49923Re: Quote of the Month
- Mar 31, 2012"It's already been established repeatedly and with many examples that PS has no understanding whatsoever of what epistemology means."
Yes. I can think of two examples I experienced in direct or indirect discussion with him:
1) His claim that 'having more assumptions in an epistemology is not a flaw', contrary to common sense, the principles of physical science and maths, and, in a more technical vein, the design principle of software engineering (KISS: keep it simple stupid; and DRY: don't repeat yourself, or define everything only once).
2) His claim that secondary qualities are objectively measurable in the way that primary qualities are, by making space and time correspondences against measurement references that all observers can agree on. This is contrary to the physicists' intention in making the distinction in the first place, which was to establish an objective basis for a physical science of nature. Interestingly, Dan Dugan, the only supposedly slightly scientifically trained denizen there, also claimed that 'secondary qualities are measurable' in the way primary qualities are. Dugan shut up when I challenged him; Staudi carried on bluffing and obfuscating his way through in the hope that none of the peanut gallery would notice; no one did, no one ever does: they don't really care, aren't looking and only really care about 'winning' arguments with Steiner defenders (they have little interest in actual criticism, as I've said, which would require them to criticise their own perspectives).
Might take a look at your course later but got too many downloaded German Idealism texts to wade through at the moment!
--- In email@example.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "ted.wrinch"
> <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
> > In looking through our archives on this topic, I came across an
> interesting message from around six years ago that was forwarded to the
> list from Staudi in response to a message of Tarjei's (message 29598).
> Staudi offers his typical opinion on Steiner's philosophical writings,
> saying that:
> > "...they contain a mildly interesting epistemology that was pretty
> much run of the mill for its time and place.."
> It's already been established repeatedly and with many examples that PS
> has no understanding whatsoever of what epistemology means. As an
> alleged historian, his shortcomings with regard to the history of
> thought, of philosophy, makes his claim to analytical study of how
> theosophy and anthroposophy evolved in Germany in confluence with
> völkish ideas extremely shaky.
> Here is something that may remedy that situation:
> Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida
> Taught By Professor Lawrence Cahoone, Ph.D., Stony Brook University,
> College of the Holy Cross. Thirty-six lectures, 30 minutes each. Heavy
> stuff, requires deep concentration, but the reward is a good general
> survey of the evolution of thought from the beginning of the
> Enlightenment to our own time. Existentialism could have been treated in
> some more detail, perhaps, but that's available elsewhere.
> > He continues with a comparison with Steiner's later, anthroposophical
> > "I have a much higher estimation of Steiner's pre-1900 philosophical
> writings than I do of his mature theosophical and anthroposophical
> PS' estimations of anything, whether "higher" or "lower," are completely
> irrelevant and uninteresting, and of absolutely no consequence beyond
> what may possibly be compared to the ramblings of David Irving. It's
> only a big yawn. (Because PS identifies with all academia and
> scholarship and higher learning just like Adolf Hitler identified
> himself with the German people and nation, he's likely to interpret this
> remark of mine as yet another example of how esotericists are totally
> uninterested in study, period. According to his equation, Study=reading
> PS' ramblings.)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>