Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

49376Re: Opposition to Anthropsophy

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Feb 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Links got munged as usual. Hopefully these work now: http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism-2/ , http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism-2/ .

      Der Staudi also has this to say of anthroposophy:

      "Our hope is that a sober assessment of the historical entwinement of anthroposophy and ecofascism will challenge anthroposophists and their defenders to ask themselves if the belief system they admire can be extricated from this poisonous legacy. If it cannot, we hope they will have the courage to leave anthroposophy behind." (http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-its-defenders-2/ )

      There is no link with fascism in English speaking countries and only a marginal one in some of the others. Der Staudi appears keen here in his opposition to anthroposophy not only to 'critici[se] several of its constituent elements.' but to damn the whole enterprise. Which to those of us who have watched his performance on WC is no surprise at all.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch

      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
      >
      > Over on WC, Der Staudi has claimed:
      >
      > "Though many anthroposophists are, tellingly, convinced otherwise, Peter doesn't oppose anthroposophy.
      > ...
      > I am not an opponent of anthroposophy as such, I am a critic of several of its constituent elements."
      >
      > But is it true? Well, he opposes:
      >
      > 3-folding: which he deems anti-democratic, nationalist, militarist, elitist, reactionary, authoritarian, regressive, right-wing, organicist, corporatist, elitist, fascist....
      >
      > Steiner's epistemology: which he deems personalist, regressive and incoherent.
      >
      > Waldorf education: it's notion of stages of childhood (which he deems anti-democratic); it's  curriculum ( which he deems 'orientalist'); it's organisation ( also anti-democratic); it's pedagogy (anti-intellectual)
      >
      > Bio-dynamics: which he deems 'Eco-fascist', or course, and unscientific.
      >
      > Spiritual science and anthroposophy: which he deems unscientific, authoritarian, unhistoric, racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, intolerant, unenlightened, illogical, irrational, anti-cosmopolitan, reactionary, anti-modernist, elitist and para-Nazi...
      >
      > The evolution of consciousness: which he deems 'orientalist', white supremacist, and racist.
      >
      > Anthroposophists: who he deems anti-intellectual, and dismissive of reading, reason and argument.
      >
      > Christology: which he deems supernaturalist, 'biblist' (believing the bible is true), anti-Semitic, and white supremacist
      >
      > Self-development: which he deems entho-centric
      >
      > Historiography: wrong, anti rational, and anti-intellectual
      >
      > And too many more others to mention. See http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/rudolf-steiner%E2%80%99s-threefold-commonwealth-and-alternative-economic-thought/, http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/anthroposophy-and-ecofascism-2/, and his postings to the WC list for examples.
      >
      > So, not much opposition there, then. The most likely reason he regularly tries to claim he 'doesn't oppose anthroposophy' is for political reasons: he wants to maintain the fiction that he's an objective, professional scholar. Such people are not supposed to let their personal biases and dislikes, and political opposition (far left, neo-Marxist) motivate and determine their scholarship and it would look bad for him if his institution suspected him of it.
      >
      > T.
      >
      > Ted Wrinch
      >
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic