{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 65/1915-12-10/p031","lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"And basically, everyone admits that this is the ideal of humanity, as it has been carried out. The opponents of spiritual science are only there because of misunderstandings. So that one can also say in a particular case: the spiritual scientist is really in complete agreement with what people say, yes, often with what they say against spiritual science. When, for example, Leonard Nelson wrote a very spirited essay in the September issue of the 'Neuer Merkur' about the present-day tasks in relation to philosophy, it seems as if everything that Nelson, who is one of the most brilliant people of the present day, expresses there could be characterized as opposition to spiritual science. The counter-check would be that the spiritual researcher has no need to say no to anything this man says. On the one hand, Leonard Nelson shows how man degenerates when he cultivates only the intellect; how he thereby enters into an abstraction that cannot lead him to any truly life-filled philosophy. In a much more consistent and higher sense, this must be admitted by the spiritual researcher who seeks the agony of skepticism, of doubt, which becomes suffering, when the spirit wants to develop in a one-sided way, without the root of soul love. Nelson only points to thinking and knows nothing about the fact that when this same thinking is experienced, a completely different world creeps into it, a world that is much richer in content than the sensual world and that remains closed to him. One completely agrees with what he positively asserts. He just does not allow himself to agree with himself, he misunderstands himself. Likewise, one can agree with him when he says on the other hand: When man now delves into his own nature, broods within himself, a false mysticism comes to light, man enters into a nebulous inner dreaming. He does not want to be anchored only through thinking; he believes that he is closer to the basis of the world precisely through feeling. In truth, it is only a subjective thing that is achieved there. The spiritual researcher is in complete agreement with what is said in a positive way. But the author of the essay, on the other hand, does not know that one discovers something completely new if one only goes the right way. He does not understand himself and basically only refutes himself by having a different view from the one he, if I may use the paradoxical expression, asserts as a view and practically exercises. What he does is completely in line with spiritual science. Basically, the spiritual researcher is not opposed to what people really mean; and they are only opponents because they misunderstand each other and thus misunderstand him, talk at cross purposes.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"4. The Human Soul and the Human Spirit","site_heading":null,"date":"1915-12-10","location":null,"word_count":460,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/65/1915-12-10/p031","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 Central European Intellectual Life","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA065/English/SOL2024/19151210p01.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/65/1915-12-10/p031"},{"lang":"en","edition":"English","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/65/1915-12-10/p031","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 65/1915-12-10/p031","passage_number":31,"text":"Und im Grunde genommen gibt eben dieses Menschheitsideal ein jeder zu, wie das ausgeführt worden ist. Geisteswissenschaft hat nur durch Mißverständnisse Gegner. So daß man auch in besonderem Falle sagen kann: der Geisteswissenschafter ist wirklich mit dem, was die Leute sagen, ja gerade oftmals mit dem, was sie gegen die Geisteswissenschaft sagen, völlig einig. Wenn zum Beispiel im SeptemberHeft des «Neuen Merkur» Leonard Nelson einen sehr geistvollen Aufsatz über die gegenwärtigen Zeitaufgaben in bezug auf Philosophie geschrieben hat, so scheint es so, als ob all das, was Nelson, der zu den geistreichsten Menschen der Gegenwart gehört, dort ausspricht, sich prägen ließe als Gegnerschaft gegen die Geisteswissenschaft. Die Gegenprobe wäre die, daß der Geistesforscher zu nichts, was dieser Mann sagt, nein zu sagen braucht. Da stellt Leonard Nelson auf der einen Seite dar, wie der Mensch ausartet, wenn er bloß den Verstand ausbildet; wie er dadurch in eine Abstraktion hineinkommt, die ihn zu keiner wirklich lebensvollen Philosophie führen kann. In viel konsequenterem, höherem Sinn muß das der Geistesforscher zugeben, der die Qual der Skepsis, der Zweifel sucht, die zum Leiden wird, aufzeigt, wenn der Geist in einseitiger Weise, ohne den Wurzelgrund der Seelenliebe, sich entwickeln will. Nur weist Nelson eben auf das Denken hin und weiß nichts davon, daß sich in dieses selbe Denken, wenn es erlebt wird, eine ganz andere Welt einschleicht, eine Welt, die viel inhaltsreicher ist als die sinnliche Welt und die ihm verschlossen bleibt. Man ist mit dem, was er positiv behauptet, völlig einverstanden. Nur läßt er sich nicht darauf ein, mit sich selbst einverstanden zu sein, er mißversteht sich selber. Ebenso ist man einverstanden, wenn er nach der anderen Seite sagt: Wenn der Mensch sich nun in seine eigene Natur vertieft, in sich hineinbrütet, da kommt ein falscher Mystizismus zutage, da kommt der Mensch in ein nebuloses innerliches Träumen hinein. Nur durch das Denken will er nicht verankert sein; gerade vom Gefühl glaubt er, dem Weltengrunde näher zu sein. In Wahrheit ist es nur ein Subjektives, was da erreicht wird. Vollständig einverstanden ist der Geistesforscher damit, was in positiver Weise gesagt wird. Nur weiß der Verfasser des Aufsatzes wiederum nicht, daß man damit etwas ganz Neues entdeckt, wenn man nur den rechten Weg geht. Er versteht sich selber nicht und widerlegt sich im Grunde nur selber, indem er eine andere Anschauung hat, als er, wenn ich den paradoxen Ausdruck gebrauchen darf, als Anschauung betätigt, praktisch ausübt. Dasjenige, was er tut, ist völlig übereinstimmend mit der Geisteswissenschaft. Der Geistesforscher ist im Grunde genommen von dem, was die Menschen wirklich meinen, kein Gegner; und sie sind nur deshalb Gegner, weil sie sich mißverstehen und dadurch ihn mißverstehen, an ihm vorbeireden.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":442,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/65/1915-12-10/p031"}],"english":["GA 65/1915-12-10/p031"],"method":"identity","confidence":"high","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":442,"en_words":460,"ratio":1.04,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"verified","verified":true,"evidence":["length","meaning","anchors","audit"]},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.04,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":11977,"original_word_count":11532,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"scope":"unit","status":"recorded","translator":"Steiner Online Library","identified_edition":"SOL2024","book_title":"From Central European Intellectual Life","publisher":"Steiner Online Library","publisher_inferred":true,"match_score":1.0,"source_url":"https://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA065/English/SOL2024/19151210p01.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 65/1915-12-10/p031"],"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."}}