Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Education for Adolescents
GA 302

18 June 1921, Stuttgart

Lecture Seven

Yesterday we began with a subject I referred to as a kind of exploration of conscience that is appropriate for our time and especially necessary for the teacher of children in their fourteenth and fifteenth years. Not only ought this age that outwardly manifests in sexual maturity to be dealt with at the actual time; it ought to be kept in mind throughout the school years. Because our own education—or miseducation—was such that as a result there can be no real understanding of children, especially children in this age group, this kind of higher exploration of conscience has become essential.

We can visualize this situation by proceeding as follows. Let us consider the human being between twenty-one and twentyeight years. Spiritual science speaks of the birth of the ego, the time when the ego actually comes fully into its own in life. We emphasized the fact that the ego of the girl at about the fourteenth or fifteenth year is absorbed into the astral body, is therefore not yet independent, while the girl’s astral body has already attained a certain independence at this age. The ego of the boy, we said, is not absorbed into the astral body; it leads a kind of withdrawn life. And I explained that both these tendencies, these characteristics, can indeed be seen as the result of the inner human development.

But when the I, the ego, fully comes into its own at about the twenty-first year, this shows itself in one human being looking for and finding others, and this in the fullest sense of the word: other human beings. This is such a specific characteristic of this age. When, let’s say, a twenty-four-year-old finds a twenty-one-year-old—but not younger than twentyone or older than twenty-eight—the two will be in an equal, reciprocal relationship in all areas: spirit, soul, body. During this age, we really interact with, relate to others in this age group as equals.

This observation is of special significance for anyone who wishes to be involved in education. All the psychological fiddle- faddle that is frequently practiced is a mere playing with clever words. If we today wish to understand life, we have to observe such things as this special nuance that is present in human beings when they meet one another between their twenty-first and twenty-eighth years.

Let us now consider other age groups: a youth between the age of fourteen and twenty-one and someone between twentyeight and thirty-five. Regardless of their sexes, it will not be possible for them to relate fully as equals. And yet, provided certain conditions we shall presently discuss are met, a significant relationship can be established between them. If a youth aged fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen meets a twenty-eight-, twentynine-, or thirty-year-old person, the matter is as follows. Engendered by the astral body, the physical development between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one, the characteristic outer behavior, the improving skills, the ideals, the way the young find their way into outer life—this is subject to unconsciousness, just as the physical life proceeds unconsciously when developing to the outside.

The same development emerges as a soul form in the inner life of those between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-five. This is the reason why persons in this age group are especially predestined for understanding, for feeling, the processes taking place in adolescents. And adolescents are especially suited to look up to people between the ages of twenty-eight and thirtyfive, because they can see inwardly active in those between the ages of twenty-eight and thirty-five what is in themselves more or less unconsciously manifesting physically in connection to the world outside.

The knowledge of the connection between these age groups was still very much present in ancient Greece. It was instinctively experienced. When Greek children looked up to the older ones they felt instinctively, not fully consciously: “They have in their souls what we have in our bodies; we see something coming to us from them in a refined way, what we have in our physical bodies.” And the twenty-eight or twenty-nine-year- old Greeks took immense pleasure in what they saw developing and manifesting in the fourteen-, fifteen-, and sixteen- year-olds. There was this real relation between age groups, this instinctive life—not as in our culture, where people only relate in an abstract way—in which one was important for the other person by virtue of one’s age. The Greeks still experienced this instinctive relationship in an extraordinarily strong way, and it really affected their social life.

Try to visualize this situation in Greece. The child grew up, revered a person in his or her early thirties. On reaching the age of twenty-one, the child strongly felt: “Now I have to find someone of my own age.” This resulted in a manifoldness and also an inwardness.

It also gave the social life a certain structure. We must emphasize this point especially today, when this instinctive life is no longer present in human beings, when especially the teachers of adolescents do not know what to do with them. We cannot find answers to this problem because—as I said yesterday—we were not given such ideas and concepts that could affect our feelings to the extent that the instincts we lost during the natural course of evolution could in a more conscious way be revived.

Without our preoccupation with anthroposophical spiritual science, by which such feelings, such refined feelings, can again be stimulated, we would gradually produce even deeper gulfs between the older children and ourselves. All we could then do is to command, to order them, to do this or that. Should we fail in this we could have recourse to the police or some other authority who would then threaten the disobedient. We cannot establish an inner relationship between teachers and students unless—however theoretical this may sound—we stimulate such thoughts in our whole being that can again awaken in us, but now consciously, what the instinctive life used to provide for people in the past.

Because of this difference in world conception, as I told you yesterday, what we are learning today about our world—that the different substances and properties in nature are combinations of some one hundred or so elements—is valid for us only after death, for our corpses in their graves. The chemical and physical interactions concern not the living human being but only the corpse, which disintegrates according to the laws we find in the combinations of these elements.

By contrast we can point to the views held especially by the ancient Greeks, and still by people as late as the fourth century—views that are today dismissed as childish, as I said yesterday. But these views, correctly understood, provided the people with something else: the way they regarded the four elements—earth, air, fire, and water. As I pointed out, they did not regard the four elements as pictures of coarse sense impressions, coarse physical matter; they regarded them qualitatively. Fire contained at the same time the qualities warm and dry; they thought of water as cold and damp. These living concepts that they connected to the elements could then be applied in several ways.

They applied them in the way they thought about their connection to earth, air, fire, and water—in which they saw pictures, quite definite pictures. They could apply them to the way, in the human being, that the etheric body activates the mixing and demixing, synthesis and analysis of matter. They could understand how the etheric body is working in the physical between birth and death. All we can do, by contrast, is to limit our thinking to the processes in our corpses after death, processes in keeping with the physical and chemical laws. The Greeks and their followers, as far as into the fifteenth century, could think of the working of the etheric in the physical body, by developing qualitatively the properties of fire as warm and dry, of water as cold and damp, of earth as cold and dry, and so on.

By applying these four elements to the human being, one works in a far more living, inner way, which enables one to imagine the etheric body’s participation in the physical substances. By imagining this participation as living processes one becomes inwardly much more mobile, more alive, especially if one adds to one’s imagination something else the Greeks still understood in a living way. They imagined the following [a drawing is made].

You see, today we have the surface of the earth, on it the green plants. How do we today imagine the processes taking place in the world of plants? Here, too, our knowledge is limited to the explanations of the chemical analyses and syntheses taking place in the one hundred or so elements. Anything else is denied, or the attempt is made to see it according to the analogy with reciprocal mineral interaction. One would like to see the interaction of chlorophyll, the green color of the plant, with some outer entities during the plant’s growth as a process similar to that taking place in a test tube. This is not actually said in so many words, but this mode of thinking has become widespread. The plants are being studied according to their mineral properties.

The Greeks, on the other hand, even though they did not express it concisely, said: “When a plant grows, the cold and dry qualities of the earth are working from below upward. Once the plant has emerged from the earth, when it grows leaves and blossoms with their beautiful colors, we see all this as the effect of water and air, in the way we imagine their qualities; and permeating all of it is the effect of fire. Everywhere in the environment there is this interaction, this intermingling of warm and dry, cold and damp, warm and damp, and all of it, all this qualitative interweaving and inter-whirling of dry, cold, damp, and warm across the surface of the earth affects the plant life.”

We just have to see this. If we do, and then if we look away from the plants to the human being, to the way the etheric body is active within the human being, we shall there see something that is similar to plant life. When we look at the total life of the plant, we are inwardly stirred and stimulated, let me say, to participate in this life of the plant, in this objective life. The Greeks felt this. Outside, they said, “everything is blossoming, thriving, growing, and ever changing. All this is also working in me.” The activity of the Greek’s own etheric body, imagined in this way, was not beyond experience. The Greek reflected: “I am no stranger to what constitutes the etheric body in me. Certainly, I cannot see it. But by looking at everything that is growing around me, I experience these activities also within me.”

And if such a Greek—not in a present incarnation but as an ancient Greek—were alive today, and if a modern chemist were to tell him: “Your ideas are nonsensical, childish ones. We have left them behind, discovered not four, but some one hundred elements—hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and so on”—the Greek would have responded by saying: “I have no quarrel with this, there is no harm in it. But it is no more than a specialized, detailed study of my understanding of the cold and dry qualities of the earth. You have not got beyond the knowledge of the cold and dry properties of the earth. You know nothing of water, fire, and air. You haven’t got the faintest idea of what goes on in the world of plants, of the etheric life in yourself. You cannot even speak about the plants, because your knowledge of the elements cannot give you any idea of life, of what is working in the life of plants.”

Try to feel another ring to our words, how they will be living, as soon as we experience within us the greening, growing processes in the world around us, once these processes cease to be incomprehensible to us. And I can assure you that once it has again become a living experience, incorporated into education, this inner nuance permeating our words will not be limited to affecting the soul abstractly but will put color into faces again. It will transform the whole human being, will have a harmonizing effect. The teacher’s words will have a healthy ring to them, will have a different effect, regardless of anything else. All the other theories that tell us what to do, how things ought to be, are basically nothing but plants cultivated in conservatories. Real education must grow naturally. It must be absorbed into our mental images and feelings in the same way that nourishment is absorbed by the processes active in our blood and nerves, thus growing together with us in our organism.

It is essentially the beginning of folly to tell someone what to do. It is as if we were to say to a stove, “You were put into the room, and it is your duty as a stove to warm the room.” A stove is filled with firewood, which is then lit, but education needs a true knowledge of the human being that can then come alive in the whole person, that can reach our feelings and also our will. It is necessary for us to develop such a knowledge.

The Greeks, though, did not limit themselves to the observation of the life in plants. They looked up to the cosmos, where initially they perceived the circling planets—from the moon to Saturn, as they said.

The Greeks observed the stars and felt: “Here on earth, where I am surrounded by the plants, I am permeated by the effects of fire, air, and water. The plants are permeated by fire, air, and water. What I see there also works rhythmically in me. I actually bear the whole year in me. As the processes of dry and damp and of cold and warm harmonize in the greening and decaying plants, so my etheric body works in me. The only difference is the fact that I have in me a whole world, so that what happens outside during the course of a year takes place within me in shorter rhythms.”

The Greeks felt themselves as living beings within the world, felt themselves belonging to the earth beings. But then they said: “As far as the plants are concerned I can see the beginning of the interaction of earth, air, fire, and water. The etheric then extends upward with its effects. It is now met by the cosmos, by the effects of the stars, initially by the effects of the planets, on fire, air, and water. Without the planets, I would have an etheric body, the plants would exist. But I would not, for example, be able to develop the front part of my brain without the forces of Saturn, working from without. I would not have a larynx without the Mars forces, working from without. I would not have a heart without the forces raying in from without.”

These thoughts prompted the further reflection: “Forces are raying in from without. The etheric is raying outward. But the forces that constitute me are raying in from indefinite cosmic distances—forces that are modified through the influence of the planets, forces extending inward from beyond the plant world.” The Greeks felt: “I could not have the front part of my brain, could not have a larynx, heart, or stomach without Saturn, Mars, the sun, or Mercury.” Through their organs, the Greeks felt themselves as much a part of the wide cosmos as they felt themselves part of earth, air, fire, and water in the etheric body. And they saw the cosmic forces whirling through each other in earth, air, fire, and water in a way that allowed the heart, the lungs, and the other organs to develop.

The Greeks felt themselves to be physical products not just of the earth but of the whole cosmos. “Here I am.” they could say, “standing beside a plant. But cosmic forces are active in me. These forces also affect the plants, but merely from without. They cannot enter the plants, cannot produce organs in them. But they penetrate me and produce in me everything I share with the animals. In regard to my organizing the effects of the cosmos, I can reach as far as the zodiac. There I have exhausted the sphere in which I can observe everything that extends into my animal nature and into the animals around me. I see the animals in their characteristic forms—I see a lion, for example. In the lion I can see a definite interaction between the planets and the fixed stars, which allows me to understand why a lion has this particular shape and these particular features. The same applies to the other animals. Learning to understand the nature of the animals around me, I learn to understand the astral body. I also experience the astral body within myself, just as I experience the etheric—what is in the plants—within myself. Together with the animals of the earth, I am not merely a creature of earth but a member of the cosmos, of that which pulsates through the cosmos as a result of the existence of the stars.”

Such a perception of the world can indeed permeate a human being, permeate one’s feelings, so that one may say: “Certainly, I can see objects formed according to mineral laws. But these do not include me. Neither am I a part of the plant world. And I am certainly not part of the animal world. I cannot live on the earth merely through the forces rising from the earth.” Feeling oneself within the whole of the universe essentially constituted the element in which the Greeks used to live, albeit yet instinctively.

The ego was then sought outside the circle of the zodiac, in a sphere that was pure spirit, for which a physical correlate could not be found except in its outer picture, the sun. This is the idea of the sun held by the people of still earlier times; it had become somewhat decadent during the Greek cultural period.

Our physicists and astronomers imagine the sun as a huge gaseous ball some twenty million miles away in the universe. This huge cosmic gas stove—without walls—radiates light and warmth in all directions. It is the only explanation, the sole idea for us—if we wish to be experts and not naive dilettantes. Indeed it is only an “expert,” a “specialist,” who could hold such a view. You will get closer to the truth by imagining the following. Imagine yourself surrounded by light. Light is everywhere. But nowhere is there an object that reflects this light. The light will then not be reflected to you; the light-filled space will be dark. You will not see anything; you will be surrounded by total darkness. Were there nothing but light, we would experience total darkness. Light only returns to us if it is caught by something; otherwise we cannot see it. In a light-filled room is total darkness.

A better age than ours certainly entertained this idea. Its people knew that the sun was not a gigantic gas stove, that there was not merely an empty space up there, but less than space, a negative space. Our physicists would get the surprise of their lives if they were to travel to the sun. They would not find the imagined gas ball, would perceive nothing, not even space, but merely left-out space, an energy or force that absorbs space. This force exists. Space is everywhere. We just have to be able to imagine the “less-than-space.” In the meantime, we at least know that “less-than-no-money” means debts.

Space has its boundaries, and negative space collects the light, which cannot pass through the negative emptiness, but is rayed back. Thus the sun becomes visible. Light is everywhere. What we see as the sun is only an entity that rays back, an apparatus that reflects the light. The origin of this light is, according to the Greeks, beyond the region of the zodiac. The light enters from cosmic distances and not from perceptible space. But it is collected, made visible, through the sun.

This, so the Greeks said, is connected with the development of the ego, whose origin is in regions higher than the planets. The sun is connected with the ego by virtue of the fact that the sun is less than space, emptier than space—at the place of the sun all matter ceases to be and spirituality can enter. It was because the Greeks understood the spiritual nature of the sun that they felt themselves so very much related to it.

Something of this living feeling, of this entering into the spirit by looking up to the cosmos, was still consciously experienced as late as the sixth century, especially during the middle of the fourth century. And because of the living feeling, events were described as resulting from the influence not of the planets but of the hierarchical beings who move what can be outwardly perceived as the planets. This living idea is necessary if we wish to arrive at a different experience of ourselves, imparted into the world as human beings.

If now we take a look at the animal kingdom from this point of view, we may say that this is also within us. It produces our organs. But the animals I see are enclosed in definite forms. I have not become such a form. I do not look like a lion, a bull, an ox, or a pig. I have in me all the animals as synthesis; I have within me the disposition for all of them. If the effect of the sun had not equalized it all, I should be somebody in whom the whole of the animal kingdom were thrown together, whirling, all the animals rooting into each other. It is the effect of the sun that equalizes it, that brings it to a state of balance.

And what is the result of this fact—that I bear within me the dispositions for all the animals, but in a suppressed way? It allows me to think forms, imaginations. The animals are outwardly shaped according to their imaginations; they are living imaginations, move about as imaginations. Looking at the animals I can see the world of imagination. The same forms are in me. They have become thought pictures in me, because I have not assumed their outer shape, have not made them spatial.

If we were to go even further back in time, before Thales, we would find an exact knowledge taught in mystery centers. Plato recorded this knowledge in his esoteric writings. We may describe it as follows. What is logic? Living logic is zoology! What comes to expression in the animal kingdom harmonizes itself in us and, according to our predisposition, assumes a spiritually abstract form, thus producing in us living thought activity. It is the animal kingdom that is active in our life of thoughts. Ergo, logic is zoology.

This knowledge was later replaced by the Socratism of Aristotle, and the consciousness was lost. The beginning of abstract logic came when the living relation of elective affinities gave way to the relation of judgment, the abstract connection of concepts—as we see them expressed in Aristotle’s logic, a logic that can drive the student preoccupied with it to despair, because in it can be found nothing concrete on which to build, nothing to hang on to.

We feel, we think, we develop concepts because we have within us what is spread out, outside of us, in the animal kingdom. If we develop this view, we impart ourselves into the world in a way that is quite different. Will and feelings are then vitalized in a way that is quite different. We feel ourselves related to the nature kingdoms. And we gradually experience not only the etheric but also the astral activity in ourselves.

If we are not limited by the abstract concepts taught everywhere today, but if we are inwardly stimulated by positive forms, and if we are then confronted by the fourteen- and fifteen- year-old children, we learn to observe them. What we inwardly receive will then direct our eyes and ears to the way we ought to conduct the next lesson. Our eyes are led and guided, our ears are led and guided, and only in this way will our observation of what is going on in the fourteen- and fifteen- year old students be stimulated. If we do not have this stimulation, if we do not permeate ourselves with such a spiritual science that enters our life of feelings, we confront these youngsters—as people used to say when I was young—“as the ox confronts Sunday, after having eaten grass all week.”

It is this that we must give our culture, our civilization, our sciences, so that they can become real, and not only a sum total of names, a mere nominalism, so that they can kindle in us something that has meaning and reality. This will allow us to observe human beings. I do not mean that we ought to proceed craftily, recording their behavior in notebooks. No, the positive forms will come to us as though by themselves when we observe in this way. We shall arrive at a judgment of each child, need not speak about it, because it will be mobile within us. We can then raise it to consciousness, and we shall conduct our lessons according to the numerous judgments that live and surge in us, as the whole of the animal kingdom is living in true thought forms.

Just think what it would mean if we had to know everything, if we had to have a clear notion of how the lion is eating a lamb, if we had to be fully conscious of that. By the same token, we cannot judge everything in our environment, cannot raise everything to an explicit consciousness. But it can be there; we can act accordingly. If we have not taken our starting point from the knowledge that only reckons with abstract concepts and abstract natural laws and that cannot possibly raise itself to such positive thought forms, then we can stand among our students and act appropriately. But how can we have anything other than such a starting point if we imagine the big gas stove without walls boiling away in the universe. Such a concept cannot lead to a better understanding of human beings.

All of this must lead to the deep exploration of conscience, to our telling ourselves that unless we make every effort to permeate our life of instincts and feelings with spiritual science, we can no longer understand children in their fourteenth and fifteenth years. We learn to understand them only by progressing to such a knowledge. This is what is meant by our ever emphasizing that anthroposophy is pedagogy. In other words, anthroposophy becomes pedagogy when one gets to the stage at which one can educate. All that is needed is to take from the depths of the soul what has been put into it through anthroposophy, if it is to be applied to education. What I mean to say is that if the qualities present in each human being are given a pedagogical direction, the anthroposophical understanding of the human being will also become a true pedagogy.

Yesterday I said to the teachers of the tenth grade that they should begin with a certain knowledge of the human being. Such a knowledge wishes to make us understand that we ought to place the human being again into the whole universe, according to body, soul, and spirit. We really should—if we are true teachers working on the basis of this knowledge of the human being—study anatomy and physiology, learn everything that has been produced in these fields by centuries of spiritless work. But these books should be no more than sources of information, and we should never omit to pour into them the knowledge we can gain from anthroposophy.

Only this approach will shed light on the information that emerges from such books, on what is generally held to be true today. You must have a different attitude toward this literature than other people. Certainly you will be called arrogant and worse, but you will have to accept this treatment today. You will have to live with it. You will have to see in the offerings of modern science merely the source for information—just as a member of the ancient Greek culture, if such a one were to come to life today and read a book on chemistry, would say: “The things I know about the earth, that it is dry and cold, that it affects plant growth, this you specialize for me. To learn about the details is interesting. But you have no knowledge of the totality of life; you merely know a quarter of it.”

We must return to a knowledge that enters our feelings and will, that permeates our whole being, that is for soul and spirit similar to the blood for the physical. Then becoming different human beings, we shall also become true teachers. The teaching profession cannot tolerate the automatization of the human being, which is the result of the various artificially grown greenhouse plants in educational theories. There are even experiments today that are supposed to lead to new concepts—experiments that show how memory works, how the will and even the thoughts are developing and running their course, harmless games that might even produce results. We need not be against games, those of children or those of the laboratory. What matters, however, is that we oppose the narrowing of the horizon that such experiments produce.

Siebenter Vortrag

Wir haben gestern mit einer Betrachtung begonnen, die von mir genannt wurde eine Art zeitentsprechender Gewissenserforschung, wie sie eigentlich dem Lehrer und Erzieher notwendig ist, wenn er sich gegenübergestellt fühlt gerade demjenigen kindlichen Lebensalter, das dem 14., 15. Lebensjahr entspricht, das nach außen hin die Geschlechtsreife darstellt und das eigentlich berücksichtigt werden sollte, nicht nur, wenn man es in der Erziehung und im Unterricht zu tun hat mit diesem Zeitpunkt des menschlichen Werdens, sondern das die ganze Schul- und Erziehungszeit hindurch berücksichtigt werden sollte. Es ist deshalb als notwendig bezeichnet worden, daß der Lehrer und Erzieher diesem Lebensalter gegenüber in unserer Gegenwart eine Art höherer Gewissenserforschung vornimmt, weil wir durch die ganze Art und Weise, wie wir selbst im abgelaufenen Zeitalter erzogen und unterrichtet worden sind, eigentlich ohne Verständnis dastehen müssen vor dem, was uns im Menschen gerade in diesem Lebensalter entgegentritt.

Wir werden uns von dem, was da eigentlich vorliegt, ein Bild machen können, wenn wir in der folgenden Weise vorgehen: Betrachten Sie zunächst den Menschen in den Zwanzigerjahren, so vom 21. bis zum 28. Jahr. Wir bezeichnen in der Geisteswissenschaft diese Zeit als die Geburt des Ich, als die Zeit, in der das Ich eigentlich im Leben zu seiner vollständigen Geltung kommt. Wir haben hervorgehoben, daß für das Mädchen so um das 14., 15. Jahr dieses Ich gewissermaßen sich auflöst in dem astralischen Leib und so noch unselbständig ist, während der astralische Leib eine gewisse Selbständigkeit schon im 14., 15. Jahr erhält. Beim Knaben haben wir gesagt, daß das Ich sich nicht auflöst im Astralischen, sondern eine Art zurückgezogenes Leben führt, und wir haben auseinandergesetzt, wie dasjenige, was uns auf der einen Seite beim Mädchen, auf der anderen Seite beim Knaben von 14 bis 21 Jahren entgegentritt, durchaus als ein Ergebnis dieser inneren Tatsache des Menschenwesens erscheint. Wenn aber mit dem 21. Jahre etwa das Ich voll zu seiner Geltung kommt, dann ist es so, daß der Mensch den Menschen sucht und findet, und zwar in diesem Lebensalter eigentlich im vollsten Sinne: der Mensch den Menschen. Das ist deshalb eigentümlich, weil, wenn, sagen wir, ein Vierundzwanzigjähriger oder auch ein etwas jüngerer, aber nicht jünger als 21 Jahre, einen anderen, aber nicht älter als Achtundzwanzigjährigen findet, dann stehen sich die beiden so gegenüber, daß völlig gleich im Wechselverhältnis aufeinanderwirken: Geist, Seele, Leib. In diesem Lebensalter stehen eigentlich die Menschen einander als völlig gleich gegenüber im wechselseitigen Verkehr. Dieses im Leben zu beobachten, ist insbesondere für den, der pädagogisch tätig sein will, von einer großen Bedeutung. All der psychologische Firlefanz, der oftmals getrieben wird, setzt sich heute nur aus allerlei Wortweisheiten zusammen. Studieren muß man, wenn man heute wirklich das Leben kennenlernen will, so etwas wie diese besondere Nuance, die in Menschen lebt, wenn sie sich so gegenübertreten, daß sie beide zwischen dem 21. und 28. Jahr stehen.

Nehmen wir das andere: wir haben sich gegenüberstehen einen jungen Menschen zwischen dem 14. und 21. Jahr und einen älteren zwischen dem 28. und 35. Jahr. Diese beiden Menschen, ganz gleichgültig wie sonst die Geschlechter liegen, sind in einer gewissen Beziehung so, daß ein Verhältnis auf völliger Gleichheit sich nicht herausbilden kann, und dennoch ist wiederum, oder kann wenigstens wiederum, wenn gewisse Bedingungen erfüllt sind, von denen wir gleich sprechen werden, ein sehr bedeutsames Verständnis herbeigeführt werden. Wenn der Vierzehn-, Fünfzehn- Sechzehnjährige dem Achtundzwanzig-, Neunundzwanzig-, Dreißigjährigen entgegentritt, dann ist es nämlich so: Dasjenige, was sich mehr leiblich, durch den astralischen Leib bei dem Vierzehn- bis Einundzwanzigjährigen herausbildet, mehr im äußeren Gebaren in der Art und Weise, wie die jungen, noch kindlichen Menschen sich ins Leben hineinfinden, durch das Geschickterwerden oder durch das Idealehaben — dieses ganze mit der Außenwelt in Beziehungtreten, was sich da herausbildet -, das ist mehr, ich möchte sagen, mit der Unbewußtheit behaftet, mit der eben das Leibliche nach außen behaftet ist, wenn es sich nach außen entwickelt, und das tritt in einer seelischen Form mehr innerlich beim Menschen zwischen dem 28. und 35. Jahre auf. Daher ist es so, daß der Mensch zwischen dem 28. und 35. Jahre am besten prädestiniert ist, zu fühlen und zu empfinden, seelisch wahrzunehmen dasjenige, was in einem 14 bis 21 Jahre alten Menschen vorgeht. Und wiederum die letzteren sind besonders dazu geeignet, aufzuschauen zu denen, die 28 bis 35 Jahre alt sind, weil sie gewissermaßen dasjenige in Betätigung, in innerer Aktivität sehen, was bei ihnen mehr in Unbewußtheit sich nach außen leiblich gestaltet.

Dieses Verhältnis ist bei den Griechen noch in einem sehr hohen Maße vorhanden gewesen, das Verhältnis zwischen den Menschen von 28 bis 35 Jahren zu den werdenden Menschen, zu den Kindern von 14 bis 21 Jahren. Es wurde einfach dieses Verhältnis instinktiv erlebt. Die griechischen Kinder sahen so zu den Älteren hinauf, daß sie natürlich nicht vollkommen bewußt, sondern mehr instinktiv sagten: Die haben seelisch dasjenige, was wir im äußeren Leibe haben; da tritt uns in verfeinerter Gestalt entgegen, was wir außen haben. Und der Grieche, wenn er in das 28., 29. Jahr hineinkam, er hatte ein ungeheures Wohlgefallen an demjenigen, was sich herausbildete und offenbarte in den Vierzehn-, Fünfzehn-, Sechzehnjährigen. Dieses instinktive Leben des Menschen, wo nicht nur, wie es bei uns ist, abstrakt Mensch zu Mensch in ein Verhältnis tritt, sondern wo die Lebensalter in ein Verhältnis treten, dieses Instinktleben, wo man dem anderen etwas ist dadurch, daß man jünger oder älter ist, dieses instinktive Verhältnis, das ist dasjenige, was bei den Griechen noch außerordentlich stark vorhanden war, das wirklich wirkte zwischen den Menschen.

Und nun bedenken Sie, wie es eigentlich da war in diesem Griechenland. Da war es so, daß das Kind heranwuchs in der Verehrung des Dreißigjährigen, daß es aber stark fühlte: Du mußt jetzt deine Gleichjährigen aufsuchen, wenn es über die Zwanzigerjahre hinausging. Das gab Mannigfaltigkeit, Innerlichkeit. Das gab auch dem sozialen Leben eine gewisse Struktur. Und das ist dasjenige, was eigentlich betont werden muß, weil wir heute, wo dieses Instinktleben nicht in dem Menschen ist, gerade als Lehrer und Erzieher im Grunde genommen verständnislos gegenüberstehen hauptsächlich dem Alter, das mit dem 14., 15. Lebensjahr beginnt. Es enträtselt sich uns nicht, denn wir haben, wie ich es schon gestern betonte, niemals Vorstellungen und Begriffe aufgenommen, die so wirken können in unserem Empfindungs- und Gefühlsleben, daß diese Instinkte, die uns durch die Naturentwickelung abhanden gekommen sind, wiederum in einer bewußteren Weise aufleben können. Und wir werden, wenn wir nicht eintreten auch auf dem Gebiet der Pädagogik und Didaktik in anthroposophische Geisteswissenschaft und dadurch solche Empfindungs-, solche Gefühlsverfeinerungen wiederum in uns anregen, allmählich immer mehr und mehr Klüfte aufrichten zwischen den älteren Menschen, also auch den Lehrern und Erziehern, und namentlich diesen älteren Kindern. Diese Klüfte werden wir aufrichten, so daß wir uns zuletzt einzig und allein darauf zurückziehen können, durch das Wort zu befehlen, das oder jenes muß geschehen. Wir werden darauf rechnen, daß, wenn wir selber in der Schule nicht mehr befehlen können, dann der Polizeifeldwebel da ist, von dem die Menschen wissen, der ist da, wenn sie nicht folgen, wenn sie sich nicht so verhalten, wie man ihnen befohlen hat. Aber das Innerliche des Verhältnisses von Lehrer zu Schüler, das können wir nicht erreichen, wenn wir nicht, so scheinbar theoretisch das auch klingen sollte, unseren ganzen Menschen anregen durch solche Gedanken, die wiederum, und jetzt bewußt, dasjenige in uns wachrufen, was einstmals das Instinktleben den Menschen gegeben hat.

Deshalb sagte ich Ihnen gestern: Was wir heute lernen, daß die einzelnen Stoffe und Wesenheiten des Naturdaseins aus etlichen 70 Elementen zusammengesetzt sind, das gilt nur für uns, wenn wir einmal gestorben sind und als Leichname im Grabe liegen, für unsere Leichname. Es hat gar nichts zu tun mit dem Menschlichen, was da demonstriert wird durch Chemie und Physik. Es hat nur insofern auf den Menschen einen Bezug, als sein Leichnam nach denselben Gesetzen verfault, verwest, nach denen sich diese 72 oder 74 Elemente verhalten. Dagegen hatte man noch im 4. nachatlantischen Zeitraum, und insbesondere bei den Griechen jene Anschauung ausgebildet, auf die wie auf etwas Kindliches herabgesehen wird, wie ich das gestern auseinandergesetzt habe, die aber eben, wenn sie richtig erfaßt wird, den Menschen etwas ganz anderes gibt, die Anschauung, daß man es mit den 4 Elementen zu tun hat: Feuer, Wasser, Luft, Erde. Und ich habe Ihnen gesagt, nicht unter dem Bild grober Sinneseindrücke, grober Sinnesmaterie dachten sich etwa die Griechen diese 4 Elemente, sondern sie dachten sich das Feuer als dasjenige, was zugleich die Qualität Warm und Trocken enthält, das Wasser dachten sie sich kalt und feucht. Aber diese lebendigen Begriffe, die sie damit verknüpften, konnten sie auf mancherlei anwenden. Sie konnten sie erstens anwenden, indem sie lebendig dasjenige durchdachten, was für sie Wärme, was für sie Luft war, was für sie Feuer, Wasser und Erde war, worin sie Bilder sahen, ganz bestimmte Bilder. Sie konnten sie anwenden auf die Art und Weise, wie im Menschen von seiten des Ätherleibes aus die Mischung und Entmischung, die Synthese und Analyse der Stoffe stattfindet; wie da der Ätherleib arbeitet am physischen Leib, wie er von der Geburt bis zum Tode am physischen Leib arbeitet, das konnten sie da durchdenken; während wir eigentlich nur denken können, was der physische Leichnam im Grabe macht nach unseren physikalischen und chemischen Gesetzen. Das konnten die Griechen und ihre Nachfolger bis ins 15. Jahrhundert herein denken, wie der Ätherleib arbeitet an dem physischen Leib, indem er nach Art des Feuers das Warme und Trockne qualitativ entwickelt, indem er nach Art des Wassers das Kalte und Feuchte entwickelt, nach Art der Erde das Kalte und Trockne und so fort.

Das ist aber ein viel lebendigeres, inneres Arbeiten, wenn man mit diesen 4 Elementen nun den Menschen anschaut; denn man ist dadurch imstande, das Betätigen seines Ätherleibes mit den physischen Substanzen vorzustellen. Und man wird innerlich viel lebendiger, wenn man das so vorstellt als Lebendiges, insbesondere wenn man das andere hinzufügt, was die Griechen auch noch lebendig vorgestellt haben.

Sie haben sich folgendes vorgestellt (es wird gezeichnet): Sehen Sie, heute hat man die Erdoberfläche, darauf grünende Pflanzen. Ja, wie stellt man sich dasjenige vor, was da geschieht in der Pflanzenwelt? Ja, man kommt natürlich auch nur so weit, als man es erklärbar hält nach den chemischen Analysen und Synthesen, die man an den etlichen 70 Elementen sich aneignet. Das andere, das leugnet man entweder hinweg, oder aber man versucht es nach Analogie des mineralischen Wechselspieles vorzustellen. Was eben im Durcheinanderspiel des Chlorophylis, des Pflanzengrüns, mit irgendwelchen äußeren Entitäten stattfindet, wenn die Pflanze nach oben schießt, das möchte man sich auch so vorstellen wie dasjenige, was in der Retorte vor sich geht. Man sagt es nicht, aber es bricht eine solche Betrachtungsweise überall durch. Man betrachtet es als eine Art Mineralisches. Die Griechen haben, wenn sie es auch nicht deutlich ausgesprochen haben, sich gesagt: Da wirkt aus der Erde herauf von unten nach oben dasjenige, was Erde ist, was das Kalte und Trockene ist, das wirkt da von unten herauf und sobald die Pflanzen herausbrechen über die Erdoberfläche, dann wirkt, in freier Tätigkeit herausquellend, die Pflanze mit ihrer Grünheit, mit ihrer Blütenfarbigkeit, da wirken Wasser, Luft — aber so, wie es sich die Griechen vorstellten -, und da wirkt, alles in sich einfassend, das Feuer. Da draußen wirken durcheinander das Warme und Trockene, das Kalte und Feuchte, das Warme und Feuchte, und dasjenige, was da durcheinanderwirkt, feucht und trocken und warm und kalt, dieses Qualitative, das da ineinander webt und ineinander wirbelt, das wirkt über der Oberfläche der Erde in der Pflanzenwelt. - Das muß man anschauen. Schaut man es an und schaut dann weg auf den Menschen hin, wie sein Ätherleib da drinnen arbeitet, da hat man etwas Ähnliches. Aber man fühlt sich drinnen, indem man das ganze Leben der Pflanze ansieht, angeregt durch eine solche Anschauung, ich möchte sagen, in sich selber hereinzuleben dieses Pflanzenleben, dieses objektive Leben. So ein Grieche hatte die Empfindung: da draußen blüht und gedeiht und wächst alles und verändert sich. Das wirkt auch in mir. Es war ja nicht so etwas Fernes, was er sich unter dem Wirken seines eigenen Ätherleibes vorstellte. Er sagte sich: Dasjenige, was da in mir als Ätherleib ist, bleibt mir nichts Unbekanntes. Gewiß, in mir sehe ich es nicht, aber wenn ich den Blick auf alles richte, was da grünt, was um mich ist, bietet sich mir dar, was in mir selber ist.

Und wenn ein solcher Grieche, nicht in seiner jetzigen Inkarnation, sondern als alter Grieche, wieder aufstehen würde und ein Chemiker von heute käme zu ihm und sagte: Das ist alles Unsinn, was ihr da sagt. Wir sind längst über die 4 Elemente, Feuer, Wasser, Luft und Erde hinaus, das ist alles eine kindische Vorstellung, es gibt Wasserstoff, Sauerstoff, Chlor, Brom, Jod und so weiter - und zählte ihm diese 76 Elemente auf, da würde der Grieche sagen: Dagegen habe ich nichts, das kannst du schon machen, das ist nur dasjenige spezialisiert angesehen, was ich da unten in dem Kalten, Trockenen als Erdenwirkung habe. Aber weiter bist du nicht gekommen als bis zur Spezialisierung des Kalten und Trockenen. Von Wasser, Feuer und Luft verstehst du überhaupt nichts. Du hast keine Ahnung, was da draußen wirbelt in der Pflanzenwelt. Von dem Ätherischen, das du selber in dir trägst, hast du keine Ahnung. Du kannst gar nicht reden über die Pflanzenwelt. Denn mit demjenigen, was du da in deinen 76 Elementen aufzählst, hast du noch keinen Begriff von demjenigen, was in der Pflanze wirkt.

Sie müssen nur fühlen, wie unsere Worte lebendig werden, wenn wir so dasselbe in dem Menschen drinnen fühlen wie in diesem ganzen Grünenden der Welt, wenn das uns nicht etwas ist, was wir nicht durchschauen. Und Sie können ganz sicher sein, daß, wenn es einmal wiederum so lebendig wird, daß es in die Erziehung aufgenommen wird, das wird nicht bloß, indem es als eine innerliche, seelische Nuance unsere Worte durchzieht, wirken in abstrakten Beziehungen zur Seele, das wird den Gesichtern wiederum Farbe geben. Das wird die ganzen Menschen verwandeln, das wird eine wesentlich harmonische Wirkung haben. Die Stimme der Lehrer wird viel gesünder klingen. Sie wird ganz anders wirken, ohne daß Sie auf irgend etwas anderes Rücksicht nehmen. Denn alle diese Kunstpädagogiken, wo man sagt, wir müssen das so machen und so machen, es muß so und so sein, sind im Grunde genommen Treibhauspflanzen von einem Gewächshaus. Gewachsen muß das sein, was wirkliche Pädagogik ist. Das muß mit unserem Vorstellungenbilden, mit unserem Empfinden so aufgenommen werden, wie naturgemäß die Dinge von uns aufgenommen werden, die im Blut wirken, in die Nerven wirken, die mit uns heranwachsen durch unsere Organisation.

Im Grunde genommen ist es schon der Beginn des Unfugs, wenn man jemandem zumutet, man soll ihm sagen: das muß so und so gemacht werden. Das ist schon der Anfang von dem, daß man zum Ofen sagt: Du bist doch eigentlich hingestellt in die Ecke des Zimmers, und es ist deine Ofenpflicht, du sollst warm machen -, davon ist es schon der Anfang, wenn man so eine Kunstpädagogik hat. In den Ofen wirft man Holz hinein und zündet es an. Eine Pädagogik braucht eine richtige Menschenerkenntnis, die auch lebendig wird in dem ganzen Menschen, die in unser Empfinden, die aber auch in den Willen geht. Es ist nötig, daß wir eine solche Menschenerkenntnis ausbilden.

Und nun hat der Grieche ja nicht nur angeschaut, was da draußen in der Vegetation lebt, sondern er hat hinaufgeschaut in die Weltenweiten und hat da zuerst wahrgenommen die kreisenden Planeten, wie er sagt, von dem Monde bis zum Saturn. Er hat dann den Blick weiter hinausgerichtet in die Sternenwelt, und da hatte er das Gefühl: Stehe ich hier auf der Erde mit der umgebenden Pflanzenwelt, so durchdringt mich Feuer-, Luft-, Wasserwirkung. Die Pflanzenwelt durchdringt Feuer-, Luft-, Wasserwirkung. Dasjenige, was ich in Wirksamkeit anschaue, das rhythmisiert auch in mir selber. Ich trage eigentlich das ganze Jahr in mir, denn so wie da draußen mit der Pflanzenwelt im Grünenden und Verwesenden das Trockene und Feuchte harmonisiert, wie da das Kalte und Warme verfährt, so verfährt auch mein Ätherleib mit mir, nur daß ich eine ganze Welt in mir trage, so daß das, was draußen in einem langen Zeitraum sich abspielt, sich nach kürzeren Rhythmen in mir selber abspielt. Er fühlt sich in dieser Welt als lebendiges Wesen. Dazugehörig zu diesem Erdenwesen fühlt er sich. Er sagt sich: Wo die Pflanzen sind, da fängt es an, Wasser, Luft, Feuer, Erde, die einander durchdringen. Da geht hinauf das Ätherische mit seiner Wirksamkeit; aber nun kommt ihm entgegen von dem Weltenall, strahlt von außen herein entgegenkommend im Feuer, in der Luft, im Wasser dasjenige, was Sternenwirkung ist, was zunächst die planetarische Wirkung ist. Ich würde zwar einen Ätherleib in mir haben, wenn diese planetarische Wirkung nicht da wäre, Pflanzen wären da, aber es könnte sich in mir zum Beispiel nicht formen, sagen wir, das Vorderhirn, wenn nicht die Kräfte des Saturn von außen hereinwirkten; es könnte sich in mir nicht der Kehlkopf ausbilden, wenn nicht der Mars von außen wirkte, es könnte sich das Herz nicht ausbilden, wenn nicht die Kräfte von draußen hereinstrahlten. Und so dachte sich der Grieche: Von draußen strahlen nur die Kräfte herein; hinaus strahlt das Ätherische und von unbestimmten Weltenweiten herein strahlen, modifiziert durch die Planeten, die Kräfte, die dasjenige, was über das Pflanzenhafte hinausgeht, in mir konstituieren. Und der Grieche fühlt: ich hätte kein Vorderhirn, ich hätte keinen Kehlkopf, kein Herz, keinen Magen, wenn da draußen nicht wären der Saturn, der Mars, die Sonne, der Merkur. So fühlt er sich in diesen seinen Organen so zusammengehörig mit den Weltenweiten, wie er sich in seinem Ätherleib zusammengehörig fühlt mit Feuer, Wasser, Erde, Luft. Gewissermaßen sah er Feuer, Wasser, Erde, Luft als das ihm nächste. Und er sah die Kräfte, die in Feuer, Wasser, Luft und Erde so durcheinander wirbelten, daß da auch Herz, Lunge und so weiter möglich wurden.

Ja, das brachte es dahin, daß der Grieche sich schon einfach mit seiner Leiblichkeit nicht nur als ein Ergebnis der Erde fühlte, sondern als ein Ergebnis des äußeren Kosmos so, daß er sagte: Ich stehe neben der Pflanze, aber in mir wirken die Kräfte des Kosmos. Sie dringen auch bis zur Pflanze, aber bei der Pflanze wirken sie von außen; sie können nicht hinein, können sie nicht bis zu Organen durchorganisieren. In mir dringen sie in alles dasjenige hinein, was ich mit dem Tier gemeinschaftlich habe. Und ich kann in der Organisierung desjenigen, was da vom Weltraum hereindringt, bis zum Tierkreis gehen. Da habe ich die Sphäre abgeschlossen, in der ich alles dasjenige beobachten kann, was in mein Tierisches und in das Tierische der umliegenden Tiere hereindringt. Ich beobachte die Tiere, ich beobachte sie in ihren verschiedenen Formen, zum Beispiel den Löwen. Ja, da habe ich in der Gestalt des Löwen ein bestimmtes Zusammenwirken der Planeten mit dem, was Fixsternwesen ist, das durcheinander wirkt. Da lerne ich verstehen, warum der Löwe so und so gebaut ist, wie er ausschaut. Ich lerne verstehen, warum ein anderes Tier so und so aussieht. Ich lerne das Tierische um mich herum kennen, lerne den astralischen Leib kennen. Ich fühle es in mir, wie ich früher das Pflanzenhafte und Ätherische in mir gefühlt habe. Ich bin mit der Tierheit der Erde zusammen ein Bewohner nicht bloß der Erde, sondern desjenigen, was im Weltenraum pulsiert, dadurch, daß Sterne da sind.

Ja, das gibt in der Tat wiederum empfindungsgemäß etwas, was den Menschen durchdringt damit, daß er sagt: Ich sehe ja allerdings um mich herum Wesenheiten, die nach mineralischen Gesetzen geformt sind; aber dazu gehöre ich nicht, auch alles das, was Pflanze ist nicht, das Tier schon erst recht nicht. Ich kann nicht auf der Erde sein durch die Kräfte, die bloß aus der Erde herauskommen. Dieses Sich-Fühlen im ganzen Weltenraum, das macht im wesentlichen das aus, was gerade im Griechen lebte, das war bei ihm noch instinktiv. Das Ich wurde dann ebenso gesucht außerhalb des Tierkreises wirkend, außerhalb der Sphäre, durch die nur der Tierkreis ausgespart ist, als etwas durch und durch Geistiges, für das man überhaupt kein sinnliches Korrelat findet außer dem Abbild dieser ganzen Sphäre: der Sonne. Da kommen wir zur Sonnenvorstellung, die man gehabt hat, die eigentlich auch schon in Griechenland etwas dekadent geworden ist, die aber durchaus noch in älteren Zeiten vorhanden war.

Unsere Physiker und unsere Astronomen, ja, die stellen sich vor, daß da draußen irgendwo im Weltenraum 20 Millionen Meilen von uns entfernt, irgendeine große Kugel ist aus Gas. Das brennt, und aus diesem riesigen kosmischen Ofen, Gasofen, der noch dazu keine Wände hat, strahlt das Licht und die Wärme nach allen Seiten hin. Das ist diejenige Vorstellung, die heute einzig und allein dem Menschen zukommt, der kein Dilettant ist, der ein Fachmann ist, selbstverständlich. Aber man muß eben heute ein Fachmann sein, um eine solche Vorstellung zu haben. Sie werden der Wahrheit auf diesem Gebiet schon näher kommen, wenn Sie das Folgende vorstellen: Denken Sie sich einmal, Sie stünden in lauter Licht. Überall wäre Licht. Aber es wäre nirgends ein Gegenstand, der Ihnen das Licht zurückstrahlte. Es käme Ihnen dann das Licht von nirgends her zurück: es wäre ganz finster in diesem lichterfüllten Raum. Sie sähen drinnen nichts, und es wäre total finster. Wenn nur Licht da wäre, wäre es total finster. Das Licht kommt nur zurück, wenn es irgendwo aufgefangen wird, sonst können Sie es nirgends sehen. Im lichterfüllten Raum ist es total finster. Das stellte man sich in einer besseren Zeit durchaus so vor - man wußte, daß da oben nicht der riesige Gasofen ist —, da ist nicht bloß leerer Raum, sondern da ist weniger als Raum, vom Raum noch ins Negative gehend. Unsere Physiker würden höchst erstaunt sein, wenn sie hinauffahren könnten: wo sie den Gasball hinversetzen, da ist gar kein Gasball, da ist ja gar kein Raum, es ist ausgesparter Raum, Raumsaugekraft. Dieser ausgesparte Raum ist da. Überall ist Raum, Raum und so weiter. Da aber ist negativer Raum, weniger als Raum. Man muß sich nur etwas vorstellen können unter dem «weniger als Raum». — Vorläufig können sich doch die Menschen vorstellen, daß weniger als kein Geld Schulden sind.

Aber das Räumliche hat eine Grenze und das Negativ-Räumliche fängt das Licht auf, da kann es nicht durch, durch die negative Leerheit; es wird zurückgestrahlt, und erst dadurch wird die Sonne sichtbar. Überall ist da das Licht. Dasjenige, was die Sonne ist, ist eben nur eine Rückstrahlungswesenheit, ein Rückstrahlungsapparat für das überall verbreitete Licht. Und dieses Licht hat seinen Ursprung nach griechischer Anschauung eben noch weiter, als sie den Tierkreis sich dachten; das kommt aus den Weiten des Weltalls herein, nicht aus dem Raum hier. Aber da wird es aufgefangen, und durch die Sonne sichtbar, und dadurch hängt mit dem, was höher ist als die Planetenwirkung, die Ich-Wirkung zusammen. Dadurch hat die Sonne etwas mit dem Ich zu tun, daß sie weniger ist als ein Raum, daß sie leerer ist als ein leerer Raum, daß da draußen, wo die Sonne eben ist, gewissermaßen aufhört alle Materialität und die Geistigkeit sich dort bricht. Deshalb fühlte sich der Grieche so sonnenverwandt, weil er das Ganze geistig verstand.

Bis in das 6. Jahrhundert, namentlich bis in die Mitte des 4. nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts reichte noch herein in das Bewußtsein des Abendlandes etwas von einer lebendigen Empfindung dieses Ins-Geistige-Hineinkommens, wenn man in den Kosmos hinaufblickte. Und deshalb wird dasjenige, was hier geschildert wird, nicht geschildert in den äußeren Planeten, sondern in den Hierarchien, die als Wesen da oben dasjenige bewegen, was äußerlich sich als Planetenwelt ankündigt. Man muß schon diese lebendige Vorstellung haben, dann wird man dazu kommen, überhaupt sich ganz anders in der Welt drinnen als Mensch zu fühlen.

Wenn man nun die Tierwelt von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus überschaut, sagt man sich: Das ist da in einem drinnen. Das macht ja in einem die Organe. Aber wenn ich da draußen die Tiere sehe: die sind abgeschlossen in ihren Formen. Ich bin keine solche Form geworden. Ich schaue nicht aus wie ein Löwe, schaue nicht aus wie ein Stier, wie der Ochse oder wie das Schwein, sondern das alles ist in einer Synthese in mir enthalten. Ich trage die Anlage von alledem in mir. Wäre ich nicht durch die Sonnenwirkung zum Ausgleich von alldem gekommen, so würde ich eigentlich ein Kerl sein, in dem die ganze Tierwelt durcheinanderwirbelt, durcheinanderwühlt. Es ist nur ausgeglichen, ins leibliche Gleichgewicht gebracht durch die Sonnenwirkung. Und was ist dadurch bewirkt, daß ich eigentlich die Anlage zu allen Tieren in mir trage, zu der ganzen Tierwelt, aber unterdrückt? Dadurch kann ich Formen denken. Dadurch kann ich Imaginationen denken. Die Tiere sind äußerlich gebildet nach ihren Imaginationen; sie sind die lebendigen Imaginationen, sie wandeln herum als Imaginationen. Die imaginative Welt ist mir ja überhaupt äußerlich ganz sichtbar, indem ich die Tierwelt überblicke. Aber dieselben Formen sind in mir. Die sind in mir dadurch als Gedankenbilder, daß ich es nicht äußerlich geworden bin, daß ich es nicht räumlich geworden bin.

Wenn man noch weiter zurückgeht, sagen wir in der Zeit vor Thales, würde man noch in den Mysterienschulen und bei denen, die drinnen gelehrt haben, ein deutliches Wissen finden, wie es bei Plato noch durchdringt in seinen esoterischen Schriften, ein deutliches Wissen, das sich so ausspricht: Logik, was ist denn das? Zoologie, das ist die lebendige Logik; denn wenn das eine in eine geistig abstrakte Form kommt, wozu wir veranlagt sind — was in der Tierwelt zum Ausdruck kommt und was sich in uns gegenseitig harmonisiert —, dann entsteht in uns das lebendige Gedankenspiel; das ist das Treiben der Tierwelt in unserem Gedankenspiel, und Logik ist Zoologie. - Dann allerdings kam der Sokratismus des Aristoteles, wo kein Bewußtsein vorhanden war von diesen Dingen. Und da machte man die abstrakte Logik, da machte man aus einem lebendigen Wahlverwandtschaftsverhältnis das Verhältnis des Urteils, die abstrakten Beziehungen von Begriff zu Begriff, wie sie in der Logik des Aristoteles zum Ausdruck kommen, die den Menschen, der damit etwas zu tun hat, zur Verzweiflung treiben kann, weil sie nirgends anzufassen ist.

So fühlt man, denkt man, bildet man Begriffsbilder, weil man eigentlich dasjenige, was draußen ausgebreitet ist in der Tierwelt, in sich trägt. Ja, da verwächst man ganz anders mit der Welt, wenn man das entwickelt. Da wird das Wollen und das Fühlen in einer ganz anderen Weise belebt. Da fühlt man seine Verwandtschaft mit den Reichen der Natur. Und da bekommt man allmählich eine Empfindung dafür, was es denn eigentlich heißt, daß in uns etwas Astralisches wirkt, nicht bloß etwas Ätherisches. Wenn man nicht die abstrakten Begriffe bekommt, die heute verbreitet werden, sondern das lebendige, innere Angeregtsein durch positive Formen, und dann den vierzehn- bis fünfzehnjährigen Menschen vor sich hat, dann lernt man diesen vierzehn- bis fünfzehnjährigen Menschen beobachten. Dann wird durch das, was man innerlich empfängt, das Auge und das Ohr geleitet zu dem, wie man sich in der nächsten Stunde verhält. Das Auge wird geführt und geleitet, und das Ohr wird geführt und geleitet, und wir werden erst dadurch zur Beobachtung angeregt, was in den vierzehn- bis fünfzehnjährigen Menschen vor uns hintritt. Wenn wir das nicht haben, wenn wir uns nicht durchdringen mit einer solchen Geisteswissenschaft, die in die Empfindung hineingeht, so stehen wir ja vor dem vierzehnbis fünfzehnjährigen Menschen da, etwa - in meiner Jugend haben die Leute gesagt -— wie der Ochs vor dem Sonntag, wenn er die ganze Woche Gras gefressen hat.

Das ist es, was wir in unsere Bildung, in unsere Zivilisation, in unsere Wissenschaft hineinbringen müssen, daß sie überhaupt etwas ist, daß sie eine Realität ist, daß sie nicht bloß eine Summe von bloßen Namen, nicht bloß ein Nominalismus ist, daß sie etwas Reales in uns entzündet und befeuert. Dadurch werden wir dann den Menschen beobachten. Aber das ist nicht gemeint, daß wir so verschmitzt an den Menschen herantreten und uns notieren, wie er ist. Das ergibt sich durchaus wie etwas, was von selbst an uns herankommt. Wir kommen zu einem Urteil über jedes einzelne Kind, wir brauchen es nicht auszusprechen, weil wir es beweglich in unserem Inneren haben. Dann können wir es heraufheben ins Bewußtsein, und wir handeln in der Klasse nach diesen zahlreichen Urteilen, die da in uns so leben und wogen, wie in den wahren Gedankenformen die ganze Tierwelt lebt. Denken Sie, wenn wir das alles wissen müßten, wenn wir uns klar sein müßten, wie der Löwe das Lamm frißt, wenn wir das alles zum Bewußtsein bringen müßten, wie das wäre. — So können wir auch nicht alles dasjenige, was in unserer Umgebung lebt, in uns zu Urteilen anregen. Das können wir nicht zum explizierten Bewußtsein bringen. Aber es kann da sein. Wir können darnach handeln. Wir stehen drinnen unter den Schülern und handeln darnach, wenn wir nicht von einem solchen Wissen, einer solchen Wissenschaft ausgegangen sind, die nur mit abstrakten Begriffen und abstrakten Naturgesetzen rechnet, und zu solchen Dingen überhaupt nicht in die Lage kommt aufzublicken. Das ist ja ganz selbstverständlich, wenn sich die Menschen vorstellen, daß draußen im Weltenraum der große Gasofen ohne Wände kocht, dann werden sie auch nicht zu einer besseren Menschenerkenntnis kommen.

So muß die große Gewissenserforschung eintreten, die darin besteht, daß wir uns sagen: wenn wir nicht mit allen Kräften hinarbeiten auf eine geisteswissenschaftliche Durchdringung unseres Instinktiven und unseres Gefühls- und Empfindungslebens, so verstehen wir das Kind im 14., 15. Lebensjahr nicht mehr. Wir lernen es erst verstehen, wenn wir zu einer solchen Bildung vordringen. Das ist gemeint, wenn immer gesagt wird: Anthroposophie ist selbst eine Pädagogik; nämlich sie wird Pädagogik, wenn man in die Lage kommt, erziehen zu können. Und es braucht nur das aus den Tiefen der menschlichen Seele hervorgeholt werden, was durch Anthroposophie in die Menschenseele gelegt wird, wenn es zur Pädagogik kommen soll. Ich möchte sagen, dem, was in jedem Menschen ist, braucht nur eine pädagogische Richtung gegeben zu werden, so wird anthroposophische Menschenerkenntnis eben durchaus auch Pädagogik.

Ich habe gestern zu denjenigen gesagt, die die 10. Klasse haben, man solle anfangen mit einer gewissen Menschenerkenntnis. Ja, das ist dasjenige, was eine solche Menschenerkenntnis darstellen will, daß wir den Menschen wiederum hinstellen in das ganze Weltall nach Leib, Seele und Geist. Wir sollten eigentlich, wenn wir richtige Pädagogen auf diesem Gebiet der Menschenerkenntnis sind, jede Anatomie, jede Physiologie so in die Hand nehmen, daß wir uns informieren über dasjenige, was da durch eine geistlose, jahrhundertlange Arbeit zustande gekommen ist. Aber es sollen bloß Informationsbücher sein, und wir sollten niemals versäumen, dasjenige hineinzugießen in diese Informationsbücher, was wir der Anthroposophie entnehmen können. Dadurch wird erst dasjenige beleuchtet, was aus diesen Informationen, eben aus den gebräuchlichen Dingen, herauskommt. Sie müssen sich ganz anders zur Literatur stellen, als sich die anderen dazu stellen. Gegewiß werden Ihnen dann die Urteile entgegenklingen, Sie seien hochnäsig und so weiter. Aber das muß heute schon ertragen werden. Es muß ertragen werden, daß Sie in dem, was heute unsere Wissenschaft, was heute unsere Bildung bietet, nur eine Grundlage sehen zur Information, so wie der Grieche, wenn er auferstehen würde, vielleicht zur Chemie greifen würde und sagen würde: Das, was ich einerseits von der Erde weiß, daß sie trocken und kalt ist, daß sie auf Pflanzen wirkt, das spezialisierst du mir. Es ist interessant, daß man es in Einzelheiten kennenlernt, aber du weißt nichts von der Gesamtwirkung, du weißt nur von einem Viertel. - Wir müssen wiederum zurückkommen zu einem solchen Wissen, das in Empfindung, Gefühl und Willen hineingeht, das unseren ganzen Menschen durchdringt, das auf seelischem und geistigem Gebiet etwas ähnliches ist wie das Blut auf leiblichem Gebiet; dann werden wir dadurch, daß wir andere Menschen werden, eben richtige Lehrer werden. Es verträgt das Lehrertum nicht jenes Automatentum der Menschheit, das dadurch zustande gekommen ist, daß man allerlei Treibhauspflanzen von Kunstpädagogiken erfunden hat. Jetzt experimentiert man sogar, weil man zu eigenen Begriffen kommen will; man experimentiert, wie die Erinnerung verläuft, man experimentiert, wie der Wille verläuft, sogar wie die Gedanken verlaufen. Das sind ja sehr nette Spielereien, bei denen gewiß etwas herauskommt. Man braucht nicht gegen das Spielen gerade zu sein, nicht bei Kindern und nicht im Laboratorium, aber es handelt sich darum, daß man die Einengung des Gesichtsfeldes, die dadurch hervorgerufen wird, bekämpft.

Seventh Lecture

Yesterday we began with a consideration that I called a kind of examination of conscience appropriate to the times, which is actually necessary for teachers and educators when they are confronted with the age of children between 14 and 15 years of age, which outwardly represents sexual maturity and which should actually be taken into account, not only when dealing with this stage of human development in education and teaching, but throughout the entire school and educational period. It has therefore been deemed necessary for teachers and educators to engage in a kind of higher examination of conscience with regard to this age group in our present time, because the whole way in which we ourselves were educated and taught in the past means that we must actually stand without understanding before what we encounter in human beings at this particular age.

We can get a picture of what is actually happening if we proceed in the following way: First, consider people in their twenties, from the age of 21 to 28. In spiritual science, we refer to this period as the birth of the ego, the time when the ego actually comes into its own in life. We have emphasized that for girls around the age of 14 or 15, this ego dissolves, as it were, into the astral body and is thus still dependent, while the astral body already gains a certain independence at the age of 14 or 15. In the case of boys, we have said that the ego does not dissolve into the astral body, but leads a kind of withdrawn life, and we have discussed how what we encounter in girls on the one hand and in boys from the age of 14 to 21 on the other hand appears to be entirely a result of this inner fact of human nature. But when, at around the age of 21, the ego comes into its own, then it is the case that human beings seek and find other human beings, and at this age in the fullest sense: human beings seek other human beings. This is peculiar because when, say, a twenty-four-year-old or even someone slightly younger, but not younger than 21, finds another person who is not older than twenty-eight, the two stand opposite each other in such a way that they interact with each other in a completely equal relationship: spirit, soul, body. At this age, people actually face each other as completely equal in their mutual interaction. Observing this in life is of great importance, especially for those who want to work in education. All the psychological nonsense that is often peddled today consists only of all kinds of verbal wisdom. If you really want to get to know life today, you have to study something like this special nuance that lives in people when they face each other in such a way that they are both between the ages of 21 and 28.

Let's take the other example: we have a young person between the ages of 14 and 21 and an older person between the ages of 28 and 35 facing each other. These two people, regardless of their gender, are in a certain relationship in which a relationship of complete equality cannot develop, and yet, if certain conditions are met, which we will discuss in a moment, a very significant understanding can be achieved. When the fourteen-, fifteen-, sixteen-year-old encounters the twenty-eight-, twenty-nine-, thirty-year-old, the following occurs: That which develops more physically, through the astral body, in fourteen- to twenty-one-year-olds, more in their outward behavior, in the way young, still childlike people find their way into life, by becoming more skilled or by having ideals — this whole process of relating to the outside world that develops there — is more, I would say, with the unconsciousness that is inherent in the physical body when it develops outwardly, and this occurs more inwardly in a soul form in human beings between the ages of 28 and 35. That is why people between the ages of 28 and 35 are best predestined to feel and sense, to perceive spiritually, what is going on in a 14 to 21-year-old. And in turn, the latter are particularly suited to looking up to those between the ages of 28 and 35, because they see, in a sense, what is active within them, in inner activity, which in them is more unconsciously manifested outwardly in the physical.

This relationship still existed to a very high degree among the Greeks, the relationship between people aged 28 to 35 and those who were becoming adults, the children aged 14 to 21. This relationship was simply experienced instinctively. Greek children looked up to their elders in such a way that they naturally said, not completely consciously, but more instinctively: They have in their souls what we have in our outer bodies; what we have on the outside appears to us in a more refined form. And when Greeks reached the age of 28 or 29, they took enormous pleasure in what was developing and revealing itself in fourteen-, fifteen-, and sixteen-year-olds. This instinctive life of human beings, where it is not only, as it is with us, that people enter into a relationship with each other in the abstract, but where the ages of life enter into a relationship, this instinctive life, where one is something to the other because one is younger or older, this instinctive relationship, that is what was still extremely strong among the Greeks, what really worked between people.

And now consider how it actually was in Greece. There, children grew up in reverence for thirty-year-olds, but they felt strongly that they had to seek out their peers once they passed the age of twenty. This gave rise to diversity and inwardness. It also gave social life a certain structure. And that is what really needs to be emphasized, because today, when this instinctive life is no longer present in human beings, we as teachers and educators are basically unable to understand the age that begins at 14 or 15. We cannot understand this because, as I emphasized yesterday, we have never absorbed mental images and concepts that can have such an effect on our sensory and emotional life that these instincts, which we have lost through the development of nature, can be revived in a more conscious way. And if we do not also enter the field of pedagogy and didactics with anthroposophical Spiritual Science and thereby stimulate such refinements of feeling and emotion in ourselves again, we will gradually create more and more gaps between older people, including teachers and educators, and these older children in particular. We will create these gaps so that in the end we can only retreat to commanding through words that this or that must be done. We will count on the fact that when we ourselves can no longer command in school, the police sergeant will be there, whom people know is there when they do not obey, when they do not behave as they have been commanded. But we cannot achieve the inner relationship between teacher and student unless we stimulate our whole being with such thoughts, however theoretical they may sound, which in turn, and now consciously, awaken in us what instinctive life once gave to human beings.

That is why I told you yesterday: what we learn today, that the individual substances and entities of natural existence are composed of some 70 elements, only applies to us once we have died and lie as corpses in the grave, to our corpses. What is demonstrated by chemistry and physics has nothing to do with the human being. It only relates to human beings insofar as their corpses decay and decompose according to the same laws that govern these 72 or 74 elements. In contrast, in the fourth post-Atlantean period, and especially among the Greeks, a view had developed that is looked down upon as something childish, as I explained yesterday, but which, when properly understood, gives human beings something quite different: the view that we are dealing with the four elements: fire, water, air, and earth. And I have told you that the Greeks did not conceive of these four elements in terms of crude sensory impressions or crude sensory matter, but rather they conceived of fire as that which contains both the qualities of warmth and dryness, and they conceived of water as cold and moist. But they could apply these living concepts, which they associated with them, in many ways. Firstly, they could apply them by thinking through in a living way what warmth was for them, what air was for them, what fire, water, and earth were for them, in which they saw images, very specific images. They could apply them to the way in which the mixture and separation, the synthesis and analysis of substances takes place in humans from the etheric body; how the etheric body works on the physical body, how it works on the physical body from birth to death, they could think through that; whereas we can only think about what the physical corpse does in the grave according to our physical and chemical laws. The Greeks and their successors up to the 15th century were able to think through how the etheric body works on the physical body, developing warmth and dryness in the manner of fire, developing cold and moisture in the manner of water, developing cold and dryness in the manner of earth, and so on.

But this is a much more lively, inner work when one now looks at the human being with these four elements; for one is then able to form a mental image of the activity of one's etheric body with the physical substances. And one becomes much more alive inwardly when one forms this mental image as something living, especially when one adds what the Greeks also imagined as living.

They had the following mental image (it is drawn): You see, today we have the surface of the earth with green plants growing on it. Yes, how do we imagine what is happening in the plant world? Yes, of course, we can only go as far as we consider explainable according to the chemical analyses and syntheses that we acquire from the 70 or so elements. The other is either denied or attempted to be given a mental image by analogy with the interaction of minerals. What takes place in the chaotic interaction of chlorophyll, the green pigment in plants, with some external entities when the plant shoots upward, one would like to imagine as similar to what happens in the retort. It is not said, but such a view breaks through everywhere. It is regarded as a kind of mineral. The Greeks, even if they did not say so explicitly, said to themselves: What is earth, what is cold and dry, works from below, from the earth, upwards, and as soon as the plants break through the surface of the earth, the plant works, springing forth in free activity, with its greenness, with its blossom colors, water and air work there — but in the way the Greeks had in their mental image — and fire, encompassing everything, is at work. Out there, the warm and dry, the cold and wet, the warm and wet, and that which is at work in confusion, wet and dry and warm and cold, this quality that weaves and swirls together, is at work above the surface of the earth in the plant world. — One must look at this. If you look at it and then look away at the human being, how his etheric body works inside, you have something similar. But you feel yourself inside, by looking at the whole life of the plant, stimulated by such a view, I would say, living this plant life, this objective life, into yourself. A Greek had the feeling: out there, everything blooms and thrives and grows and changes. That also works within me. It was not something distant that he formed a mental image of under the influence of his own etheric body. He said to himself: That which is in me as an etheric body remains nothing unknown to me. Certainly, I do not see it in myself, but when I turn my gaze to everything that is green, that is around me, what is in myself is revealed to me.

And if such a Greek, not in his present incarnation, but as an ancient Greek, were to rise again and a chemist of today came to him and said: "What you are saying is all nonsense. We have long since gone beyond the four elements, fire, water, air, and earth; that is all a childish mental image. there is hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and so on' – and listed these 76 elements to him, the Greek would say: 'I have nothing against that, you can do that, it is only a specialized view of what I have down there in the cold, dry earth. But you have not gone further than the specialization of the cold and dry. You understand nothing at all about water, fire, and air. You have no idea what is swirling around out there in the plant world. You have no idea about the etheric that you yourself carry within you. You cannot talk about the plant world at all. For with what you list in your 76 elements, you still have no concept of what is at work in the plant.

You only have to feel how our words come alive when we feel the same thing inside human beings as in all the greenery of the world, if that is not something we cannot see through. And you can be quite sure that once it becomes so alive again that it is incorporated into education, it will not only permeate our words as an inner, spiritual nuance, working in abstract relationships with the soul, it will also bring color back to people's faces. It will transform people as a whole and have a significantly harmonious effect. The teachers' voices will sound much healthier. They will have a completely different effect, without you having to take anything else into consideration. For all these art pedagogies, where people say we must do this and that, it must be this way and that way, are basically greenhouse plants. What real education is must be allowed to grow. It must be absorbed with our imagination, with our feelings, in the same way that we naturally absorb things that affect our blood, our nerves, that grow with us through our organization.

Basically, it is already the beginning of nonsense when you expect someone to say: this must be done this way and that way. That is already the beginning of saying to the stove: you are actually placed in the corner of the room, and it is your duty as a stove to make it warm – that is already the beginning when you have such an art education. You throw wood into the stove and light it. Education needs a proper understanding of human nature, which comes alive in the whole person, in our feelings, but also in our will. It is necessary that we develop such an understanding of human nature.

And now the Greek did not only look at what lives out there in the vegetation, but he looked up into the vastness of the worlds and first perceived the circling planets, as he says, from the moon to Saturn. They then directed their gaze further out into the world of the stars, and there they had the feeling: as I stand here on Earth with the surrounding plant world, the effects of fire, air, and water permeate me. The plant world is permeated by the effects of fire, air, and water. What I see in action also creates a rhythm within myself. I actually carry the whole year within me, because just as out there in the plant world, the green and decaying harmonize with the dry and moist, just as the cold and warm proceed, so too does my etheric body proceed with me, only that I carry a whole world within me, so that what takes place outside over a long period of time takes place within me in shorter rhythms. He feels himself to be a living being in this world. He feels that he belongs to this earthly being. He says to himself: Where the plants are, that is where it begins, water, air, fire, earth, interpenetrating each other. There the etheric rises with its activity; but now, coming towards it from the universe, shining in from outside, in the fire, in the air, in the water, is that which is the effect of the stars, which is initially the planetary effect. I would have an etheric body within me if this planetary effect were not there; plants would be there, but it would not be possible for me to form, for example, the forebrain, if the forces of Saturn did not act from outside; my larynx could not form if Mars did not act from outside, my heart could not form if the forces from outside did not radiate in. And so the Greeks thought: only the forces radiate in from outside; the etheric radiates outwards, and from indeterminate worlds, modified by the planets, the forces that constitute what goes beyond the plant-like in me radiate in. And the Greek feels: I would have no forebrain, I would have no larynx, no heart, no stomach, if Saturn, Mars, the Sun, and Mercury were not out there. Thus, in these organs of his, he feels as connected to the vastness of the worlds as he feels connected in his etheric body to fire, water, earth, and air. In a sense, he saw fire, water, earth, and air as closest to him. And he saw the forces that swirled together in fire, water, air, and earth in such a way that the heart, lungs, and so on became possible.

Yes, this led to the Greek simply feeling that his physicality was not only a result of the earth, but also a result of the outer cosmos, so that he said: I stand next to the plant, but the forces of the cosmos are at work within me. They also penetrate the plant, but in the plant they work from the outside; they cannot penetrate it, they cannot organize it down to the organs. In me, they penetrate everything that I have in common with the animal. And I can go as far as the zodiac in the organization of what penetrates from outer space. There I have completed the sphere in which I can observe everything that penetrates into my animal nature and into the animal nature of the surrounding animals. I observe the animals, I observe them in their various forms, for example the lion. Yes, there I have in the form of the lion a certain interaction of the planets with what is fixed star beings, which interact in a confused way. There I learn to understand why the lion is built the way it is, why it looks the way it does. I learn to understand why another animal looks the way it does. I get to know the animal world around me, I get to know the astral body. I feel it within me, just as I used to feel the plant and etheric worlds within me. Together with the animal world of the earth, I am an inhabitant not only of the earth, but of that which pulsates in the universe through the presence of the stars.

Yes, in fact, there is something that permeates human beings in such a way that they say: I do indeed see beings around me that are formed according to mineral laws; but I do not belong to them, nor do I belong to anything that is plant, and certainly not to anything that is animal. I cannot be on Earth through the forces that come solely from the Earth. This feeling of being in the whole universe is essentially what lived in the Greeks; it was still instinctive in them. The ego was then sought outside the zodiac, outside the sphere through which only the zodiac is omitted, as something thoroughly spiritual for which no sensory correlate can be found except the image of this whole sphere: the sun. This brings us to the concept of the sun that people had, which had already become somewhat decadent in Greece, but which was still very much present in earlier times.

Our physicists and astronomers, yes, they form the mental image that somewhere out there in space, 20 million miles away from us, there is a large sphere of gas. It burns, and from this huge cosmic furnace, a gas furnace that has no walls, light and heat radiate in all directions. That is the mental image that today is held solely by people who are not dilettantes, who are experts, of course. But today you have to be an expert to have such a mental image. You will come closer to the truth in this area if you imagine the following: Imagine that you are standing in pure light. There would be light everywhere. But there would be no object anywhere to reflect the light back to you. The light would then come back to you from nowhere: it would be completely dark in this light-filled room. You would see nothing inside, and it would be totally dark. If there were only light, it would be totally dark. The light only comes back when it is captured somewhere, otherwise you cannot see it anywhere. In the light-filled room, it is completely dark. In better times, this was how people imagined it – they knew that there was no giant gas oven up there – there is not just empty space, but there is less than space, going from space into the negative. Our physicists would be extremely astonished if they could go up there: where they move the gas ball, there is no gas ball at all, there is no space at all, it is empty space, space suction force. This empty space is there. There is space everywhere, space and so on. But there is negative space, less than space. One just has to be able to form a mental image under “less than space.” — For the time being, people can form the mental image that less than no money is debt.

But space has a boundary, and negative space captures the light; it cannot pass through the negative emptiness; it is reflected back, and only then does the sun become visible. Light is everywhere. What the sun is, is just a reflective entity, a reflective apparatus for the light that is everywhere. And according to Greek belief, this light has its origin even further away than they imagined the zodiac; it comes in from the vastness of the universe, not from the space here. But there it is captured and made visible by the sun, and thus it is connected with that which is higher than the planetary effect, the I-effect. Thus the sun has something to do with the I, in that it is less than a space, that it is emptier than an empty space, that out there, where the sun is, all materiality ceases, so to speak, and spirituality breaks there. That is why the Greeks felt so closely related to the sun, because they understood the whole thing spiritually.

Until the 6th century, namely until the middle of the 4th century AD, something of a living sense of this entering into the spiritual still reached into the consciousness of the West when one looked up at the cosmos. And that is why what is described here is not described in the outer planets, but in the hierarchies that, as beings up there, move what outwardly manifests itself as the planetary world. One must have this living mental image, then one will come to feel oneself as a human being in the world in a completely different way.

When you look at the animal world from this point of view, you say to yourself: That is inside you. That is what makes up your organs. But when I see the animals out there, they are closed in their forms. I have not become such a form. I don't look like a lion, I don't look like a bull, an ox, or a pig, but all of that is contained in a synthesis within me. I carry the potential for all of that within me. If I had not achieved a balance of all that through the influence of the sun, I would actually be a fellow in whom the entire animal world was swirling and churning about. It is only balanced, brought into physical equilibrium by the influence of the sun. And what is the effect of the fact that I actually carry within me the potential for all animals, for the entire animal world, but suppressed? It enables me to think in forms. It enables me to think in imaginations. Animals are outwardly formed according to their imaginations; they are living imaginations, they walk around as imaginations. The imaginative world is completely visible to me externally when I survey the animal world. But the same forms are within me. They are within me as thought images because I have not become external, because I have not become spatial.

If one goes back even further, say to the time before Thales, one would still find clear knowledge in the mystery schools and among those who taught there, as it still permeates Plato's esoteric writings, a clear knowledge that expresses itself as follows: Logic, what is that? Zoology is living logic; for when the one takes on a spiritually abstract form, to which we are predisposed — which is expressed in the animal world and which harmonizes within us — then the living play of thought arises within us; that is the activity of the animal world in our play of thought, and logic is zoology. Then, however, came the Socratism of Aristotle, where there was no awareness of these things. And then abstract logic was created, and a living relationship of elective affinity was turned into a relationship of judgment, the abstract relationships from concept to concept, as expressed in Aristotle's logic, which can drive people who have anything to do with it to despair, because it cannot be grasped anywhere.

This is how one feels, thinks, and forms conceptual images, because one actually carries within oneself what is spread out in the animal world. Yes, one grows together with the world in a completely different way when one develops this. Willing and feeling are enlivened in a completely different way. One feels one's affinity with the realms of nature. And gradually you get a sense of what it actually means that something astral is at work within us, not just something ethereal. If you don't get the abstract concepts that are widespread today, but rather the living, inner stimulation through positive forms, and then you have fourteen- to fifteen-year-olds in front of you, then you learn to observe these fourteen- to fifteen-year-olds. Then, through what one receives inwardly, the eye and the ear are guided to how one behaves in the next hour. The eye is guided and led, and the ear is guided and led, and only then are we inspired to observe what is happening in the fourteen- to fifteen-year-old person in front of us. If we do not have this, if we do not immerse ourselves in such Spiritual Science, which enters into our feelings, then we stand before the fourteen- to fifteen-year-old human being, as people said in my youth, like an ox before Sunday, when it has been eating grass all week.

This is what we must bring into our education, into our civilization, into our science, that it is something at all, that it is a reality, that it is not merely a sum of mere names, not merely nominalism, that it ignites and fires something real in us. Through this, we will then observe human beings. But this does not mean that we approach people in a sly manner and make notes about how they are. It is something that comes to us naturally. We come to a judgment about each individual child; we do not need to express it because we have it moving within us. Then we can bring it up into consciousness, and we act in the classroom according to these numerous judgments that live and surge within us, just as the whole animal world lives in the true thought forms. Think what it would be like if we had to know all this, if we had to be clear about how the lion eats the lamb, if we had to bring all this into consciousness. — So we cannot stimulate judgments in ourselves about everything that lives in our environment. We cannot bring this into explicit consciousness. But it can be there. We can act according to it. We stand among the students and act accordingly, if we have not started from such knowledge, such science, which only deals with abstract concepts and abstract laws of nature, and is not at all able to look up to such things. It is quite natural that when people have a mental image of the great gas furnace boiling outside in outer space without walls, they will not come to a better understanding of human nature.

So we must engage in a great examination of conscience, which consists in saying to ourselves: if we do not work with all our strength toward a spiritual scientific penetration of our instinctive life and our life of feeling and sensation, we will no longer understand the child in the 14th and 15th years of life. We only learn to understand them when we advance to such an education. This is what is meant when it is always said that anthroposophy is itself a pedagogy; namely, it becomes pedagogy when one is able to educate. And all that is needed is to bring forth from the depths of the human soul what is placed in the human soul through anthroposophy, if it is to become pedagogy. I would like to say that what is in every human being only needs to be given a pedagogical direction, and then anthroposophical knowledge of the human being will also become pedagogy.

Yesterday I said to those who have completed 10th grade that one should begin with a certain knowledge of the human being. Yes, that is what such knowledge of human nature aims to represent, that we place human beings back into the whole universe in body, soul, and spirit. If we are true educators in this field of knowledge of human nature, we should actually take up every anatomy and every physiology in such a way that we inform ourselves about what has been achieved through centuries of spiritless work. But these should only be reference books, and we should never fail to pour into these reference books what we can glean from anthroposophy. Only then will what emerges from this information, from the commonplace things, be illuminated. You must approach literature in a completely different way than others do. Certainly, you will then be met with judgments that you are arrogant and so on. But that must be endured today. It must be endured that you see in what our science and education offer today only a basis for information, just as the Greek, if he were to rise again, would perhaps turn to chemistry and say: What I know about the earth, that it is dry and cold, that it affects plants, you are specializing in that. It is interesting to learn about it in detail, but you know nothing about the overall effect, you only know about a quarter of it. We must return to a kind of knowledge that enters into our senses, feelings, and will, that permeates our whole being, that is to our soul and spirit what blood is to our body; then, by becoming different people, we will become true teachers. Teaching cannot tolerate the automatism of humanity that has come about through the invention of all kinds of hothouse plants of art education. Now people are even experimenting because they want to arrive at their own concepts; they are experimenting with how memory works, they are experimenting with how the will works, even with how thoughts work. These are very nice games, which will certainly yield some results. There is no need to be against playing, not with children and not in the laboratory, but the point is to combat the narrowing of the field of vision that this causes.