No Negative Judgments?

From: Steinerhead
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:35 pm
Subject: No negative judgments?

From the WC list, in Brackets:

You can read the entire exchange at [this link].

[What exactly do you mean by "reactionary"? Is this term meant to cover only those aspects of Steiner's work which you think connect him to right wing, racist ideology?

Yes. I use the term more or less interchangeably with "right-wing".

Or do you use the word in a more general sense as a negative judgement of the philosophical/religious character of Steiner's work.

Peter S.
No. I do not have a negative judgement of the religious character of Steiner's work; and while]

Didn't he call Anthroposophy a "seudo-religion" in one of his articles? I know for a fact that in one of my exchanges with him he mentioned Steiner's "platitudes on Love". I would classify these as "negative judgments of the religious charactor of steiner's work", driven by a polemic and predominant intellectual bias. On top of that I have never read anything that he has written that even remotely lends to the idea that he actually _ likes _ anything about Steiner. Thus the following statement:

[I find much of Steiner's early philosophical writing derivative and unpersuasive, I don't think it is significantly related to his racist views, for the most part.]


For the most part?

[According to standard conceptions of racism and antisemitism, it is indeed true that a number of Steiner's doctrines are racist and antisemitic. My analysis holds, in addition, that these teachings perform a crucial function within anthroposophy's cosmology and that simply removing them, without putting something else in their place, would indeed cause the ideological edifice of anthroposophy to collapse. I could go into more detail on that score if you like.]

Another Polemic tirade: The insertion of the Christ impulse into humanity is indeed central to Anthroposophy, but he completely and casually denies this and says that he does not have negative judgment of the religious character of Steiner's work. And he has repeatedly denied that his own non-religious affiliation and political views has any bearing on his own interpretation of history.

A chronological conglomeration of historical facts (i.e. events that actually happened) is one aspect of understanding history, and I have to give Peter some credit here. But another important (more important IMO) aspect of understanding history, where I think Peter falls way short, is in the rhelm of compassion, and empathy, which I see as essential to forming an understanding the complexities of human nature, and the history that is created therein.

Truth and Love

Mike Helsher



Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow

December 2003/January 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind