Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 1

message: Who or what is the philosophical community outside Anthroposophy?
Can anyone name names? In my experience the whole philosophical community (such as it is) ignores this stuff studiously.
::I am not a philosophy scholar so I cannot really answer, but I can name one name due to being indirectly linked to him by personal connections: Reijo Wilenius, retired professor of philosophy at University of Jyväskylä, is in a sense a Steiner scholar.  I suppose you could argue that he is not a valid example since he is also involved in Anthroposophy, though. AJK 19:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  philosophical community? 

message: At one point, this page had a photo of Steiner at the top.  Then, over time, there were (one too many, in my opinion) photos of the Goeteanum structure.  Now there are none.  At the very least, I think the photo of Steiner should be restored - is there a reason it was removed?  Seems silly to not have it there.
--Apostata 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of Steiner 

message: There was an inappropriate entry paragraph added by an anonymous user; this now been removed.
How's mentioning Steiner's "temperament"-based psychology "inappropriate"? I'll get back to this as soon as I've registered myself and thus cease to be an "anonymous user".
As it is, this article is simply not neutral, and the criticism-section does not fulfill its function, but basically just adds to the praise that dominates the rest. Yes, Steiner *was* a genius, but that doesn't make him any less controversial, and critical voices shouldn't simply be dismissed as "not getting it right".
The addition seems to be limited to a series of opinions. This isn't a chat room, it's an encyclopedia. If you'd like to bring some of these topics in, it is possible to in an informative way. For example:
Information about the temperaments would probably be useful under Waldorf Education, but I would suggest starting with a factual description of Steiner's theories about temperaments and of the ways they are used in Waldorf schools. This should be more specific than 'pupils are treated according to this'...how? in what way? Temperaments are a tiny part of the education; so this should be one section among a number of others dealing with other relevant areas. This kind of treatment provides a balanced presentation, giving an accurate picture of the topic.
Another important theme you mention, the scientific nature of anthroposophy, is dealt with on the anthroposophy page. I would suggest you look at the treatment of this issue there, which has been worked on by various contributers and is probably pretty balanced now. It is also more descriptive than simply expressing unattributed opinions (or statements like 'in my opinion'). 
Wikipedia has a policy against saying things like 'has received heavy criticism' without attribution; it is necessary to state who criticised him for this (and preferably - but not necessarily - provide a link or reference to where this can be found). It should be an authority on the subject who is being quoted. 
Hgilbert 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I have moved the section titled philosophical debate here; it seems a bit academic and inappropriate for a general biography. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Should we have a link to this from the main page?
Hgilbert 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical debate 

message: A complete whitewash of Steiner and his ridiculous teachings!  Where is anything about Steiner's racist reincarnation ideas (blacks to Asians to Aryans)?!? where is anything about his learning about Atlantis -- and numerous other of his "teachings"-completely through his clairvoyant powers?!? Where is anything about how Steiner advocated high fevers in children, said left handedness was a "karmic weakness," or that breast milk was bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs) 
:If you would like your additions to be kept, then please don't blank sections of text when you type in your edit. Also, sourcing your claims to a verifiable reference would be nice (as would using standard written English). — goethean ॐ 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous editor claims there were passages in Steiners work that were rascist. Encyclopedidic practice is to cite those sections but not to editorialise. If there are critismisms then reference them. Jefffire 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Travesty

message: An anonymous editor keeps making accusations of racism. For his or her benefit: 
 
 The Netherlands Commission that investigated charges that anthroposophy included racist ideas
 finds again that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy,
 or that conceptually 
 Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust,
 has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact,
 the investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the year 1900, 
 he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of anti-Semitism,
 including in the periodical of a then existing
 German association against anti-Semitism.
Hgilbert 10:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous editor claims there were passages in Steiners work that were rascist. Encyclopedidic practice is to cite those sections but not to editorialise. If there are critismisms then reference them. Jefffire 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: no racism in anthroposophy

message: This  article has been extremely Steinerfriendly, so I am not surprised that antisteiner editing turns up. However wikipedia should be unbiased as far as possible, and therefore should present both  pro-steiner and anti-steiner arguments in a balanced way. Some of the recent antisteiner stuff is heavily unbalanced.  The previous steinerfriendly information, was at least  based on knowledge of steiner and the steinermovement, and not only on hostile selections of misunderstood details. --Vindheim 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit wars 

message: Anonymous alledges a white wash in this article. Please contribute comments here. Please verify anything that you want to go into the article. If there is sufficient evidence then the NPOV tag would need to be put back up. Jefffire 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White wash? 

message: The objection that the article does not include all aspects of Steiner's thinking is unfair given the extent of his work; it would take a book, not an article to include these all. It also is not a NPOV objection, but one of completeness. The two are different. It is an ongoing project to make all WIKIPEDIA articles more complete; they do not for that reason represent a single POV.Hgilbert 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the issue is selective incompletness. Did Steiner have beliefs on the races that might not look so good in modern times? If so they do need to be included, but only as he stated them am and without the editorialising of describing them as "rascist" (except possibly in the critisms section). Jefffire 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Steiners theories on race are similar to Blavatskys (which I believe they are) it is incorrect to link them to racism or even to the popular ideas of human races. The Theosophical concept of human reaces spans time and space, and includes evolution through a series of  seven rootraces each consisting of seven subraces.The earliest "races" in this concept are supposed to have been immaterial and sexless. All  of present humanity is supposed to belong to the fifth of these "rootraces", and all human reincarnating souls are supposed to pass though different racial groups and sexes.   It is true that some i.e. protonazi groups (ariosophists) delevloped these theories into ugly racism, but the track record of mainstream theosophy and antroposophy  proves   consistent efforts to improve relations between racial groups. Theosophy was instrumental in strenghtening Indian selfconfidence, religious and otherwise, in the nineteenth christian century. ( The Indian national Congress was actually founded at a Theosophical gathering). Waldorfshools in Soutafrica and other places have been multiracial even under apartheid etc. etc --Vindheim 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompleteness is different from bias

message: I have ordered the lectures thematically according to the publisher (Rudolf Steiner Verlag)'s catalog. I have replaced individual lectures with collections or cycles where possible. Hgilbert 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lectures 

message: Re. Steiner criticism:
(From the article)
There are scientists acquainted with the topics Steiner touched upon who regard his methodology as irreproducible and thus unscientific, and therefore completely disregard his works
::This is a serious understatement. First of all, most scientists are probably completely unaware of Steiner's musings. Second, those so "acquainted" are most likely antagonistic. I suspect the pro-Steiner scientist phalange to be mostly negligable.
Steiner frequently asked his students to test everything he said, and not to take his statements on authority or faith. He also said that if it had been practicable, he would have changed the name of his teachings every day, to keep people from hanging on to the literal meaning of those teachings, and to stay true to their character as something intended to be alive and metamorphic.
::If he really said that then all is good but I really think that needs some references. However, there remains the question whether students really do challenge Steiner's teachings to any degree. For instance it seems to me that the obvious un-"PC" material is commonly explained away as "difficult", tacitly promoting an ugly kind of anti-intellectualism.
::Also, regarding Steiner's teachings I think it's quite uncontroversial to categorize him as pro pan-German, based on his earlier writings. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.
Certainly by the time of his anthroposophical work, Steiner differentiated sharply between being an advocate for the importance of German culture, which was international ('pan-German'), and a critic of the German Reich, and indeed any barbarization of the cultural impulse into a nationalistic movement. (See for example his appeal to the German citizens, 'An das deutsche Volk und die Kulturwelt!' I am aware of one early writing praising Bismarck and the Kaiser upon the succession of the latter to the throne, but this hardly qualifies him as pro pan-German. Do you have quotations that you can share? 
The Russian poet Andrej Belij spoke of Steiner's attitude during WWI:
:The outbreak of the war brought Steiner new, special problems; he had to guide the outbreaks of nationalistic sentiment into sensible directions. Three weeks [after the outbreak of the First World War] the first momentum of our spontaneous solidarity was quite evidently broken. All through September and through all of October the storms in the canteen did not abate: the British and the Russians gathered together in little groups, the Germans insisted very tactlessly that the war had been instigated by the provocative attitude of England; the Russians countered with the statement that a breach of neutrality amounts to barbarism. Soon, theoretical debates changed to concrete incidents and endangered the whole life of Dornach. Schuré's withdrawal from the Anthroposophical Society, the nasty rumors that filtered out of France via the French part of Switzerland, the duplicity of some Poles - all this had very negative effects. All eyes were on the Doctor; one secretly hoped the he would at least state: "Germany is in the right!" or "Germany is to blame for all the catastrophes!" However he did not accuse a single country, only the mendacity of the press; and he recommended that one not believe the sensational news reports and instead work undauntedly on the aspect of true culture.. Everybody waited tensely for an unequivocal gesture. 
:One such gesture lay for me in his five lectures concerning the essence of culture which he held in our Schreinerei in November. They contained living representations from Italian, French, English, and German culture Campanella, the 17th century in France, the German "Frenchman" in Steiner's depiction, Leibnitz, Shakespeare, Newton, Schiller and Goethe. An image of Russia arose - the Russia that is striving towards the future, the kingdom of the spirit. Everyone was enthused - the French, the Austrians, the Germans and Russians. The Doctor had succeeded in smoothing the waves of nationalistic passion by pointing out the unity that all great culture has in common. In light of his words we once again turned to one another; the oppressive atmosphere was transformed. Later on other infections appeared, but the nationalistic fever was once and for all overcome; from then on, the members of the various nations at war with one another lived in peace.
This makes his war-time attitude pretty clear.Hgilbert 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steiner criticism -- NPOV dispute 

message: I contest the neutrality of denominating Steiner a philosopher. I challenge you to find contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a philosopher or comment on Steiner's works as a philosophic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs) 
See Richard Tarnas' *The Passion of the Western Mind* as well as Robert McDermott's introduction to *The Essential Steiner* for an example of just two contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a a philosopher or comment on Steiners's work as a philosophic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs) 
Steiner had a PhD in philosophy and wrote a number of books on themes such as epistemology, free will, and the philosophy of science: Truth and Knowledge, The Philosophy of Freedom, etc. I don't know how you could question whether he was a philosopher. At the same time, his philosophical work has certainly not been influential amongst most mainstream philosophers. Those two statements can stand side by side; they are not mutually contradictory.Hgilbert 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steiner as a philosopher -- NPOV dispute 

message: (From the article)
Biodynamic farming is not merely organic -- in addition it works with the movement patterns of the stars and the moon, and with the non-physical beings in nature, and seeks to do testable research on how agriculture can produce the best quality food.
::Scientifically, why would the movement patterns of the stars have anything to do with the quality of biodynamically produced foods? Biodynamic farming does not seek to do testable research on agriculture and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Emanuel1972 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the rationale is not necessarily that the planets influence the plants (though in the case of the moon a direct influence is a possibility), rather that the world moves in rhythmic patterns that are reflected in  the growth patterns of plants as well as in the movement of the heavens.  --Vindheim 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weleda and biodynamic farming -- NPOV dispute 

message: As a graduate of the Santa Fe Waldorf High School, I approve of this page, and certify that all the information stated in this article is acurate per what I learned in the Waldorf School system.
Woot! WALDORF FOREVER!
What a surprise?  LOL! --Pete K 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Steiner/ Waldorf Schools 

message: I am removing the NPOV label; there is now an unusual amount of space given to critical views in this article.Hgilbert 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get on the job soon. I'm just easing myself back into the task after my break from civilisation. Jefffire 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  balance of POV 

message: from the introduction: The herb gatherer introduced Steiner to his master. The master advised Steiner him to study Darwin and Haeckel, Fichte and Schelling that needs a little more explaining. who or what is this master guy?
trueblood 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  master 

message: The last edit appears to have conflicts with previous edits. I tried to create a merge of the two versions but Wikipedia is unable to save new versions (at least from here). (I get a: 
::Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in. 
The last version is not completely up-to-date. Hgilbert 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems editing page