Lecture V
Berlin, July 3, 1917
As you may have
realized, a basic feature of the various considerations in
which we have been engaged in recent weeks is the effort to
gather material that will help us understand the difficult
times we live in. Such understanding can only come about
through a completely new way of looking at things. It cannot
be sufficiently emphasized that a healthy development of
mankind's future depends upon a new understanding taking hold
in a sufficiently large number of human beings.
I should like
these discussions to be as concrete as possible, in the sense
in which the word, the concept “concrete,” has
been used in the lectures of past weeks. Great impulses at
work in mankind's evolution at any given time take effect
through this or that personality. Thus it becomes evident in
certain human beings just how strong such impulses are at a
particular time. Or, one could also say that it becomes
evident to what extent there is the opportunity for certain
impulses to be effective.
In order to
describe certain characteristic aspects of our time I have
here and elsewhere drawn attention to a man who died
recently. Today I would like once more to speak about the
philosopher Franz Brentano who died a short time ago in Zürich.
[ Note 1 ]
He was certainly not a philosopher in a narrow or pedantic
sense. Those who knew him, even if only through his work, saw
him as representing modern man, struggling with the riddle of
the universe. Nor was Brentano a one-sided philosopher; what
concerned him were the wider aspects of essential human
issues. It could be said that there is hardly a problem, no
matter how enigmatic, to which he did not try to find a
solution. What interested him was the whole range of man's
world views. He was reticent about his work and very little
has been published. His literary remains are bound to be
considerable and will in due course reveal the results of his
inner struggles, though perhaps for someone who understands
not only what Franz Brentano expressed in words but also the
issues that caused him such inner battles, nothing actually
new will emerge.
I would like to
bring before you what in our problematic times a great
personality like Franz Brentano found particularly
problematic. He was not the kind of philosopher one usually
meets nowadays; unlike modern philosophers he was first and
foremost a thinker, a thinker who did not allow his thinking
to wander at random. He sought to establish it on the firm
foundation of the evolution of thought itself. This led to
his first publication, a book dealing with Aristotle's
psychology, the so-called “nus poetikos.”
[ Note 2 ]
This book by Brentano, which is long out of print, is a magnificent
achievement in detailed inquiry. It reveals him as a man
capable of real thinking; that is, he has the ability to
formulate and elaborate concepts that have content. We find
Franz Brentano, more especially in the second half of his
book about Aristotle's psychology, engaged in a process of
thinking of a subtlety not encountered nowadays, and indeed
seldom at the time the book was written. What is especially
significant is the fact that Franz Brentano's ideas still had
the strength to capture and leave their mark in human souls.
When people nowadays discuss things connected with the inner
life, they generally express themselves in empty words,
devoid of any real content. The words are used because
historically they have become part of the language, and this
gives the illusion that they contain thought, but thinking is
not in fact involved.
Considering
that everywhere in Aristotle one finds a distinct flaring up
of the ancient knowledge so often described by us as having
its origin in atavistic clairvoyance, it is rather odd that
people who profess to read Aristotle today should ignore
spiritual science so completely. When we speak today about
ether body, sentient body, sentient soul, intellectual soul,
consciousness soul, these terms are coined to express the
life of soul and spirit in its reality, of which man must
again become conscious.
Many of the
expressions used by Aristotle are no longer understood.
However, they are reminders that there was a time when the
individual members of man's soul being were known; not until
Aristotle did they become abstractions. Franz Brentano made
great efforts to understand these members of man's soul
precisely through that thinker of antiquity, Aristotle. It
must be said, however, that it was just through Aristotle
that their meaning began to fade from mankind's historical
evolution. Aristotle distinguishes in man the vegetative
soul, by which he means approximately what we call ether
body, then the aesthetikon or sensitive soul, which we call
the sentient or astral body. Next, he speaks of orektikon
which corresponds to the sentient soul, then comes kinetikon
corresponding to the intellectual soul, and he uses the term
dianoetikon for the consciousness soul. Aristotle was fully
aware of the meaning of these concepts, but he lacked direct
perception of the reality. This caused a certain unclarity
and abstraction in his works, and that applies also to the
book I mentioned by Franz Brentano. Nevertheless, real
thinking holds sway in Brentano's book. And when someone
devotes himself to the power of thinking the way he did, it
is no longer possible to entertain the foolish notion that
man's soul and spirit are mere by-products arising from the
physical-bodily nature. The concepts formulated by Brentano
on the basis of Aristotle's work were too substantial, so to
speak, to allow him to succumb to the mischief of modern
materialism.
Franz
Brentano's main aim was to attain insight into the general
working of the human soul; he wanted to carry out
psychological research. But he was also concerned with an
all-encompassing view of the world based on psychology. I
have already drawn your attention to the fact that Franz
Brentano himself estimated that his work on psychology would
fill five volumes, but only the first volume was published.
It is fully understandable to someone who knew him well why
no subsequent volumes appeared. The deeper reason lies in the
fact that Brentano would not — indeed according to his
whole disposition, he could not — turn to spiritual
science. Yet in order to find answers to the questions facing
him after the completion of the first volume of his
Psychology
he needed spiritual knowledge. But
spiritual science he could not accept and, as he was above
all an honest man, he abandoned writing the subsequent
volumes. The venture came to a full stop and thus remains a
fragment.
I would like to
draw attention to two aspects of the problem in Brentano's
mind. It is a problem which today every thinking person must
consciously strive to solve. In fact, the whole of mankind,
insofar as people do not live in animal-like obtuseness, is
striving, albeit unconsciously, to solve this problem. People
in general are either laboring in one direction or another
for a plausible solution, or else suffering psychologically
because of their inability to get anywhere near the root of
the problem. Franz Brentano investigated and pondered deeply
the human soul. However, when this is done along the lines of
modern science one arrives at the point that leads from the
human soul to the spirit. And there one may remain at the
obvious, and recognize the human soul's activity to be
threefold in that it thinks; i.e., forms mental pictures, it
feels and it wills. Thinking, feeling and willing are indeed
the three members of the human soul. However, no satisfactory
insight into them is possible unless through spiritual
knowledge a path is found to the spiritual reality with which
the human soul is connected. If one does not find that path
— and Franz Brentano could not find it — then one
feels oneself with one's thinking, feeling and willing
completely isolated within the soul. Thinking at best
provides images of the external, spatial, purely material
reality. Feeling at best takes pleasure or displeasure in
what occurs in the spatial physical reality. Through the
will, man's physical nature may appease its cravings or
aversions. Without spiritual insight man does not experience
through his thinking, feeling and willing any relationship
with a reality in which he feels secure, to which he feels he
belongs. That was why Brentano said: To differentiate
thinking, feeling and willing in the human soul does not help
one to understand it, as in doing so one remains within the
soul itself. He therefore divided the soul in another way,
and how he did it is characteristic. He still sees the soul
as threefold but not according to forming mental pictures of
thinking, feeling and willing. He differentiates instead
between forming mental pictures, judging or assessing, and
the inner world of fluctuating moods and feelings. Thus,
according to Brentano, the life of the soul is divided into
forming mental pictures, judgments, and fluctuating moods and
feelings.
Mental pictures
do not, to begin with, lead us out beyond the soul. When we
form mental pictures of something, the images remain within
the soul. We believe that they refer to something real, but
that is by no means established. As long as we do not go
beyond the mental picture, we have to concede that something
merely imagined is also a mental picture. Thus, a mental
picture as such may refer to something real or to something
merely imagined. Even when we relate mental pictures to one
another, we still have no guarantee of reality. A tree is a
mental picture; green is a mental picture. To say, The tree
is green, is to combine two mental pictures, but that in
itself is no guarantee of dealing with reality, for my mental
picture “green tree” could be a product of my
fantasy.
Nevertheless,
Brentano says: When I judge or make assessments I stand
within reality, and I am already making a judgment, even if a
veiled one, when I combine mental pictures as I do when I
say, The tree is green. In so doing I indicate not only that
I combine the two concepts “tree” and
“green,” but that a green tree exists. Thus I am
not remaining within the mental pictures, I go across to
existence. There is a difference, says Brentano, between
being aware of a green tree and being conscious that
“this tree is green.” The former is a mere
formulation of mental pictures, the latter has a basis within
the soul consisting of acceptance or rejection. In the
activity of merely forming mental pictures one remains within
the soul, whereas passing judgment is an activity of soul
which relates one to the environment in that one either
accepts or rejects it. In saying, a green tree exists, I
acknowledge not merely that I am forming mental pictures, but
that the tree exists quite apart from my mental picture. In
saying, centaurs do not exist, I also pass judgment by
rejecting as unreal the mental picture of half-horse,
half-man. Thus according to Brentano, passing judgment is the
second activity of the human soul.
Brentano saw
the third element within the human soul as that of
fluctuating moods and feelings. Just as he regards judgment
of reality to consist of acknowledgments or rejections, so he
sees moods and feelings as fluctuating between love and hate,
likes and dislikes. Man is either attracted or repelled by
things. Brentano does not regard the element of will to be a
separate function of the soul. He sees it as part of the
realm of moods and feelings. The fact that he regards the
will in this way is very characteristic of Brentano and
points to a deeply rooted aspect of his makeup. It would lead
too far to go into that now; all that concerns us at the
moment is that Brentano did not differentiate will impulses
from mere feelings of like or dislike. He saw all these
elements as weaving into one another. When examining a will
impulse to action, Brentano would be concerned only with
one's love for it. Again, if the will impulse was against an
action, he would examine one's dislike for it. Thus for him
the life of soul consists of love and hate, acknowledgment
and rejection, and forming mental pictures.
Starting from
these premises Brentano did his utmost to find solutions to
the two greatest riddles of the human soul, the riddle of
truth, and the riddle of good. What is true (or real)? What
is good? If one is seeking to justify the judgment of
thinking about reality or unreality, the question arises, Why
do we acknowledge certain things and reject others? Those we
acknowledge we regard as truth; those we reject we regard as
untruth. And that brings us straight to the heart of the
problem: What is truth? The heart of the other problem
concerning good and evil, good and bad, we encounter when we
turn to the realm of fluctuating moods and feelings.
According to Brentano, love is what prompts us to acknowledge
an action as good, while hate is the rejection of an action
as evil. Thus ethics, morality, and what we understand by
rights, all these things are a province of the realm of moods
and feelings. The question of good and evil was very much in
Brentano's mind as he pondered the nature of man's life of
feelings fluctuating between love and hate.
It is indeed
extremely interesting to follow the struggle of a man like
Brentano, a struggle lasting for decades, to find answers to
questions such as What right has man to assess things,
judging them true or false, acknowledge or reject them? Even
if you examine all Brentano's published writings — and
I am convinced that his as yet unpublished work will give the
same result — nowhere will you find him giving any
other answer to the question What is true? In other words:
What justifies man to judge things except what he calls the
“evidence,” the “visible proof”? He
naturally means an inner visible proof. Thus Brentano's
answer amounts to this: I attain truth if I am not inwardly
blind, but able to bring my experiences before my inner eye
in such a way that I can survey them clearly, and accept
them, or by closer scrutiny perhaps reject them. Franz
Brentano did not get beyond this view. It is significant
indeed that a man who was an eminent thinker — which
cannot be said about many — struggled for decades to
answer the question What gives me the right to acknowledge or
reject something, to regard it as true or false? All he
reached was what he termed the evidence, the inner visible
proof.
Brentano
lectured for many years in Vienna on what in Austrian
universities was known as practical philosophy, which really
means ethics or moral philosophy. Just as Brentano was
obliged to give these lectures, so the law students were
obliged to attend them, as they were prescribed, compulsory
courses. However, during his courses Brentano did not so much
lecture on “practical philosophy,” as he did on
the question How does one come to accept something as good or
put something down as bad? Due to his original views, Franz
Brentano did not by any means have an easy task. As you know,
the problem of good is always being debated in philosophy.
Attempts are made to answer the question: Have we any right
to regard one thing as good and another as bad? Or the
question may be formulated differently: Where does the good
originate, where is its source, and what is the source of the
bad or evil? This question is approached in all manner of
ways. But all around Brentano, at the time when he attempted
to discover the criterion of good, a peculiar moral
philosophy was gaining ground, that of Herbart, one of the
successors of Kant's.
[ Note 3 ]
Herbart's view of ethics, which others have advocated
too but none more emphatically than he himself, was the view
that moral behavior, in the last resort, depends upon the
fact that certain relationships in life please us, whereas
others displease us. Those that please us are good, those
that displease us are bad. Man as it were is supposed to have
an inborn natural ability to take pleasure in the good and
displeasure in the bad. Herbart says, for example: Inner
freedom is something which always, in every instance, pleases
us. And what is inner freedom? Well, he says, man is inwardly
free when his thinking and actions are in harmony. This would
mean, crudely put, that if A thinks B an awful fellow but
instead of saying so flatters him, then that is not an
expression of inner freedom. Thinking and action are not in
the harmony on which the ethical view of inner freedom is
based. Another view on ethics is based on perfection. We are
displeased when we do something we could have done better,
whereas we are pleased when we have done something so well
that the result is better, more perfect than it would have
been through any other action. Herbart differentiates five
such ethical concepts. However, all that interests us at the
moment is that he based morality on the soul's immediate
pleasure or displeasure.
Yet another
principle of ethics is Kant's so-called categorical
imperative, according to which an action is good if it is
based on principles that could be the basis for a law
applying to all.
[ Note 4 ]
Nothing could be more contrary to morality! Even the example
Kant himself puts forward clearly shows his categorical
imperative to be void of moral value. He says: Suppose you
were given something for safekeeping, but instead you
appropriated it. Such an action, says Kant, cannot be a basic
principle for all to follow, for if everybody simply took
possession of things entrusted to them, an orderly human
society would be an impossibility. It is not difficult to see
that in such a case, whether the action is good or bad cannot
be judged on whether things entrusted to one are returned or
not. Quite different issues come into question.
All the modern
views on ethics are contrary to that of Franz Brentano. He
sought deeper reasons. Pleasure and displeasure, he said,
merely confirm that an ethical judgment has been made. As far
as the beautiful is concerned, we are justified in saying
that beauty is a source of pleasure, ugliness of displeasure.
However, we should be aware that what determines us when it
is a question of ethics, of morality, is a much deeper
impulse than the one that influences us in assessing the
beautiful. That was Brentano's view of ethics, and each year
he sought to reaffirm it to the law students. He also spoke
of his principle of ethics in his beautiful public lecture
entitled “Natural Sanction of Law and Morality.”
[ Note 5 ]
The circumstances that led Franz Brentano to give this lecture are
interesting. The famous legislator Ihering had spoken at a meeting
about legal concepts being fluid, by which he meant that concepts
of law and rights cannot be understood in an absolute sense
because their meaning continually changes in the course of time.
[ Note 6 ]
They can be
understood only if viewed historically. In other words, if we
look back to the time when cannibalism was customary, we have
no right to say that one ought not to eat people. We have no
right to say that our concepts of morals should have
prevailed, for our concepts would at that time have been
wrong. Cannibalism was right then; it is only in the course
of time that our view of it has changed. Our sympathy must
therefore lie with the cannibals, not with those who
refrained from the practice! That is, of course, an extreme
example, but it does illustrate the essence of Ihering's
view. The important point to him was that concepts of law and
morality have changed in the course of human evolution which
proves that they are in a state of flux.
This view
Brentano could not possibly accept. He wanted to discover a
definite, absolute source of morality. In regard to truth he
had produced “the evidence” that what lights up
in the soul as immediate recognition is true, i.e., what is
correctly judged is true. To the other question, what is
good, Brentano, again after decades of struggle, found an
equally abstract answer. He said: Good and bad have their
source in human feelings fluctuating between love and hate.
What man genuinely loves is good; i.e., what is worthy of
love is good. He attempted to show instances of how human
beings can love rightly. Just as man in regard to truth
should judge rightly, so in regard to the good he should love
rightly.
I shall not go
into details; I mainly want to emphasize that Brentano, after
decades of struggle, had reached an abstraction, the simple
formula that good is that which is worthy of love. Instead,
it has to be said that Brentano's greatness does not lie in
the results he achieved. You will no doubt agree that it is a
somewhat meager conclusion to say, Truth is what follows from
the evidence of correct judgment; the good is what is rightly
loved. These are indeed meager results, but what is
outstanding, what is characteristic of Brentano, is the
energy, the earnestness of his striving. In no other
philosopher will you find such Aristotelean sagacity and at
the same time such deep inner involvement with the argument.
The meager results gain their value when one follows the
struggle it cost to reach them. It is precisely his inner
struggles that make Franz Brentano such an outstanding
example of spiritual striving. One could mention many people,
including philosophers, who have in our time tried to find
answers to the questions, What is truth? What is the good?
But you will find their answers, especially those given by
the more popular philosophers, far more superficial than
those given by Brentano. That does not alter the fact that
Brentano's answers must naturally seem meager fare to those
who have for years been occupied with spiritual science.
However, Brentano had also to suffer the destiny of modern
striving man, lack of understanding; his struggles were
little understood.
A closer look
at Brentano's intensive search for answers to the questions,
What is true? What is good? reveals a clarity and
comprehensiveness in outlook seldom found in those who refuse
spiritual science. What makes him exceptional is that without
spiritual science no one has come as far as he did. Nowhere
will you find within the whole range of modern philosophical
striving any real answers concerning what truth is or what
the good is. What you will find is confusion aplenty, albeit
at times interesting confusion, for example in Windelband.
[ Note 7 ]
Professor Windelband, who taught for years at Heidelberg and
Freiburg, could discover nothing in the human soul to cause man to
accept certain things as true and reject others as false. So
he based truth on assent, that is, to some extent on love. If
according to our judgment of something we can love it, then
it is true; conversely, if we must hate it, then it is
untrue. Truth and untruth contain hidden love and hate.
Herbartians, too, judge things to be morally good or morally
bad according to whether they please or displease, a judgment
which Brentano considered to be applicable only to what is
beautiful or ugly.
Thus there is
plenty of confusion, and not the slightest possibility of
reaching insight into the soul's essential nature. All that
is left is despair, which is so often all there is left after
one has studied the works of modern philosophers. Naturally
they do pose questions and often believe to have come up with
answers. Unfortunately that is just when things go wrong; one
soon sees that the answers, whether positive or negative, are
no answers at all.
What is so
interesting about Brentano is that, if only he had continued
a little further beyond the point he had reached, he would
have entered a region where the solutions are to be found.
Whoever cannot get beyond the view ordinarily held of man
will not be able to answer the questions What is true? What
is false? It is simply not possible, on the one hand to
regard man's being as it is regarded today, and on the other
to answer such questions as What is the meaning of truth in
relation to man? Nor is it possible to answer the question
What is the good? You will soon see why this is so. But first
I must draw your attention to something in regard to which
mistaken views are held both ways, that is the question
concerning the beautiful.
According to
Herbart and his followers, good is merely a subdivision of
beauty, more particularly beauty attributed to human action.
Any questions concerning what is beautiful immediately reveal
it to be a very subjective issue. Nothing is more disputed
than beauty; what one person finds beautiful another does
not. In fact, the most curious views are voiced in quarrels
over the beautiful and the ugly, over what is artistically
justified and what is not. In the last resort the whole
argument as to whether something is beautiful or ugly,
artistic or not, rests on man's individual nature. No general
law concerning beauty will ever be discovered, nor should it
be; nothing would be more meaningless. One may not like a
certain work of art, but there is always the possibility of
entering into what the artist had in mind and thus coming to
see aspects not recognized before. In this way, one may come
to realize that it was lack of understanding which prevented
one from recognizing its beauty. Such aesthetic judgment,
such aesthetic acceptance or rejection, is really something
which, though subjective, is justified.
To confirm in
detail what I have just said would take too long. However,
you all know that the saying “taste cannot be
disputed” has a certain justification. Taste for
certain things one either has or has not; either the taste
has been acquired already or not yet. We may ask, why? The
answer is that every time we apply an aesthetic evaluation to
something we have a twofold perception. That is an important
fact discovered through spiritual investigation. Whenever you
are inclined to apply the criterion of beauty to something,
your perception of the object is twofold. Such an object is
perceived in the first place because of its influence on the
physical and ether bodies. This is a current that streams, so
to speak, from the beautiful object to the onlooker,
affecting his physical and ether bodies regardless whether a
painting, a sculpture or anything else is observed. What
exists out there in the external world is experienced in the
physical and ether bodies, but apart from that it is
experienced also in the I and astral body. However,
the latter experience does not coincide with the former; you
have in fact two perceptions. An impression is made on the
one hand on the physical and etheric bodies and on the other
an impression is also made on the I and astral body.
You therefore have a twofold perception.
Whether a
person regards an object as beautiful or ugly will depend
upon his ability to bring the two impressions into accord or
discord. If the two experiences cannot be made to harmonize,
it means that the work of art in question is not understood;
in consequence, it is regarded as not beautiful. For beauty
to be experienced the I and astral body on the one
hand, and the physical and ether body on the other must be
able to vibrate in unison, must be in agreement. An inner
process must take place for beauty to be experienced; if it
does not, the possibility for beauty to be experienced is not
present. Just think of all the possibilities that exist, in
the experience of beauty, for agreement or disagreement. So
you see that to experience beauty is a very inward and
subjective process.
On the other
hand what is truth? Truth is also something that meets us
face to face. Truth, to begin with, makes an impression on
the physical and ether bodies and you, on your part, must
perceive that effect on those bodies. Please note the
difference: Faced with an object of beauty your perception is
twofold. Beauty affects your physical and ether bodies and
also your I and astral body; you must inwardly bring
about harmony between the two impressions. Concerning truth
the whole effect is on the physical and ether bodies and you
must perceive that effect inwardly. In the case of beauty,
the effect it has on the physical and ether bodies remains
unconscious; you do not perceive it. On the other hand, in
the case of truth, you do not bring the effect it has on the
I and astral body down into consciousness; it
vibrates unconsciously. What must happen in this case is that
you devote yourself to the impression made on the physical
and ether bodies, and find its reflection in the I and astral
body. Thus, in the case of truth or reality you have the same
content in the I and astral body as in the physical
and ether bodies, whereas in the case of beauty you have two
different contents.
Thus the
question of truth is connected with man's being insofar as it
consists of the lowest members, the physical and ether
bodies. Through the physical body we participate only in the
external material world, the world of mere appearance.
Through the ether body we participate solely in what results
from its harmony with the whole cosmos. Truth, reality, is
anchored in the ether body, and someone who does not
recognize the existence of the ether body cannot answer the
question Where is truth established? All he can answer is the
question Where is that established which the senses reflect
of the external world; where is the world of appearance? What
the senses reflect in the physical body only becomes full
reality, only becomes truth, when assimilated by the ether
body. Thus the question concerning truth can only be answered
by someone who recognizes the total effect of external
objects on man's physical and ether bodies.
If Franz
Brentano wanted to answer the question What is truth? he
would have been obliged to investigate the way man's being is
related to the whole world through his ether body. That he
could not do as he did not acknowledge its existence. All he
could find was the meager answer he termed “the
evidence.” To explain truth is to explain the human
ether body's relation to the cosmos. We are connected with
the cosmos when we express truth. That is why we must
continue to experience the ether body for several days after
death. If we did not we would lose the sense for the truth,
for the reality of the time between death and new birth. We
live on earth in order to foster our union with truth, with
reality. We take our experience of truth with us, as it were,
in that we live for several days after death with the great
tableau of the ether body. One can arrive at an answer to the
question What is truth? only by investigating the human ether
body.
The other
question which Franz Brentano wanted to answer was What is
the good? Just as the external physical object can become
truth or reality for man only if it acts on his physical and
etheric bodies, so must what becomes an impulse towards good
or evil influence man's I and astral body. In the
I and astral body it does not as yet become
formulated into concept, into mental picture; for that to
happen it must be reflected in the physical and etheric
bodies. We have mental pictures of good and evil only when
what is formless in the I and astral body is
mirrored in the physical and ether bodies. However, what
expresses itself externally as good or evil stems from what
occurs in the I and astral body. Someone who does
not recognize the I and astral body can know nothing
about where in man the impulse to good or evil is active. All
he can say is that good is what is rightly loved; but love
occurs in the astral body. Only by investigating what
actually happens in the astral body and I is it possible to
attain concrete insight into good and evil. At the present
stage of evolution the I only brings to expression
what lives in the astral body as instincts and emotions. As
you know, the human “I” is as yet not very far in
its development. The astral body is further, but man is more
conscious of what occurs in his I than he is of his
astral body. As a consequence man is not very conscious of
moral impulses, or, put differently, he does not benefit from
them unless the astral impulses enter his consciousness. As
far as the man of today is concerned, the original,
primordial moral impetus is situated in his astral body, just
as the forces of truth are situated in his ether body.
Through his astral body man is connected with the spiritual
world, and in that world are the impulses of good. In the
spiritual world also holds sway what for man is good and
evil; but we only know its reflection in the ether and
physical bodies.
So you see it
is only possible to attain concepts of truth, goodness and
beauty when account is taken of all the members of man's
being. To attain a concept of truth the ether body must be
understood. Unless one knows that in the experience of beauty
the ether and astral bodies distinctively vibrate in unison
— the I and physical body do too, but to a lesser
degree — it cannot be understood. A proper concept of
the good cannot be attained without the knowledge that it
basically represents active forces in the astral body.
Thus Franz
Brentano actually came as far as the portal leading to the
knowledge he sought. His answers appear so meager because
they can be properly understood only if they are related to
insight of a higher order. When he says of truth that it must
light up and become directly visible to the eye of the soul,
he should have been able to say more; namely, that to
perceive truth rightly one must succeed in taking hold of it
independently of the physical body. The ether body must be
loosened from the physical body. This is because the first
clairvoyant experience is that of pure thinking. You will
know that I have always upheld the view, which indeed every
true scientist of the spirit must uphold, that he who grasps
a pure-thought is already clairvoyant. However, man's
ordinary thinking is not a pure thinking, it is filled either
with mental pictures or with fantasy. Only in the ether body
can a pure thought be grasped, consequently whoever does so
is clairvoyant. And to understand goodness one must be aware
that it is part and parcel of what lives in the human astral
body and in the I.
Especially when
he spoke about the origin of good, Franz Brentano had an
ingenious way of pointing to significant things; for example,
that Aristotle had basically said that one can lecture on
goodness only to those who are already habitually good. If
this were true, it would be dreadful, for whoever is already
in the habit of being good does not need lectures on it.
There is no need to instruct him in what he already
possesses. Moreover, if those words of Aristotle's were true,
it follows that the converse is true also, that those not
habitually good could not be helped by hearing about it. All
talk about goodness would be meaningless; attempts to
establish ethics would be futile. This is also a problem to
which no satisfactory solution can be found unless sought in
the light of spiritual science.
In general it
cannot be said that our actions spring from pure concepts and
ideas. But, as those who have studied
The Philosophy of Freedom
will realize, only an action that springs from a
pure concept, a pure idea, can be said to be a free action, a
truly independent action.
[ Note 8 ]
Our actions are usually based on instincts, passions
or emotions, only seldom if ever on pure concepts. More is
said about these matters in the booklet
Education of the Child in the Light of Spiritual Science.
[ Note 9 ]
I have also elaborated on it in other lectures.
In the first
two seven-year periods of life — the first lasting up
to the change of teeth, to about the seventh year, the second
lasting till puberty — a human being's actions are
predominantly influenced by instincts, emotions and the like.
Not till the onset of puberty does he become capable of
absorbing thoughts concerning good and evil. So we have to
admit that Aristotle was right up to a point. He was right in
the sense that the instincts towards good and evil that are
in us already during the first two periods of life, up to the
age of 14, tend to dominate us throughout life. We may modify
them, suppress them, but they are still there for the whole
of our life. The question is, Does it help that with puberty
we begin to understand moral principles, and become able to
rationalize our instincts? It helps in a twofold manner, and
if you have a feeling and sense for these things, you will
soon see how essential it is that this whole issue is
understood in our time.
Consider the
following example: Let us say a human being has inherited
good tendencies, and up to the age of puberty he develops
them into excellent and noble inclinations. He becomes what
is called a good person. At the moment I do not want to go
into why he becomes a good person, but to examine more
external aspects. His parents we must visualize as good, kind
people and so, too, his grandparents. All this has the effect
that he develops tendencies that are noble and kind, and he
instinctively does what is right and good. But let us now
assume that he shows no sign, after having reached puberty,
of wanting to rationalize his natural good instincts; he has
no inclination to think about them. The reason for this we
shall leave aside for the moment. So up to the age of 14 he
develops good instincts but later shows no inclination to
rationalize them. He has a propensity for doing good and
hardly any for doing bad. If his attention is drawn to the
fact that certain actions can be either good or bad he will
say, It does not concern me. He is not interested in any
discussions about it; he does not want to lift the issue into
the sphere of the intellect. As a grown man he has children
— whether the person is man or woman makes of course no
difference — and the children will not inherit his good
instincts if he has not thought about them. The children will
soon show uncertainty in regard to their instinctive life.
That is what is so significant.
Thus, such a
person may get on well enough with his own instincts, but if
he has never consciously concerned himself about good and
evil, he will not pass on effective instincts to his
children. Furthermore, already in his next life he will not
bring with him any decisive instincts concerning good and
evil. It is really like a plant which may be an attractive
and excellent herb, but if it is prevented from flowering no
further plants can arise from it. As single plant it may be
useful, but if the future is to benefit from further plants,
it must reach the stages of flower and fruit. Similarly a
human being's instincts may, unaltered, serve him well enough
in his own life, but if he leaves them at the level of mere
instincts, he sins against posterity in the physical as well
as spiritual sense. You will realize that these are matters
of extreme importance. And, as with the other issues, only
spiritual science can enlighten us about them.
In certain
quarters it may well be maintained that goodness is due
solely to instincts; indeed, that can even be proved. But
anyone who wants to do away with the necessity for thoughtful
understanding of moral issues on this basis is comparable to
a farmer who says: I shall certainly cultivate my fields, but
I see no point in retaining grains for next year's sowing
— why not let the whole harvest be used as foodstuff?
No farmer speaks like that because in this realm the link
between past and future is too obvious. Unfortunately, in
regard to spiritual issues, in regard to man's own evolution,
people do speak like that. In this area great misconceptions
continuously arise because people are unwilling to consider
an issue from many aspects. They arrive at a onesided view
and disregard all others. One can naturally prove that good
impulses are based on instinct. That is not disputed, but
there are other aspects to the matter. Impulses for the good
are instincts active in the I and astral body; as
such they are forces acting across from the previous life.
Consequently one cannot, without spiritual knowledge, come to
any insight concerning the way human lives are linked
together either now or in the course of man's evolution.
If we now pass
from these more elementary aspects to some on a higher level,
we may consider the following: On the average, people living
today are in their second incarnation since the Christian
chronology began. In their first life it was sufficient if
they received the Christ impulse from their immediate
environment in whatever way possible. In their present, or
second incarnation that is no longer enough; that is why
people are gradually losing the Christ impulse. Were people
now living to return in their next incarnation without having
received the Christ impulse anew they would have lost it
altogether. That is why it is essential that the impulse of
Christ find entry into human souls in the form presented by
spiritual science. Spiritual science does not have to resort
to historical evidence but is able to relate the Christ
impulse directly to the kinds of issues we are continually
discussing in our circles. This enables it to be connected
with the human soul in ways that ensure it is carried over
into future ages when the souls incarnate once more. We are
now too far removed from the historical event to absorb the
Christ impulse the way we did in our first incarnation after
the Christ event. That is why we are going not only through
an external crisis, but also an inner crisis in regard to the
Christ impulse. Traditions no longer suffice. People are
honest who say that there is no proof of historical Christ.
But spiritual knowledge enables man to discover the Christ
impulse once more as a living reality in human evolution. The
course of external events shows the necessity for the Christ
impulse to arise anew on the foundation of spiritual
science.
We have been
witnessing so very many ideals on which people have built
their lives for centuries suffering shipwreck in the last
three years. We all suffer, especially the more we are aware
of all that has been endured these last three years. If the
question is asked, What has suffered the greatest shipwreck?
there is only one answer: Christianity. Strange as it may
seem to many, the greatest loss has been to Christianity.
Wherever you look you see a denial of Christianity. Most
things that are done are a direct mockery of Christianity,
though the courage to admit this fact is lacking. For
example, a view widely expressed today is that each nation
should manage its own affairs. This is advocated by most
people, in fact by the largest and most valuable part of
mankind. Can that really be said to be a Christian view? I
shall say nothing about its justification or otherwise, but
simply whether the idea is Christian or not. And is it
Christian? Most emphatically it is not. A view based on
Christianity would be that nations should come to agreement
through human beings' understanding of one another. Nothing
could be more unchristian than what is said about the alleged
freedom, the alleged independence — which in any case
is unrealizable — of individual nations. Christianity
means to understand people all over the earth. It means
understanding even human beings who are in realms other than
the earth. Yet since the Mystery of Golgotha not even people
who call themselves Christian have been able to agree with
one another even superficially. And that is a dreadful blow,
especially in regard to feeling for and understanding of
Christianity. This lack has led to grotesque incidents like
the one I mentioned, of someone speaking about German
religion, German piety, which has as much sense as speaking
about a German sun or a German moon.
These things
are in reality connected with far-reaching misconceptions
about social affairs. I have spoken about the fact that
nowadays no proper concept of a state exists. When people who
should know discuss what a state is or should be, they speak
about it as if it were an organism in which the human beings
are the cells. That such comparisons can be made shows how
little real understanding there is. As I have often pointed
out, what is lacking, what we need more than anything else,
are concepts and views that are real and concrete, concepts
that penetrate to the reality of things. The chaos all about
us has been caused because we live in abstractions, in
concepts and views that are alien to the reality. How can it
be otherwise when we are so estranged from the spiritual
aspect of reality that we deny it altogether? True concepts
of reality will be attained only when the spirit in all its
weaving life is acknowledged.
There was
something tragic in Franz Brentano's destiny right up to his
death — tragic, because he did have a feeling for the
direction modern man's spiritual striving should take. Yet,
had he been presented with spiritual science he would have
rejected it, just as he rejected the works of Plotinus as
utter folly, as quite unscientific.
[ Note 10 ]
There are, of course, many
in the same situation; their spirit's flight is inhibited
through the fact that they live in physical bodies belonging
to the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
This provokes the crisis we must overcome. Such things do, of
course, have their positive side; to overcome something is to
become stronger.
Not till the
concrete concepts of spiritual science are understood and
applied can things be done that are necessary for a complete
revision of our understanding of law and morality, of social
and political matters. It is precisely spirits like Brentano
that bring home the fact that the whole question of
jurisprudence hangs in the air. Without knowing the
super-sensible aspect of man's being, such as the nature of
the astral body, it is impossible to say what law is or what
morality is. That applies also to religion and politics. If
wrong, unrealistic ideas are applied to external, material
reality, their flaws soon become apparent. No one would
tolerate bridges that collapse because the engineer based his
constructions on wrong concepts. In the sphere of morality,
in social or political issues wrong concepts are not spotted
so easily, and when they are discovered, people do not
recognize the connection. We are suffering this moment from
the aftereffect of wrong ideas, but do people see the
connection? They are very far from doing so. And that is the
most painful aspect of witnessing these difficult times.
Every moment seems wasted unless devoted to the difficulties;
at the same time one comes to realize how little people are
inclined nowadays to enter into the reality of the situation.
However, unless one concerns oneself with the things that
really matter, no remedy will be found. It is essential to
recognize that there is a connection between the events
taking place now and the unreal concepts and views mankind
has cultivated for so long. We are living in such chaotic
times because for centuries the concepts of spiritual life
that were at work in social affairs have been as unrealistic
as those of an engineer who builds bridges that collapse. If
only people would develop a feeling for how essential it is,
when dealing with social or political issues, indeed with all
aspects of cultural life, to find true concepts,
reality-permeated concepts! If we simply continue with the
same jurisprudence, the same social sciences, the same
politics, and fill human souls with the same religious views
as those customary before the year 1914, then nothing
significant or valuable will be achieved. Unless the approach
to all these things is completely changed, it will soon be
apparent that no progress is being made. What is so
necessary, what must come about is the will to learn afresh,
to adjust one's ideas, but that is what there is so little
inclination to do.
You must regard
everything I have said about Franz Brentano as an expression
of my genuine admiration for this exceptional personality.
Such individuals demonstrate how hard one must struggle
especially when it concerns an impulse to be carried over
into mankind's future. Franz Brentano is an extremely
interesting personality, but he did not achieve the kind of
concepts, ideas, feelings or impulses that work across into
future ages. Yet it is interesting that only a few weeks
before his death he is said to have given assurances that he
would succeed in proving that God exists. To do so was the
goal of his lifelong scientific striving. Brentano would not
have succeeded, for to prove the existence of God he would
have needed spiritual science.
Before the
Mystery of Golgotha, before mankind's age had receded to the
age of 33, it was still possible to prove that God exists.
Since then mankind's age has dropped to 32, then 31, later 30
and by now to 27. Man can no longer through his ordinary
powers of thinking prove that God exists; such proof can be
discovered only through spiritual knowledge. Saying that
spiritual science is an absolute necessity cannot be compared
to a movement advocating its policies. The necessity for
spiritual science is an objective fact of human
evolution.
Today I wanted
to draw your attention once more to the absolute necessity
for spiritual science and related philosophical questions.
However, it will be fruitful only if you are prepared to
enter into such questions. What mankind is strongly in need
of at the present time is the ability to enter into exact,
clear-cut concepts and ideas. If you want to pursue the
science of the spirit, anthroposophy, theosophy — call
it what you will — only with the unclear, confused
concepts with which so much is pursued nowadays, then you may
go a long way in satisfying egoistical longings, gratifying
personal wishes. You will not, however, be striving in the
way the present difficult times demand. What one should
strive for, especially in regard to spiritual science, is to
collaborate, particularly in the spiritual sense, to bring
about what mankind most sorely needs. Whenever possible turn
your thoughts, as strongly as you are able, to the question:
What are human beings most in need of, what are the thoughts
that ought to hold sway among men to bring about improvement
and end the chaos? Do not say that others, better qualified,
will do that. The best qualified are those who stand on the
firm foundation of the science of the spirit. What must
occupy us most of all is how conditions can be brought about
so that human beings can live together in a civilized
manner.
We shall
discuss these things further next time.
|