Talk:The Philosophy of Freedom

message: In the article as it stands at the moment we read,
'For monism in Steiner's sense there are only concepts and percepts, which, united, form the object; for the dualist there is the subject, the object, the percept, and the concept.[29] We must not conceive of the process of perception as though it is naïvely real, as we do when we take perception to be a causal effect of the things as they are in themselves on us. Metaphysical realism is the view that there is an object in the world that is imperceptible as it is in itself, but is also to be conceived naïve realistically. It 'is a contradictory mixture of naïve realism and idealism. Its hypothetical [elements] are imperceptible entities endowed with the qualities of percepts’.[30] For the monist, the process of perception is an ideal relation. The metaphysical realist, however, is left with the unanswerable question how the metaphysically real objects are converted into subjective percepts. Here Steiner can be read as giving his account of the structure and basis of what is today called the mind-body problem.'''
This is quite a "new research" sort of view. Should it be deleted? The reasons I ask are: (1) Steiner does not seem interested in the mind-body problem (soul-body in German; (2) Does he really think that there are no subjects, only concepts and percepts? (3) We can form a concept and a percept of our own subject, unite them, and presto! there is subject. We can do the same for some object we are looking at. Presto again: we have the mind-body problem.
Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mind-Body Problem 

message: Is it really desirable to list every philosopher cited in the PoF? Can we trim the list to just those who are important sources and leave off those who are merely briefly mentioned? HGilbert (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All those mentioned in the article are significantly notable in their own right, and were specifically selected by Steiner in this work for reasons which he, the author, must have considered significantly relevant to it. What editor of this article is competent to decide which to omit, if any, without POV or SYN? Let Steiner speak for himself. He mentioned many others in "Riddles of Philosophy".   --Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK -- but some are critiqued, some praised, some are irrelevant. I have moved the whole list to a later section. HGilbert (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted all of the philosophers, because the list sort of sticks out as a list to no purpose. I think it would be much better to have the philosophers in the book introduced as they appear in the argument. That is the normal practice. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the page on Kant's First Critique. That is a fairly good model I think for a wikipedia page devoted to a work of philosophy. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of philosophers cited 

message: The Bondarev volume is commentary, not a translation. Please do not add it back to the list of translations. HGilbert (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point, a new translation by Rickett, but mainly commentary. Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation is of Bondarev's commentary, not of the PoF. HGilbert (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: In connection with public discussion about PoF,  there seems to have been some controversy between the two Russian born writers, Prokofieff and Bondarev, or their followers or critics, particularly in relation to their respective works in German on Steiner's work. Given that Bondarev's commentary was first published in German in 2004, Prokofieff's in 2006, and the similarity in the words of the title which the second book has to the first, the addition of the information about the German translation may help a reader of English language Wikipedia who needs clarification, that is, a reader who knows of one but not the other or knows of neither, whether or not the other writer, Oberski, whose work was published in 2010, is a party or neutral in that controversy, commenting as an educationist (2006) (Learning to think in Steiner-Waldorf schools. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology). The controversy 
long ante-dates  arose long after Palmer's compilation, first published in German in the 1960's.  --Qexigator 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The above had two unintended errors. 1_The "similarity" was meant to refer to the book's title not content (the omission may have led to the question below). 2_The Palmer book was published long before the controversy arose. A further error was not picking up the hint in the question below. Qexigator (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

text: (See later Note above) No, as I understand information which can be garnered via internet and/or print sources, the two Russians see themselves, and are seen, as antagonists, such that one has been treated as persona non grata by the Goetheanum, heroically in the estimation of some, while the other was appointed to the Goetheanum with plaudits. A reader who is not a partisan and with no more than superficial knowledge of the controversy (which may have been conducted mainly in German and among German speakers and writers), may surmise that the later publication was not so much an actual rebuttal of the other's as an attempt to reassure its author's followers. To the extent that the later title looks a near copy of the earlier, it may be taken as sincerely flattering. In such circumstances is it more or less likely that the content of the later work is a plagiary of the earlier?  Qexigator (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentaries 

message: A Googlesearch (rudolf steiner paul tillich) produced such instances as:
*Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education in America By Mary Caroline Richards
*The Religious Situation by Paul Tillich (This includes an inaccuracy about The Christengemeinschaft, as having "split off" from Anthroposophy, but the comments are not irrational from that writer's evident point of view about "the place of faith in the divine paradox", while others may consider that writer to have missed the point).
*Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, Johannes Hemleben: " Thirty years later the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich put into these words what Steiner had expressed: 'If the ..."
*There Is a Garden in the Mind: A Memoir of Alan Chadwick and the Organic Movement, Paul A. Lee, blurb: "He traces the contributions and insights of Goethe, the philosophers Paul Tillich and Rudolf Steiner, ecologist Rachel Carson, and many others."
So yes, I guess the article can usefully make a "See also" link, and leave an inquiring reader free to discover which of the two, Tillich and Steiner, has published the thinner gruel (in respect of philosophical writings) compared with the other, from that reader's pov. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tillich? 

message: Stylistically, fluent prose is usually preferred to lists and tables, but those can sometimes support the prose. My question here is: Would it be acceptable to add the following summary to the section on "Relation to earlier and later work"?
:Steiner's principal works on philosophy, and what he said or wrote about the relationship between them and his other works, in summary:
:* 1886 The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception. The foundation and justification, epistemologically, for all Steiner said and wrote after this book's publication.
:* 1892 Truth and Science.
:* 1894 The Philosophy of Freedom. This presented the philosophical foundations for what had been outlined in Truth and Science, and it contained, in a philosophical form, the entire content of what Steiner had (after the first publication in 1894) developed explicitly as anthroposophy.
:* 1914  A Brief Outline of an Approach to Anthroposophy - chapter 8 of the book The Riddles of Philosophy Presented in an Outline of Its History.  
It would appear above the section which lists quotations (two so far), and the lists for English translations and for Works on The Philosophy of Freedom. Qexigator (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. Even better would be a source describing the relationship between the various works, which would enable some fluent prose...perhaps McDermott and/or Zander? HGilbert (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that either of those would do it, free from pov, whether for or against. Perhaps there is a work in German not yet in English. But even if there were added to the section something which could be so sourced, the list could help the prose to be concise. So, if OK, let it be there, as a presentation of the bare facts, already sourced in the prose of the section. Qexigator (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are forgetting _Goethe the Scientist_. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Please propose reliable source/s for such published information which has been accepted as accurate, comprehensive, up to date and free from error. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A summary list? 

message: To replace "Overview" and "Structure", would the single heading "Arrangement and outline of the book" be acceptable? Or what...?
with subheads: Twofold structure (first 3 paras of present "Structure)"/ Understanding freedom/ Exercising freedom. At risk of undo for something better, this has been done by... Qexigator (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headings

message: In the version current at 06:58, 25 March 2014
Wilson's 1964 translation is variously cited in the reflist, sometimes with chapter or page number, but page numbers do not always correlate with those in a hardback copy of the first print of 1964. Should there be uniformity, unless otherwise stated? The first ref. is near the end of "Historical context": 'Steiner argues against both hard determinism[11] and...'
*ref. 11 Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom: The Basis for a Modern World Conception, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1964), ed. Michael Wilson, hereafter "Wilson", Ch. 9
* ref 12. Wilson, Ch. 1, (esp. p. 8). The word determinism is not on the page, making this (strictly) an unsourced comment on the author's work. 
* ref 16  quote in note at end of first paragraph, Chapter 4, but which edition?
*ref.17 Wilson, p. 9. I see the quoted words on p.11
*ref.18 Wilson, p. 19. words quoted not seen on p.19. 
*ref.19 Wilson, p. 23. ok
*ref.20 Wilson, p. 26. ok
*ref.21 Wilson, p. 25. nothing on p.25 about triangles.
*ref.22 Wilson, p. 27. the quoted words are on p.27
*ref.23 Wilson, p. 28. the quoted words are on p.28
*ref.24 Wilson, p 30 words quoted are a variant compared with 1964 first print, adding two words thus: "My investigation first touches firm ground only when I find an object which exists in a sense of which I can derive from the object itself. But I am myself such an object in that I think..."
::Edits for above now done,  with chapter headings added for information and for identification whatever edition a reader has to hand or views on line.  --Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist 

message: We have in the historical section Steiner arguing against "soft determinism (compatiblism)". But these are not the same. Soft determinism is a form of determinism that implies compatibilism. But compatibilism is the proposition that freewill and causation are compatible. There are compatibilist indeterminists, e.g. David Lewis, who take the view that determinism is false but compatibilism is true, and hence are not soft determinists. So which was Steiner arguing against: compatibilism or soft determinism? We should decide or change our text.
:The present version reads: "Steiner argues against both hard determinism< ref >  ... Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom: The Basis for a Modern World Conception, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1964), ed. Michael Wilson, hereafter "Wilson", Ch. 9 "The Idea of Freedom... < /ref > and soft determinism (or compatibilism).< ref >  ...Wilson, Ch. 1 "Conscious Human Action"... < /ref >" These chapters do not mention determinism or compatabilism, and no source for mentioning these terms is cited. The intrusion of any such category in this context is out of place and should be removed. Such editorial labelling here adds nothing useful to the content of the work which is being described, whether or not it could guide librarians. It may be due to a point of view which  is more concerned with pre-conceived notions of classification than with letting readers be informed about what Steiner himself has written, or to have derived from a student's lecture notes. It is no more than to say, that this work, which has been written for publication in print, has been produced in both hard back and soft cover, and, in recent years, in electronic form. Steiner's work is not arguing for or aganist this or that "-ism", other than for "ethical individualism". What he had written is translated (p.8), "We have distinguished between the knower and the doer and have left out of account precisely the one who matters most of all - the knowing doer. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: + Nor is determinism mentioned in the articles for the philosophers named in this article, except Spinoza, rebutted in chapter 1 of PoF, and Hume who is mentioned at the end of Steiner's 1918 Appendix, rebutting Hartman's comment that in PoF Steiner had attempted to combine Hegel's universalistic panlogism with Hume's individualistic phenomenolism. But the point is sufficiently covered in the linked article for "Free will". Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Hound on a false scent? Look again at my remarks above, to which, maybe, there should now be added: to my mind, for reasons apparent from the descriptions about Steiner's work in the text of the article, applying labelism to it is even less informative than usual, especially for general readers, but also for students, their teachers, specialists and classifying labellers of all kinds. PoF: Appendix Added to the new edition, 1918: "The transcendental realist will have nothing whatever to do with the true state of affairs regarding the process of knowledge; he cuts himself off from the facts by a tissue of thoughts and entangles himself in it. Moreover, the monism which appears in The Philosophy of Freedom ought not to be labeled “epistemological”, but, if an epithet is wanted, then a “monism of thought”. All this has been misunderstood by Eduard von Hartmann. He has ignored all that is specific in the argumentation of The Philosophy of Freedom, and has stated that I have attempted to combine Hegel's universalistic panlogism with Hume's individualistic phenomenalism, whereas in fact The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing whatever to do with the two positions it is allegedly trying to combine. (This, too, is the reason why I could not feel inclined, for example, to go into the “epistemological monism” of Johannes Rehmke. The point of view of The Philosophy of Freedom is simply quite different from what Eduard von Hartmann and others call epistemological monism.)"  Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soft determinism or compatibilism? 

message: We have at the moment a quotation from McDermott:
He suggests that outer freedom arises when we bridge the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality, letting our deeds be inspired by the moral imagination.[2]
This seems to me vague ("bridge the gap") and inaccurate (the point about moral imagination is the way in which our ideals at the fourth level (1. instinct; 2. feelings; 3. mental pictures or thinking images; 4. pure thinking. The fourth level here coincide with the third level of the sequence:
authority;
the greatest possible good of mankind purely for its own sake;
the progress of civilization, or the moral evolution of mankind towards ever greater perfection;
the realization of individual moral aims grasped by pure intuition.
When these two coincide, what we have is not a bridge over the gap between our ideals and the driving force, but it is inaccurate to call this the bridging of the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality. That makes Steiner sound like a simple libertarian.
:Broadly agree. Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also in Free will article: "...inner freedom is achieved when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world." Qexigator (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twofold Structure 

message: The section Understanding Freedom is far too long and wordy. Can we trim this to half of its present size? That's plenty for an article of this kind. HGilbert (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly agree, but subject to taking into account the quote from the appendix. It is a counter to would-be labellers, and is notable in itself to demonstrate the type of argument Steiner was contending with at and after the first publication, and persisting for example among those who mistakenly classify Steiner alongside others such as Husserl and "phenomenlogy". It is informative for readers who may stlil find that sort of thing in secondary and tertiary works that have not caught up with Welburn's commentary, let alone with Steiner himself. Qexigator (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blah-blah-blah 

message: H. Gilbert, what do you think of today's (August 10 2014)? I have gone for streamlining, trimming, and trying to bring out the forward movement of the argument. But I have only worked on Part I.Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining 

message: this phrasing: "On the other hand, Steiner had a strong sense of the order of epistemological exposition, and a difficulty might be that he cannot assume the concept of a spiritual being prior to the epistemology and metaphysics of The Philosophy of Freedom." seems speculative; if it cannot be sourced, it should probably be removed. Clean Copytalk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid speculation? 

message: The key to Steinerian free will, or Thelemic ethics if you wish, is motive=mobile, also stated as motivation=purpose, or reason=purpose. How do I know? I read his book: it's verbatim therein. Or, stated otherwise, a free person wants to achieve a purpose because they want to achieve that purpose (out of love for action). And I don't think it was Steiner's original idea, I think he lifted it from Nietzsche. But since I do not have a WP:RS for it, the point is moot. He wrote a whole book about Nietzsche, so of course he was influenced by Nietzsche. tgeorgescu (talk)  01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The key to Steinerian free will 

message: The pro-Steiner editors will have to decide: either they allow me to WP:CITE Marco Pasi's book about Aleister Crowley inside this article, or the citation to Rawls gets deleted.
So, either Rawls and Pasi are both allowed, or they are both disallowed. Citing only one of them is a textbook case of a double standard. Since if citing Pasi is original research, by the very same standard citing Rawls is original research. tgeorgescu (talk)  06:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor removing Rawls, but I wanted to tag and give it a few days in case someone can provide a supporting citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

text: This is clear wp:synth. If this work is intuitionist then it shouldn't be hard to find a wp:rs saying so rather than citing just the definition of intuitionism in Rawls—blindlynx 14:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, agreed. Argument is good. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I deleted the Rawls ref. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I deleted it in spite of the fact that I think the PoS argument has as a consequence intuitionism in the sense that there is no supreme moral principle, such as Kant's or Bentham's. That I now see would take a little argument. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: PoS?—blindlynx 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rawls and Pasi 

message: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSN 

message: Seen https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-philosophical-debates-free-will-and-determinism.html , Steiner did not engage in such disputes. So, Steinerian "free will" does not mean "libertarian free will". tgeorgescu (talk)  17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Steinerian "free will"