Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:03, 6 December 2008

The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them. For further information see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 23:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudolf Steiner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Occult This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Austria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Switzerland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Steiner and theosophy, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Unbalanced

User:Semitransgenic is requesting more balance to this article. We would also like to see more balance but we need acceptable reliable sources. As was said earlier regarding material that can be used for sources in this article:

drawn from a book other third-party reviewed source, as required by the arbitration proceedings. Both non-peer reviewed material and original Steiner references were excluded by Misplaced Pages arbitrators; see Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review. The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda. If there is truth not represented here, it will surely be able to be found in a source that meets Misplaced Pages standards. Help find such sources! There are surprisingly many out there (see the reference list of the article already!)

So please help find the sources. If no sources can be found, then the tag will need to come off (again). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Semitransgenic is calling for a "critique section" (Unbalanced until a critique section featuring a healthy degree of scepticism is in incorporated). This is not a recommended WP style. However, there is a section on controversies in the article, which includes the charges of racism and antisemitism. The critiques of Steiner's ideas or work, in my view, should be incorporated throughout the article, in the parts relevant to the skepticism that has been raised. One good place would be the Reception section which so far is entirely positive. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the 'unbalanced' tag is inappropriate. I have not contributed to this article so am not defending any work of my own. It does seem to state very fairly many of the opinions and fields of interest that were Steiner's, and it does not state these matters as if they were general truths, but always as describing Steiner's outlook. That can, of course, always be enlarged or refined. But this request for scepticism suggests that the tagger is seeking some subjective assessment of the likely truth of Steiner's outlook, which is far beyond the remit of a[REDACTED] article (e.g. reasonable people should/should not accept Steiner's teachings or some such theme). It would probably elicit original research and synthesis, opening up a mare's nest of opinionated debate, and should in my opinion be DIScouraged. I would urge this tag to be removed immediately as it is likely to encourage someone to add material of that inappropriate kind. Eebahgum (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is some source (valid by the article's arbitration criteria) that is not included here, the unbalanced tag clearly has no justification. Such sources should be given before the tag is introduced. Hgilbert (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest then that the reception section be expanded to include some form of dissension so that it may provide something of a challenge to the hagiographic material that currently resides there. Failure to outline extant scepticism simply exacerbates the allegation of WP:COI.

What evidence actually exists for the notion of supersensible sight?

Isn't Steiners' entire reading of history based on his personal clairvoyant excursions?

I mean what basis is there for a claim such as:

What is contained in the Vedas, the books of Indian wisdom, is not the original form of the exalted wisdom fostered by these great teachers in ancient times, but only a feeble echo of it. Only supersensible sight can look back to the unrecorded original wisdom behind what was written. Steiner: Outline of Esoteric Science p. 255

What evidence exists to support these views?

Have any of his esoteric theories been proven to have a basis in consensual reality?

Also, throughout the article the expression "the spiritual world" is used in a manner that implies that it's existence is undisputed, for instance "Steiner articulated an ongoing stream of experiences of the spiritual world" he met a simple herb gatherer, Felix Kogutski, who spoke about the spiritual world. Just because Steiner says a spirit worlds exists is not reason enough to assert the existence of a spirit world in an encyclopedic entry.

In Hammer's Claiming Knowledge we have an assessment that claims negative views of science are found throughout Steiners work, as are negative views of materialism; something Steiner believed "is the result of the influence of Ahrimanic spirits, and increases in strength every time Halley's comet enters the earthly sphere".

Semitransgenic (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an extensive critical section in the Anthroposophy#Reception_of_anthroposophy article; I have cross-linked to this. I have also added material to this from Hammer, per your comments. Given the cross-link, and other users' comments, can you see your way to removing the tag?

In any case, I suggest that you continue to add (or recommend) other assessments, but the critiques above seem to be your personal ones rather than material we could add to the article - or can you find supporting documentation? Hgilbert (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly what one would descirbe as an "extensive critical section". So a quote from Hammer has been chosen; but it simply demonstrates the bias that exits here. In terms of personal views they are not simply my own. Please now accept that the challenge to this article relates to the presentation of non-science as science, in an encyclopedic conext. For the sake of convienience a section from the Intelligent Design page is pasted below, relevant in light of the claims that Steiners methods (and results) are scientific. The words intelligent design have been replaced with Steiner's theories:

Defining science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. For a theory to qualify as scientific it is expected to be:

• Consistent
• Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
• Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
• Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
• Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
• Progressive (refines previous theories)
• Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining Steiners' theories as science are that they lack consistency, violate the principle of parsimony, are not scientifically useful, are not falsifiable, are not empirically testable, are not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive (by asserting conclusions that cannot be accounted for scientifically, Steiner's theories cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept Steiner's theories make little headway. Thus Steiner's theories are not provisional assessments of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data). In light of the apparent failure of Steiner's theories to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Steiner's theories are fundamentally unscientific; they cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of supernatural agents".

PZ Myers and other critics also say that Steiner's theories do not meet the Daubert Standard the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

• The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.
• The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
• There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.
• The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

Semitransgenic (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Semitransgenic, you are answering your own question. This article does not anywhere intentionally assert the existence of the spiritual world. I think it would be almost impossible to discuss Steiner's beliefs without mentioning the word 'spirit', but I cannot agree with you that the expression is used here to imply that its existence is undisputed. It is simply used because it is a concept in which Steiner believed and about which he wrote, and therefore not to mention it would be an error of omission, and would make it impossible to discuss his ideas. Nobody is saying they were in an absolute sense correct or false, that's not the job of a biographical article.

Negative views of science and materialism took a strong hold on western philosophy at least since Bishop Berkeley and Arthur Schopenhauer - (philosophical pessimism) - and are influenced by Vedic tradition: and so what you say Hammer says about Steiner is really no more than placing Steiner in a tradition of thought. As for supersensible sight, the Vedic knowledge, Atlantis, the Akashic Record etc, of course one cannot use this article about the life and thought of Steiner to prove or disprove these things. If the article asserts those thing to be absolute truths, then it needs slightly rewording (but I don't really think it does assert that). But Steiner's ideas should not be expunged from the article on Steiner simply because many people don't think they can now be proved. In the same way you wouldn't write an article about Carl Gustav Jung without mentioning the Collective Unconscious, but it doesn't mean you have to believe in it to read about it. I confess I actually don't know what you mean by consensual reality. Are any two people really in absolute agreement about everything?

That's why, like every[REDACTED] article, the text uses bluelinks to take the reader to other pages in which some of these concepts come into sharper focus. Steiner certainly didn't originate these ideas in the west. Levi's Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, for instance, was transcribed from the Akashic Records before 1911: and while a discussion about the relationship between the thought of Madame Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner might certainly be stimulating, it would make the Steiner article very unreadable. There's no problem with[REDACTED] reflecting the scepticism you are describing, but this article is not the place to go into it in detail. For that, you need to go to the pages where the pros and cons of those ideas are set out, and even then it is a question of what has been written and discussed in print, and not what we may privately think about the matter, that can go into a[REDACTED] article. But here, this is the page where it tells you who Rudolf Steiner was and what he thought and did. It may express ideas you don't think can be justified, but is it really unbalanced in telling us what Steiner thought? That's the question you have raised. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was in the middle of editing the above when you entered that. The objection is not with presenting an overview of the man and his thoughts it is with the manner in which any slighty "negative" of "sceptical" views are weasled out of the picture, either directly or through WP:SYN. The use of the cherry picked Hammer quote being a clear example of this. There are many pages on WIKI with this issue particularly belief based articles, so Steiner's is one of many. You appear to have unfailing belief in esoteria, I simply question the wisdom of this and object to the use of an encyclopedia as a means to manipulate perspectives. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular belief in esoteria, I have weasled nothing, I have manipulated nothing. The term Christian Science is an historical one. I am not a pro-Steiner person defending his world-view against your material-scientific stance, I am a[REDACTED] editor trying to explain that whatever you (or I) may find acceptable or unacceptable about Steiner's belief system and its terminology has no place in a[REDACTED] article about what Steiner claimed to believe. The statement about his beliefs should be neither positive nor negative, only precise: there should be no "negative" or "sceptical" views because there should be NO views. The bluelinks enable any reader to ascertain what the concepts discussed are supposed to be, and to form their own judgement. You are quite right - belief-based articles in[REDACTED] DO have to state the nature of the belief they describe - and are NOT the place to introduce a critique of that belief. One would not, for instance, use the Misplaced Pages articles on Christianity or Islam or Judaism to point out flaws (as perceived by editors) in those belief systems, nor in the language they use to describe them. Unless, of course, you intend to introduce a commentary into the article on Christianity explaining how it is impossible for the dead to be resurrected? Eebahgum (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

wasn't accusing you of weasling, that was in reference to cherry picked Hammer quote. Not about introducing "negative" or "sceptical" views, about presenting opposing views, if they exist (and they do), neutrally. You are suggesting here that Rudolph Steiner in some way approaches the significance of a number of major religions, not sure that is a good idea, this is the biography of a person, therefore a section presenting oppositional material is acceptable and is indeed quite common across wikipedia, particularly if the individuals ideas are seen as controversial (or at least questionable) by some. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through Hammer's Claiming Knowledge and brought into the article everything that I can see might be relevant. Note that this is getting close to giving Hammer undue weight, as other sources are cited far more sparingly.Hgilbert (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

regarding undue weight note: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all.We are not seeing a comparison of views in the article. Also, the subject has minority interest to begin with, thats why there are only a handful of credible external perspectives of this subject available. Basically, the article says, Steiner did this, Steiner believed that etc. There are three possible repsonses to this, one accepts as valid Steiners world view, the second dismisses it outright, and the third simply contextualises Steiners theories in relation to other scientifically based practices (and this, as Hammer points out, is where the problem lies for Steiner because he sought to validate his theories within said context). The Defining science section above sums up the third response. Hammer is simply articulating this position, he did not fabricate it to begin with; therefore how could you possibly give it undue weight when compared to Steiners theories, it has a majority stake. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, thanks for adding your perspective here. You mention "opposing views, if they exist (and they do)". Can you suggest any other quotes from Hammer or any other sources that can be added to the article for balance? --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

there are items referenced in Hammer which I have yet to see in person, what Hammer has to say on page 340, paragraph 1, line 10 should be mentioned, and the questions raised regarding Steiners visions (pp. 426-427) are noteworthy. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things here that are perhaps usable: above all, the claim that followers of anthroposophy have not achieved a comparable level of spiritual vision, and perhaps the reference to the "reversed" path, whereby one studies the results first and then does further research. (This is also the expected path of natural science, by the way; no one does research who has not first studied what has been already established in the field. Does this "indoctrination" (humorous translation: achieving a doctorate) make scientific results less valid, or put into question the system by which scientists are trained - they are not left to their naive perception?)

What appears on pp. 426-7 seems less valuable. There, Hammer gives two concrete examples of the limits of Steiner's vision; that he did not respond to a challenge to translate Linear B and that his claim that the royal castle at Tintagel dates back to the 6th century is disputed by Colin Wilson.

• As regards the former claim, Steiner never claimed to be able to translate any known language. This is like disputing Einstein's value as a scientist because he never solved the problem of quantum physics.
• As regards the second claim, it is no longer valid; contemporary research accepts that there was in Tintagel a reinforced settlement, quite possibly a royal fortress, in the 5th-6th centuries. Wilson was not an archaeologist, and his claim has been falsified, not Steiner's. (Note that Steiner's full claim has not been proved: there was something that could well have been a royal castle but nobody knows whether it was this or something else or whether there was - or wasn't - a King Arthur at that time).

Finally, Hammer objects to Steiner's claims that he could achieve objective truth on a path of spiritual research on the basis that this implies infallible truth. Hammer clearly confuses objectivity and infallibility; Steiner claimed objectivity but emphasized that that his research was fallible. Technically we can report Hammer's objection but it seems to me so wrong-headed as to apply equally to natural science, which also purports to provide a method to arrive at "objective truth". This is simply (in neither case) equivalent to a claim that all the results of this method are valid; in Steiner's case, he makes this distinction explicitly. Nota bene: If you want to add something about Hammer's claim, I will accept it as conforming to Misplaced Pages's rules of verifiability, however. Hgilbert (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to see a couple of the points Hammer raises, denial of the influennce of Blavatsky et al for instance, the Wilson issue I know nothing about.If Steiner did mention the potential fallibility of his research perhaps this should be mentioned also. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for the Blavatsky reference? Hgilbert (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's p. 65: "Despite the fact that theosophy is the single major source of his doctrines, Steiner even denied ever having been influenced by Blavatsky or Besant." --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

lecture list

The lecture list states that the list is of subjects as listed by the publisher, but many subjects (e.g. covering art) listed in the publisher's classification are missing here. Is the list helpful and appropriate? Should it be complete? Representation is extremely uneven. How do we want to go forward here? I've undertaken a bit of initial cleanup. Hgilbert (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Uwe Buermann's book belong in the "other authors" section? Shouldn't lectures to the workmen go to the end of the General Anthroposophy section, as least important? The lectures titled "Knowledge of the State Between..." can't be dated 1926.

I think the list is very good but I note some "notable" or "popular" lecture series that are missing.

• I would think there would be at least 2-3 other books on Waldorf education listed (e.g. Soul Economy). All of the main lecture series on education are available on-line as PDFs on the Steinerbooks web site.
• Also, under science, perhaps include the "Warmth Course" and "The Boundaries of Natural Science".
• Under general lectures to members "At the Gates of Spiritual Science", "The Universal Human".
• Under Karma, of course the "Karmic Relationships" series.
• Under lectures for the Christian Community, there are 3 main lecture series, one of them on the Apocalypse.
• I am not very familiar with the lectures on threefold social organism, but the lectures listed there don't sound like the most important ones (maybe those are the published books).

Perhaps "Fundamentals of Therapy" should be listed with Ita Wegman as co-author. I don't think the lists are too long but if they were deemed too long for this article, perhaps make them into a sub-article. Regarding relative lengths of articles, here are some amusing observations. --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

misplaced text

The following text was added but would properly belong in the Steiner education article: "According to the Good Schools Guide International, 'Teachers in a Steiner school "seek to recognise the unique individuality of every child, and through the curriculum, develop clarity of thought, sensitivity of feeling and strength. The method of education seeks art and science as two pathways to truth, bringing fullness and nourishment to people who pursue them."'" Hgilbert (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the section this was added to was on Steiner's own education, since the section is about the founding of Waldorf education. However, I agree that it's out of place in this article and would be better as another "Reception by educationalists" in Waldorf education. I'll add it there in somewhat shorter form. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've decided not to add this reference because the list itself does not appear to be a very reliable source, I can't find any specific Steiner or Waldorf schools listed (after a brief try), and the quotation itself appears to be very much generic and brochure-like. In short I don't think this reference comes up to the level needed for WP. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; you're right about the section. Good Schools Guide has a notable reputation; perhaps it belongs in the links section. Hgilbert (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Steiner as hermeticist

For support that Steiner could be considered a hermeticist, see Bamford's book What is Anthroposophy, p. 10-11 Hgilbert (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bamford's intro is not an acceptable source, strictly speaking, and he is making a broad equivalence between Hermeticism and Western esotericism. Yes, one can make the case that there is a thread from the earlier Hermetic traditions through Goethe to Steiner. My objection was based on a reading of the article Hermeticism where this thread is far from clear. I guess an equally strong case can be made that Steiner took his inspiration and knowledge directly from the "spiritual world" and therefore is not connected in an "earthly" way via any books, etc. to any prior teachings or traditions. Given the information from the Bamford introduction, I no longer have an objection to this category. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bamford is of course an acceptable source for non-controversial matters...BTW the case that Steiner was not influenced by teachings or traditions is severely undermined firstly by his own frequent reference to such teachings and traditions and secondly by research into his sources (Zander being the most extreme here) that shows how closely his presentations parallel those of other thinkers whose works he had demonstrably read; if someone presents ideas extremely similar to those in an annotated book in that person's library it is pretty difficult to plausibly claim that that person has come to these ideas independently. hgilbert (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's always hard to tell exactly where Steiner received his information/inspiration. I'll restore the hermeticist category. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

rant

This article is a fraud. It attempts to hide Steiner's racist views. Quotes that Steiner made extolling the superiority of blond haired blue eyed people are always edited out. Steiner apologists are racist apologists. They enable racism. Steiner is also listed as a philosopher in the opening paragraph (which appears to be uneditable) when anthroposophy is clearly a religion. State funding of Waldorf schools depends on this finesse.

The Steiner apologists/cultists hae gotten control of this article. Inevitable isn't it?

Adjustments will be made elsewhere; there is more than one way to skin a cat....

Enjoy the ride folks. I'll be editing this article from a public library computer for many years to come. And any other Steiner/Waldorf b.s. that I find.

If you don't like it, too bad - I don't like racists, and I will not allow them to spew their filthy garbage on Misplaced Pages without some form of retaliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.193.64 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please find verifiable sources for proposed edits. This is an encyclopedia. hgilbert (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. When I make perfectly legitimate additions to the Steiner text with sources, they get erased by the Steiner zealots. This Wiki article is biased from the start when it dares to call Anthroposophy "spiritual science" instead of a religion. And of course Steiner's racist views have been filtered. Funny isn't it that Steiner actually contributed to the destruction of his own people in the Holocaust by adding his vile racist views to all the others infesting Germany at that time. The contortions made by Steiner zealots to explain away his racist comments are something to behold. I am not fooled by their sleight of hand. The thing is, i don't even find Steiner that objectionable, but if the truth is going to be suppressed then you have a big problem on your hands and that problem is ME. By the way, you're gonna have to scour Misplaced Pages for my edits - don't think I just confined them to two or three articles. And when editing is allowed again, I'll be back editing the probationary articles as well. When the single quote that I originally inserted (re blond hair and blue eyes) is returned, i shall cease my edits. Whoever took that out - HOW DARE YOU?!? - is a moral coward and racist apologist. I will not let it stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.193.119 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; you've missed some history here. A Misplaced Pages arbitration ruling (see top of talk page) states that for all pages relating to anthroposophy, controversial material must be sourced to third-party, objective sources - and not, for example, to Steiner's works. This was a reaction to both sides quoting Steiner to their purposes; quotations making it clear that he had racialist views and those making it clear he was sharply against racism were both declared out of bounds. Find authors published by mainstream, preferably academic presses, and use their insights. We're all on the same footing here, and have to abide by these rules. It's been a stretch for everybody, believe me. hgilbert (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Randomly trashing articles is not a good way to work cooperatively to improve Misplaced Pages. Your original edit was made in good faith. I removed it with the explanation that it violated the Arbitration Committee's ruling about articles related to Waldorf education and Rudolf Steiner. The ArbCom ruling was a result of significant conflict in these articles, in particular the back and forth of "dueling quotations" from Steiner.

The Arbitration Committee ruled that "Editors of this are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." (see top of this page). This means that all quotations from Steiner and in fact all material from anthroposophical publications may not be included or used as a reference. All statements about Steiner need to be taken from verifiable, reliable sources. Reliable sources in particular are third-party that contain no original research -- it needs to be from a published reliable source, generally an academic journal or non-anthroposophically published book.

As User:Hgilbert noted earlier, "Please find verifiable sources for proposed edits. This is an encyclopedia." If you can find such sources, then what they say can be added. And please do.

Regarding the particular quotation that you originally put in, proponents of Rudolf Steiner would say (and have argued here) that the quote has been doctored (parts taken from different parts of the lecture) to make it look like Steiner is saying a particular thing. They would also say (and have argued here) that the entire quotation is taken out of context, that Steiner concluded in the lecture exactly the opposite of what that quotation implies. In particular, Steiner argued that blond people generally tend to be weaker than more dark-haired and dark-eyed people and will die out faster. And that will be a good thing because their form of materialistic intellectuality needs to become weaker so that a more spiritually oriented understanding can grow in humanity, by way of the dark-haired people. So they would contend that the quotation you added is completely distorted.

Of course, you disagree. But that sort of "dueling quotation" disagreement led to the need for an ArbCom ruling. I would suggest that you take a more constructive stance with respect to Misplaced Pages. If you don't like what another editor has done, you can question the action on the article's talk page or on the specific user's talk page. Misplaced Pages editors generally are a reasonable group of people who are willing to assume good faith and try to work out compromises that will satisfy everyone. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, and I find you to be disingenuous. That whole section of the article regarding race and Judaism reads like this: "Well, yeah sure, Steiner did have a couple of views on race that are possibly objectionable, but, hey, look at all this other stuff that says he wasn't a racist and that he really did support the Jewish people - see, it's okay!" And there it ends. It is an apology for his views. And you repeat this exercise in your above comments! It's unbelievable! This article as it stands *does* whitewash his racist comments in contradiction to your assertion. It is not balanced. His racist views are presented in cold, unemotional language and only briefly. This is followed by an overwhelmingly large amount of text explaining why he wasn't really a racist. This is the way YOU have set it up.

I've read the context of Steiner's comments on the intelligence of blond haired people and that context changes nothing. But apologists twist words and ideas and make illogical transitions so they can rationalize these statements away. I am not fooled however. Sorry!

As a person who does not have blond hair and blue eyes and who also pays taxes to support Waldorf education, I want that information out there.

But YOU removed it. I ask again, "How dare you?" How do YOU get to make this article an apology for Steiner's crackpot views? How is it that the Steiner apologists such as yourself have control over Misplaced Pages?

And this Anthroposophy issue.... a spiritual science? WTF kind of science is that? I've got news for you: it's called "religion." That's what religion is - a spiritual "science" or philosophy. But of course there is more fine tuning of vocabulary by the Steiner proponents so that Waldorf can continue to receive tax money.

By the way, I am not affiliated with PLANS or anything (discovered it yesterday in fact); I don't even say that Waldorf schools should not receive my tax money. But I am sick and tired of people distorting and hiding the truth.

These Steiner "proponents" seem more like a cult than a group of intellectuals. I'm beginning to understand why an organization like PLANS exists. And I think I will donate for their upcoming court issues. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.195.162 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Steiner also said, "someone speaking today of the ideal of races and nations and of tribal affiliation speaks of decadent impulses of humanity....through nothing will humanity be brought more into decadence than if the ideals of race, nation and blood continue to hold sway." (lecture of 26 October 1917) He was clearly against racism, though he perceived differences between races that may well have been culturally determined (100 years ago things looked a lot different than they do today). Nobody is prejudging content here, just find verifiable sources and include them here. hgilbert (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the dispute relates to two meanings of racism. One is epistemological and the other is political. Epistemological racism means that an author admits that human races trully exist, they can be defined, etc., without necessarily implying that a race is superior to another race. E.g. affirmative action produces positive discrimination for people who are defined as belonging to groups that have been historically disadvantaged, e.g. African-Americans, cf. Allan Bloom's argument in in The Closing of the American Mind, Part One. Students. Relationships. Race. pp. 91-97 in an 1987 Simon & Schuster paperback. Bloom speaks against political racism from a conservative-libertarian viewpoint. But, he makes an argument that African-Americans produced the inflation of their own university diplomas. In such meaning, he considers the African-Americans as a politically organized social group, which is defined by the ethnic (racial) origin of its members.

Political racism is a view which includes epistemological racism and it adds to it the claim that one race, defined as the superior race, has to conquer, oppress and/or exterminate all other races.

Steiner may be considered a racist in the epistemological meaning (since he admits that races trully exist, i.e. they are different in characteristics) but not in the political meaning. For a man educated in the 19th century, racism was more or less self-understood. E.g. my teacher of sociology of science, dr. Olga Amsterdamska, affirmed that all people like Fisher and others who devised the statistical tests used by sociologists today, they were racists through and through. She says this was simply due to the mainstream ideas of the 19th century, rather than with advocating a political fight against races defined as inferior. They were Social Darwinists, just like the majority of US sociologists at the beginnings of the 20th century, but they were not Nazis or Fascists.

Further, on the social and intellectual status of Rudolf Steiner:

Steiner began his career as a respected scholar, working at a scientifical edition of the works of Goethe. His philosophical writings are in no way inferior to other top philosophers of his own time.

Gerard Galtier, in La Maçonnerie égyptienne, Rose Croix et néo-chevalerie says that dr. Rudolf Steiner was a 33 and 95 degree Mason, authorized by the John Yarker and through a charta signed by Theodore Reuss to open a German Sovereign Sanctuary for the Rite of Memphis and Misraim.

According to Daniel van Egmond, "Western Esoteric Schools in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century", in: Roelof van den Broek and Wouter J. Hanegraaff (eds.), Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times, Albany: State University of New York Press 1998, 311-346, the Theosophy and later Anthroposophy were sapiential (higher knowledge) schools for the elite (higher degrees) of the Freemasonry. Theosophy and Anthroposophy were Masonic experiments aimed at giving laymen (prophanes) an insight into the aims of Freemasonry, and at educating the future leaders of Freemasonry, as a place wherein prophanes and Masons alike meet each other in striving for the same purposes.

As written in its statues, among the purposes of the Theosophical Society was that of furthering religious understanding and ethnic tolerance as tools for shaping a global awareness. It may be argued that Guido von Liszt and Jorg Lanz simply took over Theosophical teachings, which were epistemologically racist, gave them the millitant racist political meaning, and built the proto-nazist movements based on such ideology. But, this means that the doctrines aimed at producing tolerance and understanding for the mind of the people of the 19th century (by definition either racist or class-fighters) were taken out of their context and reshaped in order to fit an imperialist agenda.

According to Galtier, the conflict between theosophists and anthroposophers was not about political racism, but about integrating non-Christian (pagan) viewpoints and religions in the Rosicrucian (18th) Masonic degree. Theosophists considered that the 18th degree should be open to all religions, and become bereft of its exclusive Christian character, while anthroposophists considered that the 18th degree should remain strictly based upon Christian myths and upon the rituals of Christian chivalry orders. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hgilbert, I know how things looked a hundred years ago, and they looked a hell of a lot worse in Germany than in other European countries. And Steiner was part of that sad movement that attempted to assert the mental superiority of blue/blond white people. However, Steiner clearly saw the writing on the wall for Jewish people so i am not impressed by your quote at all. It's self-serving (and I think you know this - talk about quoting out of context! - hypocrisy noted). Jewish people were increasingly becoming a target well back into the 19th century (at the very least) and the animosity was increasing. It didn't just suddenly begin on Crystal Night as you well know. Now under the strict definition of racism I might have to agree that Steiner was not a racist as he wielded no power against those he considered mentally inferior. But he was a bigot for sure. And his writings are a mix of deep intellectual consideration and ridiculous assertion made by a know-it-all boor with an out-of-control ego. His explanations on race are a complete joke and an affront to true scientific inquiry. Perhaps awareness of this nonsense would allow a rational person to assess Steiner's other writings more carefully. And of course all of this is important because there is a worldwide movement based on selective interpretation of his writings.

I find it mildly amusing that the solution to this dilemma is the exclusion of direct quotes from the subject of the article. Not an ideal condition for a Misplaced Pages article really. I would suggest a different solution that allows an article to have two "pathways" on a given controversial subject. It would be beneficial for the debate to be aired as part of the article itself because indeed that debate is very much a part of the Steiner legacy. Displaying the controversy on these discussion pages is simply to bury it. And of course complete objectivity (Misplaced Pages's goal I presume) is pretty much impossible.

This technique of only allowing third party quotes from academic publishers is biased from the start. Naturally, most of the published writings on Steiner are written by his proponents and apologists and also by Waldorf proponents.

Issues on race and culture are very much a part of modern times as our world shrinks. It behooves contemporary writers and thinkers to address these issues if they wish relevance in their own time. (Perhaps I'll take a look at the entries for Dickens and Walter Scott and see if there is any mention of their bigoted portrayal of Jewish people! Should Jewish people read Dickens and suffer Fagin unforewarned?)

I will cease my destructive editing of articles on Misplaced Pages due to my respect for the scope and vision of the Misplaced Pages project. And as a donor and a frequent user of WPedia I would be working against my own interests. Looks like the Steiner cultists win again. And it's always the winners that get to rewrite history.

If any of what I have written here is in error, please forgive - the nutrition has slipped from my brain into my hair and eyes (making them brown) and I cannot keep up with intellectual giants of a lighter hue. :(

1. http://gsgi.co.uk/articles/curricula-and-exams/curricula/rudolf-steiner

• Articles on probation
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Architecture articles
• High-importance Architecture articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• High-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Unknown-importance Spirituality articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Occult articles
• Unknown-importance Occult articles
• WikiProject Occult articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosopher articles
• Low-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Austria articles
• High-importance Austria articles
• All WikiProject Austria pages
• B-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Switzerland articles
• Mid-importance Switzerland articles
• All WikiProject Switzerland pages
• Unassessed education articles
• Unknown-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles