Natural science and spiritual science (Translated)

By Rudolf Steiner and David De Angelis

The essays assembled in this volume can therefore still shed fruitful light on how to overcome the various classical evolutionary theories, and on the conclusions to which it is permissible to arrive, with rigorous consistency, by taking them as a starting point.
A scientific conception of a vast horizon is profiled here, apt to profoundly satisfy human cognitive aspirations, if, and in the science of nature and in the science of the spirit, they seek, beyond partial and temporary truths, the Truth in its eternal becoming, that Truth which, at the same time, is for man the Way to Life.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Stargatebook
• Release date: Jan 2, 2024
• ISBN: 9791222491547

Rudolf Steiner

Nineteenth and early twentieth century philosopher.

Book preview

Warning

This volume of essays,-written and said by Rudolf Steiner between 1900 and 1910,-may perhaps appear anachronistic at this particular moment in scientific development. In fact, dominant scientific conceptions have changed profoundly over the past half-century, most notably classical evolutionary theories. Whereas at the end of the nineteenth century many believed they could constrain within theoretical schemes the becoming of organic species, now, in this branch of biology, great caution, almost hesitation, prevails. One realizes the immense difficulties of interpretation, one can clearly see that none of the proposed theories is totally apt to explain the method of evolution. Only the hypothesis of evolution itself subsists, if not proved, at least not contradicted by any established fact, and is extremely plausible, almost necessary, because of a very large number of observations collected in the most varied branches of science. Almost insurmountable difficulties present themselves to those who seek to explain the existence of the manifold organic species apart from the evolutionary thesis; therefore he falls back on the necessity of admitting the fixity of species and their origin by direct creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution, then: but by what ways? by what processes? On this point natural science is still investigating; all possibilities are open, nothing is prejudiced. And bold new interpretive hypotheses are emerging, (such as, for example, those of Westenhöfer on the origin of the human species), which would have been inconceivable in the last century and which today, however bitterly debated, seem no less seriously tenable than the various classical theories.

However, it will have to be recognized that the Darwinistic-Haeckelian epoch of evolutionism represented, in the development of human knowledge, a most important stage, both for the vigorous impetus given to research and for the orientation of all biological thought; it will still have to be taken into account, even if one considers it outdated. From it precisely, as his contemporary, Steiner takes his cue. Who, as a young man, found himself before a scientific panorama whose provisionality and imperfection was very clear to him; so much so that he did not tire of pointing out to human inquiry wider horizons. In numerous of his writings and lectures, he illuminated shortcomings and one-sidedness of Darwinism and Haeckel himself, criticisms that at the time seemed heresies, and that today may be shared by many scholars. Nevertheless, he attached fundamental importance to biological studies directed in an evolutionary direction, essentially valuing their general method and orientation. And of the doctrine of organic evolution he believed that one should delve as deeply as possible into the thoughts, carefully disentangling the facts from the unnecessary hypotheses with which they purport to explain them. And the scientific criticisms of recent decades can precisely help us to distinguish, in outdated theoretical edifices, the 'hypothetical, caducous element from the essential fact; although they themselves acknowledge that they cannot offer us the light of a more persuasive interpretation.

The essays assembled in this volume can therefore still shed fruitful light today on how to overcome the various classical evolutionary theories, and on the conclusions to which it is permissible to arrive, with rigorous consistency, by taking them as a starting point. Steiner is certainly not a Darwinian, nor a Haeckelian: he does, however, point us, in biological evolutionary thought, to a model and criterion valid in fields much broader than that in which they are ordinarily applied. On the other hand, he envisages for us an interpretation that, upon unprejudiced observation of the facts (hitherto notoriously uninterpreted), seems capable of illuminating several obscure points. Thus are worthy of careful study the new relationships in which the animal kingdom is shown to us, vis-à-vis man. Thus we glimpse new possibilities for explaining the unfolding of human personality, beyond the narrow interplay of heredity and environment : or rather, these two factors both acquire new aspects. Biological inheritance loses none of its importance, its laws none of their validity (insofar as, it is understood, they are not pure hypotheses): but the range of biological inheritance extends only in the sphere of certain elements of human nature, those precisely which originate in the series of physical-organic generations and which are vectors of somatic and strictly biological qualities and characters. As for the environment, it remains, even thus illuminated, a powerful factor in the formation of personality: but no longer as a purely accidental, and therefore fatal, element, but rather as an element unconsciously chosen by 'human individuality to carry out its activity and to perform its experiences there.

There looms here a scientific conception of vast horizon, apt to profoundly satisfy human cognitive aspirations, if, and in the science of nature and in the science of the spirit, they seek, beyond partial and temporary truths, the Truth in its eternal becoming, that Truth which, at the same time, is for man the Way to Life.

NOTE

The order in which the essays are published does not seem arbitrary to us: it is generally the chronological one and in any case the one that best allows us to embrace the direction in which Steinerian thought unfolds.

All the problems implicitly or explicitly hinted at in these pages were elaborated thoroughly by Steiner over decades of prodigious spiritual activity. We recall, among his books that best serve to frame and illuminate the thoughts set forth in these essays, the following:

The Philosophy of Freedom. - Introduction to supersensible knowledge. - Occult science. - The Initiation. - The Mystics. - Philosophical essays. - The Goethean conception of the world. - My Life.

I

Anthroposophy and science

Among the many objections that are raised against anthroposophy is the accusation that it is anti-scientific. And since science, or rather what is currently called science, wields boundless authority, such an accusation can do great harm to anthroposophical ideas that would aspire to assert themselves. The world of the learned generally disdains to deal with it, since its usual scientific orientation does not know what to do with the facts asserted by anthroposophy. Nor could this come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the ideas and experiences currently presented to jurists, physicians, teachers, engineers, chemists, etc., in the course of their studies. How distant is the object of such studies from the content of anthroposophical literature ! How different is the orientation of thought manifested, for example, in a chemistry class from that of the fundamental anthroposophical doctrines ! It is no exaggeration to say that to the understanding of anthroposophical assertions there is no greater obstacle today than a university degree !

But this fact can only be detrimental to the spread of anthroposophy, for it is quite understandable that those who do not fully realize how things are should be unpleasantly impressed. And it does not always depend on malevolence to assert that only less educated circles flock to anthroposophy, while those who are up to contemporary knowledge would not welcome it.

From such considerations very easily arises the opinion that anthroposophy beats a wrong path, and that it would be better adapted to the conceptions of scientific circles. So try (it seems to be intended) to prove the doctrines of karma and reincarnation just as scientifically as you prove other natural laws, and things will begin to get right: then you can conquer the world of culture and anthroposophy will succeed.

This 'opinion may be conceived with the best of intentions, yet it derives from a fatal preconception: that is, that the thought pattern of current science can, by its own force, lead to 'anthroposophy. But this cannot possibly be the case, and only those who unconsciously apply views derived from anthroposophical sources to contemporary science will be able to indulge in such illusions. For it is well possible to introduce all anthroposophical wisdom into science in this way, and one will not find the slightest contradiction between what is true in science and what anthroposophy affirms. But one can never, ever derive anthroposophy from science as it is officially taught today. One may attain, in any field, the highest doctrine, in the modern sense, but it will not be by this kind of erudition that one will arrive at anthroposophy.

This is not difficult to persuade, as long as one considers things with some care. For the assertions of spiritual science are certainly not logical deductions derived from ideal or conceptual premises, but supersensible facts; and facts can never be discovered by means of logic alone and by deductive means, but exclusively by means of experience. Now our official science deals only with the facts of sensible experience, and all its ideas and concepts are founded only on the basis of such experience. Therefore, as long as it starts from this premise, lessa can never make judgments around supersensible facts. Facts can never be proved by logic, but only by ascertaining their actual existence. Suppose the whale was a still unknown animal: who could possibly prove its existence by logical deduction? This would prove impossible even to the best connoisseur of the animal kingdom, while the most uncultured man will be able to prove its existence after it has been discovered in the real world. And how ridiculous a scholar would appear, who, in the face of that uncultured man, would want to argue that, based on scientific data, animals like whales are impossible, therefore do not exist and the discoverer must have been mistaken.

No, it is not by mere erudition that one will succeed in coming to terms with anthroposophy: of the facts it sets forth only supersensible experience is capable of judging; and men must be helped to attain such an experience, not already abandoned to sterile erudition.

To this point one objection may be made, of course, but it is a very futile one: if men do not possess such a supersensible experience, how would you expect them to believe the words of some individuals who claim to be clairvoyant and to have such experiences? You should at the very least refrain from communicating anthroposophical experiences to those who are not clairvoyant, and limit yourselves to exposing them to those whom you will have succeeded in bringing to clairvoyance.

This objection, which at first seems passably reasonable, also does not hold up to the test of facts. In fact, those who reason in that way would first of all have reason to be scandalized by a quantity of popular science writings: or is it that all the numerous readers of Haeckel's Natural History of Creation, or Carus Sterne's Being Born and Perishing, are able to convince themselves personally of what is expounded in such works? Certainly not, for even in that field an appeal is made at first, to the confidence of the public, assuming that they lend faith to those who in person study in the laboratory or astronomical specula. Moreover, the problem is quite different at all, in regard to the trust we must assume toward supersensible inquiry, as opposed to sensitive inquiry. He who describes what he has been able to observe through a microscope or telescope certainly admits that the reader can convince himself of this, should he come into possession of the necessary instruments and technique for this. But mere description in no way contributes to such corroboration. Things are different where supersensible facts are concerned: those who speak of them do not narrate anything that cannot be experienced in the very soul of man, and the narrative itself can be the first impulse to the awakening of the forces of proper vision, latent in the soul. However much we talk about the tiny organisms, visible under the microscope, our words will not make them perceptible to anyone, and everyone will have to procure from outside the means to substantiate our claims. But if we speak to a man about what can be discovered in the soul itself, our word as such may initiate the awakening of forces of vision latent in him. This is the great difference between the description of sensible facts and that of supersensible facts: that in the case of the latter the possibilities of confirmation lie within the soul of every man, what is not the case with the facts of the sensible world. I do not think at all to patronize the cause of that superficial conception of spiritual science that, in order to discover divine truth, it is enough to sink into oneself, where everyone can find the divine man, the source of all wisdom. If man plunges, at any point in his life, within his own soul, believing that he perceives the higher ego, it will be, in most cases, only the usual ego expressing what he will have acquired from his environment by education, etc. It is indeed true that the divine truth is contained in the soul itself; but the best way to bring it out is to be guided by a more advanced man, who has already found in himself what we ourselves seek. Just what the clairvoyant master tells you he has discovered in himself, you can discover in yourself by unscrupulously accepting his data. The higher self is the same in all men, and it will be safer to find it not by entrenching oneself behind one's pride, but by allowing this higher self to act upon us through a personality in which it is already developed. As in every other field, for the truth-seeking soul teachers are a necessity.

But, except for this limitation, it can be said that everyone can find in himself the truth of supersensible facts. It will be enough to possess constancy, patience and good will, and to have no preconceptions, so that, when faced with the exposition of such facts, one will soon find that one responds with a kind of presentiment of approval. And one will be on the right path, following such a feeling, for it is precisely the first of those factors that awaken the latent forces of the soul. When the truth presents itself to us as it has been contemplated by the clairvoyant soul, it speaks to us by its own force. Of course, with this one will have taken but a very first step on the path to higher knowledge, and to proceed further will require careful discipline: but this first step will be accomplished precisely by unscrupulously listening to the word of truth.

On what does it depend, now, that in our time in so many men such a feeling is not aroused, when faced with the narration of supersensible facts? It simply depends on the fact that modern man, above all if educated in scientific thinking, has become