“ANTHROPOSOPHIC
NEWS SHEET”
SUPPLEMENT No. 3
Realism and Nominalism.
Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner, held at Dornach
on the 27th of January, 1923.
From a shorthand
report, unrevised by the lecturer. Published by permission of the
Rudolf Steiner-Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Switzerland.
The spiritual life of the
Middle Ages, from which the modern one derives, is essentially contained
— as far as Europe is concerned — in what we call
Scholasticism, that Scholasticism of which I have repeatedly spoken.
At the height of the scholastic age two directions can be
distinguished: Realism and Nominalism.
If we take the meaning of
the word Realism, as it is often understood today, we do not grasp at once
what was meant by medieval scholastic Realism. It was not called
Realism because it approved only of the outer sense-reality and
considered everything else an illusion; quite the contrary was
the case — it was called Realism because it considered man's
ideas on the things and processes of the world as something
real, whereas Nominalism considered these ideas as mere names
which signified nothing real.
Let us look at this matter
quite clearly. In earlier days I explained the conceptions of Realism, by
using the arguments of my old friend, Vincenz Knauer. Vincenz Knauer
held that people who consider only the outer sense-reality, or that
which can be found in the world as material substance, will not be
able to understand what takes place, for instance, in the case of a
caged wolf, which is fed exclusively on lamb's flesh for a long time.
After a certain time the wolf has changed his old substance; this
would consist entirely of lamb's flesh and in reality the wolf should
turn into a lamb, if its substance is now lamb's substance! But this
does not happen, for the wolf remains a wolf — that is, the
material aspect does not matter; what matters is the form,
which consists of the same substance in the lamb's case and in the
wolf's case. We discover the difference between lamb and wolf because
we gain a conception of the lamb and a conception of the wolf. But
when someone says that ideas and conceptions are nothing at all, and
that the material aspect of things is the only one that matters, then
there should be no difference between lamb and wolf as far as the
material substance is concerned, for this has passed over from the
lamb into the wolf! If an idea really means nothing at all, the wolf
should become a lamb if it keeps on eating lamb's flesh.
This induced Vincenz Knauer,
who was a Realist in the medieval scholastic sense, to form the following
conception: — What matters, is the form in which the
substance is coordinated; this is the idea, or the concept.
Also the medieval scholastic Realists were of this opinion. They said
that ideas and concepts were something real, and that is why
they called themselves Realists.
Their radical opponents were
the Nominalists. They argued that there is nothing outside sense-reality,
and that ideas and concepts are mere names through which we grasp the
outer things of sense-reality.
We might adopt the following
argument: — Let us take Nominalism and then Realism, such as we
find it, for instance, in Thomas Aquinas, or in other scholastic
philosophers; if we contemplate these two spiritual currents in quite
an abstract way, their contrast will not be very evident. We might
look upon them as two different human aspects. In the present day we
are satisfied with such things because we are no longer kindled and
warmed by what is expressed in these spiritual currents. But these
things contain something very important. Let us take the Realists who
argued that ideas and conceptions — that is, forms taken up by
the sensory substance — are realities. The scholastic philosophers
already considered ideas and thoughts as something abstract, but they
called these abstractions a reality, because they were the result of
earlier conceptions, far more concrete and essential.
In earlier ages, people did
not merely look at the idea “wolf”, but at the real
group-soul “wolf”, living in the spiritual world. This
was a real being. But scholastic philosophers had subtilized
this real being of an earlier age into the abstract idea.
Nevertheless, the realistic scholastic philosophers still felt that,
the idea does not contain a nothingness, but a reality. This
reality indeed descended from earlier quite real beings, but people
were then still aware of this descendancy or progeny. In the same way
the ideas of Plato (which were far more alive and essentially endowed
with Being than the medieval scholastic ideas) were the descendants
of the ancient Persian Archangeloi-Beings, who lived and operated in
the universe as Anschaspans. They were very real beings. For Plato
they had grown more dim, and for the medieval scholastic philosophers
they had grown abstract. This was the last stage of the old
clairvoyance. Of course, medieval realistic scholasticism was no
longer based upon clairvoyance, but what it had preserved
traditionally, as its real ideas and conceptions, living in the
stones, in the plants, in animals and in physical man, was still
considered as something spiritual, although this spirituality
was very thin indeed. When the age of abstraction or of
intellectualism approached, the Nominalists discovered that they were
not able to connect anything real with thoughts and ideas. For them
these were mere names, coined for the convenience of man.
Medieval scholastic Realism,
let us say, of a Thomas Aquinas, has not found a continuation in the more
modern world conception, for man no longer considers ideas and
thoughts as something real. If we were to ask people whether they
considered thoughts and ideas as something real, we would only obtain
an answer by placing the question somewhat differently. For instance,
by asking someone who is firmly rooted in modern culture: —
“Would you be satisfied if, after your death, you were to
continue living merely as a thought or an idea?” In this case
he would surely feel very unreal after death! This was not so for the
realistic scholastic philosophers. For them, thoughts and ideas were
real to such an extent, that they could not conceive that, as a mere
thought or idea, they might lose themselves in the universe, after
death. But as stated, this medieval scholastic Realism was not
continued. In a modern world conception, everything consists of
Nominalism. Nominalism has gained the upper hand more and more. And
modern man (he does not know this, because he does not concern himself
any more about such ideas) is a Nominalist in the widest meaning.
This has a certain deeper
significance. One might say that the very passage from Realism to
Nominalism — or better, the victory of Nominalism in our modern
civilization — signifies that humanity has become completely
powerless in regard to the grasping of the spiritual. For, naturally,
just as the name “Smith” has nothing to do with the
person standing before us, who is somehow called “Smith”,
so have the ideas “wolf”, “lion”, conceived
as mere names, no meaning whatever as far as reality is
concerned. The passage from Realism to Nominalism expresses the
entire process of the loss of spirit in our modern civilization. Take
the following instance, and you will see that the entire meaning is
lost as soon as Realism loses its meaning.
If I still find real ideas
in the stone, in the plant, in the animals, and in physical man —
or better still, if I find in them the ideas as realities — I can
place the following question: — Is it possible that the
thoughts that live in stones and plants, were once the thoughts of
the Divine Being who created stones and plants? But if I see in
thoughts and ideas mere names which man gives to stones and plants, I
cut myself off from the Divine Being, and can no longer take it for
granted that during the act of cognition I somehow enter in
connection with the Divine Being.
If I am a scholastic Realist,
I argue as follows: — I plunge into the mineral world, into the
vegetable world and into the animal world; I form thoughts on quartz,
sulphide of mercury and malachite. I form thoughts on the wolf, the
hyena and the lion. I derive these from what I perceive through my
senses. If these thoughts are something which a god originally placed
into the stones and plants and animals, then my thoughts follow the
divine thoughts. That is, in my thinking I create a link with the
divinity.
If I stand on the earth
as a forlorn human being, and perhaps imitate to some extent the lion's
roar in the word “lion”, I myself give the lion this
name; then, however, my knowledge contains no connection whatever
with the divine spiritual creator of the beings. This implies that
modern humanity has lost the capacity of finding something spiritual
in Nature; the last trace of this was lost with scholastic Realism.
If we go back to the days in
which men still had an insight into the true nature of such things through
atavistic clairvoyance, we will find that the ancient Mysteries
consisted more or less in the following conception: the Mysteries saw
in all things a creative productive principle, which was looked upon
as the “Father-principle”. When a human being proceeded
from what his senses could perceive to the super-sensible, he really
felt that he was proceeding to the divine Father-principle.
Only when scholastic Realism
lost its meaning, it became possible to speak of atheism within the
European civilization. For it was impossible to speak of atheism as
long as people still found real thoughts in the things around them.
There were already atheists among the Greeks; but they were not real
atheists like the modern ones. Their atheism was not clearly defined.
But it must also be said that in Greece we often find the first
flashes of lightning, as if from an elementary human emotion,
precursory of things which found their real justification during a
later stage of human evolution. The actual theoretical atheism only
arose when Realism, scholastic Realism, decayed.
However, this scholastic
Realism continued to live in the divine, Father-principle, although the
Mystery of Golgotha was enacted thirteen or fourteen centuries ago.
But the Mystery of Golgotha
— I have often spoken of this — could really be grasped only
through the knowledge of an older age. For this reason, those who
wished to grasp the Mystery of Golgotha through what remained from
the ancient Mystery wisdom of God the Father, looked upon the Christ
merely as the Son of the Father.
Please consider carefully
the thought which we shall form now. Imagine that someone tells you
something concerning a person called Miller; you are only told that
he is the son of the old Miller. Hence, the only thing you know about
him is that he is the son of Miller. You wish to know more about him
from the person who has told you this. But he keeps on telling you:
— The old Miller is such and such a person, and he describes
all kinds of qualities and concludes by saying — and the young
Miller is his son. It was more or less the same when people spoke of
the Mystery of Golgotha according to the ancient Father-principle.
Nature was characterized in such a way that people said — the
divine creative Father-principle lives in Nature, and Christ is the
Son. Essentially, even the strongest Realists could not characterize
the Christ otherwise than by saying that he was the Son of the
Father. This is an essential point.
Then came a kind of reaction
to all these forms of thought adhering to the stream which came from the
Mystery of Golgotha, but which grasped it according to the
Father-principle. As a kind of counter-stream, came all that which
asserted itself as the evangelic principle, as protestantism, etc.,
during the passage from medieval life to modern life. A chief quality
among all the qualities of this evangelization, or protestantism, is
this that more importance was given to the fact that people wished to
see the Christ in his own being. They did not base themselves on the
old theology which considered the Christ only as the Son of the
Father, according to the Father-principle, but they searched the
Gospels in order to know the Christ as an independent Being, from the
description of his deeds and the communication of the words of
Christ. Really, this is what lies at the foundation of the Wycliffe
and Comenius currents in German protestantism: — to consider
the Christ as an independent Being.
However, the time for a
spiritual way of looking at things had passed. Nominalism took hold of
all minds and people were no longer able to find in the Gospels the
divine spiritual being of the Christ. Modern theology lost this
divine spiritual more and more. As I have often said, theologians
looked upon the Christ as the “meek man of Nazareth”.
Indeed, if you take Harnach's book — “The Essence of
Christianity”, you will find that it contains a relapse; for in
this book a modern theologian again describes the Christ very much
after the Father-principle. In Harnach's book, the “Essence of
Christianity”, we could substitute the word
“Christ” wherever we read the word “God-Father”
— this would make no great difference.
As long as the “wisdom
of the Father” considered the Christ as the Son of God, people
possessed in a certain sense a way of thinking which had a direct
bearing on reality. However, when they wished to understand the
Christ himself, in his divine spiritual being, the spiritual
conception was already lost. They did not approach the Christ at all.
For instance, the following case is very interesting (I do not know
if many of you have noted it): — when one of those who wished
at first to take part in the movement for a religious renewal,
— but he did not take part in the end —, when the chief
pastor of Nuremberg, Geyer, once held a lecture in Basle, he
confessed openly that modern protestant theologians did not possess
Christ — but only a universal God. This is what Geyer said,
because he honestly confessed that people indeed spoke of the Christ,
but the Father-principle was in reality the only thing that remained
to them. This is connected with the fact that the human being who
still looks at Nature spiritually (for he brings the spirit with him
at birth) can only find the Father-principle in Nature. But since the
decay of scholastic Realism he cannot even find this. Not even the
Father-principle can be found, and atheistic opinions arose.
If we do not wish to remain
by the description of the Christ, as being merely the Son of God, and wish
instead to grasp this Son in his own nature, then we must not
consider ourselves merely such as we are through birth; we must
instead experience, during earthly life itself, a kind of inner
awakening, no matter how weak this may be. We must pass through the
following facts of consciousness and say to ourselves: — if you
remain such as you were through birth, and see Nature merely through
your eyes and your other senses and then consider Nature with your
intellect, you are not a full human being, you cannot feel yourself
fully as a human being. First you must awaken something in you which
lies deeper still. You cannot be content with what you bring with you
at birth. You must instead bring forth again in full consciousness
what lies buried in greater depths.
One might say, that if we
educate a human being only according to his innate capacities, we do not
really educate him to be a complete human being. A child will grow into
a full human being only if we teach him to look for something in the
depths of his being, something he brings to the surface as an inner
light, which is kindled during life on earth. Why is it so? Because
the Christ who has gone through the Mystery of Golgotha, and is
connected with earthly life, dwells in the depths of man. If we
undertake this new awakening, we find the living Christ, who
does not enter the usual consciousness which we bring with us at
birth, and the consciousness that develops out of this innate
consciousness. The Christ must he raised out of the depths` of the
soul. The consciousness of Christ must arise in the life of the soul,
then we shall really be able to say what I have often mentioned:
— If we do not find the Father, we are not healthy, but are
born with certain deficiencies. If we are atheists, this implies to a
certain extent, that our bodies are ill. All atheists are physically
ill to a certain extent. If we do not find the Christ, this is
destiny and not illness, because it is an experience to find
the Christ, not a mere observation. We find the Father-principle by
observing what we ought to see in Nature. But we find the Christ,
when we experience resurrection. The Christ enters this experience of
resurrection as an independent Being, not merely as the Son of the
Father. Then we learn to know that if we keep merely to the Father,
in our quality of modern human beings, we cannot feel ourselves as
complete human beings. The Father sent the Son to the earth in order
that the Son might fulfill his works on earth. Can you not feel how
the Christ becomes an independent being in the fulfillment of the
Father's works?
In the present time,
Spiritual Science alone enables us to understand the entire process
of resurrection — to understand it practically, as an experience.
Spiritual Science wishes to bring these very experiences to conscious
knowledge out of the depths of the soul; they bring light into the
Christ-experience.
Thus we may say, that with
the end of scholastic Realism, it was no longer possible to grasp the
principle of the Father-wisdom. Anthroposophical Realism, or that
kind of Realism which again considers the spirit as something real,
will at last be able to see the Son as an independent Being and to
look upon the Christ as a Being perfect in itself. This will enable
us to find in Christ the divine spiritual, in an independent way.
You see, this
Father-principle really played the greatest imaginable part in older
times. The theology which developed out of the ancient Mystery-wisdom
was really interested only in the Father-principle. What kind of thoughts
were predominant in the past? — Whether the Son is at one with
the Father from all eternity, or whether he arose in Time and was
born into Time. People thought about his descent from the Father.
Consider the old history of dogmas; you will find throughout that the
greatest value is placed on the question of Christ's descent. When
the Third Person of the Trinity, the Spirit, was considered, people
asked themselves whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father, with
the Son or through the Son, etc. The problem was always connected
with the genealogy of these three Godly Persons — that is, with
what is connected with descent, and can be comprised in the
Father-principle. During the strife between scholastic Realism and
scholastic Nominalism, these old ideas of the Spirit's descent from
the Father and from the Son were no longer understood. For you see,
now they were three Persons. These three Persons who represent
Godly Persons, were supposed to form one Godhead. The Realists
comprised these three Godly Persons in one idea. For them, the idea
was something real, hence the one God was something real for their
knowledge. The Nominalists could not very well understand the Three
Persons of the one God — consisting of Father, Son and Holy
Ghost. When they summarized this Godhead, they obtained a mere word,
or name. Thus the three Godly Persons became separate Persons for
them, and the time in which scholastic Realism strove against
scholastic Nominalism was also the time in which no real idea could
be formed concerning this Godly Trinity. A living conception of the
Godly Trinity was lost.
When Nominalism gained
the upper hand, people understood nothing more of similar ideas, and
took up the old ideas according to this or to that traditional belief;
they were unable to form any real thought. And when the Christ came
more to the fore in the protestant faith — although his divine
spiritual being could no longer be grasped, because Nominalism
prevailed — it was quite impossible to have any idea at all
concerning the Three Persons. The old dogma of the Trinity was
scattered.
The things had a great
significance for mankind in the age when spiritual feelings were
predominant, and played a great part in the human souls for their
happiness and unhappiness. These things were pushed completely in the
background during the age of modern narrow-mindedness. Are modern
people interested in the connection between Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, unless the problem happens to enter into theological
quarrels? Modern man thinks that he is a good Christian, yet he does
not worry about the relationships of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He
cannot understand at all that once this was one of mankind's burning
soul-problems. He has grown narrow-minded, and for this reason we can
term the age of Nominalism the narrow-minded age of European
civilization, for narrow-minded people have no real feeling for
the spiritual, that continually rouses the soul. These kinds of
people live only in their habits. It is not possible to live entirely
without spirit, yet the narrow-minded people would like to live
without any spirit at all — get up without the spirit —
breakfast without the spirit — go to the office without the
spirit — lunch without the spirit — play billiards in the
afternoon without the spirit — in fact they would like to do
everything without the spirit! Nevertheless the spirit permeates the
whole of life, but narrow-minded people do not bother about this
— it does not interest them.
Hence we may argue:
Anthroposophy should therefore strive to maintain the Universal-Divine.
But it does not do this. It finds the divine-spiritual in God the Father;
it also finds this divine-spiritual in God the Son. If we compare the
conceptions of Anthroposophy with the earlier wisdom of the Father we
will find more or less the following situation: — Please do not
mind my using a somewhat trivial expression, but I should like to
say, that, as far as Christ was concerned, the wisdom of the Father
asked above all — ”Who was his Father? Let us find out
who his Father was and then we shall know him.” Anthroposophy
is, of course, placed into modern life, and in working out natural
sciences it should of course continue the wisdom of the Father. But
Anthroposophy works out the wisdom of the Christ and begins with the
Christ. Anthroposophy studies, if I may use this expression, history,
and finds in history a descending evolution. It finds the Mystery of
Golgotha and from thence an ascending evolution. In the Mystery of
Golgotha it finds the central point and meaning of the entire history
of man on earth. When Anthroposophy studies Nature it calls the
old Father-principle into new life, but when it studies history it
finds the Christ. Now it has learned two things. It is just as if I
were to travel into a city where I make the acquaintance of an older
man; then I travel into another city and I learn to know a younger
man. I become acquainted with the older and with the younger, each
one for himself. At first they interest me, each one for himself.
Afterwards I discover a certain likeness between them. I follow this
up and find that the younger man is the son of the older one. In
Anthroposophy it is just the same — it learns to know the
Father, and later on it learns to know the connection between the
two; whereas the ancient wisdom of the Father proceeded from the
Father and learned to know the connection between Father and Son at
the very outset.
You see, in regard to all
things, Anthroposophy must really find a new way, and if we really wish
to enter into Anthroposophy, it is necessary to change the way of
thinking and of feeling in respect to most things. In Anthroposophy,
it is not enough if anthroposophists consider on the one hand a more
or less materialistic world conception, or a world conception based
more or less on ancient traditional beliefs, and then pass on to
Anthroposophy, because this appeals to them more than other
teachings. But they are mistaken. We must not only go from one
conception to the other — from the materialistic monistic
conception to the anthroposophical one — and then say
that the latter is the best. Instead we must realize that what
enables us to understand the monistic materialistic conception does
not enable us to understand the anthroposophical conception. You see,
theosophists believed that the understanding of the materialistic
monistic conception enabled them also to understand the spiritual.
For this reason we have the peculiar phenomenon that in the monistic
materialistic world conception people argue as follows: —
everything is matter; man consists only of matter — the
material substance of the blood, of the nerves, etc.
Everything is matter.
Theosophists — I mean the members of the Theosophical Society
— say instead: — No, this is a materialistic view; there
is the spirit. Now they begin to describe man according to the spirit:
— the physical body which is dense, then the etheric body
somewhat thinner, a kind of mist, a thin mist — these are in
reality quite materialistic ideas! Now comes the astral body, again
somewhat thinner, yet this is only a somewhat thin material
substance, etc. This leads them up a ladder, yet they obtain merely a
material substance that grows thinner and thinner. This too is a
materialistic view. For the result is always “matter”,
even though this grows thinner and thinner. This is materialism, but
people call it “spirit”. Materialism at least is honest,
and calls the matter “matter”, whereas, in the other
case, spiritual names are given to what people conceive
materialistically.
When we look at spiritual
images, we must realize that we cannot contemplate these in the same way
as we contemplate physical images; a new way of thinking must be found.
Things become very
interesting at a special point in the history of the Theosophical
Society. Materialism speaks of atoms. These atoms were imagined in
many ways and strong materialists, who took into consideration the
material quality of the body, formed all kinds of ideas about these
atoms. One of these materialists built up a Theory of Atoms and imagined
the atom in a kind of oscillating condition, as if some fine material
substance were spinning round in spirals.
If you study Leadbeater's
ideas on atoms, you will find a great resemblance with this theory.
An essay which appeared
recently in an English periodical discussed the question of whether
Leadbeater's atom was actually “seen”, or whether Leadbeater
contented himself with reading the book on the Theory of Atoms and
translating it into a “spiritual” language.
These things must be taken
seriously. It matters very much that we should examine ourselves, in
order to see if we still have materialistic tendencies and merely
call them by all kinds of spiritual names. The essential point is to
change our ways of thinking and of feeling — otherwise we
cannot reach a really spiritual way of looking at things. This gives
us an outlook, a perspective, that will help us to achieve the rise
from sin as opposed to the fall into sin.
|