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

Peter Staudenmaier's standards

Expand Messages
  • Mike Helsher
    ... Mike: Here we have a boat load of Peter S s standards with which he sets out to destroy the basic premise that Anthroposophy is a science. First off, as
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 31, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Peter S:
       
      >If anthroposophy were a science, it would demand public scrutiny and
      >welcome critique and refutation of its central claims, it would encourage
      >skepticism and rigorous doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability,
      >and treat its tenets as hypotheses subject to constant modification by
      >others. All of these things, of course, have been adamantly rejected by
      >anthroposophists on this list and elsewhere, who do indeed consider their
      >own beliefs to be exempt from the standards of public discourse, and who
      >occasionally become apoplectic when non-anthroposophists decline to grant
      >them this exemption.
      Mike:
       
      Here we have a boat load of Peter S's "standards" with which he sets out to destroy the basic premise that Anthroposophy is a science. First off, as I understand it, Anthroposophy is not "a science." Anthroposophy is the hypotheses (from my perspective) that Steiner left us, that resulted from his own claimed research into what he called "the spiritual worlds." From the methods and results of his personal research he coined the phrase "Spiritual Science."
       
      So I think that this is not "a science" by whatever "standard" Mr. Peter S. chooses to conveniently apply, so as to come to his own conclusions about Anthroposophy. For me it is "Spiritual Science" and it is a very personal endeavor, similar to the idea of soul science (psychology). Peter S's "standards", applied to individuals, in the field of psychology would, in my opinion, drive most of us insane. Can you imagine demanding "public scrutiny" and welcoming "critique and refutation, skepticism and rigorous doubt" as standards in the field of psychology? One important standard that Peter S. seems to leave out here, I think, is compassion. And that, I think, is the ultimate goal of doing personal "spiritual scientific research" -- to come to an understanding and experience of compassion, or Love.
       
      I realize that I am moralizing this question a bit, but to me it is a question of morality. And that (morality) for me is also a personal endeavor, that is not subject to other peoples "standards."
       
      For a so called anarchist, he seems to abide by allot of "standards." -- "standards of public discourse", standard conceptions of what "a science" is, and also his infamous "standard conceptions of racism."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.