Foreword
T HIS
booklet contains a lecture given by me, after a series of objections
had been brought forward in a lecture from another quarter against
the views summed up under the name “Anthroposophy” or
“Spiritual Science.” I came to know of these objections
through the circumstance that the lecturer himself had them printed
in a newspaper. When the occasion of the observations contained
in this booklet is borne in mind, it might seem as if their special
publication were unjustified. With regard to this it may be said
that even though the objections in question were, to begin with, only
the subject of a single lecture, they are the ones with which it
is intended from many quarters and in divers repetitions to refute
the spiritual science (Anthroposophy) referred to in this booklet.
They are to a certain extent typical “refutations.” They
are typical, not only because of what is alleged, but because of the
manner in which an attitude is taken towards that to which
objections are raised. This manner is characteristic. It is often the
case that people do not fix their attention upon what spiritual
science says and direct their attack against this, but they fabricate
an idea of what they think it says, and then attack this idea.
A curious position results. The one attacked may quite agree with his
opponent in his judgement of all that is attacked, and yet he is
obliged to find that he is condemned, together with the distorted
idea formed of him. The following example is particularly
characteristic for this form of attack. A building is being
erected for the purposes of Anthroposophy (Spiritual Science). This
is to be a “College of Spiritual Science.” In the
artistic form of the building it is sought to realise that for
which this Spiritual Science can give the stimulus. The building is
intended to bring to artistic expression that for which it is the
frame, as it were. Certainly, the manner in which this is
accomplished may be objected to from one or another artistic point of
view. And the author of this pamphlet is far from thinking that what
is being attempted in this building will be fully attained. But he is
endeavouring to see that every sort of inartistic symbolism or
allegorising is kept far removed from it. It is only necessary to
open one's eyes in order to find that, when it is viewed, there is
absolutely nothing symbolical or allegorical of the kind often
met with where not Spiritual Science such as is to be pursued in this
building, but unhealthy mysticism or such like is found. Yet in spite
of this, one of the objections raised against this building is “One
who enters this building will find all kinds of mysterious symbols
which are Incomprehensible to the non-initiated, etc., etc.”
In this way what we wish to attain in the building is successfully
attacked, but only through the attack being directed against
something which does not exist, and which, if it were really so, the
one attacked would repudiate just as his opponent does. But by far
the most of what is brought against the spiritual science we
represent runs on this line. First a caricature of it is made, which
sets all scientific thought at defiance, and then this caricature is
attacked with the weapons of science. Another caricature is
made, which is attacked from the point of view of religious feeling,
whereas in truth no religious confession would have the slightest
occasion to think anything but kindly of this spiritual science, if
its true form were kept in view instead of a caricature of it.
In such a state of affairs it is almost impossible to do
anything more than meet these attacks by stating the actual aims of
spiritual science or Anthroposophy, and the lines it takes. I
endeavoured to do this in the lecture upon which this pamphlet is
based. Above all it is shown that the attacks are inapposite, because
they are directed against self-made targets and not against
Anthroposophy.
In this pamphlet, therefore, the true form of spiritual science is
delineated in contradistinction to the imaginary one.
In the “Afterword,” a little more is said which amplifies
the hints given in the lecture. The word “we” often
occurs in the lecture; this is because I spoke to a certain extent as
the representative of the movement in which Anthroposophy is
cultivated.
RUDOLF STEINER.
April, 1916.
|