5 ms·
Actually, antroposophy is a philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner. To bring that into perspective, Steiner and Hermann Hesse shared many ideas, and Michael Ende
by swombat 15y ago
Actually, antroposophy is a philosophy founded by Rudolf Steiner. To bring that into perspective, Steiner and Hermann Hesse shared many ideas, and Michael Ende (author of Neverending Story and Momo) was raised in a Waldorf school (based on Steiner's philosophy).
I'm only halfway through Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom book (it's pretty fucking heavy, to use the technical term), but by my best guess it appears to be an (impressive) attempt to derive eastern philosophies' conclusions from western premises. While there's certainly a strong sense of respect for the abstract and the mind (as you'd expect from any philosopher), I wouldn't call it "religious" in the typical sense of the word.
- VMG 15y agoI wouldn't call it "philosophy" in the typical sense of the word. It's esoteric gobbledygook.
- jvdh 15y agoThis is the other meaning of "philosophy": a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour
- swombat 15y agoAre you making an informed judgement? (you may be, I'm just checking) As I said, I'm halfway through that book, and although its direct usefulness is not clear, I wouldn't call it gobbledygook. Steiner is directly opposing some philosophical movements which were popular or beginning to get popular at the time (like nihilism), and making a pretty strong case for why they're nonsensical. As far as I've read, he seems to be drawing towards a practical, human-centric approach to life which seems pretty healthy and balanced on the whole. One thing is abundantly clear from reading it, too: Steiner is a very smart guy.
- VMG 15y agoI'm judging it from a rationalist perspective.
- dasil003 15y agoIsn't all philosophy gobbledygook to rationalists?
- scott_s 15y agoNo. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
- swombat 15y agoThat's not saying much (and it sounds like you are indeed not making an informed judgement). I'm judging it from a rationalist perspective too. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism : "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification") In fact, if you bother to actually read the guy's books instead of dismissing him based on a wikipedia entry (hardly a rationalist behaviour), you'll see he's very much a rationalist too. He arrives at conclusions with "spiritual" consequences by starting from the perspective that the only thing we can know directly is our thoughts, and building a model of the world from that, piece by piece, using reason and thinking. I'd argue that compared to Steiner, you and I are mostly irrational. So, explaining your dismissal of anthroposophism (literally translated as "love of man") as being "from a rationalist point of view" is a completely empty statement.
- scott_s 15y agoinstead of dismissing him based on a wikipedia entry (hardly a rationalist behaviour) I see no problem with it if the Wikipedia entry is accurate. Is it?
- swombat 15y agoIt's hard for an intelligent expert in the domain to accurately summarise a philosophy, let alone for a wikipedia editor to do so. Complex arguments tend to require a fair amount of patience and understanding on the reader's side. Anyway, that being said, the entry is not terrible (at least if you know a bit about what it's talking about). Quoting: > Anthroposophy postulates the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner development. More specifically, it aims to develop faculties of perceptive imagination, inspiration and intuition through cultivating a form of thinking independent of sensory experience, and to present the results thus derived in a manner subject to rational verification. In its investigations of the spiritual world, anthroposophy aims to attain the precision and clarity attained by the natural sciences in their investigations of the physical world. Considering this description, I hardly think you can call it anti-rationalist. On the contrary, anthroposophy is an attempt to apply rationalism to spirituality. It is only dismissed as irrational gobbledygook by those who (irrationally) dismiss all of spirituality and anything connected to it as gobbledygook.
- scott_s 15y agoIf the Wikipedia page for anthroposophy is accurate, I agree with VMG. It presupposes a spiritual world.
- rsl7 15y agoJust don't be left-handed.