It'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 req

It'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.