing."},"entity_parity":{"status":"discrepancy","checked_against":["GA 191/1919-10-12/p016","GA 191/1919-10-12/p017"],"missing_from_translation":["Aristotle"],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"medium","bead_length_ratio":1.18,"likely_cause":"unresolved","note":"NAME MISMATCH between this English passage and its German counterpart. A name the German carries is absent here (or a name appears here that the German does not carry). Two things cause this and they need telling apart: the translation really drops or reassigns what the original distinguishes, OR the paragraph alignment paired the wrong passages. `bead_confidence` does NOT settle which: this corpus's embedding aligner pairs topically-related paragraphs at full confidence, and a sampled high-confidence mismatch proved to be a wrong pairing. Read the German passages listed and confirm they are counterparts BEFORE drawing any conclusion about the translation."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}