Human and Cosmic Thought E-Book

Rudolf Steiner

• Herausgeber: Rudolf Steiner Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Seitenzahl: 244

Beschreibung

What convinces us of the truth of a point of view? Why do we find it difficult to understand or accept differing perspectives? What are the inner foundations of our knowledge? In these concentrated and aphoristic lectures, Rudolf Steiner speaks of twelve main philosophical standpoints, and the importance of comprehending each one of them. Appreciating the variety of world-views not only sharpens our thinking and makes it more flexible, but helps us to overcome a narrow-minded one sidedness, promoting tolerance of other people and their opinions. The future of philosophy rests not upon defending one single perspective and refuting all others, but in learning to experience the validity of all points of view. Steiner goes on to explain how each philosophical standpoint is coloured by a particular 'soul mood', which influences the way we pursue knowledge as individuals. He characterizes the work of several thinkers in this way, throwing light on their unique contributions to human culture. Through such insights into the true nature of human thinking, we are led to understand the quality of cosmic thought, and how the human being is a 'thought which is thought by the Hierarchies of the cosmos'. This revised translation is complemented with an introduction by Robert McDermott, editorial notes and appendices by Frederick Amrine and an index. Four lectures, Berlin, Jan. 1914, GA 151

Leseprobe

HUMAN AND COSMIC THOUGHT

Four lectures given in Berlin from 20 to 23 January 1914 during the second General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society

TRANSLATED BY CHARLES DAVY AND FREDERICK AMRINE AND EDITED BY FREDERICK AMRINE

INTRODUCTION BY ROBERT MCDERMOTT

RUDOLF STEINER

Rudolf Steiner Press

Hillside House, The Square

Forest Row, RH18 5ES

www.rudolfsteinerpress.com

Published by Rudolf Steiner Press 2024

Originally published in German under the title Der menschliche und der kosmische Gedanke (volume 151 in the Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe or Collected Works) by Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Dornach. Based on shorthand notes that were not reviewed or revised by the speaker. This authorized translation is based on the sixth German edition (1990), edited by Robert Friedenthal and Caroline Wispler

Published by permission of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach

© Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, Dornach, Rudolf Steiner Verlag 1990

This translation © Rudolf Steiner Press 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 85584 650 0

Cover by Morgan Creative

Typeset by Symbiosys Technologies, Visakhapatnam, India

Printed and bound by 4Edge Ltd., Essex

CONTENTS

Publisher’s Note

Introduction, by Robert McDermott

LECTURE 1

BERLIN, 20 JANUARY 1914

Petrified concepts and concepts brought into movement as an advance from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Movement.

LECTURE 2

BERLIN, 21 JANUARY 1914

The possibility of contemplating the world from twelve different standpoints through twelve equally justified world-outlooks.

LECTURE 3

BERLIN, 22 JANUARY 1914

Relations of the seven world-outlook-moods (planets) to the twelve shades of world-outlook (zodiac). The threefold tone in world-outlooks (Sun, Moon and Earth). The special case of anthropomorphism (Earth).

LECTURE 4

BERLIN, 23 JANUARY 1914

Man’s place within the spiritual cosmos from the standpoint of spiritual astrology. Man as a thought of the Hierarchies.

APPENDICES:

1. Exemplary Passages from Betti’s Twelve Ways of Seeing the World

2. Friedrich Nietzsche

3. Platonism and Aristotelianism

4. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

5. Goethe’s Scientific Work

6. Immanuel Kant

7. Fritz Mauthner

8. Ernst Haeckel

9. Emil Du Bois-Reymond

10. Gnosis/Gnosticism

11. Robert Hamerling

Notes

Rudolf Steiner’s Collected Works

Significant Events in the Life of Rudolf Steiner

Index

PUBLISHER’S NOTE

THESE four lectures, given under the title Human and the Cosmic Thought, were delivered at the second General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, which had been in existence since 1912. The meeting lasted from Sunday 18 January to Friday 23 January 1914. The minutes of the discussions, speeches and contributions held on these days are published in the Mitteilungen für Mitglieder der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft, (Theosophischen Gesellschaft) [‘Announcements for members of the Anthroposophical Society, Theosophical Society’], edited by Mathilde Scholl, Cologne, April to June 1914.

INTRODUCTION

THESE four lectures, given under the title Human and the Cosmic Thought, were delivered at the second General Assembly of the Anthroposophical Society, January 1914. In 1902, Steiner had been appointed teacher of the German Section by Col. Olcott (with H. P. (Madame) Blavatsky, co-founder of the Theosophical Society in New York in 1975). Rudolf Steiner’s separation from the Theo-sophical Society was a gradual process that can be dated to 1904 when he separated the Western from the Asian esoteric streams in the German Section of the Theosophical Society. The conflict intensified at the international conference in Munich, 1907, at the conclusion of which, with the agreement of Annie Besant (president of the Theosophical Society after Col. Olcott), he separated his Western esoteric school from the Theosophical Society. A further breaking point came in 1911 when C. W. Leadbeater, with the support of Annie Besant, proclaimed a sixteen-year-old boy, Jiddu Krishnamurti, to be the future world teacher, the bearer of the Maitreya Buddha, and the reappearing Christ.1 Leadbeater appointed Krishnamurti head of the newly formed Order of the Star of the East. As a result, in October 2011, Rudolf Steiner expelled from the Anthroposophical Society members of the Order of the Star of the East. In 1912 a committee was formed for the founding of an independent association. At Rudolf Steiner’s suggestion, this association was named ‘The Anthroposophical Society’. On 2 and 3 February, 1913, the Anthroposophical Society was legally established by its board members – Marie von Sievers, Michael Bauer and Carl Unger. Rudolf Steiner did not join this Society but he laid the foundation stone for Johannes Bau, the building that would be renamed the Goetheanum.2

At the first meeting of the newly formed Anthroposophical Society, 3 February, 2013, Rudolf Steiner delivered his only systematic description of the divine Sophia, including the significance of the name of the newly founded Society – Anthropos, human; Sophia, divine wisdom – the spiritual being through whom Rudolf Steiner intended to reveal the results of his spiritual-scientific research, and the methods by which he intended to attain esoteric knowledge. In this lecture, he introduced the being Anthroposophia as the divine being who leads humanity to think spiritually and thereby to realize the ideal of the Consciousness Soul epoch, the method of thinking that began slowly in the fifteenth century. In the four lectures in this book, delivered eleven months later, Rudolf Steiner offers a detailed account of the kind of thinking that is necessary to achieve spiritual knowledge by conscious awareness of the role of the cosmos in thinking. On this occasion, he sought to deliver lectures that would impress upon his audience, presumably former members of the Theosophical Society, the importance of free, deliberate thinking as a spiritual path. A complete subtitle of these four lectures could have been: ‘The essential, foundational influence of the spiritual cosmic beings, particularly the Hierarchies and planets, in creating and shaping human thought.’

Especially during and after the First World War, Rudolf Steiner observed and tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to resolve failures of understanding among leaders of nations as well as among philosophers and esoteric teachers. These lectures (in January 1914) preceded by seven months the visit by Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie to Sarajevo, Bosnia. The shocking assassination of this royal couple on their arrival set off a chain reaction that led one month later to the start of World War I. Rudolf Steiner declared: ‘Now the catastrophe has begun.’ In these four lectures on the source of human thinking, Rudolf Steiner sought to show his audience the source and the process of living (free, deliberate) thinking. He had introduced the foundation for these themes twenty years prior in his book, The Philosophy of Freedom.3

Though not at all fanatical, Steiner was intensely dedicated to truth as he saw it: at age 20 or 21, a high Master, perhaps discarnate,4 gave him the task of opposing materialism. Steiner was instructed to lead science to spirit by ‘getting under the skin’ of materialism. Also at age 21, on the recommendation of his professor, Carl Julius Schroer, he was named editor of the national edition of Goethe’s scientific writings. Throughout his entire life he was painfully aware of the wiles of two relentless tempters, Lucifer (who influences humanity to believe that it is spiritually advanced, and so humans needn’t attend to ordinary responsibilities) and Ahriman (who influences humanity to believe that spirit does not exist). Steiner was convinced that the whole of Western civilization had fallen under the control of Ahriman, and thereby was blinded to the saving grace of spiritual beings devoted to truth and love. If we take ‘dogmatic’ to mean a person who emphatically holds an opinion with little or no evidence and a refusal to consider counter opinions, then with few exceptions – his critique of Pragmatism being one – Steiner was the opposite of dogmatic. His writings and lectures are full of explanations and opinions based on his experience and frequently supported by contemporary scholarship. He was a deep student not only of Goethe but also of the German Idealist philosophies of Fichte (the central topic of his doctoral dissertation), Schelling and Hegel. He also developed and bequeathed methods for others to gain insights similar to his. Finally, he affirmed at least a dozen philosophical perspectives contrary to his – provided only that they not claim to be the only true position.

When describing the ideal process of knowing an idea or object, Rudolf Steiner more than once invokes the idea of a tree that can be envisioned completely (or accurately) only when viewed from at least four sides. Similarly, in these four lectures on the cosmic influence on thinking, Steiner says it is possible to understand human thinking adequately only by viewing it from many diverse perspectives and influences, including:

Lecture One: the divine Hierarchies;

Lecture Two: twelve philosophies or world views;

Lecture Three: seven planets, twelve ‘shades’ of the Zodiac, and three ‘tones’, namely Sun, Moon, and Earth;

Lecture Four: and from the revelations of spiritual astrological cosmic bodies.

Lecture 1: Realism vs. Nominalism (and Pragmatism)

In the first lecture, Steiner argues on behalf of philosophical Realism, a position attributed to both Plato and Aristotle, as well as to Thomas Aquinas. In most respects, Plato and Aristotle are correctly understood to be in disagreement: Plato affirms a transcendent realm of Ideas, whereas in general, Aristotle reduces Plato’s two levels to one. But like Plato, Aristotle is considered to be a Realist because he affirms the reality of general or universal ideas – also called Ideals. In his Symposium, Plato affirms the transcendent reality of Love; in the Republic, he affirms the reality of Truth, Beauty and Justice, all manifestations of the highest, all-inclusive Ideal, The Good. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is the divergent means by which such Ideas/Ideals can be known. In his Republic (though not in later dialogues such as the Sophist and Theaetetus) Plato advocates the possibility and efficacy of intuiting transcendent or universal Ideas/Ideals, whereas Aristotle contends that universal Ideas/Ideals can be grasped by ordinary thinking. As a result of this contrast, Aristotle is usually classified as a Realist and Plato as an Idealist.

It is important to understand that in his middle, most representative dialogues such as Symposium and Republic, Plato is a Realist as well as an Idealist: in these dialogues, Ideas/Ideals are real, exist on a higher plane of existence, and require a higher kind of thinking to apprehend them. Whereas Aristotle is a Realist – ideas are real – he is not an Idealist because in opposition to his teacher Plato, he tried to show that Plato’s higher realm is not separate from the natural world. The advantage to Plato’s philosophy is precisely that it affirms The Good (similar to God in Christian theology), and all the Ideas, Ideals and spiritual realities that The Good contains. The advantage of Aristotle’s philosophy is that its metaphysics (its description of reality) and epistemology (its method of knowing reality) is more scientific. Emerson wrote: ‘In Plato, mysticism finds all of its texts.’ We could add: ‘In Aristotle, science finds all of its texts.’ It is instructive that in Plato’s later dialogues, he argues against the existence of the upper (transcendent) realm and therefore, in these late dialogues, Plato can be viewed as a brilliant, philosophical inquirer, and not at all a mystic.

In trying to synthesize Aristotle’s Realism with Christian Platonic-Idealist theology, Thomas Aquinas,5 Steiner’s primary philosophical source before the modern period, created a philosophy that supports belief in God and human immortality. In the four lectures in this volume, Steiner is arguing on behalf of Realism without regard to Idealism (which he accepts); rather, his opponent in these lectures is Nominalism which is opposed to both Realism and Idealism. Nominalism, which was first proposed in the fourteenth century by William of Occam – who, like Thomas Aquinas, was a Dominican monk – argues that what Plato and Aristotle affirm as universal Ideas/Ideals are just names. They don’t need to be capitalized because they are like all other words.

Rudolf Steiner describes the little known process by which thoughts are fashioned and expressed. Persons are generally unaware of the cosmic sources of the ideas that they hold and express, and particularly of the ways in which these ideas conflict with other ideas on the same topics. The first lecture focuses on the contrast between Nominalists and Realists. Nominalists deny not only transcendental ideas such as Platonic Truth, Beauty and Justice, but equally God, other spiritual beings and the human soul. In these four lectures, following more than 100 lectures that Steiner delivered on the events depicted in the New Testament, he sought to lead his audiences from faith (or belief) to spiritual-scientific knowledge. In this philosophical endeavour he was offering a method of knowing beyond not only Plato and Aristotle, but also beyond Thomas Aquinas, for whom faith and knowledge are complementary methods by which to know the truth of the Christian revelation. Steiner is claiming that anyone, whether Christian or not, who would make the effort, can discover the truths contained in the Bible, including the meaning of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost, and in the ideas in the history of Christian theology.

By a method of thinking made possible by Anthropos-Sophia (human wisdom), Steiner sought to show the possibility of direct, free, certain knowledge of both natural and spiritual realities. But this new epistemology is difficult to establish because of the hold on human thinking of Nominalism and Materialism – the opposition to which was at the core of Steiner’s karmic task given to him by his Master. At the time of that initiatory disclosure, Steiner had been reading Kant for seven years and had been in conversation with Felix Koguzki, a practitioner of indigenous clairvoyance. As Steiner had explained at length in his Esoteric Science,6 published five years earlier, human thinking had evolved from clairvoyance to materialistic thinking. When reading the works of Rudolf Steiner, it is important to keep in mind the three most recent evolutionary epochs:

Sentient Soul, 2000 BCE to mid-eighth century BCE, thinking essentially in pictures;

Intellectual Age, eighth century BCE to fifteenth century CE, with an epistemology led by classical Greek philosophers including Plato and Aristotle;

Consciousness Soul (beginning in the early fifteenth century CE, predominantly materialistic but also, in opposition to materialism, the possibility of free spiritual knowledge.

These three phases constitute what Owen Barfield calls the gradual ‘loss of participation.’7 Steiner notes that at the end of the Sentient Soul Age, for the human soul, ‘the picture passes over into thought’ (11). At the end of the Intellectual Age, the development of thought leads to the stage of generally accepted denial of ‘universals’, the position called Nominalism.8 Steiner states that according to the Nominalist, ‘There are only separate things; and beyond the separate things – so says the Nominalist – we have nothing but words that comprise the separate things’ (12).

As part of his critique of Nominalism, Steiner also critiques Pragmatism. The most influential case for Pragmatism is the 1907 volume of the same name by William James, according to which Pragmatism is a method for establishing truth and meaning by experimentation and examination of consequences. It is somewhat insulting and unfortunate for Steiner to suggest that the pragmatist is ‘talking utter nonsense’ because he does not notice his error (20-21). Even Steiner, especially in a lecture, can occasionally venture beyond his expertise or lapse into impatience. He should have been more positive in response to the view that says, in effect, ‘by its fruits [whatever is claimed or proposed] we shall know them [to be true or false].’ A keen observer of ideas and events, Steiner’s practice of spiritual science is not so different from pragmatism. The difference can be summarized by the pragmatist looking away from essences and to results whereas Steiner’s spiritual science looks to essences, to interiors, to the reality that causes the results which the pragmatist must wait to assess. If only James and Steiner had conversed, or at least had read each other’s major works, many of which were being written and published in their lifetimes.9

Lecture 2: Twelve Valid Philosophical Perspectives

The second lecture offers convincing evidence of Steiner’s ability and willingness to positively summarize philosophies which he considers valid in their affirmation and invalid in their claims against their competitors. For example, as Steiner shows, Idealism in itself is a valid worldview, but not to the extent that it denies Materialism – which is also valid except in its opposition to other philosophies such as Idealism. Perhaps surprising to a person new to Steiner’s lectures (which comprise more than 300 volumes) he argues for the validity of all twelve competing worldviews, including several that are clearly opposed to his commitment to Realism. For example, what Materialism claims for itself – that matter is real, substantial, and important to humans and gods alike – is true and receives Steiner’s affirmation, but he opposes the view that materialism is the only reality. It is this very opposition that defined his life task. He opposed modern versions of humanism for a similar reason: in his view, humanity is a deep creation necessary for the divine plan but it can realize its destiny only in relation to the entire cosmos, whence humanity came, and the means by which humanity must advance in the future as it has in the past.

Contrary to what one might expect of a spiritual, esoteric philosopher, Steiner is a champion of matter and humanity (individually and universally considered) and rightly opposed to views that deny either. In the third lecture, without diminishing his positive summary of these twelve philosophical perspectives, he makes the best case for Realism, the perspective to which he was committed at the core of his life task. With the adjective ‘Gnostic’ – presumably to emphasize the independent character of this affirmation – he attributes to Realism a special ability to make a natural (and astrological) relationship with the external world. He explains that Gnostic Realists are ‘equipped to have really fine perceptions of the external reality around them, and of the intrinsic qualities of things.’ And further, Gnostics of Realism, for example, can make significant comments on a gallery of pictures ‘because with their whole personality they are in touch with the reality of the things they see.’

Lecture 3: The Work of the Cosmos in Human Thinking

One of Steiner’s most confidently held positions concerns the source of ideas. He argues that our ideas are generated by various cosmic sources and then shaped by our individual spiritual and astrological constitution. A person with knowledge of Western astrology, or eager to learn from Steiner’s astrological research, might be confused and perhaps disappointed by the astrological content of these lectures. Always a pluralist, in these lectures, Steiner provides a multilayered analysis of the spiritual/cosmic influences on human thinking. He describes the working of the cosmos, particularly its spiritual character, on large and small ideas, perspectives, worldviews and convictions. He introduces the term ‘external astrology’ to refer to standard astrology based on the location of planets on the date, time and location at birth, but he is primarily concerned with what he refers to as cosmic moods of a spiritual universe. He states:

Just as you can picture to yourselves the physical cosmos; the Zodiac, the planetary system; Sun, Moon, and Earth (the three together) and the Earth on its own account, so you can think of a spiritual universe: Anthropomorphism; Theism, Intuitionism, Naturalism; Gnosis, Logicism, Voluntarism, Empiricism, Mysticism, Transcendentalism, Occultism, and all this moving round through the twelve spiritual signs of the Zodiac. All this does exist, only it exists spiritually. As truly as the physical cosmos exists physically, so truly does this other universe exist spiritually. (55)

We can assume that Steiner’s reference to the physical cosmos includes the non-physical, i.e., astral meanings and influence of physical bodies. In addition to the study of astrology – natal charts, transits, houses, etc. – Steiner is bringing to our attention a cosmic universe with spiritual members, some of which are familiar because they are components of (external) astrology. Research on the role of these physical-astral bodies, called Astrosophy by anthroposophists, has evolved significantly thanks to Elizabeth Vreede (whom Steiner appointed as head of the Mathematical-Astronomical Section of the School of Spiritual Science), Willi Sucher, Robert Powell and Brian Gray, among many others. In lectures three and four, Steiner is describing the influence of spiritual bodies that interact with the twelve-bodied Zodiac which includes Hierarchies, moods and early phases of Earth – Old Saturn, Old Sun, Old Moon. These lectures are an answer to students of anthroposophy who have wondered how to work with or contemplate Steiner’s descriptions to heavenly bodies in volumes such as Cosmic Memory and Esoteric Science.

In this third lecture, Steiner several times urges his audience (and now us, his readers) to pay attention to the meaning and influence of these spiritual bodies. If a person were to respond that it is too difficult to think of a heavenly body with no physical counterpart, that admission is precisely the problem that Steiner is trying to solve by his critique of Nominalism. As Steiner is trying to get us to understand, it is the purpose and necessity of spiritual science (and therefore anthroposophy) to think spiritually – or, with respect to the seven moods, to think psychically, non-physically but also not body-dependent. Because Nominalism is subtle and pervasive, Steiner urges his audience/readers to try to grasp the nature and feel the effects of these moods: Transcendentalism, Mysticism, Empiricism, Voluntarism, Logicism, Gnosis, so that [we] can ‘conjure them up in [our] minds’ (50). Similarly, he urges us to contemplate the nature and effect of the heavenly bodies – the Hierarchies, the continuing influence of early phases of Earth (Old Saturn, Old Sun, Old Moon), and the spiritual planets and moods. Steiner offers the following summary and plea:

We had better arrange the twelve worldviews I have presented in the form of a circle and quietly observe them. They are possible, and one must know them. They really stand in such a relation to one another that they form a spiritual reflection of the Zodiac with which we are now so well acquainted. As the Sun apparently passes through the Zodiac, and as other planets apparently do the same, so it is possible for the human soul to pass through a spiritual circle that embraces the images of the twelve worldviews. Indeed, one can even bring the characteristics of these pictures of worldviews into connection with the individual signs of the Zodiac, and this is in no wise arbitrary, for between the individual signs of the Zodiac and the Earth there really is a connection similar to that between the twelve worldviews and the human soul. (41-42)

There are souls who completely have the tendency to receive a given influence on their inner life, on their scientific, philosophical, or other mental proclivities, so that their souls are open to be illuminated, as it were, by Idealism. Other souls are open to be shone upon by Materialism, others by Sensationalism. Someone is not a Sensationalist, Materialist, Spiritist, or Pneumatist because this or that worldview is – and can be seen to be – correct, but rather because their soul is so conditioned that it is predominantly influenced by the respective spiritual-zodiac-sign. Thus, in the twelve spiritual-zodiac-signs, we have something that can lead us deeply into the way in which human worldviews arise, and can lead us deeply into the reasons why, on the one hand, individuals dispute about worldviews, and why, on the other hand, they ought not to dispute, but would do much better to understand why it happens that people have different worldviews. (34)

Lecture 4: The Revelations of Spiritual-Astrological Cosmic Bodies

In this rather challenging lecture, Steiner elaborates further on his conviction that the Zodiac exercises an influence on Earth which affects the worldview of each individual. Because Nietzsche is so influential and complex – there are many entirely different interpretations of his philosophy, personality and influence – it is well that Steiner uses him to show the influence of the Zodiac on Nietzsche’s evolving worldview. In his early life, Nietzsche lived and thought in accord with the forces of Mysticism and Idealism.

Under the influence of the cosmos through his earlier incarnation, Nietzsche was so prepared by his karma that at a certain point of time, by virtue of his earlier incarnation, the forces of Idealism and of Mysticism (working together because Mysticism stood in the sign of Idealism) so worked upon his whole bodily constitution that he was in the first place capable of becoming a mystical Idealist. Then his constellation altered in the way indicated. (61)

Here is Nietzsche’s account of his distance from his earlier Idealist metaphysical convictions and in effect, his move to Empiricism that ‘stands in the sign of Rationalism.’

Metaphysical Explanation. – Man, when he is young, prizes metaphysical explanations, because they make him see matters of the highest import in things he found disagreeable or contemptible: and if he is not satisfied with himself, this feeling of dissatisfaction is soothed when he sees the most hidden world-problem or world-pain in that which he finds so displeasing in himself. To feel himself more irresponsible and at the same time to find things (Dinge) more interesting – that is to him the double benefit he owes to metaphysics. Later, indeed, he acquires distrust of the whole metaphysical method of explaining things: he then perceives, perhaps, that those effects could have been attained just as well and more scientifically by another method: that physical and historical explanations would, at least, have given that feeling of freedom from personal responsibility just as well, while interest in life and its problems would be stimulated, perhaps, even more.10

The third phase of Nietzsche’s life and writing were evident in his ‘will to power’ manifesto, Thus Spake Zaruthustra:

The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the Superman shall be the meaning of the earth. I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of super terrestrial hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not. (‘Prologue’, R. J. Holingdale translation)

Toward the end of the fourth lecture, Steiner makes the dramatic claim that, ‘for the first time we know how the human activity of thinking is carried out’:

First, this activity lays hold of the brain or the central nervous system. It brings atomistic portions into some sort of movement; by this means they become a mirroring apparatus; the thought is reflected, and the soul as such becomes conscious of the thought.

Steiner further explains that:

in the normal person this preparatory work on the brain remains entirely unconscious; they perceive only the reflection. But an esoteric researcher must start by actually experiencing it. He has to go through the experience of how the psychic activity is poured in, and the brain made ready to reflect the thought as a representation [...] This work of preparation of the organism comes from the cosmos. [...] In like manner are the other nuances of moods and signs worked in upon us from out of the spiritual cosmos. [...] We are built up according to the thoughts of the cosmos. (55-56)

Steiner considers the attainment of this consciousness to be one of the tasks of spiritual-scientific research. This consciousness can, ‘lead us to understand rightly the significance and the task of anthro-posophy, and to see how it can bring into a right relationship other so-called spiritual streams, especially philosophic currents, in our time.’ Here again, Steiner the philosophical pluralist is recommending that anthroposophy share with other spiritual streams the ways that all streams are influenced by cosmic forces which can and should be known.

The fourth lecture concludes with an account of the human individual as a thought of the Hierarchies. He states further:

Thought is most completely our possession. If we can find the relation of thought to the cosmos, to the universe, we shall find the relation to the cosmos of what is most completely ours. This can assure us that we have here a fruitful standpoint from which to observe the relation between ourselves and the universe. We will therefore embark on this course; it will lead us to significant heights of anthroposophical observation. (1-2)

Such is the purpose and the significance of the spiritual-scientific epistemology that Steiner has presented in these four lectures.

Robert McDermott*

March, 2024

1 See ‘Significant Events in the Life of Rudolf Steiner,’ a 13-page chronicle at the back of every volume of the Collected Works of Rudolf Steiner. For Steiner’s relationship to the Theosophical Society, see Christoph Linden-berg, Rudolf Steiner: A Biography (SteinerBooks, 2012), 230-372.

2 Co-workers from seventeen nations began to build the Goetheanum, surely unable to imagine that in eight years, on New Year’s Eve, 1922/23, this building would be burned to the ground by arson. One year later, at the Christmas Foundation Meeting, 1923/24, Rudolf Steiner refounded the Anthroposophical Society and in a profound sacrificial deed, joined to it his own karmic destiny.

3 In his Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner argued for the possibility of free thinking (Part One) and free deeds (Part Two). See Rudolf Steiner, Philosophy of Freedom, trans., intro. Michael Wilson (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1970) and Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path: A Philosophy of Freedom, trans., Michael Lipson, intro., Gertrude Reif Hughes (SteinerBooks, 1995).

4