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

Peter Staudermareir's absurdity

Expand Messages
  • Mike helsher
    I picked this form one of Daniel Hindes Blogs. I think it sums up what I knew from the beginning about Peter Staudenmaiers intellectually pin-headed view of
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I picked this form one of Daniel Hindes' Blogs. I think it sums up
      what I knew from the beginning about Peter Staudenmaiers
      intellectually pin-headed view of RS and Anthroposophy.

      I'm greatful for people like Daniel, that have the cool headedness
      (something I struggle with) and vigilance, to look into this kind of
      Hal 9000 intellectual crap, and shed some light on the subject.


      Peter Staudenmaier writes inParagraph 5: [of his article
      anthroposophy and eco-fascism]
      "In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising
      that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better
      known. Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly
      esoteric doctrine as an "occult science" suitable only for a
      spiritually enlightened elite. The very name "anthroposophy" suggests
      to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in
      fact a deeply anti-humanist worldview, which is why humanists like
      Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning.PS2 Its rejection of reason
      in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to
      supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of
      spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist

      [and Daniel responds]

      So let me summarize this absurd and illogical paragraph:
      Anthroposophists are doing a lot of work that is getting positive
      publicity in the world, but their evil ideology is somehow
      overlooked. Further, this evil ideology, this "highly esoteric
      doctrine" they consider "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened
      elite" (note the classic leftist tactic of decrying elitism). And
      even their name is misleading, suggesting humanism when in fact,
      because one Ernst Bloch "opposed it from the beginning," it must not
      be. And finally, because Peter Staudenmaier has now labeled it anti-
      reason, pro mystical experiential, subordinating of human action to
      supernatural forces, and hierarchical (without having offered any
      examples or even citations of primary of secondary sources to support
      these allegations) it must be "inimical to humanist values." Or the
      even shorter version: Ernst Bloch didn't like it, I called it names,
      and you must consider it evil. This type of writing seems more
      reminiscent of Pravda under Stalin than serious historical
      scholarship. (Pravda was the state-run party newspaper of the
      U.S.S.R. Under Stalin it published raving denunciations of those
      targeted by the state for elimination. Their supposed crimes were
      described in lurid detail. Mostly these crimes were fabricated to
      create the illusion of justice, though few people in or outside the
      country believed these accusations, either at the time or since.)

      posted by Mike
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.