{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 202/1920-12-11/p023","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"You see what has to be looked for: the human being as such. One must enter into a soul frame of mind with lively observation to regard the human being as such. We are in a western science with its chart of animals. First we have simple animals then ever more complicated animals up to the last most complicated ones on four legs, then they stand up, become upright instead of horizontal, and now we have the highest animal, the human being. One only has a row of animals and the human being is the highest member in this row. The human being is seldom considered in natural science and also seldom from social sciences, because here he or she is part of private property, namely the economic machine. The human being falls out of the social examination, out of the social examination of nature. The extraordinary thing about modern people is that they don't notice that there is nothing human here. There is absolutely nothing human here. Out of this a specific need arises. Just consider how people live in their outer social life. Let's accept that they live in the way Adam Smith sees them, because he has uttered the observation coming from that which he said, originating from the thought tendencies of numerous people. Just think of a person's outer social life. Let's accept they exist as Adam Smith suggests, because his expression of this observation does not come from there; he even expressed the thought tendencies of numerous people. Think to yourself, people see themselves as “Westerners” in their social existence: they are actually not! Private property and the economic unit exist; people do not exist here! How can one find in this concept of mankind what lies on the other side of birth and death? This must be handed over to what authorities are allowed to say. As a result of such concepts receding further and further from their flowering it has come about that with reference to the spiritual everything gradually is placed under an authority, instigating a certain aversion to even think about spirituality. In the modern proletarian science this has been taken up further. Only then seriousness took it up and said: Yes, the middle class has thought about it but actually it doesn't involve people; we have private property and the economic machine. Therefore we will not consider this trinket of special people, we are talking about pure scientific forces; this produces everything. Let's be serious about this point of view! The others are not serious; the entire week they talk about private property and economic freedom which the machine gives, and on Sunday they allow themselves to be also preached at about an immortal soul.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"The Bridge Between Morality and Nature","site_heading":null,"date":"1920-12-11","location":null,"word_count":455,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/202/1920-12-11/p023","alignment_confidence":"medium","alignment_reason":"beads:length","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"established","translator":"Hanna von Maltitz","identified_edition":"Singles","book_title":"The Bridge between Morality and Nature","publisher":null,"publisher_inferred":false,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA202/English/Singles/19201211p01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line"},"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/202/1920-12-11/p023"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/202/1920-12-11/p023","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":"1920-12-11","de_passages":[{"locus":"GA 202/1920-12-11/p020","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/202/1920-12-11/p020"}],"bead_confidence":"medium","pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false,"length_check":{"de_words":438,"en_words":455,"ratio":1.04,"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 202/1920-12-11/p020","passage_number":20,"text":"Sie sehen, was gesucht werden muß: gesucht werden muß der Mensch als solcher. Man muß in seine Seelenverfassung hereinbekommen eine lebendige Anschauung von dem Menschen als solchem. Wir haben eine westliche Naturwissenschaft, die hat die Tierreihe. Da haben wir zuerst einfache Tiere, dann immer kompliziertere Tiere, die letzten komplizierten gehen auf vier Beinen, dann richten sie sich auch einmal auf, werden senkrecht statt waagerecht — nun, da ist dann ein höchstes Tier, das nennt man Mensch. Man hat eigentlich nur die Tierreihe, und der Mensch ist eben das höchste Glied in der Tierreihe. Also man betrachtet nicht den Menschen von seiten der Naturwissenschaft. Aber auch nicht von seiten der Sozialwissenschaft, denn da betrachtet man dasjenige, was der als Privateigentum an sich hat, und dasjenige, was der wirtschaftende Automat ist. Der Mensch fällt aus der sozialen Betrachtung, der sozialen Naturbetrachtung heraus. Das Eigentümliche der modernen Menschheit ist ja, daß sie gar nicht bemerkt, daß gar nichts Menschliches da ist. Es ist gar nichts Menschliches da. Daher entsteht ein gewisses Bedürfnis. Denken Sie sich doch einmal, die Menschen leben im äußeren sozialen Leben. Nehmen wir an, sie leben so, wie Adam Smith sie betrachtet, denn daß er diese Anschauung geäußert hat, rührt ja nur davon her, weil er eben dasjenige gesagt hat, wonach das Denken zahlreicher Menschen tendiert. Denken Sie sich, die Menschen schauen sich nun als Westländer ihr soziales Dasein an: sie sind ja gar nicht da! Privateigentum ist da und ein wirtschaftlicher Automat; die Menschen sind ja gar nicht da. Wie soll man denn aus diesem Begriff vom Menschen irgend etwas, was jenseits von Geburt und Tod liegt, herausbekommen? Das muß man sich dann schon auf Autorität hin sagen lassen. Und indem solche Begriffe immer weiter und weiter ihre Blüten getrieben haben, kam es eben so, daß mit Bezug auf das Geistige alles nach und nach unter Autorität gestellt worden ist, ja, daß die Menschen auch eine gewisse Abneigung haben, über das Geistige irgendwie zu denken. In der modernen proletarischen Wissenschaft ist das dann weiter aufgenommen worden. Nur hat die dann Ernst damit gemacht und hat gesagt: Ja, nun haben die Bourgeois über den Menschen nachgedacht, aber es ist doch gar nichts da vom Menschen; Privateigentum ist da und der wirtschaftende Automat ist da. Also reden wir nicht von diesem Firlefanz von einem besonderen Menschen, sondern reden wir bloß von wirtschaftlichen Kräften; die bringen alles hervor. Machen wir Ernst mit dieser Anschauung! Die anderen machen nicht Ernst; die ganze Woche hindurch reden sie, als wenn es bloß Privateigentum und wirtschaftliche Freiheit des Automaten gäbe, und am Sonntag lassen sie sich predigen, daß es auch eine unsterbliche Seele gibt.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":438,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/202/1920-12-11/p020"}],"english":["GA 202/1920-12-11/p023"],"method":"length","confidence":"medium","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":438,"en_words":455,"ratio":1.04,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":0.98,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":4851,"original_word_count":4932,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Hanna von Maltitz","identified_edition":"Singles","book_title":"The Bridge between Morality and Nature","publisher":null,"publisher_inferred":false,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA202/English/Singles/19201211p01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line"},"entity_parity":{"status":"ok","checked_against":["GA 202/1920-12-11/p020"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"medium","note":"Every load-bearing name in the German counterpart appears in this English passage. That is a check on NAMES only: a translation can keep every name and still reverse who acts on whom, change a number, or soften a claim. Read the German for anything you intend to rest an argument on."},"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."}}