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

Re: [wc] Steiner - Rom Landau

Expand Messages
  • winters_diana
    ... Instilling is really a problem. Instilling, if it must be done at all, should be limited to basic facts or knowledge. A sense of wonder is a response
    Message 1 of 280 , May 27, 2009

      >You know, I don't think instilling a sense of wonder is necessary.

      "Instilling" is really a problem. "Instilling," if it must be done at all, should be limited to basic facts or knowledge. A "sense of wonder" is a response to what one has learned, it can't itself be taught. How a child responds to what they learn - emotionally, or on a "soul" level - is their own business. Teachers who think they can "instill" things like "reverence" and "wonder" are doing a lot of damage.

      And I've always thought this attitude actually betrays a lack of true wonder or reverence. It really does come naturally to feel wonder and awe at the natural world. Children don't have to have this drilled into them. "Instilling" it will often backfire and create cynicism. Those doing the "instilling" are trying to make up for some lack in themselves. Children see through this.
    • Peter Staudenmaier
      Hi Charlie, ... The very notion of the given in that sense is highly contentious, for starters. Steiner s conception of thinking is also significantly
      Message 280 of 280 , Nov 4 11:09 AM
        Hi Charlie,

        > Maybe it would help if you explained what these problems might be.

        The very notion of "the given" in that sense is highly contentious, for starters. Steiner's conception of thinking is also significantly different from what many other philosophers understand by 'thinking'. It is not the case that all other philosophers and all other epistemologies simply agree with Steiner on this score. Hence lots of non-anthroposophists find your preferred starting point "unjustified," in your terms. That's normal in philosophical disagreements. It seems to me that whatever shortcomings non-anthroposophists might find in PoF are somewhat beside the point, however. The question at issue was not whether Steiner's early philosophical arguments are convincing for those who aren't Steiner fans; the question at issue was whether Steiner's early philosophical arguments constitute a path to the higher worlds.

        > But from what you say above, it did lead him to the "higher worlds", it just took a bit of time

        Yes, it's the time part that usually trips up anthroposophists. From a historical perspective, it makes a big difference at what time in his life Steiner adopted particular positions. Standard anthroposophical views of PoF ignore those historical details entirely, and get Steiner's later ideas mixed up with his earlier ideas. Steiner was not an esotericist in the 1890s. He was fiercely critical of esotericism at that time. That's why his striking change of view after 1900 is important to making even basic sense of his intellectual development. Greetings,

        Peter S.

        Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.