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

No negative judgments?

Expand Messages
  • Steinerhead@aol.com
    From the WC list, in Brackets: You can read the entire exchange at:
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      From the WC list, in Brackets:

      You can read the entire exchange at:
      http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715442423
      &sort=d&start=19472

      [What exactly do you mean by "reactionary"? Is this term meant to cover only
      those aspects of Steiner's work which you think connect him to right wing,
      racist ideology?

      Peter.S:
      Yes. I use the term more or less interchangeably with "right-wing".


       Or do you use the word in a more general sense as a negative
      judgement of the philosophical/religious character of Steiner's work.

      Peter S.
      No. I do not have a negative judgement of the religious character of
      Steiner's work; and while]


      Mike:
      Didn't he call Anthroposophy a "seudo-religion" in one of his articles? I
      know for a fact that in one of my exchanges with him he mentioned Steiner's
      "platitudes on Love". I would classify these as "negative judgments of the
      religious charactor of steiner's work", driven by a polemic and predominant
      intellectual bias. On top of that I have never read anything that he has
      written that even remotely lends to the idea that he actually _ likes _
      anything about Steiner. Thus the following statement:

      [I find much of Steiner's early philosophical
      writing derivative and unpersuasive, I don't think it is significantly
      related to his racist views, for the most part.]

      Mike:

      For the most part?



      [According to standard conceptions of racism and antisemitism, it is indeed
      true that a number of Steiner's doctrines are racist and antisemitic. My
      analysis holds, in addition, that these teachings perform a crucial function
      within anthroposophy's cosmology and that simply removing them, without
      putting something else in their place, would indeed cause the ideological
      edifice of anthroposophy to collapse. I could go into more detail on that
      score if you like.]

      Another Polemic tirade: The insertion of the Christ impulse into humanity is
      indeed central to Anthroposophy, but he completely and casually denies this
      and says that he does not have negative judgment of the religious character
      of Steiner's work. And he has repeatedly denied that his own non-religious
      affiliation and political views has any bearing on his own interpretation of
      history.

      A chronological conglomeration of historical facts (i.e. events that
      actually happened) is one aspect of understanding history, and I have to
      give Peter some credit here. But another important (more important IMO)
      aspect of understanding history, where I think Peter falls way short, is in
      the rhelm of compassion, and empathy, which I see as essential to forming an
      understanding the complexities of human nature, and the history that is
      created therein.

      Truth and Love

      Mike Helsher






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