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

Re: [steiner] Re: Philosophy anyone?

Expand Messages
  • DoctorStarman@aol.com
    In a message dated 3/15/2004 4:02:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... *******Wouldn t it be better to explain what you are arguing here, where people can respond,
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 15 6:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 3/15/2004 4:02:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, info@... writes:

      But Sheila,
      wouldn't it be better to actually read my text, find out if there is
      a possible error in translation or a shortcoming in my thinking, and
      then present your judgement to us?

      Here is the link one more time:

      This year Immanuel Kant, the philosopher Steiner regarded the most
      important to overcome, died 200 years ago. What is the outcome of
      this struggle? Here is a brief report on the title match in moral
      principles... in english:

      http://www.menschengeist.de/pdf_mappe/Titlematch_Philosfont.pdf

      Best regards, Lutz



      *******Wouldn't it be better to explain what you are arguing here, where people can respond, rather than direct them to a finished product? After all, there are all these fellow students of Steiner here. They could have important input.
      -starman



      >Lutz, are you stating in your words above that Rudolf Steiner
      displayed
      >an "unsharpness" in his "thinking", or are you perhaps citing a
      >possible error in a translation of Steiner's words?
      >
      >Further, you seem to accuse Steiner of an inability to grasp the
      full
      >meaning of Kant's claim or that he, Steiner, is a liar and/or is a
      >deliberate misinterpreter for his own goals, statement about which
      you
      >owe everyone on this list and all of Anthroposophy a very detailed
      >explanation, which we shall be looking forward to.
      >
      >I have not heard anything of such bias since Steiner was falsely
      >accused of adultery on the ARK list. We shall be looking forward
      to
      >your explanation of your seemingly slanderous accusations directed
      >toward Rudolf Steiner which you state above.
      >
      >Sheila


    • LilOleMissy
      But Lutz, You say Here is the link one more time: - um - did I miss the first posting of this link? The words still don t make any sense to me, since, like
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 15 6:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        But Lutz,

        You say "Here is the link one more time:" - um - did I miss the first
        posting of this link?
        The words still don't make any sense to me, since, like Steiner, I
        dislike his words taken out of context: they can then be easily
        mistranslated/misinterpreted, n'pas?

        Cheers!

        Sheila

        On Mar 15, 2004, at 1:01 AM, Lutz wrote:

        > But Sheila,
        > wouldn't it be better to actually read my text, find out if there is
        > a possible error in translation or a shortcoming in my thinking, and
        > then present your judgement to us?
        >
        > Here is the link one more time:
        >
        > This year Immanuel Kant, the philosopher Steiner regarded the most
        > important to overcome, died 200 years ago. What is the outcome of
        > this struggle? Here is a brief report on the title match in moral
        > principles... in english:
        >
        > http://www.menschengeist.de/pdf_mappe/Titlematch_Philosfont.pdf
        >
        > Best regards, Lutz
        >
        >
        >
        > > Lutz, are you stating in your words above that Rudolf Steiner
        > displayed
        > > an "unsharpness" in his "thinking", or are you perhaps citing a
        > > possible error in a translation of Steiner's words?
        > >
        > > Further, you seem to accuse Steiner of an inability to grasp the
        > full
        > > meaning of Kant's claim or that he, Steiner, is a liar and/or is a
        > > deliberate misinterpreter for his own goals, statement about which
        > you
        > > owe everyone on this list and all of Anthroposophy a very detailed
        > > explanation, which we shall be looking forward to.
        > >
        > > I have not heard anything of such bias since Steiner was falsely
        > > accused of adultery on the ARK list. We shall be looking forward
        > to
        > > your explanation of your seemingly slanderous accusations directed
        > > toward Rudolf Steiner which you state above.
        > >
        > > Sheila
        >
      • LilOleMissy
        Maybe you could explain yourself here so those of us who are blind can appreciate what you see as cute ? Thanks in advance, Sheila
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 15 6:59 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Maybe you could explain yourself here so those of us who are "blind"
          can appreciate what you see as "cute"?

          Thanks in advance,

          Sheila

          On Mar 14, 2004, at 11:44 PM, walkinsnotwelcome wrote:

          > If someone claims that Steiner misinterpreted a statement by someone
          > else, then this is "slanderous", pretty much like accusing him of
          > adultery. Cute.
          >
          >
        • LilOleMissy
          Dr. Starman, you have as much information as I have, which isn t to say much. The translation in the link appearing below is my first sight of it - the words
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 15 7:04 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dr. Starman, you have as much information as I have, which isn't to say
            much. The translation in the link appearing below is my first sight of
            it - the words attributed to Steiner certainly do not "ring" with a
            Steinerish tone to me, but then I must admit I'm a long time admirer of
            the older translations.

            Sheila

            On Mar 15, 2004, at 6:56 AM, DoctorStarman@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 3/15/2004 4:02:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            > info@... writes:
            >
            >
            > But Sheila,
            > wouldn't it be better to actually read my text, find out if there is
            > a possible error in translation or a shortcoming in my thinking, and
            > then present your judgement to us?
            >
            > Here is the link one more time:
            >
            > This year Immanuel Kant, the philosopher Steiner regarded the most
            > important to overcome, died 200 years ago. What is the outcome of
            > this struggle? Here is a brief report on the title match in moral
            > principles... in english:
            >
            > http://www.menschengeist.de/pdf_mappe/Titlematch_Philosfont.pdf
            >
            > Best regards, Lutz
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > *******Wouldn't it be better to explain what you are arguing here,
            > where people can respond, rather than direct them to a finished
            > product? After all, there are all these fellow students of Steiner
            > here. They could have important input.
            > -starman
            >
            >
            >
            > >Lutz, are you stating in your words above that Rudolf Steiner
            > displayed
            > >an "unsharpness" in his "thinking", or are you perhaps citing a
            > >possible error in a translation of Steiner's words?
            > >
            > >Further, you seem to accuse Steiner of an inability to grasp the
            > full
            > >meaning of Kant's claim or that he, Steiner, is a liar and/or is a
            > >deliberate misinterpreter for his own goals, statement about which
            > you
            > >owe everyone on this list and all of Anthroposophy a very detailed
            > >explanation, which we shall be looking forward to.
            > >
            > >I have not heard anything of such bias since Steiner was falsely
            > >accused of adultery on the ARK list. We shall be looking forward
            > to
            > >your explanation of your seemingly slanderous accusations directed
            > >toward Rudolf Steiner which you state above.
            > >
            > >Sheila
            >
            >
          • DoctorStarman@aol.com
            ... ******* I d say your opinion rests on an error in understanding Steiner s ethical individualism. Steiner did not enunciate something which is true for all,
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 15 7:18 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              info@... writes:
              Here is a brief report on the title match in moral
              principles... in english:

              http://www.menschengeist.de/pdf_mappe/Titlematch_Philosfont.pdf


              ******* I'd say your opinion rests on an error in understanding Steiner's ethical individualism. Steiner did not enunciate something which is true for all, except in a way so abstract as to be absurd. He says that we must draw by moral intuition what we see or know as the right thing to do in each given situation. Now, human beings vary widely in their ability to have moral intuitions. I know some who seem to have virtually zero. You can take the spectrum from a serial killer to Albert Schweitzer and abstractly say 'all of them use whatever moral intuitions they have to decide what to do in each situation of life' and so they're all the same, but this is like saying that since we all use our muscles we are all athletes. Some TRAIN their moral intuitive abilities, some let them wither, some are deliberately perverting themselves and refusing to listen to what that faculty says. But to argue that this means that everyone is following the same moral standard, like the fixed moral codes Kant liked, is like saying because everyone decides the right thing to do individually, the statement "Everyone decides what to do in each individual case" makes everyone equal, enunciates some standard which is good for everyone. It does, but only in a hopelessly abstract way that leaves out the essence of what free individuals specifically do. It's like saying since we all have an ego we are all the exact same people.
                  But this is for people who wish to argue philosophy. I don't find that arguing it accomplishes anything, only studying it, like Steiner's works for instance. Kant was important to study 120 years ago but I don't see much relevance now, or rather he no longer frames the terms of the philosophical debate. And I certainly don't agree Steiner was saying the same thing as Kant and never realized it over a half-century of studying Kant. He was defintely not saying the same thing, which is why he became so much more than just a philosopher.

              -Starman
            • DoctorStarman@aol.com
              In a message dated 3/15/2004 10:07:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... ******* The quotes are snippets from the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. It looks like
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 15 7:20 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 3/15/2004 10:07:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, lilolemissy@... writes:

                Dr. Starman, you have as much information as I have, which isn't to say
                much. The translation in the link appearing below is my first sight of
                it - the words attributed to Steiner certainly do not "ring" with a
                Steinerish tone to me, but then I must admit I'm a long time admirer of
                the older translations.

                Sheila


                ******* The quotes are snippets from the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. It looks like Michael Wilson's translations from the 1964 edition.
                -Starman
                www.DrStarman.net
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.