{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 334/1920-03-18/p029","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"What is offered to the world as the impulse of the threefold social order is taken from the fullness of life. But it also shows that this full life demands today a permeation with what can be grasped in a living vision. This vision is necessary for the human being. And until it is recognized that the human being is not a mere creature of nature, it will not be possible to arrive at a solution to the social problems that are so pressing today. Years ago, when theoretical materialism was at its height, people who could already see through it were indignant against this materialism. But one cannot help saying that after all, the people who became theoretical materialists, like Haeckel and the like, were not clever people. We are confronted with the peculiar phenomenon that truly bright minds have become materialists. Why? They have become materialists because thinking, which over the last three to four centuries has developed as abstract thinking - this is particularly clear to the spiritual researcher - must be explained in materialistic terms. The thinking that makes science great is bound to the tools of the brain, to the tools of the human body. Thought ceases with death. But when we infuse our thought processes with will, when we are not only guided by observation of nature and experiment, when we permeate thought with that which arises out of the will, then something arises that can become free of the body, that is truly soul-spiritual. Materialism was right for the kind of thinking that has become prominent in the last three to four centuries and has reached its peak in the present. This must be explained in materialistic terms. That is why the cleverest people in the second half of the 19th century became materialists, because they were ultimately faced with the great mystery: what about ordinary thinking, which has reached such heights in natural science? This must be explained in materialistic terms. Materialism in its own way is fully justified, and no one can be a spiritualist in the sense of anthroposophically oriented spiritual science who does not know that materialism has a right to exist in its limited field. Anyone who now asks the question: either materialism or spiritualism? — is barking up the wrong tree. For materialism has its domain, and it must be clearly understood that if man wishes to save the soul-spiritual, he must also go beyond the thinking of which he is so proud today. And in the same way, a truly desirable social order will never be able to come about if man wishes to found these social orders only on the basis of ordinary egoistic emotions, for these can only found the struggle for existence, not a social dream à la Lenin. Man can only found a real social order if he incorporates the spiritual and soul aspects, as described today and as it is inspired in him by that world view that comes from spiritual insight, into this social life. Then man will be able to recognize and verify through life what was in Goethe's mind when he turned his gaze to the nature of man and asked himself: What is man's actual relationship to nature? — Goethe said to himself: When we survey everything from the wonderful stars above to all that presents itself in the various realms of nature around us, we must look at man, standing in front of this nature, how he absorbs this nature , how he transforms it, how he gives rise to it as something new within himself, creating a higher nature through the human being in the human being, a higher nature that is spiritual-soul, soul-spiritual. Goethe expresses this so beautifully when he says:","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"5. Spiritual Forces in Education and in National Life","site_heading":null,"date":"1920-03-18","location":null,"word_count":627,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/334/1920-03-18/p029","alignment_confidence":"high","alignment_reason":"beads:identity","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":{"scope":"unit","status":"established","translator":"Steiner Online Library","identified_edition":"SOL2024","book_title":"From a Unitary State to the Tripartite Social Organism","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA334/English/SOL2024/19200318s01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"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/334/1920-03-18/p029"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/334/1920-03-18/p029","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},"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 334/1920-03-18/p029","passage_number":29,"text":"Dasjenige, was der Welt entgegengehalten wird als der Impuls der Dreigliederung des sozialen Organismus, es ist aus dem vollen Leben herausgegriffen. Es zeigt aber auch, daß dieses volle Leben heute fordert eine Durchdringung mit dem, was lebendig in Geistesschau ergriffen werden kann. Diese Geistesschau ist dem Menschen notwendig. Und ehe man nicht erkannt, daß der Mensch nicht ein bloßes Naturwesen ist, ehedem wird man nicht zu einer Lösung der heute so drängenden sozialen Probleme kommen können. Vor Jahren, als der theoretische Materialismus in seiner Blüte stand, da haben sich die Leute ereifert, die schon durchschauen konnten, daß dieser theoretische Materialismus auch zum praktischen Materialismus führen müsse, sie haben sich ereifert gegen diesen Materialismus. Aber man kann doch nicht umhin zu sagen, daß schließlich die Menschen, die theoretische Materialisten geworden sind, wie Haeckel und ähnliche, nicht auch gescheite Menschen gewesen sind. Man steht da der eigentümlichen Erscheinung gegenüber, daß wahrhaft helle Köpfe Materialisten geworden sind. Warum? Sie sind Materialisten geworden, weil das Denken, das sich im Laufe der letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderte als das abstrakte Denken entwickelt hat - gerade für den Geistesforscher wird das klar —, materialistisch erklärt werden muß. Dasjenige Denken, das die Naturwissenschaft groß macht, das ist an das Werkzeug des Gehirns, an das Werkzeug des menschlichen Leibes gebunden. Das Denken hört mit dem Tode auf. Allein wenn wir den Willen hineingießen in unsere Gedankenoperationen, wenn wir uns nicht nur leiten lassen von Naturbeobachtung und Experiment, wenn wir das Denken durchgießen mit demjenigen, was aus dem Willen aufsteigt, dann ergibt sich etwas, was leibfrei werden kann, was wirklich seelisch-geistig Ist. Der Materialismus hatte recht für dasjenige Denken, das gerade in den letzten drei bis vier Jahrhunderten groß geworden und auf seinen Höhepunkt gekommen ist in die Gegenwart herein. Das muß man materialistisch erklären. Daher sind die gescheitesten Menschen in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts Materialisten geworden, weil ihnen schließlich nur vorlag das große Rätsel: Wie ist es mit dem gewöhnlichen Denken, das gerade in der Naturwissenschaft zu solcher Höhe kommt? Das muß materialistisch erklärt werden. Der Materialismus auf seine Art ist in vollem Recht, und keiner kann im Sinne anthroposophisch orientierter Geisteswissenschaft Spiritualist sein, der nicht weiß, daß der Materialismus auf seinem eingeschränkten Gebiete sein Recht hat. Wer nun die Frage stellt: Entweder Materialismus oder Spiritualismus? — der ist auf dem Holzwege. Denn der Materialismus hat sein Gebiet, und man muß sich klar darüber sein, daß der Mensch, will er das Seelisch-Geistige retten, auch über das Denken hinauskommen muß, auf das er heute so stolz ist. Und ebenso wird niemals eine wirkliche soziale wünschenswerte Ordnung eintreten können, wenn der Mensch nur aus den gewöhnlichen egoistischen Emotionen heraus diese sozialen Ordnungen begründen will, denn die können nur den Kampf ums Dasein begründen, nicht einen Leninschen sozialen Traum. Eine wirkliche soziale Ordnung kann der Mensch nur begründen, wenn er das Geistig-Seelische, wie es heute geschildert ist, und wie es angeregt in ihm wird durch jene Weltanschauung, die aus der Geistesschau kommt, in dieses soziale Leben hineingießt. Dann wird der Mensch erkennen und durch das Leben bewahrheiten können, was Goethe vorschwebte, als er seinen Blick richtete auf das Wesen des Menschen und sich fragte: Wie steht eigentlich der Mensch zur Natur? — Goethe sagte sich: Wenn wir alles das überblicken, von den wunderbaren Sternen oben bis zu all dem, was sich in den verschiedenen Reichen darbietet als Natur um uns herum, müssen wir den Menschen anschauen, gegenüberstehend dieser Natur, wie er diese Natur in sich aufnimmt, wie er sie umformt, wie er sie als etwas Neues in sich schaffend erstehen läßt, eine höhere Natur durch den Menschen im Menschen schaffend, eine höhere Natur, die geist-seelisch, seelisch-geistig ist. Das drückt Goethe so schön aus, indem er sagt:","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":617,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/334/1920-03-18/p029"}],"english":["GA 334/1920-03-18/p029"],"method":"identity","confidence":"high","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":617,"en_words":627,"ratio":1.02,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"verified","verified":true,"evidence":["length","meaning","anchors","audit"]},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.03,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":9598,"original_word_count":9332,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Steiner Online Library","identified_edition":"SOL2024","book_title":"From a Unitary State to the Tripartite Social Organism","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA334/English/SOL2024/19200318s01.html","evidence":"lecture_page_line","publisher_note":"The publisher is inferred from the edition code in this lecture's source URL, not stated by the source page. The translator IS verified for this lecture: its own source names the translator (evidence: the lecture's page, rsarchive's lecture list, or the cover of the book it was published in), and that page's text was matched against this unit (see match_score and source_url). Cite the translator with confidence; attribute the publisher only as probable."},"entity_parity":{"status":"ok","checked_against":["GA 334/1920-03-18/p029"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"high","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."}}