Pure thinking - Revision history

Odyssee: /* Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion */

2022-03-21T05:15:06Z

Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 21 March 2022
Line 112:		Line 112:
	In order to clarify what has just been said, let us take an easily comprehensible and general concept; let us take the concept "triangle" as a general concept. The one who comes with his point of view of nominalism, who cannot get away from what has developed as nominalism in this respect in the time of the 11th to 13th century, says something like this: Draw me a triangle! - Well, I will draw him a triangle, for example, like this:		In order to clarify what has just been said, let us take an easily comprehensible and general concept; let us take the concept "triangle" as a general concept. The one who comes with his point of view of nominalism, who cannot get away from what has developed as nominalism in this respect in the time of the 11th to 13th century, says something like this: Draw me a triangle! - Well, I will draw him a triangle, for example, like this:

	[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|~~200px~~\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]		[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|150px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]

	Fine, he says, that's a special triangle with three acute angles, there is such a thing. But I will draw you another one. - And he draws a triangle that has a right angle and one that has a so-called obtuse angle.		Fine, he says, that's a special triangle with three acute angles, there is such a thing. But I will draw you another one. - And he draws a triangle that has a right angle and one that has a so-called obtuse angle.

Odyssee: /* Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion */

2022-03-20T23:43:13Z

Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 20 March 2022
Line 114:		Line 114:
	[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|200px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]		[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|200px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]

	~~Schön~~, ~~sagt er~~, ~~das ist ein besonderes~~, ~~spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es~~. ~~Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen~~. - ~~Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat~~.		Fine, he says, that's a special triangle with three acute angles, there is such a thing. But I will draw you another one. - And he draws a triangle that has a right angle and one that has a so-called obtuse angle.

	[[File:GA151 013.gif\|center\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]		[[File:GA151 013.gif\|center\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]

	So, ~~jetzt nennen wir das erste ein spitzwinkliges Dreieck~~, ~~das zweite ein rechtwinkliges und das dritte ein stumpfwinkliges~~. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.		So, now we call the first an acute triangle, the second a right triangle and the third an obtuse triangle. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.

	Of course, this goes further. Let us suppose that someone pronounces the word lion. Now he who stands on the standpoint of nominalism says: There is a lion in the Berlin Tiergarten, there is also a lion in the Hanover Tiergarten, there is also one in the Munich Tiergarten. The individual lions exist; but a general lion, which should have something to do with the Berlin, Hanoverian and Munich lions, does not exist. That is a mere word that sums up the individual lions. There are only individual things, and apart from the individual things, the nominalist says, there is nothing but words that sum up the individual things.		Of course, this goes further. Let us suppose that someone pronounces the word lion. Now he who stands on the standpoint of nominalism says: There is a lion in the Berlin Tiergarten, there is also a lion in the Hanover Tiergarten, there is also one in the Munich Tiergarten. The individual lions exist; but a general lion, which should have something to do with the Berlin, Hanoverian and Munich lions, does not exist. That is a mere word that sums up the individual lions. There are only individual things, and apart from the individual things, the nominalist says, there is nothing but words that sum up the individual things.

Odyssee: /* Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion */

2022-03-20T23:38:27Z

Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 20 March 2022
Line 116:		Line 116:
	Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.		Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.

	[[File:GA151 013.gif\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]		[[File:GA151 013.gif\|center\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]

	So, jetzt nennen wir das erste ein spitzwinkliges Dreieck, das zweite ein rechtwinkliges und das dritte ein stumpfwinkliges. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.		So, jetzt nennen wir das erste ein spitzwinkliges Dreieck, das zweite ein rechtwinkliges und das dritte ein stumpfwinkliges. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.
Line 129:		Line 129:

	Let us think that we do not simply draw the triangle in such a way that we say: Now I have drawn you a triangle, and there it is. - There will always be an objection: This is an acute triangle, it is not a general triangle. You can draw the triangle in a different way. Actually, you can't; but we will see in a moment how this ability and inability relate to each other. Let us assume that we draw the triangle we have here in this way and allow each individual side to move in any direction it wishes. And let us allow it to move at different speeds. (Speaking on the blackboard drawing):		Let us think that we do not simply draw the triangle in such a way that we say: Now I have drawn you a triangle, and there it is. - There will always be an objection: This is an acute triangle, it is not a general triangle. You can draw the triangle in a different way. Actually, you can't; but we will see in a moment how this ability and inability relate to each other. Let us assume that we draw the triangle we have here in this way and allow each individual side to move in any direction it wishes. And let us allow it to move at different speeds. (Speaking on the blackboard drawing):
	[[File:GA151 015.gif\|center\|~~400px~~\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 15]]		[[File:GA151 015.gif\|center\|300px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 15]]

	This side moves so that the next moment it takes this position, this one so that the next moment it takes this position. This one moves much slower, this one moves faster and so on. Now the direction is reversed.		This side moves so that the next moment it takes this position, this one so that the next moment it takes this position. This one moves much slower, this one moves faster and so on. Now the direction is reversed.

Odyssee: /* Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion */

2022-03-20T23:32:53Z

Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 20 March 2022
Line 116:		Line 116:
	Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.		Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.

	[[File:GA151 013.gif~~\|thumb~~\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]		[[File:GA151 013.gif\|400px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 13]]

	So, jetzt nennen wir das erste ein spitzwinkliges Dreieck, das zweite ein rechtwinkliges und das dritte ein stumpfwinkliges. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.		So, jetzt nennen wir das erste ein spitzwinkliges Dreieck, das zweite ein rechtwinkliges und das dritte ein stumpfwinkliges. Then the person says: I believe you, there is an acute triangle, a right triangle and an obtuse triangle. But all that is not the triangle. The general triangle must contain everything that a triangle can contain. Under the general idea of the triangle must fall the first, the second and the third triangle. But a triangle that is acute-angled cannot at the same time be right-angled and obtuse-angled. A triangle that is acute-angled is a special triangle, not a general triangle; likewise a right-angled and an obtuse-angled triangle is a special triangle. But a general triangle cannot exist. So the general triangle is a word that sums up the special triangles. But the general concept of triangle does not exist. It's a word that sums up the particulars.

Odyssee: /* Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Movement */

2022-03-20T23:29:32Z

Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Movement

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 20 March 2022
Line 94:		Line 94:
	This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists the spiritual scientific way of thinking.\|187\|176ff}}		This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists This is something that is necessary for the present. For formative thinking has a very definite quality. If you think in a dissecting way, if you think as the naturalist of today thinks, then you think in the same way as certain spirits of the ahrimanic world, and therefore these ahrimanic spirits can penetrate your soul. But if you take the formative thinking, the metamorphosed thinking, I could also say the Goethean thinking, as it presents itself, for example, in the design of our columns and capitals and so on, if you take this formative thinking, which is also observed in all the books that I tried to introduce into spiritual science, then this thinking is closely bound to the human being. No other beings than those who are connected with the normal development of humanity are able to shape thinking in the way that the human being does. That is the peculiarity. This means that you can never take the wrong path when you engage in creative thinking through spiritual science. You can never lose yourself to the various spiritual beings who want to influence you. Of course, they will pass through your being. But as soon as you think creatively, as soon as you make an effort not merely to spint and to distinguish, but to think as this modern spiritual science really wants you to think, then you remain within yourself, then you cannot have the feeling of being merely hollowed out. That is why, if you stand on the standpoint of our spiritual science, you so often emphasise the Christ-impulse, because the Christ-impulse lies in the straight line of formative thinking. The Gospels cannot be understood by merely dissecting them. Modern Protestant theology has shown what results from this. It dissects, but it has also lost everything, and nothing has remained. Those cycles that deal with the Gospels follow the opposite path. They build up something that is shaped in order to advance to the understanding of the old Gospels through these new shapes. Today - and this is not at all an exaggeration - it is not necessary for anyone to do anything other than to adhere to the way of thinking of this spiritual science, then those demonic beings which roll in with the new wave as concomitants of the Spirits of Personality cannot harm him. Hence you see what a great harm it actually is to humanity if it resists the spiritual scientific way of thinking.\|187\|176ff}}

	=== Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of ~~Movement~~ ===		=== Living thinking as an ascent from the realm of the Spirits of Form to that of the Spirits of Motion ===

	{{GZ\|Man experiences in himself what we can call the thought, and in the thought man can feel himself as something directly active, as something that can survey his activity. If we look at some external thing, for example a rose or a stone, and we imagine this external thing, someone can rightly say: You can never actually know how much you actually have of the thing, of the plant, in the stone or in the rose by imagining it. You see the rose, its outer redness, its form, how it is divided into individual petals, you see the stone with its colour, with its various corners, but you must always say to yourself: there may still be something inside that does not appear to you on the outside. You don't know how much you actually have in your imagination of the stone, of the rose.		{{GZ\|Man experiences in himself what we can call the thought, and in the thought man can feel himself as something directly active, as something that can survey his activity. If we look at some external thing, for example a rose or a stone, and we imagine this external thing, someone can rightly say: You can never actually know how much you actually have of the thing, of the plant, in the stone or in the rose by imagining it. You see the rose, its outer redness, its form, how it is divided into individual petals, you see the stone with its colour, with its various corners, but you must always say to yourself: there may still be something inside that does not appear to you on the outside. You don't know how much you actually have in your imagination of the stone, of the rose.
Line 112:		Line 112:
	In order to clarify what has just been said, let us take an easily comprehensible and general concept; let us take the concept "triangle" as a general concept. The one who comes with his point of view of nominalism, who cannot get away from what has developed as nominalism in this respect in the time of the 11th to 13th century, says something like this: Draw me a triangle! - Well, I will draw him a triangle, for example, like this:		In order to clarify what has just been said, let us take an easily comprehensible and general concept; let us take the concept "triangle" as a general concept. The one who comes with his point of view of nominalism, who cannot get away from what has developed as nominalism in this respect in the time of the 11th to 13th century, says something like this: Draw me a triangle! - Well, I will draw him a triangle, for example, like this:

	[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|~~300px~~\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]		[[File:GA151 012.gif\|center\|200px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 12]]

	Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.		Schön, sagt er, das ist ein besonderes, spezielles Dreieck mit drei spitzen Winkeln, das gibt es. Aber ich werde dir ein anderes hinzeichnen. - Und er zeichnet ein Dreieck hin, das einen rechten Winkel hat, und ein solches, das einen sogenannten stumpfen Winkel hat.
Line 162:		Line 162:

	From the nature of the general thought first and then from the existence of such an error of thought as the Kantian one in particular, I have tried to show you that the ways of thinking cannot nevertheless be considered so completely without delving into things. I still want to approach the matter from a third side.		From the nature of the general thought first and then from the existence of such an error of thought as the Kantian one in particular, I have tried to show you that the ways of thinking cannot nevertheless be considered so completely without delving into things. I still want to approach the matter from a third side.
	[[File:GA151 022.gif\|center\|500px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 22}}		[[File:GA151 022.gif\|center\|500px\|Drawing from GA 151, p. 22]]

	Let us assume that here is a mountain or a hill (see drawing, right) and here is a steep slope (drawing, left). On this rugged slope there is a spring; the spring falls vertically down the slope like a real waterfall. Under the same conditions as there, there is also a spring on the other side. It wants the same thing as the first, but it does not do it. It cannot fall down as a waterfall, but runs down quite nicely in the form of a stream or river. - Does the water have different powers in the second spring than in the first? Obviously not. For the second spring would do quite the same as the first, if the mountain did not hinder it and send up its forces. If the forces that the mountain sends up, the holding forces, are not present, it will fall down like the first spring. So two forces come into consideration: the holding force of the mountain and the force of gravity of the earth, by virtue of which the one source falls down. But this is just as present with the other spring, for one can say: It is there, I see how it pulls the spring down. If someone were a sceptic, he could deny this in the case of the second source and say: At first you see nothing there, while in the case of the first source every drop of water is pulled down. So in the case of the second source, one must add at every point the force that counteracts gravity, the holding force of the mountain.		Let us assume that here is a mountain or a hill (see drawing, right) and here is a steep slope (drawing, left). On this rugged slope there is a spring; the spring falls vertically down the slope like a real waterfall. Under the same conditions as there, there is also a spring on the other side. It wants the same thing as the first, but it does not do it. It cannot fall down as a waterfall, but runs down quite nicely in the form of a stream or river. - Does the water have different powers in the second spring than in the first? Obviously not. For the second spring would do quite the same as the first, if the mountain did not hinder it and send up its forces. If the forces that the mountain sends up, the holding forces, are not present, it will fall down like the first spring. So two forces come into consideration: the holding force of the mountain and the force of gravity of the earth, by virtue of which the one source falls down. But this is just as present with the other spring, for one can say: It is there, I see how it pulls the spring down. If someone were a sceptic, he could deny this in the case of the second source and say: At first you see nothing there, while in the case of the first source every drop of water is pulled down. So in the case of the second source, one must add at every point the force that counteracts gravity, the holding force of the mountain.
Line 174:		Line 174:
	We see from this that spiritual science, which has to gain sound principles for the conception of life, has something to do in the manifold fields of life; that there is indeed a certain necessity of first learning to think, of first acquainting oneself with the inner laws and impulses of thought. Otherwise all sorts of grotesque things can happen. For example, someone is stumbling, stumbling, limping along on the problem of thinking and language today. This is the famous language critic Fritz Mauthner, who has now also written a large philosophical dictionary. Mauthner's thick "Critique of Language" has now gone into its second edition; it has thus become a famous book for our contemporaries. This book contains much that is intellectually rich, but also terrible things. For example, one can find in it the curious error of thought - and one stumbles over such an error of thought after almost every fifth line - that the good Mauthner doubts the usefulness of logic. For him, thinking is only speaking, and then there is no point in doing logic, then one is only doing grammar. But moreover, he says: "Since logic cannot rightly exist, logicians are all fools. Fine. And then he says: In ordinary life, after all, conclusions give rise to judgements and judgements give rise to ideas. That's how people do it. What do we need logic for, then, if people do it in such a way that they turn conclusions into judgements and judgements into ideas? What do we need a logic for? - This is just as witty as if someone said: Why do we need botany? Plants were still growing last year and two years ago! - But such logic is found in those who frown upon logic. It is understandable that he should frown upon it. One finds much stranger things in this strange book, which, with regard to the relationship between thought and speech, comes not to clarity but to confusion.		We see from this that spiritual science, which has to gain sound principles for the conception of life, has something to do in the manifold fields of life; that there is indeed a certain necessity of first learning to think, of first acquainting oneself with the inner laws and impulses of thought. Otherwise all sorts of grotesque things can happen. For example, someone is stumbling, stumbling, limping along on the problem of thinking and language today. This is the famous language critic Fritz Mauthner, who has now also written a large philosophical dictionary. Mauthner's thick "Critique of Language" has now gone into its second edition; it has thus become a famous book for our contemporaries. This book contains much that is intellectually rich, but also terrible things. For example, one can find in it the curious error of thought - and one stumbles over such an error of thought after almost every fifth line - that the good Mauthner doubts the usefulness of logic. For him, thinking is only speaking, and then there is no point in doing logic, then one is only doing grammar. But moreover, he says: "Since logic cannot rightly exist, logicians are all fools. Fine. And then he says: In ordinary life, after all, conclusions give rise to judgements and judgements give rise to ideas. That's how people do it. What do we need logic for, then, if people do it in such a way that they turn conclusions into judgements and judgements into ideas? What do we need a logic for? - This is just as witty as if someone said: Why do we need botany? Plants were still growing last year and two years ago! - But such logic is found in those who frown upon logic. It is understandable that he should frown upon it. One finds much stranger things in this strange book, which, with regard to the relationship between thought and speech, comes not to clarity but to confusion.

	I said that we need a substructure for the things that are to lead us, however, to the heights of spiritual contemplation. A substructure of the kind that has been developed today may seem somewhat abstract to some, but we will need it. And I think I am trying to make things so simple that it will be clear what is important. I would particularly like to emphasise that even through such simple observations one can get an idea of where the boundary lies between the realm of the spirits of form and the realm of the spirits of movement. But the fact that one gets such a concept is intimately connected with whether one may admit general thoughts at all, or whether one may admit only ideas or concepts of individual things. I say expressly: may admit.\|151\|9ff}}		I said that we need a substructure for the things that are to lead us, however, to the heights of spiritual contemplation. A substructure of the kind that has been developed today may seem somewhat abstract to some, but we will need it. And I think I am trying to make things so simple that it will be clear what is important. I would particularly like to emphasise that even through such simple observations one can get an idea of where the boundary lies between the realm of the spirits of form and the realm of the spirits of movement. But the fact that one gets such a concept is intimately connected with whether one may admit general thoughts at all, or whether one may admit only ideas or concepts of individual things. I say expressly: may admit.\|151\|9ff}}

	== Imaginative thinking ==		== Imaginative thinking ==

Odyssee at 23:21, 20 March 2022

2022-03-20T23:21:01Z

Show changes

Odyssee at 14:48, 18 March 2022

2022-03-18T14:48:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 18 March 2022
Line 131:		Line 131:

	Today the time is ripe to regain imaginative thinking, which withered away with the Platonic vision of ideas, on a new, higher level with fully developed self-awareness.		Today the time is ripe to regain imaginative thinking, which withered away with the Platonic vision of ideas, on a new, higher level with fully developed self-awareness.

			== Experienced thoughts and the imagination of the bone system ==

			{{GZ\|My "Philosophy of Freedom" has been little understood because people have not understood how to read it. They have read it as one reads another book, but my "Philosophy of Freedom" is not meant to be read as other books are. My "Philosophy of Freedom" lives first in thoughts, but in properly experienced thoughts. Non-experienced thoughts, abstract, logical thoughts, such as one has today in science in general, these are experienced in the brain. Such thoughts as I have expressed in my "Philosophy of Freedom" - now comes the paradox - are experienced as a whole human being in his bone system. Correctly, as a whole human being in his bone system. And I would like to say the even more paradoxical thing - this of course happened, only you didn't notice it because you didn't connect it with it -: when people understood my "Philosophy of Freedom", they dreamed of skeletons several times in the course of reading it, and especially when they had finished. This is morally connected with the whole position of the "Philosophy of Freedom" in relation to the freedom of the world. Freedom consists already in the fact that from the bones one moves the muscles of the human being in the outer far. The unfree follows his drives and instincts. The free man is guided by the demands and requirements of the world, which he must first love. He must gain a relationship to this world. This is expressed in the imagination of the bone system. Inwardly, the bone system is that which experiences thoughts. So one experiences thoughts with the bone system, with the whole human being, especially with the whole human being who is actually earthbound. There have been people who wanted to paint pictures from my books; they showed me all kinds of things. They wanted to present the thoughts of the "Philosophy of Freedom" in picture form. If you want to paint its content in this way, you have to perform dramatic scenes, which are performed by human skeletons. Just as freedom itself is something in which one must get rid of everything that is merely instinctive, so that which man experiences by having the thoughts of freedom is something in which he must get rid of his flesh and blood. He must become skeletal, must become earthy, thoughts must become really earthy.\|316\|113f}}

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee at 14:43, 18 March 2022

2022-03-18T14:43:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 18 March 2022
Line 125:		Line 125:

	It is true that the author seems here to be pointing to a divine intellect, but if in the moral, through faith in God, virtue and immortality, we are to raise ourselves into an upper region and approach the first being: so it might well be the same case in the intellectual that, by beholding an ever-creating nature, we made ourselves worthy of spiritual participation in its productions. After all, if I had first unconsciously and out of an inner urge restlessly pressed on to that archetypal, typical thing, if I had even succeeded in building up a representation in keeping with nature, then nothing could now prevent me from courageously passing through the adventure of reason, as the old man from Königsberg himself calls it.\|Goethe, p. 91}}		It is true that the author seems here to be pointing to a divine intellect, but if in the moral, through faith in God, virtue and immortality, we are to raise ourselves into an upper region and approach the first being: so it might well be the same case in the intellectual that, by beholding an ever-creating nature, we made ourselves worthy of spiritual participation in its productions. After all, if I had first unconsciously and out of an inner urge restlessly pressed on to that archetypal, typical thing, if I had even succeeded in building up a representation in keeping with nature, then nothing could now prevent me from courageously passing through the adventure of reason, as the old man from Königsberg himself calls it.\|Goethe, p. 91}}

			However, Rudolf Steiner also made it clear that this kind of imaginative thinking, the spiritual perception of the archetypes, had to take a back seat for a time so that man could rise to independent thinking in the abstract imageless intellect. The remnants of the old clairvoyance, which still lingered in the Platonic vision of ideas, first had to fade away:

			{{GZ\|The old times still had remnants of the old clairvoyance, through which in ancient times people looked into the spiritual world, where they really saw how man does when he is outside the physical and etheric body with his I and astral body and outside in the cosmos. Man would never have attained full freedom and individuality if he had remained with the old clairvoyance. Man had to lose the old clairvoyance; he had to take possession, as it were, of his physical self. The thinking he would develop if he were to see the whole mass under his consciousness, which is there as thinking, feeling, willing, would be heavenly thinking, but not independent thinking. How does man come to this independent thinking? Well, think of yourself as sleeping at night, lying in bed. That is to say, the physical body and etheric body lie in bed. Now, when you wake up, the I and the astral body come in from outside. There is further thought in the etheric body. Now the I and the astral body submerge, they first take hold of the etheric body. But it does not last long, for at this moment the thought may flash up: What was I thinking, what was that clever thing? But the human being has the desire to grasp the physical body as well, and at this moment all this disappears; now the human being is completely in the sphere of earthly life. Hence it is that man immediately seizes the earthly body, that he cannot bring to consciousness the subtle swirl of etheric thought. In order to be able to develop the consciousness "it is I who think", man must seize his earthly body as an instrument, otherwise he would not have the consciousness "it is I who think", but "it is the angel protecting me who thinks". This consciousness "I think" is only possible through the grasping of the earthly body. That is why it is necessary that in earthly life man is enabled to use his earthly body. In the time to come he will have to take hold of this earthly body more and more through what the earth gives him. His justified egoism will become greater and greater. This must be counterbalanced by gaining the knowledge that spiritual science gives. We are at the starting point of this time.\|157\|300f}}

			Today the time is ripe to regain imaginative thinking, which withered away with the Platonic vision of ideas, on a new, higher level with fully developed self-awareness.

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee: /* Imaginative thinking */

2022-03-17T07:25:12Z

Imaginative thinking

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:25, 17 March 2022
Line 116:		Line 116:
	However, the first insight into this "spirit land" is even more confusing than the one into the soul world. For the archetypal images in their true form are very dissimilar to their sensual after-images. But they are just as dissimilar to their shadows, the abstract thoughts. - In the spiritual world everything is in perpetual motion, in ceaseless creation. There is no rest, no staying in one place, as there is in the physical world. For the archetypes are creative beings. They are the masters of all that comes into being in the physical and spiritual world. Their forms are rapidly changing; and in every archetype lies the possibility of assuming innumerable special forms. They let the special forms sprout from themselves, as it were; and no sooner is one produced than the archetype prepares to let another spring from itself. And the archetypes are more or less related to each other. They do not work in isolation. One needs the help of the other to create. Innumerable archetypes often work together in order that this or that entity may come into being in the spiritual or physical world.\|9\|54f}}		However, the first insight into this "spirit land" is even more confusing than the one into the soul world. For the archetypal images in their true form are very dissimilar to their sensual after-images. But they are just as dissimilar to their shadows, the abstract thoughts. - In the spiritual world everything is in perpetual motion, in ceaseless creation. There is no rest, no staying in one place, as there is in the physical world. For the archetypes are creative beings. They are the masters of all that comes into being in the physical and spiritual world. Their forms are rapidly changing; and in every archetype lies the possibility of assuming innumerable special forms. They let the special forms sprout from themselves, as it were; and no sooner is one produced than the archetype prepares to let another spring from itself. And the archetypes are more or less related to each other. They do not work in isolation. One needs the help of the other to create. Innumerable archetypes often work together in order that this or that entity may come into being in the spiritual or physical world.\|9\|54f}}

	Immanuel Kant considered such an intellectus archetypus, capable of direct contemplation of the archetypes, to be possible in principle, but believed that man could never rise to it. Goethe thought differently:		[[Immanuel Kant]] considered such an ''intellectus archetypus'', capable of direct contemplation of the archetypes, to be possible in principle, but believed that man could never rise to it. Goethe thought differently:

	{{LZ\|When I sought to make use of Kant's teaching, if not to penetrate it, it sometimes seemed to me that the delicious man was proceeding in a mischievously ironic manner, in that he seemed at times to be endeavouring to restrict the faculty of knowledge in the narrowest possible way, and at other times to be pointing beyond the limits he himself had drawn with a sideways glance. He might have noticed, of course, how presumptuously and foolishly man proceeds when, comfortably equipped with little experience, he immediately and rashly denies and tries to establish something, a cricket that runs through his brain, to cancel out the objects. That is why our master restricts his thinker to a reflective discursive power of judgement, forbids him a determining one altogether. Then, however, after he has driven us sufficiently into a corner, even to despair, he decides on the most liberal expressions and leaves it to us to decide what use we want to make of the freedom that he to some extent allows. In this sense the following passage was most significant to me:		{{LZ\|When I sought to make use of Kant's teaching, if not to penetrate it, it sometimes seemed to me that the delicious man was proceeding in a mischievously ironic manner, in that he seemed at times to be endeavouring to restrict the faculty of knowledge in the narrowest possible way, and at other times to be pointing beyond the limits he himself had drawn with a sideways glance. He might have noticed, of course, how presumptuously and foolishly man proceeds when, comfortably equipped with little experience, he immediately and rashly denies and tries to establish something, a cricket that runs through his brain, to cancel out the objects. That is why our master restricts his thinker to a reflective discursive power of judgement, forbids him a determining one altogether. Then, however, after he has driven us sufficiently into a corner, even to despair, he decides on the most liberal expressions and leaves it to us to decide what use we want to make of the freedom that he to some extent allows. In this sense the following passage was most significant to me:

Odyssee at 06:24, 17 March 2022

2022-03-17T06:24:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 17 March 2022
Line 115:		Line 115:

	However, the first insight into this "spirit land" is even more confusing than the one into the soul world. For the archetypal images in their true form are very dissimilar to their sensual after-images. But they are just as dissimilar to their shadows, the abstract thoughts. - In the spiritual world everything is in perpetual motion, in ceaseless creation. There is no rest, no staying in one place, as there is in the physical world. For the archetypes are creative beings. They are the masters of all that comes into being in the physical and spiritual world. Their forms are rapidly changing; and in every archetype lies the possibility of assuming innumerable special forms. They let the special forms sprout from themselves, as it were; and no sooner is one produced than the archetype prepares to let another spring from itself. And the archetypes are more or less related to each other. They do not work in isolation. One needs the help of the other to create. Innumerable archetypes often work together in order that this or that entity may come into being in the spiritual or physical world.\|9\|54f}}		However, the first insight into this "spirit land" is even more confusing than the one into the soul world. For the archetypal images in their true form are very dissimilar to their sensual after-images. But they are just as dissimilar to their shadows, the abstract thoughts. - In the spiritual world everything is in perpetual motion, in ceaseless creation. There is no rest, no staying in one place, as there is in the physical world. For the archetypes are creative beings. They are the masters of all that comes into being in the physical and spiritual world. Their forms are rapidly changing; and in every archetype lies the possibility of assuming innumerable special forms. They let the special forms sprout from themselves, as it were; and no sooner is one produced than the archetype prepares to let another spring from itself. And the archetypes are more or less related to each other. They do not work in isolation. One needs the help of the other to create. Innumerable archetypes often work together in order that this or that entity may come into being in the spiritual or physical world.\|9\|54f}}

			Immanuel Kant considered such an intellectus archetypus, capable of direct contemplation of the archetypes, to be possible in principle, but believed that man could never rise to it. Goethe thought differently:

			{{LZ\|When I sought to make use of Kant's teaching, if not to penetrate it, it sometimes seemed to me that the delicious man was proceeding in a mischievously ironic manner, in that he seemed at times to be endeavouring to restrict the faculty of knowledge in the narrowest possible way, and at other times to be pointing beyond the limits he himself had drawn with a sideways glance. He might have noticed, of course, how presumptuously and foolishly man proceeds when, comfortably equipped with little experience, he immediately and rashly denies and tries to establish something, a cricket that runs through his brain, to cancel out the objects. That is why our master restricts his thinker to a reflective discursive power of judgement, forbids him a determining one altogether. Then, however, after he has driven us sufficiently into a corner, even to despair, he decides on the most liberal expressions and leaves it to us to decide what use we want to make of the freedom that he to some extent allows. In this sense the following passage was most significant to me:

			:"We can think of an intellect which, because it is not discursive like ours, but intuitive, goes from the synthetic general, the conception of a whole as such, to the particular, that is, from the whole to the parts: Here it is not at all necessary to prove that such an intellectus archetypus is possible, but only that in the opposition of our discursive intellect, which is in need of images (intellectus ectypus), and the accidental nature of such a condition, we are led to that idea of an intellectus archetypus, which also contains no contradiction."

			::- Immanuel Kant: Critique of Judgment, [http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Kant,+Immanuel/Kritik+der+Urteilskraft/Zweiter+Teil.+Kritik+der+teleologischen+Urteilskraft/Zweite+Abteilung.+Dialektik+der+teleologischen+Urteilskraft/%C2%A7+77.+Von+der+Eigent%C3%BCmlichkeit+des+menschlichen+Verstandes,+wodurch+uns+der+Begriff+eines+Naturzwecks+m%C3%B6glich+wird § 77]

			It is true that the author seems here to be pointing to a divine intellect, but if in the moral, through faith in God, virtue and immortality, we are to raise ourselves into an upper region and approach the first being: so it might well be the same case in the intellectual that, by beholding an ever-creating nature, we made ourselves worthy of spiritual participation in its productions. After all, if I had first unconsciously and out of an inner urge restlessly pressed on to that archetypal, typical thing, if I had even succeeded in building up a representation in keeping with nature, then nothing could now prevent me from courageously passing through the adventure of reason, as the old man from Königsberg himself calls it.\|Goethe, p. 91}}

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==