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

5486Re: Pre and Post Steiner

Expand Messages
  • juancompostella
    Aug 14, 2012
      I think you'll find that the main difference between objectivism in Rand, and ethical individualism in Steiner, is the issue of selfishness.

      As such, it seems that Steiner was all of the things that Rand would have despised, i.e., altruistic, idealistic, unselfish, visionary, and yes, mystical, in the sense of a spiritual-scientific world-view that grew in proportion to his very own 'sense of life' in its duration on the physical plane.

      Steiner was no capitalist, nationalist, or any kind of denominationalist. Rand saw America in the mold of a great nation conceived in liberty for all, and the individual. She came from a very oppressive era in modern Russian history, having experienced two failed revolutions, c. 1905, 1917, as well as the first world war and its consequences.

      The beauty is that her mother sold her jewels so she could come to the United States in 1926. I feel that Ayn Rand had a sense of belief in this country of ours that we don't appreciate like she did. Her deprivation in growing up in Russia is nothing we understand, owing to our benefit of the freedom principles that she would find here.

      And she would help to proclaim it for us with her very intense and dedicated work over the years that saw even the so-called "red decade" of FDR, which she would testify to HUAC about in 1947. This was the aspect of "collectivism" in America that disturbed her greatly; FDR' 'New Deal' government in the 1930's.

      That is how *communism* became vogue in the 30's and 40's. FDR's collectivist government reforms put us all under regulations. Objectivism would make sense to those seeing the way out in favor of selfishness and personal creativity.

      Rand saw this because she came from a kind of condition of this.

      Juan



      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Ethical Individualism is "To express one's moral ideas in life".
      >
      > Comparing primary principles. I didn't think Ethical Individualism had a
      > primary principle, rather all principles had value. But I see translator
      > Hoernle puts it:
      >
      > Men vary greatly in their capacity for intuition. In some, ideas bubble
      > up like a spring, others acquire them with much labour. The situations
      > in which men live, and which are the scenes of their actions, are no
      > less widely different. The conduct of a man will depend, therefore, on
      > the manner in which his faculty of intuition reacts to a given
      > situation. The aggregate of the ideas which are effective in us, the
      > concrete content of our intuitions, constitute that which is individual
      > in each of us, notwithstanding the universal character of our ideas. In
      > so far as this intuitive content has reference to action, it constitutes
      > the moral substance of the individual. To let this substance express
      > itself in his life is the moral principle of the man who regards all
      > other moral principles as subordinate. We may call this point of view
      > Ethical Individualism. POF 10.7
      >
      > "The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand
      > meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source
      > of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to
      > action."
      >
      > "Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's
      > primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for
      > his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a
      > moral code." wiki
      >
      > Tom Last
      > philosophyoffreedom.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" <fairoaks@> wrote:
      > >
      > > My simple definition of Ethical Individualism is "To express one's
      > moral ideas in life".
      > >
      > > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "be23566" fairoaks@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I'm interested in pre 1900 Steiner before he took up theosophy
      > terminology. The early Steiner considered spiritualism no better than
      > materialism, just the opposite polarity. The Philosophy of Freedom is
      > independent of his later work and has no need for it. For that reason I
      > reject the 1918 revisions to POF that bring theosophy into POF.
      > Theosophy appeals to a tiny segment of society while POF has the
      > potential to appeal to everyone. So it makes sense to develop and speak
      > in the language of POF if you want to be taken seriously by the general
      > public, which I do.
      > > >
      > > > The first problem I ran into comparing Rand with Steiner was
      > Steiner's terms. Rands are clear. You hear that this is necessary for
      > Steiner, that we must avoid precise definitions but that is just vague
      > mysticism speaking.
      > > >
      > > > Anthroposophy is a problem because anthroposophists insert theosophy
      > meanings into the terms of POF, especially anthroposophy translators,
      > which render POF unintelligible. To me this issue is obvious to anybody
      > who wants to present POF to the general public.
      > > >
      > > > I have seen a few people take a crappy outdated philosophy and turn
      > it into a world movement, such as Ayn Rand or the new kabbalah movement,
      > by clearly presenting it in a modern way. If Steiner's philosophy had
      > been properly presented (as separate from theosophy), I believe it would
      > have risen to the top today rather than Rand and would be a major
      > movement. I have never understood why absolutely nothing has been done
      > over the past 100 years to present POF in a modern way. Even if you had
      > the development of anthroposophy, their could have also been a separate
      > POF movement that rejects the speculative spiritualism that dominates
      > anthroposophy. Look at all the great websites and organizations that
      > spread the word about Rand while nothing exists for POF except my
      > website which has been limited by my personal limitations. Where are the
      > fighters for POF? The void left by the absence of POF was an opening for
      > Rand.
      > > >
      > > > So my goal has always been to present Steiner and POF pre-theosophy
      > because I think it could be taken up as a major life philosophy of the
      > younger generation today, if only they were introduced to it in the
      > modern clear way without the insertion of spiritual speculation. Ayn
      > Rand's popularity presents an opportunity to present POF.
      > > >
      > > > Tom Last
      > > > philosophyoffreedom.com
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic