Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age
GA 7
Epilogue
[ 1 ] Almost two and a half centuries have passed since Angelus Silesius gathered together the profound wisdom of his precursors in his Cherubinic Wanderer. These centuries have brought rich insights into nature. Goethe opened a great perspective into natural science. He sought to pursue the eternal, iron laws of nature's action up to that peak where they bring forth man with the same inevitability with which, on a lower level, they produce a stone (cf. my book, Goethes Weltanschauung, Goethe's Conception of the World). Lamarck, Darwin, Haeckel and others have continued to work in the spirit of this way of thinking. The “question of all questions,” that concerning the natural origin of man, was answered in the nineteenth century. Other problems in the realm of natural processes connected with this question, have been solved. Today one knows that one need not step outside the realm of the factual and sensory in order to understand, in a purely natural fashion, the sequence of beings in its development up to man.—And the nature of the human “I” too has been illuminated by the discernment of J. G. Fichte, which has shown the human soul where it should seek itself and what it is (cf. above, and the section on Fichte in my book, Welt-und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, Conceptions of the World and of Life in the Nineteenth Century, published in a new edition as Rätsel der Philosophie, Riddles of Philosophy). Hegel has extended the domain of thought over all fields of being, and has endeavored to grasp in thought the external, sensory existence of nature as well as the highest creations of the human spirit, together with the laws by which they are governed (cf. my presentation of Hegel in Rätsel der Philosophie, v. 1)—How do the spirits, whose thoughts have been traced in this work, appear in the light of a conception of the world which takes into account the scientific achievements of the periods succeeding theirs? They still believe in a “supernatural” history of creation. How do their thoughts appear when confronted by the “natural” one which the science of the nineteenth century has developed?—This science has not given anything to nature which does not belong to it; it has only taken from it what does not belong to it. It has banished from it everything which is not to be sought in it, but is to be found only within man. It no longer sees something in nature that resembles the human soul and that acts in the same way as man. It no longer lets the forms of organisms be created by a manlike God; it traces their development in the world of the senses in accordance with purely natural laws. Meister Eckhart as well as Tauler, and Jacob Boehme as well as Angelus Silesius, would needs feel the most profound satisfaction in the contemplation of this natural science. The spirit in which they wished to regard the world has passed in the fullest sense into this conception of nature when it is properly understood. What they could not yet do, that is, to place the facts of nature into that light which had arisen in them, would no doubt have become their desire if this natural science had been accessible to them. They could not do this, for no geology, no “natural history of creation” told them of the processes of nature. The Bible alone, in its own way, told them of such processes. Therefore, as well as they could, they sought the spiritual where alone it is to be found: within the human being. Today they would employ quite different resources than at their time in order to show that, in a form accessible to the senses, the spirit is only to be found in man. Today they would entirely agree with those who seek the spirit as fact, not at the root of nature, but in its fruit. They would admit that the spirit in the sensory body is the result of development, and that such a spirit cannot be sought on lower levels of development. They would understand that no “creative thought” was active in the formation of the spirit in the organism, any more than such a “creative thought” made the ape develop out of the marsupials.—Our present time cannot speak about the facts of nature in the same way as Jacob Boehme spoke about them. But today also there is a point of view which brings the way of thinking of Jacob Boehme close to a conception of the world that takes account of modern science. One need not lose the spirit when one finds in nature only what is natural. It is true that today there are many who think that one must slip into a shallow, dry materialism if one accepts the “facts” discovered by natural science without further ado. I myself stand completely upon the ground of this natural science. I have the definite conviction that with a conception of nature such as that of Ernst Haeckel, only he can become shallow who approaches it with a world of ideas that is already shallow. I feel something higher and more glorious when I let the revelations of the “natural history of creation” act upon me than when I am confronted with the stories of supernatural miracles of the Creed. I know of nothing in any “holy” book that reveals to me anything as sublime as the “dry” fact that, in the womb, every human fetus rapidly goes through a succession of all those forms through which its animal ancestors have evolved. Let us fill our mind with the magnificence of the facts our senses perceive, and we shall care little for the “miracles” which do not lie within the course of nature. If we experience the spirit within ourselves we do not require one in external nature. In my Philosophie der Freiheit I have described my conception of the world, which does not think that it is driving out the spirit because it regards nature in the same way as do Darwin and Haeckel. A plant, an animal, do not gain anything for me if I people them with souls of which my senses tell me nothing. I do not seek a “deeper,” “spiritual” nature of things in the external world, I do not even assume it, because I believe that the cognition which illuminates my inner self preserves me from doing so. I believe that the things of the sensory world are what they appear to us to be, for I see that a true self-knowledge leads us to seek in nature nothing but natural processes. I seek no divine spirit in nature, because I believe that I perceive the essence of the human spirit in myself. I calmly acknowledge my animal ancestors, because I believe I understand that where these animal ancestors have their origin, no soul-like spirit can be active. I can only agree with Ernst Haeckel when he prefers “the eternal stillness of the grave” to such an immortality as many a religion teaches (cf. Haeckel's Welträtsel, The Riddle of the Universe, p. 239). For I find a degradation of the spirit, a repugnant sin against the spirit, in the conception of a soul which continues to exist after the fashion of a sensory being.—I hear a shrill dissonance when the facts of natural science in Haeckel's presentation encounter the “piety” of the creeds of many contemporaries. But in creeds which are in but poor harmony with natural facts, there resounds for me nothing of the spirit of the higher piety which I find in Jacob Boehme and Angelus Silesius. This higher piety is rather in full harmony with the action of the natural. There is no contradiction in becoming penetrated with the insights of modern science and at the same time in entering upon the road which Jacob Boehme and Angelus Silesius pursued in their search for the spirit. One who enters upon this road in the spirit of these thinkers need not fear that he will slip into shallow materialism if he lets the secrets of nature be described to him by a “natural history of creation.” One who interprets my ideas in this sense will understand in the same way as I the last saying of the Cherubinic Wanderer, which shall also sound the last note of this work: “Friend, it is enough now. If you wish to read more, go and become yourself the writing and the essence.”
[ 2 ] Addition to the 1923 edition: The last sentences above must not be misinterpreted as expressing an unspiritual conception of nature. Through them I only wanted to emphasize strongly that the spirit which lies at the root of nature must be found in it, and is not to be brought into it from the outside. The rejection of “creative thoughts” refers to an activity which is similar to human activity, and proceeds according to ideas of usefulness. What is to be said about evolutionary history one may find in my book, Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung, The Theory of Knowledge in Goethe's Conception of the World, preface to the new edition.
Ausklang
[ 1 ] Zwei und ein halbes Jahrhundert sind nahezu verflossen, seit Angelus Silesius in seinem «Cherubinischen Wandersmann» die tiefe Weisheit seiner Vorgänger gesammelt hat. Reiche Einsichten in die Natur haben diese Jahrhunderte gebracht. Goethe hat der Naturwissenschaft eine große Perspektive eröffnet. Er suchte die ewigen, ehernen Gesetze des Naturwirkens bis zu dem Gipfel zu verfolgen, wo sie den Menschen mit ebensolcher Notwendigkeit entstehen lassen, wie sie auf unterer Stufe den Stein hervorbringen (vgl. mein Buch: «Goethes Weltanschauung»). Lamarck, Darwin, Haeckel u. a. haben im Sinne dieser Vorstellungsart weiter gewirkt. Die «Frage aller Fragen», die nach dem natürlichen Ursprung des Menschen, hat im neunzehnten Jahrhundert ihre Antwort erfahren. Andere sich daran schließende Aufgaben im Reiche der natürlichen Vorgänge haben ihre Lösungen gefunden. Man begreift es heute, daß man aus dem Reiche des Tatsächlichen und Sinnlichen nicht herauszutreten braucht, wenn man die Stufenreihe der Wesen, bis herauf zum Menschen, in ihrer Entwickelung rein natürlich verstehen will. - Und auch in das Wesen des menschlichen «Ich» hat der Scharfsinn J. G. Fichtes geleuchtet und der menschlichen Seele gezeigt, wo sie sich suchen soll und was sie ist (vgl. oben, S. 17 , und den Abschnitt über Fichte in meinem Buche: «Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert», in Neuausgabe als «Rätsel der Philosophie»). Hegel hat das Reich des Gedankens über alle Gebiete des Seins ausgedehnt, und das äußere sinnliche Naturdasein ebenso wie die höchsten Schöpfungen des Menschengeistes in ihrer Gesetzmäßigkeit denkend zu erfassen gesucht (vgl. meine Darstellung Hegels in «Rätsel der Philosophie», Bd. 1). - Wie erscheinen die Geister, deren Gedanken in dieser Schrift verfolgt worden sind, im Lichte der Weltanschauung, die mit den wissenschaftlichen Errungenschaften der auf ihre Epochen folgenden Zeiten rechnet? Sie haben noch an eine «übernatürliche» Schöpfungsgeschichte geglaubt. Wie nehmen sich ihre Gedanken vor einer «natürlichen» aus, welche die Naturwissenschaft des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts geschaffen hat? Diese Naturwissenschaft hat der Natur nichts gegeben, was ihr nicht gehört; sie hat ihr nur genommen, was ihr nicht gehört. Sie hat alles das aus ihr verbannt, was nicht in ihr zu suchen ist, sondern was sich nur im Innern des Menschen findet. Sie sieht kein Wesen mehr in der Natur, das so ist, wie die Menschenseele, und das schafft nach Art des Menschen. Sie läßt die Organismenformen nicht mehr von einem menschenähnlichen Gott geschaffen sein; sie verfolgt ihre Entwicklung in der Sinnenwelt nach rein natürlichen Gesetzen. Der Meister Eckhart sowohl wie Tauler, und auch Jacob Böhme wie Angelus Silesius müßten bei Betrachtung dieser Naturwissenschaft die tiefste Befriedigung empfinden. Der Geist, in dem sie die Welt betrachten wollten, ist im vollsten Sinne auf diese Naturbetrachtung übergegangen, wenn sie richtig verstanden wird. Was sie noch nicht konnten, auch die Tatsachen der Natur selbst in das Licht rücken, das ihnen aufgegangen war, das wäre ihre Sehnsucht ohne Zweifel geworden, wenn diese Naturwissenschaft ihnen vorgelegen hätte. Sie konnten es nicht; denn keine Geologie, keine «natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte» erzählte ihnen von den Vorgängen in der Natur. Die Bibel allein erzählte ihnen auf ihre Art von solchen Vorgängen. Sie haben deshalb, so gut sie es konnten, das Geistige dort gesucht, wo es allein zu finden ist: im menschlichen Innern. Gegenwärtig hätten sie noch ganz andere Hilfsmittel als zu ihrer Zeit, zu zeigen, daß ein in sinnenfälliger Form existierender Geist nur im Menschen zu finden ist. Sie würden heute rückhaltlos mit denen übereinstimmen, die den Geist als Tatsache nicht in der Wurzel der Natur, sondern in ihrer Frucht suchen. Sie würden zugeben, daß der Geist im Sinnenkörper ein Entwickelungsergebnis ist, und daß auf unteren Stufen der Entwicklung ein solcher Geist nicht gesucht werden darf. Sie würden verstehen, daß nicht ein «Schöpfungsgedanke» bei dem Entstehen des Geistes im Organismus gewaltet hat, ebensowenig wie ein solcher «Schöpfungsgedanke» den Affen aus den Beuteltieren hat hervorgehen lassen. - Unsere Gegenwart kann über die Tatsachen der Natur nicht sprechen, wie Jacob Böhme über sie gesprochen hat. Aber es gibt einen Gesichtspunkt auch in dieser Gegenwart, der die Anschauungsweise Jacob Böhmes einer mit der modernen Naturwissenschaft rechnenden Weltanschauung nahe bringt. Man braucht nicht den Geist zu verlieren, wenn man in der Natur nur Natürliches findet. Viele glauben heute allerdings, man müsse in einen flachen und nüchternen Materialismus verfallen, wenn man die von der Naturwissenschaft gefundenen «Tatsachen» einfach hinnimmt. Ich selbst stehe völlig auf dem Boden dieser Naturwissenschaft. Ich habe durchaus die Empfindung, daß bei einer Naturbetrachtung, wie diejenige Ernst Haeckels ist, nur derjenige verflachen kann, der schon mit einer flachen Gedankenwelt an sie herangeht. Ich empfinde ein Höheres, Herrlicheres, wenn ich die Offenbarungen der «Natürlichen Schöpfungsgeschichte» auf mich wirken lasse, als wenn die übernatürlichen Wundergeschichten der Glaubensbekenntnisse auf mich eindringen. Ich kenne in keinem «heiligen» Buche etwas, das so Erhabenes mir enthüllt, wie die «nüchterne» Tatsache, daß jeder Menschenkeim im Mutterleibe aufeinanderfolgend in Kürze diejenigen Tierformen wiederholt, die seine tierischen Vorfahren durchgemacht haben. Erfüllen wir unser Gemüt mit der Herrlichkeit der Tatsachen, die unsere Sinne schauen, dann werden wir wenig übrig haben für die «Wunder», die nicht im Kreislaufe der Natur liegen. Erleben wir den Geist in uns, dann brauchen wir keinen solchen draußen in der Natur. Ich habe in meiner «Philosophie der Freiheit» meine Weltanschauung beschrieben, die den Geist nicht zu vertreiben glaubt, weil sie die Natur so ansieht, wie sie Darwin und Haeckel ansehen. Eine Pflanze, ein Tier gewinnen für mich nichts, wenn ich sie mit Seelen bevölkere, von denen mir meine Sinne keine Kunde geben. Ich suche nicht in der Außenwelt nach einem «tieferen», «seelischen» Wesen der Dinge, ja ich setze es nicht einmal voraus, weil ich glaube, daß die Erkenntnis, die mir in meinem Innern aufleuchtet, mich davor bewahrt. Ich glaube, daß die Dinge der Sinnenwelt das auch sind, als was sie sich uns darstellen, weil ich sehe, daß eine rechte Selbsterkenntnis uns dahin führt, in der Natur nichts als natürliche Vorgänge zu suchen. Ich suche keinen Gottesgeist in der Natur, weil ich das Wesen des Menschengeistes in mir zu vernehmen glaube. Zu meinen Tier-Ahnen bekenne ich mich ruhig, weil ich zu erkennen glaube, daß dort, wo diese Tier-Ahnen ihren Ursprung haben, kein seelenartiger Geist wirken kann. Ich kann Ernst Haeckel nur zustimmen, wenn er einer Unsterblichkeit, wie sie manche Religion lehrt (vgl. Haeckels «Welträtsel», S. 139), die «ewige Ruhe des Grabes» vorzieht. Denn ich finde eine Herabwürdigung des Geistes, eine widerwärtige Sünde wider den Geist in der Vorstellung einer nach Art eines sinnlichen Wesens fortdauernden Seele. - Einen schrillen Mißton höre ich, wenn die naturwissenschaftlichen Tatsachen in Haeckels Darstellung mit der «Frömmigkeit» der Bekenntnisse mancher Zeitgenossen zusammenstoßen. Aber für mich tönt aus Bekenntnissen, die mit natürlichen Tatsachen einen schlechten Zusammenklang geben, nichts von dem Geiste der höheren Frömmigkeit, die ich bei Jacob Böhme und Angelus Silesius finde. Diese höhere Frömmigkeit steht vielmehr mit dem Wirken des Natürlichen in vollem Einklange. Es liegt kein Widerspruch darin, sich mit den Erkenntnissen der neueren Naturwissenschaft zu durchdringen und gleichzeitig den Weg zu betreten, den Jacob Böhme und Angelus Silesius zum Geiste gesucht haben. Wer sich auf diesen Weg im Sinne dieser Denker begibt, der darf nicht fürchten, in flachen Materialismus zu verfallen, wenn er die Geheimnisse der Natur sich von einer «natürlichen Schöpfungsgeschichte» darstellen läßt. Wer meine Gedanken in diesem Sinne auffaßt, der versteht mit mir in gleicher Weise den letzten Spruch des «Cherubinischen Wandersmannes», in den auch diese Schrift ausklingen soll: «Freund, es ist auch genug. Im Fall du mehr willst lesen: so geh und werde selbst die Schrift und selbst das Wesen.»
[ 2 ] Zusatz zur Neuauflage (1924). Diese letzten Sätze dürfen nicht im Sinne einer ungeistigen Auffassung der Natur umgedeutet werden. Ich wollte durch sie nur in starker Art betonen, daß der Geist, der der Natur zugrunde liegt, in ihr gefunden werden muß, und nicht von außen in sie hineingetragen werden darf. Die Abweisung der «Schöpfungsgedanken» bezieht sich auf ein Schaffen, das ähnlich dem menschlichen, nach Zweckgedanken, ist. Was über die Entwicklungsgeschichte zu sagen ist, wolle man in meinem Buche «Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung» (Vorwort zur Neuauflage) nachlesen.
Finale
[ 1 ] Two and a half centuries have almost passed since Angelus Silesius collected the profound wisdom of his predecessors in his "Cherubinischer Wandersmann". These centuries have brought rich insights into nature. Goethe opened up a great perspective for natural science. He sought to trace the eternal, iron laws of natural action to the summit, where they give rise to man with the same necessity as they bring forth stone at the lower level (see my book: "Goethe's Weltanschauung"). Lamarck, Darwin, Haeckel and others have continued to work along the lines of this conception. The "question of all questions", that of the natural origin of man, was answered in the nineteenth century. Other related tasks in the realm of natural processes have found their solutions. Today it is understood that one need not step out of the realm of the factual and sensual if one wants to understand the development of the stages of beings, right up to man, in a purely natural way. - And the ingenuity of J. G. Fichte has also illuminated the nature of the human "I" and shown the human soul where it should seek itself and what it is (cf. above, p. 17 , and the section on Fichte in my book: "Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert", in a new edition as "Rätsel der Philosophie"). Hegel extended the realm of thought over all areas of being, and sought to grasp the external sensual existence of nature as well as the highest creations of the human spirit in their lawfulness through thought (cf. my account of Hegel in "Riddles of Philosophy", vol. 1). - How do the spirits whose thoughts have been pursued in this writing appear in the light of the world view that reckons with the scientific achievements of the times following its epochs? They still believed in a "supernatural" creation story. How do their thoughts compare with a "natural" one created by the natural science of the nineteenth century? This natural science has not given nature anything that does not belong to it; it has only taken from it what does not belong to it. It has banished from it everything that is not to be sought in it, but which can only be found within man. It no longer sees any being in nature that is like the human soul and that creates after the manner of man. It no longer allows the forms of organisms to be created by a human-like God; it follows their development in the world of the senses according to purely natural laws. Both Meister Eckhart and Tauler, as well as Jacob Böhme and Angelus Silesius, should feel the deepest satisfaction when contemplating this natural science. The spirit in which they wanted to contemplate the world has passed over to this contemplation of nature in the fullest sense, if it is understood correctly. What they were not yet able to do, even to bring the facts of nature itself into the light that had dawned upon them, that would undoubtedly have become their longing if this natural science had been available to them. They could not; for no geology, no "natural creation story" told them about the processes in nature. The Bible alone told them about such processes in its own way. They therefore sought the spiritual, as best they could, where alone it could be found: in the human interior. At the present time they had quite different means than in their time to show that a spirit existing in a sensuous form can only be found in man. Today they would unreservedly agree with those who seek the spirit as a fact not in the root of nature but in its fruit. They would admit that the spirit in the sense body is a result of development, and that at lower stages of development such a spirit must not be sought. They would understand that a "thought of creation" did not prevail in the emergence of the spirit in the organism, just as little as such a "thought of creation" allowed the ape to emerge from the marsupials. - Our present cannot speak about the facts of nature as Jacob Boehme spoke about them. But there is a point of view, even in this present age, which brings Jacob Boehme's way of looking at things closer to a world view that takes modern natural science into account. There is no need to lose one's mind if one finds only the natural in nature. However, many people today believe that one must fall into a shallow and sober materialism if one simply accepts the "facts" found by natural science. I myself stand completely on the ground of this natural science. I certainly have the feeling that only those who approach a view of nature such as Ernst Haeckel's can fall flat if they approach it with a shallow world of thought. I feel something higher and more glorious when I allow the revelations of the "Natural History of Creation" to have an effect on me than when the supernatural miracle stories of the creeds penetrate me. I know of no "sacred" book that reveals to me anything so sublime as the "sober" fact that every human germ in the womb repeats in succession the animal forms that its animal ancestors went through. If we fill our minds with the glory of the facts that our senses behold, then we will have little interest in the "miracles" that do not lie in the cycle of nature. If we experience the spirit within us, then we do not need one outside in nature. In my "Philosophy of Freedom", I described my world view, which does not believe that the spirit can be expelled because it views nature as Darwin and Haeckel do. A plant or an animal gains nothing for me if I populate it with souls of which my senses give me no information. I do not search in the outer world for a "deeper", "spiritual" essence of things, indeed I do not even presuppose it, because I believe that the knowledge that lights up within me protects me from it. I believe that the things of the sensory world are also what they present themselves to us as, because I see that proper self-knowledge leads us to seek nothing but natural processes in nature. I do not seek the spirit of God in nature because I believe I can hear the essence of the human spirit within me. I calmly acknowledge my animal ancestors because I believe I recognize that no soul-like spirit can work where these animal ancestors have their origin. I can only agree with Ernst Haeckel when he prefers the "eternal rest of the grave" to immortality as taught by some religions (cf. Haeckel's "Welträtsel", p. 139). For I find a degradation of the spirit, a repugnant sin against the spirit in the idea of a soul that endures in the manner of a sensual being. - I hear a shrill note of disapproval when the scientific facts in Haeckel's presentation clash with the "piety" of the confessions of some contemporaries. But for me there is nothing of the spirit of higher piety, which I find in Jacob Böhme and Angelus Silesius, in confessions that are in poor harmony with natural facts. On the contrary, this higher piety is in full harmony with the workings of the natural. There is no contradiction in penetrating oneself with the findings of modern natural science and at the same time treading the path that Jacob Böhme and Angelus Silesius sought to the spirit. Whoever embarks on this path in the spirit of these thinkers must not fear falling into shallow materialism if he allows the secrets of nature to be presented by a "natural history of creation". Whoever understands my thoughts in this sense will understand with me in the same way the last saying of the "Cherubinischer Wandermann", into which this writing should also end: "Friend, it is also enough. If you want to read more, go and become the scripture and the being yourself."
[ 2 ] Addition to the new edition (1924). These last sentences must not be reinterpreted in the sense of an unspiritual view of nature. I only wanted to emphasize through them in a strong way that the spirit that underlies nature must be found within it, and must not be brought into it from outside. The rejection of the "ideas of creation" refers to a creation that is similar to the human one, according to ideas of purpose. What is to be said about the history of development can be read in my book "Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen Weltanschauung" (preface to the new edition).