Re: Quote of the Month
- Yes, deep concentration, and also, a boat load of money. Education should not cost so much, monetarily.
Thanks, for the education sources. The Great Courses would be nice if they weren't over-priced.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "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.)